What's Wrong With Lenny Susskind?

[@DrBrianKeating]

Has string theory harmed physics?

[@BaronBobSlaysWoketards]

Do Popes number two in the woods? Well not this one, but you know

[@jonatanblais957]

Most definitely. In fact it harmed science as a whole and is symptomatic of a rot affecting academia for many many decades, if not centuries: the failure to acknowledge the limits of science (i.e. the analysis of empirically accessible reality from only the limited framework of material and efficient causality) that makes it incapable in principle to answer the metaphysical questions of why reality exists and why it is the way it is rather than some other ways. Answering those questions intelligibly requires formal and final causality. This scientistic totalitarian impulse of atheists/naturalists ideologues to pretend they can answer these metaphysical questions led them to indulge in fairy tales by thinking that they could allow themselves to invent any number of degrees of freedom (extra-dimensions, supersymetric particles, multiverses, dark matter, inflaton fields, dark energy, many-worlds, etc...) as needed to shield their atheistic/naturalistc philosophical totalitarian project from empirical falsification. The collapse of the project is quite embarassing and pathetic to witness...

[@victordelmastro8264]

I wouldn't fault a 'Theory'. Although I think institutions need to re-assess their 'focus'. As a Dice Mechanic, I use a pair of precision Casino Dice to 'entangle' Dice Outcomes. I've modelled it as a time reversed double slit experiment, and it works well. Inertia vs Elasticity. Work vs Entropy. e^(L^2)=cos(L)+l*sin(L). Mean vs Variance. I have my own theory of 'everything'.

[@gastronic]

String theory put a knot in physics.

[@eonasjohn]

Has General Relativity harmed Physics?

[@tonibat59]

Lenny is a great physicist and great teacher. His recorded lessons at Stanford are a joy to watch and a model for future online science teaching.

[@nmarbletoe8210]

yup he is a great lecturer, among other skills

[@comicus6769]

I was watching one of his lectures and realized what a total A-hole he is. He mentioned to the class about the J6 hearings--remember those? Hire a Hollywood producer and hide exonerating evidence to frame a political opponent. In another one he mentioned his good friend Sergey Brin. 'nuff said.

[@FigmentHF]

Ive never seen bigger "everyone is mean to me!!" energy than ive seen in eric

[@neorock6135]

You couldn't have said it any better!

[@____uncompetative]

Practically everyone has been mean to him. Have you not read this comments section?

[@robjohnston1433]

Err .... seen one Donald J Trump?!?

[@darwinawardcommittee]

What about his brother?

[@DH-rj2kv]

@@____uncompetative People are incredibly kind to Eric given that he has produced absolutely nothing of any value in the scientific value he likes to pretend to talk about.

[@KlockedQQ]

One of these individuals is a cornerstone of modern physics, whose profound contributions have not only shaped the field but also inspired generations. This person has authored or co-authored thousands of impactful papers, unraveling the mysteries of the universe and laying the groundwork for some of the most groundbreaking discoveries in science. They have educated and mentored thousands of physicists, passing on their knowledge, passion, and rigor to ensure that the pursuit of understanding continues with excellence. The other is an individual whose "contributions" to physics are not only negligible but a case study in overconfidence without substance. They have no notable achievements in the field, no peer-reviewed work that stands the test of scrutiny, and no legacy of education or mentorship to speak of. Their so-called "theory of everything" is not only devoid of meaningful insight but was the subject of a detailed critique that revealed it as an incoherent mess of bad math and worse logic. Far from advancing our understanding of the universe, this work was little more than pseudo-scientific noise, contributing nothing to the discourse beyond a cautionary tale of what happens when ambition far exceeds ability. In stark contrast, the first individual’s work will resonate for generations, a shining example of intellect, discipline, and dedication. The second’s efforts, if they can be called that, are a fleeting footnote, a blip of failed self-promotion that will be forgotten the moment the next ill-conceived "theory" appears.

[@ipadasher]

💯

[@____uncompetative]

