Eric Weinstein is full of theories.

You might be more specific just what your referring to and perhaps open it a bit to those who haven't read or heard it.

You're right. But why waste my time, you have Google right? Besides, I'm asking if for those who already know. If someone doesn't then they need to Google it anyway as I've already stated I don't get it.

I think he's referring to Weinstein's TOE that he announced 8 years ago before going completely silent and not publishing anything about it. Well apparently it looks like he actually did publish something this time, but all signs seem to be pointing to it being a joke paper (though I can't say for sure). If you can understand it then hopefully you'll be able to tell us if it's serious or not.

Geometric unity.

I guess we wait for someone who gets it to comment. Unless it's purposefully ungettable?

But why the big gap? That doesn't fit it being a joke paper right? That's the equivalent of explaining a joke, which always ends in nobody laughing.

This is probably as good as it gets: Problems with Geometric Unity.

I was a math prof, but not a physicist. I had not heard of GU, so thanks for the thread.

He's just a big dumbass

*Eric Weinstein gets harassed on twitter for saying something stupid*

"I'm a disagreeable contrarian...basically it's like being a Black American"

Agreeing with @maw, I think Eric Weinstein is a figure deeply wrapped up in an 'not-appreciated-by-the-mainstream' self-narrative (and that that leads him, occasionally, into harsh disanalogies, as in the above tweet.)

I also think he knows a lot more about physics and math than me. But also: most, all, physicisists and mathematicians do. A broader question, then, about how to approach esoteric topics as a layman: If I were to try to invest in the stock market, there are a lot of people who know more about the stock market than me. How to pick? My best bet is to choose an index fund (which just mirrors the market, status quo) until I know more. Before I know the basics, when confronted with someone with a 'new scheme', all I can do is gauge the vibe of that person, someone claiming to outcompete the market; and I can only do that based on what I know of people, that is, what I've learned as a person who's observed people. In that lens: People who claim to outcompete the market, but get squirelly on how they do it, and who seem to have a psychological stake in being someone who out-performs the market - I'll be suspicious of them. The concatenation of those qualities suggest a known type - a charlatan. Maybe Weinstein isn't that, but he certainly acts like one. To be fair, some people who are legit come across, at first, as illegit. But, then, they'll really need to prove themselves.

That doesn't mean they're wrong. But it puts the cart before the horse to try to understand their unique take before understanding market dynamics in general. I.e. - better to learn mainstream physics before appraising outsiders. Einstein was revolutionary and upended things. He thought profoundly differently. But the people who 'got him' understood the current state of the art, and then readjusted, after reading him.

At the end of the day, do you really want to understand physics, is that the primary goal? If you do, you probably have to sink many years into the nuts and bolts of the math. Or do you want to feel allied to a man who got it right when others didn't? Well, if it's physics, you'll still have to do the groundwork. There's no shortcuts, unless you want to simply be a cheerleader on the sidelines. So the question is: do you trust eric weinstein enough that you're willing to dig down and fullly learn physics to learn his alternative physics? If so, god bless you, but I think most Weinsteinians want a quick 'in' to a outsider-intellectual status. And that usually comes from being an outsider and wanting something to show for it. Relatable, I get it. But you're better off learning: coding, farming, anything concrete. It will take less work, and you'll have something to show for it at the end. But if you actually want to learn physics, learn physics. Physics, in general, is just a bad choice if you're an outsider wanting an in. It's an inherently arcane field - it takes years of study.

It's an inherently arcane field - it takes years of study. — csalisbury

Yep. I'll trust those reputable physicists who doubt his claims.

I noticed this morsel from the blog post @jgill linked: 'Weinstein regards the conventional requirement of writing a paper to be flawed, since he questions the legitimacy of peer review, credit assignment, and institutional recognition.'

What's 'oracular pronouncement' mean, again?

But why the big gap? That doesn't fit it being a joke paper right? That's the equivalent of explaining a joke, which always ends in nobody laughing. — Razorback kitten

Your posts have been pretty obnoxious. It's no wonder no one wants to come out an play.

I wasn't trying to be. I'm sorry if caused any unpset.

I'm just excited by the possibility of something new and groundbreaking happening. Plus I saw Eric on Joe Rogan's pod cast talking about it and he seemed like he was being genuine. I guess I'll just see what happens.

So the question is: do you trust eric weinstein enough that you're willing to dig down and fullly learn physics to learn his alternative physics? If so, god bless you, but I think most Weinsteinians want a quick 'in' to a outsider-intellectual status. And that usually comes from being an outsider and wanting something to show for it. — csalisbury

The basic problem is that any academic debate or the people of an academic or scientific field once drawn into the public media discourse (as Weinstein has been) in highly popular forums (such as the Joe Rogan experience etc.) are dealt with the typical toxicity prevalent to our times. I've seen this for example in economics: economists are put into categories of either being "credible real economists" or "bogus charlatans". Will the bogus charlatans be Keynesians or Austrians totally depends on the person's own tastes and political views. With politicized fields as climate science or now perhaps virology with COVID-19, this may be even worse. Simply put it, ordinary people cannot fathom that different schools of thought may all have quite reasonable points they make. They are far too eager to put some scientists or academicians to a similar category where we put those "researchers" sponsored by the Tobacco industry claiming there are no health hazards to smoking (or that the results are disputed). And others are then put to a pedestal for promoting real science.

