4 ms·
My immediate reaction to the headline was "oh, so NYT is now adding pop-sci clickbait to their repertoire?" Given all the other ways in which they've degenerat
by elefanten 4y ago
My immediate reaction to the headline was "oh, so NYT is now adding pop-sci clickbait to their repertoire?"
Given all the other ways in which they've degenerated and embarrassed themselves in the last decade, I supposed they were bound to start doing this one too.
- LeftHandPath 4y agoHah... Maybe they've figured out that most of their readers are the same pseudo-intellectuals that will misunderstand things like Schrodinger's Cat and refer to it like magic, quietly hoping that other people will look up to them as all the wiser for having referenced it. Like a bartender I met a while ago that confessed to me that he and his wife interpreted quantum mechanics in a way that borders on religious, using it to discredit the concept of free will altogether. > Take gravity, add quantum mechanics, stir. What do you get? Just maybe, a holographic cosmos. Something tells me I'll be hearing a lot of confused misinterpretations of this over the next few days... A lot like the confusion over entanglement after this year's Nobel prize.
- tayo42 4y agoconfessed is an interesting word choice? the bartender was being somehow deceptive about how they present their interpretation of quantum mechanics normally?
- TechBro8615 4y agoHave you considered why the best explanations that the field of physics can offer are all interpretations? Maybe it's because there is a lot we don't know, and the patchwork of scientific theory we've built up iteratively over centuries is leaking in places for reasons we don't understand. If you accept this, then it should be hard to mock someone who offers their own interpretation, since none of us know the answer to so many fundamental questions underpinning the physical universe in our cosmological plane of existence. At best, you knew more than he did about what we don't know.
- peteradio 4y ago> Have you considered why the best explanations that the field of physics can offer are all interpretations? Or you can look at the maths but I doubt you would want to do that... Anytime you dumb something down, something is lost. If you try to build back from something that's dumbed down then you get a mess.
- LeftHandPath 4y agoThat is true and a much needed check. Thank you.
- vkou 4y agoThe best explanations that the field of physics can offer are systems of equations. Which make a lot more sense than the eli5 woo that popular science turns it into.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- bergenty 4y agoYour second paragraph is what you really wanted to say. If anything, the NYT is one of the few bastions of authentic journalism left.