4 ms·
> blithely asserting that you're not in a superposition, based on zero scientific evidence, is what's unscientific. If this was true I would offer another theo
by edna314 7y ago
> blithely asserting that you're not in a superposition, based on zero scientific evidence, is what's unscientific.
If this was true I would offer another theory: an untraceable Flying Spaghetti Monster is responsible for QM. You won’t be able to gather any evidence against it, so you cannot rule it out. This theory would be on par with your many worlds theory. I can also write down physically looking equations which describe its behavior.
I think the gist of science over religion is exactly the requirement to provide evidence for the claims it makes not evidence against opposing claims. Otherwise science is dogma.
- lmm 7y ago> If this was true I would offer another theory: an untraceable Flying Spaghetti Monster is responsible for QM. You won’t be able to gather any evidence against it, so you cannot rule it out. This theory would be on par with your many worlds theory. I can also write down physically looking equations which describe its behavior. Just the opposite: positing a collapse phenomenon which makes no difference to observable reality is on a par with positing an untraceable Flying Spaghetti Monster. Many-worlds is not an extra assumption but the absence of one: it's the assumption that we behave like normal physical objects, and all the normal, experimentally-established phenomena of quantum mechanics (such as superposition) apply to us just as they apply to other matter we experiment on.