You offer a news article about E8 being wrong, which is no more reliable than the videos and other places I got my information from. I didn't say E8 is certainly correct, and my Gravity For Patterns theory is strong enough that it continues to be a good theory to explain all the other observations I listed even if E8 is wrong.

Most importantly, no other theory of physics explains this observation:

More often than would happen randomly or through normal communication or observing the environment etc, there are small statistical dependencies between the brains of people and/or quantum physics devices. See the "main results" list at http://noosphere.princeton.edu for the results of those experiments.

but give us no discrete mathematical equations

My Gravity For Patterns theory depends on Max Tegmark's theory ("All structures that exist mathematically exist also physically.") being true. I listed some observations that support Tegmark's theory. As we know from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel's_incompleteness_theorems there are an infinite number of things in math that are true but can never be proven true. That includes patterns.

Therefore theres a good chance that the equations you ask for are past the incompleteness border, and it is unreasonable to require such equations be written before considering it based on the approximate words I used to describe it, which I will summarize as:

Gravity For Patterns at an infinite depth of recursing approximate simulations of simulations of... what we call reality, and all possible ways of combining those. If Tegmark's theory is true then Gravity For Patterns logically has to be a subset of the universe, balanced by part that does not have gravity for patterns and a part where patterns repel each other. Its still a theory-of-everything because it implies its opposite exists in the context of Tegmark's theory.

E8 is 1 of many examples of what you'd find in the gravity-for-patterns parts of the universe, but that does not mean our laws-of-physics are anything like E8.

No, you totally just said "The E8 math structure very accurately approximates the only known laws-of-physics." - I never said anything about you claiming certitude on it, although you sure seem to claim knowledge of the subject of physics and how it relates to the E8. I think if you really knew what you're talking about you'd be able to show us exactly how it does that (Which it hasn't been shown to at all quite yet).

The global consiciousness project is a laughable party for apopheniacs. I have a really hard time taking it seriously when they count shit like this as relevant:

http://noosphere.princeton.edu/surv.html

http://noosphere.princeton.edu/oprah.031218.html

It's not only that, it's very obviously flawed due to a number of other problems with their methodology. I just like the oprah & survivor examples I found a while ago cause it sticks out in my mind - Another example of bias, sure, but if only you hopefully can see my point...

I got more to say probably tomorrow (Headed out the door now to party it up for the solstice), and I'd like to add I don't think your idea for "gravity for patterns" is totally bullshit or irrelevant or stupid or any of that. I thank you for showing me the way me today to Tegmark's ideas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_universe_hypothesis

"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?"

and

"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 http://noosphere.princeton.edu 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 http://noosphere.princeton.edu 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.

After all those years of thinking, I find that I re-invented a much simpler idea.

Gravity For Patterns is what you get when you apply Law Of Attraction to the laws-of-physics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Attraction

Example: While driving, I asked a question to whoever or whatever may be out there listening, and the answer came on the license plate of the next passing car. It was too specific to be a coincidence, and this kind of thing happens around me often. I think most people just ignore it. How was the answer (on a license plate) driving behind me before I asked the question? How was that car anywhere near me when I asked the question? Its a long sequence of events that lead to me asking the question, and similarly long for the answer to be there, but something pulled the question and answer together. That's Law Of Attraction.

Law Of Attraction is not just about similar things attracting. Masters and slaves attract each other. Anything that fits together in a consistent way will attract in the possibilities of the infinite multiverse.

Gamma, yes, kind of like a monkey uses a zoo. But it depends what kind of business you're doing.

Wed, Dec 22, 2010Permanent linkNo 'Simple Theory of Everything' Inside the Enigmatic E8, Researcher Says

You throw a lot of mathematical terms out there but give us no discrete mathematical equations. Perhaps when I start seeing something substantial around those lines, instead of a bunch of term dropping, maybe I'll start seriously considering your ideas seriously and stop thinking that your understanding of things is something beyond a front.