My god, you speak straight to this little gal's heart. I want to throw the most simplistic of blankets over all of this - "there's room enough for us all" - we're just in the transitional phase. A vast new landscape of ideas is emerging, there's a place for conservatism and a place for radicalism and everthing in between, and I believe we'll find a better balance
I am not so naive as to believe this post is directly pointed at my attempt to get eyes on my humble "Forge", but it lands adjacent nonetheless. For my own perspective, I always attempt to see the perspective of each party in all situations to varying degrees of success.
For me, I worked my ass off on Forge, and have done all that I could to get any kind of feedback whatsoever. I have never been uncomfortable with being wrong in something, but I am supremely uncomfortable in being completely ignored, not even able to get a sense of what I understand well and what I do not.
My experience in being one of the "poorly tested crackpot idea" promoters is that both sides has valid points. For me, not being given even a simple "piss off ya blimey wanker" that might allow me to deepen some understanding lost on me currently is understandable, but it also results in my continuing to work on a framework that might be flawed from the floor up, and I'd be very late to notice.
On the other hand, many people that dream up an idea either half-ass the work, or simply demand to be heard. Both are things that I hope I do not participate in. However, the people that do practice these things ruin it for the ones who are respectful and just seeking to be pushed back against in order to further their understanding of the universe.
Which all results in people not being given the chance to grow in some ways. I am not an academic, so I'd take what I say with a grain of salt, because; what do I know?
Excellent article and a very necessary point of view. Your analysis of doubt and acceptance leads me to propose that their true value lies not in the states themselves, but in the interaction they provoke.
Here is my perspective:
* Doubt as the Engine: Doubt is not a void, but rather the engine that compels us to build beliefs to navigate uncertainty. As you rightly point out, these beliefs are temporary solutions that hold until a new, deeper doubt challenges them. It's a perpetual cycle of construction and deconstruction that defines intellectual progress.
* Feedback as the Fuel: This internal cycle is sterile without an external catalyst: feedback. Without it, a "crackpot idea" can never be refined, validated, or dismissed. It remains trapped in a solitary echo chamber. Feedback is the fuel that allows our ideas to cross boundaries, whether in debates about faith and reason or in discussions on the nature of time in physics.
* Dialogue as the Arena: For feedback to be effective, a common arena is needed: dialogue. This space must welcome the entire spectrum of perspectives—from the radical to the entrenched—but it requires a fundamental condition: the willingness to listen, debate, and be persuaded.
In conclusion, doubt and acceptance are not final states, but the very pulse of curiosity. Without genuine dialogue, doubt fossilizes into dogma, and acceptance becomes blind. The real boundary to cross, therefore, is not an idea, but the willingness to discuss it.
I agree with your comments about people rushing to denigrate new ideas, but think the other side of the argument is scarcely worth saying. Obviously promoting a poorly tested crackpot idea is a bad idea.
I am in agreement with your statement for sure. I would also add that we are biological human beings along with all the other entities in our world and are motivated by many emotions. In saying that, I am also accepting of physicists who have emotions and are motivated toward knowledge by emotion . And I would not like to interfere with their joy or frustrations. I Believe that science and its methods are part of the key tools in knowing our universe and the more I know the more I believe I can philosophize about my own behavior. I believe every being expresses a philosophy even a fly. With that I expect to loose any respect. This is the way it is. I saw You and Jacob Barandes for example this morning and was enjoying the amount of knowledge and my own lack of knowledge but hearing this conversation I am slowly integrating many ideas into my own thoughts. I have a lot to learn. In closing you asked him what he might like to be remembered for… and I was just as interested and impressed with his answer as everything else. I am very grateful to have stumbled on or been directed to your channel this is my humble comment.
You gave us illuminating exposures of some self-proclaimed leaders in physics. Showing how contradictory their perspectives are, yet all super-confident. But diverting into quantum mysticism shows you've lost the plot.
That's why you ask for help. Is it speculative? Sure. Is there a piece here and there that could be buttoned up? Sure. But if you can tear it down maybe you can also fix it. If every "well that doesn't work" was followed by a "but if you did this" pushing the boundary can be a team effort. You can't think of everything.
Maybe some reasonable validation scale would help everyone situate their ideas and their psyche in a constructive manner. That includes all the string theorists who honestly belong near the “0” end of the validation scale. How about twenty criteria scored 0-5. Everyone can self evaluate and announce their score. Criteria 1: a coherent mathematical and physical theory. Criteria 2,3,4: A derivation of any experimentally measured feature of reality to experimental precision using the theory. Criteria 5,6,7: Falsifiable prediction. Etc etc
Baez gave us a crackpot score. Jaimungal should propose a TOE score. Because all the talk is tiresome.
Visiting the comments to name drop my favorite, robust, revolutionary, boundary pushing idea which is cosmological natural selection. You can read about at The Egg and the Rock substack written by Julian Gough! Everyone check it out. Worth your time.
My god, you speak straight to this little gal's heart. I want to throw the most simplistic of blankets over all of this - "there's room enough for us all" - we're just in the transitional phase. A vast new landscape of ideas is emerging, there's a place for conservatism and a place for radicalism and everthing in between, and I believe we'll find a better balance
I am not so naive as to believe this post is directly pointed at my attempt to get eyes on my humble "Forge", but it lands adjacent nonetheless. For my own perspective, I always attempt to see the perspective of each party in all situations to varying degrees of success.
