Is it some metaphysics? Then is sure makes sense, as much as any other metaphysics. It's not physics then though, but that's totally ok.
this post was submitted on 04 Apr 2026
-3 points (33.3% liked)
Physics
1900 readers
17 users here now
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
@alzymologist@sopuli.xyz
I think that perspective—that it makes sense as metaphysics—is certainly understandable.
However, this research does not remain within that framework. It is constructed within the framework of physics, as it formulates hypotheses based on experimental data and further validates them through reproducible experiments.
If you’re interested, I’ve shared the original paper below. I would really appreciate it if you could take a look at the actual data and structure, and share your honest thoughts.
I'm sorry, it's a bunch of nonsense; I'm always careful to disregard fringe paracademic works, but this one has undefined variables in experimental section, no clear experimental design description, and mixes random terms (AUC, for example, is not a statistics tool, but transceiver design abstraction) for no clear reason.
I could also anticipate correlation of generic metrics like random data's Ricci curvature based on abundance of similarly distributed noise in similar ADC components used both in EEG and pioneer quantum computation systems. So I'm not sure what I'm even looking at, but it sounds legit even without new effects; how could I tell one from another when I know little and less about what really was measured and how?
Thus, I'm not saying there is nothing behind the ideas, but this work is just not legitimate as it does not convey the idea nor its validation/fallibility at all.
I assess it's engagement bait. Our having read much of it, despite none of it having any discernable value at all, was apparently the point. I can't see this drivel passing any first inspection of peers in the field...
this is garbage science and the video offers no specific information most likely on purpose
Looks like a whole bunch of nonsense by and for people with no understanding of the purpose or even the structure of academic research. The author is a "Bachelor of Business Administration" with an apparent penchant for arcane scientific-sounding babble.
Read any proper publication, and you'll see every word and thought thoroughly explained or reduced to common (if perhaps field-specific) knowledge. The abstract is short enough to give a cursory overview, and doesn't dump a page's worth of the author's favourite sciency-sounding words and symbols.
Here's an example (supposed to be without a paywall): https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3641399.3641443
Note the format, length, and wording of the abstract, the authors' credentials (both field-relevant and at least graduate-level), the conciseness of the discussion, etc.
Compare this to Watanabe's efforts to convince you (and whoever else reads his stuff) that he's smart. Very, very smart. Way smarter than you. Way smarter than the people who don't realise his smartness. The least he expects of you is unearned respect, but I'm willing to bet he's monetising this.
If this was the 00s, he'd probably have one of these websites (PSA: don't download or install anything):
Kryptochef: https://web.archive.org/web/20060613200332/http://kryptochef.net/index2e.htm
Timecube: https://web.archive.org/web/20100127184015/http://www.timecube.com/
@aldhissla@piefed.world
Your point seems to be missing the actual subject of discussion.
What I am asking for—even if you disagree—is a rebuttal based on scientific reasoning and evidence regarding the content itself.
That is the minimum level of respect owed when an author presents a theory derived from experimental data.
As it stands, it looks like you’re unable to provide a convincing counterargument to the actual content, so instead you’re focusing on superficial points that are easy to attack just to pass the time.