6 ms·
> [..] and even if it was, that would not be evidence for it to be true over others sure, it's not possible to distinguish it from some of the others. This th
by ithkuil 3y ago
> [..] and even if it was, that would not be evidence for it to be true over others
sure, it's not possible to distinguish it from some of the others.
This thread started with comparing it to some theories that instead invoked non-local effects, which would violate general relativity, so there's that.
- bowsamic 3y agoIt's pointless to speak about violating general relativity because we don't have a quantum theory of gravity yet
- ithkuil 3y agoI don't agree with your absolutism here. Not knowing things doesn't mean everything is on equal footing. All I'm saying in this thread is that, when comparing possible theories, the ones that do not violate general relativity while explaining other observations IMO deserve not to be dismissed just because people cannot wrap their heads around non-physical consequences of the theory.
- bowsamic 3y agoOkay but also if they do violate GR that doesn't really tell us much either, since we expect QM to not obey the rules of GR