All language subtitles for Through.the.Wormhole.S05E02.Is.Luck.Real.720p.HDTV.x264-DHD

Luck may be the most
mysterious and capricious force

in the universe.

But what exactly is luck?

Why do some of us
win the lottery twice,

while others have bad luck
for no apparent reason?

What's behind
strange coincidences

and incredible twists of fate?

Does random chance
decide our destiny?

Or is every roll of the dice
predetermined by physics?

Scientists are trying
to beat the odds...

to prove whether or not
luck is real.

Space, time, life itself.

The secrets of the cosmos
lie through the wormhole.

Subtitles by MemoryOnSmells
http://UKsubtitles.ru.

How did you get
to where you are today?

Maybe you struggled
and worked hard.

Or maybe you inherited a fortune

and never worked a day
in your life.

Some things
are beyond our control.

Does the universe
have a plan for us?

Or is our fate
the product of random chance?

Do we make our own luck?

Or does luck make us?

When I was growing up,

kids would carry
a lucky rabbit's foot.

For some reason, we believed

these severed paws granted
their bearers good fortune.

Did they work?

Well, maybe.

I lost that rabbit's foot
long ago

and my belief in lucky charms.

But perhaps my younger self
was onto something.

Go to a casino, and you'll see

any number
of superstitious rituals

performed by players
hoping for good luck.

Everyone has a strategy.

First, I do a der voghormia,
which is an Armenian prayer,

and then I play
my son's birth numbers.

The chips all have to
face up the same way.

Rituals of good luck develop

because we believe

that something we do
can influence chance.

Sally linkenauger,

a lecturer in psychology
at Lancaster University,

suspects believing you're lucky

actually changes the way
you play.

She's conducting
a series of experiments

to test her hypothesis.

So, what we did
is we recruited people

who played golf
on a regular basis,

and we told half of them
they were using a putter

that had belonged
to a famous golfer.

So, this is actually
Ben Curtis' putter.

He's a professional golfer who
won the British open in 2003.

So, I'm gonna have you
take 10 putts

and we'll see how you do.

The other golfers
hear a different story.

All right, so,
this is a really nice putter.

I'd like you to use it
to take about 10 putts,

and we'll see how you do.

As you'd expect
with any random group,

some do better than others.

But after dozens of trials,
a pattern emerges.

So, once they started putting,
the individuals that thought

they were using
Ben Curtis' putter

made about a putt and a half
more out of 10 putts

than the group that thought they
were just using a nice putter.

The golf club isn't lucky.

What's real
is the player's belief

in whether or not
the club is lucky.

Sally suspects
this kind of superstition

helps people cope with chaotic
or stressful situations.

There's kind of a sweet spot in
terms of the amount of pressure

that you need in order to
perform a task most efficiently.

If you have a small amount
of pressure,

it just means you really don't
care, so you don't perform well.

Too much pressure,
you freeze up.

So you want to have the perfect, kind
of a sweet-spot amount of pressure,

and when you're performing
a task

and people are watching you,

people put a lot of pressure
on themselves to play well.

But that pressure
is less debilitating

when a player is holding
a lucky putter.

We think
that when they're putting,

they're offloading some
of this pressure that they feel.

This putter is gonna do
some of the work for them.

It's not all on them.

And that release in pressure kind of
allows them to perform a bit better.

Sally suspects a belief in luck

does more
than just boost confidence...

It changes perception.

In her lab,
Sally asks the golfers

to draw the size of the hole.

So, this is the actual size
of the golf hole.

All the golfers think

that the hole looks smaller
than it actually is.

However, individuals who were
using Ben Curtis' putter

thought the golf hole
looked larger.

On average, the golfers
with an ordinary club

see the hole
as being 11% smaller

and harder to hit

than the golfers with
the so-called "lucky" putter.

Is luck all in the mind?

Confidence is a big
part of succeeding, I think,

in anything that you do,

and it is possible
that using this club

made people more confident
in their playing.

I wouldn't necessarily
call that luck.

I would call it

handling our emotions
and handling our anxiety

and the pressure that we feel when
we are performing these actions

in a way
that's manageable for us.

