Has Eric Weinstein killed the Cosmological Constant and discovered a new theory of everything?*What was your favorite takeaway from this conversation?* Please join my mailing list to get FREE notes & resources from this show! Click 👉 http://briankeating.com/yt

This sounds like me trying to explain to my wife why I cannot visit with her parents this weekend.

"Eric Weinstein is one of the greatest minds alive today." -  Eric Weinstein.

It’s amazing to hear someone speak in a language in which I am fluent yet hardly understand a word of it.

I have a PhD in mathematics from MIT and I can confirm most of what he says is correct… just kidding I’m a pipe fitter and I don’t even know what language this video is in

I wish, after the lecture, there were a Q&A from the audience of mathematicians and physicists.

Get Terence Howard on the case

To quote Ed from Goodburger: “Yeah, huh, yep. I know some of these words.”

This talk is so great. I can watch it front to back, back to front or skip randomly through it, and my level of understanding does not vary.

I took two graduate courses in Mathematical physics and classical mechanics many years ago, then came to my senses and got a master’s degree in mechanical engineering. I’ve had a pretty good exposure to advanced mathematics during that time, and always have a passion for understanding as much as my brain can digest of physics. But I feel woefully inadequate at understanding pretty much most of this. Still, it’s fascinating and entertaining to listen to. I deeply respect and enjoy listening to Mr. Weinstein, thank you for sharing.

Later, he realized the class was actually given to dental hygiene students…

He must have found his napkin with his world changing physics theory

the way he starts breathing when he first mentions ed witten😂

I love the fact Eric is treating this like it's a giant symposium and he's lecturing to a packed room, but there's like 2 guys in there; Brian Keating, a fellow in the 'aggrieved Nobel' club, and another guy who probably wandered in there by mistake looking for the bathroom and is now stuck there until the end of time watching Eric cosplay a real physicist.

I'm a layman in this space, but a computer scientist.  I find this talk inspiring!!!  I've been independently studying the difference between 'nature' and the pure maths algebraic representations.  I stumbled for years applying weights via NN with many means of MC methods to get predictable values specifically in a 5d group.  After years of unpredictability (or at least < 3% improvement)  I realized I needed more precision  AND that the weights were essentially 'Gaussian blurring' out the data.  I was also stuck with parameter searches of a huge space (> 1.1 Quint).  Now while polar spins have 1 less term representational they are also flawed.  Run a 60 bit Weyl RNG from start to finish, it has a distribution resembling normal ... but isn't.  After parameter search for normal distribution it's chi² was significantly worse than an expanded cos parameter fit.  But the cos fit was also NOT perfect, it has a 2x10-4 % of error.  Now nature doesn't really allow 'perfect' it skews like a Poisson graph.  i think it's related to how a Hamiltonian random walk in 5d space has a rule about backtracking, and the step size is relevant.  Plank is super useful here.  So what I'm saying is that subgroups get split almost like a Cantor tree, that has it's own governor.  Giving rise to a 3/2 predictor as 'best' fit.  But as the slices are d-1 generated, we still lose one bit.  There's not an infinite number of intermediaries to acquire unity, but it's a huge number.  I like to call it a Path to Oneness.  Now this path has a fractal rep that doesn't look at first to have any uniformity, and the usual methods of generation are not my favorite.  but they can rule out the non compact easily if a k>expected Kmax  kinda thing.  i think some of the minds mentioned probably drove themselves nuts trying to find methods of ruling out stuff that doesn't fit their model.  you don't have to know the specific path to oneness, just that one exists.  The trick imo is that you should be able to rule-out a family of subgroups (thus disjoint), the "luminous" probably have attractors, and the "dark" are just mirrored. Maybe the devil's staircase is aptly named.  glhf.

This reminds me of when I was learning English for the first time. It sounded pretty much the same as this sounds to me right now.

Always happy to see new stuff with Eric. Thank you, Dr. Keating!

I love that the first advert started just as he mentions  mental diseases...

“The emperor has no clothes” Sean Carroll

Lol as someone else noted, no one is in the room (maybe a few people). "Have any of you heard of geometric unity?" Quickly cuts away to a slide.