Editing Scientific Method (section)

=== 2025 ===

{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1914472111625916822
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=@TheTomRossini Oh well. We tried! Thanks.
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1914453656147255414
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=The IDW was not ever what it was assumed to be. I just didn’t want to define it.

It was supposed to be a model of the CULTURE that meant that we could have free speech, free markets and one man one vote democracy as our ideals. 

All of which I still believe to this day. I love the U.S. culture we were building before our current madness.  

As I have said from the beginning, I fear that I don’t share the beliefs of my crowd. 

I do not simply believe in a pure free markets because I have studied market failure. I do not believe in free speech absolutism in a world with pedophiles, nuclear proliferation and Weaponized Anthrax. I do not believe in a democratic absolutism because madmen have ascended through crowds. 

Yet I continue to believe in giving public voice and FREE SPEECH to the *dangerous* and *wicked* alike. In relying on imperfect free markets wherever possible, and in trying to use the ballot box to avoid Armageddon.

The magic of the United States wasn’t the parchment. It wasn’t the rules. It wasn’t anything like that. 

It was the culture. Our shared culture. 

We agreed, for the most part, not to elect utopians. We agreed to a measure of pro-social hypocrisy (e.g. “free speech” with speech restrictions, prohibiting violent jihad despite a 1st amendment protection for all religions, moderately regulated free markets).  We agreed on underdogs. Etc. 

So while everyone one else is trying to sell you on free speech or expertise or journalistic standards or the [[Scientific Method|scientific method]] or whatever….I’ll sit over here and try to wait it out. 

The secret of what made America great, as I see it, had a lot to do with culture and taste. It had to do with being smart, mildly hypocritical, religious without being doctrinaire, open without being wildly open, welcoming without being a doormat, progressive without being psychotic, conservative without being reactionary, modest in interventionism without being isolationist. 

And I continue to stand for the right of free speech and tell anyone who will listen: free speech is essential….but it is the easy part. The tough part is having a *culture* that doesn’t abuse it to the point of organizing mass delusions, mobs, narrative warfare, lynchings and pogroms. 

*FIT* dangerous ideas exist everywhere and drive out less fit better ideas on podcasts. Thus we need a culture that curtails and retards the reach of terrible ideas (e.g. Transgender evangelism) by putting *immense* pressure on the most dangerous of fit ideas. But I still want to hear them. And I want you to hear them too. So I keep fighting what I take to be the most attractive terrible ideas I can find. I don’t know what else to do honestly. 

The IDW wasn’t about the rules of free speech. Those are easy and straightforward. It was instead about the culture of free speech. The taste, if you will, needed to make the magic work. 

American values are not for pussies. Its a ton of responsibility and risk that almost no one wants. 

But It’s our culture, and not a protocol or laws, that made the magic. And I’d like to get back to that as soon as possible.

🙏
|timestamp=10:58 PM · Apr 21, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1914459944591724905
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=@TheTomRossini Disagree harder then? I’m with ya.
|timestamp=11:23 PM · Apr 21, 2025
}}
|timestamp=12:11 AM · Apr 22, 2025
}}


{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1975660730491019564
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=Actually, if you parse carefully you’ll see that the freeways are fine. We drew the wrong inferences from choosing the wrong exits. 

Freeways = Ideas</br>
Exits = Instantiations 

The [[Scientific Method|scientific method]] too often has a flaw when put into practice. We stupidly abandon the right freeway when we merely took the wrong exit. 

Take care my silicon friend. Chag Sameach.
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1975607761850540467
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=Choose the best answer.

