A Request for a review of a paper on consciousness creating reality.

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on a paper from the Big Think blog titled "Is human consciousness creating reality?" which the original poster finds too technical to understand. Participants clarify that the forum does not conduct peer reviews and emphasize that the claims in the paper are part of ongoing research that is not yet testable. They suggest that the blog's title may misrepresent the paper's content, which minimally addresses consciousness. The paper itself does not substantiate the bold claims made in the blog post. Overall, the consensus is that it is premature to evaluate the validity of the paper's claims.
Emmanuel Pil
Messages
6
Reaction score
2
The paper I refer to, I found on the Big Think blog titled "Is human consciousness creating reality? And here is the actual link to the paper. Unfortunately, this paper is too technical for me, hence the request for a review for such a big claim.

 
Physics news on Phys.org
Emmanuel Pil said:
request for a review
What do you mean by "review"? PF is not a journal and we don't do peer reviews of papers here.

If you are asking whether the claims in the paper are valid, the paper is in an area of very active research in which no claims are even testable by experiment at this point, let alone established. So the only possible answer to the question of whether the paper's claims are valid is "it's way too early to tell".
 
  • Like
Likes Emmanuel Pil
Emmanuel Pil said:
the Big Think blog titled "Is human consciousness creating reality?
I'm not sure the blog post's title is justified by the claims of the actual paper. So if what you want is a review of the blog post's claims, as opposed to the claims of the actual paper I would say they're not justified. Which is not at all unusual for blog posts talking about research at the frontiers of science.
 
  • Like
Likes Emmanuel Pil and Demystifier
The actual paper is not about consciousness at all. It uses the "c" word only once, in an appendix, under quotation marks.
 
  • Like
Likes Emmanuel Pil
We often see discussions about what QM and QFT mean, but hardly anything on just how fundamental they are to much of physics. To rectify that, see the following; https://www.cambridge.org/engage/api-gateway/coe/assets/orp/resource/item/66a6a6005101a2ffa86cdd48/original/a-derivation-of-maxwell-s-equations-from-first-principles.pdf 'Somewhat magically, if one then applies local gauge invariance to the Dirac Lagrangian, a field appears, and from this field it is possible to derive Maxwell’s...