Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Thanks for bringing that to my attention. My initial reaction is that the argument appears sufficiently cogent to merit respectful consideration. I predict that if someone were to dig into it, they'd find a question-begging assumption hidden somewhere. (The alternative is that this is a major breakthrough in physics, and my Bayesian prior on that is low.) But where that assumption is hiding is not immediately obvious to me. Looking for it seems like a worthwhile exercise.



I don't think the argument is novel, it's just a cut down counting/frequency argument. So any objections to those would presumably port over.


I dunno, I think you might be selling it short. This argument seems to be based on the mathematical continuity of probabilities, which is not something I can recall ever seeing before.




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: