Synchronicity; Apophenia and the 11:11 fallacy

a reply to: spygeek

So none then?

Can you go get the newsletter and read my horoscope for Taurus? I'd like to see what it says.

I'd also like you to know when we're a few more days into this i'll type out the list of coincidences i've experienced in the last week, we can dissect them.

originally posted by: EA006
a reply to: spygeek

So none then?

Pretty much.

Can you go get the newsletter and read my horoscope for Taurus? I'd like to see what it says.

"You are in a quiet mood, but that won't keep you from drawing attention. In fact, there will be a great deal of intrigue surrounding your silence. Think about what others might take from this and what you're trying to say with it."

????

I'd also like you to know when we're a few more days into this i'll type out the list of coincidences i've experienced in the last week, we can dissect them.

Alrightie then.

a reply to: spygeek

Interesting, thanks.

a reply to: crowdedskies


So show me that you can do what you say.
Show me that you can flip a coin and make it land on whatever you want.

I am more than able to think outside the box but I'm not daft and won't believe that somebody has some magical power if they don't show it to me.

You claim to have done some incredible feats.
The kind of feats James Randi has been searching for for years..... You may have the power to change the whole world for the better of you can prove these mind bending powers you claim to have.

I myself have learned the ability to hover a few feet above the ground un-aided.
I'm just waiting till I can move around in the air a bit before showing the world my powers

originally posted by: b14warrior
a reply to: crowdedskies
I myself have learned the ability to hover a few feet above the ground un-aided.
I'm just waiting till I can move around in the air a bit before showing the world my powers

I enjoy a good laugh at someone's expense as much as the next fellow, but I really would prefer it if we could stay on topic here..

Perhaps we should start a thread cataloging members' claims of supernatural and physical law-breaking abilites?
We could rank them in order of plausibility and level of evidence, investigate the claimed mechanisms behind them, and take the mickey out of those who refuse to show any level of validation or explanation whatsoever..

This thread is not related to these things in the slightest I'm afraid, and I fear encouraging discussion of them here will only serve to derail the thread further.

So far we have had claims of supernatural personal abilities, an unsupported claim of quantum consciousness, the proposal of a pseudoscientific theory of everything to support metaphysical claims, and a great deal of such fallacious logic as "I am completely right until you prove me wrong", "You don't have the level of understanding/awareness that I do, so your arguments are invalid", and "You disagree with my point of view? Well then you must know everything, right?".

Was I expecting too much when I started this thread in the hope of generating rational on-topic discussion? A quick flick through the last 9-10 pages would suggest that indeed i was..

Oh well..

originally posted by: spygeek

"I enjoy a good laugh at someone's expense as much as the next fellow,"

Well now that's not very shocking!

"Perhaps we should start a thread cataloging members' claims of supernatural and physical law-breaking abilites?
We could rank them in order of plausibility and level of evidence, investigate the claimed mechanisms behind them, and take the mickey out of those who refuse to show any level of validation or explanation whatsoever.."

'Cause that's what nice people do, right? Hey let's talk about all of these people behind their backs, and make fun of what they are saying on this message board. (Or would it be a requirement for them to read all of your negativity, so that it wouldn't be behind their backs? That sounds fair.:duh

You aren't going to be happy until everyone thinks just like you, are you?

"So far we have had claims of supernatural personal abilities, an unsupported claim of quantum consciousness, the proposal of a pseudoscientific theory of everything to support metaphysical claims, and a great deal of such fallacious logic as "I am completely right until you prove me wrong", "You don't have the level of understanding/awareness that I do, so your arguments are invalid", and "You disagree with my point of view? Well then you must know everything, right?"."

Ok, so dumb this down for stupid little me. (It's ok, I called myself the name.) Are any of these listed above referring to me? Just wondering if you're talking behind my back here, without me being smart enough to even know it. (That's your cue to laugh!)

If you are wanting to see proof of my Steve Vai synchronicity. I can take a picture of the hat that we found, with Steve Vai's autograph on it. But you probably wouldn't believe it is actually his autograph from the signature, as it is a woven hat, that was probably pretty challenging for him to sign.

