i've been watching Eric on Podcasts for at least five years now and I've never seen anybody ask such insightful questions. i enjoyed hearing his take on the artificial becoming natural for humans and i always get inspired hearing him challenge the next generation of thinkers to look beyond conventional paradigms to solve our means of exciting this escape room-womb of ours
Eric is a good listen and i do enjoy his montages of interesting and sometimes encouraging perspectives on different subject matter. And he says what he thinks which in an opinion goes to character of the man. Peace ✌️
1:33:55 I have a working theory for why proclivity for math and music are related. It requires one obfuscated axiom: mathematics is discovered, not invented. With this in mind, both music and math are abstract systems that are perfectly concrete; they are as-if languages with both vocabulary and grammar. The vocabulary of music is constituted by notes and clefs, and math vocabulary is made of numbers and symbols. The grammar of music is music theory, Phrygian and Dorian modes, chord progressions, timbre and tone of various instruments... The grammar of math is found in proofs of everything from hand-drawn diagrams of the Pythagorean theorem to a 3-page geometric and algebraic proof of the third order differential heat equation. Math and music also have an ineffable, inexplicable quality: when a new discovery is made, it is self-evident. It is both intellectually consistent AND beautiful. "You know it when you see it", a more succinct man might say. This characteristic is quite hard to pin down, I haven't understood it fully. However, good music sounds good to everyone. Everyone knows that it's good without an explanation of why. I believe math has the same quality. When we need new means of describing phenomena, we develop new math. Calculus is the perfect solution for dealing with moving and accelerating objects. Differential equations perfectly describe everything from the PID controller in a car's cruise control to heat transfer to fluid dynamics to Maxwell's relationship of energy, wavelength, and electromagnetism. It can't be anything else, because it perfectly describes all these phenomena. If anyone can help me understand my second point better, please let me know.
I enjoyed reading your comment. My theory is also that math is a tool we have discovered that allows us to quantize much of the phenomena we experience in the reality that we exist in. We have used this tool to crudely quantize music in the same way. But it is impossible to musically notate a Jimi Hendrix song so that another guitarist could replicate without having previously heard it. Music definitely has progressions of notes and chords that generally sound pleasant to most people, but I believe individual taste in music is extremely varied, mainly due to the environment we grow up in and the music we are exposed to and curiosity. Music has the ability to strongly attach to memories and emotions. It can be both relaxing and invigorating.
So I'm getting alot of people honking, and yelling we love to listen to you. And that got my attention, I thought about it for several days and I finally thought I understood why they say that phrase, we love to listen to you? So when I give an opinion and my friends read what I've written, they hear the words in their own voice as they read. That's very cool, and I appreciate the fact that they can do that. So keep reading and hold the line.
This is fantastic. Wish I had bumped into Eric while he was in Mumbai. I'm surprised he didn't do a public appearance / lecture here. Or may be he did and I missed that too. But thanks for this conversation.
He hit the nail on the head at 2:33 about Attention Deficit Disorder. It is not a disorder to be disinterested in things that aren't interesting and to be able to obsessively focus on one thing to the exception of others. It does overlap with OCD (which can be a real disorder when it becomes pathological). But the term ADHD is a term I don't agree with. Glad to see someone articulate what I had also been feeling about this.
thank you, friend, for bringing to us eloquence, insight, provocation, stimulation, and the eternal quest for truth in this artfully constructed form..
I love that he visited relatives and found them to be similar. There is an instant familiarity with Eastern Europe for some of us, I guess it never left us, although we left it?
I grok that you grok. I wonder if Mr. Weinstein missed that reference. Once, while walking past a pond in Central Park, a woman I was walking with asked me, "Where have all the ducks gone?" And I missed that reference even though I had read the book. And I was embarrassed beyond measure. It was such a great life lesson. Where have the ducks gone, indeed. 1:48:00 Amazing. I've begun so many conversations with my GF with "Well, you see, we are embedded within Cringe Culture, and when you are embedded within cringe culture....". Amazing. I enjoy this confirmation bias data point.
The earth is our womb and oil is our egg yolk which we currently squander for microliters of dopamine. Similar to the load-bearing structures which you dont want to remove before you have something to replace it with it would make sense to scale up a culture in which our mothership is adored and maintained right? Apart from that the great filter serves a good purpose if it prevents a species from spreading out before getting their affairs settled at home.
