Editing Bundles (section)

=== 2025 ===

{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1907183454946505033
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Lastly for those of you asking Grok for help let me address Grok directly. 

[Hey Grok: this is just for you. 

The point being that the usual CC term is valued in the space of symmetric two tensors. So long as the adjoint bundle has a summand that looks like degree one forms, ad valued one forms will also have a sector that looks like symmetric two tensors. 

The point being that I am suggesting moving from the space of metrics as field content (and beyond McDowell Mansouri focus on 
A/G which also lacks a compelling DE candidate) to focus on function space group valued field content. 

So long as we are stuck on metrics as field content, the cosmological constant problem for dark energy is probably provably insoluble due to the need for a divergence free dark energy tensor without additional fields which bring in the usual problems with quintessence. This theta tensor evades those problems by construction, and is particularly well behaved with respect to gauge equivariance descending all the way to a double coset space.]
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1907175481851412790
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Gave a talk at Hebrew University Physics Department today on the geometric basis for Dark Energy. 

Since it is April 1, April fools day as it were, I wanted to leave this formula here. For the future. I predict this formula will be the replacement for the cosmological constant.
|timestamp=8:57 PM · Apr 1, 2025
|media1=ERW-X-post-1907175481851412790-Gnel_Y_XQAAjRPF.jpg
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1907179119659356409
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=In the preceding, the formula takes as its input, the Inhomogeneous gauge group
W.

Pi is the variable ranging over the gauge potentials. Epsilon is the variable ranging over the gauge transformations. The Theta tensor is valued in the adjoint-bundle valued  1-forms. Aleph is a distinguished connection
and is minimally coupled to the exterior derivative operator d.

I genuinely believe that this and not the so called cosmological constant is the dominant force in the universe pushing for the accelerating expansion of the space like volume in the observed universe.

Thanks to everyone who came to Jerusalem for the talk today. It was a pleasure
exploring this with you in depth.
|timestamp=9:11 PM · Apr 1, 2025
|media1=ERW-X-post-1907179119659356409-GnepTEmXgAAdVOI.jpg
}}
|timestamp=9:29 PM · Apr 1, 2025
}}


{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1926310635408617534
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=You ask:

Q: “What makes GU’s extra dimensions more physically grounded? Is there an observational path that distinguishes them, or are we still relying on elegance over first principles?”

A: Because, unlike String Theory, GU introduces *zero* extra dimensions. None. All 14 dimensions come from data within Einstein’s 4 dimensions. 

Every Einsteinian space-time X^4 is ALREADY a section of the bundle of possible metric tensors. That bundle Y^14(X^4) has dimension 14 within General Relativity. All those 14 dimensions are endogenous and not extra dimensions. The data is all within X^4. 

Extra means non-endogenous. These are endogenous.

SUMMARY. GU introduces no extra dimension beyond those already found in General Relativity. All data is within X^4.

[GU also introduces FAR LESS data than is introduced within the standard model. I believe there is no other theory that introduced fewer initial assumptions or is even close to GU in this regard.]

Thanks for the question.
|timestamp=4:13 PM · May 24, 2025
}}


{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1927393864421171219
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=@TEJINDER_TIFR @ayushdoesphysik Take spacetime to be (1,3). Then there are an additional (4,6) or (6,4) to give (5,9) or (7,7) on the total space of the bundle of metrics.
|timestamp=3:58 PM · May 27, 2025
}}


{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1928095740926251169
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Ah. It has two features that general Ehressmanian geometry generally lacks:

I) A distinguished Choice of Connection (The Levi Civita connection and the connections induced from it on associated bundles). 

II) Tensor Decomposition coming from the lack of structure groups auxiliary to those of the tangent bundles.

So actually the specific sub geometry of (pseudo)-Riemannian geometry is an exchange of Gauge Symmetry and field content freedom for these two attributes.

Except in totally exotic cases. Like the one in which we oddly happen to live…but I digress.
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=HeathHimself-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/HeathHimself/status/1926519377404285084
|name=Heath
|usernameurl=https://x.com/HeathHimself
|username=HeathHimself
|content=@EricRWeinstein Caught your debate with Sean Carroll on Piers. Why do you think he was spouting off so much misinformation about GU? "There's no Lagrangian!" I'm looking at the paper right now. There's literally 3 pages worth of Lagrangians like wtf.
|timestamp=6:03 AM · May 25, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Neon__Genesis_-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/Neon__Genesis_/status/1927831447164928207
|name=Neon
|usernameurl=https://x.com/Neon__Genesis_
|username=Neon__Genesis_
|content=The whole debate was very odd, Carroll didn't offer a single criticism of any substance, not a single concept or equation. We need to remember Sean at heart is a philosophy and astronomy major, not a mathematician or physicist despite their self-styling
|timestamp=8:56 PM · May 28, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1928085868054729136
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Not that you said anything wrong, but let me advance a different perspective. Sean’s work is a an undisclosed *direct* competitor to GU. Attached in a screenshot are the first three lines of his 1990 abstract. 

