Oh I remember that idea. I first got it back in kindergarten when I was playing with blocks on a big carpet that had some sort of abstract-floral print.

It's just a theory.

>>33431
What matters is how much math and experimental data supports it, not whether or not it's a "theory". That word means very different things in different contexts.

Post edited on 7th Oct 2019, 5:43pm

>>33432
And how much supports it?

>>33433
Mathematically, the idea of the universe getting infinitely larger has some weight, but observation doesn't support it. Nobody has any clue what goes on in the smaller direction after a certain point. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle is still widely accepted. There's string theory, but that's a different thing from what op is talking about and many physicists are incredulous about it. String Theory has no experimental evidence.

And what are the ethical or life-meaningful consequences of such a theory?

Say, the theory of a universe completely deterministic in laws implies there's no such thing as freedom, just the illusion of it. But fractal structure of our universe seems inhert to me...

>>33443
>the theory of a universe completely deterministic in laws
The universe in not deterministic and nobody thinks it is anymore. You can't both know the position and velocity of an electron for example. Under the exact same prior circumstances, the path an electron takes wont be the same. Every time you measure its position, it will be different. There are areas of space where the electron is most statistically likely to end up in given a set of circumstances, but predicting it one-hundred percent is impossible. When you don't know its position, it acts like a wave(interferes with itself). When you do know, it acts like a particle with no wave behavior. Observation actually affects the outcome. Even a baseball acts like a wave, but its mass so so massive it's not noticeable because its wavelength is miniscule.

>>33443
Knowledge of our worlds workings is reason enough for those that are not daft. Why? Because they are a path to power. Surely you have questioned why the knowledge of scientific secrets has led to those ideas taking hold of the entire planet. It is no accident, knowledge is indeed power and those who claim otherwise are not only knowledgeable but stupid as well.

anyone who thinks that they can suss out the nature of everything just by been incredibly clever is clearly mistaken and falling into the trap of thinking that modern academic science has any validity and using the conventional wisdom as presented by ye olde wise men of academia as a basis for comparison.
academics are just charlatans who make a living by putting on an act that they somehow have greater knowledge than anyone else.
humanity has been falling for this bullshit for millennia, it used to be called a religion, but now its ye olde wise men of academia who are the gatekeepers of the truth as they define it and the general public accepts it. its all a big shell game and it's purpose is to control public opinion and maintain the status quo rather than human progress. you can't play in those people's games, the cards are stacked against you, so don't waste your time trying to be ye olde wise men of academia. those people got to where they are by playing neurotypical office politics and having daddy buy them entry into harvard, they're not actually the reasonable individuals they pretended to be, they're greedy liars who attain status the sleazy way and they pretend they earned it through some admirable effort.
if those people really were as intelligent and capable as they say they are then science and technology would be advancing at a rapid pace instead of stagnating. most of academia is just people who thought they'd "look smart in a lab coat" or some other stupid bullshit

>>33450
If that was true, engineering wouldn't be going anywhere and nobody would consider them worth hiring. They apply what academia finds. Learning more about the world doesn't happen with one guy trying to be clever, it's an extremely lengthy, very large group effort. Science is not stagnating at all.

>>33443
>>33444
>The universe in not deterministic and nobody thinks it is anymore
I think it's true that bell's theorem and such essentially rule out hidden variables, and if you accept locality (e.g. take speed of light limit as fixed) then you're constrained to have nondeterminsm in some manner (whether in the Copenhagen or multi-worlds interpretation). But I believe Bell's theorem only really holds if you take as a given that you have the ability to perform independent, uncorrelated measurements. Or colloquially that you have some sort of free will.

I'm not at all qualified to make comments on this field, but it does appear that the existence of this loophole of "superdeterminism" is accepted, but for some reason it's not really brought up much. An excerpt from Bell himself:

>There is a way to escape the inference of superluminal speeds and spooky action at a distance. But it involves absolute determinism in the universe, the complete absence of free will. Suppose the world is super-deterministic, with not just inanimate nature running on behind-the-scenes clockwork, but with our behavior, including our belief that we are free to choose to do one experiment rather than another, absolutely predetermined, including the 'decision' by the experimenter to carry out one set of measurements rather than another, the difficulty disappears. There is no need for a faster-than-light signal to tell particle A what measurement has been carried out on particle B, because the universe, including particle A, already 'knows' what that measurement, and its outcome, will be.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdeterminism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem

>>33450
I do agree that parts of academia are a shell game (especially soft-sciences such as psychology/economics, but also things such as medicine which is pretty much just blind trials). And it would be good if those fields had increased skepticism towards their results.

However dismissing all of academia as tomfoolery seems a bit too far-reaching since there have been demonstrable advances in fields such as physics and chemistry.

>Science and technology would be advancing at a rapid pace instead of stagnating
Science has advanced quite a bit in the last century though. It might appear to be slowing down, but that's mainly because most of the low hanging fruit is gone so any improvements from here are going to be minor. And progress usually comes in bursts because it ultimately takes time for discoveries to saturate and build on top of each other. As for technology, most of the advancements here have really come out of the private sector (Bell labs) and increasingly SV companies which may not be academia in the traditional sense but they still publish their findings in conferences and journals (albeit possibly watered down versions stripped of the corresponding implementation details).