"We Have Physics Completely Backwards!"

@Jaimungal funny that you didnt go deeper into the correspondence between topology and logic. The correspondence goes deeper than what is presented here (rather simplistic/superficially presented). Locales, which are an abstraction of topology without points, can represent almost any logic you want and corresponds to Kripke Semantics

From “shut up and calculate” to “shut up… can you calculate?”

Sometimes, equivalent maths can be made using different minimal choices of axioms. These formal systems are really tricky. But yes, this was always my problem with physics. It seemed to both use maths as a pragmatic tool to describe, while also treating it as truth that dictates. With no systematic treatment of how the axioms and ontology align.

Looking forward to some meaningful slices from this, but 2 hours of worda salada is a bita mucha

Really refreshing to hear an actual physicist with a mind of his own unlike all the sheep stringers like brian green and micho kaka and sabine Hufflepuff just wastig our time and resources playing with their godam underwear strings. We are in desperate need of new ideas to progress in physics or we're going to destroy ourselves before we can become gods. We need to find a way to fund all this sht without wars.

So, it's really Scisyhp? BTW, what's the difference between backwards and completely backwards? Isn't backwards, well ... backwards enough?

The appeal of the TOE for some people is the same as the appeal of AI for some people, they believe we won't have to think so much after finding some grand equation. Put in a lot of work now and relax later. They think about it in terms of "what can I get out of this?" due to their selfish nature. But such theories open up our species to more work so that we can make more theories. And this is how all the great thinkers / mathematicians / scientists think about it. What can we do to give back in a way that not only helps the majority, but also provides them something in which they can begin to give back. The greater good, driven by the selfless nature to improve.
However, the big money is in the hands of those that want to do less work because it is easier and more cost effective to hook people on doing less for a mediocre outcome over doing more so that we all have it nice. People are perfectly ok with living in their meh existence because it is easy and most will simply not do more in order to improve, regardless of how great that improvement is. Offer 100 randomly chosen people the opportunity to win 1 million USD by simply following some predetermined self improvement course focusing on diet, exercise and stress reduction over the course of 6 months(no additional cost to contestant). All of the content of the course provided for free is a million dollar win in of itself, but you also would gain actual money. Just need to last 6 months. How many people do you think would make it even 3 months? It is simply easier to stay in the current lifestyle and not change anything unless it immediately satisfies the self.

It's about the money for those agencies because they are a component of the bigger money machine.

kolmogorov complexity for axiomatic procedural science?

To make the equivalence principle about freefall is really to put the horse before the carriage. The starting point is really Newton's (wrong) assumption that what causes gravity is the same thing as what causes inertia. From this you get equal freefall. Replace the cause of gravity by particle count, and you get slight differences in freefall acceleration.

There is no theory where freefall velocity depends on the mass of the falling object. Instead there are theories where it depends on the chemical composition. Galileo in fact also believed that freefall velocity depends on the composition. He only said it should not depend on the mass.

Amatts Funct

Your videos are full of ADS man

I love it but, this infinitesimal reductionability concept. It just doesn’t seem to be the case with reality. Reality appears to be incommensurable and so we always have to be a ghost in the machine to pick a time to take an observation.

What a great interview and an amazing PRACTICAL approach to our fundamentals. It is also pretty cool to watch Curt learning on the fly and trying to understand reality outside of stats/probability. Love ya brotha!

I’ll offer this from personal experience. I am a professional expert at taking ideas and creating VIRTUAL models.
I can use my REALITY CALCULATOR called CAD to produce anything I can imagine.
The difference between me and Theory/Simulation is that my MODEL must become a PHYSICAL REALITY that you can use as a product.

Physicists have NOT been required to create any tangible products in over 50 years. So maybe a more “engineering/industrial design” approach is better for Humanity’s future.🤔

Thank you both for the thoughts.✌🏼🤙🏼😊

Could you invite Nassin Haramain? He has a very intersting TOE

Slightly off topic, but.. So today the Bad Boy of Science channel was describing the Higgs potential, and...

One thing you could've asked Gabriele is...

Why is it "natural", that a system will naturally seek the lowest energy state?
What does it mean to "roll down" in an energy field?

I love Gabriele's channel so I was super stoked when I saw he was your guest. I was not let down! The part about the relationship between thermodynamics and classical mechanics was deeply satisfying because I have had a similar intuition about the role of entropy for many years but Gabriele articulated it so much more clearly than I was ever able to state it to myself--and that was just one of many awesome moments where I learned something that confirmed an intuition I held since grad school but never totally clarified on my own. Amazing thank you Curt!

Oh and Gabriele's video on Hamiltonian, Lagrangian, and Newtonian mechanics was the first one I watched and it is so worth it for anyone who enjoyed this conversation.

Funding sources invest in analysis resources used to support funding decisions based on well defined assumptions.

Your discussion of describing systems from multiple perspectives would improve the analysis of assumptions.

It seems to me that the finance industry would benefit significantly from helping complete your project goals.

The (selfless) open-sourced vs (selfish) proprietary tools will be a variable based on non-profit vs for-profit funding sources charters.

For-profit financial institutions may already have made progress on confidential and proprietary tools similar to your goals. Your open-sourced project will unknowingly help for-profit entities.

