But that's what's confusing to me. Why do we need the metaphysical extrapolation from the model to "the true explanation"? I'm not saying I don't suffer from a similar need. I'm asking for myself as much as anyone else.
By "seem very different", you're asserting classical logic, a fragility to inconsistency, a reliance on proof by contradiction. If the implications of this contradict the implications of that, then one of them must be false. But, in my ignorant understanding of the process, neither physics nor mathematical paradox resolution rely on that. It's always some munging of old things to arrive at the new things, including munging the logic by which the implications are inferred. Why is "shut up and calculate" so unnatural? On 4/30/19 5:33 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
I was just throwing out two, the wormhole idea of Maldacena & Susskind and super-determinism described by Hooft. They seem very different to me, and could imply two very different universes. That QM works for either doesn't help explain how one or the other or neither is the true explanation.
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
