Thanks. I skimmed it. Is he saying something like we live in simulation in a big cosmic computer? Or even worse, some advanced beings computer? He certainly seems rather certain about things.
I have been following him for years now. He has written a trilogy that walks you through why he thinks what they think from a scientific perspective. It is his Theory of Everything. Now, he wants to try and get some hard evidence rather than subjective evidence.
1 Like
This isnāt about science. The word science shouldnāt be in the title and it shouldnāt be in the science category. It should be in the off topic category.
5 Likes
I want to make a resin scale model of a flat Earth. It looks like an ice cream cone but flat on top. For fun and profit. The Flat-Earther web site is SOLD OUT because they are so popular.
1 Like
Except that there has been some seriously compelling scholarly work that has challenged conventional dismissive thinking over the last couple of years. Itās been enough to get my attention, and Iām not someone who likes to waste my own time. The mistake here is mixing science with junk science. Letās not do that. What remains after completing serious research with results that nobody expects, and getting other serious researchers to validate those results, is something equally crazy as any other crazy scientific finding that was originally dismissed, including findings that lead to what we now know as quantum mechanics and relativity.
5 Likes
āMy intent is to set your mind free to find truth, not to pile on another layer of belief on top of what you already have, or replace one of your current beliefs with a new one. Freedom ā spiritual, emotional, and intellectual freedom ā provides the necessary environment for learning. Open minded skepticism is the primary tool you will need to maintain a free mind capable of significant evolutionary progressā
Thomas Campbell, author of My Big TOE
Who is doing āseriousā scholarly research which challenges conventional scientific views and how do you tell? Can you give an example? Disclaimer: Iām into some weird stuff myself but I try to keep it to things that are physically provable and based on physics. Thanks.
I feel like the problem with the topic in general is that maybe not EVERYTHING in the universe can be explained or proven via materialism and the scientific method. At least not yet, but we canāt assume that the scientific paradigm will work forever. At some point the standard model broke down and we needed a new set of rules. Enter quantum physics.
Today anything which canāt be proven by repeatable tests is automatically dismissed as nonsense, which might be a bit short sighted and counter productive. We could be waiting a long time for another happy accident to create a paradigm shift.
Could it be that we just donāt have the tools and processes necessary to prove or explain every phenomena?
The double slit experiment proves that observation itself can effect the outcome of an experiment, so until someone figures out how to isolate that variable thereās a gigantic question mark hanging over the entire scientific method.
1 Like
What first peaked my interest was James Gates, Jr., from MIT, who introduced the concept of āAdinkrasā in 2009 2004, and later in 2009. Adinkras are mathmatical structures found while Gates was conducting his lifelong work in supersymmetry. He describes these structures on camera and in interviews, in lay terms, as actual, digital, in the form of ones and zeros, error correction code, like something you might find in a web browser. He never makes any claims that we are in a simulation; he only states that he has discovered actual computer software written into the mathmatics of String Theory. His papers are here and here.
If you want to lean towards Thomas Campbellās influences, then thereās Nick Bostrom, a professor at Oxford University; he wrote āAre we living in a computer simulation?ā in 2003 (601 citations)
Hans Moravec is an adjunct faculty member at Carnegie Mellon University and got his PhD from Stanford; he wrote a couple of influentially relevant books called Mind children: The future of robot and human intelligence in 1988 (1849 citations), and a book called Robot: mere machine to transcendent mind in 2000 (838 citations), and while he published a bunch of papers, the only relevant one I could find was called āSimulation, consciousness, existenceā from 1999 (a measily 13 citations).
And then there is this relatively new guy, Marcus Arvan, an Associate Professor of Philosophy (meh) at the University of Tampa, with a PhD from the University of Arizona; he wrote a paper called āThe Peer-to-Peer Simulation Hypothesis and a New Theory of Free Willā in 2015 (only 1 citation)
In contrast (and this is what I would consider the fringe), we have solo hitters like Brian Whitworth who canāt seem to publish to a good journal, but wonāt stop putting it out there. His arXiv papers include āThe physical world as a virtual realityā in 2008 (23 citations), āSimulating space and timeā in 2010 (12 citations), and āThe Virtual Reality Conjectureā in 2011 (7 citations)
Most serious researchers with a career to protect wonāt go around making controversial claims. Those with nothing to lose might, whether they already have tenure, or have no job prospects anyway. But for researchers who bang on these types of problems every day, itās really a matter of reaching some sort of consensus in peer reviewed papers and conferences. In areas of research like this, it could take decades. Even a lifetime. In the meantime, we just look at peopleās credentials and citation numbers as a sort of āshort cutā filtering system. But it doesnāt mean that we ignore everything that seems crazy at first glance. Crazy ideas are worth their weight in gold in the research community. Thatās where it all starts.
