seriously lol its like he asks the question, hears the answer, and is like nah here's the actual answer, and I won't lie id rather he just did these podcasts just with himself looking at a mirror
I imagine that is somewhat a consequence of going through life finding that, for the most part, other humans lack the knowledge, insight and intelligence he has. And his ability to figure things out for himself is integral to the breadth of his knowledge and expertise. However, I am sure there have been many mentors who he absorbed a lot from. But listening is a skill, and sometimes he could just wait and listen a bit more, before interrupting.
@@PlasticSausages This is exactly what I guessed from watching this one. I feel some people think Eric is purposefully derailing in podcasts, but he's mentioned that he's had to take a more aggressive approach because of being on Dave Rubin's show with Jordan Peterson and he's said he needs to listen more and allow guests to structure their arguments as they see them instead of how he needs to immediately steel man or correct them. Still the hardest Portal Episode I've had to get through. I honestly think Garrett Lisi has to be the first "returning" guest. I felt there wasn't enough out of him in his own words how he felt about things and his work.
fame got into his head. his been in the cave his entire career now he got to see the limelight and getting albiet of "celebrity" status he got consumed.
@@jwelda1 and anything I've put out is still more interesting than anything you've put out... From what I can tell, you're just another consumer with nothing to offer the world... Absolutely nothing...
Not the first time I've heard this. I have a book in my library entitle Loop Quantum Gravity, A Theory of Space-time Edited by Paul F. Kisak. It is an excellent read even for lay people. In it there is a discussion about how the string theorist tried to shutdown LQG like they did Eric. Turns out the big break for LQG occurred at an interdisciplinary symposium when a mathematician attend lectures on both string theory and LQG. He was intrigued by a proof they were using in both ST and LQG. When he approached the ST camp they became defensive and dismissed him out of hand because he had disproven the proof as they were using it. I think Eric talks about how they manipulated it by adding constants and that's where their version broke down. The LQG camp on the other hand embraced his new math proof that all but proved LQG is a superior theory of the formation of matter at the quantum level using something akin to twister theory. I'm an avid angler and I can attest to the fact that in the macro world multiple 360 degree twists in a finite string will form amazing structures that are impossible to disentangle. I long ago left advanced mathematics behind me in college. Just like Eric I still putter around with Quantum Mechanics and differential equations. This goes on in many fields and inhibits research and development. I worked at Bell Labs and frankly, we ignored academic research by and large. Instead they hired promising grad students and mentored them as researchers. In computer science for instance IBM insisted parallel processing was not achievable. I was the lead technician on the Applications Processor. It used the Intel 8000 series with an 8086 processor operating in parallel with several 8085 and 8080 cpu's. I solve a major problem with the system when I discovered that the sqaurewave signals were cross coupling due to the high frequency clock rates we were using on the back-plane that was in close proximity to the data ribbon cables that transferred data between various data storage devises. It stumped all the engineers because they had never built a simple transistor radio from a kit like I did in college.
A recent devil child of this is, "We're going to make our policy based on science, not politics..." (re Covid), completely misunderstanding what science is, since science illustrates reality, but does not tell us what to do with it. Not to mention that science always has undetermined leading edges, and is prone to message control for political purposes (masks are not effective and the WHO is a respectable, independent and objective actor, to name two examples). If you question "science" goes the narrative (which by the way is what a true scientists does every day) you're a dolt (unless its say science like data about sex differences, which should be ignored outright).
@Irish Jester Read it again. My point was that masks ARE effective, but that early on certain "authorities" (like the CDC) were telling us they were not, and you were criticized for questioning the logic of that given that medical professionals depend heavily on them. This is an item Eric himself has stated several times recently. One of the most important reasons for being civil is that we don't always understand things. Indignance may be forgiveable, but when it's in error, it takes what otherwise would be a simple mistake and turns it into something discrediting in future engagements. Irish Jester, I need people with which to engage, so, please, let me know you understand my comment.
Many thanks! ... Quantum theory, general relativity and string theory are phenomenological (parametric, operationalist) theories without ontological justification (ontological basification). To overcome the a conceptual - paradigmatic crisis of the metaphysical / ontological basis, the Big Synthesis is needed, a critical look at the entire path of philosophy and science. Fundamental science requires a Big Ontological revolution in the metaphysical basis. A.N. Whitehead: “A precise language must await a completed metaphysical knowledge.” J.A. Wheeler, "unsung paragon of science": "We are no longer satisfied with insights only into particles, fields of force, into geometry, or even into time and space. Today we demand of physics some understanding of existence itself." "To my mind there must be, at the bottom of it all, not an equation, but an utterly simple idea. And to me that idea, when we discover it, will be so compelling, so inevitable, that we will say to one another, 'Oh, how beautiful. How could it have been otherwise?'" "Philosophy is too important to be left to philosophers."
