I characterize it as the generations before me have, as we can work from problem

I characterize it as the generations before me have, as we can work from problems to books or books to problems and the latter is notoriously unsuccessful.

In applied mathematics, particularly physics, as long as you are limited to 3+1 dimensions then there is probably some utility to the work – and beyond that not so much. I can defend this statement rather easily but I think Penrose does so with his traditional grace. I find I inescapably insult my interlocutor when I have those conversations.

In pure mathematics there are nonsense disciplines, such as not grasping that all math is operational and that much syntax is nonsense when the operational meaning is trivial (root of -1), or lost (that the foundations of math require sets rather than operations), or pointless disciplines (number theory) as well as important disciplines such as anything to do with geometry, topology, combinatorics (lying fallow right now), and perhaps most importantly the foundations of advanced mathematics, meaning the production of projections that create a baseline of commensurability for measurements.

These topics turn into wars of religion given so much career malinvestment.

I’ve done most of my work uniting the sciences, and as in many things it was so simple we didn’t see it.

While math requires a reformation, we pretty much have to wipe the slate clean in behavioral sciences, and end the stagnation in physics. But science progresses with gravestones. And we have an academy indoctrinated into marxist pseudoscience from freud, boaz, marx, gould to cantor, and even rez, kelsen, and dworkin – where that new mysticism is but a vapid veil over the supernatural claims of Abrahamic religions.

Makes me tired. I dunno how Charles maintains his optimism. 😉

Reply addressees: @shitcapmgmt @charlesmurray