There really isn’t

For example, saying anything critical of China in a .ml thread will result in a ban.

Just to clarify this point: they mean that mindless reddit style jingoism will get you banned; reasonable criticism is fine.

Remember, this is .world saying it.

.world is “neutral,” and I think federated with most instances

Nah, .world is the right wing instance, and also pretty defed happy

Rome wasn’t a state, and it lasted for many centuries. Don’t try to pretend by “doesn’t work for long” you were talking about geological time or something

So when you said “that kinda thing never works for long” you were referencing to any state? I think history has proven you wrong on that one, champ.

What year do you think it is?

Capitalism can’t even exist without the state to enclose the commons and maintain and enforce the legal framework of private property.

I belive that I have more freedom in (unregulated) capitalism that’s not state backed

All capitalism is state backed, by definition.

For being opposed to western chauvinism.

Blahaj zone will ban you at the drop of a hat based on political belief.

That was one of the movies that led to the creation of the PG13 rating, wasn’t it?

Damn, that would have been a hell of film at that age.

you need to ask the Uyghurs how they’re feeling about their experience under the communist government

Everytime people ask regular Uyghurs, they’re usually happy enough with it. I’m guessing you mean ask Adrian Zenz and the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation to tell the Uyghurs what they think.

In the west I think it’s mostly used to sell ads, but in other countries like China and Russia, I think it’s more sinister.

Which social media algorithm caused you to form this opinion?

Hugh Everett also had a PhD in Physics.

I must not hang out in the right circles, because I haven’t seen that enough to see it as a cliché.

Possibly. Give it time I suppose

Perhaps the commenter was not dismissing multiverse theory because of a gut reaction, but because they’re fed up themselves with popular and un-falsifiable speculation being treated as science.

Perhaps, but you’d have a hard time tying to convince Princeton University that the the paper they gave Hugh Everett a PhD in Physics for is in fact “not science” and is in fact more like “the boogey man or the tooth fairy.” Or trying to convince the scientific community that people like Sean Carroll and David Deutsch and all the other physicists doing work in Quantum Foundations from a many worlds perspective aren’t scientists.

this “spooky action at a distance” that famous pre-redditor Albert dismissed as nonsense.

I’m sorry, but this is just straight up not true; Einstein absolutely did not dismiss entanglement as nonsense

But there’s a gap between that science and the interpretations of it.

Different “interpretations” (really they are different theories) absolutely have experimental differences. Some aren’t performable today, but if that is your criteria, then the Higgs Boson was like the tooth fairy for decades. But even beyond that some are performable, and have been performed, we have done test for dynamical collapse interpretations. Had they come back positive they would have falsified Many Worlds, ie. they are literally a form of falsification.

And maybe coming from they popular end, it’s easy to see the wilder speculations as nothing more than unprovable imagination.

And many worlds is not one of those wilder speculations that is nothing more than unprovable imaginations.

that itself takes time and logic and mathematics… it takes science!

Indeed, which means not dismissing and idea as nonsense without understanding it.

The one I replied too. The habit of immediately and smugly going “It can’t be falsified and is therefore the same as the tooth-fairy!” to any ideas that class with their intuition is very much a well worn cliche of reddit style pseudo-intellectual “I fucking love science” types. Bonus points if it is falsifiable.

And yes, falsifiablity is a part of science, but this idea that science means going “if you don’t have a definite experiment that you can perform right now then the idea is stupid and wrong and you’re an idiot for even talking about it” is massively reductive at best and flat out wrong at worst, and if these people applied it in all cases - rather than just to the ones that their gut feeling is against - they’d be throwing out a huge amount of ideas that are most definitely science.

I mean jesus, imagine how arrogant you would have to be to discard all of the very detailed work extremely talented scientists have done in Quantum Foundations as being no different to believing in the tooth fairy.

The post I replied to.

Ah ok.

Sounds like she’s essentially describing the Quantum Immortality concept. It’s definitely highly speculative but it’s not beyond the pale.