archibald_claymore t1_j0e9pu0 wrote
Is this not just a specific case of the reproducibility crisis?
sciguy52 t1_j0exn5n wrote
It contributes. But generally the reproducibility crisis is with good faith research that was done vs. this stuff which is just fraud. As a scientist myself, the garbage that is published is overwhelming. Seems much worse today than 20 years ago.
sschepis t1_j0fexdg wrote
There may be more here at work than just a matter of difficulty of reproducing results from scientific studies. If one makes the supposition that the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is correct even at the macro scale - and that entropy drives time forward and is what creates causality - then macro-scale observations only need to feature causal consistency of information in the immediately-previously observable past to be valid - and that nothing prohibits realities which each have slightly different rules to eventually converge into a present which accomodates diverged causalities.
The upside to this theory is that it predicts a lot of observations that we currently make for which we have no explanation - like free will, for example.
The downside is that it can't be tested - at least not with current technology - and does not provide useful insight into how to reproduce results from scientific studies. Yet.
It does say something very interesting about reality however - the idea that many-worlds is true at a macro scale suggests that our universe is composed of many different realities, each with slightly different rules, that eventually converge into a unified reality where all of these rules are taken into account.
This means that, in theory, it could be possible for a researcher to reproduce their results in a different reality, as long as the researcher is aware of the different rules that apply in that alternate reality.
In essence, this suggests that reproducibility of results from scientific studies is possible, even if the rules of the universe are slightly different. It also suggests that some experiement cannot be reproduced in any reality, due to the fact that the rules are not consistent across all realities.
Before you tear me apart and call me crazy - all I am doing here is applying an existing scientific theory in an imaginative way.
I am not suggesting that we should throw away our current scientific methodologies, just that we should be open to the possibility that our world may be composed of many different realities, each with its own rules. This is what quantum mechanics states so why not take it at face value.
This... would probably make most scientists very grumpy indeed.
WR_MouseThrow t1_j0g65gn wrote
This is a pretty outlandish answer when there's a few much more likely reasons to give for results that can't be reproduced. Poor/biased study design or implentation, falsified data, statistical outliers, or just shittily written methods are all more reasonable explanations than... Whatever it is you're suggesting.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments