Produce a wormhole right here in front of me

that's pink and swirling and sparkly, and I will believe in science.

How's that?

Explicate this here, and I'm certainly not a quantum quantum physicist and I presume that you're not.

One of the benefits of studying at Oxford is that one of my good friends who I went for coffee with

the other day who just received his master's in physics with the best grade in the whole

university and I was able to talk to him for a very long time about quantum mechanics.

Oh, my friend. I don't have direct empirical evidence as an

empiricist as a skeptic. No, but I talked to my friend who has a master's and he's got very good

grades in quantum physics. These people are a joke, right? This is why it was absolutely

excellent when Chris called out

Matt Dillahunty for this exact same BS move. Look, I know a lot of guys, okay? I got a lot of

big brothers. They've studied this stuff for a long time. I know some dudes, man, okay? And

they know some stuff, and they also know some people

who know some stuff. So you want to bring this at me? I know some people. I talked to a friend of

mine who studied quantum physics. We had coffee. We talked for a couple hours for a long time about

a long, we talked for a long time. I learned a lot in that two-hour coffee shop

talk about quantum physics and and he says he says he's from Oxford he says that this paper in

2015 debunked the 1965 paper now I don't know anything about this from empirical data, but my friend said that.

Just blew my mind by showing me exactly how to hold on to the principle of sufficient reason

is what undermines current scientific understanding. Your coffee shop conversation and your friend

blowing your mind has nothing to do with a debate. Literally has no place in a debate.

...