For me, I worked my ass off on Forge, and have done all that I could to get any kind of feedback whatsoever. I have never been uncomfortable with being wrong in something, but I am supremely uncomfortable in being completely ignored, not even able to get a sense of what I understand well and what I do not.
My experience in being one of the "poorly tested crackpot idea" promoters is that both sides has valid points. For me, not being given even a simple "piss off ya blimey wanker" that might allow me to deepen some understanding lost on me currently is understandable, but it also results in my continuing to work on a framework that might be flawed from the floor up, and I'd be very late to notice.
On the other hand, many people that dream up an idea either half-ass the work, or simply demand to be heard. Both are things that I hope I do not participate in. However, the people that do practice these things ruin it for the ones who are respectful and just seeking to be pushed back against in order to further their understanding of the universe.
Which all results in people not being given the chance to grow in some ways. I am not an academic, so I'd take what I say with a grain of salt, because; what do I know?
Few are able to criticize a carefully and deeply developed theory that strives for internal consistency in everything, but is completely new.
“You never know what is enough unless you know what is more than enough.”
— William Blake, The Marriage of Heaven and Hell, “Proverbs of Hell”
Excellent article and a very necessary point of view. Your analysis of doubt and acceptance leads me to propose that their true value lies not in the states themselves, but in the interaction they provoke.
Here is my perspective:
* Doubt as the Engine: Doubt is not a void, but rather the engine that compels us to build beliefs to navigate uncertainty. As you rightly point out, these beliefs are temporary solutions that hold until a new, deeper doubt challenges them. It's a perpetual cycle of construction and deconstruction that defines intellectual progress.
* Feedback as the Fuel: This internal cycle is sterile without an external catalyst: feedback. Without it, a "crackpot idea" can never be refined, validated, or dismissed. It remains trapped in a solitary echo chamber. Feedback is the fuel that allows our ideas to cross boundaries, whether in debates about faith and reason or in discussions on the nature of time in physics.
* Dialogue as the Arena: For feedback to be effective, a common arena is needed: dialogue. This space must welcome the entire spectrum of perspectives—from the radical to the entrenched—but it requires a fundamental condition: the willingness to listen, debate, and be persuaded.
In conclusion, doubt and acceptance are not final states, but the very pulse of curiosity. Without genuine dialogue, doubt fossilizes into dogma, and acceptance becomes blind. The real boundary to cross, therefore, is not an idea, but the willingness to discuss it.
People who habitually say "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" have another habit: ignoring extraordinary evidence.
I agree with your comments about people rushing to denigrate new ideas, but think the other side of the argument is scarcely worth saying. Obviously promoting a poorly tested crackpot idea is a bad idea.
Hey
I am in agreement with your statement for sure. I would also add that we are biological human beings along with all the other entities in our world and are motivated by many emotions. In saying that, I am also accepting of physicists who have emotions and are motivated toward knowledge by emotion . And I would not like to interfere with their joy or frustrations. I Believe that science and its methods are part of the key tools in knowing our universe and the more I know the more I believe I can philosophize about my own behavior. I believe every being expresses a philosophy even a fly. With that I expect to loose any respect. This is the way it is. I saw You and Jacob Barandes for example this morning and was enjoying the amount of knowledge and my own lack of knowledge but hearing this conversation I am slowly integrating many ideas into my own thoughts. I have a lot to learn. In closing you asked him what he might like to be remembered for… and I was just as interested and impressed with his answer as everything else. I am very grateful to have stumbled on or been directed to your channel this is my humble comment.
You gave us illuminating exposures of some self-proclaimed leaders in physics. Showing how contradictory their perspectives are, yet all super-confident. But diverting into quantum mysticism shows you've lost the plot.
Here's some aggressive speculation:
Quantum mechanics is describing the functioning of i (the imaginary unit)
The 26 and 10 "dimensions" are adcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz and 0123456789.
As Elan has pointed out, language has collapsed in on itself. The entirety of physics has been an illusion.
How does this idea make you feel?
That's why you ask for help. Is it speculative? Sure. Is there a piece here and there that could be buttoned up? Sure. But if you can tear it down maybe you can also fix it. If every "well that doesn't work" was followed by a "but if you did this" pushing the boundary can be a team effort. You can't think of everything.
Years ago I told a mentee in the telecom startup world: “ I have ideas all the time, but I know that most of them are bad.”
Maybe some reasonable validation scale would help everyone situate their ideas and their psyche in a constructive manner. That includes all the string theorists who honestly belong near the “0” end of the validation scale. How about twenty criteria scored 0-5. Everyone can self evaluate and announce their score. Criteria 1: a coherent mathematical and physical theory. Criteria 2,3,4: A derivation of any experimentally measured feature of reality to experimental precision using the theory. Criteria 5,6,7: Falsifiable prediction. Etc etc
Baez gave us a crackpot score. Jaimungal should propose a TOE score. Because all the talk is tiresome.
Visiting the comments to name drop my favorite, robust, revolutionary, boundary pushing idea which is cosmological natural selection. You can read about at The Egg and the Rock substack written by Julian Gough! Everyone check it out. Worth your time.