The riddle of quantum reality has finally been solved

[Steve Kaufman]

If this is not physics news, then I do not know what is.

I have just had an article published in an SCIE journal titled:

" The Experiential Basis of Wave-Particle Duality, Quantum Uncertainty, the Creation and Collapse of the Wave Function, and Quantum Nonlocality.”

https://www.neuroquantology.com/index.php/journal/article/view/1254

Long story short; the article solves the nearly one-hundred year old mystery regarding why quantum reality appears and behaves as it does. In so doing it demonstrates that physical reality is a reality that is being created in the brain and is not what is actually “out there,” where it appears to be. Now this should have been obvious to us for some time, given even what little we know about how the central nervous system functions, but human beings are clearly programmed to be fully invested in the view of physical reality presented to us by our central nervous systems as being what is actually there, and to not question that view.

And also, Einstein wins again.

In any case, I have pasted in the abstract from the article below.

Steven Kaufman

Abstract

In this work a very simple model of physical experiential creation is developed and then used to provide a single, consistent, and clear solution to the riddles posed by the phenomena that lie at the heart of quantum physics. By providing a unitary framework for understanding all of these heretofore inexplicable phenomena, this model demonstrates that physical reality is a reality that has to be created in order to be known. What this model also demonstrates is that the way in which physical reality is created is through a specific type of relation that takes place at a level of reality that is more fundamental than the physical level of reality. Understanding that physical reality has to be created in order to be known first makes it possible to recognize the experiential mechanism that produces wave-particle duality. Recognizing that experiential mechanism then makes it possible to identify and define the fundamental limitation that exists in the creation of physical experience that produces quantum uncertainty. Following that, that same experiential mechanism and limitation is then used to explain both the creation and collapse of the wave function, as well as quantum nonlocality. Ultimately, this model of physical experiential creation, by providing a single solution to all of these heretofore insoluble riddles, allows for the unification of classical and quantum physical experiential reality, by demonstrating that the only difference between determinate classical physical reality and indeterminate quantum physical reality lies in the relational conditions under which each of these physical experiential realities is created. What this model also makes clear is that the probability or randomness that is so much a part of quantum theory is not an actual feature of reality, but is only an artifact of the process by which quantum physical reality is created, thereby vindicating Einstein for his never-relinquished view that reality is not fundamentally probabilistic.

 

[Phi for All]

5 minutes ago, Steve Kaufman said:

If this is not physics news, then I do not know what is.

!

Moderator Note

I do. It's a speculation, so I've moved it to our Speculations section, where you can defend your idea. 

This couldn't stay in Science News, since publishing a paper with a commercial organization like NeuroQuantology is simply a matter of commerce, not science.

Please read the special rules for this section, and be prepared to support your arguments with evidence. We attack ideas here, not people, so this should be a serious yet civil review of your work.

 

[Strange]

26 minutes ago, Steve Kaufman said:

I have just had an article published in an SCIE journal titled

How much did they charge you? (I bet it would have been cheaper, and just as credible, to "publish" it on Vixra.)

Quote

its subject matter almost immediately dismissed in The Lancet Neurology as "wild invention" and "claptrap".^[1]

...

the journal has a 2016 impact factor of 0.586, ranking it 249th out of 259 journals in the category "Neuroscience"

...

Neither the Editorial Board nor Advisory Board at NeuroQuantology^[4] contains scientists working in the fields of quantum physics or neurology

...

In the Norwegian Register for Scientific Journals, Series and Publishers, NeuroQuantology has been listed as "Level 0" since 2008.^[8] which means that it is not considered scientific

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NeuroQuantology

 

29 minutes ago, Steve Kaufman said:

physical reality is a reality that is being created in the brain

So the brain itself does not have any physical reality?

[Steve Kaufman]

It is a very unfortunate situation for science that people seem to be unable to assess information tat is presented to them. Instead they wish to prejudge material they have never seen. First, you have supposedly respectable journals that will not publish anything that deviates at all from current scientific dogma, and there is a whole lot of that. And so one then finds a journal that will publish work, and then the journal is not good enough.

