tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3358148998045555545.post2970842330062838917..comments2024-03-28T04:27:27.713-05:00Comments on May Day Books Blog: Philosophy of the 'Smarty Pants'Coreyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07629684440934461513noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3358148998045555545.post-70994457007637502582013-05-24T15:10:52.214-05:002013-05-24T15:10:52.214-05:00Du Sautoy is more of a populariser than active res...Du Sautoy is more of a populariser than active research mathematician (though he must have come out with some papers to get an Oxford professorship). I have his popular "Music of the Primes" and I've seen his book "Symmetry" (but not been enticed to buy it). <br /><br />The idea of 14 dimensions seems similar to the old supergravity models of 30 years ago which postulated 11 dimensions of which 7 got "squashed" in some manner but accounted for some physical phenomena. None of the attempts to unite quantum theory with general relativity have borne fruit. Predating the supergravity models are the 5-dimensional Kaluza-Klein theories, which Einstein dabbled with for some years.<br /><br />Theoretical physics seems not to have gone anywhere over the last fifty years or so. In contrast to the last half of the 19th century and the first half of the 20 century. We seem to be living in a period of diminishing returns.<br /><br />In recent decades instead of applying math to physics, people have been applying physics to math -- the work of Atiyah, Singer, Donaldson, Manin, and Witten comes to mind. These names are mostly unknown to the lay public but these are the magicians of this era.AAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13242448989166177843noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3358148998045555545.post-45509734531851183892013-05-23T21:26:35.644-05:002013-05-23T21:26:35.644-05:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3358148998045555545.post-3671533475929160132013-05-23T10:38:51.007-05:002013-05-23T10:38:51.007-05:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3358148998045555545.post-71825254643113831882013-05-22T20:37:05.882-05:002013-05-22T20:37:05.882-05:00The problem is laymen aren't equipped to criti...The problem is laymen aren't equipped to critically assess what a scientist is saying. So they go by his degree (PhD), the number of his publications (which may be utter dross), and where he's a prof at (Berkeley). They're unwilling or unable to master the technical tools of the trade. So my advice to learn basic calculus, differential equations, and classical mechanics will go unheeded. In the absence of even a rudimentary scientific background, talking about science is futile. It can only be done from within.<br /><br />The reason I'm talking about this book at all is I think I've seen it and was singularly unimpressed. There is no insight there.<br /><br />Physics went beyond materialism in the sense a Marxist might understand it a looong time ago. Or rather, the worldview is in terms of categories that would make no sense to the uninitiated.AAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13242448989166177843noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3358148998045555545.post-57570881929492012252013-05-22T19:39:43.285-05:002013-05-22T19:39:43.285-05:00Upset by through-going materialism? Hmmm.
Certai...Upset by through-going materialism? Hmmm.<br /><br />Certainly you know more about hard math (as you do not mention what your grad degree was in) as taught at King's College / Imperial College than I do. However, us peons attempt to learn any way we can. I would rather take pointers from a progressive working scientist like Borchardt - 49 years long - than someone who went to school years ago - and did not follow it up with any actual work in mathematical or scientific fields that I know of. Borchardt heads the Progressive Science Institute at Berkeley, btw. <br /><br />As we know from lit grads or lit MFAs, getting a degree doesn't mean you can write. <br /><br />I will, however, adjust the terminology of 'scientist' since I think you are right on that.Red Froghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14757809604839647508noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3358148998045555545.post-23406292510483815582013-05-22T19:10:14.119-05:002013-05-22T19:10:14.119-05:00On the contrary. My undergrad math degree is from ...On the contrary. My undergrad math degree is from King's College London. My grad degree from Imperial College London -- both among the world's elite scientific schools. I am weary of these pseudo-scientific tracts that give people an illusion of scientific understanding.AAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13242448989166177843noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3358148998045555545.post-47548170456440980412013-05-22T18:19:22.912-05:002013-05-22T18:19:22.912-05:00The author is a scientist, which you are not. He ...The author is a scientist, which you are not. He discusses mathematics and how it substitutes for actual testing. He also discusses the limitations of classical mechanics - which most scientists are aware of. <br /><br />In fact, you might learn something from this book - though you deny that anyone can teach you anything. <br /><br />Marxists are scientists - they study the facts of history and economics, and base their understanding on that material world. Absolute precision is not possible, of course. History is a series of experiments. Marxism is not limited to economics at all. Red Froghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14757809604839647508noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3358148998045555545.post-89654505973761668142013-05-22T12:04:24.905-05:002013-05-22T12:04:24.905-05:00Books like this are pseudo-scientific bunkum that ...Books like this are pseudo-scientific bunkum that do a disservice to anyone who would understand science. To get to grips with science one has to go the hard road -- there are no exceptions, no shortcuts. Basic courses in differential and integral calculus and differential equations and linear algebra as a bare minimum, followed by at least one course in classical mechanics, which is the ur-science of the Western world. <br /><br />Marxists are not scientists -- though they may fondly imagine themselves to be so. Their subject material does not allow precise measurement, nor repeatable experiments. Nor is their theoretical framework falsifiable. The same holds for all economics.AAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13242448989166177843noreply@blogger.com