Thanks for validating my existence as a human! So-called open platforms like this have no credibility though if anyone can (anonymously) say they don’t like something and get it removed it seems.

Make no mistake, I am not a MOND apologist (I am astonished how vicious the hoi polloi is). As you allude, my attempt is to balance the perspective of what has become polemic, faith-based scientific dogma completely divorced from fact with some kind of reality-based reasoning and investigation. If these theories made sense other than on paper as math equations we wouldn’t be having this discussion. And I would note that no one could possibly argue with the central tenet of my “drivel,” which is that there are legitimately shaky bases to both quantum mechanics and legitimized (not legitimate) theories like dark matter and Dirac’s equations that led to the preposterous notion of “antimatter” (i.e. “Dirac Sea”) and dark matter/energy. How can one claim any kind of superiority with physics when 95% of it can’t be explained by your model. Invent a more complex (post-hoc) model say the physicists!

I can add 1 + 1, then subtract 3 and call it a magic number but that doesn’t make whatever story I concoct around it any more real, especially when the story (theory) is made up after the math works. That’s not science: that is a fraud. It’s no different than what a scammer like Bernie Madoff did he made the books look good and then concocted a story about his incredible investment returns. And spare me your ridicule: a key flaw of scientific tunnel vision is failing to look outside your own discipline and see that the same themes reoccur in the wider world, whether you admit it or not.

Call me a nut, but I am most certainly a nut with a 🧠. And I may be wrong often, but mark my words: so too are general relativity and the Big Bang incomplete; and “dark matter” and “antimatter” are such mathematical folly I’d delight in being mocked here today so history will show who the true fools are (hint: I’ve actually thought about this more than most of you have).

Thanks for the tip about David Tong though. My latest strategy is to co-opt existing physics paradigms by showing how an information theoretic can describe them better than they can describe themselves rather than waste time attempting Pyrrhic rhetorical victories.

It’s an honor to be called a “lunatic,” better than being ignored 🤣

Perhaps you could put your thoughts in your own words rather than link to others as your rebuttal. If you’re going to lean on the standard model while ignoring its numerous failings, it seems equal lunacy to argue with a fellow crazy.

Again, fair point. These “journalists” know very little about what they’re reporting on.

Argue with the authors of the study. That’s what they found. Physics can’t explain quite a lot of things in our physical universe.

You should be. Is there a particular reason why?

I’m not a neuroscientist so there’s a lot about human biology and cognition I still don’t understand (and apparently neither do some neuroscientists), but still have great confidence in my own related research without ever having dissected a human brain.

I’ve come full circle on the “create consciousness” part. What we’re talking about here is quantum mechanics entanglement to exchange information that would not propagate as efficiently through physics alone (keep in mind that “quantum” is a synonym for “information,” not “particles”)

I’d make a friendly amendment here that “quantum” really isn’t an “object” but intangible attributes/properties that manifest in our physical reality, such DNA as the code for biologic systems.

Very fair point and I have a biased interest in confirming this outcome given my research in quantum computing but it irks me endlessly that science has devolved to something like marketing and confirmation bias.

Thank you for your unqualified opinion. Physics hasn’t managed to solve its problems and gets caught up in its own illogical contradictions (string theory, dark matter, quantum foam, really?!) so what’s wrong with metaphysics?

Quantization is part of the problem: it’s a limitation of our measurement construct not an underlying truth of the universe. I’d gladly share additional research but it seems you’ve already made up your mind, so I can’t force you not to remain ignorant.

+1000 for your point about AI. In developing a framework of information dynamics where the idea of mimicry has become central to both quantum entanglement and consciousness I realize that that’s what spooks people about AI is that relatively high mimicry factor. I might have grown up in New Jersey but I never thought I would challenge Einstein, with the very capable assistance of my AI researchers, to begin formulating what he could not a unified theory of everything. And I am no one special, I just had the free time. This is this is the power synthetic knowledge unlocks.

I’m not sure it does, how do you mean was that a serious question?

Emergent artifacts is the key of the Information Dynamics framework I’m wrapping up, which essentially is a Theory of Everything by uniting different measurement resolutions of the same underlying reality. I’m just about to publish this actually take a look: https://qnfo.org/releases/2025/Quantum-Clasical+Divide