Eric's Dunning Kruger is showing every time he talks about physics. It's fashionable to hate on string theory. Well, there are two types of theories. Those that people love to criticize, and those no one talks about.
I think it's tendentious to apply the "Dunning Kruger" label to an expert in a field who dissents from other experts. Lee Smolin articulates a similar criticism, does the Dunning Kruger effect apply to him also? Feynman said famously "If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics". Some modern advocates for string theory have a similar mantra: " If you have something against string theory, you don't understand string theory".
The criticism of string theory is quite easy to understand and has been made by many notable theoretical physicists, including real leaders of the field like Dick Feynman and Sheldon Glashow. It ultimately boils down to: yes, you have done a lot of fancy mathematics that most people can't make heads or tails of, but ultimately every one of your predictions has either been totally physically wrong, or so at such ridiculous scales they will likely never be experimentally verifiable.
@@marmoset3 The lowest energy state of the closed string behaves like a graviton. Furthermore, the AdS/CFT duality shows how a geometical description of gravity can be encoded as entanglement on the boundary. String theory is a unified theory. It doesn't put in gravity like LQG by hand, but gravity emergest from the framework of ST. It can also unify the other forces of nature, but there are too many string theories to make quick progress. Now, is string theory right? probably not. But it is still the best theory of quantum gravity and it gives us insights into certain gauge theories and so on. Even if a theory isn't what describes our reality, it can still be useful to learn about the nature of theories of quantum gravity.
it wasn't until I read your comment that it clicked for me. That's so obscure a reference and they both caught it right away. I wonder if that is maybe more common lingo in their parts of the math world, or if they're just giant katamari nerds at heart.
@@AlexanderMoen Obscure??? How could anyone who has ever come in contact with that game forget it? I never owned the game (was 14, had no money), but I definitely remember playing the demo in places like Gamestop and Walmart... Some snippets from Wikipedia -> "It was the top-selling game the week of its release with 32,000 units sold, and sold over 155,000 copies in Japan by the end of 2004." "it rapidly sold out nationwide, with sales surpassing 120,000 units in North America."
@@ancientelevator9 haha, well, obscure in that it didn't click that it was the game for me at first. It sounded more like a scientific or business principle, or perhaps a tasty Japanese dish. I haven't even heard a reference to that game by anyone in what has to be over a decade now at this point. We should bring this into everyday lingo. If both you and I start using it, and it sticks with a few other people and they use it and it sticks with yet other people, well... it'll continue to build and take over, kinda like a Katamari damacy ball.
I have a great idea! For the dark side of the Universe - suppose that it consists of short-term interactions in long-lived fractal networks, the smallest operators of quantum energy - spherical «rosebuds», consisting of a large number; 1 - rolled into a sphere, 2 - half folded into a sphere and 3 - flat, vibrating quantum membranes relative to their working centers in the sphere.
Eric, you are so argumentative; you don't have to try to win every argument. In fact, all the arguments against String Theory probably have one origin: Eric Weinstein.
"Appeal to authority" is not what he was doing. He was providing an account for one of the reasons he thinks string theory took off when it did : the emergence of an extraordinarily brilliant mind who inspired a generation to follow him down a particular path.
@@Sifar_Secure like I said. The brilliance of the man doesn't matter. The string theorists were like a very smug cult... composed entirely of middle school girls. Some of them were worse than others and some completely intolerable. I never met Witten but people who regularly brought him up tended to cross the threshold of intolerable. Very little about it was inspiring. More sharp elbows and insecurity than you could shake a stick at. It was nothing less than a virulant form of intellectual cancer...Like HPV but a lot less fun to acquire. That movement destroyed or derailed a lot of very promising careers. See Woit's criticism for a more diplomatic take.
@@Sifar_Secure www.kitp.ucsb.edu/joep/links/some-criticisms-string-theory/lee-smolins-response This is highly relevant given that Joe P isn't one of the more problematic or overly indoctrinated individuals I've encountered.
4 года назад
@@robmorgan1214 " The brilliance of the man doesn't matter": it matters entirely, because a man's intuition might take decades to materialize into either experimental evidence or a model. Intuition is recovering order from madness. The equivalence principle was there for everybody to see, but only one man saw it and shaped it. The Lorentz theory had the same predictive capacity as Einstein's theory at the time and yet the entire community leaned into one direction. We cannot advance without our intuitions and that is the job of geniuses. Theoretical physics is a mixture of high IQ guys with not that much creative process with autistic super powers and artists with high IQ as well. The artists are the fewer, but are the ones opening new paths. That is why particularly in theoretical physics people follow the intuitions of a few, because most simply don't have it. It is a neuropsychological limitation of ,objectively, the smartest group pf people on the planet (and everybody has an ego in th. physics, everyone; I find irrelevant you label Witten special in that regard). Intuitions are more often than not wrong, but is not irrational to at least give it a try. The reason we are stuck for so long is because we have re-iterated over the same theories in the last decades, and nothing truly different has arrived. It is an anthropological phenomenon that the group suppresses challenging ideas and that is a problem. You are right in which it shouldn't matter that much, but you are wrong saying that it doesn't matter, because it does. It does to the level of being the light toward the other side.
