On Demanding Proof

People keep asking for “scientific proof” of anything that touches consciousness, crystals, coherence, or any structure that falls outside the comfort zone of classical physics.

But here’s the real problem:

you can’t demand proof from a system that actively polices what it’s allowed to discover.

I’m not talking about conspiracies or some shadowy group. I’m talking about the normal, everyday behavior of academic gatekeeping:

– papers get retracted for stepping outside accepted narratives

– journals refuse anything that blurs physics with mind

– editors panic at anything that smells “too integrative”

– whole research directions get choked out before they ever get a chance to breathe

– results get buried because nobody wants to risk their career on something unfamiliar

So when someone says, “Show me peer-reviewed evidence that A connects to B,”

they’re forgetting that the referees decided ahead of time that A and B aren’t allowed to connect.

How the hell are you supposed to “prove” something when the proof gets erased, blocked, or filtered before it even enters the conversation?

And this is exactly why dismissing things like:

– crystal coherence

– photon/phonon/electron coupling

– geometric alignment with brain-state eigenvalues

– or anything remotely “consciousness-adjacent”

…on the grounds of “there’s no scientific evidence” is a broken premise from the start.

The absence of published papers doesn’t mean the idea is wrong.

Often it means somebody tried to study it, and the system said “nope, that’s outside the sandbox.”

If you’re going to demand scientific validation, at least acknowledge the way science is curated, filtered, trimmed, and sometimes quietly deleted.

The truth doesn’t disappear.

Sometimes the documentation does

Pic: Microtubule lattice (Orch-OR) - Penrose/Hameroff