User blog comment:Unownshipper/Can "Burial at Sea" be counted as canon?/@comment-3967731-20131114022302/@comment-6024608-20131115223630

Plausible within the definition of consistency (see 'science' by definition is consitent and if you dont stick to something youve said the story is based on and break any consistency, then it is ver poor 'science' or rather is non-science (known as fantasy)).

Based on existing physics is always nice (and the majority still should probably stick to that so people have a framework and dont have to double-think everything they do) but outside that (like warp mechanics on StarTrek)  you can make assumptions about how things work, but it generally needs to be consistently applied across the fiction.

Pointing to some theory (like quantum physics THEORY)  and then deriving things it has NOTHING to do with is NOT being consistent and is rather more just employing  buzzword pretending fantasy --- good enuf when the point isnt really real science fiction but stating something unrecognizable that most people will simply say "yeah fine, now lets get back to mass killing things in the game with the fancy special effects".

The physics (even the mundane stuff you use every day in ordinary activities) is not consistent with reality in this game and no pointing to 'quantum physics'  will make it consistent with anything resembling reality. That BTW is called 'fantasy'.