[MarkusQ]

This article is almost incoherent. The author (a philosopher turned science journalist, I gather) presents everything from a "which side are you on" perspective, as if physics was a branch of sociology. Little wonder they seem to have trouble with the notion that physics can (and should) be possible without the concept of "an observer".

I stopped reading at "Let’s put this moon thing to rest. It’s true. We can’t say the moon is there if no one’s observing it."

[rob_c]

> a philosopher turned science journalist,

Interesting, I read it as the other way round.

I wonder which of the many worlds is correct :p

The moon example is painful, but I was assuming to be a "if the tree falls in the forest... yada yada yada..." Example to justify words on a page. Although at the time my brain was screaming about things like tidal forces and gravitational effects, asif I was about to start discussing the retrograde motion of Venus with a flat earther who doesn't actually want to learn anything with rigour...

Personally I'm more worried by the comparison of Planks constant in the small to c in GR. Yes they represent asymptotic limits in many regards but are certainly not equivalent imho.

[MarkusQ]

>> a philosopher turned science journalist,

> Interesting, I read it as the other way round.

I cheated and looked at the author's bio. :)

[irjustin]

> if physics was a branch of sociology

ehhhhh but this way more apt on how it works (than you'd probably like) once you venture outside the realm of testable.

PBS Space time recently did one on multi-verse[0], watch it and, you'll get the feeling sections of this really do feel like sociology/psychology.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HX1EfW3euY4

[rob_c]

Outside the realm of the testable isn't worth discussing to experimentalists so might as well be a non quantifiable field.

Although sociology is perfectly quantifiable and measurable. Even though arguably the underlying relationships between the measurements are extremely difficult to extract.

A better example is pure philosophy and maths rather than sociology to particle theory. But then again, nobody ever accused QFT of being too simple, so maybe I'm arguing against my own point there.

[layer8]

That says more about PBS Space Time than about physics.

[IAmBroom]

That's a bit like reading Psychology Today to understand the DSM-VI committee.