[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)