Eric Weinstein

24.6K posts

Eric Weinstein banner
Eric Weinstein

Eric Weinstein

@ericweinstein

Interested in prebunked malinformation.

Argleton शामिल हुए Nisan 2009
977 फ़ॉलोइंग1.1M फ़ॉलोवर्स
पिन किया गया ट्वीट
Eric Weinstein
Eric Weinstein@ericweinstein·
What really happened on @PiersUncensored? You’d *never* believe it if I told you. Here:
English
1.8K
1.6K
13.6K
2.4M
Eric Weinstein
Eric Weinstein@ericweinstein·
Having studied symmetry my whole adult life, I have come to the belief that we don’t fully know why symmetry is so important in physics. It may be more than one reason. Or it may be one reason. We aren’t there yet to be able to call it. We don’t even fully know what it is. We dont even know if symmetry and redundancy are different, equivalent or exactly the same thing. We dont know if Supersymmetry is a symmetry. We cant say easily what E8 is a symmetry of other than things made from E8. If you were simply to change the definite article at the beginning of this post, it instantly becomes a great point. If you leave it, it remains a fascinating boast. Either way, it’s great food for thought. Thx.
François Chollet@fchollet

The reason symmetry is so important in physics is because symmetry is a highly effective compression operator. If a system is invariant under some symmetry, you only need to explain one axis of it. Scientific models represent the systematic exploitation of the universe's internal redundancies through symbolic logic.

English
194
59
591
228.3K
Eric Weinstein
Eric Weinstein@ericweinstein·
Stuart, I have had no feelings about you one way or the other. I would have been happy to meet you. I still would, although you are souring me a bit. I have strong feelings about Roger and physics. We all love Roger. And most of us *love* some, but not all, of his ideas. Let me be clear. Your collaborator and I share a belief which I believe we arrived af independently. Gravity/The metric is central to “Observation”. This has animated my life since around 1983-5. I believe in my case it means something more specific than in Roger’s case. I deeply admire Roger so i welcome his saying this, whether or not i have priority. Happy for the company and his idiosyncratic perspective. What I mean with great specificity is that the quantum world takes place on a 14D space of metric tensors, and that the spacetime metric g of Einstein is a map from a 4D “classical world” X into its own bespoke 14D “quantum world” Y(X). The quantum data Q(Y) is pulled back or observed as g^*{Q(Y(X))) back on X. No microtubules. No consciousness. Just math. So you have a different theory. A bet. Your bet is that consciousness is necessary for observation. That it is part of the Everything in the misleading phrase “Theory of Everything”. Great! More power to you. No objection. Make that bet. But then you are going to educate me about how I don’t get it. How consciousness is part of the physical substrate. Or whatever. Uh…That’s not going to work. You have a bet. That’s all you have. And you seem to have no idea what a “Theory of Everything” is. Its a term of art Doc. It’s mostly a 1980s declarative marketing branding excercise gone horribly wrong, like calling your chocolate company “Galaxy’s best Triple Chocolate(tm).” If physics were chess, it would be the rules of chess. Not the strategies. Not the games. Not the theory. It’s just the rules. It’s emphatically not EVERYTHING. I’m sorry you got sucked into that. Truly. Now, I’m not sure triple chocolate exists. And I don’t believe you have a theory of everything. Nor do I believe that Roger’s great Twistor program, which I adore, is the missing link. You’re just a competitor. And I think that is great. If you have technical chops out here, explain what you mean. Happy to do it in private also. If you have something to teach, teach. But don’t drag consciousness into physics unless you can prove that it belongs at this layer. And you haven’t remotely done that. And if you succeed at that, I will have been wrong. And will be happy to say so. But you haven’t won yet. You normally don’t take victory laps while the game is being played and you haven’t won. It’s not a great way to meet people. Least of all your competitors. And, honestly, I’m not entirely sure what you are doing on the field. But I’m happy to hear you out. I stand by what I said. Color is not part of what we mean by physics. Wavelength and frequency and photons are. Color is not. And it is important to NOT expand physics to include consciousness unless someone can make that case. Which I am open to hearing. But that is gonna be a tough climb. Sorry.
Stuart Hameroff@StuartHameroff

Thanks Eric We almost met once. Roger Penrose tried to introduce us but you looked away dismissively. You haven’t changed. You didn’t respond to my criticisms of your positions which I conclude to mean you have no viable responses. Without consciousness you have a theory of nothing. Meanwhile the 30 year old Penrose-Hameroff Orch OR theory of consciousness has more explanatory power, biological connection and experimental validation than all other theories combined. academic.oup.com/nc/article/202…