@@KlockedQQ Leonard Susskind admits himself that he ruined the career of one of his students by deterring them from pursuing work that was later pursued by others with great success. This makes him a bad teacher and worse mentor. His evangelism of _String Theory_ has done enormous damage to theoretical physics. Gabrielle Veneziano invented these silly one dimensional strings of energy as a way to describe the Strong Force, and his work wasn't needed as Murray Gell Mann and George Zweig used the standard Fiber Bundle geometry that had been developed by Chen Ning Yang and Robert Mills to have similarly electrically charged Quarks held together by a color force which was stronger at short distances which was mediated by Bosonic gluons. Eric Weinstein was wise enough to realise that the resurgence of interest in this irrelevant _String Theory_ framework was headed nowhere, and that academicians couldn't be trusted to not steal each other's ideas. He left academia to pursue a successful career in finance, whilst working on the ideas that had been the subject of his PhD (based on Yang-Mills _Gauge Theory_ of Fiber Bundles), extended across the 14th dimension as a speculative work in progress 'program' that aspired to become a _Unified Field Theory._ He was invited to give a lecture on his ideas on May 23rd 2013 at Oxford University, and _New Scientist_ magazine mischaracterised his presentation as a _Theory of Everything,_ and then having elevated it to the level of a theory they asked incredibly prematurely how to test it, knowing full well it wasn't a theory and hadn't been yet been quantised so the energy scales at which its predicted fields with right handed spin properties that were candidates for _Dark Matter_ and _Dark Energy_ had not yet been worked out as it was a preview of incomplete work. _Scientific American_ allowed Jennifer Oullette (Sean Carroll's wife) to trash _The Guardian_ newspaper in her article about Eric Weinstein's lecture, as if they shouldn't report the news. You must be ignorant of the fact that Eric has a PhD in Mathematical Physics from Harvard University for the same physics that he has elaborated further to become his _Geometric Unity_ idea, otherwise you wouldn't say he has "no legacy of education." If you meant he hasn't taught students, say that. Actually, don't, as you would be wrong there too. There is video evidence of him giving a lecture at the behest of Lee Smolin. _A Response to Geometric Unity_ by Timothy Nguyen is not a detailed critique and raises no valid concerns. It too mischaracterises Eric's lecture as presenting a _Theory of Everything,_ when he did not call it that then. It misrepresents Eric's work, and having materially changed his mathematics then finds fault with that mathematics. The faults it then finds are evidently faults, and so anyone who doesn't take the trouble to check the source (which isn't a paper, but a KZbin video), will be gaslit into thinking that Timothy Nguyen is giving Eric Weinstein a fair critique, and not creating an unfair argument based on a Strawman. I had initially thought that Nguyen had misunderstood some parts of the lecture that were unclear in their presentation, but having read his infernally complicated PhD thesis I can't attribute his eight severe errors to incompetence, and so I am only left with a conclusion that Nguyen is motivated by malice. One might also expect that a critic who was acting in good faith would issue a retraction and apology when Eric published his draft paper rendering all their erroneous assumptions about what he was doing invalid. This did not happen. Not only that, but Nguyen gave a long lecture to the Eigenbros two months after Eric had published his draft paper which regurgitated all the same invalidated concerns. He made out to Robert Wright that "I didn't look at it that carefully" when asked if he had read Eric's paper, and then tried to gaslight Robert by saying Eric "admits defeat" concerning the definition of his family of custom operators, which backfired as he hadn't expected Robert to have read Eric's paper and correct his lie by saying Eric promised to try to reconstruct this work. Nguyen then went along with Brandon Van Dyck saying that Eric owed him credit for helping him correct _Geometric Unity_ through a complexification step that had been omitted in the lecture, but this step was not omitted in the lecture, and Nguyen either failed to pay attention, or hoped others wouldn't, so he could allege that there was this huge problem with an example of a _SHIAB_ operator that wasn't even the one which is used to recover (1, 3) spacetime from (7, 7) dimensions. Most recently, Nguyen has successfully gaslit "Professor" Dave Explains and presented Eric's draft paper carefully redacted so it stopped one sentence short of him promising to reconstruct the _SHIABs_ in future drafts. Dave hadn't read Eric's paper. Only one of the Eigenbros had skimmed it. Eric deserves better critics, or alternatively, if you prefer, complete silence. If no one waits for him to publish a draft paper before publishing their response, and then when they rush out their response knowing that Eric will be publishing in a few weeks time, then they are not honourable if they then do not read through his whole paper on its publication and adjust their criticism of it accordingly, which in this specific instance would be to issue a retraction and an apology for responding in such haste and ignorance. Eric welcomes constructive criticism, which is why he has email addresses on the first page of his draft paper for general and technical feedback. Eric has said it was helpful to him when Professor Nima Akhani-Hamed told him that the reason why he hadn't had much response from academia to his 2013 lecture, was because he was using the less well known geometric approach to _Quantum Field Theory_ and most people used the analytic and/or statistical approaches. Dr Sabine Hossenfelder corrected his assumption that he could explain a low dimensional analogy of his ideas as a condensed 'elevator pitch' within a Pop-Sci panel on _PBS Spacetime._ This explanation was technically flawed as it was d + (d² + d) / 2 where d = 1 for the rubber band around a cardboard core of a toilet roll, so 1 + (1² + 1) / 2 = 1 + (1 + 1) / 2 = 1 + 2/2 = 1 + 1 = 2 for the dimensions around and along the cylinder. There is no other cylinder for the temporal dimensions, for that you would have to start off with d = 2 and that would generate an auxiliary space that had 2 + (2² + 2) / 2 = 5 dimensions. You could then distinguish the signature (t, s) as (-t, s) for (-1, 1) and then get two 5D auxiliary manifolds from the minimal central 2D torus, as one would be -ve temporal dimensions and the other would be +ve spatial dimensions. Eric showed this when he was on Dr Brian Keating's podcast with the help of a 3D animation (as no one can visualise 5D manifolds), and that was a lot better, but the explanation of it was terrible. So, Hossenfelder was entirely right to say that he needs to work on his communication skills, but incorrect to say that "no one knows what you are talking about" as I understood what he was talking about, but then I only understood after I had read his 2021 draft paper clarifying his 2013 lecture. Eric has also given lectures on _Geometric Unity_ at the University of Marseilles, and Chicago, and spoken to Jim Simons (although, it is possible that was solely about finance). He has subsequently applied his ideas for _Gauge Theory_ to economics, which is his field, and he doesn't pretend otherwise to be a professional theoretical physicist, so I don't know why people get so bent out of shape that he gets invited to appear on panel discussions with philosophers. He is just a public intellectual that audiences are prepared to pay to hear talk, like Dr Jordan B. Peterson. Eric's paper is called _Geometric Unity: Author's Working Draft, v 1.0_ and it is described as a draft of a work in progress. I think he published because he wanted to gain some interest over the next few years and eventually be taken seriously enough to gain a collaborator who could calculate what energy scales his predicted fields with right handed spin properties would manifest at. "Far from advancing..." here you expose yourself as clearly not knowing what you are talking about. You can write fine words, which may persuade some already inclined to irrationally hate him, but they have no substance, and are unsupported by any evidence other than an appeal to an "expert" who has been exposed as an opportunistic wannabe critic who is so inept that he reduced Eric's 14 dimensional Observerse that contains our 4 dimensional Universe as a cross section to 1 dimension, then based all his criticisms on entirely the wrong gauge group Eric wasn't using. Susskind is already a failure in his own lifetime. He should have become a plumber instead. At least then he would not now look back and think how he had wasted his career and those of others. Weinstein has said he is happy to be proven wrong and will go on with his life, which is very rich, and doesn't solely revolve around mathematical physics, but includes music and food and family.

[@alexshaykevich509]

Someone: Eric Weinstein is critical of your work. Susskind: Who? That basically sums it up.

[@tendaimsimang8630]

Amen, those with no light love to talk and talk and talk……… it’s annoying that people listen to Eric knock real pillars in the physics field. Who is he? Why do they listen?

[@KinseiSensei]

The kicker is that Lenny knows DAMN WELL knows who Eric is, and is stifling a superior hypothesis.

[@KinseiSensei]

@ we listen because he is correct

[@tendaimsimang8630]

You listen to Eric because you think he is correct?

[@KinseiSensei]

@ I listen to all kinds of folks to keep an open mind, but I do KEEP listening to Eric because he is correct. Not about everything, but about a great deal. Especially the rot in academia. His physics ideas are also more interests would explain more than string theory… like seriously 40+ years and still no gravity? 😆

[@meofamily4]

The upshot of this discussion appears to be, "What Is Wrong with Eric Weinstein?"

[@rajeevgangal542]

He was ok till Bret bit him in childhood

[@Mentaculus42]

What ever is wrong with him is no small thing. But just as a broken clock is correct twice a day, he may have some credence at times and characterize somethings … It generally takes one to know one.

[@brendawilliams8062]

My impression of all these conflicts of opinion is that you need acceptance by a community and money to support your work. If you are not involved with academic true freedom of speech and also freedom of education then you might be a bit bitter

[@fk9277]

@@rajeevgangal542 he's acting as if it was Harvey that bit him

[@markrockliff2742]

I have watched many lectures presented by Leonard Susskind and one thing I consistently noted is that he always presented the material as ideas theories he asserted the framework of the theories including string theory without overcompensating by asserting it was the only idea. I watched one lecture presented by Eric Weinstein presenting his theory, it looked and sounded interesting. Within a democracy of ideas, I find it hard to witness this in fighting. Eric Weinstein seems bitter towards the older statesmen of String theory, and I think this is the shadow side of Eric Weinstein's psychometrics being expressed with free licence. Eric Weinstein Instinctual stack Sx/So/Sp Four with five wing. Subtype: four with five wing; ENTP Auxiliary wing: five with six-wing; INxP (Ambidextrous T and F) (agenda focused) Second wing: three with four-wing; ISTP (mood focused) Point of stress/disintegration: two with one-wing; ENFJ Point of Integration/Neurosis: one with nine-wing; ExTJ (Ambidextrous S and N) Maybe Eric has some lifelong personal difficulties with melancholy. Having personal difficulties with melancholy dose not intitle an individual to attack others via envy for their personal successes. Eric could examine his Enneagram Personality Type and save grace via excepting his foibles. If has work was of great value to the science of physics, it would have or would be embraced and celebrated. Perhaps Erics work is a loose intuitive local theory with an insufficient amount of meat on the bone to be celebrate as a clear work of genius.

[@RicardoMarlowFlamenco]

Penrose used to laugh when asked about strings… he said “I don’t understand what they are doing. It is the wrong sign!!!”. I always felt that was an exaggeration or myopic put down. Until that suskind interview where he admits anti desitter space is fake unless super symmetric particles exist to balance the sign. Holly smoke Penrose was right all along I finally unsterstood the problem!!! Now I know why Brian Greene looked so depressed and still does, at the failure of LHC to see those. What a dangerous gamble it all was.

[@PandaPanda-ud4ne]

Penrose is the real deal. Maybe the only one who can match Edward WITTEN.

[@jyjjy7]

​@@PandaPanda-ud4ne His consciousness stuff is barely coherent

[@qpmkro]

Remind me what Whitten has discovered, what are his contributions to science​@@PandaPanda-ud4ne

[@CurtOntheRadio]

You think that means you understand the problem?

[@PandaPanda-ud4ne]

@@jyjjy7 That makes sense, actually, because ALL consciousness stuff out there by all the experts in it is barely coherent.

[@hibou-cool]

I feel like Eric is constantly complaining. He might have some good points, but this is the impression I have every time I listen to him

[@majorhumbert676]

@@hibou-cool Eric Whinestein

[@anthonybrett]

Yeah but... at the same time, he's right. You need someone to complain so we don't all drown in a stagnant swamp that's going nowhere.

[@CurtOntheRadio]

"every time I listen to him" Exactly!!!! The fing guy is everywhere giving this same spiel. As if he were an actual scientist with something to contribute! He isn't. He works for Trump at one remove. Get real.

[@MisterRilent]

​@@anthonybrettJust because you don't understand what he's saying, doesn't mean he's right. It's by design, to fool people like you.

[@cornoc]

@@anthonybrett You think the field of physics has been stagnant for the past 40 years? Have you been asleep?

[@phantom5573]

Eric really needs to address Timothy Nguyen who went through Weinstein theory and showed how flawed it is. Brain, if you got them together in a podcast, it would be epic.

[@alistair_maldacena]

@@phantom5573 Weinstein will never be caught in the same room as Nguyen... he knows his idiocy got completely wrecked, and the only response he's ever given has been to complain about personal attacks that never happened. He's a joke.

[@isaacsaxton-knight7708]

Yeah, both Eric and Brian seem to refuse to engage with him. Eric probably knows that Timothy is correct in his criticism, Brian is simply too scared to harm his relationship with Eric; its pathetic and dishonest

[@alistair_maldacena]

@isaacsaxton-knight7708 We will never see Tim Nguyen and Eric Weinstein in the same room together. Eric will run and hide from that as long as he draws breath.

[@generallobster]

In retort Eric said, “who is Timothy, I’ve never heard of him?” Ironic.

[@themarsipan]

@@isaacsaxton-knight7708 The theory rests on an operator whose properties Nguyen proved impossible. Yet Weinstein says this operator exists, but he can't remember his form anymore. Seriously ? ... ;-) I cannot imagine this guy participating in a scientific conference in any productive way...

[@scepticalchymist]

Real physics is not done on podcasts or KZbin. Susskind has a history of hard science results published, this other guy has not. Case settled.

[@arbitool]

Well said.

[@RogueTheology]

I’m so impressed these scam artists gave each other gold stars

[@tolkienfan1972]

Weinstein is not a theoretical physicist, nor a serious commentator. Susskind has worked in the field for decades and has produced many new and interesting ideas and theories. There is no comparison.

[@hjs9td]

Theoretical Physicists are Mathematicians with a fetish.

[@carlhitchon1009]

Eric Weinstein is smug con man, not a theoretical anything.

[@JazzyArtKL]

Then why is @BrianKeating taking this Weinstein dude so seriously without a shred of critical thinking?

[@tolkienfan1972]

@JazzyArtKL I didn't say he had not a "shred of critical thinking". Regardless, it brings clicks

[@JoseLopes-h4f]

Never seen Eric saying anything constructive. Also, he puts in the same bag extremely diverse people such as Michio and Lenny. Furthermore, that hair job of his is very unsettling.

[@Geezerelli]

I am green with envy for his hairline.😅

[@mw-th9ov]

Weinstein seems to think insult is argument and not being admired by those others admire is evidence of malevolence. Not a good look for a self appointed guardian of science.

[@rg3412]

He has no small idea of himself, that's for sure. But he and others are forced to reckon with the results of 40 years of string theory, it has been a dead-end for physics, so yes, Leonard Susskind and Ed Witten bear a lot of responsibility that they cannot deny.

[@justinpridham7919]

However he comes across, I'm afraid he is to some degree correct. History will most likely deem the last 40 years a supreme waste of high intellect that sought to preserve their egos (work) with posturing. If it is so, the disruption is necessary. Let them wince and flail when he calls out assholes, get the food fight over with and get on to something useful.

[@CurtOntheRadio]

@@justinpridham7919 Hark at the person telling us what history will say. Jesus.

[@DH-rj2kv]

The best thing I ever saw was the talk with Penrose and Weinstein on stage and Kaku on video. You could feel how annoyed Penrose was either Kaku just deflecting into name dropping concepts instead of answering the questions. Then Eric starting talking, dropping random bits of maths and lingo and you could basically see Penrose trying to stifle a laugh thinking “does he even know what he just said?”

[@Well_Earned_Siesta]

Why do you keep doing marketing/PR for Eric Weinstein?

[@CurtOntheRadio]

Coz clicks. Moolah. Audience capture.

[@Well_Earned_Siesta]

Time to unsubscribe

[@Doozy_Titter]

Because they are friends, they are both Jewish, they have felt that the physics community has disrespected them, Eric for obvious reasons and Brian was disrespected after his claim that he discovered polarization in CMB, which was later falsified.

[@CurtOntheRadio]

@@Doozy_Titter Susskind's Jewish too.

[@scrub_trash6680]

Its extremely off putting, i see sabina do the same thing and its gross

[@CV_CA]

It is like the guy who is playing chess at the park says Magnus Carlsen is not that good player.

[@obiwanduglobi6359]

Kramnik!

[@karabomothupi9759]

😂

[@fahimp3]

I would have used Hikaru (since Magnus is GOAT territory) but point taken 😂

[@dustanhoff9292]

Well Magnus also accused his opponents who beat him of cheating so there is that. Sore loser at the least.

[@dustanhoff9292]

Poor analogy. In chess there are clear winners and losers, in “theoretical physics” there is competition for funding of largely non testable ideas.

[@al1071]

Leonard Susskind- known for his work in physics Eric Weinstein- Known for being on bro podcast

[@joebflies]

yet wenstein has been saying for years that string theory is not "the therory"/ reality but susskind just now came out and said the same why did it take susskind so long to admit this?

[@deepwinter77]

What exactly has Eric done to progress physics. Eric has a huge platform bigger than any practicing physicist and he uses it mainly to attack scientists quite brutally. I find him a net negative, of course any criticism of his own theory he doesn't take well.

[@paulcooper8818]

Whatever Weinstein will be remembered for, it won't be his contributions to physics.

[@Tchristx]

Eric feels ignored but the few times people have taken the time to become acquainted with his work, they don't seem impressed. To make matters worse, Eric refuses to talk about Nguyen. He's had the time and money to make an impact and not be ignored. Either it's a grand conspiracy or he's just not as amazing as he thinks he is.

[@CoreyKatouli]

If Eric wants for people to pick up his theory, he should first predict something new. AFAIK, he has not

[@tolkienfan1972]

He hasn't even begun to attempt to turn his concepts into math, afaik

[@anthonybrett]

Personally, I think all Eric is doing is pointing out that modern physics is suffering from the Streetlight Effect.

[@joebflies]

Right just like string theory? can we now all just call it string hypothesis

[@williambranch4283]

Eric is a crank. A smart crank. Susskind is legit, but he followed the wrong lead for too long.

[@ADAMBLVCK]

Eric does touch on some severe issues in the field, but sadly makes it all about himself. Susskind is authentic, honest, and cares about the field as a whole.

[@brianboyle2681]

You don't get to where Susskind is without an ego, and like anyone with an ego he can be touchy. But after his career and the people he has mentored and taught, you could say he's entitled to be. But Weinstein is scientifically nowhere with an ego.

[@-danR]

@@brianboyle2681 Feynman* had an ego, but he was never touchy. On the contrary, he had an innate talent for tweaking someone's nose. Susskind can get touchy about the most frivolous things; I've never seen any other lecturer like it. "Excuse me, but isn't that vector going the wrong way?" "Uh.. what?... hmm... (concessive grumbling sounds) yes..." Roger Penrose, an actual Nobel Prize recipient, on the other hand never seems to have any ego whatsoever, is never touchy, and managed to get to where he is. Maybe because he had the wisdom to abandon modern string theory, if not the whole string-thing altogether. _____ *When you're glad you double-checked the spelling of 'Feinman', _before_ posting...

[@CurtOntheRadio]

@@-danR You're unsure of the spelling for Feynman but sure of the wisdom in abandoning string theory? Why allow yourself to believe that? Why not believe that Susskind is a very smart guy who has spent his life on such things at the highest level and he knows much more about it than you do - and you should probably respect that rather than arrogantly asserting the wisdom of abandoning string theory, about which you know nothing in comparison to Susskind and are completely unqualified to judge or pass comment on?

[@subscriberunavailable]

Well said William

[@frc1255]

Leonard Susskind stated on the Kurt Jaimungal video that string theory doesn’t represent reality. That is devastating.

[@BaronBobSlaysWoketards]

Lenny the Plumber

[@diegoalejandrosanchezherre4788]

Ist a toy model, this is always the first approach that's no desvastator at all

[@BaronBobSlaysWoketards]

@@diegoalejandrosanchezherre4788 "desvastator" Now that is a _great_ neologism. "Lenny the Desvastator" works even better than "Lenny the Plumber"

[@WingsMelt]

@@frc1255 this isn't getting nearly enough press.

[@High.Desert]

​@@diegoalejandrosanchezherre4788yeah im sure they'll get to something real in 400 years or so.

[@aeolianharp1363]

Lenny Suskind is still a hero

[@jedser]

and whinestein is a zero desperate for academic approval

[@RogueTheology]

To scam artists

[@EveK-North]

Eric is a strange person. He can’t handle criticism of his own work but loves to hurl criticism at everyone else. 🤨

[@steffenbendel6031]

What is strange about that. I would say that is the majority of people.

[@fahimp3]

@@steffenbendel6031 yea but that does not make it any less hypocritical. Also I would hope Eric would like to be held at a higher standard than majority of people 😂

[@DH-rj2kv]

First he would had to produce any meaningful work before someone could actually start to criticise anything. His scientific output is absolute zilch.

[@EveK-North]

@@steffenbendel6031 Except a majority of people don’t get invited on piers Morgan and other popular shows as some supposed scholar speaking with some great ethical high ground when he exhibits the same behavior he lambastes. With greater visibility comes greater scrutiny. More are seeing through Eric’s grift.

[@issacquantum]

⁠@@steffenbendel6031 It is unusual for a scientist to critique other scientists without allowing themselves to be subject to critique. The majority of people do not think like scientists, nor are they scientists.

[@cybercomputerized2074]

Lenny contributed greatly to our understanding that string theory is not the right theory

[@TweezerShred]

I like string cheese

[@tolkienfan1972]

Lenny contributed decades of intense work. His ideas have advanced many related fields. Eric is a professional troll.

[@elodvezer1790]

Lenny taught me quantum physics! ❤ man does he make sense!!!

[@ArtisanTony]

Is Eric still working in the lab or doing anything tangible? He goes around talking about physics and physicists but really, what is he doing now. I am 62 and I am still working daily in the design-build industry. I will never stop working until I die. Can your career end with just doing podcasts? Look at you, you are in the lab and building things. We can't talk our way into the future. I want Eric to build something in science for every time he criticizes something because at the moment, all I see him doing is spreading negativity. I am not in your circles so maybe I don't know. This is a message from the fringe :)

[@tolkienfan1972]

He claims to have this concept, and keeps criticizing actual physicists for not doing the actual math and turning his concept into an actual theory.

[@anthonybrett]

" spreading negativity." Or shaking people awake who are asleep at the wheel? ...stuck in an exercise in futility.

[@tolkienfan1972]

@@anthonybrett as far as I can tell, nothing he says is useful

[@anthonybrett]

@@tolkienfan1972 I suppose that depends on your definition of "useful". He may not be helping solve problems in physics, but at the same time, modern physics is clearly suffering from the streetlight effect. Having someone point out your failings is good for a proper reinforcing feedback loop.

[@CurtOntheRadio]

Still working in the lab? You jest? Go look him up?

[@ipadasher]

Enough is enough. Eric weinstein is so far from the League of Lenny. It is absolutely ridiculous. Eric weinstdin just wants one thing to be relevant in youtube, Facebook, and X by stating the most ridiculous theories. And I am sorry, but Brian, who is also millions of miles away from people like Maldacena and susskind, is going on the same path as the buffoon Eric. From those who understand nothing about the subject, you might think that Eric is contributing with something relevant. He is not. Brian, congratulations, you have become a gossip cheerleader. Please, people,.let me be clear, Eric does not have a single equation to contribute to the field. It is all hot air.

[@debasishraychawdhuri]

The problem with peer-review is the lack of adequate review in peer-review.

[@gmazz27]

Brian, i am so sorry to have to disagree with you. Lenny is WAY above Eric in every way.

[@Earwaxfire909]

As a graduate student of physics in the early 1980s, I was painfully disappointed with the route that physics was taking. There were no new ways to measure anything critically new. Physics became a form of mathematical philosophy. Posing questions that had no answers, rather than questions that could be answered by measurements. So I made the painful choice to study molecular biology instead. I still feel the dread from those days that modern physics has become more philosophy than science.

