3 ms·

> If you chuck language out the window, you're also chucking meaning and concepts out with it. I’m not chucking language out of the window. I’m saying that the

> If you chuck language out the window, you're also chucking meaning and concepts out with it. I’m not chucking language out of the window. I’m saying that the meanings and words for our currently language don’t express theoretical concepts well. So arguing about semantics around metaphors is stupid. For example, terms like “spin” aren’t literal in partial physics. We just dont have common language outside of scientific jargon because the concepts aren’t relatable. > Anyway, if we're making up fun ways to think about the meaning of the universe I didn’t make this up. These are hypothesis proposed by people far far smarter than you and I. > which conveniently doesn't rely on trying to extrapolate our perception outside the bounds of our perception. Literally the entirety of quantum mechanics is trying to extrapolate our perception outside of the bounds of our perception. And the MUH (Mathematical universe) idea you referenced itself talks about the multiverse as a purely mathematical object. Which is a contradiction of your statement about it being constrained to our perception. > Maybe it's less of a big bang and more of a big yo-yo. It’s ironic you write several paragraphs criticising myself and others for using metaphors, and you then use one yourself. Or are you stating that the universe is a literal kids toy on a string? ;) Also does the MUH describe the universe as a metaphoric yoyo? It’s been a while since I’ve researched that hypothesis but I don’t recall the yoyo effect being its leading conclusion. There are other hypotheses that state that, but they’ve been largely disproven since the observations that the universe is expanding at an increasing rate.

MangoToupe 1y ago
> For example, terms like “spin” aren’t literal in partial physics. We just dont have common language outside of scientific jargon because the concepts aren’t relatable. Yes, but it does refer to something observable. > And the MUH (Mathematical universe) idea you referenced itself talks about the multiverse as a purely mathematical object. Which is a contradiction of your statement about it being constrained to our perception. I also pointed out it is just as much nonsense as imagining time out of time or the flying spaghetti monster. > Literally the entirety of quantum mechanics is trying to extrapolate our perception outside of the bounds of our perception. No—it's still coherent with the observable universe. > I didn’t make this up. These are hypothesis proposed by people far far smarter than you and I. A hypothesis is falsifiable. Time before time is just gobbledigook.
- hnlmorg 1y ago
  > Yes, but it does refer to something observable. “Observation” in science means testable. You were talking about perception earlier and that’s not the same thing as being scientifically observable. We don’t directly observe particles “spin”. We crunch petabytes of statistics from experiments and generate new maths to fit the results. > No—it's still coherent with the observable universe. No it isn’t. We’ve had to invent dark matter, dark energy and dark flow to make our observations match the maths. We can’t even figure out the maths behind gravity at a quantum level. So much of quantum mechanics is still uncertain literally because it’s beyond our perception. > time before time is just gobbledigook You’re talking about time as a global constant (to borrow a phrase from software development) but that’s not how time behaves at all. In a multiverse, time would just be a local variable for each universe. This isn’t “gobbledigook” it’s just another hypothesis derived from the same mathematical principles. ——— To be clear, I’m not saying you’re wrong about your assumptions of the universe (we simply don’t know). Just that the reasoning you’ve used to derive those assumptions are.

MangoToupe 1y ago

> For example, terms like “spin” aren’t literal in partial physics. We just dont have common language outside of scientific jargon because the concepts aren’t relatable. Yes, but it does refer to something observable. > And the MUH (Mathematical universe) idea you referenced itself talks about the multiverse as a purely mathematical object. Which is a contradiction of your statement about it being constrained to our perception. I also pointed out it is just as much nonsense as imagining time out of time or the flying spaghetti monster. > Literally the entirety of quantum mechanics is trying to extrapolate our perception outside of the bounds of our perception. No—it's still coherent with the observable universe. > I didn’t make this up. These are hypothesis proposed by people far far smarter than you and I. A hypothesis is falsifiable. Time before time is just gobbledigook.

hnlmorg 1y ago
> Yes, but it does refer to something observable. “Observation” in science means testable. You were talking about perception earlier and that’s not the same thing as being scientifically observable. We don’t directly observe particles “spin”. We crunch petabytes of statistics from experiments and generate new maths to fit the results. > No—it's still coherent with the observable universe. No it isn’t. We’ve had to invent dark matter, dark energy and dark flow to make our observations match the maths. We can’t even figure out the maths behind gravity at a quantum level. So much of quantum mechanics is still uncertain literally because it’s beyond our perception. > time before time is just gobbledigook You’re talking about time as a global constant (to borrow a phrase from software development) but that’s not how time behaves at all. In a multiverse, time would just be a local variable for each universe. This isn’t “gobbledigook” it’s just another hypothesis derived from the same mathematical principles. ——— To be clear, I’m not saying you’re wrong about your assumptions of the universe (we simply don’t know). Just that the reasoning you’ve used to derive those assumptions are.