[Vecr]

Something being logically consistent doesn't mean it's correct. It's possible someone could make a fully logically consistent version of string theory including future gravitational predictions.

They say "doesn't describe this universe", but that really just means it's wrong.

Edit: replying to pavel_lishin:

Yes, I'm sure Egan knows that, I'm partially replying to the statement "Sci fi so hard, you don't find any cracks and are left thinking wait a minute ... This must be true then?"

[pavel_lishin]

> Something being logically consistent doesn't mean it's correct.

Amusingly, this is a major plot point in one of his novels.

[_yb2s]

Nobody here is claiming everything in Egans books is literally true… but part of the fun is thinking about the possibility that it could be

[Vecr]

Almost but not quite literally zero? It probably is zero, because he made mistakes, but maybe you could brush that off as a narrator error or something.

[_yb2s]

Like any book you have to bring an open mind, creativity, and some benefit of the doubt to enjoy it, or to learn anything of value… you seem to be coming from a perspective that would make that impossible.

His books for the most part explore intentionally unlikely but interesting possible implications of legitimate, yet mostly unproven modern math and physics research. Some of it even comes from his own research.

A case in point, I think some of the ideas in his books can help, e.g. a physics student realize where their assumptions about the nature of time and space may be cultural assumptions, not necessarily grounded in scientific evidence. Simply exploring alternate possibilities- even if untrue, is a powerful tool to break through other unfounded perspectives you never thought to question.

I was at one point on the path to become a mathematical physicist but lost interest and pivoted to something else. I do believe if I had found Egans books sooner, I would have been inspired to continue.

[GoblinSlayer]

It's a philosophic question. Some believe physics is mathematics. Roger Penrose believes the Mandelbrot set exists, because it's logically consistent and reproducible.

[Vecr]

Huh? Like one of the Tegmark levels? Even then, a whole lot is not true anywhere near here.