This reply is from one of Tom's videos comment section and I'd thought I'd share it here as it is good for reference. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fcKezLW__Q

Paleologic : tom, as a scientist - how can you prove (or be sure) that your big toe is not just an, although sophisticated and maybe logically consistent, construct of your mind, including the out of body data gathering and experiments. a powerful intellect like yours easily could create a purely internal model of a big toe, which is itself just a "virtual reality" for the purpose of finding an answer to an existential question. it might be logical, consistent, and even might correspond with your own experience and most external data, but it is by no means proof, because it all could just be a nicely arranged construct in your head. do you know what i mean? how, in other words, can your theory independently and scientifically be validated? most schizophrenic for example do not know and would never believe that "it's all just in their head". how can you prove your big toe it's not - and actually describes "fundamental reality" as it is? there are MANY toes out there. why is your's the correct/final one? (no offence intended at all. just interested to know how if and how you protect yourself from believing in a construct that might just be real and "true" in your own mind ;)


TOM: That is a perfectly good question. I have answered it in multiple Videos and in the books. There is no proof. Almost nothing, unless it is very simple and its application is simple, can be proved. Science is no longer about proof, it is about evidence. Science gave up the concept of "proof" along with "laws" (like Newton's laws), because it represented little picture hubris and was considered unscientific, when they realized that every explanation must contain uncertainty -- since all the pertinent data that will one day exist has not yet been collected. Science is now seen as an open-ended process of continual discovery. Today, science produces only theories or models instead of proof and laws: Newtonian theory, the theory of relativity; QM theory; evolution theory, cosmological models, the standard particle model, etc.
A scientific model is considered a very, very good one if it explains all that is known to be fact (is contradicted by no empirical fact), and if it provides a better explanation (fewer assumptions, broader scope, less complex or more elegant) and if can predict new facts that can be experimentally verified. Though there is still some veridical experimenting to be done in support of MBT, the MBT model meets all the criteria of being a very, very good model. That doesn't mean that it can't be wrong, mistaken, or limited... only that it is the best model we have at the time. I am no believer in the correctness of MBT, and I often tell everybody else to not believe in it either -- belief is the enemy -- open minded and always skeptical is the only way to go. I do think that MBT represents the best, most comprehensive and elegant cosmology that is available today.
There is no proof -- ever. There will always be some uncertainty -- because the future is uncertain. There is always a possibility of some fact conflicting in the future -- if so, the model must be improved/expanded to cover that fact, and if that cannot be done, then the model is incomplete and a better model should be sought.
MBT theory explains both objective and subjective experience. The subjective part can be validated by individual subjective experience and statistical assessments of individual experience (same as psychology, sociology or medical science) and the objective part can be validated by any one of a dozen scientific experiments in the general area of quantum mechanics, and focused intent affecting future probability. Much science and experimentation has already been done in these areas and MBT theory accurately predicts all of the results, however there are more, never before done experiments that need to be done. I will be putting out a video outlining a collection of these experiments near the end of this year -- hoping that others (with proper facilities and equipment) will do these experiments.

Thanks for transcribing that. It is a pertinent answer to what gets ask here all the time.

Not a year goes by now-a-days when I don't see an article in Scientific American, Science Today, or New Scientist about the holographic nature of the universe, or the digital basis of matter. Certainly seems like this idea is actually becoming accepted by many physicists.

It would be awesome to hear Tom talking with Robert Lanza. Have you heard of Robert's TOE, Sainbury? http://www.robertlanza.com/biocentrism- ... -universe/

I've heard of him but I don't know enough about his theory to really comment.

Elk, as I recall, Lanza has been mentioned and discussed on the board a bit. You might try a search ...

It was pretty light, as I recall, and your knowledge may exceed the discussion given that you brought it up.

Thanks reality, for the transcription.

I'll add it to my volume of Tom's Lessons :-)