QM seems not to describe the evolution of the universe but the evolution of our knowledge of the universe, (which includes knowledge about the observer itself), but then again I shouldn‘t be drunk tweeting
-
-
Replying to @Plinz
Everything we (our set of particles) observe IS our universe. (Probably.) Each new observation creates a new time line.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @davidarredondo @Plinz
Particles! Unless you want to talk about things being collections of strings. Which I'm cool with. :-)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @thewiseturtle @Plinz
String theory is waaaay to speculative. Should stick with what we observe unless something more compelling comes along.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @davidarredondo @Plinz
Some people observe strings. Maybe their part of the multiverse has strings and yours doesn't. In my universe they both exists and don't exist, as they are just metaphors/stories modeling reality, but not actually reality. :-)
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
-
-
Replying to @thewiseturtle @davidarredondo
this is so ugly, please stop doing it to me
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Plinz @davidarredondo
I'm sorry it bothers you to think about a multiverse. I find it beautiful and calming.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
What bothers me is that you don't care about getting it right. For you it's just beautiful words strung together to create fanciful associations in your mind.
-
-
Replying to @Plinz @davidarredondo
This is "right", in my very well thought out and researched work. Its the best model of reality I've ever seen, and the only logical one. Your assumption that I haven't spent a long time working on this is unfortunate, for both of us.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes - 3 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.