If you want radical ideas that have been suppressed for decades but may be revolutionary, look no further than Carl Jung and his discovery of the collective unconscious. Jung is someone we should look at very seriously. If his ideas are wrong, then they are wrong, but their depth and complexity deserve serious attention from academia.
@Richard Watson Hahaha pretty arrogant and ignorant of you to say, considering you haven't read any of Jung's empirical work. My point is that I believe Jung did something amazing by approaching psychological and religious phenomena empirically. If Jung's work is wrong, then it's wrong but it would be an absolute shame to disregard it without proper scientific analysis. I mean isn't that the point of science in the first place - to study things objectively and determine what is true? Try reading his work Aion and come back and tell me if you think his work is just some "word wizardry subjectiveness", Dick.
Eric Weinstein is slowly revealing himself to be the worst interviewer ever. He also just seems so self absorbed and loves to hear himself talk. He'll agree with a guest but act like he disagrees just to talk more.
8:22 "I need more information from that specific statement to be able to form an argument against it" Actually, say NO MORE. I'm out! I'm glad people don't own information. You can get the same stuff from different sources!
Chill out on making your guests so uncomfortable. Also Eric I feel like you have years of anger for being considered an outsider for most your life until you got some limelight. I get it I get your goal but just reel in that superiority complex a bit.
What was this thing supposed to be? I thought the bald guy was interviewing the other guy, since that is the name in the title, and since he keeps talking. I was kind of confused reading the comments and then when I looked at the other videos in the channel I was like. WTF?
I have heard from my friends string theory is leaking into condensed matter. Im currently in the condensed matter field and not interested in string theory at all.
Everyone is an idiot, ie unable to learn by experience?, it's always going to be true in degree, so it's good to recognise that fact and adapt. Professor Witten is one of those intensely literal memorising minds, who can cut and paste an assembly of components into the systematic narrative that is Mathematics. It goes with the Tornado through a Junkyard concept, to detractors, but it is waiting for the Technician to make it work. (Saying all this without knowing anything about it, except how it happens in the rest of the World) If no one objects to the typical method of review, renaming the concepts to fit an abstract in a different alignment of properties, the assume String Theory is also Logarithmic Time assembled holographically in interpenetrating waves of time-timing pure motion, ie it's a particular POV of Calculus. (And "hard little bubbles" of dimensional coordination in Singularity/Perspective)
When the aether is taken at face value for its fractal presentation of the magnelectric nature of the microcosm as well as the macro, a unified field theory is moot. The nature of our being is far simpler than anyone suspects.
@@das_it_mane True infinity can't exist without boundary conditions, I think. Otherwise, all would be confined to a finite set of possibilities. The aether, to my way of thinking, is the bottom boundary, or inner, which comes from infinitely smaller and smaller existence and goes to the infinitely large in a fractal and self similar way. The top boundary, or outer, is the universe at large. In this way, all exists as an expression of Itself, naturally. See Ken Wheeler on magnetism. Also see the Hopf Fibration as illustrated on RU-vid. Also, I'm a philosopher who thinks that Occams razor applies to the pursuit of understanding.
How many String Theorists does it take to change a light bulb? None, because they expect second rate physicists AKA Quantum Field theorists to do it for them.
He and Jordan Peterson are about the only ‘is doublers’ I can stand listening to but Eric goes to the dark side at 3:41 when he becomes a ‘was-is doubler’. How can you be so smart and so careless in your speech.
String theory has given us so much information in to how nature functions. Information that we would of never had without it. To ignore it's many achievements is dishonest and truly arrogant. Furthermore, I think its critics are simply physicists who don't believe in doing hard maths to solve problems. Indeed, this friction between hard mathematicians and physicists is always present.
@@patbonny1175 Thanks for catching that. Happens sometimes when one types quickly. I appreciate it. No trolling. I'll write a detailed reply to the other comment when I have time.
Eric, I'm afraid you're more of a projector than a receiver. David Dunning and Justine Kruger need to examine their cognitive bias theory. Great talking about ideas but talking with the authority on display here reeks of arrogance.
The only problem I have with all these new intellects rushing into the podcast universe (there seems to be hundreds of new ones per day) is the lack of social grace many posses. Their brains are big, to be sure, and there's no shortage of fascinating ideas, theories and notions. But many would be well served to go at it alone. Tbeir guests seem only to get in the way. My suggestion to these oversized egos: Either learn how to conduct an interview civilly or ditch the guests. Cant have it both ways, guys.
