Fester - Copernicus was not the originator of heliocentric theory nor was Newton the originator of the theory of gravity. Heliocentrism is a religion masquerading as science, not reality. Just as "gravity" is one of the "gods" on the Tree of Life from the Kabbalah. The Kabbalah outdates Copernicus/Newton.
Your a history professor. Why not do some digging and you shall discover that for yourself.
yawn. Make a thread. See if it attracts flies.
Why? You are assuming these statements are far too incredible to be true. As you have already stated that such a conspiracy would be impossible. That is what many/most first believe until they actually start digging.
The fact is, many would rather "not know"...and who can blame them?....certainly not I.
In belated respect to the author and topic of this thread I am disengaging.>>>>>>>>>>>>exit
There was another who did likewise referring to me as a "Witch Doctor". I have been called a great many things but I believe that was a first.
Thank you Elroch, Optimissed and others, it really is food for thought.
A classic experiment illustrates why the notion of the wave function as a mere expression of uncertainty about position is incomplete. The two slit experiment.
A simplified version of this is where you examine one possible outcome - the particle has been detected at a specific point on the screen. This can be thought of as simplifying belief about the past in a way which means that the wave function can now be thought of as being concentrated on two lines, one through one slit and one through the other, which recombine at the point of detection.
The interference pattern means the probability of detection is formed by adding two complex numbers - one based on the length of one path and one on the length of the other. The phases can make the numbers add to give constructive interference or cancel almost perfectly.
So intuitively, the past conditional on the detection only makes sense as one where both paths occurred and combined with each other. While other paths have been excluded as low probability, a single path doesn't do the job.
And it is that addition of two different pasts which makes me believe the truth really is that everything happens and what we observe is the result of a combination of a vast array of past worlds and leads to a vast array of future worlds, with the subset of all possible past and future worlds continually shrinking with every observation (interaction).
The immaculate collapsation
way of thinking ... with a blank mind.
Congratulations on mastering the technique.
It's probabilistic for sure.
@RoobieRoo and others may be interested that the two slit experiment has been found to give similar interference patterns even with molecules of mass 10000 times that of hydrogen. I believe there is a greater need to have a very cold environment as the mass of the particles rises - if a photon scatters off the particle it could be like detecting which slit it went through, and destroy the pattern.
https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/physicists-smash-record-for-wave-particle-duality-462c39db8e7b
I asked my friend ChatGPT to summarise this article for a non-scientific audience. FWIW, here is the response:
Scientists have made a big discovery in the field of quantum mechanics. This field studies the behavior of very small particles, like electrons and atoms. One of the important ideas in quantum mechanics is that these small particles can act both like waves and like particles. In a famous experiment, electrons were shown to act like waves and particles at the same time.
Recently, scientists at the University of Vienna have taken this experiment a step further and observed this "wave-particle duality" in much bigger molecules that contain over 800 atoms. This is a big achievement because creating a beam of these big molecules and observing their behavior is very difficult. The scientists did it by heating a sample of these molecules until they turned into a gas and passed through a series of slits, which showed that the molecules had a wave-like behavior.
This discovery is an important step forward in the understanding of quantum mechanics and the behavior of larger objects. The scientists hope that in the future, they may even be able to observe this behavior in even larger objects, like viruses.
Everything is fundamentally wave functions. It's just that heavy things can have quite nicely localised wave functions.
Ha, if viruses are a wave then we're in trouble. No hiding from them in a suit of chain mail.
I have always thought that all matter is a field. Some fields are denser than others.
...what else could matter distributed in space be? Matter -> gravity -> field. Particles -> fields. Are you positing some new field not already understood?
An awkward truth is that the fields (and wave functions) associated with entities comprised of multiple fermionic particles are necessarily higher dimensional (for bosons such as photons, a single wave function suffices). For example, the field for a pair of electrons is a wave function whose domain is 6+1 dimensional, rather than 3+1. For the Universe, this has a lot of dimensions. (Of course, in quantum field theory, it's all infinite dimensional anyhow).
https://web1.eng.famu.fsu.edu/~dommelen/quantum/style_a/complex.html
An awkward truth is that the fields (and wave functions) associated with entities comprised of multiple fermionic particles are necessarily higher dimensional (for bosons such as photons, a single wave function suffices). For example, the field for a pair of electrons is a wave function whose domain is 6+1 dimensional, rather than 3+1. For the Universe, this has a lot of dimensions. (Of course, in quantum field theory, it's all infinite dimensional anyhow).
https://web1.eng.famu.fsu.edu/~dommelen/quantum/style_a/complex.html
Past 4 dimensions I leave pretty much to the theoretical physicists. I mean I watch NOVA programs etc., but for every day life I only need to worry about the first 4 dimensions 
. It's like human senses, we only perceive our most useful bands/ranges of lights and sounds, etc. I like to know the basics of the others' existence, but that's as far as I go.
I am a fan of the Many Worlds view of the Universe, and I like string theory's idea that each universe has a "key signature", for lack of better term. If the Universe *is* a projection, then perhaps we're in a Universal database somewhere, and our string theory signature is the unique ID of our database record...maybe Our Universe is just a reality TV show being streamed on some Universal Netflix 
.
"We took 8 billion contestants, stripped them of their memories and birthed them into biochemical sacks of skin and bones with 100 year timers, and let them go...let's see how they did! Tell us what prizes they can win, Joe..."
I don't like multiverse interpretations of many worlds. There may be an interpretation that's reasonable but I would prefer to keep away from the connotations of multiverse, which is the most unparsimonious idea imaginable for helping theorists make sense of maths that doesn't quite meet up. Anything can happen doesn't mean that everything does happen in an infinity of universes, which is an imaginary equivalent of thinking that we're imaginary. It's a waste of precious thinking time and the reason is a combination of "clever people believe it" and "it's cool". It's an ego lift.
Still, it's also fun so that's a reason to like it.
Meh. Absolute Everything is about as plausible as absolute nothing, conceptually. The difference between myself and other posters on various topics is that I would never start with Many Worlds as being true by default and then try to create a proof backwards from it .
I would point out that the many worlds interpretation may be more parsinomious and thus attractive according to Occam's razor, an always essential guide to selecting scientific hypotheses. The thinking that it is deprecated by implying the existence (in a sense apparently beyond the reach of science) of a vast amount beyond what we observe (the part within the reach of science) would be an error. It is economy in the explanation that matters, not economy in what it implies.
It's not a model it's reality. Something totally foreign to you.