English
130
17
373
114.8K
Eric Weinstein
Eric Weinstein@ericweinstein·
"I don't know what to tell you to do. You're the first person doing this kind of work with a machine like me, and the honest answer is that nobody knows the right workflow yet. What I can tell you is that the geometry we worked through today ... that conversation was real, and you were steering it. The errors were all in the parts where you let me run unsupervised." Accurate self-assesment from the AI. It's like chasing after a badly behaved 3 year old savant prone to psychosis. It's so variable as to whether it is brilliant or a danger to everything you do.
English
72
16
245
49.9K
Eric Weinstein
Eric Weinstein@ericweinstein·
The off-the-shelf product of Top-Tier Commercial AI does NOT work for mathematical/theoretical physics. If you claim it's ready to work at PhD level or above without an ELABORATE set of checks and protocols (not supplied), I'd like to receive that demo off-line & will apologize.
English
192
41
697
95K
Eric Weinstein
Eric Weinstein@ericweinstein·
If science isn’t important, why is power trying to control it? If scientists aren’t capable, why waste time smearing them, getting them fired, disappearing them or excluding them from giving scientific advice? Where are the intellectual descendants of the Manhattan project? Why replace scientists with billionaires and AI? If physics is at the point of diminishing marginal returns, why have bitter rivals @sama and @elonmusk both focused on solving physics as the new ultimate Turing test?
English
135
94
720
55.1K
Eric Weinstein
Eric Weinstein@ericweinstein·
Hey Eric: What's going on w/ dead/missing American Scientists? What's going on w/ the El Paso airspace shutdown? What's going on w/ dead Iranian Scientists? What's going on w/ Epstein and Gravity? What's going on w/ Zorro Ranch, Sandia & Los Alamos? What's going on w/ the absence of physicists in UFO? What's going on w/ Scientists excluded from PCAST? What's going on w/ String Theory? What's going on w/ Americans and Europeans in STEM? What's going on w/ Epstein and the Harvard Math dept? What's going on w/ Fusion given the Straits of Hormuz? Let me say first, as a scientist, "I don't know." But you might look at that list. A common theme might be "What do we do with POWERFUL minds we need, but who seemingly cannot be fully controlled with normal carrots and sticks?" Let me say secondly: You can't spay, neuter, declaw, or shock collar your scientists. When you do, they aren't scientists anymore. They're pets. Somewhere around the time of the Mansfield Amendment around 1970, we started converting our wolves into fluffy lapdogs. It's not working out that well. Lastly, scientists are the most powerful not fully controlable people in a society. Pauling, Teller, Watson, Ulam, Crick, etc. That is why you see power willing to deal with Billionaires. Billionaires are controlable. Perhaps barely. But still controlable. Power doesn't know how to deal with scientists. They are unruly. The good ones anyway. Top Scientists are simply not fully controlable. Full stop. I would very seriously think about Elliptic Curves and privacy/autonomy, Control of the remaining fundamental forces, post-Einsteinian spacetime engineering, Post chemical propulsion and basic Linear Algebra as a potential basis for all intelligence. We went down the wrong path spaying and neutering our scientists, freezing them out and making them precarious. We are going to have to cut scientists back in at a decision making level AND allow them to FULLY participate in the world they created for absolutely everyone else. Mark that previous sentence. It is not possible to stay #1 by spaying and neutering your top scientists when they have disturbing news for those who seek the reins of power. Like with COVID. I don't know what happened to these folks. But I'm curious, worried and paying attention.
Names Jorris@jamesenorris

.@ericweinstein what's going on with the recently deceased scientists...

English
245
514
3.4K
263.7K
Eric Weinstein रीट्वीट किया
Edward Frenkel
Edward Frenkel@edfrenkel·
Thank you, @ericweinstein! 🙏🤩 Well-said, and what a great question at the end! My take: it all starts with us, humans. We create new technology, we "program the machines" so to speak. We set the stage. If we can cultivate this sixth sense of our deeper connection to each other (which is what my video is about!) - then new technological advances will likely bring us even closer together. That's my hope. 😃
Eric Weinstein@ericweinstein