But one man thinks
believing you are lucky

will only get you so far.

A professor of law
at Northwestern university

and a master statistician,

Jay koehler sees everything
as variations on the mean.

The "mean" is another word
for the "average."

A star athlete has good days
and bad, but it evens out.

For example, a basketball player
might be a 33% 3-point shooter.

If he's very good, he might be
a 45% 3-point shooter,

but any given day, the player
might be shooting more like 50%

or might be more like 35%.

Nothing unusual is going on.

The player is just
bouncing around his mean.

But what's happening

when a player appears
to have a hot hand...

A spectacularly good run
of play?

Is something supernatural
going on?

The hot hand is a phenomenon

which temporarily elevates
his level of play

following a string of successes.

You might have a player

who makes seven 3-point shots
in a row.

And so an observer,
and maybe the player himself,

might say he's "hot."

But the question is, is anything
extraordinary really going on?

Is he now a 70% or 80%
or even 90% 3-point shooter?

And the answer is no.

Jay ran the numbers

on the NBA's best
3-point shooters,

looking for proof
of the hot hand.

What we found was that

the number of streaks
that we observe...

three, four, five,
six, seven shots in a row...

was pretty much what you'd
expect by chance alone, overall.

And we didn't see any evidence
of hotness or coldness.

Championship athletes,

like these two
Northwestern stars,

play at a much higher level
than ordinary people,

and they consistently perform

near the peak
of their abilities.

Luck isn't much of a factor.

On average, a 50% shooter

will make
about half of his shots.

To Jay, this is proof
that hot streaks are illusions.

Other statisticians have run
similar studies on other games

and found the same result.

If a player shoots about 50%
of his free throws overall,

then for him,
sinking a free throw

is like flipping a coin.

To illustrate some
of the points we'd like to make,

we're gonna perform a little
coin-tossing experiment.

Reggie is flipping the coin
100 times,

and Austin's recording
the outcomes.

The flipping
seems pretty random,

but then Reggie flips
seven "heads" in a row.

What are the odds of that?

Seven "heads" in a row
sounds incredible,

but remember,
the seven "heads" in a row

occurred in a larger context...
the context of 100 coin flips.

The more you flip, the
better the odds of a hot streak.

If we only flip
the coin 10 times,

the chance of getting
seven "heads" in a row

would be somewhere around 2%.

But we flipped the coin
100 times,

and the chance of getting
seven "heads" in a row

out of 100 flips is somewhere
between 31% and 32%.

It sounds
completely counterintuitive,

but lucky streaks are not lucky.

They are statistically likely.

We notice patterns
that seem unusual...

for instance, a star player
making four shots in a row.

But we fail to notice

he misses the 5th shot,
makes the 6th,

misses the 7th,
makes the 8th and 9th.

These likely streaks can be seen

in every
performance-based field,

from sports to sales
to stock trading.

If last year was great,
next year may stink.

What appears
to be a lucky streak

is only a failure
to take a big enough sample.

And this, Jay says, is why

you shouldn't feel too pleased
with your successes

or terrible about your failures.

So, even when something
is likely to occur,

chance may intervene and
may cause the opposite to occur.

What's important,
Jay thinks, is to keep trying.

One factor that is under our control
is how many attempts we make...

How many times
we try to do something...

How many times we take a shot, how
many times we ask the girl out.

We have to be willing to risk
failure in order to succeed.

But sometimes,
no matter what we do,

the universe seems to have
other plans.

How do we explain
the unexplainable...

The astonishing coincidences
and incredible bits of luck?

Is some hidden force
guiding our lives?

Greek mythology tells
of the three fates...

one goddess spins
the thread of life,

another measures it,

and the third cuts it short.

Maybe that's as good a way
as any

to explain the twists of fate
and random coincidence

that rule our lives.

We have to seek meaning

or else live by the doctrine
"hey, stuff happens."

On a summer day in 2001,

10-year-old Laura buxton

wrote her name and address
on a balloon

and let it go
in her front garden.

