[sixstringbudha]

>It seems to care more about evoking some mystical and philosophical idea of the universe

What is wrong about mystical, philosophical idea of the universe? I like mystical, philosophical idea of the universe.

[dgut]

Nothing wrong about it per se. Just don't try to mask it as or "soften" the principles of science.

[sixstringbudha]

> "soften" the principles of science.

How can it soften the principles of science, if it does not masquerade as science. Can you point me in the article where it tries to pass some mysticism or philosophy as science?

[m4r35n357]

"Carlo Rovelli is a theoretical physicist and writer"

[Koshkin]

Nothing wrong, just not science.

[sixstringbudha]

Everything was "not science" before it became "science". So what is your point?

[Koshkin]

...if a thing is not a science, it is not necessarily bad. For example, love is not a science. So, if something is said not to be a science, it does not mean that there is something wrong with it; it just means that it is not a science.

--R. Feynman

[sixstringbudha]

Did quoting R.Feynman was part of your plan? Because I don't see no other point for your original comment other than to eventually quote R.Feynman.

A: I like x

B: I don't like x

A: Why?

B: Because it is not science

A: Why is that bad?

B: It is not. Because R.Feynman said blah blah blah...

A: ??