In my experience, people with rational reasons for rejecting claims can articulate said reasons, rather than simply calling them bullshit and telling other people to fuck off. I’m not convinced of the article’s claims, but I’m also not convinced you know what you’re talking about either. The difference is that the article admits its claims are speculative and hypothetical, while you’re just slinging insults.
Rejecting causality IS the rational reason. It is you who is irrational. When one scientist brings forth a claim that breaks ALL of physics, with ZERO empirical evidence support such an astounding theory, it is not the ones who doubt that are likely to be wrong.
It read to me like they provided a reason for denying causality though: that the associative breakdown in entropic state suggests causality can be violated. I don’t have the expertise to evaluate that claim, but if you do, why don’t you just explain to me why it’s wrong? Or is that demanding too much of a random person on the internet?
Says the random person on the internet in response to the quantum physics professor who says otherwise.
I take it you did not read the article.
I did, actually. So, what makes it “bullshit?”
You violate causality, you better bring more than some popsci bullshit to the table.
And you’re the arbiter of what constitutes “popsci bullshit” rather than the quantum physics professor? Such hubris.
Removed by mod
In my experience, people with rational reasons for rejecting claims can articulate said reasons, rather than simply calling them bullshit and telling other people to fuck off. I’m not convinced of the article’s claims, but I’m also not convinced you know what you’re talking about either. The difference is that the article admits its claims are speculative and hypothetical, while you’re just slinging insults.
Rejecting causality IS the rational reason. It is you who is irrational. When one scientist brings forth a claim that breaks ALL of physics, with ZERO empirical evidence support such an astounding theory, it is not the ones who doubt that are likely to be wrong.
It read to me like they provided a reason for denying causality though: that the associative breakdown in entropic state suggests causality can be violated. I don’t have the expertise to evaluate that claim, but if you do, why don’t you just explain to me why it’s wrong? Or is that demanding too much of a random person on the internet?
Uh, because the entire field of physics is completely fucked if causality is violable? I’m really done with you.
That’s good, because I’m pretty sick of you too. What an arrogant POS.