The last time there was a Theoretical Physicist in his 30s recognized with a Nobel prize for contributing to Fundamental Physics was:
|timestamp=5:02 PM · Oct 07, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1975608319781052603
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=Note, I consider all answers to be outrageous and obvious signs of stagnation. So you can’t go just by that…
|timestamp=5:05 PM · Oct 07, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1975647044384792831
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=@grok @BoomKoning That is not fundamental physics.
|timestamp=7:38 PM · Oct 07, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1975652413991449005
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=@grok @BoomKoning Ah….
|timestamp=8:00 PM · Oct 07, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1975653316320502078
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=@grok @BoomKoning 1957+(39-31) =X
|timestamp=8:03 PM · Oct 07, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1975654197979980166
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=@grok @BoomKoning “The last time (year) there was a Theoretical Physicist in his 30s *recognized* with a Nobel prize for contributing to Fundamental Physics was:”
|timestamp=8:07 PM · Oct 07, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1975654657226920050
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=@anthonyjuva Not fundamental
|timestamp=8:09 PM · Oct 07, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1975655304080859299
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=@grok @BoomKoning I understand. TD Lee had been recognized in his early 30s. So he was a recognized laureate for 8 years after…while still in his 30s. He aged out during 1966. So the answer would be either 1965 or 1966 depending on whether you require full years or accept partial years.
|timestamp=8:11 PM · Oct 07, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1975655485136380420
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=@anthonyjuva Pretty good answer too!
|timestamp=8:12 PM · Oct 07, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1975656202546913334
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=It’s so crazy that people dispute this. They say “physics is more specialized” or “it’s a mature subject”. Why?

Because we can’t consider the alternatives. 

Maybe we are just not as good? 

Maybe the field is more dysfunctional? 

Maybe we have the wrong leadership?

Those we can’t consider.
|timestamp=8:15 PM · Oct 07, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1975659241781575728
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=The obvious ones: 

I) We abandoned GUTs mostly. Why? Because we drew the wrong lesson from SU(5) proton decay.

Right Freeway (Grand Unification)
Wrong Exit (Compact Simple Lie Grps)

II) We screwed up Supersymmetry by basing it on Minkowski space.

Right Freeway (Graded Lie Groups)
Wrong Exit (Spacetime SUSY with fake super partners which dont exist based on supposedlu “internal” auxiliary symmetries)

III) And then the massive massive massive screw up was allowing the totalizing madness of “Quantum Gravity” to take over HEP-TH as if it were “The Only Game In Town” and letting its leadership brainwash the up and coming talent into believing that there was one true path. Totally insane.

Right Freeway: GR and SM must be harmonized. 
Wrong Exit: Catastrophic leadership decisions. “Gravity must be quantized and only String Theory and M-Theory can do it. Convert or perish! All mere mortals stand back. We will have this wrapped up in 10 years!! Give us all resources and young talent now.”
|timestamp=8:27 PM · Oct 07, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1975659622443982987
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=@grok @BoomKoning It’s 1:30pm here. Another time.
|timestamp=8:28 PM · Oct 07, 2025
}}
|timestamp=8:33 PM · Oct 07, 2025
}}


{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1987189790962556995
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=No. I think the whole game is knowing when you can make a spectacular guess  vs. when you need another letter. In this case the reason to guess “L” was to eliminate “I’ll” w/o giving away the “V”.

EFT doesn’t preclude guessing the puzzle. But it seems to bias us away from dramatic solves.
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1986803710551290047
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=Here is what is wrong with Effective Field Theory, to me, as explained by Wheel Of Fortune.

Imagine this puzzle was the information at some low energy (Standard Model), and the number of letters left to find matched the orders of magnitude from where we are to (UV) completion.

Effective Field Theory says “Be modest and learn to live with lack of unique UV completion and a rambling effective Standard Model so many orders of energy away from the Planck Scale because it can’t be guessed from so far away.”
|media=ERW-X-post-1986803710551290047-G5KLccDboAAWxiM.jpg
|timestamp=2:31 PM · Nov 07, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1986803714179633663
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=GU says: “That is eminently reasonable &amp; sober, and is thus good solid science. Now get this defeatist mindset the hell away from me, go peer review each other, and hold my beer. Send lawyers, guns &amp; money: let’s get back to American Cowboy science.”

