I knew I would get this answer if at all. Just shows that humans feel we are at the centre of the universe, whatever that universe is. Sounds like the 1500's all over again. I don't understand how one can answer like this. We can't even explain the simplest of experiments; the double-slit experiment, but here we have some HN subscriber saying bullshit to something that he/she doesn't understand, and even pressed the down-vote to further show their disgust at the insinuation that the universe may not adhere to their ill-formed, or how do I say politely, childish view of what the universe could actually be.
But he/she said that 'clearly' I am wrong. Not thinking that maybe reality isn't quite what we think with the small amount of information that we have at the moment.
The only physical limitation is the Planck length and everything above this is fair game. Our universe could be a solitude brain and the multiverse could be the collective of brains but damn I've been shot-down by a HN subscriber that told me it's clearly bullshit.
I probably should not be engaging with you at all, because you appear to be convinced that your theory of we-are-in-a-celestial-brain must be correct or at least very probably correct. Why else would you dismiss my, admittedly blunt, refusal by calling me childish?
What evidence do you have, other than "gee looks like a brain to me", that your theory might be correct? Is it not, indeed, childish, to hold such a view, out of a trillion other similarly justifiable views?
Just because current information cannot refute your favorite model doesn't mean it's true! This is very basic logic. At least come up with an experiment to verify some aspect of your theory; otherwise you’re going to forever be in the “gee looks like X to me” la-la land of idiots.
In other words, what the hell are you going on about?
Double slit / quantum eraser definitely suggests to me that we don't understand some very fundamental aspects of the universe. If I think about the scale of the universe, points in time before the universe, or why there is something rather than nothing at all, really scrambles my brain.
I can see both your side and the other commenters side. I think it likely your suggestion isn't true - there is no strong evidence for it and I think therefore the default position should be 'it most likely isn't so but the door is open to convince me otherwise'.
I sincerely hope that isn't our reality because we would then find ourselves in a weird recursive situation where we can never understand the total system.
