this post was submitted on 10 Dec 2025
806 points (98.8% liked)
Funny: Home of the Haha
8342 readers
156 users here now
Welcome to /c/funny, a place for all your humorous and amusing content.
Looking for mods! Send an application to Stamets!
Our Rules:
-
Keep it civil. We're all people here. Be respectful to one another.
-
No sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia or any other flavor of bigotry. I should not need to explain this one.
-
Try not to repost anything posted within the past month. Beyond that, go for it. Not everyone is on every site all the time.
Other Communities:
-
/c/TenForward@lemmy.world - Star Trek chat, memes and shitposts
-
/c/Memes@lemmy.world - General memes
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Yes, we're going to ignore a sensationalist conclusion that is not supported by evidence.
The actual model is just that, a model. It says that our universe can be described the same way as we describe the information systems around an event horizon, and in many cases in physics, if a system can be described using the same model it is often related, connected or the same in some way.
It's not sensationalist, but it's highly misinterpreted and turned into sensationalism.
It doesn't really give us anything meaningful that we can use or understand the universe better just yet, but maybe someday someone will figure out something that helps us better understand where the universe came from. That's all. It's a very convincing theory if you learn about entropy and Planck-scales and event horizons around black holes, but it's not even sensational on its own.
Seems like every cool physics theory turns out this way. Physics: it exists for the masses to misinterpret