There is a reason science keeps spinning its wheels and is getting nowhere. You say I need to support my arguments: that's why one writes a paper, read the damn paper, open your minds for a change, and just maybe you will learn something instead of just working to maintain the same old tired dogma. When I was a child I was taught that scientists were open minded individuals in search of the truth. The reality is quite the opposite in most cases unfortunately.

[Phi for All]

9 minutes ago, Steve Kaufman said:

There is a reason science keeps spinning its wheels and is getting nowhere. You say I need to support my arguments: that's why one writes a paper, read the damn paper, open your minds for a change, and just maybe you will learn something instead of just working to maintain the same old tired dogma. When I was a child I was taught that scientists were open minded individuals in search of the truth. The reality is quite the opposite in most cases unfortunately.

Right away, you call for an "objective reality" that transcends "physical reality". You don't bother to explain adequately how one can be objective when observing something other than the natural world. What is different in your objective reality that we can't observe in nature?

I also stumble on your concept of "created reality". Is this all just some kind of intelligent design argument?

9 minutes ago, Steve Kaufman said:

There is a reason science keeps spinning its wheels and is getting nowhere.

Another reason is defensiveness on your part. Strange asked at least one question about the brain and physical reality that you ignored so you could rant about hidebound scientists.

[koti]

8 minutes ago, Steve Kaufman said:

There is a reason science keeps spinning its wheels and is getting nowhere.

It’s pretty clear where from and where to you are getting with this statement. 

By the way, you claim to solve „the riddle of quantum reality” without a single equation in your article. Where is the math?

[Phi for All]

34 minutes ago, Steve Kaufman said:

When I was a child I was taught that scientists were open minded individuals in search of the truth. The reality is quite the opposite in most cases unfortunately.

You're an adult now, so you should know. Science doesn't search for "truth". It constantly searches for the best supported explanations for natural phenomena. "Truth" is subjective, as you well know.

 

 

Also, I really dislike the fact that you posit the "Laws of Physical Experiential Creation", and use them to support your concepts, without establishing any of it with evidence other than your own certainty or incredulity. The whole paper seems to be aimed at urging science to get over the idea that nature has physical qualities, and focus on your "fundamental reality" instead.

[Strange]

2 hours ago, Steve Kaufman said:

it demonstrates that physical reality is a reality that is being created in the brain and is not what is actually “out there,”

I wonder how you avoid a cyclic dependency, an infinite regress, here. Because the brain is a thing with physical reality, and yet you claim that it creates physical reality. So what causes the existence of the brain? Another brain or ... ?

 

58 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

You're an adult now, so you should know. Science doesn't search for "truth". It constantly searches for the best supported explanations for natural phenomena. "Truth" is subjective, as you well know.

And if "truth" were objective, then it is also unknowable. 

[Steve Kaufman]

16 hours ago, Strange said:

How much did they charge you? (I bet it would have been cheaper, and just as credible, to "publish" it on Vixra.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NeuroQuantology

 

So the brain itself does not have any physical reality?

 

 

Physical reality is a phenomenon that is being produced in the brain. This should not be that controversial of a position or conclusion.

 

Physical reality is a reality that has to be created in order to be known, and in this respect it is like a rainbow or a reflection, and is not in any way truly objective.  The fact that physical reality has to be created in order to be known imposes an unavoidable limitation upon what it is possible for an individual to simultaneously create and know as physical reality.

 

Physical reality is no more what is actually there where it appears to be than a reflection in a mirror is what is actually there, where it appears to be. Where a reflection appears, what is actually there is the reflective surface, and where physical reality appears to be what is actually there is a more fundamental non-physical reality that is, through relation to itself, producing the rainbow or reflection what we experience as physical reality.

 

And you say how can I know this. And I say, because using these assumptions or postulates, it is possible to model the creation of physical experience in a way that fully explains, in a completely consistent way, every major feature of quantum reality.  Now you may want to blow this off, but that’s a pretty damn good achievement. The model is not complex. It has two features. The understanding of how physical experience is created as the product of a specific relation, and the way in which the necessity of that relation imposes a limitation upon what it is possible for a single observer or observer system to create and know as a physical experience in any one moment. Every major quantum phenomenon can be explained in a completely consistent way as a function of these two simple assumptions. 

