1·
1 day agoRemoved by mod
BlueberryAlice
- 3 Posts
- 17 Comments
Joined 5 days ago
Cake day: April 4th, 2026
You are not logged in. If you use a Fediverse account that is able to follow users, you can follow this user.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Yeah, I know. I just want to hear different perspectives.
It’s not really solipsism—it’s an observational model grounded in actual experimental data. At the very least, it’s not just some random idea.
Does how new an account is really have anything to do with the content? This video is based on an actual paper. I think you can judge it properly if you read it.
Thank you for your interest.
There is actually a paper that this work is based on. It is available on ResearchGate and Academia.
I’ll share the link, so if you’re interested, I would appreciate it if you could take a look.
I would also be very interested to hear your thoughts.
Yeah, I know. I just want to hear different perspectives.
deleted by creator
That’s a lot of standard talking points people repeat when they want to sound knowledgeable…
Did you actually watch the video?
There is a reason. This work proposes an entirely new theoretical framework, and as a result, there are currently no reviewers who are sufficiently familiar with its structure.
More importantly, what do you think about the content itself? A purely formal objection will be taken as a lack of understanding.
Even if a nonlocal statistical theory can reproduce the predictions of quantum mechanics, that would still remain at the level of describing outcomes, wouldn’t it?
In reality, the unification of quantum mechanics and relativity has remained unresolved for over 150 years, and the deeper issue is that the framework itself does not define the structure of observation.
This theory, on the other hand, addresses that very point by defining the conditions under which outcomes are realized— that is, the structure of observation itself— and treats quantum mechanics and relativity as aspects of a single generative process.
In that sense, the question is not whether it can be described statistically, but whether the theory is structurally complete.
From that perspective, this framework provides a more consistent explanation.
Your point seems to be missing the actual subject of discussion.
What I am asking for—even if you disagree—is a rebuttal based on scientific reasoning and evidence regarding the content itself.
That is the minimum level of respect owed when an author presents a theory derived from experimental data.
As it stands, it looks like you’re unable to provide a convincing counterargument to the actual content, so instead you’re focusing on superficial points that are easy to attack just to pass the time.
I get your point — if we don’t know what it actually achieves, it can feel meaningless to discuss.
But I think this isn’t just philosophy, it’s physics.
Most people assume that reality already exists independently, and rarely question that assumption.
What this paper is trying to do is to uncover the mechanism by which reality itself is generated.
I understand that concern—I’ve received similar comments about the lack of peer review.
However, I believe peer review is meaningful only when there are experts who are capable of evaluating the work in detail. In this case, the theory is quite new, and there are currently no researchers working within the same framework who could properly review it.
It’s true that the main empirical basis is the nonlocal EEG–quantum experiment. But according to the papers, what is observed goes beyond just finding “some correlation” in data—the correlations appear under specific structural conditions, which is what led to the development of the theory.
Also, instead of relying on peer review at this stage, the experimental methods and procedures are fully disclosed in detail. The author explicitly states that anyone can attempt to replicate the experiment.
So if there is skepticism, the idea is: rather than just debating it conceptually, it can actually be tested directly.
I think that perspective—that it makes sense as metaphysics—is certainly understandable.
However, this research does not remain within that framework. It is constructed within the framework of physics, as it formulates hypotheses based on experimental data and further validates them through reproducible experiments.
If you’re interested, I’ve shared the original paper below. I would really appreciate it if you could take a look at the actual data and structure, and share your honest thoughts.
If the previous link didn’t open, please use this one instead.
Removed by mod