• Etterra@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    That the universe is infinite. It’s unknown if it is but commonly called infinite. It could, however, be finite in some way, such as be wrapping back around on itself out past observable space.

    • nyctre@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      What would cause it to do that? Only thing I can think of is gravity, no? That would imply there’s something in the middle that keeps everything from straying too far?

      Or do you simply mean that our perception of space is limited and we simply can’t perceive it properly and thus we’d go in one direction and end up back where we started? But if that’s the case, it means we’ve also misunderstood light? Doesn’t it go infinitely? So shouldn’t there be a light source that reaches us from different directions?

  • The Bard in Green@lemmy.starlightkel.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    That the many worlds interpretation is sort of correct, but incomplete. Hear me out.

    Many worlds isn’t as mind bogglingly ridiculous if the worlds are constantly merging back into each other. Like the universe where a photon bounced left and the universe where it bounced right are functionally identical, then they ARE just the same universe. As long as which way the photon bounced didn’t make a meaningful difference, those two realities aren’t suddenly new separate lines, they’re like a rubber band that stretched in two directions, then bounced back together.

    But let’s say you measure the photon and keep records of it. Now there’s two versions of you right? One measuring the photon going left, one measuring it going right. You’re in separate universes that shall never meet right?

    No… you’ve stretched the rubber band a little further. Over a timescale that’s totally meaningless compared to the age of the universe, you will die, your records will decay and once the information is effectively scrambled into chaos… the two realities can just snap back together. Two universe… but now one again.

    Now for some really mind bendy stuff… this stretching isn’t just localized in time it’s also localized in space. Meaning… if you measure your photon and split into two versions of yourself, but I’m on the other side of the world (or even just down the street from you) and I have no idea that there’s two versions of you, stretched across this temporary universe split… Well, there’s still only one version of me. Up until I encounter one or the other version of you. And if I never do… or if we just cross paths in the local grocery store and your photon experiment doesn’t come up at all… there’s still just one version of me.

    And that one version of me can EASILY encounter both versions of you simultaneously without me ever knowing or it making a meaningful difference in my life. So your split reality is localized… possibly even microscopically in your body (like… most of your neurons in your brain didn’t really change at all because of your experiment, only a few of them have to fire differently, the rest don’t have to split… also, wtf) and in the parts of your lab equipment that kept records of the photon measurement.

    Now, even whackier… the remerging isn’t perfect, just perfect enough that the universe doesn’t fall apart. Like… you know how sometimes you’re SURE that the neighbor had a red car, but then you look outside and it’s green and your spouse tells you it’s always been green? Stuff that fuels r/glitchinthematrix.

    “OK thebardingreen,” you say, “sure, but wouldn’t that mean our records would detect the imperfections all the time and we’d have clear evidence when we go an check the database that it’s impossible to keep consistent records because of this spliting and remerging?”

    “NO!” I say, “because of entropy.”

    See, if the universe is going to try to flow along the arrow of time to it’s lowest energy state… and as we all know, something stretched (like a rubber band, but ANYTHING really) is in a high energy state. If we found lots of evidence this was going on, well that would keep the universe stretched out more, over longer periods of time. The universe can’t have that, so when you start checking records, things tend to snap to their lowest energy state (possibly even to the point that you realize the neighbor’s car WAS always green, and you just had a dream last night that it was red. But something’s bothering you about that… doesn’t seem quite right. You post on the internet and tell a eerie story about your strange experience and then go on with your life. The feeling fades. Becomes a funny party story.

    Decades later, your grand kids remember a story you used to tell… and they retell it, but they don’t quite remember what color you said the car was. There’s no need for them to split into multiple versions (one who says red and one who says green), they just both say “the car was blue, then it turned out to be yellow.” The universe is FULLY collapsed.

    (Also, we KNOW that keeping perfect records / taking perfect measurements is actually incredibly hard and we tend to throw out anomalous results as garbage data, especially if we can’t reproduce them, this could be going all the time and we would just consider it statistically insignificant bad data, within our expected margin of error, easily explainable as a common, everyday screw up)

    So yes, that means there could be a small infinity of parallel universes where evolution / history went differently. A universe where sapient rat people are squeeking over their version of the internet about weird science facts. Sure… but so what? The sun is going to expand into a red giant and consume the Earth and erase most of that information and then the local planetary stretch collapses back into it’s lowest energy state… one where there might have been rat people, or hairless ape people, but either way, they’re gone.

    Ready for MORE whackyness?? THIS is the Great Filter. Sort of.