@@KungFuDoom TOW - As in "Pull" Also "TOW" - Is a rope or twine aka a "line" -Hence the act of "towing." NOT "TOE" as in your big "toe" - GO LOOK it up Genius. Toe to Tow. I'm not speaking of "trucks" I'm talking about English. Even a total MONKEY SHOULD be capable of figuring this out... People are just getting more & More STUPID every Day. How about getting yourself an education?
Eric Weinstein claims to have unified physics by himself in his spare time. He claims he can not continue his podcast The Portal until he seeks legal council because he wants to sue his critics. He's a very very unwell man and should get some therapy.
1st claim: complete fabrication. Eric Weinstein describes his _Geometric Unity_ as a work in progress. 2nd claim: lacking citation. Eric Weinstein acknowledged his critic(s) on episode 1628 of _The Joe Rogan Experience_ had raised one valid point, but he would have brought it up anyway. I disagree with this as the critic states in §3.1 of their paper that Eric is using a gauge group of U(128) and he is actually using U(64, 64) which renders all of their concerns invalid as they are based on the wrong group. This would have been obvious if the critic(s) had paid careful attention to the 2013 Oxford University lecture, or they had had the patience to wait five weeks for the paper they knew Eric was publishing, read the whole thing and understand its clarification. It turns out that they have not read his paper or made any response to its contents in over three years. What we had was a preemptive opportunistic snipe at what was an incorrect assertion of an isomorphism which could be fixed by complexification and then decomposition into Weyl spinors (which Eric Weinstein did in the slide of Fermionic Field content shown in the lecture in 2013, only the critic didn't notice). This means that lecture was inconsistent, with U(64, 64) on the slide that asserts that P-symmetry is fundamental and the extra mirrored fields such as Spin 3/2 Rarita-Schwinger matter may account for the Dark Matter that ensure galaxies rotate in a coherent manner. Then, elsewhere Eric is using U(128) when he should be using U(128, ℂ) Dirac spinors prior to their decomposition to U(64, 64) Weyl spinors. In the lecture and _Supplementary Slide Explainer_ Eric says he makes many mistakes, and as the speculative Simonyi lecture was eight years out of date it would have been prudent to wait for Eric's paper and respond to that and be in a position to cite his Equation numbers rather than timestamps within a grainy RUclips video. 3rd claim: there is zero evidence that Eric Weinstein has any psychiatric problems and is therefore in need of therapy. This tactic of seeming well intentioned and kind whilst being incredibly disparaging and reinforcing his critic who called him a "crackpot" in an interview with Robert Wright after misrepresenting his work so badly he somehow managed to omit space-time from Eric's concept of the Observerse, only to then foul up the transcription of his Equations of Motion so badly that in leaving out the greek subscripts he provided Equations of Motion for a universe with only one dimension in which there could exist no Lagrangian. Indeed, the fact that it is a very strong likelihood that these critic(s) are not two individuals, or a group, or one identified individual and another with a psuedonym, it is much more consistent on examination of _A Response to Geometric Unity_ through the lens of "What critique of the _General Relativity_ replacement aspect is made?" the failure to manage to transcribe the Einstein Summation Notation so that there aren't multiple Equations of Motion referred to by greek subscripts, the misunderstanding that observation by an observer of the observed is the nature of the Observerse, rather than the observed being the Observerse as he asserts erroneously with confidence, the notion that Eric is doing conventional space-time supersymmetry with selectrons is seemingly nothing more of a guess based off nothing shown in the Oxford lecture so it misrepresents the idea, and he mischaracterises it as a _Theory of Everything_ when Eric avoided calling it that in 2013 or in 2020 when he uploaded the video of his 2013 lecture and added a _Supplementary Slide Explainer_ and an Introduction, and also throughout his 2021 _Author's Working Draft_ which also does not call itself a _Theory of Everything_ or even a _Unified Field Theory_ as it is too early to categorise the work in progress as being something deserving of that title. So, critic(s) is much more likely just critic. A critic who seeks to build up Eric's work to be larger than it really is, and further towards final completion than it really is, and then allow himself license to criticise it as the pretentious