The balloon blew 140 miles
across England before it landed.

A farmer found it
and was surprised to read on it

the name
of his next-door neighbor...

Another girl named Laura buxton.

A lucky coincidence?
Or was it meant to be?

Professor Tom griffiths
is the director

of the computational cognitive
science lab at U.C. Berkeley.

To Tom, the Laura buxton story

illustrates the natural
strengths and weaknesses

of human reason.

If you ask somebody, "how likely
is it that something happens?"

That's something that they're
not very good at answering.

People are better
at solving problems

where you've got some data and you have
to make a leap that goes beyond those data,

and you have to figure it out based
on the information that you've got.

Humans are good

at hearing a few details
about an event

and building a story
around them.

We are less adept
at guessing probabilities...

the odds of how likely it is
an event will occur.

For example, what are the odds

of two people having
the same birthday?

There are
365 possible birthdays.

Half of 365 is about 183.

So you might think
you need 183 people in a room

before you have a 50/50 chance

that two will have
the same birthday.

In fact, you need just 23.

It's a matter of pairs.

With 5 people,
you get 10 possible pairs.

With 10, you get 45 pairs.

With 15, you get 105 paris.

By the time you get
23 people in a room,

there are 253 different ways
of pairing two people together,

giving you better than even odds

two of them will share
the same birthday.

Still confused?

You're not alone.

There's some psychological
research on the birthday problem

that suggests that
for these kinds of problems,

people don't recognize
the combinatorial structure...

This idea that the number of pairs
increases in a way that's nonlinear.

So people seem
to intuitively expect

that that relationship
increases linearly,

that the number of pairs

goes as something
like the number of people.

And so, as a consequence,
we're surprised,

because there are
many more opportunities

for something to happen
than we realize.

Humans see meaningful
connections everywhere,

but we are the ones
who give them meaning.

Given the fact that there are
7 billion people on earth,

it is inevitable many people

will experience weird and
uncanny coincidences every day.

With a large enough sample size,

just about any possible
coincidence will happen.

One definition of a coincidence

is a thing that happens with
a one-in-a-million probability.

So, if you say an event
can happen every second,

we're awake for about eight hours a
day, it suggests that you probably

get about one coincidence
every month.

By that definition,

the fact
that Laura buxton's balloon

found its way across britain
to a second Laura buxton

is a coincidence.

But it's not magic.

Our brains look for patterns
and coincidences

to form theories
about how the world works.

Sometimes,
we draw the wrong conclusions.

But other times,
seeing patterns in coincidences

opens up whole new ways
of thinking.

That sensitivity to patterns

not only sometimes
leads us astray

when we're trying to think
about the consequences

of, what could explain

how a child could release
a balloon in one place

and a child with the same name
could catch it in another?

But the kinds of coincidences
that we get excited about

are often things
that are not just unlikely,

but also suggest
that there may be

some other kind of force
of synchronicity at work

that's producing those events
in the world.

The world is filled

with the unknown
and the uncertain.

Our brains are built
to try to make sense of it.

Some things make sense.
Some don't.

But of all the mysteries
we face,

one looms above them all...

When will our luck run out?

This man says we can harness

our growing understanding
of luck and probability

and use it to beat back
the specter of death.

If we choose to belive in luck,

then we must also accept
its dark side.

Any one of us could be
seconds away from death.

Most want to postpone
that moment as long as possible.

We may try to eat better,
exercise, and avoid risk,

but does it make a difference?

Or are we all at the mercy
of bad luck?

David spiegelhalter is
a professor of mathematics

at the university of Cambridge.

He is a guru of statistics

or, you might say,
a prince of probability.

Probability's
a really tricky subject.

People find it unintuitive
and difficult,

and that's because, I think,
it is unintuitive and difficult.

But it's really worth struggling
to try to work out

the approximate rough answer

to things that might happen
in the future.

David feels modern
society overreacts to bad luck.

Unusual events will get
a great deal of media coverage,

which can make people believe
riding a bicycle will kill you.

I think the problem is

that when we read the newspapers
or turn on the television,

we hear about these terrible
things to happen to people.

