This is a minority opinion. Most people working in cosmology and high-energy physics think of these kinds theories as cute or even interesting outcomes of the math, but to call them reality is a bridge way too far.
The title implies that many scientists take this stuff seriously. It just isn't so. These kinds of claims are not falsifiable, so to even call them science is a stretch. Interesting mathematical gymnastics, yes, but not science.. Extraordinary claims and all that.
These same scientists will besmirch, belittle, and bemoan anyone who believes in an unseen entity or creator but will declare their belief about how we are living in computer simulations and tiny universes controlled by others with impunity and not so much as a scintilla of proof. The hypocrisy runs thick.
It is not hypocracy. You are failing to understand the difference between scientific belief and religious belief (aka "faith") and are treating them as if they are the same. They are not.
Saying something is mathematically consistent with (some) observed results is different from saying it has been proven, and is different from saying that the scientist "believes" it. In fact, in science (as opposed to mathematics), nothing is proven: different theories are supported by different amounts of evidence, and tha
This is a minority opinion. Most people working in cosmology and high-energy physics think of these kinds theories as cute or even interesting outcomes of the math, but to call them reality is a bridge way too far.
The title implies that many scientists take this stuff seriously. It just isn't so. These kinds of claims are not falsifiable, so to even call them science is a stretch. Interesting mathematical gymnastics, yes, but not science.. Extraordinary claims and all that.
For one, this is a VICE article, a
Vice.com - not exactly a hotbed of respected science journalism.
Here's an explanation that also considers how differing scales produce different effects in the time-space continum:
It's all about time [aardvark.co.nz]
Disect, destroy and dismantle at your leisure.
It is not hypocracy. You are failing to understand the difference between scientific belief and religious belief (aka "faith") and are treating them as if they are the same. They are not.
Saying something is mathematically consistent with (some) observed results is different from saying it has been proven, and is different from saying that the scientist "believes" it. In fact, in science (as opposed to mathematics), nothing is proven: different theories are supported by different amounts of evidence, and tha