Boy, good thing I have video of Steve Vai walking up to the fence where we were standing to sign autographs. But being that my daughter is young, I had to stop the video while he actually signed the hat, so that I could hand it to him and get it back from him. So you would have to take a huge leap of faith on that part. I bet you would be willing to do that right?

I also have video of the Domino's pizza bag with the 2 Hawaiian pizzas in our hotel room, that I took before the driver arrived to pick up the bag from us. But you could easily say that I asked the driver to borrow the bag for a minute, so that I could make my fake video of that.

I also have video of my daughter with the butterfly hanging out on her hand for an extended period of time, on our hike up to Hanging Lake. But then I would have to figure out how to convert the video from my cell phone to a format that actually plays on my computer. (I've tried downloading the videos to my computer, but in the format that they are in it's bearly worth watching, very jumpy. But as I said, I haven't had the time to do that yet.) I also have pictures of hanging lake, but you could say that I found those online, or they were taken at another time. But how convincing would that be really anyways?

Are you getting my point here? How many hoops would these posters have to jump through here, just to try and prove what they are saying? Then after going through all of that effort, just for YOU. How much of it would you actually believe anyways? Even then you would say that it would be more surprising if it didn't happen on synchronicities, right? Do you understand that most people are going to say. Why am I jumping through all of these hoops, just so that I can prove all of this to spygeek? What makes you so special that anyone is even required to, or even want to do that, or else you will belittle them if they don't? What if they don't read your post? Sometimes I wonder if people even hear what they are saying?

TS

a reply to: spygeek

The logical or rational value of any given thought or concept is measured by its logical consistency. If a logical flaw or contradiction is found, the logic supporting the concept is not reasonable or rational. A logical fallacy is committed when sound logic is not adhered to and errors in reasoning slip in

This idea is anything but logical.

first you can't measure logical consistency you are contradicting yourself If it is not logical then it is called illogical
There is no local consistency like you said, either it is logical or illogical

Logical truth

Logical truth is one of the most fundamental concepts in logic, and there are different theories on its nature.
and by the way illogical also meaning randomness


so if I resume a concept a theorie or an idea comes from logic it also as illogical in it
a good example look at quantum mechanics, if you know a little about it most of it's composition is anything but logical regarding Einstein laws of space and time.

There are many things around us, that cannot be measured or quantified, that our brains fails to grasp, only bits of it
that is why I propose you to think a little out of the box, and open your mind, minds are much more powerful than you think, that is why I think your arguments are truely a logical falacie.

have a good one.

a reply to: TomSawyer

Wow.. Ummm, ok, settle down.. I was referring to what's been going on this thread. None of those things I listed were made in reference to you; as far as I can see this is your first post in this thread, so how could they be? I certainly was not referring to you, or anyone else in some "behind their back" way. I was referring to specific arguments and claims that were posted right here.

Go back through the previous pages of this thread and you will see them all: People claiming to have experienced 360 degree vision, the ability to manifest events and objects through mental will alone, the ability to influence random chance to the point of deliberately getting 20 heads in a row while coin tossing, all without evidence or explanation. That is what I was referring to.

Are you making a connection between my post regarding the off topic and fallacious stuff that has been posted in this thread, and our civil, mutually respectful private message conversation? Please let me assure you that there is none.

originally posted by: Cuculkan
a reply to: spygeek

The logical or rational value of any given thought or concept is measured by its logical consistency. If a logical flaw or contradiction is found, the logic supporting the concept is not reasonable or rational. A logical fallacy is committed when sound logic is not adhered to and errors in reasoning slip in

This idea is anything but logical.

first you can't measure logical consistency you are contradicting yourself If it is not logical then it is called illogical
There is no local consistency like you said, either it is logical or illogical.

Logical truth

Logical truth is one of the most fundamental concepts in logic, and there are different theories on its nature.
and by the way illogical also meaning randomness


so if I resume a concept a theorie or an idea comes from logic it also as illogical in it
a good example look at quantum mechanics, if you know a little about it most of it's composition is anything but logical regarding Einstein laws of space and time.

There are many things around us, that cannot be measured or quantified, that our brains fails to grasp, only bits of it
that is why I propose you to think a little out of the box, and open your mind, minds are much more powerful than you think, that is why I think your arguments are truely a logical falacie.

have a good one.

