Strange

True. But the OP doesn't seem to be suggesting what to change to just that maybe it should be changed...

Also, just asking "what if" is not very valuable unless there is an alternative to be proposed.

So I just came across this (from a rather unreliable source, haven't had a chance to check into it yet) which sort of relates to the original point. In an expanding universe, then crossing an area of different density can cause red shift: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/04/22/somethings_missing_in_our_universe_boffins_look_into_the_supervoid/ (There are a few factual errors in that article, buit the quoted bit looks reasonable.)

This is you not discussing dilution. Does invoking Godwin's Law mean automatic thread closure? It might be kinder to put this thread out of its misery now.

I am not able to watch the video (without a large amount of effort) but Dr. Terry Rudolph (the, so far, unnamed scientist) does appear to have done some interesting work. And also has a brilliant bio in the web page for (what I think is) the video linked above: http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/newsandeventspggrp/imperialcollege/eventssummary/event_12-9-2014-14-55-9 He is also known for the PBR Theorem, which I don't understand but sounds interesting and important: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PBR_theorem But from Mike's comments so far, I don't see anything much different from the standard description of quantum mechanics.

Those sources do not produce a perfect black body spectrum at a tempreature of 2.7K. However, that is exactly what was predicted by the big bang model before the CMB was observed. That is why the CMB was the final nail in the coffin for all the alternative models. Now: about that model of yours ...

There are some examples of stories which use hypnotism here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypnosis_in_popular_culture But none that seem to correspond to the novel discussed here. Maybe someone should write it as a post-modern Victorian melodrama.

That is not very helpful unless you are going to give us some alternative tools to find out what the "territory itself" is. 1. You don't have a theory 2. Black holes don't do that. 3. So this doesn't support your "theory" (vague waffle)

I suppose that is quite an interesting question. I assume (in addition to swansont's comments) that it is because our brains are designed to predict certain types of motion very accurately - this is why we can throw and catch balls, jump across obstacles, etc. We obviously don't do this by solving the equations of motion. But those same predictive heuristics fail when faced with situations that would not have been encountered earlier in our evolution: accelerating in a car at a good proportion of 1g, being thrown round a corner at high velocity, and so on.

No it isn't. And you can't be hypnotised to do something against your will (or to do something impossible).

Sounds like an amusing work of fiction. Who was it by, and what was it called?

Can you be more specific; e.g. a link or something. What research, specifically? The rest of your post is too vague to comment on.

Absolutely not. The fact that we can use mathematics to derive testable (and tested) results such as Bell's theorem pretty much proves that the universe is dictated by rules. Sounds like "this guy" doesn't know what he is talking about.

Which is ... ?

I would recommend Feyman's lectures on QED (videos or book). He explains a lot of this very clearly. One simple example is that the probability of a photon being reflected from the front surface of a sheet of glass depends on the thickness of the glass. This tells us that the photon somehow "knows" how thick the glass is. http://www.vega.org.uk/video/subseries/8 The trouble is that there are good reasons for thinking that transferring information faster than light is impossible (and, indeed, entanglement cannot be used for communication). And in the photon reflection example above, what is doing the communication. That doesn't really work as an explanation. The "how" is simply non-locality.

It is an intrinsic property of particles, like mass or charge; it is not due to rotation as it is in large objects. Faster than light communication is one way of describing what happens, but not very satisfactory. I prefer to think of it as just another example of non-locality: the (detected) behaviour of particles is affected by things which are physically remote as well as in the past or future (see also things like the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment).

That is, presumably, a new term for a "heretical theory".

So on this basis, people who are deaf are unable to think?

Citation needed. That doesn't appear to have anything to do with chaos theory. (And that last one is plainly wrong.) If you write that in base 3, then it is 0.1 so there is no problem. Don't confuse the representation with the number (or even the practicality of using the number). The nature of numbers (the natural numbers, anyway) can be defined in set theory: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_number#Constructions_based_on_set_theory

That is exactly what I understand "emergent properties" to mean. Well, apart from the "not explainable" bit; if they were not explainable in terms of the more fundamental properties then that would mean there was no connection and therefore they were not emergent.

Maybe. (Although just saying "things may have emergent properties" may be a bit too vague to be useful; or even interesting as a discussion point.) Actually, the spiral arms of galaxies are emergent structures.

You haven't really provided a theory, just a very vague idea. The first part simply seems to be a rather general, qualitative statement about the known laws of thermodynamics. The rest is just seems to be unsupported speculation about the human mind. It needs some quantitative detail before it can be even considered a hypothesis (For example, near the end you say "Each step has some simple but irreducible rules" but you don't provide any idea of what the rules are.) For this to be a testable (i.e. scientific) hypothesis, you need to provide some detail and some way of quantitatively testing the hypothesis against evidence. In other words: show us the maths and the testable predictions your idea makes. I have a theory: stuff happens and that causes some other stuff. I think this explains everything in the universe. What do you think?

There was a very good video explaining this posted a while ago: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/87347-why-hidden-variables-dont-work/

And can't even spell "spin".

There are many such theories being explored at the moment. For example, with ideas like loop quantum gravity and causal dynamical triangulation suggest that space and time are just emergent properties of something more fundamental. And Erik Verlinde proposes that gravity is an emergent property of normal thermodynamic processes.