Comment on Gravity For Patterns a theory of everything

BenRayfield Wed, Dec 22, 2010
"No, you totally just said "The E8 math structure very accurately approximates the only known laws-of-physics.""

That was an observation. In any science experiment, there will be outliars in the observations - data that isn't accurately measured or is the wrong number for some other reason, but usually most of the observations form a pattern and the theory is said to be verified or not based on those.

"Problems with their methodology"...

"What type of event qualifies as "significant"? They pick events themselves, without any defined criteria."

The fact that they choose the time ranges (events) and publish the prediction is enough to make the prediction significant. That is added to the general pattern of their events being significant which is demonstrated when enough people predict the same thing, like I emailed them to put event 351 into their list but found it was already there.

"What type of effect in the data constitutes a result?"
"They make claims of specific numbers for how they beat chance. Clearly, it's impossible to have any meaningful metrics, given the lack of standards for scoring or choosing events."

The type of calculation to determine that is chosen in advance.

"They do not look for alternate causes of their data anomalies."

Yes they do, even though I'm only using them as observations and not a source of theories about those observations.

"To any reasonable person, the whole concept of global consciousness is ridiculous at face value."

That is not the kind of thing you would find in a scientific statement against them.

I still expect  has made enough accurate observations of their quantum devices to be useful as observations for my Gravity For Patterns theory, and in my experience which usually is not recorded as proof for you to see here, I have lots of observations of "random" things becoming a little less random in connection with what people were thinking. But don't take my word for it. Go practice gambling and get really good at it and tell me you never know, for no logical reason, that someone is bluffing or the dice will land a certain way. Lots of gamblers know it happens sometimes, and  simply formalized it.

"I have a really hard time taking it seriously when they count shit like this as relevant"

You expect it to not be relevant. Your expectation is so strong that you can't take it seriously. That means that when they found the data was statistically relevant, its that much more important. Surprising data is often the most important.

There will always be people who want more accurate observations and more certainty toward proof, regardless of how accurate it is. If you give them what they ask for, they'll ask for more before your theories could reasonably be true. My reasons for creating this theory are not to prove it to everyone... Instead I plan to use it. If it helps me design things that work, then its accurate enough. Of course I'll still look for more accuracy, but Gravity For Patterns is a practical theory that narrows down the research paths necessary to build a warp drive and lots of other stuff, so these disagreements can be settled by who can build the best technology.