You're arguing over semantics and not making much of a point. If a given concept has an illogical argument supporting it, it dosen't necessarily mean the concept itself is illogical, only a specific argument given to support it.

What I meant by "The logical or rational value of any given thought or concept is measured by its logical consistency", is that any given idea or concept may have some illogical arguments that undermine its logical consistency, but not negate it entirely. It could be said to have less logical or rational value than another concept that has no illogical arguments supporting it.

You seem to think that logically critical thinking means defining anything as illogical or logical based on the strength of its weakest argument, which is fallacious. There are plenty of rational and logical beliefs, like faith in a God for instance, that may have many illogical arguments, but also many logical arguments, to support them. Critical thinking is about accounting for and removing as many illogical arguments as possible and seeing if the overall concept or belief stands up logically and rationally without them.

Bringing up quantum mechanics is a bit redundant. It does not apply to this topic or the point you seem to be trying to make.

You say you think my arguments are "truly a logical fallacy", but you have not backed this up with what logical fallacy or what arguments to which you are referring. You have provided no basis for this claim other than the unspecific "there is more to the world than our brains can grasp" and "you need to open your mind because minds are much more powerful than you think", which aren't really specific logical arguments for anything anyway.

Which logical fallacy am I committing with my arguments? Please point it out so I may address it and reevaluate the logical consistency of my position.

a reply to: spygeek

My feathers aren't ruffled, and my response to your post above was not an attempt to ruffle yours. After our PM's, I think I understand your personality a lot better. I was just trying to mirror it a bit for you. So it's all good on this end. Just my sorry attempt at friendly banter I guess.

BUT when you said this:

"So far we have had claims of supernatural personal abilities, an unsupported claim of quantum consciousness, the proposal of a pseudoscientific theory of everything to support metaphysical claims, and a great deal of such fallacious logic as "I am completely right until you prove me wrong", "You don't have the level of understanding/awareness that I do, so your arguments are invalid", and "You disagree with my point of view? Well then you must know everything, right?"."

It was so open ended as to who exactly you were talking about, and the words way to big and complicated for me to understand/follow. So I just wanted to see if I was included in there somehow, and if I was. Express how my proof wouldn't make much of a difference anyways, even though I do have some.

I'm also trying to distract myself from life at the moment. Everyone needs a break every once in a while right? But I've been reading/following this thread, believe it or not, because it was about synchronicities. So I wanted to see if I could learn something. Maybe someone would phrase something in a different way, that I would be able to relate to and understand.

I don't know why your personality is so different when you post to this board, as opposed to how you were speaking to me in our PM's? But dude. If you spoke to everyone on this board the way you were speaking with me in PM's. I can guarantee you that it would facilitate much more conversation, and wouldn't put people off to where they don't want to speak with you. Not trying to tell you what to do, it's just an observation. (When you speak on the board, sometimes I think you come across as abrasive, to the point of not wanting to communicate with you. But Via PM's was completely different, and I had no problem with it at all.) Just know, that when I am responding to you it is not personal, unless you make it that way in the future for some reason. But some of what I said was actually tongue in cheek as well, and I do enjoy FRIENDLY banter.

Peace,
TS

originally posted by: TomSawyer
a reply to: spygeek

My feathers aren't ruffled, and my response to your post above was not an attempt to ruffle yours. After our PM's, I think I understand your personality a lot better. I was just trying to mirror it a bit for you. So it's all good on this end. Just my sorry attempt at friendly banter I guess.

I understand completely now, no harm done =)

BUT when you said this:

"So far we have had claims of supernatural personal abilities, an unsupported claim of quantum consciousness, the proposal of a pseudoscientific theory of everything to support metaphysical claims, and a great deal of such fallacious logic as "I am completely right until you prove me wrong", "You don't have the level of understanding/awareness that I do, so your arguments are invalid", and "You disagree with my point of view? Well then you must know everything, right?"."

It was so open ended as to who exactly you were talking about, and the words way to big and complicated for me to understand/follow. So I just wanted to see if I was included in there somehow, and if I was. Express how my proof wouldn't make much of a difference anyways, even though I do have some.

