Absolutely!! He’s afraid to dip his toes into the more “fringe” sciences such as quantum physics. He’s unable to admit that some things we simply can’t understand and that philosophical rules such as "as above so below " apply to real life
Well his primary goal is to be a science communicator. His first problem is that he’s trying to fill Carl Sagan’s shoes which is a tall order by itself. Sagan was pretty amazing but most of his bread and butter were describing molecular processes with analogies. Telling you why a rubber band is stretchy in a truly relatable way is awesome. His second problem is that in the quantum realm we have tons of observation about what things do but very little information about why they do them. Most of our smartest explanations are simply describing the math that would make our observations possible. And there’s generally no way to analogize that. When you try to explain superposition to the lay person, You’re both going to have a bad time.
I figure there’s something we don’t understand about the nature of the universe that makes quantum and gravity and dark matter all make sense at every scale. We’ll probably figure it out eventually if we don’t nuke ourselves back to fighting with rocks and sticks.
No one and I mean no can fill sagans shoes. If that’s what he’s trying to do he gonna meet backlash as such. He needs to pace his own way and make folks interested in what he has to say. My problem with him is he portrays most everything as fact. When in reality nothing is certain and that’s what a great scientist would say
Absolutely!! He’s afraid to dip his toes into the more “fringe” sciences such as quantum physics. He’s unable to admit that some things we simply can’t understand and that philosophical rules such as "as above so below " apply to real life
Well his primary goal is to be a science communicator. His first problem is that he’s trying to fill Carl Sagan’s shoes which is a tall order by itself. Sagan was pretty amazing but most of his bread and butter were describing molecular processes with analogies. Telling you why a rubber band is stretchy in a truly relatable way is awesome. His second problem is that in the quantum realm we have tons of observation about what things do but very little information about why they do them. Most of our smartest explanations are simply describing the math that would make our observations possible. And there’s generally no way to analogize that. When you try to explain superposition to the lay person, You’re both going to have a bad time.
I figure there’s something we don’t understand about the nature of the universe that makes quantum and gravity and dark matter all make sense at every scale. We’ll probably figure it out eventually if we don’t nuke ourselves back to fighting with rocks and sticks.
No one and I mean no can fill sagans shoes. If that’s what he’s trying to do he gonna meet backlash as such. He needs to pace his own way and make folks interested in what he has to say. My problem with him is he portrays most everything as fact. When in reality nothing is certain and that’s what a great scientist would say
I get that, though. It’s his brand.
Maybe he thinks/wonders about a ton of stuff he just doesn’t speak about on record.
I don’t think there’s anything “fringe” about QM