It’s suspicious that you offer a context-insensitive rebuttal that basically means “no matter what you post from arxiv, it doesn’t matter”. So we should ignore anything from arxiv that might be controversial or makes us uncomfortable, then?
ArXiv is not a bastion of peer-reviewed science.
Ditto everything said below about comparing experimental evidence to theological physics.
Yes, but I never claimed that this was 100% certain, I’m just presenting it as food for thought. What’s up with these reactions here? I’m perplexed.
What’s up with the insinuation that this is “theological physics”? I don’t have a strong opinion on this paper either way, and I’m weirded out by the highly defensive reactions I’m getting to posting it. I’m interested in the new kinds of singularities being postulated here, that’s the main thing.
ArXiv is not a bastion of peer-reviewed science.
Ditto everything said below about comparing experimental evidence to theological physics.
Yes, but I never claimed that this was 100% certain, I’m just presenting it as food for thought. What’s up with these reactions here? I’m perplexed.
What’s up with the insinuation that this is “theological physics”? I don’t have a strong opinion on this paper either way, and I’m weirded out by the highly defensive reactions I’m getting to posting it. I’m interested in the new kinds of singularities being postulated here, that’s the main thing.
It considers a time scale so long that the possibility of it ever being empirically tested is vanishingly small.
There’s really no relevance to LW to be found here.