Reality may not be what it seems, but it’s very unlikely to conform to the silly ideas that do not subject themselves to the critical review required of all good science.

I agree that in general practical should trump future speculation. However I think you are too pessimistic about “really, really big” change a ‘comin given the very rapidly growing body of neuroscience information combined with processor speed improvements and massive cheap parallel computer capability. IBMs 2018 may be somewhat optimistic, but we’ll see some unbelievable things as human and machine capabilities continue to converge.

As with Byronia of New Worlds–he doesn’t know a partial derivative from his favorite pancake hut, but now, via the popularization of quantum physics and relativity think’s he’s Steven Hawking, squawking about the Intelligent Universe, and a Reason “for the strangely self-orgnanizing nature of life in this universe.” Wow! Anthropomorphic Intelligent Design 101, via MIT/Stanford, if not the Mormons (then Leibniz said something of the sort in about 1700, with far more subtle arguments).

NewSci and SciAm articles regarding the latest grand theories of everything (rarely verified, but merely speculative) often serve as mystical escapism for the semi-educated.

makes editing rather difficult at times when the wordssssssss extend into the links….

Ciao

Many humans lacking much advanced knowledge of modern physics (really, I meet very few people, even techies, who quite understand what the Copenhagen Int. of QM implies) will seize upon the latest supposed finding or experiment as support for some mystical or supernatural view–even orthodox christians (and jews and muslims presumably) know use the stranger aspects of quantum physics (wave-particle collapse, brother! ) as support for a religious or mystical view– why, given separate dimensions, one might be ….Heaven! (or hell, or purgatory, or nirvana, or Tolkien-land, what have you).

The pop-science (even when based on cutting edge research, etc) creates false hopes–really, it’s a sort of Futurity fetish. Many techies hope for some super-science which will solve all of our problems, or provide us with Star Trek-like gear–de-materialize,Capn!

That’s not going to happen in the near future (or far future, most likely). Real progressive should oppose the Futurity fetish, I believe (though that’s not the same as luddite-ism). Sane applications of technology are needed, which is not the same as Star Trek-like fantasies….

Niels Bohr Im not, but it would seem that responsible scientists would demand some observable proof, not only mathematical models–not just a thought experiment such as Schroedinger’s Cat, but like make the cat disappear.
Schroedinger’s singularity…

Govt that governs best, funds least… hmmm… not sure I like the sound of that one, as Sudan passes that test and we fail it and I sure as heck don’t want to live THERE.

perhaps plausible but not really confirmed.

Sure, but almost all “new” complex ideas are going to face this challenge. I’m not challenging your skepticism here which is always warranted, but I think it is incumbent on those who say “let’s explain this in simple terms” to do that and still account for the following sticky wickets.

1. What is matter? What is energy? Where did it come from? Where is it going?

2. Why does Subway say “ANY” $5 foot long when Philly Cheese Steaks are $8+

In so far as any bizarre , non-local or non-deterministic theory relies on statistical estimations (and not actual observations, and involves no actual….application (pragmatism is not just common sense-ism, but verification via functionality), it’s…just a theory, perhaps plausible but not really confirmed. We might also question whether millions of shekels in research funds should go to the esoteric physics, cosmology, etc. instead of say the medicine, economics department, or civil engineering, etc

I agree with the pragmatism principle H, but note that the physicist in that article is proposing some *measurements* that support the existence of a metaverse.

The problem with pragmatism and common sense is that it really starts to break down at both the quantum and the macrocosmic levels – ie you simply cannot explain things at those levels without resorting to some complex math and physics and even then … it’s not easy. However it’s better than without using those constructs.