I probably should have made it less open ended and clearer that I was referring to specific posts here.. The whole post was admittedly a bit of an ill-advised rant of frustration out of my own disappointment in general of some of the thread's participants. I probably really shouldn't have said anything at all. I wasn't being professional.

I'm also trying to distract myself from life at the moment. Everyone needs a break every once in a while right?

But I've been reading/following this thread, believe it or not, because it was about synchronicities. So I wanted to see if I could learn something. Maybe someone would phrase something in a different way, that I would be able to relate to and understand.

Indeed we all do need a distraction, that's why I'm here too. My days are spent mostly reciting the same old curriculum to the same old students who may or may not be interested in the first place. I come here and engage in discussions without the impersonal pretense of a lecture hall and it reminds me that in the pursuit of personal knowledge and understanding, every person's journey is refreshingly unique. Especially those of the people living on the other side of the planet; members of a completely different cultural persuasion to my own.

I don't know why your personality is so different when you post to this board, as opposed to how you were speaking to me in our PM's? But dude. If you spoke to everyone on this board the way you were speaking with me in PM's. I can guarantee you that it would facilitate much more conversation, and wouldn't put people off to where they don't want to speak with you. Not trying to tell you what to do, it's just an observation. (When you speak on the board, sometimes I think you come across as abrasive, to the point of not wanting to communicate with you. But Via PM's was completely different, and I had no problem with it at all.) Just know, that when I am responding to you it is not personal, unless you make it that way in the future for some reason. But some of what I said was actually tongue in cheek as well, and I do enjoy FRIENDLY banter.

I guess I can see your point in respect to some of my responses here, but bear in mind that when repeatedly confronted with irretrievably flawed arguments it wears down your level of tolerance.. I can see now looking back over the thread that I have indeed become a bit abrasive toward certain posters, I shall work on this in future. Nothing is learnt if no-one can stand the lecturer, after all.

Peace,
TS

Live long and prosper Tom, I've enjoyed our chats.

a reply to: spygeek

Me too, now that I understand you better. But I'm pretty sure that if some of these posters read your last response to me, they are going to be convinced that your account has been hacked! So you better delete it quick!

Thank you for taking what I had to say, in the light that I had intended it to be received, and not being offended by it. My opinion of you has changed drastically through our communications. So maybe you shouldn't delete your last post, so that the other posters can see the other side of you as well. You can actually be a nice guy. I like that a lot, and I think they would as well. You are obviously quite wise, and have valuable knowledge to share. But I think you said it best when you said. "Nothing is learnt if no-one can stand the lecturer, after all."

May the Source Be With You,
TomSawyer

a reply to: TomSawyer

I guess I subconsciously approach this thread and replying to posts in it as I would answering questions from students in an auditorium during a lecture. This comes off as generalised and impersonal, cold, and I suppose in a bit of an abrasive "know-it-all" manner. Whereas I approach your private messages as I would a student coming to me outside of class with specific personal questions about understanding a topic. I'll have to make a conscious effort to change this.

Back on topic, I had my first genuine "842" coincidence this morning:

While driving to work, I had the radio on, and the presenter was talking about how unusual coincidences have been evident in humanity's scientific advancement, and what, if anything, could be inferred by such coincidences. While I did not completely agree with all of the presenter's assertions and claims, I found the last part of his spiel particularly relevant:

(paraphrased from memory)
"So many technological and scientific advancements have been made simultaneously and independently by researchers and inventors, often on opposite sides of the world. From the unlikely announcement on the same day in November of 2014 by both Google and Stanford University that they had independently developed artificial intelligence able to recognize complex photos, to both Richard Pearse and the Wright brothers independently achieving powered flight in 1903, and Alexander Graham Bell and Elisha Gray both inventing the telephone in 1876, history is rife with simultaneous and yet independent breakthroughs. Is this evidence of a higher intelligence?

Text or call in and share your own personal stories of coincidence, and what it means to you. The most interesting and unlikely coincidence will win a ten dollar food and beverage voucher from Black Betty cafe.

It's eighteen minutes to nine, here's Stealer's Wheel with Stuck in the Middle With You".


8:42am: the conclusion of a talk about coincidence and an implication of "higher intelligence"..

I arrived at work at 8:57am, made myself a coffee and proceeded to my office. I began the tediously mundane task of sorting class notes and preparing my agenda for the upcoming semester, just I have done every day this week and last. At 9:38am, another faculty member walked past my door, humming a tune extremely similar to, (or perhaps indeed it was, I didn't ask), that god damn ear-worm which had been stuck in my head since I heard it in the car earlier..

I can see why some people think this kind of stuff means something more than random coincidence, however I am personally not of that persuasion.

When you see a code, think to yourself saying that 'You want to get similar codes in dreams as well'

If all goes well and the numbers are genuine, you will get more codes in dreams. When this happens, monitor the environment and persons that give you the dream codes. They can give quite useful information concerning your immanent future.

originally posted by: Rapha
When you see a code, think to yourself saying that 'You want to get similar codes in dreams as well'

If all goes well and the numbers are genuine, you will get more codes in dreams. When this happens, monitor the environment and persons that give you the dream codes. They can give quite useful information concerning your immanent future.

Assuming (not implying) that you are on to something here, how do I definitively recognise what is a code and what is not?
Does the lack of the code subsequently appearing in a dream render it "not genuine"?
How do I "monitor" a dream environment or a dream character? Is lucid dreaming a prerequisite for inferring premonitious information?

Something rather amusing just happened: I have youtube playing music at the moment in a background tab. When one song ends, youtube selects and loads another one, presumably at random from a predefined criteria of similarity, (other than the first song, which was that Steelers Wheel one, I have made no selections). At the precise moment I was typing the second line of my above reply to you, the following segment of this track was playing: "What have we here laddie? Mysterious scribblings? A secret code? Oooh, poems, no less. Poems, everybody! The lad here reckons himself a poet!..." The teacher exlaiming the line "A secret code?" coincided with my typing of the word "code" almost exactly..

I think I had better heed Pink's teacher's advice: "Get on with your work!"..

[

a reply to: spygeek

ok? like i said ive seen and experiences things that the current model either ignores or mocks. i dgaf what you think about campbell.

i have done research. what makes you think i havent? do i have to see things through your point of view to technicaly have done research.

i do understand it in my own way.

This strict dualism philosophy has serious problems regarding how consciousness is able to affect physical reality and where and how the interaction between material and immaterial takes place. There is nothing in the videos or his books in the way of explanation of these problems; they are ignored. There has to be a mechanism involved, none is ever offered.

what are you talking about?

Similarly, a simulation hypothesis is unfalsifiable in that it is impossible to determine that reality is a simulation from inside the simulation. Again this issue is sidestepped and the blunt assertion that reality is simulated is enforced without logic or justifiable cause. The question of what is outside the simulation is also ignored.

um alright? but alot of physicists are saying the exact same thing. that its a simulation. and they arent saying it for no reason.

what do you think it is? talking about logic or justifiable cause but the accepted model is that the universe exploded from nothing for no reason.

This is false. The current understanding is that it is likely that quantum fluctuations produced the big bang, or prior to the universe two other universes may have collided to produce the big bang.

quantum fluctuations stemming from what? why were there quantum fluctuations in the first place? how are you not grasping that something has to come before to lead into a universe. you cant just ignore this.

Physical science is not concerned with the reason or why of existence, and conflating such philosophical questions to the realm of material science is illogical.

were not #ing talking about physical science.....

I've already read the books. Not a single prediction is made. Nor are there any in any of the videos I have seen on the theory.

My comment might have been petty, but it's still true. He is directly profiting from the uninformed public through lying about his product. It is not a theory of everything, it is not even a scientific theory, yet this is exactly what he claims, deliberately misleading people into shelling out for it.

Scientific theories aren't a commodity to be bought and sold like a self-help book. Science does not work that way. Pseudoscience however, works exactly that way.

yeah dude hes rollin in dough while making basically everything he writes about free on youtube. character assassination. thats petty. in what way does calling tom a scam artist add to the conversation. you are a dishonest man if this is how you discuss such things.

Obviously I do not know everything. I do however know enough to be able to confidently identify fake science and flawed logic when I see it.

ok so then forget about it. you dont have to keep telling me about how you think tom's TOE is fake science. maybe you just dont understand it. and with the crap youve been saying im starting to think that this might just be the case. you sometime reply to my comments with completely irrelevant things. i suspect you do this as an attempt t confuse me to get the upper hand. I think rather than leveling with me and being rational youd rather resort to petty subterfuge just to feed your own ego.

a reply to: spygeek

Hi spygeek,

I just had to point this out, so that you can make sure it's included in your results with your experiment. So you were listening to The Wall? Here's the lyrics to the chorus of said song. In light of our last conversation I found this interesting myself, what say you spygeek, does it count too?

We don't need no education (the posters response on this thread, to the teacher of/on the thread)
We dont need no thought control (same as above)
No dark sarcasm in the classroom (I don't think I need to comment on this, but thread=classrom)
Teachers leave them kids alone (play nice?)
Hey! Teachers! Leave them kids alone! (you said that you talk on threads like you do in your classes)
All in all it's just another brick in the wall. (How what you are saying is perceived by the believers)
All in all you're just another brick in the wall. (same as above)

Did you enjoy the joke I PMed?
TomSawyer

a reply to: spygeek

You still suggest that the universe has a vested interest in you and your life to the point of influencing the events around you to lead you.

maybe it does. it has the sae interest in you. because we are the universe. consciousness is just one thing. we are it. were just one mind splintered into many.

But you ignore everybody else with this suggestion, apparently starving third world citizens and ruthless dictators fall outside of the universe's jurisdiction

my god how can i begin to explain. the universe doesnt just control everything. its a simulation. free will is a thing. there is no point if everything is controlled. most everything is left to chance.

What exactly is the level of the universe's intervention and how exactly can an intervention be defined?

very low? could have swore i said that. ohh i did.

What makes you so special that the universe itself will go out of it's way to provide you with a specific choice of path?

nothing. im not. didnt say i was. everyone is treated the same. if youre about to do a dumb thing maybe you get some sort of message. maybe you dont.

A choice you might not even take anyway, rendering the whole thing pointless to begin with

you mean kind of like giving someone advice that they may or may not take? yeah so why even #ing bother. we should just stop communicating all together.

Logical fallacies. Confirmation bias. Magical thinking. Correlation implying causation. Arguments from ignorance. Special pleading. Argmentum ex culo. Slothful induction. Post hoc, ergo propter hoc. The list goes on..

no dude. lots and lots of out of body experiences leading me to think that this sh1t isnt what it looks like on the surface. whats illogical or magical about that?

and seriously what are you talking about? do you think it makes you looks smart saying thing like that? please try to speak to me like a human being. its pretty #ty that im trying to convey to you my personal view and experiences and you are just sh1tt1ng all over it. i get it. you think your smarter than me because youve convinced yourself youre right. just save it dude. try to treat me with some respect instead of shooting down everything i say.

originally posted by: TomSawyer
a reply to: spygeek

Hi spygeek,

I just had to point this out, so that you can make sure it's included in your results with your experiment. So you were listening to The Wall? Here's the lyrics to the chorus of said song. In light of our last conversation I found this interesting myself, what say you spygeek, does it count too?

We don't need no education (the posters response on this thread, to the teacher of/on the thread)
We dont need no thought control (same as above)
No dark sarcasm in the classroom (I don't think I need to comment on this, but thread=classrom)
Teachers leave them kids alone (play nice?)
Hey! Teachers! Leave them kids alone! (you said that you talk on threads like you do in your classes)
All in all it's just another brick in the wall. (How what you are saying is perceived by the believers)
All in all you're just another brick in the wall. (same as above)

Did you enjoy the joke I PMed?
TomSawyer

Yeah I kind of expected someone would point this out. It doesn't really work though, the song is about the British school system of the mid 20th century and abusive teachers in it. Cherry picking the lines of the chorus to fit observations of this thread doesn't really fit the experiment in my opinion.

Having said that, I do not deny that it's an amusing comparison considering the attitudes of some posters..

Also, what relevance do the lyrics of "Stuck In the Middle With You" have to the experiment? They would have to be given equal significance if we are not going to rely on confirmation bias..

