A Portal Special Presentation- Geometric Unity: A First Look

Eric Weinstein also has a podcast of his own, the most recent episode of which features his original lecture detailing the Geometric Unity model he discussed on Rogan (though even the dumbed-down version flies right over my head): [VIDEO] > He has a particular kind of breadth-first associative intelligence that can cause listeners to become almost hypnotized by all the open cognitive loops his conversation creates Well said. Eric is also gaining a reputation for coining labels, the best known being the "Intellectual Dark Web", alongside lesser-known acronyms like EGO (Embedded Growth Obligation), GIN (Gated Institutional Narrative), and DISC (Distributed Idea Suppression Complex).

Eric Weinstein is a delight to listen to: a polymath, a contrarian, a great interviewer, really gifted verbally. I'm a Portal subscriber and I've listened to his Rogan interviews all the way through. That said... I have the sinking feeling that you're right about the breadth-first thing, and it's about to become a bigger issue. Back in the 80s Weinstein was working on an alternative Grand Unified Theory. When his work was marginalized, he never really got over it, and he's now using his platform (an important platform for many other reasons!) to try and right that wrong. To that end, he just published a 2013 talk he gave at Oxford on this theory. [0] What he has not published in all these years, afaik, is an actual math paper describing his theory. This is the mark of a charlatan. I fear for Eric, and for all the other positive things springing up around The Portal, if it's discovered he lacks the depth and rigor we've all been assuming he has. In other words, he could turn out to be not just a "breadth-first associative thinker," but someone who lacks the self-awareness to know when he's out of his depth; a dangerous know-it-all. Eric if you're reading this: publish the paper the damn paper -- with the help of a mathematician or physicist if needed -- or drop it. [0] [VIDEO]

Eric Weinstein on April 2nd posted the lecture to his YouTube channel + at the end of video he goes over to clarify some details: [VIDEO] I'd recommend his The Portal video podcast series as well: [LINK] Two other recent interviews he did with Lex Fridman [LINK] and Joe Rogan [LINK]

Eric Weinstein on April 2nd posted the lecture to his YouTube channel + at the end of video he goes over to clarify some details: [VIDEO]

No, this happened because our major institutions have driven out people that are able to think originally and avoid the herd mentality. This has happened because of embedded growth obligations that affect all of our institutions, both public and private. If you are suspicious, don't tune out. You might be surprised to hear that the solution to this problem is to give academics MORE funding. If you have never heard of embedded growth obligations, or the Great Nap, watch these two videos. The first is the first 35 minutes of Eric Weinstein's Portal podcast on his proposal to find a unified field theory: [VIDEO] The second is an interview he does with Lex Fridman, calling for MIT to stop killing people like Aaron Schwartz (who faced a 35 year prison sentence for his attempt to battle Elsevier, yet received no support from MIT!) [LINK]

The headline should include the name Sir Roger Penrose, because he was awarded 1/2 the prize. Andrea Ghez and Reinhard Genzel were each awarded 1/4 of the prize. Burying the lede like this only undermines our trust in the very institutions we need most today. Please see these two videos by Eric Weinstein for a deeper explanation of what I am only hinting at: [VIDEO] [LINK]

This won't help directly, but Eric Weinstein is pissed off about the same issues, and he has some pretty good thoughts about ending paywalls and increasing funding for basic scientific research. [VIDEO] [LINK]

[VIDEO] - him releasing the video of his multi-hour long guest lecture. He's working on publishing a paper version soon to hash out all the math for people. As far as I know predictions wise, all of the math equations fit within his foundation, allowing a connection between string theory and relatively - which AFAIK didn't previously have math that allowed them to interconnect/co-exist. He's been trying for 15 years to get people in physics interested in it - and realized he has run into what he calls DISC and GIN, as mechanisms that keep outsiders ideas out and status quo narratives perpetuated. And so he's built an audience to educate, to share interviews/talks with high level conversation with a wide range of people, and build momentum/attention for his Geometric Unity theory because the existing institutions seem so indoctrinated into the last 50 years that they aren't looking into other ideas (yet); and an example of this is right here on HN, the previous commenter who called him a charlatan - with what experience are they themselves basing that off of, or who did they hear that narrative from, and how much time did that person invest investigating [interesting how invest is in the word investigating, it takes time which is an investment] and did they actually engage with Eric to see if they perhaps weren't understanding themselves and so then Eric could help them understand, etc.

Questioning scientific dogma is NOT the sign of a crackpot. In fact thinking about things critically and coming up with your own theories is what science is all about. If it doesn't check out, rational people would simply note that the idea was wrong, not blame someone for thinking it, which is the sort of behavior you'd encounter in religious cults. You can listen to his reasoning here: [VIDEO]

Well there is is Weinstein's Unified Field Theory. It proposes something at the side of Quantum Mechanics. Presentation, [VIDEO] [LINK]