Theme: Causality

Scott, all:
1. Very likely that string theory describes some phenomenon that is expressible as a string in mathematics, but in physical terms is referring to the equivalent of the harmonic movement of charge, force, pressure (lightning) in the positive sense on one end of the spectrum of options, or n the negative sense, of ripples or folds in whatever constitutes the quantum background. in other words, if there is anything at all to string theory – which is doubtful, the harmonics expressed are a statistical artifact that without a model of the universe at smaller scales tells us nothing of what produces the regularity described by the vibration.

2. For reasons too complex to mention here, the universe (any universe) has three plus one dimensions because thats all its possible to construct. (Really. Think: triangles are coherent no matter what you do.) When the authors speak of ten dimensions they are speaking of measurements of forces. For example, three layers of three dimensions of force, plus one for time.

3. This would suggest there are at least one if not two further reductions in organizational structure of the universe below what constitutes the quantum background. And that the original concept of the aether while flawed is more analogous and more productive for theory generation than the einstein-bohr re-platonization of mathematics. Partly because contrary to the mathematical physicists who follow in the replatonization of mathematics, the universe appears consistent at all scales.

4. In other words, string theory like much of academic physics is organized not by Hilbert et all, as enginnering but by einstein-bohr et al, as language. and that is why physics stagnated fifty years ago. And string theory isnt physics, its math. Or what we call in economics ‘mathiness’: a fictionalism not physics. Or more pointedly, physics is to mathiness as reason to sophistry. Or less delicately: pseudoscience.

5. Science evolves with gravestones. And FWIW Eric Weinstein is applying feminine/leftst critique because he was jilted by the academy. That doesnt mean he is wrong in all of his criticism. And his suggested line of inquiry in his own theory is nothing more than that: more of the same – but not necessarily friuitless as an attempt to discover some means of measuring what we cannot yet without his suggestion. But his correct criticism lies in the economic incentives in the academy as an industry, and how lost the academy is because of their accumulated malinvestments. And how powerless we have become to reform them given their failure at self policing, combined with the mysticism they’re practicing under pretense of science thats almost as bad as the nonsense in the behavioral sciences.

Reply addressees: @ScottAdamsSays