fantasy of a crackpot, when Eric has been working on it for 37 years in his spare time since leaving Harvard University with a PhD in Mathematical Physics for writing _Extension of Self-Dual Yang-Mills Equations Across the Eighth Dimension_ which also sketched that this would work in all higher even numbered dimensions, such as 14. This dissertation was cited by respected physicist Isadore Singer, so the basis of _Geometric Unity_ which is a SU(n) elaboration to Spin(2n, ℂ) where 4k + 2 = 2n and n is a Natural number and U(2ⁿ, ℂ) Dirac spinors and U(2ⁿ ⁻¹, 2ⁿ ⁻¹) Weyl spinors and Spin(7, 7) and the product Spin(1, 3) x Spin(6, 4) where the latter is isomorphic to the _Grand Unified Theory_ developed by Jogesh Pati and Abdus Salam: SU(3) x SU(2) x U(1) → SU(4) x ( SU(2) x SU(2) ) → Spin(6, 4) → Spin(6, 4) x Spin(1, 3) → Spin(7, 7) → Spin(14, ℂ) → U(128, ℂ) Dirac spinors ᴸ ᴿ Here, _The Standard Model_ is included in the _Pati-Salam model_ which is a _Grand Unified Theory_ similar to the Spin(10) spin group (except no Proton decay). Then, the _Pati-Salam model_ is included in the Spin(6, 4) spin group. This is obviously included in its product with Spin(1, 3) which includes Lorentzian space-time. Then, Spin(6, 4) x Spin(1, 3) is included in Spin(7, 7) and forms the Vertical and Horizonal Vector Spaces of the Chimeric Fiber Bundle (this is not a Hopf fibration!) The Chimeric Fiber Bundle is included in Spin(14, ℂ) which is itself included within the gauge group of U(128, ℂ) Dirac spinors. This isn't a problem for being an infinite group as it gets decomposed into finite U(64, 64) Weyl spinors in the current draft Indeed, I have concerns at the way the critic seems to have invented a psuedonymous coauthor in order to bolster his credibility as he is merely a mathematician and lacks experience in theoretical physics. It would be incongruous to call _Geometric Unity_ a _Theory of Everything_ seeking to replace _General Relativity_ and then be totally lacking in experience in _General Relativity_ to the extent that you left out the subscripts so that: R - ½Rg + Λg = 8πG · T μν μν μν c⁴ μν basically became: R - ½Rg + Λg = 8πG · T c⁴ Where μ and ν each range over 0, 1, 2, 3 to refer to each entry by row and column in the corresponding 4x4 Rank 2 Tensor because these _Einstein Field Equations_ are plural and deal with curvature of 4D space-time as it relates to localised energy density (or mass). Further than likely inventing this "sock account" to seem more important than he is, he could have retracted his erroneous invalid critique soon after Eric published his paper, but didn't and instead went on the Eigenbros. podcast and described at length an entirely false critique of _Geometric Unity,_ materially misrepresenting what it was like, and reiterating his previously made false concerns, two months after Eric published. It was then established that when it came to Eric's paper he "didn't look at it that carefully" and he only read §8 and the Appendix and did a quick text search for "Spinᶜ(4)" and concluded that the _Theory of Everything_ was dead on arrival on the basis of lacking that bit of math in that particular form when I have seen Edward Witten write it as "Spin(4, ℂ)" and Eric write "Spin(4)" as part of the Maximal Compact decomposition from the infinite complexified set, in Equation (4.6) on page 29 of his draft paper. If this critic wants to reiterate his concerns, or raise new ones, based off the clarification that is Eric's 2021 draft paper he has had three years to do so and it has been crickets. He has both said it wasn't worth his time reading the whole paper, but then he waylaid Michael Shermer and got him to offer to be the host of a discussion between Eric Weinstein and his critic, as if Eric needed to talk to this opportunistic grifter who had misrepresented his work, used his wife's work on gauge theory in his videos without citation, and then mocked her presentation on economics with another response paper whose abstract was full of lame puns. This is stalkerish behaviour, and I think it all stems from a DISCORD conversation where he ambushed Eric and tried to trap him in a transparently obvious "gotcha" question where Eric had used ± as the sign because his solution was non chiral due to the cosmos being fundamentally P-symmetric, whereas Edward Witten's "version" of these equations used a + sign denoting a sinister universe with a bias towards particles emissions with left handed spin properties. This chirality is thought by most scientists to be a trait of our universe, but Eric doesn't like this ugly asymmetry, and neither did Wolfgang Pauli. Hopefully, this critic finds other things to interest him than Eric Weinstein as it isn't as if any of his critiques / concerns have been correct.