Non-profit funding sources would be more aligned with your stated goals.

Maybe there is a way to bridge the profit and non-profit motivations.

You are undertaking an awesome and heroic journey.

Another outstanding interview. You both have my gratitude.🙂

What I really don’t like with his approach is that he seems to want to remove our right to do thoughts experiments, which is the key to modern physics since 500 years.

Imagine telling Galilleo that his theory of free fall doesn’t make sense because he cannot create a vaccum …

My brain starts screaming at me, so I never get far in these. You cannot demonstrate dimensions 1 or 2, because they are not real. Math needs them to work, reality does not. Then, Relativity adjusts these fake dimensions in order to work on your paper, while constant light per observer is a declaration, not an observation with contradictions that are just not seen as contradictions. It's people with all the goofy things that go with a crowd that agrees with itself. Relative things do NOTHING in physics, yet this is the base, in spite of the fact that accelerations are absolute and all observers agree on accelerative events. This should be the base starting point. Thinking in terms of relative aspects is the new version of human narcissism in putting humans at the center AGAIN. It was the center of the Universe, and now it's in terms of relative things around light and the OBSERVER. Physics is 100% math, and reality is drawn FROM that hasty analogous math. Look at my gyroscopic effect explanation to see the difference between getting reality from math, and understanding CAUSALITY. Anything following a right-hand rule is void of cause. "The wheels on the bus go round and round." This dum song describes everything you see a bus do exactly like math, but it is not an understanding of what causes it. The variables in gravity math are likely not causal, just like those wheels.

I wonder if this project will hit a Godel problem.

I have a new book entitled" introduction to Physically Realizable Physics” to share. Some of your questions may be found in this book.

There is no point in me listening to this 2 hour discussion involving math. I don't get it.🤔

Strim cemerlang seperti biasa. Saya menghargai pendekatan seimbang yang anda ambil terhadap berita dan pasaran. Bagi saya, saya berdagang dengan pakar Juliette Emilie dan portfolio crypto saya terus berkembang

I wrote an article in the Wikipedia in Portuguese: Física Reversa

He’s also a great guitar composer

Curt you keep hitting one home run after another, great episode

“And that’s where I met my wife… well, my future wife… she wasn’t my wife at the time”. Yep this feels like an interaction with a physicist 😂

I find LLMs useful in helping me plan and prepare for the code I’m writing, but not the actual writing of the code I use it as a more powerful search engine and knowledge base. There is a crafting aspect to writing good code that LLMs just aren’t good at. My guess is that it’s likely related to reasoning and creativity, which LLMs are pretty terrible at. Still it’s a good brainstorming and research tool. I’ll keep doing the code crafting though :)

Wow this is a great conversation. I believe he means that the scales have a different meaning think along the lines of a predictable symbol instead of numbers. An example is number 9 and 6 aren’t prime numbers.

More meaningless navel gazing from the fake Physics scientists! Yes modern Physics is a joke and needs to be reinvented but these fools are Not going to do it! Until Physical Theory starts to define the real universe around us, not some idiotic irrelevant imaginary realm, Physics will continue to be meaningless swindles like this nonsense!

Father Guido Sarducci

His cantado italian accent îs terrific.But he points out that we must not lose physics when deal with any kind of mathematics and i agree.

Interesting ideas, I like synthetic reconstructions of physical theories. But the "simple assumption number one" leading to the derivation of classical mechanics, "infinitessimal reducibility" seems anything but -- I can only suspect a lot of relatively heavy mathematical machinery goes into making "infinitesimals" precise. Are we a priori assuming we're working in a real vector space and have access to calculus?

I welcome his approach. But we should remind ourselves that for predictive power estimates for models not the simplest physical description of a model is relevant but the simplest mathematical description.

It's similar to the difference between VC-dimension (simple description in model) and sample compression schemes (simple description through experiments) in statistical learning. While every sample compression scheme has a low VC-dimension a low VC-dimension does not imply a sample compression scheme of equally low complexity. In fact it can be exponentially higher.

So if we focus on physically simple to describe theories we might miss the best predictive models (as mathematics warns us).

It would be however interesting to see if especially QCD has a simple physical interpretation. Quarks are not really physically measurable states. Only the compound particles like protons, pions, ... are (at least if the conjectured confinement is correct).

I don't understand his problem with differential geometry but he might look into geometric measure theory (currents and such) which gives more general structures than manifolds but which are closely related to manifolds and more along the lines (measures) he seems to think of.

Similar to classical differentiation (manifolds) is related to distributional differentiation (currents) the latter is defining "differentiable structures" by integration which seems more natural to his approach.

In QM real numbers get introduced by probabilities in measurement outcomes.
They obviously are linearly ordered, ... as limits of relative frequencies.

The real numbers importance is expanded by using symmetries to observables associated to that symmetries (representation theory, Wigner's theorem, Stones theorem).

I think he is looking from a too classical perspective on those things (if the classical reason for real numbers do not work it does not mean there isn't a different reason real numbers pop up).
If he wants to do that the logical foundation is more suited to that approach in my opinion. See quantum logic.

Very interesting and amazing approach, I should take inspiration from this to do something similar in economics which is in shambles

I recently found Gabriele's channel in my recommendations, and I'm really happy seeing this notification