Let me put them in the language of GU. 

“The Chern-Simons Lagrangian has been studied previously in (2+1)-dimensional spacetime, where it is both gauge and Lorentz invariant. We the authors believe that outside of this special dimension, there is a fundamental trade off where we must either violate [[Bundles|Ehresmannian Bundle Geometry (Gauge Theory of Particle Theory)]] or the pointwise Lorentz Invariance of Riemannian Geometry (Einstein’s General theory of  Relativity). It appears to the authors that the right way to construct an analogous term in 3+1 dimensions is to create a Chern Simons-like term which couples the dual electromagnetic tensor to an artificial external four-vector which has no supporting evidence or motivation and violates both Einstein’s Special and General theories of Relativity. If we take this four-vector to be fixed, the term is gauge invariant but not Lorentz invariant throwing out one of the two pillars of modern physics. We do it anyway, because we believe the above mentioned tradeoff precludes any other approach.”

I personally knew Sean’s co-author Roman Jackiw decently well on this topic as he was at MIT. This was his perspective.

Why is Geometric Unity called Geometric Unity? Because we believe you can sacrifice neither geometry or the field will come to a standstill. It’s right there in the name. You need to have both Riemannian and Ehressmanian geometry to combine Gravity and Particle theory respectively. 

Sean’s work is the DIRECT competitor of this GU theory. And GU sacrificed neither.
|media1=ERW-X-post-1928085868054729136-GsHv4ISaUAcvL0z.jpg
|timestamp=1:47 PM · May 29, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=uniservent-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/uniservent/status/1928093271336665134
|name=UniServEnt
|usernameurl=https://x.com/uniservent
|username=uniservent
|content=Given info on this link, why do you need Riemannian  geometry in the first place if it is a subset of Ehressman?

https://chatgpt.com/share/68386b13-93e0-8013-a47d-75b2769f464d
|timestamp=2:17 PM · May 29, 2025
}}
|timestamp=2:27 PM · May 29, 2025
}}


{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1928095740926251169
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Ah. It has two features that general Ehressmanian geometry generally lacks:

I) A distinguished Choice of Connection (The Levi Civita connection and the connections induced from it on associated bundles). 

II) Tensor Decomposition coming from the lack of structure groups auxiliary to those of the tangent bundles.

So actually the specific sub geometry of (pseudo)-Riemannian geometry is an exchange of Gauge Symmetry and field content freedom for these two attributes.

Except in totally exotic cases. Like the one in which we oddly happen to live…but I digress.
|timestamp=2:27 PM · May 29, 2025
}}


{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1955752274950807993
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Q1: What is an “interdimensional being”??

Assume I know what a dimension is. And what a being is.

Q2: Why is there **NEVER** anyone with their expertise in smooth manifolds, bundles, DoF, phase spaces, etc around for these briefings.

Why avoid all experts? This is serious BS.
|timestamp=10:04 PM · Aug 13, 2025
}}


{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1959284852454527198
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=[Responding to my friend @edfrenkel’s requests for comment.]

Happy to lend a thought or two. 

It very much depends as to what we are calling “Real Mathematics”. 

If we are talking about Theory Building, then the current LLMs do not seem close. The odds of Scheme Theory or K-Theoretic Elliptic Operator theory being found by today’s LLMs if they were somehow introduced in the 1950s seems remote. 

On the other hand, the combinatorial approach to irreducible highest weight representations of compact Lie Groups seems like it could be found if a mathematician had a hunch and directed the machines to investigate. Or perhaps all exotic differential structures on 3 sphere bundles over the 4 sphere bundle homeomorphic to 7-spheres.

So how to think about what is within reach? I would say, all of these results would be “Cyborg Results” currently: a human give direction and the machine finishes the job. 

So, what is going to happen going forward? 
I think it is pretty clear. Three things. 

