= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
jhuffman comments on Getting Over Dust Theory - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (97)
Well my comment wasn't an objection to Tegmark's mutliverse hypothesis but rather an explanation as to why its the only explanation you've ever heard.
But if may object to your objection, I disagree that QM is so very tidy. The standard model has what - 18 free parameters with values assigned as necessary to fit the experimental data? I don't know that anyone considers this tidy, or that many people think particle physics is "done". What we have for particle physics is a useful mathematical model but it isn't an elegant one.
The expectation that we should find an elegant model is not unreasonable but it is not yet accomplished.
Yes, but compare that to the number of free parameters implicit in chemistry before QM and QED came along.
Well there is a difference between saying x is more tidy than y and saying x is very very tidy.