[@maksimyasko2092]

I agree. After non-intuitive quantum mechanics had shown such a success in calculating things, mathematics has turned from an instrument into a source of truth. Theoretical physicists forgot how to cut off mathematical solutions that don't have any physical sense.

[@ZlatnoPeroTV]

I had the same experience in the 2010s, I became a programmer/coder.

[@mmotsenbocker]

"Physics became a form of mathematical philosophy" well stated

[@CurtOntheRadio]

TLDR - "I preferred chemistry". :D

[@Earwaxfire909]

@@CurtOntheRadio Wrong.

[@Johnny-wd3tj]

How is Eric able to say “I’ve dealt with Leonard directly” when Leonard doesn’t even know who Eric Weinstein is? Oh, I know how, Eric is a delusional person and an habitual liar

[@chris78945]

Eric Weinstein is more interested in self promotion than science and achieves this by making outrageous statements. Having watched him on the Joe Rogan Experience failing to criticise as absurd the claims of a mentally disturbed actor (Terrence Howard) that 1 x 1 = 2, I simply lost all respect for the guy.

[@anthonybateman8470]

He might be smart but he comes across as an arrogant oaf. Intelligence is not a free pass to hubris.

[@gregorycollins6561]

The last straw for me as well. Weinstein instead found tortuous ways to justify Howard's silliness.

[@CurtOntheRadio]

If he cares so much about science maybe he could, you know, do some science? Instead of working as venture capitalist for Peter Thiel?

[@edwardcullen1739]

@@gregorycollins6561 Wow, given that Weinstein explicitly stated _why_ he didn't shutdown, Howard and demonstrated extreme patience in trying to educate him, all you are doing is demonstrating a deep, deep level of ignorance. His approach with Howard was entirely consistent with his views regarding String Theory - that those outside the "orthodoxy" are dismissed without being understood. I'm on the fence with Weinstein, but he is correct: String Theory has produced no testable physics in decades.

[@devinmillican2873]

In fact, Eric explicitly criticized Howard for that during the podcast. So, wtf are you on about?

[@brutusl2786]

Brian is just an apologist for Eric. Weinstein is a very erudite sounding jerk, if he has specific accusations let him make them, not just vague accusations.

[@CurtOntheRadio]

Weinstein has nothing to say - he's not a physicist, not even a scientist of any description. He has nothing to contribute. Else he would have, presumably? But there's no reason to expect him to - he's a venture capitalist, employee of Peter Thiel. Don't even take the bait of supposing Weinstein needs make his specific claims. Weinstein has no business being elevated to such a position because he has no bona fides whatsoever. He has nothing to contribute.

[@floatingwizardgaming]

He definitely comes across like a jerk at times but I don't think that's a good reason to discount the content of what he's saying.

[@neorock6135]

*It's always vague accusations, he knows exactly what he's doing.* Weinstein is just exceptionally butt hurt.... elite scientists won't play with him. On Rogan's show Eric literally accused Dr Sean Carrol of conspiracy to cover for Ed Witten. Now every month or so, he goes after another scientist. There's never any there there, just more bi$tching & complaining.

[@davidkennerly]

@@floatingwizardgaming No, that would be his "Theory Of Everything."

[@floatingwizardgaming]

@@davidkennerly I'm not qualified to comment lol.

[@primovid]

So in other words, Eric is full of crap and full of himself--intentionally trying to create controversy in order to get publicity.

[@ugowar]

Pretty much.

[@undercoveragent9889]

Full of crap _and_ full of himself? You are saying that 'crap' and 'himself' are equivalent. How 'sciency' of you.

[@primovid]

@@undercoveragent9889 I hate to say it but physics is a science...and this is a channel about physics.

[@SEBE3835]

A conference without Weinstein would be great!

[@dougmarkham]

Advice to Eric: if a dog barks at the window, the postman is reluctant to approach. Life is about how good you are with people and how good you are at your job. If you are great at your job but you suck at handling people, work on your weakness until others want to work with you. That's it really. Eric would be great if his EQ was equal to his IQ.

[@michaeltupper4999]

I agree 100 with @dougnarkham . I like Eric, seems smart AF and usually agree with his outlook. If what happened to him is as he described: at Harvard presented something original, wasn’t taken seriously and was ignored, then 7 yrs later Witten does a lecture and presents the same thing as “new” and his own, then that’s messed up. If that’s all true, then I understand the chip on his shoulder. But also if that’s all true, then he should take the high road and approach with a more positive and collaborative spin, rather than beating them on podcasts. After watching the Susskind interview with Curt, it seemed to be pretty revealing and back what Eric has been preaching, that they’re very egomaniacal and allergic to alternative ideas. Susskind: “we should look out for alternative theories, but if it’s not string theory it’s probably wrong”. String theorists sound like Democrats on November 1st 2024. 😂 I nominate Curt to moderate Shelter Island III, what a treasure he is, his tone, control, and respect is an amazing talent.

[@CurtOntheRadio]

@@michaeltupper4999 If. Why even credit it for a second? Yet that's your foundation. If.

[@____uncompetative]

@@michaeltupper4999I think Eric was a guest of the guys from Triggernometry and was appreciative of Curt Jaimungal's interview of Susskind. It was fascinating to see Susskind's mood change and eventually admit he had ruined one of his student's careers with bad advice. The Clifford Taubes thing from JRE 1945 seems almost like Taubes stole the idea off Eric, kicked him out of Harvard, then worked on its ramifications for seven years, so that when he gave it to Witten to spice up one of his lectures as a casual aside (to make Witten look more brilliant) then he could make out, improbably, that he had been inspired by Witten's magical equations to work overnight on original work. David Kazdhan recalled that Eric Weinstein originated: 𝐷ψ = 0 ‎‎ ‎ᴬ 𝐹⁺ = 𝑖𝜎(ψ, ψ) ‎‎ ‎ᴬ However, the anecdote was told by Eric to explain why he soured on academia and peer review (where conceivably your unpublished work could be stolen by peers whilst being held up from publication with spurious corrections, "cherry topped", and renamed, or ported to some other related area of mathematical physics to overcome some roadblock with new insight). What is interesting to me is that his wannabe critic, Timothy Nguyen, who wrote _A Response to Geometric Unity_ that contains zero valid concerns and deliberately mischaracterised and misrepresented and misunderstood Eric's work, has claimed to have challenged Eric's claim in a DISCORD conversation he can neither describe what Eric said or verify it took place by having a recording of it. Surely, if Nguyen thought Eric was a fraud he would want proof of him not knowing why the F has a positive sign. My thinking is that back in 1987 Eric had it with this positive sign, but more recently he has had it with a ± for positive and negative spinors. So, Eric may have been thinking of how he has it now as Equation (12.7) in his paper as ± as this goes with Eric using _The Pati-Salam Model_ which has a left-right symmetry, when _The Standard Model_ which would have dominated in 1987 has a 60:40 bias to emissions from SU(2) with left handed spin properties (i.e. it is chiral and _The Pati-Salam Model_ is non-chiral). This could explain the confusion. However, we also don't know the conversation Nguyen claims took place even took place.

[@chriscurry2496]

Brain, I’m nothing more than a fan of theoretical physics, who studies on his own time for my own pleasure and interest in how the universe works, but it’s perfectly clear even to me that Eric Weinstein is not the brilliant man you and some others take him to be. In fact in my view he’s just using you and your podcast to continue selling his cynical and dark view of scientific institutions, which he paints as being run by “elites” who have selfish reasons for science. Surely you understand his connections to Peter Thiel, a megalomaniacal and greedy man who has funded a lot of disinformation and the promotion of a world owned outright by the rich. He has funded many voices that sound much like Eric Weinstein: voices that spread poison and vile against public institutions, which he and Thiel understand are roadblocks in the way of the wealthy to complete their total domination.

[@tttrrrification]

Eric happens to be a genius physicist who was wronged by the physics community. His brother happens to be a revolutionary Biologist who was wronged by the Biologists. And his wife happens to deserve noble prize in economics but was wronged by some economists. Either that or Eric is a drama queen

[@EveK-North]

I’m going with option 2 🤣

[@MrGunderfly]

erics' verbal acuity, and his self-understanding of his own brilliance, has gotten him into a bit of an awkward position with his contemporaries, which he will undoubtedly be able to talk himself out of. suskind has recently made some very disappointing movements in the direction of dismissing new / ecentric thought. so... i guess, even at the pinnacles of accademia, we are all flawed in the end.

[@kadourimdou43]

I’m guessing that smart people need to work on something. So when String Theory came about, it gave all these clever people something to do. Instead of the more difficult task, of being stuck and starting from there.

[@vaibhavsati538]

Eric is nothing more than a sniveling crybaby, clinging to his overblown ego while the scientific community collectively shrugs at his so-called "geometric unity" theory. It’s not that they’re against him-they just don’t care enough to waste their time.

[@jedser]

@@vaibhavsati538 yep. 💯

[@majorhumbert676]

Eric Whinestein

[@jerbearlolz]

I want to like Eric, he’s intelligent and contrarian. In every podcast he’s on though, it’s apparent he has a pretty big ego and the points he makes doesn’t really go anywhere. It seems like he just likes to argue for arguments sake.

[@jedser]

@@jerbearlolz don't even call it argument. he just likes to talk. and people fall for it because he does a good job of sounding like he knows what he's talking about

[@jedser]

most of the comments in this thread were deleted. too mean i guess to whinestein. brian's censoring for him

[@Vorador666]

Another video about the weistein brothers in crying mode if you refuse to believe my theories ill try to get you in trouble at this point it's more pitiful than anything

[@robertpaterson5477]

Eric Weinstein hasn't done anything.

[@duncanidaho9153]

Some people say he's been working feverishly on publishing his theory in Haiku form.

[@ClarkPotter]

What are the holes in geometric unity? Please explain. I'm no particular fan of Eric but who are you to even have an opinion?

[@robertpaterson5477]

@@ClarkPotter Yes. I am not allowed to have an opinion. Thank you.

[@HR-yd5ib]

Irrespective of th merits of GU, Weinstein has not a single publication.

[@michael-4k4000]

Eric and his bog brain helped Dr Terrance Howard fix the problems with the math

[@RhettAnderson]

I don't know what to think about Susskind. Obviously string theory has been amazing for math if not for physics. I don't know what to think about Weinstein either. But Curt Jaimungal, man that guy impresses the hell out of me.

[@clownphabetstrongwoman7305]

the video can be summed up by Lenny Susskind’s confusion: “Who is Eric Weinstein?”

[@danbennett1643]

String theory sucked all the air out of the room...that makes it hard for others to breath. But, you have to fight without emotion if you want to look cool.😎

[@obiwanduglobi6359]

"He chooses to be a Wolfgang Pauli without achievment." If you point to somebody with your finger, be aware that three fingers are pointed back to you at the same time.

[@randrothify]

Eric Weinstein has some great insights and perspectives, and is very entertaining, but he should accord a little more respect for those actually in the arena working on hard problems in physics, politics, and society. It’s not that he opines on many things that rubs people the wrong way, it’s that those opinions are so strident and his insults so personal. It‘s especially grating because all of the people that he criticizes at least have careers in the fields of physics, politics, or society, while he has spent an inordinate amount of time working in hedge funds and venture capital. That doesn’t invalidate his opinions or conclusions, but what standing does he have to challenge anyone beyond the fact that he is very smart and well-credentialed. He would be a more credible if he actually engaged with any of the people in these fields as more than just an intellectual salon room critic.

[@martinkowalski6818]

What I find puzzling is this: there are countless podcasts, KZbin videos, and presentations discussing these so-called ‘alternative’ theories, often presented by their originators. If any of these theories had significant merit or truly groundbreaking implications, wouldn’t we have heard more about them by now? At the very least, wouldn’t the physics community take notice and engage with these ideas positively? What unique purpose would something like the ‘Shelter Island Conference’ serve that isn’t already being addressed elsewhere? Take Curt’s TOE channel, for instance-many of the featured theories seem intriguing but are rarely fully developed. Often, there’s a recurring refrain of, ‘I’m still working out that part.’ As for Eric and his Geometric Unity Theory, how many years has it been without a proper paper detailing his ideas for peer review? It appears as though he’s avoiding critique, perhaps to protect his credibility or avoid being proven wrong. It seems he leverages this unproven theory to maintain an aura of brilliance that many attribute to him. If his theory were genuinely revolutionary, wouldn’t quietly posting it on arXiv lead to significant recognition-perhaps even a Nobel Prize? Why hasn’t he taken that step?”

[@iyziejane]

Indeed there's no shortage of open mindedness in the mainstream physics community, people in quantum gravity especially want to make progress by any possible means (e.g. people like Witten and Susskind turning their interest to quantum information theory in the past decade or so). I've read Eric's non-arxiv draft and I see why it doesn't get much interest. This quote from the draft sums it up: "Our gambit is that if there is a natural classical field theory that strongly resembles the standard model together with General Relativity, then if it can be shown to emerge naturally from minimal assumptions, it is likely to be correct or close to correct and may well suggest its own preferred quantization." This "gambit" makes little sense when the whole problem is our inability to quantize GR. The way Weinstein treats quantum physics like an afterthought correlates with him leaving academia after his PhD in 1992; he has the myopic approach of a graduate student working on a pet problem. Treating quantization of a gravity theory as an afterthought shows no real interest in advancing physics. If Eric cared about physics and believed in his theory he would hire researchers to help him complete it (e.g. like Stephen Wolfram does with his ideas). Even with the limitations of his approach he would get a better response if he wasn't so ego-first. About half the words of his manuscript are about great scientists Einstein, Bohr, Dirac, etc to the point of exhausting neurotic obsession. I'm glad he's found some success in podcasting because his math/physics life seems depressing and broken.

[@humptyslick]

Eric is a lefty obsessed with 'who' ppl identify az instead of 'what' theyre actually contributing speshly when its way over his head.

[@steffenbendel6031]

It is like freak magazine in the 70th. Each week they present a new alien story or lizard people from the hollow earth. The selection criteria is what sells pages (now views) and that is certainly only very loosely aligned with scientific facts.

[@EveK-North]

Based on these comments, I see that many are awaking to Eric’s grift. Good. Carry on 😊✌️

[@rexxsoul1]

This Eric Weinstein guy is so weird. Maybe he should spend more time working as a scientist and less as a drama content creator.

[@NemosYouTube]

@@rexxsoul1 bingo.

[@전유현-l7x]

I read this reddit post on him a few weeks ago read through all the comments if you like, especially mitchellporter's thread. the actual real story and controversy behind eric's claims (I can't post the link of course. and the article itself is also 3 years old, don't know if any new info has been added)

[@belstar1128]

its in the family just ask Harvey

[@reunionproductions]

@@belstar1128 There's no relation.

[@CurtOntheRadio]

@@reunionproductions no. It's called a joke. ;)

[@clorofilaazul]

I’m getting tired of Eric. I used to follow his channel (the portal), because I thought he was somehow saying important things. Now I just find him a kind of charlatan. I’m tired of “I’m so outside the box” wanna be.

[@brianspace7344]

Eric is a fools Stop with his pointless appearances and present science It’s gross you are sycophantic toward him

[@henrythegreatamerican8136]

Love the direction this video took. Instead of directly attacking the attacker, you showed the contributions of the people this person was attacking. But you still danced around the idea of string theory dominating physics which is the main reason this attacker went on a social media rampage. Do you believe in string theory or not?

[@AnthonyChinwe-xf5dm]

@@henrythegreatamerican8136 😂😂😂

[@Milan_Openfeint]

A good scientist doesn't "believe" in a theory. S/he can gain a high confidence that it's correct, after failing to find any flaws. String theory was never successfully tested, so everyone's confidence is pretty low. The trouble and reason why it's dominating is that nobody figured out anything better, and definitely not Eric W.

[@humptyslick]

​@@Milan_Openfeint🎯

[@jwilliamcase]

Eric is a crank who is more interested in operating a cult of personality and thinking about celebrity and “valor” than reform in physics. He is overtly political and he knows his “theory of everything” is a sham that omits some of the foundational operators which he had “found before but now isn’t sure he wrote it down”. Part of the anti establishment sentiment that has brought us trump and q anon. Just blind frustration.

[@CurtOntheRadio]

“found before but now isn’t sure he wrote it down”. Such a joke. From the dude railing against the failings of "the science establishment". The only interesting thing about Weinstein is how he got to be taken so seriously by all these folks in the first place.

[@charlottesimonin2551]

Dr. Susskind's work is still widely respected. Today he is the "Old Man" of theoretical physics. We have no physical evidence that his contributions are wrong. Less that totally correct-- possibly. However, mathematics in and of itself is simply a human fantasy when devoid of physical test.

[@talesfromthetarheelstate351]

Did he just say Zev is "off the charts"? I can't wait to see what that young man comes up with.

[@neilshahndynasty.8882]

He has , "A Theory of Everything".

[@JimmyMcBimmy]

Holy crap. It's legitimately refreshing how critical and skeptical the comments are. I expected a bunch of Keating fanboys (and, sure, there are some), but lots of quality comments too.

[@bujin5455]

Gotta love drama in the physics world.

[@Mentaculus42]

Pure entertainment, love it when deserving big brains bash at each other.

[@steffenbendel6031]

But drama theory belongs more to psychology than physics.

[@bujin5455]

@@steffenbendel6031 and yet the physicists keep running their own experiments.

[@gtziavelis]

I have learned plenty from Lenny Susskind and been inspired by him. I have never learned anything from Eric Winestein or his brother Brett, except perhaps that they seem to deal in anger, finger-pointing, attention-seeking, and pseudoscientific pollution of people's minds.

[@YinYang-9907]

I have my own theory of everything!

[@rahallde]

Both Weinstein brothers are at best grifters.

[@neorock6135]

You are SPOT ON!

[@coolcat23]

Both are conspiracy theory peddlers of the highest order. Pathetic.

[@paulshortall6734]

@@rahallde well said

[@RogueTheology]

They aren’t as good as Kaku or Susskind at scamming

[@blijebij]

I think nothing is wrong with Leonard Susskind. My impression of Leonard Susskind is that he is a sincere, authentic, passionate scientist. Sometimes I find him fantastic, sometimes I find him old school, which is, of course, personal. Could it be that the conflict between Eric Weinstein and Leonard Susskind is based on Eric Weinstein's criticism of established theories and their dominance, such as string theory, with Susskind seen as an important player in this dynamic? So that it is actually Eric's personal dissatisfaction/frustration with the fundamental differences in scientific views and methodologies, and he directs this at Leonard Susskind.

[@Peter-o9n6p]

Here's what I know about Leonard Susskind - he's not going to like this click-baity headline that holds him up like some internet Karen. Your own defense of him in the body of the piece means a more appropriate title would be: "Why is Eric Weinstein Such a Whiny, Grandiose Baby?"

[@CurtOntheRadio]

Susskind likely isn't going to know about it, and surely cares not at all. He does teaching and physics, not podcasts.

[@neorock6135]

Weinstein has been so exceptionally butt hurt. It's just getting really tiresome at this point!

[@mikefiannaca3639]

Eric seems to be brilliant, but I’m not at all convinced. He also seems to be unusually arrogant, and of that I am certain. Perhaps I am mistaken, but unlike Eric, I am a mere mortal. Incidentally Brian, I appreciate your effort to seek balance as demonstrated in this presentation.

[@jimlee1498]

Brian, I love your your podcasts on physics. As a cyclist, very dissapointed to hear you were trashed by a measly 20 mile bike ride. :)

[@DrBrianKeating]

You and me both!

[@faismasterx]

One guy criticizes the other's entire career. The other guy doesn't know he exists. LOL

[@jedser]

you mean, what's wrong with Weinstein?

[@hjs9td]

It is hilarious reading the comments without acknowledging that Keating proposes testing the claims to see which is closer to the facts we already know and taking the parts from each to create a better hybrid.

[@quantum_beeb]

Eric Weinstein is a joke.

[@elodvezer1790]

Eric has a good point though!! as much as I love Lenny etc., why not pool all knowledge... you guys are starting to sound like the Archeologists all of a sudden!!! 😂❤

[@tgrogan6049]

Weinstein has no record.

[@nigelorr7938]

Tomonaga was not at Shelter Island he was trying to live and do physics in war torn Japan. It was Oppenheimer who later brought attention to his work on QED to the American community ...

[@MitchCrane]

Eric Weinstein and I agree. We both don't like Michio Kaku. Eric probably just hates Michio based on his envy of Michio's success as a media hoo-er, however.

[@ericmichel3857]

I saw the Williamson interview with Eric, and while I am not qualified to comment on the credibility of these theories, his comments and attitude did seem inappropriate. Calling out the lack of humility in others, while displaying none himself, his words do not leave much room for nuance, subtlety, or any sort of collaborative agreement (not one of his best moments IMO). I think you were right to call this out, and I think you did it with a good amount of grace and humility. Thank you. Eric is undoubtedly a brilliant guy with much to offer, I hope he takes this feedback to heart.

