Strange

! Moderator Note Then this does not meet the requirements of the forum

! Moderator Note Moved to Speculations

There isn’t really anything to refute. All you have done is give some rather garbled descriptions of the predictions of quantum theory and then claimed it is somehow novel. Without some testable (ie mathematical) detail, there is no way of “refuting” your vague claims. The phrase “not even wrong” seems appropriate.

Which if statement?

I don’t know what that means or how it relates to the double slit experiment. I am now convinced that you don’t understand the experiment. I don’t see any conditional statements. And I certainly don’t see any mathematics.

We have mathematical theory based on the curvature of a pseudo-Riemannian manifold representing spacetime. This theory can make quantitative, testable predictions (which have been tested and confirmed). Can your “layer” model be tested in the same way? What tests would distinguish your model from GR so we can decide which is the better model?

Not sure what that is supposed to mean. It is still not clear that you understand the double slit experiment; how it is performed and what it demonstrates. Perhaps you could provide some mathematical details of this unification?

Clearly, you don’t know how the double slit experiment is done. A detector in the path of the photon would destroy the photon so it would not contribute to the pattern. What is “unified”?

Not really. After all, scientific theories are tested against real world evidence so if your idea doesn’t match current science then it doesn’t match the real world. No it wasn’t

! Moderator Note Moved to Speculations

! Moderator Note Moved to Speculations. Please note the special rules for this section of the forum

The problem is not money: as noted, the US spends far more than any other country to provide a far wore service. The insurance companies pay more the UK National Health Service (per head). And then the US government also pays about the same again. The problem is structural. The system is designed for the benefit (profit) of health insurers and providers, not to provide treatment where needed.

Obviously, the brain functions through chemistry; chemistry happens because of interactions between electrons so is described by quantum theory. However, your "clever hint" about non-local behaviour in the brain suggested that there must be something more than just chemistry going on. That is the fallacy.

That is the exact opposite of the situation. The "problem" is that CERN has not found anything new or unexpected; all it has done is repeatedly confirm the standard model. Boring, but there you go.

It does. There are galaxies without DM (for a variety of reasons) and they behave as expected. Those galaxies with DM also behave as expected. That doesn't make much sense. But, GR works perfectly well with the addition of extra matter (the fact we can't see that matter is hardly relevant). GR works well with a positive value for lambda (it has had a variety of values over the years, it may change again in future). Also, understanding the rotation curves of galaxies don't require GR. Newtonian gravity will do.

Not in the video posted here, he isn't.

No, more like the journalists of a paper: scattered all over the world, sharing data and building up enough information to create the news stories. Except there is no central control in the brain equivalent to the newspaper. So maybe the Internet is a better analogy: no central control; all the information for routing messages is distributed across servers. Some have all the information, some have parts of it, but they can cooperate to get messages to the right destination.

You could. But I wouldn’t

They obviously are, even if cannot yet see how. Distributed, rather than non-local. (Non-local means outside the range limited by the speed of light, and we know that the speed of communication is much slower than the speed of light.) Ah yes, the old "consciousness is weird and incomprehensible and so is quantum theory, therefore they must be connected" fallacy.

In the way you describe. There is (nearly) a one-to-one connection between small groups of neurons in the brain and muscles. Consciousness involves large parts of or possibly the entire brain. Not that I believe the claim, anyway.

Wow. Consciousness is more complex than making a muscle twitch. Who knew.

So , a load of people are going around with Bad Science they picked up. Oh well.

No. It is just an analogy (not a very useful one in my opinion) to show how higher dimensions would appear to those “stuck” with fewer. There are mathematical models that involve more than three spatial dimensions and this appears to be an attempt to give some insight into what that means. (This shouldn’t be in Speculations. Unless you are going to start arguing that there are 4 dimensional aliens) Note: his aliens are not “in” the 4th dimension, they have 4 dimensions (ie they are “in” all 4, not just the 4th). This means they have access to, and can move thing in, a direction that we cannot perceive. (If it existed.)

A single, disputed, observation does not count as "showed them to be".

People always want to understand and explain things. You are not obligated to. But, for example, a lot of people find that many scientific conclusions go against their gut feeling or common sense. They don't have to accept that science (a lot of people deny evolution, relativity, quantum theory, etc) but there is little point insisting it is wrong, when it works (and in many cases produces useful results). So you don't have to accept an explanation of consciousness. But it might turn out to be correct and lead to useful technology despite your reluctance. One of the objectives of science and (even) philosophy is to get past the "gut feelings" and "common sense" that are so often misleading or just completely wrong. Not: coming back from the edge, not from death. Their subjective experiences reflect what happens to the brain in extremis. They do not necessarily represent anything real beyond that. (I will leave Eise to tackle the question of "exist objectively" as that could take several years to discuss in any level of detail.) Of course. What about the hallucination example cited by Eise. Or the voices heard by schizophrenics (and others)? They don't have any objective reality but seem completely real to the sufferer. What about optical illusions where we see two things as being different colour when they are the same, or see lines as curved when they are not, and on and on. Another example of the difference between experience and objective reality: people who think the world must be flat because it looks flat where they are.