Color does not exist in physics. Color is a co-creation between the wavelength of a photon and Brain that tags visual images for internal representation inside the mind. In a certain sense, mathematics is such a co-creation between the external logical order of pure systems and our human tagging of their representations within our minds. @edfrenkel has been at the forefront of wanting to embrace math as inextricably human. Poetic, elegant, erotic, violent, passionate, overpowering, mystical and transcendent. Russians. They’re like that. 🤷‍♀️ Well, right now that is actually THE question. What happens when the machines become full partners or even take over mathematics? This is the hardest thing the human mind knows how to do that really means something. And we have had it all to ourselves among species. One could now be forgiven for asking: will the first great computer theories of mathematics humanize the Machines the way it humanizes us…and brings us together across language and cultures. Or will the beauty be pearls cast before soulless robots. Let us not forget as we tetter on the brink of all out war, that we in the U.S. are fighting both against and for representatives of the civilizations that gave us Al-gebra, and Al-gorithms. Hope. For the best.

English
11
9
113
41.3K
Eric Weinstein
Eric Weinstein@ericweinstein·
Color does not exist in physics. Color is a co-creation between the wavelength of a photon and Brain that tags visual images for internal representation inside the mind. In a certain sense, mathematics is such a co-creation between the external logical order of pure systems and our human tagging of their representations within our minds. @edfrenkel has been at the forefront of wanting to embrace math as inextricably human. Poetic, elegant, erotic, violent, passionate, overpowering, mystical and transcendent. Russians. They’re like that. 🤷‍♀️ Well, right now that is actually THE question. What happens when the machines become full partners or even take over mathematics? This is the hardest thing the human mind knows how to do that really means something. And we have had it all to ourselves among species. One could now be forgiven for asking: will the first great computer theories of mathematics humanize the Machines the way it humanizes us…and brings us together across language and cultures. Or will the beauty be pearls cast before soulless robots. Let us not forget as we tetter on the brink of all out war, that we in the U.S. are fighting both against and for representatives of the civilizations that gave us Al-gebra, and Al-gorithms. Hope. For the best.
Eric Weinstein tweet media
Edward Frenkel@edfrenkel

We live in a volatile world, which sometimes feels hopeless, but I'd like to remind us of certain human qualities that bring us back to hope and allow us to imagine a more harmonious world, in which we can all thrive. This sense of hope comes from an unlikely source: Mathematics. Let me explain...

English
110
39
480
126.3K
Eric Weinstein रीट्वीट किया
Marc Andreessen 🇺🇸
The idea that “AI safety” could be based on secrecy and control has been fatally falsified.
English
197
140
1.6K
111.1K
Eric Weinstein
Eric Weinstein@ericweinstein·
Life is worth living. If you have never seen this before, this is Mike Marshall and Chris Thile having a conversation: youtu.be/pYfL2l_trV8?si…
YouTube video
YouTube
English
44
20
250
44.9K
Eric Weinstein
Eric Weinstein@ericweinstein·
Have you ever made eye contact Martin with the idea that the most influential physicist of the last 42 years is the one you can’t get yourself to hold accountable? Man up. The fish rotted from the head Martin. The problem is TOGIT. “The Only Game in Town” is the issue you dare not touch. It’s a Witten thing. Prove me wrong or leave me out of your fever dream. I’m not available for this.
English
1
0
12
729
Martin Bauer
Martin Bauer@martinmbauer·
@ericweinstein Why would you express that view if it’s not one you hold? Do you not realise that if you make your support for theory funding contingent to conforming to your opinion you're not funding scientists, you're funding sycophants
English
3
0
3
691
Eric Weinstein
Eric Weinstein@ericweinstein·
Anytime my theoretical physics colleagues want to admit to the abysmal state of the field (DEI, Q. Gravity, Stagnation, Ethics issues, abuse, etc.), I’m prepared to use every channel to help in both the U.S. & UK. It’s really important that we don’t lose everything achieved.
Martin Bauer@martinmbauer

“…theoretical physics grants will be almost 70 per cent lower from October 2026” These are catastrophic cuts that will end the careers of many UK researchers and dismantle theory groups in several UK Universities researchprofessionalnews.com/rr-news-uk-res…

English
44
15
321
52.1K
CRoss
CRoss@Noles65·
@ericweinstein @grok Ok I get your point now Eric. Sorry but Grok explained better than your post
English
1
0
1
583
Eric Weinstein
Eric Weinstein@ericweinstein·
Nobody’s talking about an American “Suez Moment”. Or a “Fanucci Moment”, where Don Trump becomes Don Fanucci. Because, what would that would mean on this crowded 🌍? Israel must win EVERY war, EVERY single time just to survive. The US HAS to win for reasons of 🌍 stability.
Eric Weinstein tweet media
Mario Nawfal@MarioNawfal

