"Existence isn't based on something affecting our world, obviously - that's just absurdly self-centered."
This is very unfair. This is a niche field with contested interpretations, don't make people feel stupid for asking fair questions.
It's obvious what the other person meant: what does 'our world' and 'other worlds' mean, and how do you know it's not just a figment of your imagination, as a scientific theory must be falsifiable -> i.e. measurable and provable / disprovable somehow.
You should at least point people to reading material before making fun of them.
Comments
This is very unfair. This is a niche field with contested interpretations, don't make people feel stupid for asking fair questions.
It's obvious what the other person meant: what does 'our world' and 'other worlds' mean, and how do you know it's not just a figment of your imagination, as a scientific theory must be falsifiable -> i.e. measurable and provable / disprovable somehow.
You should at least point people to reading material before making fun of them.
I wasn’t making fun of anyone but your “obvious“ reading seems wrong.
I’m pretty sure he suggested that something only exists physically if it has some measurable effect on us.