Eric Weinstein
I was wondering if there was anyone here who has seen Eric's theory and understands it well enough to explain it in a way that makes sense to a lay person?
I'd love to know what it's about but I'm hopeless at math.
I'd love to know what it's about but I'm hopeless at math.
Comments (44)
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.
I was a math prof, but not a physicist. I had not heard of GU, so thanks for the thread.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1283483807975260160[/tweet]
"I'm a disagreeable contrarian...basically it's like being a Black American"
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.
Yep. I'll trust those reputable physicists who doubt his claims.
What's 'oracular pronouncement' mean, again?
Your posts have been pretty obnoxious. It's no wonder no one wants to come out an play.
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).
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'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.
Quoting 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.
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.
Publish or perish.
That's the academic norm.
Or go off onto podcast-land, hmm?
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.
I think could have a chance. I think he (or she) knows math.
That's a lot different than knowing any physics. And really, I don't know all that much math.
Quoting 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," 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.
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'
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.
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.)
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.
You're a mathematician? I'm envious.
I know that Weinstein thinks highly of Anthony Garrett Lissi, calls him his "rival". Apparently Lissi takes Weinstein seriously, though they disagree on fundamental issues in physics.
I know nothing of math, so I cannot judge any of this.
No, I'm a failed math grad student. @jgill is a mathematician.
Quoting Manuel
Me too, of the people who worked harder and had better study habits than I did. My zeal for math is that of the fallen priest for God. Thinking of Richard Burton in a couple of 60's flicks.
Oh well. I suppose there's much left to study that's not math. ;)
I'll have to talk to @jgill sometime.
Don't expect much. :smile:
I retired over twenty years ago, but I still explore very limited and somewhat elementary areas of math and write notes as a hobby. fishfry and fdrake are modest, but they know a lot more about modern math than me, and express themselves well. As for Geometric Unity, I'm clueless.
Incidentally, you might think peer review certifies results that are published, but in math at least if what's being published is not of popular interest in mathematical circles you really can't be sure of complete accuracy. The other side of that coin is when a respected practitioner submits a paper, their colleagues who referee it might not look closely at every detail, assuming the author is quite competent.
A fellow mathematician from St Andrews U in Scotland and I created a minor journal thirty years ago for the purpose of quickly getting results to a limited community out - a little like arXiv.org now - calling it Communications . . .. We lightly refereed submissions. I'm sure some mistakes slipped by us, but we assumed legitimate journals would catch them when submitted. But even there you can't be certain.
It's OK if insiders acknowledge that. Otherwise it's treated like the fox and the grapes, which it often probably is.
In this video, Susan Haack is hard on peer-review & casts herself as a bit of an outsider, but I'm pretty sure she's an insider relative to Weinstein. (Different fields, obviously, so I'm talking about academia in general.) She's also just fun to listen to.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Be6vheIMAA
:point:
Adding to this, which I agree with, I'd say he's found that he's a philosopher, a public intellectual. Ignoring the issue of quality for the moment, he's the real thing. I mean compared to us here. Same with Jordan Peterson. I don't vouch for these dudes' quality, but they shoot off their mouths and influence people. IMO, there are smarter people who ambivalently watch and comment from the shadows. In Eric's case, I suspect it's more fun to hype incidentally self-flattering grand narratives then it is to peck away at math & physics that no one understands but critical, competitive peers. [EDIT: This last line is not ironic. To think and talk about the stuff that most people care about and gets attention has rewards that obscure if impressive technicalities don't. Folks respect math and envy mathematicians but don't actually in general want to hear about the work, except to the degree that it's made narrative or philosophical. Consider Godel & Cantor on forums. ]
I don't know that I folllow you, (beyond , I think? an ironic undermining of philosophy, which there with you) but I will say I actually like Jordan Peterson, for the most part (IM me for details/apologia) Don't like Eric (IM me anyway, always love to talk)
Hey, ol' csal. We're both back & in the mood to throw the horseshoes. It's always good to see you in the pit.