Those people that comment issues outside of their field will naturally commit themselves to the polarized public discussion and face the wrath of that. Eric Weinstein, who comments nearly anything and has even coined the term Intellectual Dark Web, will naturally immediately put off people (as one can see even here).

I agree with your analysis in general, but I don't think that analysis applies to Weinstein. He isn't someone in academia who's been unwittingly dragged into the public eye, and so unfairly dunked-on. Rather he's someone who quite intentionally courts public attention, in the mode of provocateur, and tends to do so rather than engage in academia - for instance, his infamous dismissal of peer-review and so forth.

At the same time, (also @Razorback kitten) I think I was wrong to use the term 'charlatan.' That suggests someone who palms off goods, knowing they're bad. I think Weinstein sincerely believes he has something of great value. But I think there's something off about his relationship to his physics.

My suspicions of him aren't based on politics; they're based on observing how he talks and interacts in videos. I also have a friend who's into him, who tells me his theory of US decline is based on the lack of a new, robust theory of physics. If that's true (and it seems to be) he not only thinks he has a new theory of physics, he thinks it will save the country. He also thinks, if my friend is accurately describing him, that this lack of new physics was a big part of a economic/political dynamic, beginning in the early 70s, where institutions that need to meet 'embedded growth obligations', can't, and so become pathological fakes. His acronym for these embedded growth obligations is EGO. He uses this acronym a lot

To lay it all out: He thinks there was a period where it would have been be useful to have a new physics, but there wasn't one. EGOs then led institutions to act as though they were growing, when they were in fact acting pathologically. (this is almost verbatim from Weinstein himself)

Again, I don't know the math or science, so I can't appraise him on anything but the indirect - but this feels an awful lot to me like symptoms of something like a personality disorder - intense grandiosity + a kind of disavowed shadow self that almost perversely projects stuff onto the outside (fitting the grandiosity, he doesn't project onto others, but onto the world.) Again: He has the key to restoring phsyics and America; without the key, we have EGOS that made people fake growth and become pathological. It's so on the nose, that it's surreal. It's like he's got some kind of perverse subconscious imp.

Feels really really off, very weird, to me.

What do you make of all of that?

I agree with your analysis in general, but I don't think that analysis applies to Weinstein. He isn't someone in academia who's been unwittingly dragged into the public eye, and so unfairly dunked-on. Rather he's someone who quite intentionally courts public attention, in the mode of provocateur, and tends to do so rather than engage in academia - for instance, his infamous dismissal of peer-review and so forth. — csalisbury

I'm not sure which of the two brothers caught fame first, but at least Bret Weinstein was dragged unwittingly into the public eye with the incredible events in an unknown university, who otherwise would have stayed as an total unknown.

I think the main reason is that the American public debate is and has been void of "common sense" academicians who once pushed into the media limelight appear different from the usual bunch, the celebrities, movies stars or politicians. Somewhere the intellect from your Hollywood-actors has to show and now with Youtube and other podcasts there can be these "long form" chats and there is an audience for them.

Again, I don't know the math or science, so I can't appraise him on anything but the indirect - but this feels an awful lot to me like symptoms of something like a personality disorder - intense grandiosity + a kind of disavowed shadow self that almost perversely projects stuff onto the outside (fitting the grandiosity, he doesn't project onto others, but onto the world.) Again: He has the key to restoring phsyics and America; without the key, we have EGOS that made people fake growth and become pathological. It's so on the nose, that it's surreal. It's like he's got some kind of perverse subconscious imp. — csalisbury

I think that there is the type of academic person like Eric Weinstein that isn't humble, bit confrontational and a provocateur as you said. They can come off as a bit hostile, but the solution is to disregard the manners and focus on what they say. Yet the actual message has to be treated separately of this, and to really judge the mathematics you truly have to know mathematics yourself. Usually people might have some point about the issue there are talking about. Very rarely is it totally false. The real issue is how relevant their point of interest is for the whole field and that's the hundred dollar question. Yet that something is wrong in the academic world isn't an outrageous or revolutionary thing.

Some famous hoaxes, like the Sokal hoax, have shown that peer review has it's failures, but I think the issue is more widespread. I remember my father (a professor of virology) saying that when publishing an article lets say in Lancet (he got I think one article published in the publication), from where you publish does matter. American top notch Ivy League university will easily open doors, something from the local University of Helsinki here might even pass, but good luck trying to get something published if you are from an university from Kano state, Nigeria.

Again, I don't know the math or science, — csalisbury

Nobody does. Weinstein won't publish. When the OP started this thread I Googled and read about 10 articles on Weinstein's geometric unity project, and still had no idea what it was. So I didn't bother to reply. That's the thing. He refuses to publish a paper. He gives talks and does podcasts. I've watched several of his podcasts. He never says anything you can grab onto. If he has a theory he's not telling anyone what it is.

