[HN Gopher] Problems with Eric Weinstein's "Geometric Unity" ___________________________________________________________________ Problems with Eric Weinstein's "Geometric Unity" Author : mellosouls Score : 24 points Date : 2021-03-06 22:20 UTC (39 minutes ago) (HTM) web link (backreaction.blogspot.com) (TXT) w3m dump (backreaction.blogspot.com) | francisduvivier wrote: | So we are now at the point that peer reviewed papers are being | written as a response to YouTube videos, with timestamped YouTube | links in the paper? | | Has this happened before? Is this the mark of a new era in | scientific research? | | Not sure if should be asking this seriously or not. | n4r9 wrote: | I don't see much reason for taking Weinstein's proposed | "theory" seriously. Or much else that he says for that matter, | but I'm happy to be proven wrong. However, he's found a | platform and I suppose that's pressured academia into | demonstrating that they're not ignoring a self-proclaimed lone | outcast genius. | Waterluvian wrote: | Without posing an opinion on the matter, I find it somewhat | humorous to see the author complaining about having to timestamp | a video for citations because the subject refused to put their | work into an industry standard format. | | There's a certain ivory tower je ne sais quoi to it. Got me | thinking about that superpermutations solution posted on 4chan | leading to a paper with "Anonymous 4chan User" as the lead | author. | omginternets wrote: | The thing is those ivory tower conventions serve a purpose. | They make it easier for others to evaluate (and credit!) your | work. | | Obviously some of these conventions might be pedantic, and | criticizing an argument's form doesn't invalidate its essence, | but I don't think it's a bad idea to insist on standards, even | somewhat arbitrary ones. It seems like you're wishing for a | world in which _every_ citation is equivalent to "Anonymous | 4chan User". I don't think that would improve things. | afro88 wrote: | > The most glaring deficiency in Weinstein's presentation is that | it does not incorporate any quantum theory. Establishing a | consistent quantum theory of gravity alone has defied the efforts | of nearly a century's worth of vigorous research and is part of | what makes formulating a Theory of Everything an enormous | challenge. For GU to overlook this obstacle means that it has no | possible claim on being a Theory of Everything. | | From what I gather, Weinstein regards quantum theory as an | intellectual distraction, and not a useful theory in a practical | sense. So if you disagree with that, then that's his whole theory | out the window. | n4r9 wrote: | Whether or not you think quantum theory is intellectually | substantial, you have to be able to predict and explain | phenomena such as the double-slit experiment or violations of | Bell's theorem. Does his proposal do that? | afro88 wrote: | I have no idea. But I'm interested to see how his theory | plays out now that it's getting more eyes on it. | kevinventullo wrote: | A perhaps relevant post from Frank Calegari on Mochizuki's | purported proof of the ABC Conjecture from a few years ago: | https://www.galoisrepresentations.com/2017/12/17/the-abc-con... | | My favorite quote: | | "To take an extreme example, if Mochizuki had carved his argument | on slate in Linear A and then dropped it into the Mariana Trench, | then there would be little doubt that asking about the veracity | of the argument would be beside the point." | ineedasername wrote: | _Weinstein regards the conventional requirement of writing a | paper to be flawed, since he questions the legitimacy of peer | review, credit assignment, and institutional recognition_ | | I'm fine with skepticism of the traditional research publication | path, but _" take my word for it"_ is a significantly worse | alternative. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-03-06 23:00 UTC)