3
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 04 Apr 2026
3 points (58.8% liked)
Philosophy
1819 readers
5 users here now
Discussion of philosophy
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
@paraphrand@lemmy.world
It’s based on a recent paper — I just summarized the key points and had an app help put it together, so it didn’t take that long.
But the theory itself is quite deep.
What did you think about the content?
I'm really distracted by the AI slop. Sorry. It harms the credibility of your post.
There is a long tradition of crackpot physics theories. And throwing AI into the mix like this isn't helping your surface level credibility. Nor is the fact this is one of your first posts after making a new account.
That’s just how it goes with such a thing online. Sorry.
@paraphrand@lemmy.world
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.
Maths, quantum physics, medicine, ... are well-researched fields. There's no reason to believe this couldn't be peer-reviewed?!
@hendrik@palaver.p3x.de
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.
But isn't that how science always works? You generally write papers about new things. Not just repeat what was said previously. You'd invent a new form of nuclear reactor that wasn't there yet. Or propose the existence of a previously unknown elementary particle and come up with an experiment to prove it.
And the way it goes is: Other scientists will have a look at your methodology. Check your maths... See if the experiment setup fits to prove the hypothesis. Maybe even repeat the experiment at a later stage. All of that is possible, since math and phsyics work. And they work out independent from what you're looking at. The scientific method works for all of that kind of gain of knowledge. And the scientific method is known and applied since the 17th century. There's enough experts around who can do math or check experiment setups. No matter if someone already did the same experiment before.
The purely formal objection means, it doesn't follow the scientific method. Or maybe it does?! We don't know since nobody checked it. So the content isn't science. It's words someone wrote and then they got mangled by NotebookLM, so I can't even properly read what's in there.
Ultimately, we know about the existence of quantum mechanics. And about it collapsing at a certain scale. That's nothing new. And science has done several approaches on the observer effect, try to make sense of it and explain why that is. And what even constitutes an observer. Maybe one day science will figure out a way to answer those questions. To this day it hasn't. And their conclusion is a bit weird IMO. Yeah, maybe we need to come up with new methods to prove something is related. Nobody said it was easy. In fact we know the underlying problem is quite hard, because we've been trying for a while. But I'm stuck at the very beginning. I'm not an expert in the field, I can't even tell if these two specific things should even relate in any way.
@hendrik@palaver.p3x.de
That’s a lot of standard talking points people repeat when they want to sound knowledgeable…
Did you actually watch the video?
I think the video is pretty much garbage. "The correlation is 0.9"... Yeah, the correlation of WHAT? I'm pretty sure my brain is affected in exactly the same way by gravity as a quantum computer is a thousand miles away. It's subject to the same physics and quantum mechanics. The laws of physics are the same all across the universe. If I measure something which is subject to that, I could even get a correlation close to 1.0!
What I'm trying to say is: A brain and a quantum computer being part of the same universe isn't a mystery. The interesting question has to be deeper than what the video leads to believe. And then what's even with the geometric objects of manifolds of a brain EEG? And why is it important how it relates to another concept? The video doesn't explain any of that.
I mean we know about things like observer effect. And about quantum nonlocality. That being part of "the fabric of the universe" is a subject of science since Einstein's time?! It's not a "revolutionary" new idea. The video is phrased in a very sensational way. But it doesn't really say a lot.
And what's even with the second observer? The video entirely omits explaining the obvious connection via the observer.
So what's in the video more or less just reminds me of the "spurious relationship" effect. How we have higher drowning rates if ice-cream sales in the city are high. Or when a sports team predicted the presidential election results for decades. Sure. Once you do the methodology right, you can do some science on it. That's how science works. And maybe they're linked in a way. Maybe they're not. The video surely doesn't tell any of that.