But of course, we don't hear about
the times it didn't happen,

all the people
it didn't happen to,

'cause that would make
a very boring story, you know...

"A million kids went to school
today and nobody got hurt"...

So you can't put that on
the front page of the newspaper.

Unusual deaths make the news

because our fates seem
so unpredictable.

However, by looking
at average life spans,

David can make
a pretty good guess

about when you're going to die.

When I was born
in the early 50's,

I think I could have expected
to live maybe into my 70s.

But now, because of the increases in
safety, improvements in healthcare,

you know, I can expect to live,
on average, till I'm about 82.

As you get older,
your life expectancy increases

by about three months
every year.

It's quite incredible
that every year,

life expectancy goes up,
on average, by three months,

and it's been happening
like that for decades.

Of course, how I live my life
will affect

whether I'm going to go beyond
the 82 or not make the 82.

If I smoke,

there's a very good chance
I won't make it that long.

Two cigarettes will
cost you half an hour of life.

The average smoker
goes through 20 a day,

so they lose five hours every
day, or 1,825 hours a year.

Of course, you can do things
to extend your life.

Each regular run of half an hour

will help you gain
half an hour of life,

but you will have spent
those half hours running.

Lifestyle will affect
how long we live,

but it's worth bearing in mind

that a lot of statistics
are taken out of context.

Eating a bacon sandwich
every day of your life

is supposed to increase your
risk of bowel cancer by 20%.

But around 5 in 100 people

will get bowel cancer, anyway,
in their lifetime.

So that means that
if all those 100

ate a bacon sandwich every day,
that five would go up to six.

So, that's only 1 in 100 extra.

That doesn't seem quite so bad.

So, I think I'm gonna have
an occasional bacon sandwich.

Living right improves
your odds of survival,

but there is no guarantee
you won't die tomorrow.

With every passing year,
David's risk of dying grows.

So how should he live his life,

knowing random chance
could end it at any moment?

Should he live for today,

or seal himself off
from every possible danger?

David grapples with this problem

using a measurement
called the micromort...

literally meaning
"a small unit of death."

One micromort equals

a one-in-a-million chance
of dying.

You know, over my lifetime,

is I've got about a micromort
risk of an asteroid killing me.

But it's about my daily quantity
of risk, just from all causes...

You know,
from falling off a ladder

or getting run over
or something like that.

David calculates

the chance of dying
if you ride a horse

is half a micromort.

Hang gliding is
eight micromorts.

Climbing a mountain above
23,000 feet

is 43,000 micromorts.

So, at what point is it worth
the risk?

It may depend on
how old you are.

The average 18-year-old has
a 500-micromort chance

of dying in the next 12 months,

but David's odds of dying
are 14 times higher,

therefore he might as well
take more risks.

Whether you take wild chances

or carefully calculate
your every move,

you are always at the mercy
of bad luck.

Just driving puts you at
a 40-micromort risk every year.

We can't predict what's
gonna happen, and so in a sense,

we're open to chance,
things that we just don't know.

We can't escape it,
but we can try to live with it.

In fact,
I think we quite enjoy it.

We don't want to know

exactly what's gonna happen
in the future.

That would be pretty miserable.

Luck.

It plays a crucial role
in the course of our lives.

But it can run deeper
than we think.

We may literally
be made from it.

Perhaps luck is built
into our DNA.

Every living thing

is made of cells
that follow genetic programs.

Those programs tell cells

how to make things
like trees, arms, legs.

This is the miracle of life.

From tiny bits of DNA

emerges the elegance, order,
and beauty of the natural world.

But inside of all living things,
there is an element of chaos,

a twist of luck that makes
life itself possible.

Michael elowitz is
a professor of biology,

bio-engineering,
and applied physics

at the California Institute
of Technology.

So, our bodies are composed

of trillions of individual,
living cells.

Normally, we think of those
cells as little machines

that sense what's around them

and respond at the right way
at the right time.

But what if cells don't operate
like that?

What if they're not
like mechanical devices

that always operate
in a predictable way.