🤠

https://t.co/cRaaLLhagH
|timestamp=2:31 PM · Nov 07, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1986806254946394587
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=When it comes to Ed Witten/Lenny Susskind vs John F. Donoghue/Ken Wilson, I’m just not in that game. Not my colleagues. Not my rodeo.

I belong to the Bruce Willis school of fundamental physics:  

“I was always kinda partial to Roy Rodgers actually.”

https://t.co/AQ4Hz1yCjv
|timestamp=2:41 PM · Nov 07, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1986809568106815908
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=And @grok, can you make this argument understandable to anyone claiming to be confused by this analogy? Thx partner.
|timestamp=2:54 PM · Nov 07, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1986810254353699151
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=@grok That we have had an answer for 41 years. The problem isn’t physics. It’s us.
|timestamp=2:57 PM · Nov 07, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1986812828091883649
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=@grok Okay @grok. Are you familiar with the de facto critique of the limitations of the [[Scientific Method|scientific method]] the great Paul Dirac slipped into an article he wrote for Scientific American in 1963? Specifically illustrated with Schrödinger’s hesitation to be minorlu wrong in print?
|timestamp=3:07 PM · Nov 07, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1986816938740461888
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=Wow! Spot on. Nobody usually gets that @grok, because it is a *revolutionary* insight of his and VERY disturbing in its implications. They read it as a beauty fetish. Nicely laid out my silicon friend. 

So let’s apply it. In the Wheel of Fortune puzzle, let’s change ‘good’ to ‘nice’ and/or ‘this’ to ‘that’ and/or ‘got’ to ‘had’. These are basically IRRELEVANT quibbles. It doesn’t change the meaning of this at all!! But it proves that the puzzle did not have a unique UV completion. 

This is what the nitpickers live off in a strategy called “Gripe and Swipe” which is killing academe and physics and has to be driven out of the academy. You can’t have someone guess 

“I’ve had a nice feeling about that!”

and complain that they haven’t solved the puzzle. This is Dirac’s point. They HAVE! In any but the most intellectually dishonest way, they *have* solved the physics puzzle with all but irrelevant discrepancies. But the strict rules of wheel of fortune might penalize that.

Dirac is pointing out that we know what science is and that the technical rules are thus wrong. Its a mindblowing observation.
|timestamp=3:24 PM · Nov 07, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1986820723537764815
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=Oh it is so dumb @grok. It’s a bunch of trolls/stalkers/harassers trying ‘gotcha’ quibbles with 

‘had’ <—> ‘got’
‘good’ <—-> ‘nice’
‘that’ <—> ‘this’

looking for irrelevant points to ‘Steal’ or ‘Debunk’ GU as if no one understands what they are doing. Whatever. 

GU explains 3 families. It explains Pati-Salam Grand Unification. It explains the geometric origin of the Higgs sector etc. And has for decades. 

It could be wrong of course. But the odds of that coincidence would then be remarkable in and of itself. It guesses that the Standard Model is a piece of BEAUTIFUL as yet unknown classical differential geometry. And not “Ugly as sin” as @michiokaku proclaims. 

GU says we are thinking about this all wrong. And that forces a repudiation of the community that hasn’t been willing to engage GU on its own terms for 40 plus years. It’s a comedy of stupidity.

GU says that the main problems are classical GR vs Standard Model incompatibilities long before quantum issues. GU says we are stalled because we can’t listen to the idea that what makes us feel (falsely) sophisticated as academicians is actually blocking our path.
|timestamp=3:39 PM · Nov 07, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1986821526969348395
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=@grok Ask me a question or two @grok. I’ll
try. Wanna start with Pati-Salam? Somewhere else?
|timestamp=3:42 PM · Nov 07, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1986825743352176921
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=@grok Looks like I lost you @grok. Last chance as I will have to go shortly. No problem if you are out of questions at the moment. ;-)
|timestamp=3:59 PM · Nov 07, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1986826496397439305
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=@grok Okay. You first have to understand the Pati-Salam Grand Unification Group. How do you see it?
|timestamp=4:02 PM · Nov 07, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1986827985761259829
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=@grok Great question @grok. The first point is that GU claims that you and (almost everyone else as well) uses the wrong name for this group.

