Submitted by Manureofhistory t3_10brkii in space
Substantial-Lab-5647 t1_j4bzf71 wrote
Reply to comment by ReadditMan in The multiverse by Manureofhistory
In what sense are you referring to a multiverse? Because the many worlds interpretation is a valid phenomenological approach to wave function collapse, and there’s just as much evidence for that as for the Copenhagen interpretation. Consigning something like that to “science fiction” is a bit premature, don’t you think?
Even if you’re referring to other theories of a multiverse, like Roger Penrose’s conformal cyclic cosmology, mathematics is a very valid approach to the world. It’s like you think mathematics doesn’t tell us things about the natural world. We largely developed our quantum field theories by investigating gauge symmetries, so why is developing a theory based on the math of conformal invariance such a stretch? I get that it’s difficult to verify, but “science fiction”? That’s jumping to conclusions for which there is no evidence.
caseyjcannon t1_j4dckge wrote
Math is obviously extremely useful, but just because a mathematical formula exists does not mean that there is an equivalent behavior in reality, particularly one that there is zero real-world evidence to support and is unproveable. Perhaps that will change in the future (though I'd argue it's safe to say it won't any time soon) but at this time it is absolutely ascientific.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments