[pointernil]

"New"

The papers and work on this theory go on for years already and its due time it gains more/wider public attention, imo.

I wonder if it will cause/is causing already a kind of antropo-"disappointment" just like heliocentric theories caused when they un-throned the earth-centric theories... we humans love magic, especially when we are told/we think to be magic, right?

[wallacoloo]

I love the seemingly improbable, not "magic" - it just so happens that they overlap.

Children are still fascinated by flying machines. Adults generally aren't as fascinated, just by having grown up with them, regardless of how well they understand them. But both groups know the machines are grounded in reality, as opposed to being "magic".

So no, I disagree. And I think it's irrelevant. The people who want to believe in science will be happy to expand their understanding (this is still theory). The people who don't will keep on believing whatever it is they believe. There are still people out there who think there's a god that raises the sun each morning and sets the moon at dawn, despite what science tells us.

[acqq]

> I wonder if it will cause/is causing already a kind of antropo-"disappointment"

Just look how some religion-influenced philosophers fight to obscure the simple fact that everything humans do and even "feel" (yes, also that "feeling" of the "existence of qualia" they have) can be explained with biology and evolution.

Humanists, however, already assuming all religious ideas are created only by humans, should not even be surprised.