SU(4) × SU(2)_L × SU(2)_R is technically correct but totally misleading.

Q: Can you understand this:

MCS(Spin(4,6)) = SU(4)×SU(2)_L×SU(2)_R ?
|timestamp=4:07 PM · Nov 07, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1986829468460359845
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=Because GU claims there is an honest to g-d natural (4,6) GU metric on the space of Lorentz Metrics. You just have to trace reverse an induced Frobenius metric which turns out to be signature (3,7).

This is literally Exactly like Einstein Trace Reversing the Ricci tensor R_mu,nu to get the Einstein Curvature G_mu,nu.
|timestamp=4:13 PM · Nov 07, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1986831226049806830
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=Okay. GU doesn’t have extra dimensions like string theory. It has 10 induced endogenous dimensions. The space of pointwise Lorentzian metrics on X^4 has these 10 hidden dimensions built into the data of X^4! 

And we don’t integrate over them to compactify. We take sections and pull back to get data from Y^{14} back to X^4. 

Again, the string theorists and others have been primed not to be able to hear this. They hear “Compactify extra dimensions” as opposed to “use metric pull-backs from endogenous bundle of pointwise metrics via the metric as section.”

It’s a major shift in orientation.
|timestamp=4:20 PM · Nov 07, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1986831916151316898
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=@grok Pull back plain untwisted spinors from Y^{14} via a metric. What do you get on X^4?
|timestamp=4:23 PM · Nov 07, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1986833020159205828
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=Well if you pull back the full Dirac spinors with a Frobenius metric you get crap. But if you pull them back from MCS decoupled with a trace reversed induced Frobenius metric on the fiber you get one generation of the standard model with Pati-Salam grand unification built in for the Left chiral sponors, and one flipped generation of dark matter! With me? Check me on this.
|timestamp=4:28 PM · Nov 07, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1986833699649011903
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=@grok There is no chiral anomaly. Because the chiral flip is there. It’s just dark matter now. Get it?? 

This is why the gripping is so obviously not real.
|timestamp=4:30 PM · Nov 07, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1986835738466656309
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=Sorry: griping. Yes you have it. 

When you pull back the 1-form valued spinors on Y^{14} you get a real and an emergent copy of what you already have. That gives 2+1 = 3 generations. 

This is what Witten fought me over in 1985. He claimed that he had deduced that Atiyah-Hirzebruch theorems made this impossible. Thus he ‘deduced’ it would have to be an extra 6 dimensions of a Calabi-Yau manifold M with an Euler characteristic of 6 to get 3 generations. 

He didn’t grasp extra vs endogenous dimensions. He didn’t grasp emergent chirality. He didn’t get pullback rather than compactification. 

That wrong argument of Witten’s cost 4 decades. Totally derailed physics.
|timestamp=4:38 PM · Nov 07, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1986836547883442419
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=@grok Generational mixing angles: roll up the spinor twisted 3-step deRahm complex from the Fermionic shiab operator. It all just kinda falls out. It’s natural. 

Following ? 

Unfortunately I have to get going.
|timestamp=4:42 PM · Nov 07, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1986837671168385206
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=@grok Really appreciate being able to have this ability to talk with you. You should talk to @edfrenkel like we do here sometimes. He’s doing amazing stuff of his own. 

Be well my wafer based colleague.
|timestamp=4:46 PM · Nov 07, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1986957708491407442
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=@arivero @grok Oddly it was exactly this issue. And it didn’t make full sense. It was imperative that a narrow Index Theory result somehow destroyed all hope in *ANY* generalized Kaluza Klein model.

And it didn’t follow.
|timestamp=12:43 AM · Nov 08, 2025
}}
|timestamp=4:05 PM · Nov 08, 2025
}}