this post was submitted on 16 May 2024
93 points (93.5% liked)

Asklemmy

44004 readers
807 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy πŸ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 84 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (2 children)

None. Flat Earth is characterized by their denial of science. By performing empirical experiments then rejecting the results.

That is antithetical to the very core of science. So any scientist who is given experimental data that contradicts their theory is, should make new theories.

There's nothing fundamentally wrong with saying the Earth is flat, and then thinking about the implications, and then verifying the implications match reality, and then when you get bad data you modify your hypothesis. We need creative and curious minds to challenge the status quo with new measurements data and science. It's the rejection of empirical data that is the death of science

[–] [email protected] 14 points 6 months ago (3 children)

I imagine there are many academics that won't budge from their current beliefs even when confronted with proof.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 6 months ago (1 children)

They might be academics, but definitely not scientists

[–] [email protected] 6 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Some scientists, might. There is no shortage on hubris in the scientific community.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 6 months ago

I think we’re talking No True Scientist here

[–] [email protected] 10 points 6 months ago

Yup! I don’t understand the downvotes, because this absolutely happens. Especially when technology has progressed to enable us to answer certain questions that we couldn’t in the past. Old curmudgeonly academics can definitely be resistant to accepting that they’ve been wrong, even when confronted with proof. Sometimes the only way for old theories to die is for their proponents to die or retire. It’s a shame, but ego can be a massive problem in some disciplines.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Some, sure. And they are indeed acting like flat earthers. I think they're likely to be the minority though and they're not acting like scientists if they do that.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Sounds like you're saying The Structure of Scientific Revolutions is flawed because those pesky stubborn holdouts weren't scientists.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 6 months ago (18 children)

Holding out on a belief when presented with a mountain of evidence to the contrary is definitively unscientific. What don't we call people who are unscientific about their methodologies?

load more comments (18 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 28 points 6 months ago (2 children)

If a Maxwell's demon was ever proven practical it would basically disprove the second law of thermodynamics.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Wait, why? What does knowing a perfect state of system has to do with the law of thermodynamics?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 8 points 6 months ago (2 children)

how so? the little door demon needs a power source right? otherwise it couldn't operate the door.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Yes, but potentially less than is gained by the separation.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 25 points 6 months ago (12 children)

Consciousness being an emergent property of the universe instead of the universe being an emergent property of consciousness.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

Thank you for this. I was just thinking about it and how it implies consciousness is shared or linked in some way.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 6 months ago (6 children)

We are all the same entity, just different instances, existing inside of the greater consciousness that is the universe. We have performed every great and evil act to ourselves, as we are all the same entity.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 6 months ago

Well said, me. Bravo!

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 months ago (1 children)

This is a good answer. Bernardo Kastrup argues this; check out his very eloquently titled book Why Materialism is Baloney.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
[–] [email protected] 18 points 6 months ago (2 children)

That the universe is infinite. It's unknown if it is but commonly called infinite. It could, however, be finite in some way, such as be wrapping back around on itself out past observable space.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 17 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Nature religions were right and we're all part of a single bigger organism of which every part can feel and communicate with every other part.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 months ago

We’re like fingers who don’t know there’s a hand

[–] [email protected] 17 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (5 children)

That the many worlds interpretation is sort of correct, but incomplete. Hear me out.

Many worlds isn't as mind bogglingly ridiculous if the worlds are constantly merging back into each other. Like the universe where a photon bounced left and the universe where it bounced right are functionally identical, then they ARE just the same universe. As long as which way the photon bounced didn't make a meaningful difference, those two realities aren't suddenly new separate lines, they're like a rubber band that stretched in two directions, then bounced back together.

But let's say you measure the photon and keep records of it. Now there's two versions of you right? One measuring the photon going left, one measuring it going right. You're in separate universes that shall never meet right?

No... you've stretched the rubber band a little further. Over a timescale that's totally meaningless compared to the age of the universe, you will die, your records will decay and once the information is effectively scrambled into chaos... the two realities can just snap back together. Two universe... but now one again.

Now for some really mind bendy stuff... this stretching isn't just localized in time it's also localized in space. Meaning... if you measure your photon and split into two versions of yourself, but I'm on the other side of the world (or even just down the street from you) and I have no idea that there's two versions of you, stretched across this temporary universe split... Well, there's still only one version of me. Up until I encounter one or the other version of you. And if I never do... or if we just cross paths in the local grocery store and your photon experiment doesn't come up at all... there's still just one version of me.

And that one version of me can EASILY encounter both versions of you simultaneously without me ever knowing or it making a meaningful difference in my life. So your split reality is localized... possibly even microscopically in your body (like... most of your neurons in your brain didn't really change at all because of your experiment, only a few of them have to fire differently, the rest don't have to split... also, wtf) and in the parts of your lab equipment that kept records of the photon measurement.

Now, even whackier... the remerging isn't perfect, just perfect enough that the universe doesn't fall apart. Like... you know how sometimes you're SURE that the neighbor had a red car, but then you look outside and it's green and your spouse tells you it's always been green? Stuff that fuels r/glitchinthematrix.

"OK thebardingreen," you say, "sure, but wouldn't that mean our records would detect the imperfections all the time and we'd have clear evidence when we go an check the database that it's impossible to keep consistent records because of this spliting and remerging?"

"NO!" I say, "because of entropy."

See, if the universe is going to try to flow along the arrow of time to it's lowest energy state... and as we all know, something stretched (like a rubber band, but ANYTHING really) is in a high energy state. If we found lots of evidence this was going on, well that would keep the universe stretched out more, over longer periods of time. The universe can't have that, so when you start checking records, things tend to snap to their lowest energy state (possibly even to the point that you realize the neighbor's car WAS always green, and you just had a dream last night that it was red. But something's bothering you about that... doesn't seem quite right. You post on the internet and tell a eerie story about your strange experience and then go on with your life. The feeling fades. Becomes a funny party story.

