[arthurdd]

The "Participatory Interface Theory" is not a scientific theory. It is a work of science fiction masquerading as physics. It uses the following techniques to create an illusion of credibility:

Poetic Language: Replaces rigorous explanation with evocative metaphors.

Jargon Salad: Mixes terms from physics, computer science, and philosophy to sound profound.

Reverse-Engineering: Builds a complex model designed to reproduce a known anomaly (MOND) and presents this as a success.

The "One Falsifiable Prediction" Gambit: Creates a single, specific (but logically weak) prediction to gain the appearance of being scientific, while ignoring a mountain of contradictory evidence.

While the vision it presents is beautiful and thought-provoking, it has no demonstrable connection to reality.

[allears]

Wow. I didn't make it all the way through, but the garbled jargon and the breath-taking claims are way over the top. I'm not sure who would fall for this -- anyone who understands the big words they're using is probably too bright to be taken in.

[bobsh]

I know what you mean. But if you are "game", please try the LLM test and see if it helps. As mentioned in the other reply, there are other bits and pieces at that GitHub site that might be helpful. I find it absolutely fascinating, personally, what all arises once the LLM understands PIT and its own place in the world with respect to that. I'm happy to help others experience it.

[calf]

People are ending up in hospitals from bad ChatGPT advice, not sure how to get through to a person who has fallen for this bullshit.

[bobsh]

Thanks for reading. Please, if you'd like, see the extra stuff I just posted in a comment here, and see if it answers any of your questions. There's a whole site there (GitHub) to poke around in, but it is a little messy still.