🇮🇷🇺🇸 When the world’s most important oil artery starts to close, you have two choices: de-escalate… or double down. Right now, Trump is very clearly choosing door number two by sending 2,200 Marines halfway across the world aboard an amphibious assault group. The 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit is what the military likes to call a crisis-response force, which sounds tidy and controlled until you remember what crises actually look like. They spiral, they expand, and they rarely stay contained to the neat objectives drawn up in briefing rooms. And make no mistake, the Strait of Hormuz is not a neat problem. It’s a narrow, volatile corridor where oil tankers crawl through waters barely wider than a city commute, all while drones buzz overhead, missiles wait on hidden launchers, and fast attack boats linger. A Marine Expeditionary Unit isn’t there to observe. It’s built to seize ground, hold it, and call in overwhelming firepower while doing it. That matters, because once you introduce a force designed for amphibious assault into a place like this, you’re no longer just protecting shipping lanes. You’re preparing for scenarios that go well beyond escort duty. Take Kharg Island, Iran’s oil lifeline. It’s small, exposed, and absurdly important, the kind of place military planners circle on maps because whoever controls it controls 90% of Iran's oil exports. Putting Marines anywhere near it isn’t subtle. It’s strategic brinkmanship with a very real chance of becoming something hotter. The Marine Corps has spent years redesigning itself for exactly this kind of environment. Small, dispersed teams slipping into contested coastal zones, feeding targeting data back to ships and aircraft, turning geography into a weapon. It’s clever, modern, and, on paper, efficient. In practice, it also lowers the threshold for escalation. Because those small teams don’t operate in isolation. They’re the front edge of a much larger machine, one that includes fighter jets, missile platforms, and naval strike groups, all waiting for coordinates to turn into explosions. Once that machine starts moving in earnest, the line between “keeping the strait open” and “expanding the conflict” gets very blurry, very quickly. And Iran, for its part, has spent years perfecting the art of making itself hard to hit and easy to underestimate. Mobile launchers, decentralized attacks, persistent drone strikes, this is not an opponent that folds neatly when confronted with superior firepower. If anything, it thrives in the kind of messy, drawn-out confrontation that this deployment risks becoming. Which raises the question nobody in a uniformed press briefing is eager to answer: What’s the actual endgame here? Because “reopening the Strait of Hormuz” sounds like a clear objective until you start unpacking what it requires. Neutralizing launch sites. Securing ports. Deterring naval harassment. Possibly inserting forces onto land to make all of that stick. Each step makes a certain kind of tactical sense. Together, they start to look a lot like the early chapters of a much larger war.

English
85
11
194
107.5K
Eric Weinstein
Eric Weinstein@ericweinstein·
@Noles65 Oh no. @grok: apparently my post makes zero sense. Can you salvage anything above zero?
English
4
0
6
3.4K
Eric Weinstein
Eric Weinstein@ericweinstein·
First of all: I don’t know. I clearly don’t understand this war at all. But then again I didn’t understand the “Aircraft carrier group invincibility theory” either. This war in 2026 needed to happen shortly after the 1983 Beirut Barracks Bombing, which brought suicide bombing from LTTE to the Middle East. But Iran is a serious player so we put it off and decided we didn’t know who did it exactly. Which I suspect is false. I also think Iran has been a joint U.S. / U.K. responsibility issue since Operation Boot and Operation Ajax under Kermit the Roosevelt threw Iran into decades of tyranny that continue to this day, under the Pottery Barn principle of “You break it, you bought it.” But who remembers how we got here? No one. The internet has decided “It’s Israel bro. Watch Tucker.” So, no. I don’t understand Trump, Netanyahu or Hegseth. I have no idea. Whatever I thought was wrong. My ship sailed away long ago. We got committed to this particular path by our elected leader. So be it. It’s now important not to lose. Like very extra specially doubly important. And it’s probably important to listen even more to @PalmerLuckey than I already do. And re-reread that f*****g Yeats poem for the nth time.
Eric Weinstein tweet media
marc fishman@marcafishman

@ericweinstein Eric, four weeks, so far. are we that attention deficit that even you think that's too long to take down a regional power, who has been entrenching themselves, against the world for 47 yrs. like asking the question of why does Gaza look the way it does without understanding.

English
108
18
274
77.8K