I almost choked from the laughter , bruh.
Send this Kim Un and he'll roll off 'is chair.
> Kind of Ironic that the first example coming to mind is that of 'nested sub-routines',
. . . which will crash your computer unless you explicitly code an exit to the recursion loop.
As far as fractals go, they are in nature, and I've programmed them before. (First time was 1986 on an ATT 8086 in Pascal.)
These too require a coded escape 'clause' within the recursive iteration loop, otherwise the computer program will crash. (lock up or freeze in '80 lingo)
The fractals in nature have their own built in exit/escape clauses built into them That video mixes real facts, like the Planck length and Planck time, with other bs to present a 'plausible' scenario.
The Planck length and Planck time are the universe's built in 'exit/escape clauses'.
>You site and reference your conjecture as if it is proven fact,
Not a conjecture. The following statements stand on their own merit.
Well the reason is that the scenario of one universe inside another universe inside another … leads to an 'infinite regress'. Which is completely irrational and non-defensible from any mathematical and/or scientific perspective.
Yet this clown, yes clown, brushes away the very concept that destroys and utterly refutes the theories he's promoting and then justifies his denial and rejection of that failure by using a well known logical fallacy; an appeal to authority:
' it's being discussed seriously by a lot of credible people'.
Science uses facts and logic to either accept or reject the validity of theories.
Mathematical impossibilities like infinite regress cannot be ignored and brushed away by using logical fallacies.
These are not conjectures. Don't be ignorant to the world around you.
Look up 'infinite regress.'
Look up 'appeal to authority'.
Use your intellect and stop drinking the oh-so-sweet Kool-Aid.
It'll kill you.