https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhc Qy_fjceA Is this a vali

>>8396707
Bump.

>>8396707
Is this the big toe guy?

>>8396741
Yes, is he legit? I can't find his academic credentials. He works at NASA as a consultant, but it's probably nothing in the field of quantum physics.

Double bump

>>8396758
Are you asking about his thing on how information is like the key or something?

>>8396707
It's bullshit.

>>8396707
Skipping past the remedial stuff, I recognise no flaws in the calculable detail of it.

I think this "virtual reality" concept is flawed, however; a leap similar to how that of conspiracy theory works. There is no acceptable logic that allows for any leap to imply that there is a second reality outside to all that we see. Just because we may be padding our hands up against the reality that we find ourselves in, there is no evidence whatsoever to imply that such is a reality within any other reality; our brains, perhaps, are inherently wired to desire for such.

His conclusion around the 39:00 mark, is perfectly acceptable as a working theory, but it will always be a speculative conclusion; just as God is to a human mind - just as valid, just as invalid.

There is also a second concern, from a philosophical standpoint. As he states shortly after in response to a question from the audience, "There is no information if it is not measured (acknowledged/recognised/actualised by the viewer)". This falls under an interesting concept, the 'temerity of man'. He mentions previously the notion that a Mountain does not exist by your side until you look over to acknowledge it. The very same holds true and valid for the Double Slit. All this shows is the limitations of our sense data - interpretation - action sequence and how we are not wired appropriately for something 'living' outside of our known, reasoned existence. Proving that something is based on a probability distribution and works unpredictably/contrary upon observation to proves nothing other than another facet of our reality and goes no futher than that until we provide actual non-speculative theory. Right now we are asking "Is this a video game or is this God?".

>>8396788
*until we provide actual non-speculative evidence, rather

>>8396788

I think you are missing the much deeper message that since these universes exist beyond our ability to perceive, it does not mean that they do not exist, just that it is impossible to rule their existence out. No possible theory based on quantum mechanics as it currently stands can rule out a multiverse or universe inside a inverse. There could literally be a flying spaghetti monster out there. But that's all philosophy, the only thing that really matters is that quantum mechanics works because the experiments we conduct show to us that it works.

>>8396779
Asking if this is pseudoscience and new age garbage, or a real scientific experiment, confirmed by the great ones.

>>8396788
How could you interpret this dynamic of being conscious of the result of the experiment altering the result itself? This can't have a simple explanation at all. Not defending the virtual reality explanation that he gave, just curious to know how do you interpret it.

>>8396811

It's confirmed scientific evidence that quantum mechanics is real with a new age spin on why it's important, as he puts it, the key to reality. My key to reality is don't die.

>>8396800
>since these universes
That's speculative, unless you mean the one universe that we can acknowledge.

And you are describing a sub-point that I am making that is an example of petitio principii. The deeper point, still, that I am hoping to impart is that such a "multiverse" theory is, as you describe so aptly, is as valid as that of a flying spaghetti monster. Such a point is that the "virtual reality" theory is a new religious idea. And we all know how useful religious ideas are, don't we?

>>8396819
From a scientific stance, I am fascinated in what further study -proves- to us, and commend the work being done.

But speaking from a philosophical stance, I don't care as to whether the explanation for such is either simple or complex. One, by definition and under the unfaltering laws of the most primitive of first order logic, will be concluding upon grounds invalid since you are speculating as to its conclusion. This is a never-ending repetition through humanity, tantamount, if not such in actu, as religious system building.

>>8396825
>>8396837

A broad sweep at religion is not exactly granted as a valid argument when discussing science

>>8396846
I couldn't agree more.

>>8396819
thats a great question and I would love to hear a materialist explanation. In fact, I am pissed that I haven't. I have taken a course in QM - overview style but fairly involved. I have been here and there on line. and the materialist answers make me sick. the frustrating thing is that I have no real horse in the race as far as idealism or simulation models go. I just want a damn informed conversation and its being systematically avoided like the plague.
Tom Campbell was marginalized by the science community so that his ideas could be avoided. I get it... he goes way out there. (this video is just his starting point). I'm glad this lecture was posted because this is his strongest case for an information based model.
Those in the field, or even people somehow invested in materialism use the slickest, lawyer like maneuver's to get around the basic, basic question of how to explain the double slit materialistically. My favorite technique is when they address none of the subject matter and make anyone asking feel underinformed and stupid, as if there's some knowledge that would make the problem go away if only the asker were properly educated.
at this point I've looked into it enough to know there isn't.

in summation....>>8396787 fuck this guy

>>8396744
so very few in acedemia would call him legit, though he has all the crudentials as far as education, he's long been ostricized,

>>8396988
What else does his non-mainstream scientific opinions on QM go?

How does he interpret the rest of spooky QM famous experiments?

Please reply.

>>8397539
... he interprets a bit more with his information based model, but this is all a starting point for his theory of everything. Its very interesting and it gets OUT THERE. distance viewing, remote healing, non physical entities. he's got tons of stuff online and youtube and his own website .
Make of it all what you will... in my opinion, his most compelling argument is exactly what he describes in the linked video that began this thread

..... in short, I'm not sure his whole theory of everything is deserving of response from the science community, but I strongly feel that his basic, information based interpretation of quantum events is

File: images.duckduckgo.com(2).jpg (58KB, 372x500px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 372x500px

He's onto something... almost.