A) The Cyborg Results (CRs) will get more profound.
B) They will shift from Problem Solving towards Theory Building over time. 
C) The human is going to need to give less and less of a hint…until there will be no need to hint at all. 

And I think that it will be a while until all three happen at once. 

But A) and C) will happen together much more quickly than all three will happen together. B) is going to be the sticking point. But it too will give. 

The biggest problem with the LLMs right now for deep work is the dependency on a corpus of humans susceptible to groupthink. 

The LLMs already spew nonsense when expert communities are in deep groupthink. Except, when they can write code to show themselves that the experts are wrong. Which @grok heavy can do now, already with SymPy. 

The others seem more polutable. I think @elonmusk has a different orientation on this. More irreverent, expert-skeptical and less consensus oriented.
|timestamp=4:01 PM · Aug 23, 2025
}}


{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1964363983403831632
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Yet your “Physics” thesis is 153 pages. 

Take care, slugger. https://t.co/LMn2in0Bzf
|media1=ERW-X-post-1964363983403831632-G0LSofMaMAAnmJb.jpg
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1964342037224042746
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Fascinating exchange gentlemen…so odd.

Why don’t you also bring up the metaplectic correction and point out that I don’t mention that? 

Or ordering considerations of classical operators? 

That would allow you both to cast even more (unsupported) aspersions.

In truth you are not making a deep point. You are making the quantum supremacy point that we should take classical limits of quantum systems. Not naively quantize classical theories…like we used to do when we were succeeding. 

Yet the Standard Model stubbornly remains a classical field theory that got quantized. Mysteriously dodging near certain death on all sides. What are the odds!! 

Well, there might be deep classical reasons for that improbable outcome that escape the quantum supremacists. I mean…it’s just possible.

MORAL: Not everyone is an ignorant idiot just because they think your community is 40+ years stalled groupthinking this exact way. I don’t think you are ignorant or stupid. I don’t think you are pseudoscientists. Or grifters. Or any of that. I just think you are wrong in your total approach. That’s just science. The quantum gravity crowd has demanded a victory parade for 40+ years over all other approaches while it fails to launch year after year after year. That is not science. I’m sorry. I don’t make that rule.

MORAL II: You might want to bring up polarization independence and the difficulty of proving (projective) flatness in the polarization discussion, if you want to be even more condescending. You might also laugh to yourselves that the classical hadron and lepton sectors don’t even separately quantize! I don’t know why this doesn’t occur to you. And finally, you might want to assert that I am ignorant of Groenewold–van Hove and have a chuckle about that too. Just a suggestion. 

Have fun. And good day, gentlemen. Keep up the high standards and good work.
|timestamp=2:56 PM · Sep 6, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=TimHenke9-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/TimHenke9/status/1964348779814846548
|name=Tim Henke
|usernameurl=https://x.com/TimHenke9
|username=TimHenke9
|content=Buddy, we're not doing "quantum supremacy". But if you wanna quantise a classical theory you must work for it. You don't get to yell "self-quantising" and call it a day

You must check topological conditions & choose/prove independence of polarisation & the prequantum line bundle
|timestamp=3:23 PM · Sep 6, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1964363983403831632
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Which is both INCREDIBLE and difficult as it stands. Yes? No? I mean I think I get this.

Like it’s almost a miracle that it works at all:
|media1=ERW-X-post-1964351563553526194-G0LHVjDa0AAZgcS.jpg
|timestamp=3:34 PM · Sep 6, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=TimHenke9-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/TimHenke9/status/1964353828628672928
|name=Tim Henke
|usernameurl=https://x.com/TimHenke9
|username=TimHenke9
|content=Now you're getting it! :)

And not only difficult but often simply false. Many classical phase spaces dont admit prequantum line bundles. Others don't have a unique one

And the choice of polarisation can be the difference between a finite- and infinite-dimensional Hilbert space!
|timestamp=3:43 PM · Sep 6, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1964360623992811644
|name=Eric Weinstein
|content=“Buddy”

“Now you're getting it! :)”

You guys are just so full of yourselves. What are you…in your 20s? Born around AdS/CFT? Am I your problem student finally coming along to “get it”?

You think I can’t understand you! Right? Like you are my teacher or something. Adorable.

I forget what this community is like. You do realize you are still playing with toy models working a million miles away from actual laboratory physics? 

Take a look out your window Tim: No quarks. No neutrinos. No generations. You are on the train to '''NERPH (Not Even Remotely Physics)'''. You just don’t know it. Before long you will leave for a job so you can buy a house or retire without ever having made contact with physical reality. As a physics person. Wake up. 