What if what cells
are really doing

is effectively rolling the dice
to figure out

how they're gonna respond
to any particular situation?

Cells contain genes,

and genes regulate
the production of proteins.

Proteins are
what make cells function

and behave in different ways.

Only recently has anyone
been able to see

how this process works.

For that,
we can thank a jellyfish.

Jellyfish contain
fluorescent protein genes...

Genes that light up.

Michael and his team
have been taking

these fluorescent genes out
of jellyfish

and putting them into
other cells in the lab.

Now he can watch the genes
turn on and off.

What this microscope does is
it goes from place to place

and it takes pictures
of these cells,

and it takes a picture of the
blue protein, the red protein,

and the green protein
at each place.

And what we do is we keep taking
these images over and over again

as each cell grows and divides,
forming little micro-colonies.

We take all these images,
at the end,

and we stitch them together
into time-lapse movies.

And in those movies,

we can follow
when each of these genes

is being turned on and off
and on and off,

again and again and again.

The cells
Michael creates are clones.

They should all behave

in exactly the same way
at the same time.

So, these cells should
all change color in unison.

But they don't.

Michael and his team

are conducting hundreds of
experiments to find out why.

They are studying
the inner workings

of many different types
of cells.

We built a strain of E. Coli
that had two colors in it.

Both of these colored proteins are
expressed in very similar genes...

The cell can't really tell
the difference.

If it's gonna turn one on, it ought
to turn the other one on, as well.

Here's a picture
where you can see

how much of one of those
two proteins was expressed,

and here's a picture showing you

how much of the other protein
was expressed.

What was really striking is that

if you flip back and forth
between these pictures,

you can see that some cells
are making

a lot more of one protein
than the other.

When the red and green
channels are combined,

you get this... randomness.

Even though
the green and red genes

are controlled
the exact same way,

they express themselves
at different times randomly.

Michael discovered
the inner workings of cells

are not orderly, precise,
and machine-like.

In fact, it's a matter of luck.

These proteins don't trickle out
at a constant rate

when the cell turns on a gene.

They come out in big bursts.

You get tons of proteins
being produced at once,

and then nothing
silence for a long time.

These bursts are random.

They come out
at unpredictable times.

Even the cell itself
can't control

exactly when
proteins are being produced.

This messiness is seen in cells
from all sorts of creatures.

It seems to be a fundamental
part of how DNA functions.

The color of your eyes

or whether you get
a certain deadly disease

may come down to heredity
plus randomness.

Michael believes
this cellular unpredictability

exists for the most basic
of reasons...

Survival.

For cells, these are
life-or-death problems.

If they choose to express
the wrong set of genes,

they're gonna die.

What's important for them

is to survive
at least as a population.

As a population,
they can guarantee

that they're gonna survive
by having some cells

do one thing
and some cells do something else

and hoping that at least part
of the population

does the right thing
at the right time.

So any strategy which
all the cells do the same thing

is very, very risky.

It's a little bit like going
to the horse races

and saying you're gonna put
all your money on one horse.

It may pay off very well,

but it also could have a very
big downside and wipe you out.

So it can be much more
advantageous to spread the risk

across
many different strategies.

It seems...
life is not just following

the logical instructions
of its genetic software.

Randomness is built
into nature's program.

Luck and chance
are not just real.

Life as we know it really
wouldn't function without them.

Luck is part of our biology.

But random chance may run
even deeper than that.

Genetic molecules are made up
of atoms,

and sub-atomic particles

undergo countless interactions
ever nanosecond.

The true face of luck

may be hidden deep down
in the mysterious quantum world.

The subatomic world is
a world of... uncertainty.

Quantum objects, like electrons,

can be in many places at once...

Until we measure them.

Our entire universe

is constructed
from quantum particles.

So does reality depend on

something as fickle
as when we happen to look at it?

What is you knew how every flip
of a coin was going to turn out?

It would remove
the element of luck.

You would always be certain
of every outcome.

But according
to Andreas albrecht,

the chairman of the physics
department at uc Davis,

nature will not permit that.