I was being somewhat ironic. But I also was trying to emphasize that these guys put their actual faces and proper names out there and get listened to. They really are public intellectuals, in the larger forum of the world. They are professionals in the sense of getting paid for it, making it their central identity. Part of me would like to do that, while another part of me is disturbed by the immodesty. They drag their fame along with them everywhere. They can't go home again.
Hah. So no one can actually say if Weinstein is being legit here with his arguments. That's odd of him, I'd think he would want to let other people see his work even if outside academia...
Quoting jgill
I can only imagine how hard some of those equations and problems can become.
He has received strong criticism from his peers and has not addressed any of them yet. I wouldn't get my hopes up about geometric unity.
Timothy Nguyen for example has pointed out some major issues with Weinstein's GU.
He can always say "they misunderstood/misconstrued" my work. I think some of the things he discusses are interesting, but some of what he says in relation to politics specifically is quite silly. In either case, I can't understand the math. But as you point out, if many serious mathematicians think it's mistaken, then it's probably mistaken.
So I'm not a fan or not a fan.
I'll take a look at Nguyen's site. Thanks for letting me know. :up:
As others have said, nothing has been presented that would be viewed as "a theory" in physics, just some ideas.
From what I understood, his main concern was going back to basics of rulers and protractors to make measurements ... that's pretty much the only thing I understood about his idea. Now, he maybe correct in that popular theories, especially of the time he studied, like string theory aren't "doing it", and some "going back to basics" is a good start.
However, "how to measure things" is already a pretty central part of what physicists do.
Furthermore, nearly all mathematics (especially found in physics) has geometric representation or analogue. Phase-space is simply extending 3 dimensions to 6 dimensions to record both position and momentum of particles, and can be understood in simple geometric terms of vectors in 6 dimensions.
A dimension for time can be added to dimensions of space to represent changes through time as simple geometry. A parabola can represent a literal parabola in space we build, or the arch of an object through space and time. General relativity goes much further than this simple geometric representation of time, and is extremely concerned with measuring geometry locally and how that may change with time and distance if space-time itself is not completely flat but can change, and that, crucially, space and time cannot be completely separated in a fundamental sense at all.
Point being, "geometric unity" can easily be referring to what is already found in physics: lots of geometry analogues and lot's of "measuring things" with protractors and rulers, and that solving the math problems between quantum mechanics and general relativity may involve geometry in some sense.
Not to say these aren't useful intuitions to reflect on, but I think any physicist (of which I am not) will say there's a massive, gargantuan distance to traverse to turn these intuitions into a coherent new physics theory; even more work to do to demonstrate it's really new and not simply equivalent to a theory we already have.
The underlying issue, I would suggest, is that fundamental theoretical physics has been stuck since pretty early days of quantum mechanics and general relativity, and all the promising theories have simply not worked in making new predictions. So, there's clearly something missing, and in the meantime learning the theories that don't work is all that there is to do and publish papers on; but it's not a sort of conspiracy by physicists, they seem to be generally aware that they are clearly missing something and likely "new physics" (new experimental evidence not predicted by either the standard model or general relativity) is the only thing likely to "unstick" the situation (if it is unstickable; some physicists are fine with the idea we just are stuck here more-or-less; we have a theory of small things and a theory of big things, and we'll never be able to unite them into one coherent theory; there is no "reason" our physics must be fully "mathematically coherent"; the universe could present to us a fundamentally "hodgepodge" view of "real reality" of which we can never understand the real functioning fully, and which does
not even correspond to a coherent mathematics we are able to invent at all; i.e. there is no a priori logical reason preventing "god" from making the universe such that our current quantum-general-relativity dichotomy is the absolute best we can ever do; which is, ironically, an obvious possibility to most pure mathematicians, but most physicists insist there is "something" they'll find in pure mathematics that will make everything empirical make sense; but, pure mathematics simply makes no guarantee of describing the world at all, any successes at all in describing the world with mathematics have no pure mathematics reason that they need to be there at all, and are purely coincidence as far as pure mathematics is concerned).
She's a cool lady & as you say one of many great observations.