That it is unclear what it means to "understand completely a physical law." After all it is the same guy who tells us how the laws of physics imply that we are multiplying ourselves in gazillions of worlds. 😊
Most scientists don't even think about these questions. And those who do, defend lots of conflicting views. There is no consensus. When it comes to deeper philosophical or even metaphysical questions, they can be pretty much from naïve to ignorant.
How could Sean Carroll, more than 10 years ago, claim that "the laws of physics underlying everyday life are completely understood"?
https://www.indy100.com/science-tech/life-after-death-impossible-science-2659472534
His claim seems rather presumptuous. As a physicist, how would you respond to him?
That it is unclear what it means to "understand completely a physical law." After all it is the same guy who tells us how the laws of physics imply that we are multiplying ourselves in gazillions of worlds. 😊
From what I understand, a lot of scientists would defend the multiverse rather than contend with the fine-tuning of the universe that we inhabit.
Most scientists don't even think about these questions. And those who do, defend lots of conflicting views. There is no consensus. When it comes to deeper philosophical or even metaphysical questions, they can be pretty much from naïve to ignorant.
You seem to think about these questions and you're a scientist. Do you defend conflicting views?
I've seen you reference the work of Dean Radin, among others, so I surmise that you're not afraid of controversy.
I mean each scientist has a different opinion. There is no general consensus, and there a lot of conflicting views in the scientific community.
Of course. Sorry for the misunderstanding.