If we smear the categories we can lose the map between evidence and speculation. Between fantasy and possible and probable.

“If we smear the categories we can lose the map between evidence and speculation. Between fantasy and possible and probable.”

==
I think we’ll end up discovering that “natural selection” will turn out to be more physical than evolution. Example : the throat. Why do we share breathing and eating with the same tube? I think physics. Two tubes merged into one. Not for fitness.

The universes idea you have? I love it and it would make great science fiction.

a lot of theoretical physics IS science fiction depending how far into theoretical it goes.

Theoretical IS fiction remember. Unproven.

the behavior of electrons is now well known and shown to be true through experimentation and application.

No, I’m talking about the cosmological tie ins to QM.

===

now you’re talking super Sci fi. Brain evolution? Natural selection escape mechanism?

Fiction is great but know the difference.

Don’t know. We’re not there. I’m speaking of now. Maybe it’ll be true someday. But it’s speculative fiction with a hard science flavor. I like hard sci fi. You’ll be good at it. But know when it’s not science but science fiction that’s all.

If we smear the categories we can lose the map between evidence and speculation. Between fantasy and possible and probable.

===

It implies false but doesn’t necessarily mean false. Just invented.

“literature in the form of prose, especially short stories and novels, that describes imaginary events and people.”

“invention or fabrication as opposed to fact.”

“a belief or statement that is false, but that is often held to be true because it is expedient to do so.
“the notion of that country being a democracy is a polite fiction””

—-

Bell’s inequality qualifies as evidence (in my category scheme of “evidence vs possible vs probable” because:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_test_experiments

====

Oh this is interesting! There’s a more rigorous use of “probable” and “possible” than I was using. [does it mean I’m on the right track? I dunno but I always think of things in those three categories].

I can’t say for sure of quantum non-locality qualifies as having “evidence” but it’s been shown to be both possible *and* probable in a more rigorous use of the words.

Later today I have to learn what is the stricter differences beween “possible” and “probable”. It seems a rigorous use of “probable” is statistical probability whereas “possible” is “logical” – a much harder proof to make. [the “is it *possible?*” answer came in 1993 here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenberger%E2%80%93Horne%E2%80%93Zeilinger_state

Love new directions to explore!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_nonlocality…

====

 

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


one + 7 =

Leave a Reply