You don’t have to justify your fascination, but you are most welcome to!

‘Proposed’ includes old and new ideas alike. Consensus isn’t a requirement either - it could be speculative, contentious or entirely uncontroversial, as long as it doesn’t contradict what is currently known.

  • stardust@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Interesting. This is why I favor many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. It doesn’t give a special status to an observer. Any interacting entity including a conscious being gets entangled with the quantum state that’s being interacted with. In the Schrodinger’s cat for example the world splits into two. In one branch the physicist opens the box to see a dead cat. In the other branch, his equivalent sees an alive cat.

    On the other extreme it from bit gives the highest privileged status to an observer.

    • cerement@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      now circle around and combine that with fringe ideas like Robert Anton Wilson’s neuro-linguistic programming or linguistic relativity (Sapir-Whorf hypothesis) – reality is what you observe, but how much is that observation colored by what you were taught? is what you are seeing “real” or a simulation or a hallucination or a psychotic break?

    • Blóðbók@slrpnk.netOPM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m sympathetic to the MWI as well. It’s currently the only explanation that is both consistent with what we know and doesn’t require any new physics to work.