2 ms·

> 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 r

> 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.

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.