Submitted by Dr_Singularity t3_y8g9dn in singularity
Shelfrock77 t1_it0ifc5 wrote
Reply to comment by [deleted] in New research suggests our brains use quantum computation by Dr_Singularity
https://www.livescience.com/multiverse
As a programmer, I tend to agree with multiverse theory
HeinrichTheWolf_17 t1_it1tzdh wrote
Save your anti Rick speech for the Council of Ricks, terror Rick!
Hey, save your Rick rules for the sheep Ricks, Rick pig!
Fuck me pal! Fuck you? No no no no, fuck me!
[deleted] t1_it0ii20 wrote
[deleted]
NefariousNaz t1_it0k0so wrote
They're not more likely interpretations.
It doesn't sound like you're that well versed on the subject.
-ZeroRelevance- t1_it1400g wrote
Yeah, there’s no ‘more likely’ interpretation, because we literally have no evidence for anything just yet. It could be Many Worlds, it could be Copenhagen, it could be Superdeterminism. As it stands, we have no way to know.
Shelfrock77 t1_it1alc3 wrote
What if it’s all truth even when there are clear contrast. This is how we change/reprogram our thoughts.
NefariousNaz t1_it2fisn wrote
Wait until he realize that the main competing interpretations are that particles exist in a superposition state until 'looked' at - See Schrondinger's cat for the implications which is both alive and dead until looked at - or that every interaction has already been pre-determined and time is an illusion.
Shelfrock77 t1_it0itd9 wrote
Name a few and i’ll talk about how they fit into multiverse theory.
[deleted] t1_it0k3kj wrote
[deleted]
3Quondam6extanT9 t1_it0v3rn wrote
Let's correct some misunderstandings. Yes, he is using theories to infer absolute conclusive statements, but those theories aren't "debunked" because they are unfalsifiable. Thats not how it works. If it cannot be demonstrated or proven then it's simply a model. Nothing about it is debunked besides external claims that don't align with the existing models.
It is however ridiculous that he assumes his opinion is meant to be taken as a given. I also believe in multiverse theory on top of many other concepts, but I would never be so presumptive as to state my beliefs as fact.
Shelfrock77 t1_it11ga4 wrote
“It is however ridiculous that he assumes his opinion is meant to be taken as a given. I also believe in multiverse theory on top of many other concepts, but I would never be so presumptive as to state my beliefs as fact.”
Lol you are chasing your own tail with me bro, we have no free will. Much love ❤️
3Quondam6extanT9 t1_it264v0 wrote
Not chasing anything. I put a lot of stock into multiverse theory as well as quantum consciousness, but they are both models for now. Untill proven otherwise, such as in the example of the recent evidence for entanglement, I can only treat them as theories.
SnowyNW t1_it1y32f wrote
Thanks for the amazing answer
NefariousNaz t1_it0w88h wrote
It doesn't sound like you know what you're talking about. It being unfalsifiable doesn't mean that it is debunked. It just means that it cannot be empirically proven over other competing interpretations, which also are probably unfalsifiable as well.
I actually don't favor many worlds interpretation, but that does not preclude it as there's no way to test and verify any model currently.
Additionally there are also other models of how a multiverse would exist. If the universe goes on for infinite, or if there are multiple bubble universes with own big bang/creation event which would give the same affect. All unfalsifiable btw because it extends outside the scope of any measurement that we can ever make.
onyxengine t1_it11wl5 wrote
Unfalsifiable just means we don’t have the capacity to verify, not that it can’t be the case because we can’t verify it.
Shelfrock77 t1_it1av1w wrote
Intellectual’s suffer from lack of imagination
IcebergSlimFast t1_it2lith wrote
Intellectual’s what, though?
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments