rightviewftw wrote: ↑
Wed Feb 14, 2018 9:01 am
Circle5 wrote: ↑
Wed Feb 14, 2018 2:10 am
It is even more easy to refute than what he himself is refuting.
Lets hear it.
It has been done millions of time. His theory is nothing new, it's the usual "everything comes from consciousness" theory based on flawed interpretation of quantum mechanics. There is nothing new in his theory. One can simply google "robert lazla debunked". I expected something much better or at least something new when I heard he is nominated for top 3 most important scientist alive by The Times magazine.
This theory is just like materialism, taking one of the 5 aggregates and saying all comes from there and ending up totally refuted by a billion things. For example color or light or etc. is created inside our brain, but it does not come out of nothing. That elecromagnetic energy from which it comes does exist. Humans all see pretty much the same colors, that's why we have red, yellow and green at traffic lights. Not to mention things like placebo should work even for amputees if such a theory would be correct.
There are billions of ways to refute this "everything comes from consciousness" idea. It's just like materialism, going into one extreme, saying everything comes from consciousness and totally ignoring the importance of matter. And it is no wonder people are laughing about him since a serious scientist should figure out this theory is wrong 5 minutes after hearing it.
To create a theory of everything, one that perfectly fits together the relationships between consciousness and matter, is much more difficult to do. I have tried too but there are many things that need to be taken into consideration, many things that need to fit. The moment you think you figured it out, you get refuted by something and need to rethink the theory completely.
If one is not careful about not getting refuted, it's very easy to end up with a Crackpot-theory in this field. That's why we even have a "Crackpot index" especially made for people trying to make such a theory in physics: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html
And remember last point on that list. If it doesn't make any predictions, it's not a theory.