<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Testing different approaches to quantum gravity with cosmology: An overview · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1705.01597/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1705.01597/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Testing different approaches to quantum gravity with cosmology: An overview — mentioned by O__________O</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32390979</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:1705.01597:32390979</guid><pubDate>Mon, 08 Aug 2022 21:03:24 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt;&amp;gt; “That&amp;#x27;s a lot of words in those links.” My favorite HN comment ever. __ As for that lack of a falsifiable claim, agree, not only that, but one that would allow for a preponderance of evidence. Donald Hoffman was interviewed and topic of falsifiable observations came up and as far as I am able to tell he avoided the topic; search for “falsifiable” in this link: https://tim.blog/2022/04/18/donald-hoffman-transcript/amp/ ___ On same topic, this paper provides overview of possible different approaches testing to quantum gravity with cosmology: https://arxiv.org/abs/1705.01597&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1705.01597/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>gr-qc</category></item></channel></rss>
