0 comments
Comments sorted by top scores.
comment by Viliam · 2020-06-21T15:20:23.896Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I hope people are upvoting this because they understand what it means, and agree with the technical conclusion. Not just because they are impressed, but they have no idea what it actually means.
Replies from: Pattern, lsusr↑ comment by lsusr · 2020-06-22T06:01:44.206Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I hope people are downvoting this because they understand what it means, and disagree with the logical chain. Not just because it contradicts Copenhagen.
Replies from: Viliam↑ comment by Viliam · 2020-06-22T14:28:46.201Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Generally speaking, the fewer people understand the topic, the greater chance that the voting will be dominated by noise. When the fraction drops below the lizardman constant...
Replies from: lsusr↑ comment by lsusr · 2020-06-22T18:06:57.404Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Yes, lol. The comments to this sequence, on the other hand, have been mercifully intelligent. They include phrases like "having done graduate work in general relativity" and "it [relativistic Lagrangian mechanics] makes sense for the effective field theory form of GR, for light at least".
comment by gilch · 2020-06-22T19:27:12.547Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Max Tegmark has published anthropic arguments for why we must find ourselves in a 3+1 dimensional universe.
↑ comment by gilch · 2020-06-22T19:32:47.965Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Greg Egan's Dichronauts is set in a 2+2 dimensional universe, a condition Tegmark dismisses as ultrahyperbolic. Egan also has a rigid-body simulator using physics from that universe. It does seem rather unstable.