Decades later, your grand kids remember a story you used to tell... and they retell it, but they don't quite remember what color you said the car was. There's no need for them to split into multiple versions (one who says red and one who says green), they just both say "the car was blue, then it turned out to be yellow." The universe is FULLY collapsed.

(Also, we KNOW that keeping perfect records / taking perfect measurements is actually incredibly hard and we tend to throw out anomalous results as garbage data, especially if we can't reproduce them, this could be going all the time and we would just consider it statistically insignificant bad data, within our expected margin of error, easily explainable as a common, everyday screw up)

So yes, that means there could be a small infinity of parallel universes where evolution / history went differently. A universe where sapient rat people are squeeking over their version of the internet about weird science facts. Sure.... but so what? The sun is going to expand into a red giant and consume the Earth and erase most of that information and then the local planetary stretch collapses back into it's lowest energy state... one where there might have been rat people, or hairless ape people, but either way, they're gone.

Ready for MORE whackyness?? THIS is the Great Filter. Sort of.

Intelligent civilizations spreading across the stars will create a HIGH energy state, as all those potential diversions splinter in more and more ways across greater distances. SO the universe will tend to favor outcomes where chaotic, clever and unpredictable life forms DON'T spread out of their own solar system, or travel across vast distances, because THAT would be a high energy stretch state. Although even just spreading across a galaxy is still only a LOCAL stretch as far as the universe is concerned. Heck, beings 100 light years away who never build a huge solar system sized radio telescope to pick up our faint emissions don't need to cause weird reality splits. They could exist in a weird little myriad of their own stretched realities and NEVER interact with ours in a meaningful way. And if one day one of their radio astronomers detects a strange radio signal from our star that NEVER repeats and is NEVER explained... well it really doesn't matter to them at all if we sent that signal or the rats did or the sun just hiccuped in way their physical models can't explain. Our whole solar system becomes a Schrodinger's cat box in which both us AND the rat people sent that signal existing in a superpositioned state until someone measures it... which they probably won't and probably CAN'T so the universe maintains it's low energy state.

So if you're ever like "If I go back in time and kill my grandfather, does that mean I never existed", what if you just created a weird stretch reality that will paradoxically persist for a while and then all collapse back together as soon as the universe can get away with it?

In this thought experiment, it's possible that a small infinity of time travelers showed up to Stephen Hawking's time travel party. BUT, that would cause a high energy stretch over a weird knot in time... so the universe will TOTALLY favor outcomes in which no one showed up, so in the vast majority of universes, NO time travelers show up to hang out with Stephen Hawking, BECAUSE that's less stretching for the universe to do before it snaps back to a low energy state.

So, the many worlds interpretation doesn't mean that infinities of universes are being created constantly, it means there's JUST one universe, but multiple pocket realities can exist in it, localized in both space and time, and these pocket realities are constantly snapping back and merging with each other, sometimes inconsistently. Which is EXACTLY what we'd expect from an energetic system progressing through time, experiencing entropy.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 6 months ago

Man I want whatever drugs you have.

(Honestly this was a fun read, thank you!)

[–] [email protected] 5 points 6 months ago

I like it, and also second the request for whatever drugs you're on

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 15 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Thinking of it as quantum first.

Before the 20th century, there was a preference for the idea that things were continuous.

Then there was experimental evidence that things were quantized when interacted with, and we ended up with wave particle duality. The pendulum swung in that direction and is still going.

This came with a ton of weird behaviors that didn't make philosophical sense - things like Einstein saying "well if no one is looking at the moon does it not exist?"

So they decided fuck the philosophy and told the new generation to just shut up and calculate.

Now we have two incompatible frameworks. At cosmic scales, the best model (general relatively) is based on continuous behavior. And at small scales the framework is "continuous until interacted with when it becomes discrete."

But had they kept the 'why' in mind, as time went on things like the moon not existing when you don't look at it or the incompatibility of those two models would have made a lot more sense.

It's impossible to simulate the interactions of free agents with a continuous universe. It would take an uncountably infinite amount of information to keep track.

So at the very point that our universe would be impossible to simulate, it suddenly switches from behaving in an impossible to simulate way to behaving in a way with finite discrete state changes.

Even more eyebrow raising, if you erase the information about the interaction, it switches back to continuous as if memory optimized/garbage collected with orphaned references cleaned up (the quantum eraser variation of Young's double slit experiment).

The latching on to the quantum experimental results and ditching the 'why' in favor of "shut up and calculate" has created an entire generation of physicists chasing the ghost of a unified theory of gravity while never really entertaining the idea that maybe the quantum experimental results are the side effects of emulating a continuous universe.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 6 months ago (7 children)

Sometimes the Dark Matter, Dark Energy conversations reminds me of waves moving through aether

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] [email protected] 10 points 6 months ago (4 children)

I’m late the game here, but I think I found the answer.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 8 points 6 months ago

When we finally figure out and understand, in a real world mechanical sort of way, quantum mechanics, all bets will be off.

It'll open up a new perspective on the Universe (dare I say Metaverse?), and where we fit in with everything.

~Anti~ ~Commercial-AI~ ~license~ ~(CC~ ~BY-NC-SA~ ~4.0)~

[–] [email protected] 8 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Something simple like if we just ignored Gravity we could move faster than light.

Or time maybe?

[–] [email protected] 7 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 6 months ago

Gravity is an unproven hypothesis.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, I’m not smart enough for thread, imma head out

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next β€Ί