Posted: Aug 18, 2011 5:07 am
by tnjrp
Brain man wrote:
Obviously he says he has plently of empirical evidence (other than the Schnoll effect, that is) for his theory but the last time I know when somebody asked he didn't seem to want to present it :think:

It would help his credibility some if he didn't claim outright that his TOE actually solves almost all vexing scientific problems (including but not limited to the subject of consciousness) as well as create a new paradigm in physics.


What else is expected ? You have a highly obsessive mathematician with accompanying personality [...] These guys will make those kind of statements. Its is fundamental physics. Matti's work relies on lie algebra and has a resemblance to Garret Lisi's E8 in concept. Of course that kind of work can lead to a fundamental result for everything.
Well, our mileages apparently vary because AFAIK not all "obsessive mathematicians" are completely convinced they've solved every mystery in the physcial universe in a single swoop, much less throw in questionable fringe claims by the way of evidence for this.

Unless somebody like this is brought up in a self effacing place like oxford where even knowing the secrets of the universe would register zero outward excitement except a few papers in spare time and clipped statements to summarize.
I'm not entirely sure what you are saying here.

Unless you agree with Matti's (seeing as you are on first name basis) sometime expressed view he's a victim of purposeful sidelining in the academic circles instead of just (possibly unjustly but not with malign intent) being ignored, he has had ample time to come to the knowledge of the physics world outside of the Finnish academia. It's not like he came up with his theory yesterday, he has published almost all of his work originally in English, he visits physicists' blogs regularly etc. so somebody in the actual physics crowd should aware of him and paying attention even tho he's not tenured at a major university. Are they?
:ask:

If you are saying he shouldn't need to provide evidence, then I'm frankly quite at loss. It's supposed to be a physics theory. Shouldn't it have evidence specifically in favour of it above other theories from the get-go?
:ask:

did the OP put Matti's work here or was it moved ?
I put it here yes, because for the reasons outlined above I believe it's where it belongs. It's a mathematical construct attempting to pass for a theory in physics. Am obivously ready to be corrected, but I think this correction should really come by the way of the scientific establishment acknowledging TGd. If you disagree, you can report my post and request this be moved.