[@BrianNeil]

Well done Brian! This kind of attitude is just what the doctor ordered.😎

[@sigil777music]

Eric Weinstein gets waaaaay more attention then he deserves. He has the nerve to say Leonard Susskind hasn’t achieved anything? What has Weinstein achieved? He’s just got a loud mouth. He’s not an expert in anything as far as I can tell. I’m not sure why this channel and a few others are so obsessed with him…I’m guessing his name brings views. I usually ignore anything with him, but I clicked on this one. My mistake.

[@SantiagoItzcoatl]

Eric truly getting worse by the day. Too much unpromted drama.

[@mjs28s]

@1:25 I just lost all respect for Lenny Susskind now. Whether you agree with Eric or not to act as if you never heard of him is such a lie. good grief!

[@leobulero3485]

Eric Weinstein is a fool. He achieves nothing by attacking individual theoretical physicist, is impossible to listen to after a while because he starts babbling about his theory. Susskind on the other hand stated that this attacks against are very dangerous misleading and I love how he doesn't give a shit about all the drama and keeps doing what he works on what he finds interesting. A conference would be great, but as Erics aggressive accusations out of context about individuals, is pure stupidity. He acts really as whiny little bitch, unaware that his complaints.will lead nowhere...can't listen to his BS whining anymore.

[@EvidenceOfTheDivine]

Brian, this event could be ground breaking. One of the most important of modern times. Do it. It will be a hit.

[@robotrobot276]

Leonard Susskind is a non confrontational kind of guy and i think Eric is starting trouble with him that is not helpful and very disrespectful. This is not the way to go about it!😡

[@ClassicalBlackWolf]

💯

[@jnxmaster]

I would call this a metamodern take. He's most importantly agreeing with Eric but then also sees some of the same dynamic in Eric himself, which is fair. No one is perfect and Eric has his reasons and very likely, mostly compassionate and ethical intentions. Some narcissism of course, but I can't blame him too much for that. Everyone has an ego. What Keating is saying is Both/And. Hes presenting a synthesis, i.e. his position is not merely the old thesis that Eric is criticizing restated nor is it an argument against Eric's position either.

[@peterz53]

Weinstein is nothing if not a full-time whiner. Really a downer. Of all the people Brian could have on why does he invest, no waste, so much time on this guy.

[@CASTSTONE]

He is not doing research or publishing, he has to kill time somehow.

[@ericerpelding686]

How many citations has Eric Weinstein's GU theory received?

[@obiwanduglobi6359]

I don't know, but during his scientific carreer, in total, he got 3 of them. Three, tres, trois.

[@gregmason6152]

Your coverage of Weinstein's contributions to science was made conspicuous by its absence. Weinstein is a great whiner, and self promoter, but what has he contributed? What gves him a seat at the table with these major contributors to the advancement of physics, besides his complaints that they're holding him back?

[@devalapar7878]

Eric Weinstein, who has no scientific achievements other than his doctorate, criticizes Lenny Susskind, who has made many contributions to science and education. That's so typical of our time. On social media, school drop outs criticize experts all the time. But Eric Weinstein should know better. He is an educated man. I don't know why but people who become internet famous go crazy after some time. Elon Musk is one of them. 10 years ago, you could hear his understanding and knowledge in an area, today he is meeming and trolling all the time and says nothing of substance. Actually, he says a lot of stupid things like drones make F-35 obsolete. A drone doesn't fly as fast and as high as an F-35 and can't carry a bunker buster.

[@polpol2739]

How about doing a livestream where you sit with Eric and just write his "Theory of everything" on the borad and just start analyzing it with audience feedback for possible comments and ideas

[@ClaudeEnckels]

world has no limits, no beginning, no end big bang is a collision the TRUE world is a world of abstractions abstractions CAN create matter

[@meofamily4]

"Assayer Project" -- clearly a shout-out to Galileo's book by that name.

[@seanr_5924]

When Eric Weinstein has published as many peer reviewed papers as Leonard Susskind, then I might listen to his otherwise opinion…until then!!

[@panmichael5271]

What does Zeus have to say about this?

[@markomilicevic7557]

I think the idea of a "conference to challenge the status quo" would not work unless the participants felt like they fully understood everyone's work. Face-to-face confrontation also works best for bullies. I'm not a physics/TOE expert, but my guess is that it takes a massive amount of time/energy/discussions/work to fully understand new ideas/papers? And that catch 22 may be at the root of Eric's critique. Why would Eric's TOE paper (is there even a paper?), deserve the time needed to fully grok his ideas over all the many other competing new papers/ideas (including the encombrants)? The community of experts that are most able to detect value in something new is likely very small. They can't be expected to invest the time needed fully understand every new idea that comes along. Could something like this work? What if a community/journal of reviewers were able to organize themselves into a "pyramid", where the bottom layer is very wide with candidate reviewers that are most junior (not the authoritative experts, or experts not directly aligned with the topic)? If X members from the bottom layer give a thumbs up (with review notes), then the (annotated) paper is gets elevated to the next (more experienced) layer of reviewers. Maybe the bottom layer could even have some form of AI screening review? Only once the paper has been accepted by some number of members/journals higher in the review pyramid would the ideas be accepted as worthy of deep consideration? Not an easy problem, good luck!

[@shanecusack8518]

I like your thinking brother

[@sulljoh1]

I'm sorry but Eric is so weird. He thinks everything is some machiavellian cloak and dagger game just because he was treated badly by academics

[@BaronBobSlaysWoketards]

Both things can be true at the same time

[@jedser]

he thinks he deserves a Nobel because he figured out equations in a notebook that he lost but supposedly can't remember. lol

[@johnwillis8223]

Show us on the doll where Eric offended you two the worst😂

[@jaymanier7286]

Him and his brother are both like that. It's getting sad at this point.

[@High.Desert]

​@@jedserthis is poor mind reading 👎

[@TheOtherSteel]

The message of this video is all over the place.

[@chaoticmoh7091]

Engineer talking. To me, any field of study that has these sort of arguments, is an opinion based study. Real evidence based field has no room for arguments.

[@HkFinn83]

Theoretical physics is the bleeding edge of human knowledge. Different fields have different standards of ‘evidence’. Physics is a lot harder than engineering.

[@chaoticmoh7091]

@HkFinn83 . I agree. It is always harder to harmonize people's opinion of what is happening, especially if they have a lot of maths that can back each of the contradictory opinions.

[@isaacsaxton-knight7708]

Eric had an opportunity to present his theory in a lecture at Oxford University. He had the opportunity of a life-time and the lecture was lackluster. Eric embarrassed himself in that lecture, so its frankly laughable that he complains that he hasn't been given a chance to lecture. He embarrassed himself when he tried to explain his ideas. He's also repeatedly been debunked by other academics and creators here on youtube, but you refuse to cover them because Eric is your buddy. Eric has you wrapped around his little finger.