After researching Thomas Cambell himself, Iām afraid I was disappointed. I could only find one paper that he published as a second name author, with no citations; of which none of the material was relevant to his books. And in that paper, two other papers that he wrote were cited, of which Iām still looking for with the assistance of my universityās library staff. In the one published paper, he only mentions that he has a BS in Physics as well as an MS in Physics, without disclosing the institution he attended. He also goes on to say that ā[h]is Ph.D. work specialized in Experimental Nuclear Physics with a thesis in low-energy nuclear collisions.ā This cleverly worded sentence only signals to me that he dropped out of some PhD program somewhere. He never states that he earned a Ph.D., unlike his lesser credentials. Again, I have no idea as to which institution he studied at.
So, I feel that while Thomas Cambell might be citing a lot of work by actual researchers that he agrees with, I think that he himself might be overstating his own credentials in order to create more credibility in the public eye. Heās not well positioned to get much attention from the research community. Iād presume he just wants to sell books, achieve fandom, and maybe get some respect from whoever will listen to him. But if his work is well done, Iāll be sure to listen to it on audiobook; I really enjoy the topic.
3 Likes
RE: Thomas Campbel
Very interesting ā¦ what about a guy named Dean Radin? Watch the Google Talk that I posted in the original post.
Just because someone is or isnāt published in journals isnāt a good indicator in my mind. I think there is a fundamental problem with scientific journals and western science in general when money gets involved as it seems to always happen. It becomes not what is accurate or scientifically interesting but what isnāt going to shut down the money flow or reputation. The more you put things behind pay walls and limit access, the higher the perceived reputation. This is wrong. It isnāt even the scientists getting the money.
Iām not trying to prove anything with the original post. Iām just saying that there is a taboo when it comes to good research and that other cultures have acknowledged and utilized things for thousands of years that western science has real difficulty with and perhaps western science is not looking broad enough.
ARTHUR C CLARKE: "I think there is a strong possibility that we are at a turning point in history; a complete revolution in human affairs. ā¦ Many people are skeptical of this but I think we may be going through the four stages involved in any revolutionary development.
1, Itās nonsense, donāt waste my timeā¦
2, Oh, itās interesting but not importantā¦
3, I always said it was a good ideaā¦
4, I thought of it first.
Dean Radin is as legit as they come.
BSEE degree in electrical engineering, magna cum laude and with honors in physics, from the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, and then an MS in electrical engineering and a PhD in psychology from the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.
The conscious universe: The scientific truth of psychic phenomena (1997; 1079 citations)
Entangled minds: Extrasensory experiences in a quantum reality (2009; 470 citations)
Evidence for consciousness-related anomalies in random physical systems (1989; 341 citations)
Entangled minds (2006; 256 citations)
Unconscious perception of future emotions: An experiment in presentiment (1997; 201 citations)
Anomalous anticipatory response on randomized future conditions (1997; 180 citations)
Electrodermal presentiments of future emotions (2004; 135 citations)
ā¦
Correlations of continuous random data with major world events (2002; 107 citations)
Psi experiments with random number generators: An informational model (1985; 96 citations)
Event-related electroencephalographic correlations between isolated human subjects (2004; 84 citations)
Consciousness and the double-slit interference pattern: Six experiments. (2012; 77 citations)
Effects of healing intention on cultured cells and truly random events (2004; 75 citations)
Psi experiments with random number generators: Meta-analysis, part 1 (1985; 75 citations)
Your points are valid, however, getting your work published in a respectable peer reviewed journal, and allowing it to be scrutinized or validated for a few decades by other researchers is the best system we have. Plenty of researchers go the public scrutiny route. Self publishing on Amazon, or posting to Youtube are a thing. But those options are also open to snake oil salesmen. It makes it difficult to tell the difference between a well meaning self publishing scientist (with no credentials) and your run-of-the-mill charlatan.
These journals have served a valid purpose in the past and even now to some extent in sharing scientific findings. It was really the only way share at one time. Times have changed and so should scientists.
Once you win the nobel prize, you can afford to make a statement like that.
His fame will carry his lab, and he can publish any how he wants, including creating his own journals or conferences.
Thatās just politics.
1 Like
That is true but he is also setting an example for other scientists to follow. He has some valid points that I think are worth a read.
Heās not saying ādonāt publish to peer-reviewed journalsā.
Heās just inciting others against the ones heās been fighting with in the past.
Itās politics.
1 Like
Iām on my phone, so Iām not going to link it right now, but Iām reminded of the guy who was able to get a scientific journal to publish his paper about midichlorians (spl?)
1 Like
That is correct, he is not saying that. But he is saying donāt publish in journals that are not edited by scientists with scientific interests in mind. Many journals have become predatory journals rather than interested in finding truth where ever it leads.
Oh yeah. Iām on board with that. Donāt get me started about junk journals.
2 Likes