@@____uncompetative LOL You are a youtube genius. RUclips brain is a serious condition and you should seek some help. But not from Eric's friend Jordan Peterson. Like seriously you're out of your damn mind, you wrote thousands of words into a youtube comment to stick up for a venture capitalist. HAHAHAHAHAHA
I had a nagging feeling about Eric. Thought something was off with his vague answer and Jordan Peterson vibe. Thank goodness for the good professor for exposing this charlatan: ruclips.net/video/HGcpUxl_9Vg/видео.html. Why am I posting this here ? I am huge fan of TSATU, I want to alert Amit to this and make sure he takes this in to account in case he is thinking of inviting him again. The less I say about his brother, the better.
i've been watching Eric on Podcasts for at least five years now and I've never seen anybody ask such insightful questions. i enjoyed hearing his take on the artificial becoming natural for humans and i always get inspired hearing him challenge the next generation of thinkers to look beyond conventional paradigms to solve our means of exciting this escape room-womb of ours
He's an unwell many who needs to speak to a therapist actually. Delusional.
YESSS MORE ERIC CONTENT. bring back the Portal 😢
+
This is a very genuine and thoughtful conversation. Extremely pleased to have found this.
Eric is a good listen and i do enjoy his montages of interesting and sometimes encouraging perspectives on different subject matter. And he says what he thinks which in an opinion goes to character of the man. Peace ✌️
1:33:55 I have a working theory for why proclivity for math and music are related. It requires one obfuscated axiom: mathematics is discovered, not invented. With this in mind, both music and math are abstract systems that are perfectly concrete; they are as-if languages with both vocabulary and grammar.
The vocabulary of music is constituted by notes and clefs, and math vocabulary is made of numbers and symbols. The grammar of music is music theory, Phrygian and Dorian modes, chord progressions, timbre and tone of various instruments... The grammar of math is found in proofs of everything from hand-drawn diagrams of the Pythagorean theorem to a 3-page geometric and algebraic proof of the third order differential heat equation.
Math and music also have an ineffable, inexplicable quality: when a new discovery is made, it is self-evident. It is both intellectually consistent AND beautiful. "You know it when you see it", a more succinct man might say. This characteristic is quite hard to pin down, I haven't understood it fully. However, good music sounds good to everyone. Everyone knows that it's good without an explanation of why. I believe math has the same quality. When we need new means of describing phenomena, we develop new math. Calculus is the perfect solution for dealing with moving and accelerating objects. Differential equations perfectly describe everything from the PID controller in a car's cruise control to heat transfer to fluid dynamics to Maxwell's relationship of energy, wavelength, and electromagnetism. It can't be anything else, because it perfectly describes all these phenomena.
If anyone can help me understand my second point better, please let me know.
I enjoyed reading your comment. My theory is also that math is a tool we have discovered that allows us to quantize much of the phenomena we experience in the reality that we exist in. We have used this tool to crudely quantize music in the same way. But it is impossible to musically notate a Jimi Hendrix song so that another guitarist could replicate without having previously heard it. Music definitely has progressions of notes and chords that generally sound pleasant to most people, but I believe individual taste in music is extremely varied, mainly due to the environment we grow up in and the music we are exposed to and curiosity. Music has the ability to strongly attach to memories and emotions. It can be both relaxing and invigorating.
Absolutely beautiful. Masterful interview.. Thank you for this.
So I'm getting alot of people honking, and yelling we love to listen to you. And that got my attention, I thought about it for several days and I finally thought I understood why they say that phrase, we love to listen to you? So when I give an opinion and my friends read what I've written, they hear the words in their own voice as they read. That's very cool, and I appreciate the fact that they can do that. So keep reading and hold the line.
