It takes a bit of work to understand @EricRWeinstein’s ‘take’ on physics. But it

It takes a bit of work to understand @EricRWeinstein’s ‘take’ on physics. But it’s based on three very clear talents, the first is disambiguation of causal dimensions; and second extraordinary skepticism until he’s achieved that disambituation; and the third is the usual Ashkenazi excellence in explanation by storytelling. And lastly, in opposition, or fourth, he is a better critic than innovator himself – which might sound like a criticism, but it’s more of a recognition of a specialization and a specialization that’s due to his self described “learning disability” (dyslexia?) and frustrations with the university’s inflexibility.

I had to listen to his speech at Harvard on his theory of what I consider ‘the direction of the solution to the problem’ but not a solution in itself. Then at some point I heard him explain a disambiguation of dimensions. And it was this latter that helped me understand how his mind approaches problems. Tonight, I just heared him use the same method to address a very different problem and recognized his method again.

It’s not dissimilar from my work on disambituation in to first principles. He’s just doing it with physics and mathematics(cardinality) and I’m doing it with behavior and operationalism(natural order).

He’s improved quite a bit over the past few years. Although I would prefer that he take on the hard job of proposing actionable solutions. I mean, everyone can compain. Producing actionable solutions is something else entirely.

In my experiencde, producing a consitution that isn’t ridiculous and is an improvement on our own required a profound effort on my part. And whenever I hear someone talk about our constitution or our law or our political system, I’m tempted to suggest they write a constitution that isn’t even worse.

It never hapens