 

All I have done is to show that if one ceases to assume that physical reality is objective, and instead assumes that it has to be created, that it is possible to understand why physical reality appears and behaves as it does at both the quantum and classical levels.

 

And the fact is, the article speaks for itself. That my initial postulates make it possible to fully explain the basis of the most fundamental features of quantum realty is evidence pointing toward the correctness of the initial postulates.

 

That scientists would not allow themselves to make this postulate, to abandon the concept of physical realism entirely, is why they were never able to solve the riddle of quantum reality, which is not a difficult riddle to solve once one abandons the assumption of physical realism, or that physical reality has any truly objective reality. Physical realism is just an assumption and not a fact. And yet it is treated as if it were established fact.

 

So, if physical reality is not what is actually there, where it appears to be, then what is? A non-physical reality that is producing physical reality. The brain appears as a physical reality, but what is actually there is not itself a physical reality. What is actually there is an organic non-physical relational structure, and within that structure the two-dimensional reflection or rainbow that we call physical reality is produced, and then through stereoscopic overlap the two two-dimensional images that arise in each side of that organic relational structure are overlapped and so produce an image or reality that appears “out there,” when it is really just happening in the organic relational structure that we perceive as and call the brain.

 

The thing that I have only recently come to understand is that human beings seem to be programmed to be fully invested in the view of external reality presented by our central nervous systems, and to not question the validity of that reality. This makes sense from an evolutionary standpoint, because time spent pondering the validity of externally perceived reality is time spent not dealing with potential challenges, which then makes it less likely that one will successfully meet the challenge. And so it was evolutionarily advantageous for the human organism not to question whether or not what we perceive as physical reality is really what is out there, or it is just a relatively accurate representation of what is out there. As a consequence, people just do not like to think about the fact that what we perceive as physical reality is not what is actually out there, where it appears to be.  

 

We cannot truly begin to understand reality until we first understand the nature of physical reality. And quantum physics, with its bizarre behavior, has given us a way to truly understand the reflection-like or rainbow-like nature of physical reality. Because if we never get past physical reality, then we just remain stuck at what is only the surface of reality, trying to perform the impossible task of figuring out what is actually there by working with what is only a reflection.

 

And I apologize for whatever snippiness was present in my post of yesterday. Crazy day at work. I still have not learned never to reply until the mind is clear. 

[Strange]

8 minutes ago, Steve Kaufman said:

What is actually there is an organic non-physical relational structure

How can it be "organic" if it is "non-physical"? That would require a redefinition of organic. So, in the true spirit of philosophical enquiry, what do you mean by "organic"?

BTW, the idea that reality is a construct of the mind is a rather old idea. It is of little interest to science, because it is irrelevant. It is just a metaphysical, unfalsifiable belief.

And if by "brain", you mean "mind" then you get an F for Clarity. And an F- for Raising An Interesting Topic. 

8 minutes ago, Steve Kaufman said:

And quantum physics, with its bizarre behavior, has given us a way to truly understand the reflection-like or rainbow-like nature of physical reality.

No it hasn't because it is (or could be) just a construct of the mind, like the rest of our perceived reality. That is why it is impossible to know what "Reality" really is, or even if it exists.

Edited May 3, 2018 by Strange

[Steve Kaufman]

15 hours ago, Phi for All said:

You're an adult now, so you should know. Science doesn't search for "truth". It constantly searches for the best supported explanations for natural phenomena. "Truth" is subjective, as you well know.

 

 

Also, I really dislike the fact that you posit the "Laws of Physical Experiential Creation", and use them to support your concepts, without establishing any of it with evidence other than your own certainty or incredulity. The whole paper seems to be aimed at urging science to get over the idea that nature has physical qualities, and focus on your "fundamental reality" instead.

"The whole paper seems to be aimed at urging science to get over the idea that nature has physical qualities, and focus on your "fundamental reality" instead."

Actually you have pretty much nailed it with that sentence. Well done. 