This is fantastic. Wish I had bumped into Eric while he was in Mumbai. I'm surprised he didn't do a public appearance / lecture here. Or may be he did and I missed that too. But thanks for this conversation.
He hit the nail on the head at 2:33 about Attention Deficit Disorder. It is not a disorder to be disinterested in things that aren't interesting and to be able to obsessively focus on one thing to the exception of others. It does overlap with OCD (which can be a real disorder when it becomes pathological). But the term ADHD is a term I don't agree with. Glad to see someone articulate what I had also been feeling about this.
thank you, friend, for bringing to us eloquence, insight, provocation, stimulation, and the eternal quest for truth in this artfully constructed form..
The way you sort of did some inquisitive counter was really good ,not being offensive but genuinely curious, i theoughly enjoyed the conversation
I thoroughly enjoyed this conversation. Really, really great stuff 👍
I love that he visited relatives and found them to be similar.
There is an instant familiarity with Eastern Europe for some of us, I guess it never left us, although we left it?
36:00 "bring back the ankle"
You BOTH seriously need to interview Prof Dr John Vervaeke. Cheers 🎊 Luck 🍀 Peace 🕊️ Gaia ✨♾️🌌🚀☯️⭐💙🦅🦜🌺🌵🌴
I grok that you grok.
I wonder if Mr. Weinstein missed that reference.
Once, while walking past a pond in Central Park, a woman I was walking with asked me, "Where have all the ducks gone?" And I missed that reference even though I had read the book. And I was embarrassed beyond measure. It was such a great life lesson.
Where have the ducks gone, indeed.
1:48:00 Amazing. I've begun so many conversations with my GF with "Well, you see, we are embedded within Cringe Culture, and when you are embedded within cringe culture....".
Amazing. I enjoy this confirmation bias data point.
Love Eric
The earth is our womb and oil is our egg yolk which we currently squander for microliters of dopamine.
Similar to the load-bearing structures which you dont want to remove before you have something to replace it with it would make sense to scale up a culture in which our mothership is adored and maintained right?
Apart from that the great filter serves a good purpose if it prevents a species from spreading out before getting their affairs settled at home.
I subscribed to you because you had Eric on 💪absolutely loved the conversation.
I love listening to Eric.
Anything Eric is mind altering.
Everyone is creating all the time.
The sort of content-creation alluded to is the loose attention harvesting to commoditize it at scale.
No question about uap
I’d really like to know what Eric Weinstein’s thoughts on these later developments…
TOW the line Not TOE! LOL! Toe is on your foot!
Eric has a TOE/ Theory of Everything
@@KungFuDoom TOW - As in "Pull" Also "TOW" - Is a rope or twine aka a "line" -Hence the act of "towing." NOT "TOE" as in your big "toe" - GO LOOK it up Genius. Toe to Tow. I'm not speaking of "trucks" I'm talking about English. Even a total MONKEY SHOULD be capable of figuring this out...
People are just getting more & More STUPID every Day. How about getting yourself an education?
Incredible!! This is exactly what they are talking about at 2:16:03 👏👏👏
Eric, get your ass to Varanasi! And Amritsar! ✌️❤️
Woah, Mr. Weinstein!
Lost me at "Sam Harris is a moral person".
1:17:50
Where he get the $ for college and travel?
How does idia think about taken kids innocence away? ❤
Ask him❤
Stay original don't worry what string theorists say because history may say something else when all is said and done.
Eric Weinstein claims to have unified physics by himself in his spare time. He claims he can not continue his podcast The Portal until he seeks legal council because he wants to sue his critics. He's a very very unwell man and should get some therapy.
Why does he sayITS A LIE?.
@@hahag-zw6qn ????
1st claim: complete fabrication. Eric Weinstein describes his _Geometric Unity_ as a work in progress.
