Probably the question of Multiverse- versus Collapse-Interpretation in Quantum Physics could suffice.
It fits your needs as a factual and, somewhat, important question, while there is no overall aggreement in the respective fields of experts (although the trend to MI seems becoming clear...).
Furthermore I guess there aren’t any status- or mindkilling-issues concerning this question, but, and that might rule out this question at least in some cases, a religious person might feel otherwise and reject the idea of “multiple creations” at first sight.
Regarding “High uncertainty” the MI/CI-conflict might not fit your scheme, as(you already know if you read the Quantum-Physics-Sequence) there is a strong Bayesian argument to decide for Multiverse-Interpretation, but since you are going to talk to people who don’t know about expressing their believes in probability, they maybe will not have read into that topic either (of course this just describes the standart-street-guy you encounter, maybe not you discussio-club-friends...). If so, at their state of special knowledge, there is little reason to value one more than the other.
The worst would be for them to consider this a problem plainly boring or—within high physics- out of their reach, but if you explain multiverse beautifully enough and, maybe, ask them to imagine they are supposed to discuss the topic in a school-essay, it could become interesting enough.
But in order for them to even give a meaningful probability estimate, they’ll need to spend years actually studying the relevant physics and mathematics. It doesn’t matter how eloquently you explain MW—the Universe doesn’t run on rhetoric.
If you ask people about MW versus CI, from their perspective it’s no different from asking “does the glibbleflop spriel or does it just florl?”
But in order for them to even give a meaningful probability estimate, they’ll need to spend years actually studying the relevant physics and mathematics. It doesn’t matter how eloquently you explain MW—the Universe doesn’t run on rhetoric.
If you ask people about MW versus CI, from their perspective it’s no different from asking “does the glibbleflop spriel or does it just florl?”
Upvoted. This is why I refuse to hold a position on this (and other similar topics). I also tend to dislike it when people DO choose a side on these sorts of issues, unless they have spent a significant amount of time and effort studying the field. The best guesses that I (and the other non-experts) can come up with rely solely on appeal to authority.
If you do not have enough physics knowledge to have a grad degree in it (I don’t care whether you ACTUALLY have a degree, just the knowledge), then having a strong opinion on MW v. CI is perhaps not the wisest.
Although physics questions require a higher level of knowledge for me to feel I have “right” to form an opinion, there are many other topics, in which this is true as well. (For example, there are political questions that I refuse to take sides on, because the answer is non-obvious to me, I don’t feel like I have near enough knowledge to have the “right” to a strong opinion on them.)
Moreover, the CI doesn’t even include the criterion that distinguishes it from MW, so even for the experts there’s no set of observations that would decide the issue!
Probably the question of Multiverse- versus Collapse-Interpretation in Quantum Physics could suffice. It fits your needs as a factual and, somewhat, important question, while there is no overall aggreement in the respective fields of experts (although the trend to MI seems becoming clear...). Furthermore I guess there aren’t any status- or mindkilling-issues concerning this question, but, and that might rule out this question at least in some cases, a religious person might feel otherwise and reject the idea of “multiple creations” at first sight. Regarding “High uncertainty” the MI/CI-conflict might not fit your scheme, as(you already know if you read the Quantum-Physics-Sequence) there is a strong Bayesian argument to decide for Multiverse-Interpretation, but since you are going to talk to people who don’t know about expressing their believes in probability, they maybe will not have read into that topic either (of course this just describes the standart-street-guy you encounter, maybe not you discussio-club-friends...). If so, at their state of special knowledge, there is little reason to value one more than the other. The worst would be for them to consider this a problem plainly boring or—within high physics- out of their reach, but if you explain multiverse beautifully enough and, maybe, ask them to imagine they are supposed to discuss the topic in a school-essay, it could become interesting enough.
But in order for them to even give a meaningful probability estimate, they’ll need to spend years actually studying the relevant physics and mathematics. It doesn’t matter how eloquently you explain MW—the Universe doesn’t run on rhetoric.
If you ask people about MW versus CI, from their perspective it’s no different from asking “does the glibbleflop spriel or does it just florl?”
Upvoted. This is why I refuse to hold a position on this (and other similar topics). I also tend to dislike it when people DO choose a side on these sorts of issues, unless they have spent a significant amount of time and effort studying the field. The best guesses that I (and the other non-experts) can come up with rely solely on appeal to authority.
If you do not have enough physics knowledge to have a grad degree in it (I don’t care whether you ACTUALLY have a degree, just the knowledge), then having a strong opinion on MW v. CI is perhaps not the wisest.
Although physics questions require a higher level of knowledge for me to feel I have “right” to form an opinion, there are many other topics, in which this is true as well. (For example, there are political questions that I refuse to take sides on, because the answer is non-obvious to me, I don’t feel like I have near enough knowledge to have the “right” to a strong opinion on them.)
Moreover, the CI doesn’t even include the criterion that distinguishes it from MW, so even for the experts there’s no set of observations that would decide the issue!