We cannot truly begin to understand reality until we first understand the nature of physical reality. And quantum physics, with its bizarre behavior, has given us a way to truly understand the reflection-like or rainbow-like nature of physical reality. Because if we never get past physical reality, then we just remain stuck at what is only the surface of reality, trying to perform the impossible task of figuring out what is actually there by working with what is only a reflection.

The reality that is actually there, underlying the surface appearance and phenomenon that is physical reality, does not have physical qualities. And in that respect, nature does not have physical qualities, other than those that are produced as experiential realities by the more fundamental non-physical reality that is actually there where physical reality appears to be. in order for any physical quality or characteristic to be known it has to first be created as the product of a relation that is taking place at the more fundamental level of reality. But because knowing a particular physical reality or physical quality requires that the observer be involved  in a particular relation, there is a limitation upon what a single observer can create and know as physical experience in any one moment. Because for every relation which an observer is involved in order to create a specific physical quality, there is a mutually exclusive relation in which that observer cannot be simultaneously involved., and so there is a mutually exclusive physical experience the observer cannot simultaneously create and know. That is the basis of uncertainty. Physical qualities do not exist unless and until they are created by a specific relation, and the creation of a specific quality precludes the simultaneous creation of the opposite quality, because to produce the opposite quality would require the observer to be in the impossible position of being simultaneously involved in mutually exclusive relations. 

Look, I'm a scientists just like you guys. I came up with a simple model of physical experiential creation that explains why quantum reality appears as it does. I'm sorry that the conclusions are not to your liking, but that's what we do. We make models to try and figure out what the fuck is going on. And if a model comes along that fully explains something for which there has previously been no explanation whatsoever, then it would seem to me that an open minded scientist would at least want to give that model a close look and some serious consideration, and one may even decide that it is time to give up some long held assumptions regarding the nature of physical reality. 

All I am doing is reporting findings. I did not create reality, I am just trying to let you know is how reality appears to be organized, based upon how physical reality appears at both the classical and quantum levels.

 

[Mordred]

Well for starters physics doesn't try to define reality. It models measurable interactions. We leave defining reality to metaphysics.

 Myself unless a paper is at least 75 percent mathematical its not a useful paper in physics but thats just me. Quite frankly the paper above is far too metaphysical for my interest.

Edited May 3, 2018 by Mordred

[Steve Kaufman]

15 hours ago, koti said:

It’s pretty clear where from and where to you are getting with this statement. 

By the way, you claim to solve „the riddle of quantum reality” without a single equation in your article. Where is the math?

It's not a math problem. It's a problem of failing to understand how physical experiential reality is created, and so the solution lies in understanding how physical experiential reality is created. And the evidence of the correctness of the initial postulates is borne out in the results they produce, which is a completely consistent explanation for every major quantum phenomenon, as well as a complete unification of classical and quantum physical reality, i.e., an understanding of exactly how they are alike and how and why they are different. 

It's like I'm planting a flower and you ask me, where is the hammer. I'm not trying to beat the flower to death, I'm trying to plant it, I don't need the hammer.

[Mordred]

Its philosophy at best. Physics requires the mathematics to be of any use ie it must make testable predictions of how a will affect b. If a model cannot meet that criteria then it isn't a working model.

 You may believe to have solved quantum reality but can you test its accuracy ?

Edited May 3, 2018 by Mordred

[studiot]

18 hours ago, Steve Kaufman said:

Long story short; the article solves the nearly one-hundred year old mystery regarding why quantum reality appears and behaves as it does. In so doing it demonstrates that physical reality is a reality that is being created in the brain and is not what is actually “out there,” where it appears to be. Now this should have been obvious to us for some time, given even what little we know about how the central nervous system functions, but human beings are clearly programmed to be fully invested in the view of physical reality presented to us by our central nervous systems as being what is actually there, and to not question that view.

 

How does your hypothesis work with double blind testing, and why is double blind testing necessary if what you say is true?

[Phi for All]

5 hours ago, Steve Kaufman said:

Actually you have pretty much nailed it with that sentence. Well done. 

Thank you. I recognize people who fell in love with science AFTER they had their best chance to study it in school. I'm one of them. 