2nd claim: lacking citation. Eric Weinstein acknowledged his critic(s) on episode 1628 of _The Joe Rogan Experience_ had raised one valid point, but he would have brought it up anyway. I disagree with this as the critic states in §3.1 of their paper that Eric is using a gauge group of U(128) and he is actually using U(64, 64) which renders all of their concerns invalid as they are based on the wrong group. This would have been obvious if the critic(s) had paid careful attention to the 2013 Oxford University lecture, or they had had the patience to wait five weeks for the paper they knew Eric was publishing, read the whole thing and understand its clarification. It turns out that they have not read his paper or made any response to its contents in over three years. What we had was a preemptive opportunistic snipe at what was an incorrect assertion of an isomorphism which could be fixed by complexification and then decomposition into Weyl spinors (which Eric Weinstein did in the slide of Fermionic Field content shown in the lecture in 2013, only the critic didn't notice). This means that lecture was inconsistent, with U(64, 64) on the slide that asserts that P-symmetry is fundamental and the extra mirrored fields such as Spin 3/2 Rarita-Schwinger matter may account for the Dark Matter that ensure galaxies rotate in a coherent manner. Then, elsewhere Eric is using U(128) when he should be using U(128, ℂ) Dirac spinors prior to their decomposition to U(64, 64) Weyl spinors. In the lecture and _Supplementary Slide Explainer_ Eric says he makes many mistakes, and as the speculative Simonyi lecture was eight years out of date it would have been prudent to wait for Eric's paper and respond to that and be in a position to cite his Equation numbers rather than timestamps within a grainy RUclips video.
3rd claim: there is zero evidence that Eric Weinstein has any psychiatric problems and is therefore in need of therapy. This tactic of seeming well intentioned and kind whilst being incredibly disparaging and reinforcing his critic who called him a "crackpot" in an interview with Robert Wright after misrepresenting his work so badly he somehow managed to omit space-time from Eric's concept of the Observerse, only to then foul up the transcription of his Equations of Motion so badly that in leaving out the greek subscripts he provided Equations of Motion for a universe with only one dimension in which there could exist no Lagrangian. Indeed, the fact that it is a very strong likelihood that these critic(s) are not two individuals, or a group, or one identified individual and another with a psuedonym, it is much more consistent on examination of _A Response to Geometric Unity_ through the lens of "What critique of the _General Relativity_ replacement aspect is made?" the failure to manage to transcribe the Einstein Summation Notation so that there aren't multiple Equations of Motion referred to by greek subscripts, the misunderstanding that observation by an observer of the observed is the nature of the Observerse, rather than the observed being the Observerse as he asserts erroneously with confidence, the notion that Eric is doing conventional space-time supersymmetry with selectrons is seemingly nothing more of a guess based off nothing shown in the Oxford lecture so it misrepresents the idea, and he mischaracterises it as a _Theory of Everything_ when Eric avoided calling it that in 2013 or in 2020 when he uploaded the video of his 2013 lecture and added a _Supplementary Slide Explainer_ and an Introduction, and also throughout his 2021 _Author's Working Draft_ which also does not call itself a _Theory of Everything_ or even a _Unified Field Theory_ as it is too early to categorise the work in progress as being something deserving of that title. So, critic(s) is much more likely just critic. A critic who seeks to build up Eric's work to be larger than it really is, and further towards final completion than it really is, and then allow himself license to criticise it as the pretentious fantasy of a crackpot, when Eric has been working on it for 37 years in his spare time since leaving Harvard University with a PhD in Mathematical Physics for writing _Extension of Self-Dual Yang-Mills Equations Across the Eighth Dimension_ which also sketched that this would work in all higher even numbered dimensions, such as 14. This dissertation was cited by respected physicist Isadore Singer, so the basis of _Geometric Unity_ which is a SU(n) elaboration to Spin(2n, ℂ) where 4k + 2 = 2n and n is a Natural number and U(2ⁿ, ℂ) Dirac spinors and U(2ⁿ ⁻¹, 2ⁿ ⁻¹) Weyl spinors and Spin(7, 7) and the product Spin(1, 3) x Spin(6, 4) where the latter is isomorphic to the _Grand Unified Theory_ developed by Jogesh Pati and Abdus Salam:
SU(3) x SU(2) x U(1) → SU(4) x ( SU(2) x SU(2) ) → Spin(6, 4) → Spin(6, 4) x Spin(1, 3) → Spin(7, 7) → Spin(14, ℂ) → U(128, ℂ) Dirac spinors
ᴸ ᴿ
Here, _The Standard Model_ is included in the _Pati-Salam model_ which is a _Grand Unified Theory_ similar to the Spin(10) spin group (except no Proton decay).