    Intelligent civilizations spreading across the stars will create a HIGH energy state, as all those potential diversions splinter in more and more ways across greater distances. SO the universe will tend to favor outcomes where chaotic, clever and unpredictable life forms DON’T spread out of their own solar system, or travel across vast distances, because THAT would be a high energy stretch state. Although even just spreading across a galaxy is still only a LOCAL stretch as far as the universe is concerned. Heck, beings 100 light years away who never build a huge solar system sized radio telescope to pick up our faint emissions don’t need to cause weird reality splits. They could exist in a weird little myriad of their own stretched realities and NEVER interact with ours in a meaningful way. And if one day one of their radio astronomers detects a strange radio signal from our star that NEVER repeats and is NEVER explained… well it really doesn’t matter to them at all if we sent that signal or the rats did or the sun just hiccuped in way their physical models can’t explain. Our whole solar system becomes a Schrodinger’s cat box in which both us AND the rat people sent that signal existing in a superpositioned state until someone measures it… which they probably won’t and probably CAN’T so the universe maintains it’s low energy state.

    So if you’re ever like “If I go back in time and kill my grandfather, does that mean I never existed”, what if you just created a weird stretch reality that will paradoxically persist for a while and then all collapse back together as soon as the universe can get away with it?

    In this thought experiment, it’s possible that a small infinity of time travelers showed up to Stephen Hawking’s time travel party. BUT, that would cause a high energy stretch over a weird knot in time… so the universe will TOTALLY favor outcomes in which no one showed up, so in the vast majority of universes, NO time travelers show up to hang out with Stephen Hawking, BECAUSE that’s less stretching for the universe to do before it snaps back to a low energy state.

    So, the many worlds interpretation doesn’t mean that infinities of universes are being created constantly, it means there’s JUST one universe, but multiple pocket realities can exist in it, localized in both space and time, and these pocket realities are constantly snapping back and merging with each other, sometimes inconsistently. Which is EXACTLY what we’d expect from an energetic system progressing through time, experiencing entropy.

  • LalSalaamComrade@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    Parallel reality could be the next zodiac sign. That, or the n-body problem could become a FUD, with scientists proving that all it required was watching separated oil bubbles in lava lamp or something, I don’t know.

  • astanix@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    Something simple like if we just ignored Gravity we could move faster than light.

    Or time maybe?

  • jet@hackertalks.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    None. Flat Earth is characterized by their denial of science. By performing empirical experiments then rejecting the results.

    That is antithetical to the very core of science. So any scientist who is given experimental data that contradicts their theory is, should make new theories.

    There’s nothing fundamentally wrong with saying the Earth is flat, and then thinking about the implications, and then verifying the implications match reality, and then when you get bad data you modify your hypothesis. We need creative and curious minds to challenge the status quo with new measurements data and science. It’s the rejection of empirical data that is the death of science

    • jsomae@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      Sounds like you’re saying The Structure of Scientific Revolutions is flawed because those pesky stubborn holdouts weren’t scientists.

      • teawrecks@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        Holding out on a belief when presented with a mountain of evidence to the contrary is definitively unscientific. What don’t we call people who are unscientific about their methodologies?

        • jsomae@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          I guess I would have called them “bad scientists” – scientists who are bad at their job and hold everyone back. But still scientists.

          For instance they correctly applied the scientific method in most other cases. They just were blind to or intentionally obstructive to certain things.

          I try my best to be rational and apply Bayes’ theorem now and then, but I am sure I am still missing some invisible monsters which will make me look arrogant or foolish in the future. I don’t experiment much with software I am unfamiliar with, even if it could improve things at work. I do now and then of course, but should I allocate more time to trying new things? Yeah probably, but I don’t, and my job still gets done.

          • teawrecks@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            6 months ago

            I don’t disagree that people can be stubborn and refuse to accept reality. This whole thread is known as Planck’s Principle.

            OP asked what “what possible misunderstanding of nature could make current academics look like flat earthers”. I think it’s implied that they’re talking about a scientific consensus today which we later find to be flawed, in which case I don’t think that anything would make current academics look like flat earthers. The difference is, literally no flat earther lived in such a time where the scientific consensus said the world was flat; they all became convinced of a falsehood after it was known to be a falsehood, which is orthogonal to Planck’s Principle.

            So I guess the answer to OP’s question is: if an academic becomes convinced of a falsehood with full knowledge of an overwhelming amount of evidence to show that it is false, then they would look like a flat earther. But I don’t think that’s the situation they’ve laid out.

            • Daft_ish@lemmy.worldOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              6 months ago

              No, the possibility still exists because the current academic community continues to exist even into the future, where a breakthrough is possible. At the very least you are being pedantic.

              • teawrecks@sopuli.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                6 months ago

                An appropriate level of pedantry, I think. You asked for everyone for their opinion, it hardly seems appropriate for you to call me pedantic for providing just that.