The joke you sent was pretty funny, cheers for sending it =)

originally posted by: AVoiceOfReason
a reply to: spygeek

ok? like i said ive seen and experiences things that the current model either ignores or mocks. i dgaf what you think about campbell.

What have you seen or experienced that current science ignores or mocks?

Of course you can ignore my opinion of Mr. Campbell and his work, that is your prerogative.

have done research. what makes you think i havent? do i have to see things through your point of view to technicaly have done research.

i do understand it in my own way.

Proper research involves being critical and testing what is presented, comparing it to what we already know and seeing if it holds water. My only argument here is that after careful analysis of it, there is little to no actual data in the "theory" to show anything not already understood, and a lot of highly speculative and baseless assertions.

This strict dualism philosophy has serious problems regarding how consciousness is able to affect physical reality and where and how the interaction between material and immaterial takes place. There is nothing in the videos or his books in the way of explanation of these problems; they are ignored. There has to be a mechanism involved, none is ever offered.

what are you talking about?

I was talking about the assertion made by the T.O.E that consciousness is wholly separate and independent of physical reality.

This is called dualism and poses significant problems.

Similarly, a simulation hypothesis is unfalsifiable in that it is impossible to determine that reality is a simulation from inside the simulation. Again this issue is sidestepped and the blunt assertion that reality is simulated is enforced without logic or justifiable cause. The question of what is outside the simulation is also ignored.

um alright? but alot of physicists are saying the exact same thing. that its a simulation. and they arent saying it for no reason.

Physicists have suggested that reality may be simulated. The merit of making the suggestion itself is the subject of debate, as well as what it might imply.
At this point, there is no possible way of knowing, and any theory based on such an assertion is highly speculative.

what do you think it is? talking about logic or justifiable cause but the accepted model is that the universe exploded from nothing for no reason.

The standard model leaves open what might have caused the original expansion, it simply makes no concrete assumption. I already provided two examples regarding where it "exploded" from.

This is false. The current understanding is that it is likely that quantum fluctuations produced the big bang, or prior to the universe two other universes may have collided to produce the big bang.

quantum fluctuations stemming from what? why were there quantum fluctuations in the first place? how are you not grasping that something has to come before to lead into a universe. you cant just ignore this.

Fluctuations are inherent to the nature of a quantum field. They are a property of a quantum field. A quantum field fluctuates.

Arguing from first cause, which appears to be what you are doing, is not logical. There are noncausal events in the universe, and any causality is temporal.

Physical science is not concerned with the reason or why of existence, and conflating such philosophical questions to the realm of material science is illogical.

were not #ing talking about physical science.....

What are we talking about then? Metaphysics? The big T.O.E. claims to have unifies all physical science, quantum theory, and metaphysics..

I've already read the books. Not a single prediction is made. Nor are there any in any of the videos I have seen on the theory.

My comment might have been petty, but it's still true. He is directly profiting from the uninformed public through lying about his product. It is not a theory of everything, it is not even a scientific theory, yet this is exactly what he claims, deliberately misleading people into shelling out for it.

Scientific theories aren't a commodity to be bought and sold like a self-help book. Science does not work that way. Pseudoscience however, works exactly that way.

yeah dude hes rollin in dough while making basically everything he writes about free on youtube. character assassination. thats petty. in what way does calling tom a scam artist add to the conversation. you are a dishonest man if this is how you discuss such things.

I was only pointing out that his "product" is not what he claims it is. If he really thinks it is a scientific theory of everything, then he is not a competent physicist.

Obviously I do not know everything. I do however know enough to be able to confidently identify fake science and flawed logic when I see it.

ok so then forget about it. you dont have to keep telling me about how you think tom's TOE is fake science. maybe you just dont understand it. and with the crap youve been saying im starting to think that this might just be the case. you sometime reply to my comments with completely irrelevant things. i suspect you do this as an attempt t confuse me to get the upper hand. I think rather than leveling with me and being rational youd rather resort to petty subterfuge just to feed your own ego.

If you think it is legitimate science, that's fine. But try taking it to an actual scientist and see what they say. I guarantee any scientist worth his salt will conclude the "theory" does not apply the scientific method and is based on faulty understanding and misconceptions.