I think it’s an aesthetically appealing way of looking at what’s going on, but that it doesn’t help with understanding what’s going on (or what to do with it) in any way.
If you’re referring to the fact that it doesn’t give us any useful information about the contents or laws of this universe, then I agree completely. (If I write this post, then I do intend to acknowledge that, and to discourage calling it a “theory of everything” for that reason.)
Shall I take this as a “no” vote for the “would that be considered sufficiently on-topic?” question? In its defense in that respect, it could be taken as a discussion about the outer limits of what anybody/anything anywhere can understand, and aside from that, it raises some interesting questions about anthropic reasoning.
I think it’s an aesthetically appealing way of looking at what’s going on, but that it doesn’t help with understanding what’s going on (or what to do with it) in any way.
If you’re referring to the fact that it doesn’t give us any useful information about the contents or laws of this universe, then I agree completely. (If I write this post, then I do intend to acknowledge that, and to discourage calling it a “theory of everything” for that reason.)
Shall I take this as a “no” vote for the “would that be considered sufficiently on-topic?” question?
In its defense in that respect, it could be taken as a discussion about the outer limits of what anybody/anything anywhere can understand, and aside from that, it raises some interesting questions about anthropic reasoning.