Is this just bullshit philosophy /sci/. Can anyone explain

It's written by physcists, hence the /x/.

>>8312689
It's not even real philosophy.

>>8312689
>MD
nope. I only accept PhD.

>>8312689
Most of his ideas have already been discussed at length by others. This is essentially just a stronger version of the anthropic principle. It's also not clear that he gives enough specifics to actually make the theory testable.

>>8312709
Are you a NEET that sits here all there pointing physicists to /x/ and anime posters to /a/? Seriously anon, get a life. It's not too late.

>>8313535
They've yet to define consciousness by scientific means to account for any other scientific explaination based on those definitions. Consciousness is subjective in nature and there's no way to prove or test it.

>>8313545
Just because it hasn't been done yet doesn't mean it can't be done.

>>8313550
I liked how you ignored the key problem that makes your arguments all bullshit.
>Consciousness is subjective in nature and there's no way to prove or test it.
You can't escape from the shekels of the empiricism filter. Your "reality" is what your senses tell you.

>>8313552
>Consciousness is subjective in nature and there's no way to prove or test it.

Can you say more precisely what you mean?

What I mean is, it may be possible to derive structural properties of the universe from the fact that your consciousness has a certain structure. This has nothing to do with the fact that consciousness can't be externally demonstrated.

>>8313583
>This has nothing to do with the fact that consciousness can't be externally demonstrated.
If you can't, then it's not science.

>>8313590
Different Anon.

>If you can't, then it's not science
First of all the one that you were replying to, said basically: can't YET. Maybe in future we will be able.

Secondly why that wouldn't be science, there is lots of things in physics and mathematics that we can't really demonstrate and are more or less guesswork but still constitutes as a science. Just because something don't comform to your views of reality doesn't mean is not right or not science.

>>8313590
You don't get it. Literally every scientific theory is about subjective observations and actions. They all say "if you do such and such an experiment, you will observe such and such a result." So they are already about "consciousness" i.e. perception and action. The problem is that scientists haven't yet been able to make a general theory of consciousness that can encompass all of these theories in the same framework and start to derive general facts about them. The CTMU is an attempt at such a theory.