Show your opinions that would be unpopular on /sci/.
I'll start:
>I like numberphile
>I actually respect Cedric Villani
I believe that physicists who take their models as literal interpretations of physical systems to be morons. For example,
> heuuuuu space and time are the same thing!
> heuuuuu spacetime curves!
Yes, with these assumptions/consequences, we find a very successful mathematical models that gives us correct predictions. However, this by no means ensures us that the physical system is in fact the way it is described by the model.
Another example: With Newtonian gravitation we may be able to describe the force of gravity to be proportional to the mass of the two bodies and the inverse square of the distance between them, but this doesn't IN ITSELF give us that the masses are "attracting" each other in any sense. Only that we may describe a force between them as defined above.
Yes, I'm triggered.
I find this scientific literalism to be damaging to science and disgusting.
>>8094675
>general relativity is just a THEORY
>get a brane, morans!
>>8094675
same, and the MWI drives me nuts
MWI is terrifying, i don't see how any sane person would want to believe it
>>8094683
this is not what i said
GR is incredibly successful and a powerful tool. It describes our reality extremely well. However, a successful model whose predictions are completely accurate does not ipso facto guarantee that the physical system is "actually" determined by such a mechanism, only that the two are equivalent.
>>8094688
can someone in here debunk MWI? It really really bothers me, I just want GRW or copenhagen to be true.
Infinite universes lead directly to nihilism for me. I just want to be a rational agent in the one real world ;_;
please explain why MWI is retarded
>>8094587
Roger Penrose is right about everything he says and his intuition is incredible.
>>8094688
Misrepresenting what I said. GR is provably accurate in determining how gravitation can be modelled. I'm not complaining that GR makes claims that are difficult for your troglodyte mind to understand, and so we should reject it. I'm saying that despite being accurate in prediction, we cannot conclude that the universe is underlying the way that GR describes it to be, only that the two are at least equivalent.
>>8094675
Undergraduate detected
>>8094675
Protip: Less literalism, terms have meanings according to their historical usage, and everything you assert to be "true" about the universe is a personal observation.
In other words, stop arguing physics in terms of feelings and words. There is no absolute truth accessible to us outside of attempting to confirm models via measurement. No one cares what you feel, every human who has ever lived before you has felt similar irrational thoughts and gotten the fuck over the fact that your feelings or personal opinions of words mean absolutely nothing about reality.
>>8094694
You can't debunk something that is unfalsifiable emotional handwaving. However, that in itself subtracts from it.
Quantum decoherence fits what happens in the real world when we build quantum circuits. There is no NEED for MWI, and that is the best argument against it. It gives us NOTHING but some pseudo-intellectual belief that it gives understanding of wavefunctions.
>>8094587
Not all sub-fields of biology are the same. And some are, in fact, are real science: molecular biology, genetics, cellular biology, biochemistry, biophysics, structural biology.
>>8094587
There's nothing wrong with respecting Villani. He's a Fields medal-winning mathematician.
Now _liking_ that pompous faggot with his head seven feet up his own ass is a different matter.
>>8094871
> there is literally no benefit to discussing the implications of mathematical modelling
suicide is an option
>>8094911
Discussion is fine when you don't profess "the truth" as if you know it. Crying that implications don't sound like you think they should on the other hand is useless, especially when the implications have had zero impact on the effectiveness of the math. Reading comprehension?
>>8094910
>If I can find a single paper that agrees with me, I'm right - after all, there is complete consensus that MWI is correct
>>8094951
yeah it's pretty unified you spergy shit, especially considering you can't debunk it, and it fits the bill.
>>8095427
>you can't debunk my flavor of QM so it's right
>>8094587
Cedric Villani is a weirdo. He's always showing off his gold coin as if people care about old forms of money anymore.
>>8095447
What do you believe anon? You heard what I liked and I even posted a farcical picture of a calc major. I'd say it'd be nice to hear.
>>8095458
He's really unique in the sense that he's a mathematician that also has a good intuition of physical phenomena. This is what makes him special, he has the ability to combine ideas from different fields of science and put them in a solid mathematical foundation due to his advanced knowledge of analysis.
>>8095472
>tfw no one recognizes my obscure /sci/ meme
>>8095463
I don't favor an interpretation. Claiming victory for MWI is insane. Copenhagen requires modification for decoherence.
>>8095477
>obscure
go back to /fa/, /fa/ggot
>>8095537
Never been there. Why are you so mad?
>>8094694
>I don't want the truth I just don't want to feel bad anymore :( :( :(
fuck off.
>>8095472
To be honest, I don't think you can be good at differential geometry or PDE without a good understanding of physics, the intuition helps a lot.
>>8094694
> I want conciousness the be a thing that makes me special and different from the other matter in the universe
>>8094587
the hierarchy is real
Mechanical molecular assemblers are probably possible.
>>8096458
>thinks modern copenhagen or GRW say ANYTHING about consciousness
>>8096487
I am with you on this one.