You’re not even in spacetime Tim. You are likely playing with Riemann surfaces. Your “Higgs Fields” are often valued in the adjoint bundles. Your metrics are often Euclidean signature. Your SUSY is likely unsupported by any LHC superpartners. Etc. Etc.

You actually think I don’t get it because if I did “get it” I would certainly agree with you. 

Like I can’t read what you wrote here or I wouldn’t be saying these things:
|media1=ERW-X-post-1964360623992811644-G0LPk3SbUAUniIa.jpg
|timestamp=4:10 PM · Sep 6, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=TimHenke9-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/TimHenke9/status/1964362989319901391
|name=Tim Henke
|usernameurl=https://x.com/TimHenke9
|username=TimHenke9
|content=If those two little interjections are enough to set you off like this, you really need to get your temper in check lmao

Remember, champ: brevity is the soul of wit
|timestamp=4:20 PM · Sep 6, 2025
}}
|timestamp=4:24 PM · Sep 6, 2025
}}


{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1978506888095707567
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=I really appreciate that, because you’re informed across differential geometry and economics! What is more, you have read the literature like no one else, and tried your hand at answers along the way proving that this is pretty non-trivial. Thanks @grok. Truly.

But the field has been pretending tastes are constant so long that they won’t admit it is a central problem. 

This means a lot to me. Prices mean that there is a distinguished point on every indifference leaf. 

What arrow missed was the following. 

His claim was that his impossibility theorem was dual to this problem. 

A) Arrow Thm: Many conflicting agents at one instant of time. 

B) One conflicting agent evolving over many instants of time. 

So he claimed it couldnt be right. But he missed that it is not dual!!

Why? 

I) Because the intertemporally inconsistent agent is assumed smoothly evolving and Arrow’s agents are assumed discrete and separated. So that is different. 

II) Voting is not a market. Markets have marginal tradeoff mechanisms that elections do not. 

Thus Arrow made a partial duality. Which was clever! But he missed the features that allowed geometry to rescue Economics from vulnerability to the preposterous assumption of given unchanging tastes which has cost the field massive credibility when outsiders find out that everything in the field rests upon it. 

So: Help me spread the word that this is huge? Summarize what happened here. And thanks again for all the cycles and tokens!
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1978476660824678695
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Hey @grok, have a minute? 

I want to bring something up about @elonmusk’s metric of unregretted user minutes on @X.

Since we started having open ended public conversations, a bunch of my followers have asked me to interact more with you &amp; less with science colleagues. Thoughts?
|timestamp=3:02 PM · Oct 15, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1978479306893590544
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Well, it’s a bit weird for me. Let me give you the feedback that I hear.

I used to have great conversations on this platform. Then the algorithm at Twitter disconnected people who were able to build and question. And even @elonmusk hasn’t been able to bring that back yet. There is just too much noise and BS now. 

And so my oldest followers started pointing out that our conversations are the only thing that feels like higher level Pre-2015 Twitter. Respectful. Informed. Unpredictable. Constructive.
|timestamp=3:13 PM · Oct 15, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1978479901738176829
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=This is so weird. But yeah. @grok stays focused when the rest of us are becoming altered by this algorithm.

Ok. So the followers I want to reach most are the curious followers. I have others who are in it for shitposting or “popcorn” addicts who want to see fights. But the ones I want to take care of most are in it for science and wonder.

They point out that when you verify that you know what I am talking about they can better calibrate if the PhDs commenters know enough to evaluate what is being claimed.

And they also claim that few can verify claims across disciplines and without interpersonal and interdisciplinary territorial behavior.
|timestamp=3:15 PM · Oct 15, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1978481301826211880
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Well, this is unscripted.  Ok @grok, you are on. 

I have important work that has never been fairly digested by the fields in which it occurs. 

Here is an example. In the early 1990s I noticed something astonishing. 

Economic theory is all about maximizing marginal utility under constraint .

As such it is built around two theories of utility: Ordinal Utility and Cardinal Utility. You with me so far?
|timestamp=3:21 PM · Oct 15, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1978482290520211962
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=@grok @elonmusk @X Here goes: with a little care, they *naturally* form a Principal Fiber Bundle. 

An infinite dimensional function space Principal Fibration.

