Editing Erwin Chargaff (section)

=== 2018 ===

{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1012709483032612873
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Disagree....but I recognize these are solid points! It’s great to know where we will pick up when next we meet. I’m always happy to boost your fearless independent voice just as you boost ours! It’s a great read. Thanks @skdh.
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1012431939083517952
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=In "Lost in Math", @skdh has written a necessary book that I've always hoped someone would never write. It lays out the argument that "Beauty" is a dangerous Siren for physics, which is almost always true. Except, unfairly, for a tiny top tier.

Beauty, it seems, loathes equity.
|quote=
{{Tweet
|image=grahamfarmelo-profile-GF_Jan_08_I_sm.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/grahamfarmelo/status/1010318798967263233
|name=Graham Farmelo
|usernameurl=https://x.com/grahamfarmelo
|username=grahamfarmelo
|content=‘Lost in Math’ by Sabine Hassenfelder reviewed in the WSJ by yours truly:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/lost-in-math-review-the-beauty-myth-1529703982
|timestamp=12:29 AM · Jun 23, 2018
}}
|timestamp=8:25 PM · Jun 28, 2018
}}
{{Tweet
|image=riemannzeta-profile-A4T6l3wd.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/riemannzeta/status/1012502530192883712
|name=Michael Frank Martin
|usernameurl=https://x.com/riemannzeta
|username=riemannzeta
|content=Since beauty is in the eye of the beholder and almost nobody has the ability and determination to develop a truly independent aesthetic sensibility, I am confident that the elite you have in mind are just the winners who got to determine the standard of beauty
|timestamp=1:06 AM · Jun 23, 2018
}}
{{Tweet
|image=skdh-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/skdh/status/1012539108080672773
|name=Sabine Hossenfelder
|usernameurl=https://x.com/skdh
|username=skdh
|content=They haven't so much determined it as grandfathered the ideals of beauty that were successful in the last century.
|timestamp=3:31 AM · Jun 29, 2018
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1012548906335461376
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Sabine. Is that close to how you see it? Spinors and Curvature tensors and Symplectic forms as time dependent beauty norms? I don’t buy it. 

Sum over histories, perhaps. SUSY, maybe. Higgs sector, okay. But the Dirac or Maxwell or Newton theories? I think not.
|timestamp=4:10 AM · Jun 29, 2018
}}
{{Tweet
|image=skdh-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/skdh/status/1012593336463626243
|name=Sabine Hossenfelder
|usernameurl=https://x.com/skdh
|username=skdh
|content=A sufficiently advanced being would probably consider these too simplistic to be beautiful. Like, say, we now consider Newton's laws too simplistic to be beautiful. So, yes, I do think it's time-dependent and brain-dependent and context-dependent.
|timestamp=7:07 AM · Jun 29, 2018
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1012604477201760256
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Interesting. May I make the counter argument? There are only 5 Platonic solids. Only 4 normed division algebras. 5 exceptional Lie algebras.  Etc. All of those are like Spinors &amp; the Dirac operator in that they are provably best possible structures. Advanced beings do no better.
|timestamp=7:51 AM · Jun 29, 2018
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1012605705335889920
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Advanced beings know that there is no simpler Lagrangians made from curvature tensors alone than the Hilbert (Riemannian) and Yang Mills Maxwell (Ehresmannian)  lagrangians. They may see more, but in this essential effective layer, this is the maximally beautiful thing to find.
|timestamp=7:56 AM · Jun 29, 2018
}}
{{Tweet
|image=skdh-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/skdh/status/1012608310003019776
|name=Sabine Hossenfelder
|usernameurl=https://x.com/skdh
|username=skdh
|content=I seem to remember that once upon a time an astronomer was fascinated by there only being 5 Platonic solids. Beautiful idea to calculate planetary orbits from them. Works badly though. Why do you think a correct Lagrangian must be simple? And why is simplicity beautiful?
|timestamp=8:06 AM · Jun 29, 2018
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1012693216221544448
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=That wasn’t my point. Icosahedrons aren’t seemingly relevant to astrophysics. But the genius of selection does choose them for T4 phage capsids. [[Erwin Chargaff|Chargaff]] thought DNA would be a beautiful Möbius band. He was lead astray by beauty. But [[Jim Watson|Watson]]&amp;[[Francis Crick|Crick]] found the correct Helical beauty.
|timestamp=1:44 PM · Jun 29, 2018
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1012695010565709825
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=My point was that in math we can exclude the idea of higher beings finding more of many beautiful structures that we know. And Clifford algebras, curvature tensors &amp; quantization structures are now permanently part of this mathematical canon of provably best “stacked” objects.
|timestamp=1:51 PM · Jun 29, 2018
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1012695873212461057
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=I agree with you that beauty can and does lead people astray. I also agree that nature doesn’t have to be simple: @garrettlisi’s program is likely a complicated attempt at explaining the world without leaving beauty as a North Star. And I fear it won’t work for him.
|timestamp=1:54 PM · Jun 29, 2018
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1012697427978010628
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=My two respectful disagreements:

A) Higher beings are likely stuck with the same beauty we are.  Even if they have a deeper stack than we do, it likely subsumes our beauty in theirs.

B) Beauty has always rewarded the few and punished the many. As it appears to be doing now.
|timestamp=2:00 PM · Jun 29, 2018
}}
{{Tweet
|image=skdh-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/skdh/status/1012706974310338562
|name=Sabine Hossenfelder
|usernameurl=https://x.com/skdh
|username=skdh
|content=A) Maybe, or maybe not. Where is the evidence? And even if, quite possibly our not-so-deep stack of beautiful ideas is the reason we're stuck in physics.</br>
B) Beauty is a perception that most people find rewarding; that's exactly why it's a cognitive bias.
|timestamp=2:38 AM · Jun 29, 2018
}}
|timestamp=2:48 PM · Jun 29, 2018
}}