3 ms·
I wouldn't say that the "field is dominated by orthodoxy that closes their eyes to everything that they don't want to see". I'll admit most physicists I've met
by l33tbro 12y ago
I wouldn't say that the "field is dominated by orthodoxy that closes their eyes to everything that they don't want to see".
I'll admit most physicists I've met are suspicious of wild-eyed theory. But I wouldn't say they're overly orthodox. I think it's more a healthy skepticism of anything which involves humans projecting science-ficiton wish-fulfilment into science.
I'd go further and say that "entanglement" and "multiverse" are not at all en vogue. I think most seasoned physicists realize that these were trendy fields some years ago (for solipsistic reasons - ie, make us feel special).
So I think the return to a fundamental assessment of phenomena is pretty natural thing. Calling out assumptions like scale. What's more, I think the more discerning will also be suspicious of the "post-multiverse" dialectic. It's just the process really.
- trhway 12y ago>I'll admit most physicists I've met are suspicious of wild-eyed theory. ... >So I think the return to a fundamental assessment of phenomena is pretty natural thing. Calling out assumptions like scale. i see big difference between "Calling out assumptions like scale" as a "return to a fundamental assessment of phenomena" and "Calling out assumptions like scale" in order to fit it into a wild-eyed theory like superstrings (basically to salvage the theory).