When smart people like you learn science from popular media (instead of following a curriculum designed to peel back the layers of the onion), you have to stitch together what you know, and since you're missing a ton of knowledge, you use wishful thinking to make a wild ass guess about the stuff in the gaps in your knowledge. This is the stuff you can't support rationally, the bits of your idea that have no evidence, so you're forced to wave a wand and make it so, redefining several well-established concepts in the process.

But this gives you an idea that makes absolute perfect sense to nobody but you. To you, it seems like you've done what nobody else can. But science is a methodical, plodding tool that inches forward in sure, trustworthy steps. The grand leaps of intuition written about in pop-sci articles with such vivid drama are actually conclusions drawn from mountains of evidence gleaned through trusted procedures and representing the combined works of many scientists. 

I really hope you stick around to learn. Michio Kaku led me here long ago, but the awesomeness of mainstream science taught me how to correct as much of my ignorance as I can, every day I'm alive.

[Steve Kaufman]

“I recognize people who fell in love with science AFTER they had their best chance to study it in school. I'm one of them. “ 

 

Well then your eyesight needs a check, because I am not one of them.   I graduated from the University of Illinois as an undergraduate, biology major, and was valedictorian of my medical school.  I took physics in high school and again in college. By the second time I learned about wave-particle duality and uncertainty in college I knew that something was up. Nice try though.

By all means, tell me exactly where I am wrong. You make all these broad statements but make not one specific statement that disproves what I say. Name one fact in my paper that is incorrect. Be specific, if my paper is so full of holes as you say it should be easy to do. Have at it and lets see where it goes.  Otherwise all I see is a lot of talk and nothing to back it up.

You will note, that not one of the posters on this forum that is attacking my model has stated a single factual error that I have made. That is because there is none. All of this is just a game of connect the dots using the established facts. Mainstream science connects them one way and I have chosen to simply connect those same dots in a different way, and in a way that happens to show why quantum reality behaves and appears as it does.  Now you may not like the way I have connected the dots, because it goes against the grain of how you connect the dots, but that does not in and of itself make the way I connect them wrong. It makes it appear wrong to you, because you believe your way is the right way and so my way has to be the wrong way, and so you really don’t see, and just reactively attack and defend, and truly believe you are somehow doing yourself and society a favor, when all you are actually doing is working to maintain your own view of reality.

And so once again I state, tell me exactly where and why I am wrong, with respect to facts, and not with respect to one of the many assumptions treated as fact that mainstream science currently labours under. Or tell me where I am wrong with respect to those assumptions and I’ll tell you why they are false assumptions.

6 hours ago, Mordred said:

Its philosophy at best. Physics requires the mathematics to be of any use ie it must make testable predictions of how a will affect b. If a model cannot meet that criteria then it isn't a working model.

 You may believe to have solved quantum reality but can you test its accuracy ?

So can I then assume that you are not down with the theory of evolution either. Because all Darwin had was a model that explained previously unexplained behavior.  What is now so wrong with coming up with a model that explains previously unexplainable behavior. Nothing. It is what science has always done. And yet now, we demand it have a bunch a mathematical equations, or that it pass this and that test. When you have no explanation whatsoever for a phenomenon, and someone comes along and says they have a model that explains it all, you would think there would be some curiosity, but all I see are reactions from people intent on defending their current conception of reality. In the present climate of science, Darwins theory of evolution could never get off the ground. That is how far we have fallen.  I have proposed a model that explains not just the behavior of reality at the quantum level, but which explains the nature of physical reality as a whole, and all people here can do is try to find reasons why it can’t be so. Well I’m sorry to tell you, but this is science people, and reality is what it is, and physical reality is not the reality you think it is.  I’m just the messenger.

The model I have put forth explains every why experimental results appear and behave as they do.  The entire model is therefore consistent with experimental evidence. There is no further experiment needed. The experiments have been done, the facts established, and now a model has been created that explains those facts. This is how it is done people. It’s what Darwin did. Why is this method now such a problem?

