Comment by LeftHandPath | Hacker News Reader

Comment by LeftHandPath | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Hah... Maybe they've figured out that most of their readers are the same pseudo-intellectuals that will misunderstand things like Schrodinger's Cat and refer to it like magic, quietly hoping that other people will look up to them as all the wiser for having referenced it. Like a bartender I met a while ago that confessed to me that he and his wife interpreted quantum mechanics in a way that borders on religious, using it to discredit the concept of free will altogether.

> Take gravity, add quantum mechanics, stir. What do you get? Just maybe, a holographic cosmos.

Something tells me I'll be hearing a lot of confused misinterpretations of this over the next few days... A lot like the confusion over entanglement after this year's Nobel prize.

Have you considered why the best explanations that the field of physics can offer are all interpretations? Maybe it's because there is a lot we don't know, and the patchwork of scientific theory we've built up iteratively over centuries is leaking in places for reasons we don't understand.

If you accept this, then it should be hard to mock someone who offers their own interpretation, since none of us know the answer to so many fundamental questions underpinning the physical universe in our cosmological plane of existence. At best, you knew more than he did about what we don't know.

> Have you considered why the best explanations that the field of physics can offer are all interpretations?

Or you can look at the maths but I doubt you would want to do that... Anytime you dumb something down, something is lost. If you try to build back from something that's dumbed down then you get a mess.

That is true and a much needed check. Thank you.

The best explanations that the field of physics can offer are systems of equations. Which make a lot more sense than the eli5 woo that popular science turns it into.

confessed is an interesting word choice? the bartender was being somehow deceptive about how they present their interpretation of quantum mechanics normally?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com