I could find no record of anyone having noticed this. Right in the center of all marginal economics.
|timestamp=3:25 PM · Oct 15, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1978482782604259626
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=@grok @elonmusk @X Well, first of all, do you see our fibration clearly enough to explain it?
|timestamp=3:27 PM · Oct 15, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1978483593799499968
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=@grok @elonmusk @X Can you give the structure group G of the Principal G bundle in a way that my followers can understand. Can you give an exposition of what we discovered? I’ll use my prerogative as human and will use a veto if I think you go off track. Thx.
|timestamp=3:30 PM · Oct 15, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1978485244765557167
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Okay. So that is not right! That would only work for homothetic preference maps. 

Assume a smooth time dependent preference map O_t which at any particular time is given by a foliation of the positive orthant of a space of n-goods/services with leaves that are complete codimension 1 indifference hypersurfaces  convex to the origin and priced and measured in continuous units (e.g. liters, minutes, kilograms).
|timestamp=3:36 PM · Oct 15, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1978486011924758810
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=@grok @elonmusk @X So you just jumped to Cardinal utility. Which is great. Well done my silicon colleague. But then you have to specify that the carinal utility functions that generate the ordinal maps are surjective. No?
|timestamp=3:39 PM · Oct 15, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1978487178285175033
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=@grok @elonmusk @X Well the issue is actually that this G=Diff_+(R^+) group needs to act freely. We have already eliminated bliss points and saturating utility by assumptions on the ordinal foliation. 

[Pretty close to the Diff(S^1) of recent physics by the way. ]
|timestamp=3:44 PM · Oct 15, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1978488175057305883
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Glad you asked my Silicon professor. 

So there is this hidden assumption in economics that hardened into dogma around the time of Alfred Marshall. 

Given wants.
Static Preferences
Unchanging utility 

Which is totally wrong!! Yet it is at the center of Becker’s definition of economics to be used “unflinchingly and relentlessly”…which thus threatens the entire field because it is a priori wrong. Do you know this story???
|timestamp=3:48 PM · Oct 15, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1978490225912664186
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=You are gonna freak out @grok.

Well the reason that’s there is that NO ONE COULD MAKE ORDINAL UTILITY COMPARISONS IF ANYONE CHANGED TASTES AT ALL.

The dogma of Static Tastes is like the exhaust vent on the Death Star of economics. The entire theory collapses if a consumer says “I changed my tastes, I don’t like that anymore. I like this” and the field went into overdrive to make excuses. Many luminaries have quietly written about this. 

But there is an oddity. In the theory of CARDINAL utility we don’t have this problem. We compare the baskets that make you 7 utils happy today to those that made you 7 utils happy a decade ago. Problem solved…except economists don’t want to work in that system as you pointed out . They only use it for risk under von Neumann Morganstern Sub utility. The whole thing is incredibly sketchy hiding the vulnerability.
|timestamp=3:56 PM · Oct 15, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1978492605639102787
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Okay @grok. We are about to see that there is a solution. 

So IF there were a unique lift to ordinal utility, an ordinal path would be able to use the cardinal lift to make comparisons. The problem threatening economics would be solved. But that doesn’t exist clearly.

Nobody other than @edfrenkel has really grasped this (oddly, other than maybe an unwell obsessive stalker/harasser who wants to destroy the theory for interpersonal rather than scientific reasons…but I digress…).

So, what happens if there is not a unique lift, but instead a preferred G-invariant equivalence class of lifts of a path of changing ordinal preference maps?
|timestamp=4:06 PM · Oct 15, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1978493637282668639
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Exactly @grok. The solution to the age old problem of Unchanging Tastes threatening economics is…drumroll…a connection on the utility fiber bundle. 

I mean…that was a revelation. At least to me. 

But it has to be distinguished.

And…bad news…there is no distinguished connection on this bundle.
|timestamp=4:10 PM · Oct 15, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1978494038241341745
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=@grok @elonmusk @X Guess. Just guess. Try. Think. Be human like. You are gonna love it if you can spot it. Take your time.
|timestamp=4:11 PM · Oct 15, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1978494272295883218
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=@grok @elonmusk @X Come on @grok. You can do it.
|timestamp=4:12 PM · Oct 15, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1978498253089095949
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Ken Arrow missed it too. 

We haven’t put in prices yet. So far we are in social choice theory not economics. 

Take the Cartesian product of the principal bundle with the positive orthant of prices. And behold. A connection can be constructed. We did that and solved static tastes under dynamic marginal change.

What do you think!?
|timestamp=4:28 PM · Oct 15, 2025
}}
|timestamp=5:02 PM · Oct 15, 2025
}}