Category: Commentary, Critique, and Response

Like I said. You’re just coping. It’s ok. I understand the need.

@TOEwithCurt :
Curt Jaimungal at Theories of Everything (TOE):
I love your breadth, your character, your professionalism, your demonstrated skill in questioning guests on their terms, and your openness with those for whom it is likely and often unwarranted.
But Perimeter – or at least Turok is almost certainly correct (Smolin is always an open question). Meaning we very likely already understand all we must and it’s evident simplicity.
If we start from the quantum background and emergence of waves, proto particles, and particles from it, the behavior appears relatively predictable rather than our failure of trying to reverse engineer the universe’s foundations from the effects that manifest on that background as waves and particles.
In this case there is rather obviously a zero point of energy and a zero point of time and we are indeed ‘lost in math’ or what we call in economics ‘mathiness’ given economists have gone through at least some of the reforms that physicists currently in the industry have yet failed to.
What’s more interesting for epistemologists like myself, (I study human ignorance error bias and deceit) and future historians of the evolution of science, is how quickly physics turned to mathematical fictionalism instead of realism, naturalism, operationalism, with the overzealous reaction to Einstein and Bohr.
Space time is a measurement: a fictionalism. The abandonment of the quantum background as analogous to a liquid -which is the only model the human mind can represent across the spectrum of matter – ignored Einstein’s use of drawings (models), overly embraced the Copenhagen fictionalism, and led to endless untestifiable hypotheses and mathematical fictionalism.
While even specialists in many fields do not understand the means by which humans engage in ignorance, error, bias, and deceit – even deceit of themselves, and how the masculine systematic and feminine empathic fictionalisms are apparent in every day life, to those of us who do understand, we need only eliminate what is obviously fictionalism and what remains is what is possible. There is more information in a model than there is in a mathematical description of it.
And don’t’ get me started on the difference in causal density between math, programming, operational language, ordinary language and physical representation (drawings, models, simulations). ;). The fictionalisms are bad enough.

-Affections Curt Doolittle, NLI.

https://t.co/LIrRgOp8s6

RT @Josh_Ebner: Many thanks to @exquofonte for his excellent video explaining this.

And to @curtdoolittle for his hundreds (if not thousan…

Back at you. 😉

😉 -hugs

Yes. Agreed.

sorry if I suggested otherwise. Apologies. -CD

He is correct. It works, and pretty much everyone understands what he’s doing. See the post I just made.

That is another take making the same basic argument.