Andreas is one of the founders
of inflation theory,

which explains
the origin of the universe.

But though he thinks big,

he believes all problems
can be reduced

to the tiny size
of a quantum particle.

From a physicist's
point of view,

luck is very real.

It's real because

underlying everything around us
is quantum mechanics.

Randomness is part of how every
atom, how every molecule, operates.

You know, I think, "oh, if I
just know the position exactly,

"if I just know enough,

then nothing is random and
everything can be determined."

But quantum theory says "no."

For example, that coin flip.

Imagine you knew the position

of every molecule in the air
and in your body...

every physical detail that might
effect the outcome of the Toss.

A coin flip... there's a lot of
different things coordinating.

Your motion of your hand,
the motion of your thumb,

your reflexes, and your neurons.

You zoom into those neurons,

and you find your reflexes
in the neurons

depend on polypeptides
that are bumping around

within the water in your neuron.

Now, they're bumping around
with all this water.

Some bump in, some bump out.

And the origin of that
randomness is quantum physics.

In a
back-of-the-envelope calculation

that estimates coin size, speed,

and neurotransmitter
uncertainty,

Andreas can show this
quantum sequence of the events

can give the same probability
of throwing a head or tail

as the conventional
calculation... one-half.

You can never be certain
which way it will fall.

Down there with the molecules
is quantum uncertainty

that you'll never get rid of,
no matter how much you know.

And that's leading to the flip of the
coin, and that's leading to your luck.

Quantum uncertainty

is built into everything,

including you, me,
and all the fish in the sea.

But for physicists,
this is a big problem...

a universe-sized problem.

Quantum uncertainty
just doesn't agree

with our understanding
of the large-scale universe.

Inflation theory, the theory
Andreas helped invent,

runs face-first
into a quantum wall.

Cosmic inflation theory is
the idea that, at early times,

the universe underwent
extraordinarily rapid expansion.

On the other hand,
by making the most...

Simple assumptions
about how inflation works,

you wind up predicting not
just one universe that we see,

but infinitely many others.

Inflation tells us
our universe is one of many,

spread across a vast cosmic sea.

These self-contained universes
sit side-by-side,

unseen to each other.

For this goldfish,
the fishbowl is its universe.

It's everything it knows.

We think we know
the entire universe.

We see distant stars
and galaxies.

But modern theories
of the cosmos suggest that

everything we see could just be
our goldfish bowl

and there's many
other pocket universes,

maybe infinitely more,
out there in the cosmos.

But because there are
a finite number of ways

particles can be arranged
in space and time,

there may be
other pocket universes

far, far away
that look like ours

but are slightly different.

The problem, Andreas says,

is that,
if there are infinite universes,

the laws of probability
don't add up.

Quantum measurements estimate

the probabilities of particles
having certain properties.

If there are infinite universes,
every possible outcome

of a measurement is definitely
going to happen somewhere.

This leads
to a mathematical meltdown.

Once you have a theory
with pocket universes,

you no longer are able to use
quantum probabilities

the way we do
in our normal theories.

So, which theory...

Pocket universes
or quantum mechanics...

is more likely to be correct?

Andreas says quantum theory
is probably the deeper truth.

We can't see other universes,
but we can see luck.

So, the quantum probabilities

and the microscopic nature

is the source of all our luck
and all our uncertainty

and all our randomness
in the world.

We really do need to prepare
ourselves for anything.

But there is
another possibility,

a possibility that will change
the way you look at the world.

According to this man,

there are countless
other versions of you

with many different fates.

Have you ever wondered how
your life would have turned out

if things had happened
just a little differently?

One of two small twists of fate

could have resulted in your
following a very different path.

What if you actually followed

all of those paths
in parallel worlds?

There may be many other versions
of you out there

living very different lives.

Max tegmark is
a cosmology professor at M.I.T.

He strongly believes

luck does not determine
the course of our lives.

The proof, he says,
lies in the strange ability

of quantum objects to exist
in many places at once.

We know
that elementary particles

can be in two places at once.

But I'm made out
of elementary particles,

so I should also be able to be
in two places at once.

