It’s the stuff of myths, legends and dreams, more akin to my man Joseph Campbell than a biologist in terms of scientific credulity. [theroetical physics]

I like Suskind. I like Einstein. I like Hawking. I’m fans.

But… Theoretical physics, until verified in some fashion _*is*_ science fiction. it is the religious arm of Physics, inspiring people, using mathematics to show, “There’s something in the middle that’s REALLY quite interesting”.

It’s fine that there are competing theories. The danger I’ve been noticing, however, is mistaking a tool for the thing.

Example: You have that professor who is making good money off of a book and giving talks about, “The Universe is Mathematics”.

People are buying it up. It is all the rage as a popular science fiction belief that’s wearing the labcoat, but it’s still not science yet.

It’s the stuff of myths, legends and dreams, more akin to my man Joseph Campbell than a biologist in terms of scientific credulity.

Still, it inspires people and that part is nice.

The reason I am critical is because I was a believer for many years – a very long time. “The brain is a computer” – The Universe is Math, etc – until I realized that they’ve got it all backwards.

Oh, I understand the criticisms and you’re right of course.
But that’s my point: the stronghold of “math is everything” – “brains are computers” – It’s the Power of Myth. – modern ones.

He was *terrible* as a cultural relativist – yet, he’s a product of his era. He wrote most of his stuff in, what, the 1940s? When Eugenics was all the rage in biology? They JUST did the first brain surgery a few years before that? Feynmann was still working out the scribbles that ended up becoming QED…. and he had yet to do all those years of fighting to get it accepted…

Hero with 1000 faces was REVOLUTIONARY for 1949.

But by the 80s? Not so much. It had already influenced two generations.

So, my point is, it’s good to know the roots. In the case of physics and math, they are a nice marriage, but the danger of analogies taken too far is that people get their thinking lost in the process.

So, he’s a product of his era, which got resurrected somewhat towards the end of his life.


I was a big fan for a few years of the WSM – Wave Structure of Matter. A guy named Milo Wolff. Bought a book he wrote. I still kind of like it. Standing Waves and such. I like it ’cause I never liked particles at the smallest levels – never seemed to make sense that it’d be particles down there, but “hard waves” as it were made sense to me

If I had to venture a theory though?
Matter is basically what happens when the field does particular things.

I believe we’re focusing on the results of the field doing its thing and have the math backwards. Scalar probably rather than vector ’cause you gotta have the whole Universe in the equation


  • Kenneth Udut Jared Matthew Magnes√łn From a pragmatic point of view, I would use your theories in a heartbeat over the religious-sounding ones.
    You can BUILD STUFF on your theories.
    Can’t build stuff out of spooky action.


tongue emoticon

h I agree about the charges. The difference is simply perspective.

All the interactations take place within an environment. For all practical purposes, we might as well consider the field to be unnecessary, much as we do with the air.

But I think with _certain_ things it could be vauable to see things from a “negative space” POV…. like sketching a person by sketching everything *but* the person, and what’s left over, is the person.

But yeah. It’s ultimately all about static electricity more or less, except with other things than electrons, and _not_ static electricity tongue emoticon


Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

two × = 14

Leave a Reply