Now in terms of evidence, I already know what the structure of reality is that underlies physical reality, and have already submitted a paper that begins to define that structure. The evidence that I will put forth in that paper is that I will be able to show how both chronological time and mass emerge as features of reality when energy repetitively interacts in the context of that structure to form what we perceive as matter. The paper also shows exactly why both chronological time and mass are relative to material velocity

What the paper will show is that the relations between space, time, energy, and matter described by Einstein all exist because those are all relations that arise and exist naturally within the structure of reality that underlies physical reality, and which structure is responsible for all observed physical behavior. And so, demonstrating that there is a reality structure that exists and operates underlying physical reality that produces what we perceive as physical behavior, and relating that structure and behavior to the relativistic behavior of physical reality described by Einstein, will provide further evidence that physical reality is a created reality, and that it is created by a more fundamental non-physical reality that has a very definite structure and geometric arrangement.

 

7 hours ago, Strange said:

 

BTW, the idea that reality is a construct of the mind is a rather old idea.

Who said anything about mind? I sure did not. My paper does not mention mind nor have I mentioned it in any post here.

What I am saying is very very limited, but because it conflicts with long held assumptions, not facts, but assumptions, in the defense of those long held assumptions all these additional things are brought in that do not need to be brought in.

We know that if we are to have any physical experience that we have to form a relation with something. This is true of both sensory experience as well as experimentally produced experience. This is a simple and obvious fact.

And so to postulate a mechanism of physical experiential creation that requires a relation is not some making some wild jump, it is simply dealing with the obvious.

The problem is with the assumption of physical realism that most scientists have forgotten or fail to realize is just an assumption and not a proven fact. And in fact, what my paper shows is that physical realism is clearly a false assumption. And it is because science has been continuously operating under that false assumption that it has been unable to solve the riddle of quantum reality, because as I have shown, all one needs to do to solve that riddle is to cease assuming that physical reality exists as it appears to exist absent its observation/creation as such.

Max Plank was right when he said that “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”

And the reason for this is that most scientists spend their lives defending existing conceptual structures rather than truly having an open mind, i.e., one that is amenable to modifications of its existing conceptual structure, and as a result never really give new ideas a chance, because the mental action of defending an existing conceptual structure and giving a new idea a chance to see if it can improve the existing structure are mutually exclusive actions. And so, if all one ever does is defend the already existent structure, at no point is there ever an opportunity for the exiting structure to be modified. And it is for this reason that most people learn very little after a certain age, i.e., their minds become like bricks. Because once they think they know what is going on to any degree, rather than continue to try and improve the conceptual structure, or belief system, all they do is continuously defend it against seemingly challenging concepts. That is the mechanism that underlies the observation made by Planck.

 

However, even old timers dying off has not been enough to break the conceptual logjam surrounding quantum reality. And the reason that the usual mechanism of attrition that allows a new scientific truth to triumph has not worked to allow a solution to the riddle of quantum reality is because each new generation of scientists gets their head filled with the same belief in physical realism, which is only a belief, only an assumption, and not a fact. And so every new generation gets caught in the same trap, unable to even postulate what is needed to find the solution, i.e., that the assumption of physical realism is a completely false assumption.

For whatever reason I treated physical realism as it is, which was as an assumption and not a fact. And since there had not been any solution to the riddle of quantum reality forthcoming in ninety years within the context of physical realism, I simply decided to try and approach the problem from a different perspective, which was by making the assumption that is the opposite of the assumption of physical realism, i.e., that physical reality does not exist unless and until it is created through some relation. And lo and behold, once that is done quantum reality makes perfect sense.

And what quantum reality making sense shows are these two simple things: physical reality is a reality that has to be created in order to be known. This is not a wild assertion and it is now supported by the evidence, and which evidence is that understanding physical reality to be a created reality makes it possible to consistently account for the appearance and behavior of both classical and quantum physical reality.

The other thing quantum reality making sense shows is that since physical reality is a reality that has to be created in order to be known, physical reality cannot possibly be what is actually there, where physical reality appears to be. And since physical reality cannot be what is there, whatever reality is there is not a physical reality. That is all I am saying. I am not saying what the reality is that is actually there. What I am saying is what the model demonstrates. Physical reality has to be created in order to be known, and so cannot be what is actually there, and so what is actually there producing what we experience as physical reality is then a reality that is non-physical.  

