[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

Search:

View post   
>> No.14540113 [View]
File: 90 KB, 1280x720, maxresdefault (2).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14540113

>>14538903
>Science has no relation whatsoever to metaphysics.
perhaps,
but humans do science,
can you name one scientist who has earnestly divorced their physics from their metaphysics?

>> No.12710075 [View]
File: 91 KB, 1280x720, farout.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12710075

Is it even hypothetically possible to prove the many worlds interpretation? Personally I'm sticking to Copenhagen, as it seems to gel more accurately with reality, but I'm willing to change my mind if there's some way to validate many worlds.

>> No.11460757 [View]
File: 91 KB, 1280x720, POPSCI.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11460757

I fucking hate popsci so much.

>> No.11450141 [View]
File: 91 KB, 1280x720, many worlds.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11450141

So Veritasium released a video defending Many Worlds as the best interpretation. I always thought this was the most laughable and absurd one, but apparently the leading academics are choosing this over Copenhagen now?
What are the implications of this? Does this make the universe (the universes?) deterministic then? Can different universes have different physical constants?

I'm a very confused right now. I thought Many Worlds was a joke.

Navigation
View posts[+24][+48][+96]