This conversation seemed like just random fluff. Did you look up the people in this discussion? This just does not come across as serious.
I have watched a few episodes of this guys channels and I have not gotten anything out of these conversations. On the whole I think this is giving physics a bad name. The list of guests is rather odd, or should a say self selective.
10:10 pm -- I don't understand it very well, and I posted it. Emily is I believe discussing this paper in particular, I have been meaning to look at it carefully:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2409.05259
Perhaps part of the argument is that many worlds does not make sense somehow? It could be like the old Buddhist argument, in more modern terms, perhaps:
3 comments:
This conversation seemed like just random fluff. Did you look up the people in this discussion? This just does not come across as serious.
I have watched a few episodes of this guys channels and I have not gotten anything out of these conversations. On the whole I think this is giving physics a bad name. The list of guests is rather odd, or should a say self selective.
10:10 pm -- I don't understand it very well, and I posted it. Emily is I believe discussing this paper in particular, I have been meaning to look at it carefully:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2409.05259
Perhaps part of the argument is that many worlds does not make sense somehow? It could be like the old Buddhist argument, in more modern terms, perhaps:
https://www.lionsroar.com/what-are-the-four-negations/
This is interesting too, perhaps it makes more sense to listen to this first:
https://spookyactionbook.com/2018/03/27/an-interview-with-emily-adlam-video/
https://youtu.be/6I2OhmVWLMs?si=wTkd71T2Gm4nlAoy
Post a Comment