ITT:Unpopular Opinions on sci

Show your opinions that would be unpopular on Veeky Forums.
I'll start:
>I like numberphile
>I actually respect Cedric Villani

Other urls found in this thread:

arxiv.org/pdf/1604.07422.pdf
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

I believe that physicists who take their models as literal interpretations of physical systems to be morons. For example,

> heuuuuu space and time are the same thing!
> heuuuuu spacetime curves!

Yes, with these assumptions/consequences, we find a very successful mathematical models that gives us correct predictions. However, this by no means ensures us that the physical system is in fact the way it is described by the model.

Another example: With Newtonian gravitation we may be able to describe the force of gravity to be proportional to the mass of the two bodies and the inverse square of the distance between them, but this doesn't IN ITSELF give us that the masses are "attracting" each other in any sense. Only that we may describe a force between them as defined above.

Yes, I'm triggered.

I find this scientific literalism to be damaging to science and disgusting.

>general relativity is just a THEORY
>get a brane, morans!

same, and the MWI drives me nuts

MWI is terrifying, i don't see how any sane person would want to believe it

this is not what i said

GR is incredibly successful and a powerful tool. It describes our reality extremely well. However, a successful model whose predictions are completely accurate does not ipso facto guarantee that the physical system is "actually" determined by such a mechanism, only that the two are equivalent.

can someone in here debunk MWI? It really really bothers me, I just want GRW or copenhagen to be true.

Infinite universes lead directly to nihilism for me. I just want to be a rational agent in the one real world ;_;

please explain why MWI is retarded

Roger Penrose is right about everything he says and his intuition is incredible.

Misrepresenting what I said. GR is provably accurate in determining how gravitation can be modelled. I'm not complaining that GR makes claims that are difficult for your troglodyte mind to understand, and so we should reject it. I'm saying that despite being accurate in prediction, we cannot conclude that the universe is underlying the way that GR describes it to be, only that the two are at least equivalent.

Undergraduate detected

Protip: Less literalism, terms have meanings according to their historical usage, and everything you assert to be "true" about the universe is a personal observation.

In other words, stop arguing physics in terms of feelings and words. There is no absolute truth accessible to us outside of attempting to confirm models via measurement. No one cares what you feel, every human who has ever lived before you has felt similar irrational thoughts and gotten the fuck over the fact that your feelings or personal opinions of words mean absolutely nothing about reality.

You can't debunk something that is unfalsifiable emotional handwaving. However, that in itself subtracts from it.

Quantum decoherence fits what happens in the real world when we build quantum circuits. There is no NEED for MWI, and that is the best argument against it. It gives us NOTHING but some pseudo-intellectual belief that it gives understanding of wavefunctions.

Not all sub-fields of biology are the same. And some are, in fact, are real science: molecular biology, genetics, cellular biology, biochemistry, biophysics, structural biology.

There's nothing wrong with respecting Villani. He's a Fields medal-winning mathematician.

Now _liking_ that pompous faggot with his head seven feet up his own ass is a different matter.

arxiv.org/pdf/1604.07422.pdf

Nice try.

> there is literally no benefit to discussing the implications of mathematical modelling

suicide is an option

Discussion is fine when you don't profess "the truth" as if you know it. Crying that implications don't sound like you think they should on the other hand is useless, especially when the implications have had zero impact on the effectiveness of the math. Reading comprehension?

>If I can find a single paper that agrees with me, I'm right - after all, there is complete consensus that MWI is correct

yeah it's pretty unified you spergy shit, especially considering you can't debunk it, and it fits the bill.

Actually, every good physicist I've met agrees with him.

>you can't debunk my flavor of QM so it's right

Cedric Villani is a weirdo. He's always showing off his gold coin as if people care about old forms of money anymore.

What do you believe user? You heard what I liked and I even posted a farcical picture of a calc major. I'd say it'd be nice to hear.

He's really unique in the sense that he's a mathematician that also has a good intuition of physical phenomena. This is what makes him special, he has the ability to combine ideas from different fields of science and put them in a solid mathematical foundation due to his advanced knowledge of analysis.

>tfw no one recognizes my obscure Veeky Forums meme

I don't favor an interpretation. Claiming victory for MWI is insane. Copenhagen requires modification for decoherence.

>obscure
go back to Veeky Forums, Veeky Forumsggot

Never been there. Why are you so mad?

I would watch more of his lectures if he didn't sound like an annoying pussy when he speaks English. I have to watch his shit in French and I barely even speak french.

>I don't want the truth I just don't want to feel bad anymore :( :( :(

fuck off.

To be honest, I don't think you can be good at differential geometry or PDE without a good understanding of physics, the intuition helps a lot.

> I want conciousness the be a thing that makes me special and different from the other matter in the universe

the hierarchy is real

Mechanical molecular assemblers are probably possible.

>thinks modern copenhagen or GRW say ANYTHING about consciousness

I am with you on this one.