                It also feels like maybe you didn’t pick up what I was putting down, because the “breakthrough” scenario is irrelevant. The important part is: did science already accept X as true (read: highly probable) at the time that a person decided they believe X is false? Because to me, that’s what makes someone “look like a flat earther”. But I can’t fault someone for not being convinced by some evidence, and choosing instead to stick with (what they believe to be) a null hypothesis.

                • Daft_ish@lemmy.worldOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  6 months ago

                  You’re using too strict a definition of what makes a flat earther. Flat eathers are characterized by many different things but their defining feature is their refusal accept evidence that disproves their belief. My phrasing does not disclude this interpretation.

    • Daft_ish@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      I imagine there are many academics that won’t budge from their current beliefs even when confronted with proof.

      • BertramDitore@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        Yup! I don’t understand the downvotes, because this absolutely happens. Especially when technology has progressed to enable us to answer certain questions that we couldn’t in the past. Old curmudgeonly academics can definitely be resistant to accepting that they’ve been wrong, even when confronted with proof. Sometimes the only way for old theories to die is for their proponents to die or retire. It’s a shame, but ego can be a massive problem in some disciplines.

      • SanguinePar@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        Some, sure. And they are indeed acting like flat earthers. I think they’re likely to be the minority though and they’re not acting like scientists if they do that.

        • Daft_ish@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          Sorry, it’s just how I phrased the question. Sorry to be a Debbie downer but I was really interested in the answer.

  • kromem@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    Thinking of it as quantum first.

    Before the 20th century, there was a preference for the idea that things were continuous.

    Then there was experimental evidence that things were quantized when interacted with, and we ended up with wave particle duality. The pendulum swung in that direction and is still going.

    This came with a ton of weird behaviors that didn’t make philosophical sense - things like Einstein saying “well if no one is looking at the moon does it not exist?”

    So they decided fuck the philosophy and told the new generation to just shut up and calculate.

    Now we have two incompatible frameworks. At cosmic scales, the best model (general relatively) is based on continuous behavior. And at small scales the framework is “continuous until interacted with when it becomes discrete.”

    But had they kept the ‘why’ in mind, as time went on things like the moon not existing when you don’t look at it or the incompatibility of those two models would have made a lot more sense.

    It’s impossible to simulate the interactions of free agents with a continuous universe. It would take an uncountably infinite amount of information to keep track.

    So at the very point that our universe would be impossible to simulate, it suddenly switches from behaving in an impossible to simulate way to behaving in a way with finite discrete state changes.

    Even more eyebrow raising, if you erase the information about the interaction, it switches back to continuous as if memory optimized/garbage collected with orphaned references cleaned up (the quantum eraser variation of Young’s double slit experiment).

    The latching on to the quantum experimental results and ditching the ‘why’ in favor of “shut up and calculate” has created an entire generation of physicists chasing the ghost of a unified theory of gravity while never really entertaining the idea that maybe the quantum experimental results are the side effects of emulating a continuous universe.

        • FiskFisk33@startrek.website
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          Sure, but that is like saying potentially my pig might grow wings and start flying.

          I mean I guess, but my pig is probably statistically significantly more likely to fly off than entropy is to decrease with time.

      • jsomae@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        Maxwell’s demon knowing in advance the exact state of the system isn’t really practical as a solution. Sure you can concoct such a situation, but that isn’t useful.

  • Hammocks4All@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    That evolution is purely randomness + fitness landscape rather than that DNA guides the process at least somewhat. Don’t burn me alive guys

      • Hammocks4All@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        The current paradigm assumes a uniform probability of mutation across all genes. But maybe there are mechanisms that say “keep this part of the genome under tighter control” and “make this other part of the genome more susceptible to mutation.”

        • Railison@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          Oh we already know this. There are parts of the genome that, if even slightly changed, cause terrible, terrible things.

          Mutations can happen anywhere, but serious mutations (that may affect the basic things a cell needs to do in order to exist) result in cell death and therefore don’t manifest in the population — the population continues on as though the mutation had never existed.

          In this way, natural selection conserves some parts of the genome while less essential parts can vary more freely without being deleterious to the organism.

          For example, most non-bacteria (including all plants, animals, fungi, protists) have special proteins called histones. Histones are used to package the DNA together and wrap it all up. Cells can’t function at all without a these proteins, and the most important histone proteins evolve so slowly that they’re almost identical between a human and a pea. (Humans and peas shared a common ancestor over half a billion years ago.)

          ETA: My molecular biology knowledge is rusty, but IIRC the way DNA is packaged and unpackaged can also reduce or increase the risk of DNA being exposed to potential mutagens. So if it’s wrapped up, it’s harder to access and tamper with

      • FooBarrington@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        In the short term (single digit generations) that’s probably true, but I don’t see how it could be on longer scales. If the random mutations decrease fitness, they won’t be passed on at some point, since there is less reproduction. If they increase fitness, they will be passed on to more individuals.