Climate change deniers <---- apparently not happening or not being caused by humans. Moon landing deniers <----- didn't happen or didn't happen in 1969.
Yeah, i saw the White House get destroyed by an alien spaceship too. You just can't believe what you see anymore
It did happen you utter ****ing puffy *****? I'm guessing you were being all fossie.. Aka lesters version of hiag.
And Humphrey Bogart never said “Play it again Sam” Though most of you are too young to remember wtf I’m on about. They don’t make movie stars like Humph anymore, sadly. Edit; oops, sorry @Treble
'Houston, we have a problem'. An ostrich burying its head in the sand. Luis Suarez saying 'Negro' eight times.
I've read all Greene's books and avidly watch his programmes on Nova. It has to be said though that this and the Many Worlds theories are unprovable speculations atm, as plausible as the white guy with a grey beard creating the whole shebang in six days (and in the dark for the first few days until He remembered to turn the lights on).
I think the multiverse theory is considered by quantum and astro physicists, to have a bit more credibility than that. https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/03/15/this-is-why-the-multiverse-must-exist/
Indeed, but the reasoning and mathematics behind wandering stars and angels dancing on the heads of pins once made sense. Just saying that unless there is physical proof to back up the theories they remain just that. But there is absolutely zero doubt that there are other dimensions, for instance, but still not actual, physical evidence of their existence.
Fair enough. But as I understand it, the gold standard for physicists are equations. If a theory can be expressed as an equation, and the equation stands up to scrutiny, the idea gains sufficient traction to be taken seriously. All evidential proof is subjective anyway, and a thing is only ever proved until such time as it is disproved. Like gravity, which rather inconveniently can’t be explained in quantum terms, but which evidentially does exist; only it probably isn’t what Isaac Newton thought it was. Or something. I’m not a physicist, or a mathematician, most of that stuff is way over my head. What I’m interested in is the areas where science, philosophy, and theology overlap - which they do to quite a considerable extent.
