They stopped dong physics early and spend their career doing other stuff. Getting middle aged and achieved their other goals, they wanted to get back into physics.
Both have talked about their theory for a decade or more. Weinstein's paper and Wolfram's books and project are just outline of their ideas. When they do their grand reveal, it turns out that they have not done any work or progress. It's all still all just a vague sketch. Both are in the "everyone is selling, nobody is buying" idea market. Ideas are cheap, working them into something that is consistent is hard.
I started agreeing with the article but then it becomes an ad-hominem attack, and I can only assume the author didn't really understand the paper since I don't see an actual critique of it. I also found the statements on "super-advanced" math to be suspicious as well:
> super-advanced math is a language game
I don't think so, and this shows lack of understanding. You have to proof things in math, and I expect someone's critique on Eric's paper showing why there is a mistake and where, instead of trying to decrease his credibility.
That said, I'm also skeptical this is such a huge breakthrough and was a huge blind spot in physics for decades, but I guess it remains to be seen.
3 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 19.6 ms ] threadThey stopped dong physics early and spend their career doing other stuff. Getting middle aged and achieved their other goals, they wanted to get back into physics.
Both have talked about their theory for a decade or more. Weinstein's paper and Wolfram's books and project are just outline of their ideas. When they do their grand reveal, it turns out that they have not done any work or progress. It's all still all just a vague sketch. Both are in the "everyone is selling, nobody is buying" idea market. Ideas are cheap, working them into something that is consistent is hard.
> super-advanced math is a language game
I don't think so, and this shows lack of understanding. You have to proof things in math, and I expect someone's critique on Eric's paper showing why there is a mistake and where, instead of trying to decrease his credibility.
That said, I'm also skeptical this is such a huge breakthrough and was a huge blind spot in physics for decades, but I guess it remains to be seen.