3 ms·

I honestly don't think he cares about 'mainstream acceptance'. He is a prolific publisher of his detailed thoughts, which in the pre-academic-gatekeeping-establ

I honestly don't think he cares about 'mainstream acceptance'. He is a prolific publisher of his detailed thoughts, which in the pre-academic-gatekeeping-establishment era, was enough for any serious philosopher. He's a hobbyist. That doesn't make him any less prestigious if his ideas are neat.

openrisk 2y ago
The gatekeeping and manipulation going on in formal scientific publishing is notorious, but that is not the issue here. The fundamental algorithm of advancing physical science has always been: a set of "principles" or proto-concepts, a set of matching mathematical tools (that dont even need to be very rigorous), using these tools to explain a slice of reality (experimental outcomes) and, finally, predicting unknown behaviors that can be sought, can be confirmed (and celebrated). Sometimes even just a purely equivalent mathematical representation is fine, as it may give handles for calculations and thinking. But whatever the program with digi-physics is, it doesnt follow these age-old patterns that establish validity and usefulness intrinsically and not because some gatekeepers say so. The primary utility seems to be to enhance the prestige and toolkit of computational physics, which is fine, but totally not justifying the universality claims.