The universe we describe is inseparable from the organism that describes it

We should challenge the conventional view of science as uncovering an objective reality. Instead, scientific inquiry explores Shared Experience, shaped by the biological structure of the human organism. All human knowledge originates within Experience - sensory perceptions, thoughts, and emotions.

Scientists achieve consensus through replication, which focuses on Shared Experience: when multiple observers confirm the same observation (e.g., the speed of light), it is exploring a shared reality, but this reality remains within human subjectivity, not an external cosmos. Scientific theories, such as Newton’s laws, Einstein’s relativity, or quantum mechanics, are predictive narratives within Experience, judged by their utility in unifying observations and predicting future phenomena.

A unified theory of everything - a mathematical framework reconciling quantum mechanics and general relativity - would mark a collision between our theories and ourselves as Experiencers. This theory’s mathematical structure would mirror some structure within the human organism’s biology in a 1:1 correspondence, suggesting that the universe we describe is inseparable from the organism that describes it, manifesting in Shared Experience.

Scientists achieve consensus through replication, which focuses on Shared Experience: when multiple observers confirm the same observation (e.g., the speed of light), it is exploring a shared reality, but this reality remains within human subjectivity, not an external cosmos. Scientific theories, such as Newton’s laws, Einstein’s relativity, or quantum mechanics, are predictive narratives within Experience, judged by their utility in unifying observations and predicting future phenomena.

Science has nothing to do with "consensus" ~ consensus, I'd argue, is the philosophical aspect. Science is merely about the experiments, and the results, whereas the interpretations and conclusions are entirely philosophical.

Biology depends on physics, not the other way around. Our cells, brains, and perceptual systems are built from atoms and molecules governed by quantum mechanics and relativity. If anything, a “theory of everything” would explain biology, not mirror it.

Biology depends on physics, not the other way around. Our cells, brains, and perceptual systems are built from atoms and molecules governed by quantum mechanics and relativity. If anything, a “theory of everything” would explain biology, not mirror it.

Biology depends on not only physics, but consciousness. Biology isn't merely chemistry, after all.

It is the unconscious layer of consciousness that controls the chemistry of the body it occupies through unknown means ~ making it biology.

Biology depends on physics, not the other way around. Our cells, brains, and perceptual systems are built from atoms and molecules governed by quantum mechanics and relativity. If anything, a “theory of everything” would explain biology, not mirror it.

Granted, physics is a later, more generalised narrative... but it's still only a useful predictive narrative within shared Experience, along with biology.

Everything is within Experience, and we Experience biological humans as being where our Experience arises. The organism having this Experience, is the same organism coming up with the stories to explain it's Experience. Hence if there is any validity to Experience, a mathematical theory of everything must have a mathematical structure which has some 1:1 correspondence within our Experience of the biological human.

Science has nothing to do with "consensus" ~ consensus, I'd argue, is the philosophical aspect. Science is merely about the experiments, and the results, whereas the interpretations and conclusions are entirely philosophical.

I'd probably agree as regards 'consensus' = individual opinion, but disagree as regards 'consensus' = agreement of the results between individual replications. Replication is a key plank of the scientific method.

Biology depends on physics, not the other way around. Our cells, brains, and perceptual systems are built from atoms and molecules governed by quantum mechanics and relativity. If anything, a “theory of everything” would explain biology, not mirror it.

I think Max's point is that your 'obvious' conclusion might be wrong. Just for example, think of Donald Hofman's concept of layer of some sort mechanism that presents a totally unreal 'user interface' view of the world to consciousness.

David

Granted, physics is a later, more generalised narrative... but it's still only a useful predictive narrative within shared Experience, along with biology.

Everything is within Experience, and we Experience biological humans as being where our Experience arises. The organism having this Experience, is the same organism coming up with the stories to explain it's Experience. Hence if there is any validity to Experience, a mathematical theory of everything must have a mathematical structure which has some 1:1 correspondence within our Experience of the biological human.

The kind of theory physicists are searching for isn’t meant to describe subjective experience as such, it’s meant to describe measurable phenomena: the structure and dynamics of matter, energy, space, and time.
A theory of everything would unify the laws governing observable behavior including particles, fields, gravitation, etc., not the internal, phenomenological texture of experience. That’s not because experience is invalid, but because physics, as a discipline, deliberately restricts itself to what can be formally modeled and empirically tested.
So even if all scientific inquiry happens “within experience,” that doesn’t imply that the subjective structure of experience should mirror the mathematical structure of the theory. Physics describes what is observed, not how it feels to observe.

I'd probably agree as regards 'consensus' = individual opinion, but disagree as regards 'consensus' = agreement of the results between individual replications. Replication is a key plank of the scientific method.

Replication is not the same idea as "consensus", though.

"Consensus" has always been used as a blanket term to silence debate about the truth or reality of certain thing claimed to be "proven" by science. That is, in a "trust the Science" kind of sense, where politics is using science to force a certain conclusion upon the public for corporate or political gain.

Replication as a concept simply means that someone can reproduce the results ~ it has nothing to do with the philosophical interpretation of the results to mean a certain thing.

In this sense, Darwinists can claim that Evolution is a "consensus", nevermind almost not a single one of their claims having been independently replicated.

Replication is not the same idea as "consensus", though.

"Consensus" has always been used as a blanket term to silence debate about the truth or reality of certain thing claimed to be "proven" by science. That is, in a "trust the Science" kind of sense, where politics is using science to force a certain conclusion upon the public for corporate or political gain.

Replication as a concept simply means that someone can reproduce the results ~ it has nothing to do with the philosophical interpretation of the results to mean a certain thing.

In this sense, Darwinists can claim that Evolution is a "consensus", nevermind almost not a single one of their claims having been independently replicated.

A key point of my OP Experience claim is that the scientific method of using replication, forces science down the route of valuing more highly, the experimental results we agree on, and so for my purposes, it biases science towards exploring what we share, or, perhaps what binds us together.

I could have used the term 'agreement' in place of the term 'consensus' in the sentence:

"Scientists achieve consensus agreement through replication, which focuses on Shared Experience..."

I accept that the term 'consensus' has sometimes been overly emphasized in science-type communications for say... political propaganda purposes etc.

Here however, it was innocently chosen by me as an option offered by AI to rewrite my claim for better intelligibility.

As far as I'm aware, there are two types of replication: a direct replication of an earlier experiment which gets the same results, or, a general replication of an earlier experiment which uses a slightly different experiment that gets results which supports the earlier results. As far as I can understand in terms of scientific replication, the former would be 'in agreement', and the latter 'in general agreement'. I think AI simply used the term 'consensus' in place of the term 'general agreement', without any intention to invoke the propaganda baggage.