Pretty straightforward logic and reasoning. The model is in conflict with existent belief systems, and with existent assumptions, but it is not in conflict with a single fact. To the contrary, it is completely consistent with the known facts.

-------------------------------------------------------------

Let me say I could not be happier with the responses from this forum with regard to my paper. So far all I have received is the usual and expected general abuse for having the audacity to think outside the box of mainstream scientific thought, which was to be fully expected.

What I would now request from all of those who are so eager to point out how wrong I am, is could you please provide me with one instance where my paper can be demonstrated to be factually incorrect.

The fact that no one has yet been able to make such a statement I find encouraging. Certainly there has been no holding back on the abuse, and I would expect if an actual and demonstrable flaw was found that it would have been pointed out.  Instead all there is are a bunch of very general rumbles and rantings about how unscientific I am, etc. etc.  By all means, all of you who know so very much, I am inviting you, present me with one example of where my paper makes a statement that can be proven to be factually incorrect.

And if you can’t find a fact, then let me know the cherished assumptions that I am stepping on.

Can we please just be done with the general abuse, and if anyone really has anything to state that has any real meaning, such as a specific problem with the paper and how it deviates from known fact, please let me know. But really, the general abuse just lets me know you really have nothing, because I would assume that if you did you would be more specific.

 

Edited May 3, 2018 by Steve Kaufman

[Phi for All]

47 minutes ago, Steve Kaufman said:

Can we please just be done with the general abuse, and if anyone really has anything to state that has any real meaning, such as a specific problem with the paper and how it deviates from known fact, please let me know. But really, the general abuse just lets me know you really have nothing, because I would assume that if you did you would be more specific.

Very well. Let's start with the questions Strange, Studiot, and I have asked about your idea specifically. You've replied to the general lack of accepted terminology (there is no model in your paper though you mention it several times; models are just about all maths), so now please reply here as well:

7 hours ago, Strange said:

How can it be "organic" if it is "non-physical"? That would require a redefinition of organic. So, in the true spirit of philosophical enquiry, what do you mean by "organic"?

7 hours ago, Strange said:

No it hasn't because it is (or could be) just a construct of the mind, like the rest of our perceived reality. That is why it is impossible to know what "Reality" really is, or even if it exists.

6 hours ago, studiot said:

How does your hypothesis work with double blind testing, and why is double blind testing necessary if what you say is true?

Also, you never answered me about basing your idea on laws of creation you made up yourself. Shouldn't you spend some time supporting those laws, rather than just assuming you've gotten them right?

Also, we'd all appreciate you dropping the "general abuse" charges. There's been nothing personal in attacking the extraordinary claims you've put forth.

[studiot]

3 hours ago, Phi for All said:

  9 hours ago, studiot said:

How does your hypothesis work with double blind testing, and why is double blind testing necessary if what you say is true?

 

Yes please I would like an answer to my polite straightforward question.

 

Thank you moderator +1

[swansont]

If reality is created in the brain, how is it that multiple people have consistent realities? Physicists agree on physics, to a very large degree. Why is the physics my brain creates the same as everyone else's?

[Strange]

13 hours ago, Steve Kaufman said:

Who said anything about mind? I sure did not. My paper does not mention mind nor have I mentioned it in any post here.

Good. I just wanted to clarify that there was no misunderstanding there.

So, as the brain is a physical object how does it exist independently of the physical world that is created by the brain?

13 hours ago, Steve Kaufman said:

What I would now request from all of those who are so eager to point out how wrong I am, is could you please provide me with one instance where my paper can be demonstrated to be factually incorrect.

This raises an important question: what objective tests can be made of your hypothesis? What testable predictions does it make? In other words, how could it be falsified?

Note that your question about what can be demonstrated to be factually incorrect, is the wrong question. Much of your hypothesis is not factual. For example, your claims about the "underlying actuality" are not facts, they are hypotheses that need to be tested. So, how do we do this?