Comments by "Lepi Doptera" (@lepidoptera9337) on "The Multiverse: Science, Religion, or Pseudoscience?" video.

This is experimentally testable. The "outside of the universe" is right here. Your inside is connected to that outside. That also means that energy, momentum, angular momentum and charge has to bleed from the universe to that outside. We could detect these local violations, if they existed. So far none have been seen, so if your "outside of the universe" exists, then it's below the detection limit of our most sensitive experiments, right now.
1
@ellennoone8313 No, there does not have to be an outside. You just have to learn a bit more math than you are comfortable with. A simple example of a geometric figure that does not have an outside is a circle. A circle has an embedding in a flat, two dimensional space. That, however, is a different concept than "outside". The outside of a circle would be two points at its ends. Can you find them? Me neither. ;-)
1
@ellennoone8313 Yes, that is a higher dimensional flat embedding. The dimensionality of an embedding depends on the properties of the manifold. For a flat Minkowski spacetime the minimal number of embedding dimensions is six, if I remember correctly and for a general metric it's ten. Sounds familiar? The ten dimensions show up in string theory over and over, again. People have done experiments to see if energy, momentum and angular momentum are bleeding into such embedding dimensions. So far that search is negative and that's the end of your story at this point, unless you want to start a religion to get a tax break from the US government, that is. ;-) At energies above 1TeV it's another story, but for that you will have to give us a few hundred billion dollars to construct a larger accelerator, at the very least, and even then chances of finding higher embedding dimensions are slim to none at this point.
1
@ellennoone8313 Yes, A sphere in a flat space is called an embedding. Look, just because you don't even know the terms doesn't do anything to nature or to the fact that any and all of this has been considered numerous times by physicists and that much of it has been experimentally tested, already. We are way ahead of you, you just never read the books and papers. ;-)
1
@MickDQuick It would help to remember the definition of science: It's the rational description of reality. An "outside" has never been seen, hence science is not required to describe it.
1