6,952
edits
The Evolution of the Physicist’s Picture of Nature - Paul Dirac: Difference between revisions
The Evolution of the Physicist’s Picture of Nature - Paul Dirac (edit)
Revision as of 01:01, 6 May 2026
, 6 MayText replacement - "|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein↵|username=EricRWeinstein" to "|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein |username=ericweinstein"
(→2024) |
m (Text replacement - "|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein↵|username=EricRWeinstein" to "|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein |username=ericweinstein") Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
||
| Line 36: | Line 36: | ||
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1365157231780528131 | |nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1365157231780528131 | ||
|name=Eric Weinstein | |name=Eric Weinstein | ||
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ | |usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein | ||
|username= | |username=ericweinstein | ||
|content=@lpfeed @monadical @lexfridman @Zev__Weinstein You aren’t understanding then. '''Paul Dirac made this point in 1963 (Sci am)'''. I’d read that before trying to dismiss it. Theory vs instantiation. | |content=@lpfeed @monadical @lexfridman @Zev__Weinstein You aren’t understanding then. '''Paul Dirac made this point in 1963 (Sci am)'''. I’d read that before trying to dismiss it. Theory vs instantiation. | ||
|timestamp=4:30 AM · Feb 26, 2021 | |timestamp=4:30 AM · Feb 26, 2021 | ||
| Line 47: | Line 47: | ||
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1355932434655707136 | |nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1355932434655707136 | ||
|name=Eric Weinstein | |name=Eric Weinstein | ||
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ | |usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein | ||
|username= | |username=ericweinstein | ||
|content=You will see that [[General Relativity]] actually has Grossman as a coauthor at the level of ideas. The main mind blowing insight is in a co-authored 1913 paper seldom discussed. All that changes after that is the instantiation. Science fetishizes instance over insight. So bizarre... | |content=You will see that [[General Relativity]] actually has Grossman as a coauthor at the level of ideas. The main mind blowing insight is in a co-authored 1913 paper seldom discussed. All that changes after that is the instantiation. Science fetishizes instance over insight. So bizarre... | ||
|thread= | |thread= | ||
| Line 55: | Line 55: | ||
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1355932430503317505 | |nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1355932430503317505 | ||
|name=Eric Weinstein | |name=Eric Weinstein | ||
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ | |usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein | ||
|username= | |username=ericweinstein | ||
|content=Notice this style of article. It confuses the *instantiation* of an idea which experiment *can* probe w/ the idea *itself* which experiment *cannot* probe. This is one of the most basic errors in science, philosophy of science & science reporting. | |content=Notice this style of article. It confuses the *instantiation* of an idea which experiment *can* probe w/ the idea *itself* which experiment *cannot* probe. This is one of the most basic errors in science, philosophy of science & science reporting. | ||
| Line 66: | Line 66: | ||
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1355932432562749444 | |nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1355932432562749444 | ||
|name=Eric Weinstein | |name=Eric Weinstein | ||
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ | |usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein | ||
|username= | |username=ericweinstein | ||
|content=I’m sorry but what’s being addressed is closer to Naive Mildly Broken Spacetime SuperSymmetry models based on SUSY extensions of the symmetries of flat spacetime. Which many, if not most, sane theorists didn’t believe. But that seems to be a mouthful to say. Hence this silliness. | |content=I’m sorry but what’s being addressed is closer to Naive Mildly Broken Spacetime SuperSymmetry models based on SUSY extensions of the symmetries of flat spacetime. Which many, if not most, sane theorists didn’t believe. But that seems to be a mouthful to say. Hence this silliness. | ||
|timestamp=5:34 PM · Jan 31, 2021 | |timestamp=5:34 PM · Jan 31, 2021 | ||
| Line 75: | Line 75: | ||
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1355932433217069059 | |nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1355932433217069059 | ||
|name=Eric Weinstein | |name=Eric Weinstein | ||
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ | |usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein | ||
|username= | |username=ericweinstein | ||
|content=The bottomline is that the scientific method doesn’t work on ideas. It only works on instantiations of ideas & executions of experiments. [[The Scientific Method is the Radio Edit of Great Science|That is why I call the Scientific Method the “Radio Edit of Great Science”. It’s science’s Golden Calf. It isn’t how top science works at all.]] | |content=The bottomline is that the scientific method doesn’t work on ideas. It only works on instantiations of ideas & executions of experiments. [[The Scientific Method is the Radio Edit of Great Science|That is why I call the Scientific Method the “Radio Edit of Great Science”. It’s science’s Golden Calf. It isn’t how top science works at all.]] | ||
|timestamp=5:34 PM · Jan 31, 2021 | |timestamp=5:34 PM · Jan 31, 2021 | ||
| Line 84: | Line 84: | ||
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1355932433913266177 | |nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1355932433913266177 | ||
|name=Eric Weinstein | |name=Eric Weinstein | ||
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ | |usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein | ||
|username= | |username=ericweinstein | ||
|content=So why do we keep making this error. Because the real issue is keeping out bad ideas and keeping order. The Scientific Method can be invoked selectively against loons and heretics and suspended selectively for those we believe in. Read Dirac on Schrodinger. Or Einstein&Grossman. | |content=So why do we keep making this error. Because the real issue is keeping out bad ideas and keeping order. The Scientific Method can be invoked selectively against loons and heretics and suspended selectively for those we believe in. Read Dirac on Schrodinger. Or Einstein&Grossman. | ||
|timestamp=5:34 PM · Jan 31, 2021 | |timestamp=5:34 PM · Jan 31, 2021 | ||
| Line 98: | Line 98: | ||
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1767902861025845708 | |nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1767902861025845708 | ||
|name=Eric Weinstein | |name=Eric Weinstein | ||
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ | |usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein | ||
|username= | |username=ericweinstein | ||
|content=You wrote: “In physics, theories are "fundamentally wrong" if they're mathematically inconsistent or contradict experimental evidence.” | |content=You wrote: “In physics, theories are "fundamentally wrong" if they're mathematically inconsistent or contradict experimental evidence.” | ||
| Line 120: | Line 120: | ||
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1767763283270935027 | |nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1767763283270935027 | ||
|name=Eric Weinstein | |name=Eric Weinstein | ||
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ | |usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein | ||
|username= | |username=ericweinstein | ||
|content=Ya know, I disagree with @elonmusk here because I don’t know how he got to such a strong conclusion. I wish he would say more. Seems unwarranted. | |content=Ya know, I disagree with @elonmusk here because I don’t know how he got to such a strong conclusion. I wish he would say more. Seems unwarranted. | ||