Quantum objects occupy
a range of possibilities.

They look like waves
until we measure them.

Then they turn into particles.

This means they are
in many places simultaneously

until they suddenly become
fixed points in space.

This strange behavior is called

"the collapse
of the wave function."

Max believes the wave function
never really collapses.

An electron may appear to be
over here in our measurement,

but every other outcome
also occurs

in a series
of parallel universes

that branch off from ours.

There are many processes, like
when you make a snap decision,

which might depend on

just what one little particle
ultimately did in your brain.

So if that little particle
was in two places at once,

my life sort of branches out
into multiple story lines.

If the quantum wave
never collapses,

it means you have
countless clones.

They exist on top of each other
in parallel universes.

These are not
the side-by-side universes

Andreas albrecht imagines.

They are all the possible
alternate versions

of our own universe.

So, for example, if you take
any hundred maxes

and any hundred
parallel universes,

the laws of probability tell us
that some will live 100 years,

and some are already dead.

Max's fate all depends

on which quantum reality
he happens to live in.

But here's the catch.

He will never know

what's happening
to all those other maxes.

Suppose you sedate me
and make a perfect clone of me

and leave one copy
here on this bed

and another copy
in an identical room upstairs.

You tell me all about this
in advance, and you ask me

"where, Max,
are you gonna wake up?"

Well, if you were me,
what would you say?

There are gonna be
two Max tegmarks waking up.

They're both gonna look
the same.

They're both gonna feel
the same.

They're both gonna have the same
memories up until the sedation.

Each of the me's is gonna feel,

"huh, I have woken up
in only one room"...

...whose number is gonna seem
like a random number to me

when I go out and look at it.

And there's no way for me
to predict

what that room number is
gonna say ahead of time.

So I can never see
those other Max clones.

All I notice is
this apparent randomness.

Max believes our
ignorance of the other realities

creates the illusion
we call "luck."

Luck and randomness aren't real.

Some things feel random,

but that's just how it
subjectively feels

whenever you get cloned.

And you get cloned all the time.

There are actually
two copies of me,

each experiencing
one of the two outcomes.

So if you win
at the roulette wheel,

there's a clone of you who lost.

There is no luck, just cloning.

This idea may sound farfetched

and impossible to confirm,

but Max thinks his odds
are not zero.

He has
a one-in-a-quintillion chance

of proving the theory true.

All he has to do is never die.

Yeah!

Let's say Max endures
a series of catastrophes,

events that have
a 50% chance of killing him,

one after the other.

In one parallel universe,
he dies.

In other, he lives.

If the wave function
never collapses,

then there will be two versions
of me...

One where I'm alive and
another one where I'm flattened.

But there will only be on Max
having a conscious experience.

As the catastrophes continue,

the odds of a version of Max
surviving

drop from 25% to 12.5%
to 6.25% and so on.

In more and more parallel
worlds, Max is dead.

But in one, he survives.

Whoa.

It's gonna feel subjectively
to me

like I just keep surviving
and surviving and surviving,

which would feel
really, really weird.

If a version of Max

somehow survives
60 deadly events,

there is only
a one-in-quintillion chance

the theory is wrong.

Unfortunately, only one version
of Max will know the truth.

The other quintillion minus one
will be dead.

So the reality or unreality
of multiple Max tegmarks

may remain in doubt.

This idea that reality
is bigger than we thought

and that whenever you lose
at the roulette wheel,

there was another version of you
that won

is a very weird-sounding idea.

But, hey, who are we humans to
tell the universe how to behave?

You know, my job as a physicist

isn't to try to impose
my prejudices on reality,

but to look carefully at reality

and try to figure out
how it actually behaves.

And it seems to be
what you might call weird.

Whether there just one universe
or countless parallel ones,

there's no way of knowing
which path you will take

through all
your possible destinies.

Your consciousness, your DNA,

and the very atoms
you are built from

are all on a wild
and unpredictable ride.

And every decision...
is a gamble.

Subtitles by MemoryOnSmells
http://UKsubtitles.ru.

Preuzeto sa www.titlovi.com