Then, the _Pati-Salam model_ is included in the Spin(6, 4) spin group. This is obviously included in its product with Spin(1, 3) which includes Lorentzian space-time.
Then, Spin(6, 4) x Spin(1, 3) is included in Spin(7, 7) and forms the Vertical and Horizonal Vector Spaces of the Chimeric Fiber Bundle (this is not a Hopf fibration!)
The Chimeric Fiber Bundle is included in Spin(14, ℂ) which is itself included within the gauge group of U(128, ℂ) Dirac spinors.
This isn't a problem for being an infinite group as it gets decomposed into finite U(64, 64) Weyl spinors in the current draft
Indeed, I have concerns at the way the critic seems to have invented a psuedonymous coauthor in order to bolster his credibility as he is merely a mathematician and lacks experience in theoretical physics. It would be incongruous to call _Geometric Unity_ a _Theory of Everything_ seeking to replace _General Relativity_ and then be totally lacking in experience in _General Relativity_ to the extent that you left out the subscripts so that:
R - ½Rg + Λg = 8πG · T
μν μν μν c⁴ μν
basically became:
R - ½Rg + Λg = 8πG · T
c⁴
Where μ and ν each range over 0, 1, 2, 3 to refer to each entry by row and column in the corresponding 4x4 Rank 2 Tensor because these _Einstein Field Equations_ are plural and deal with curvature of 4D space-time as it relates to localised energy density (or mass). Further than likely inventing this "sock account" to seem more important than he is, he could have retracted his erroneous invalid critique soon after Eric published his paper, but didn't and instead went on the Eigenbros. podcast and described at length an entirely false critique of _Geometric Unity,_ materially misrepresenting what it was like, and reiterating his previously made false concerns, two months after Eric published. It was then established that when it came to Eric's paper he "didn't look at it that carefully" and he only read §8 and the Appendix and did a quick text search for "Spinᶜ(4)" and concluded that the _Theory of Everything_ was dead on arrival on the basis of lacking that bit of math in that particular form when I have seen Edward Witten write it as "Spin(4, ℂ)" and Eric write "Spin(4)" as part of the Maximal Compact decomposition from the infinite complexified set, in Equation (4.6) on page 29 of his draft paper. If this critic wants to reiterate his concerns, or raise new ones, based off the clarification that is Eric's 2021 draft paper he has had three years to do so and it has been crickets.
He has both said it wasn't worth his time reading the whole paper, but then he waylaid Michael Shermer and got him to offer to be the host of a discussion between Eric Weinstein and his critic, as if Eric needed to talk to this opportunistic grifter who had misrepresented his work, used his wife's work on gauge theory in his videos without citation, and then mocked her presentation on economics with another response paper whose abstract was full of lame puns. This is stalkerish behaviour, and I think it all stems from a DISCORD conversation where he ambushed Eric and tried to trap him in a transparently obvious "gotcha" question where Eric had used ± as the sign because his solution was non chiral due to the cosmos being fundamentally P-symmetric, whereas Edward Witten's "version" of these equations used a + sign denoting a sinister universe with a bias towards particles emissions with left handed spin properties. This chirality is thought by most scientists to be a trait of our universe, but Eric doesn't like this ugly asymmetry, and neither did Wolfgang Pauli. Hopefully, this critic finds other things to interest him than Eric Weinstein as it isn't as if any of his critiques / concerns have been correct.
@@____uncompetative LOL
You are a youtube genius. RUclips brain is a serious condition and you should seek some help. But not from Eric's friend Jordan Peterson.
Like seriously you're out of your damn mind, you wrote thousands of words into a youtube comment to stick up for a venture capitalist. HAHAHAHAHAHA
What?!
What?
WHAT!!!
what*
I had a nagging feeling about Eric. Thought something was off with his vague answer and Jordan Peterson vibe. Thank goodness for the good professor for exposing this charlatan: ruclips.net/video/HGcpUxl_9Vg/видео.html. Why am I posting this here ? I am huge fan of TSATU, I want to alert Amit to this and make sure he takes this in to account in case he is thinking of inviting him again. The less I say about his brother, the better.