The only thing I've learned about any of this is that Eric Weinstein has this supposed idea of geometric unity, but he won't tell anyone what it is. His brother is Brett Weinstein, who is the guy who refused to leave Evergreen State College for a "day without white people" and got #cancelled. And neither of them are Eric Weisstein, author of Wolfram MathWorld. Before this I had them all confused in my mind. Like Naomi Klein and Naomi Wolf.

Nobody does. Weinstein won't publish. — fishfry

Publish or perish.

That's the academic norm.

Or go off onto podcast-land, hmm?

I'm not sure which of the two brothers caught fame first, but at least Bret Weinstein was dragged unwittingly into the public eye with the incredible events in an unknown university, who otherwise would have stayed as an total unknown.

I think the main reason is that the American public debate is and has been void of "common sense" academicians who once pushed into the media limelight appear different from the usual bunch, the celebrities, movies stars or politicians. Somewhere the intellect from your Hollywood-actors has to show and now with Youtube and other podcasts there can be these "long form" chats and there is an audience for them. — ssu

Again, I don't necessarily disagree with your general analysis. In fact, I mostly agree with it. I just don't think it applies to this particular case. I want to separate these two things. I agree with what you're saying, in general, (and it may apply to Eric's brother, who isn't Eric) but I don't think it applies here.

Regarding the second part - as I've said from the get-go, I freely admit that I - like everyone on this forum - is not qualified to judge Weinstein's work. I may very well be wrong. But, especially given the red flags I see, I'm more inclined to believe the physics mainstream, and dismiss Weinstein, for what the dismissal of a layman is worth, until something, beyond Eric's self-recommendation, recommends otherwise.

Regarding the second part - as I've said from the get-go, I freely admit that I - like everyone on this forum - is not qualified to judge Weinstein's work. — csalisbury

I think could have a chance. I think he (or she) knows math.

Fair enough. Fishfry seems to think its bunk. So I'm in the same spot.

I think ↪fishfry could have a chance. I think he (or she) knows math. — ssu

That's a lot different than knowing any physics. And really, I don't know all that much math.

Fishfry seems to think its bunk. — csalisbury

I didn't say geometric unity is bunk, just that I couldn't find any actual exposition of the theory, and evidently neither can anyone else. It's all a bit mysterious.

I found a recent Reddit thread.

https://www.reddit.com/r/ThePortal/comments/mku4c1/eric_weinstein_reveals_geometric_unity_on_the/

Two comments sum up the debate.

"The problem is that 99% of the people making the "hack" and "grifter" comments don't even comprehend the mathematics involved."

and

"100% of the people worshiping weinstein and brigading reddit posting his shitty "draft' everywhere, don't either..."

Publish or perish. — ssu

"publish or perish," as I understand it, is usually used to denigrate an, uh, Embedded Growth Obligation (EGO). It basically means that you have to sacrifice careful, long-term, work on something for the sake of periodically publishing new results. This doesn't apply to someone who claims to have a robust new theory, and is more than happy to lean into 'podcast or perish'. I.e. 'publish or perish' is about pressuring people that don't have an important new idea to publish stuff, as though important, when its really just about career-security. It's the opposite of the situation Weinstein's in.

I didn't say geometric unity is bunk, just that I couldn't find any actual exposition of the theory, and evidently neither can anyone else. It's all a bit mysterious. — fishfry

Yes, that's fair, that is how I was thinking of it, but too cavalierly used the first word that came to mind. I should've said 'quite skeptical, given lack of available info'

Well, the simple fact is that sectors that aren't there to make money are then judged somehow by some metrics in order to be proclaimed to be efficient and worth wile the investment: how many students graduate, how many doctors are made, how many patents they get or how many academic articles are published and what is their impact factor.

Once when I was working at the Academy of Finland, I compared the Finnish universities to American ones. Basically if you would rap up every university in Finland (now 14) into one, the amount of academic publications would equivalent to the volume from MIT. That's just one American university, even if top of the line example. I think MIT had a lot more money and resources than the whole university sector in Finland. One of the true bastions of American exceptionalism.

Well, the simple fact is that sectors that aren't there to make money are then judged somehow by some metrics in order to be proclaimed to be efficient and worth wile the investment: how many students graduate, how many doctors are made, how many patents they get or how many academic articles are published and what is their impact factor. — ssu

Oh yeah, I believe in (the reality of whats designated by the term) 'public or perish', don't get me wrong. As with your other account, I think its an apt general account that doesn't apply in this case. Weinstein is (1) not part of the academy and has a net worth of ~10mil & (2) has a theory he treats as valuable and complete - so 'public or perish' - a real and pernicious thing - doesn't apply to him (in fact he's almost the opposite of the type of person it would apply to.)

Isn't he working for some fund, investment house or billionaire.

It's the typical place where mathematicians etc end up in: as quants. Why do something on thermodynamics in a physics department when you can use the same algorithms applied to day trading and be hired by a hedge fund? Knowledge about economics isn't needed.

Yeah he has some prime position for something to do with Thiel & finance. I don't begrudge him that. I'm just trying to say that that fact makes him outside of a public or perish dynamic.