In the spirit of celebrating one of the biggest holidays of the year in Finland, Juhannus (that is, Midsummer Day), I present for your delicate perusal the rather against-Finnish-mainstream-physics alternative explanation for the functioning of universe, consciousness and pretty much everything... In other words, perhaps the longest running (the author's been at it for more than quarter of a century!) and most scientifically heavy weight local contender for the lofty position of Alternative Theory of Everything.

Ladies, gentlemen and assorted other forumites... Topological Geometrodynamics by Matti Pitkänen.

Should keep the mathematically inclined folks busy for day or two

Based on what I've understood and read about Pitkänen indicates he's made up a mathematically consistent model of the world that unfortunately (given the effort) appears to have a rather tenous, possibly incidental relationship with our observable reality*.

In other words, TGd's rather much ado about practically nothing.

But I'm not a mathematigian so I accept the possibility I could be wrong on one or both counts.

---

*) This tenousness including but not limited to his fascination with such commonly-seen-as-wooberish stuff as crop circles (which definitely are neither woo nor yet pedestrian hoaxes, according to Pitkänen)

tnjrp wrote:Based on what I've understood and read about Pitkänen indicates he's made up a mathematically consistent model of the world that unfortunately (given the effort) appears to have a rather tenous, possibly incidental relationship with our observable reality*.

In other words, TGd's rather much ado about practically nothing.

But I'm not a mathematigian so I accept the possibility I could be wrong on one or both counts.

--

You're not wrong.

It reads like one of those articles you can produce using that joke software - mixes all the right words up in a nonsensical order.

Found in the big pile of "quantum" unloaded on the Finnish skeptics forum a week ago (see this thread for a bit more background): the Shnoll effect provides evidence for TGD!

Full paper here:
http://tgd.wippiespace.com/public_html/ ... ollTGD.pdf

More on the Shnoll effect:
http://21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/time.html

Seems we live in exciting times, at least for TGD and Dr. Pitkänen

zOMG! Really? Who would've thunk...

Anyway that the was the best explanation of the Shnoll effect I could find at a short notice. It seems to be scattered all over teh Interwebz like good and proper woobery concepts are wont to be. I seem to recall some discussion on it from ca. 10 years back but can't find anything much that is newer. Did it already turn out to be a complete fluke or is just too outre for anyone to take notice and pick it apart (or, less likely, verify)


As to the relation of TGD and Shnoll's studies, there is a bit odd discrepancy between what Pitkänen wrote in his blog on December 7th and the papers he has himself published. The paper linked above is dated January 21, 2010 and the paper linked to and touted as new in the blog is dated December 7th 2010. Ah well, I suppose it's just a "clerical error" of some sort and not evidence for plasticity of space-time or at least Pitkänen's ability to conceptualize it

Matts mathematical explorations into physics.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&l ... &q&f=false

with this criteria we have to declare every mathematician who does exploratory work of this kind pseudoscience ? include just about every university in Europe and the soviet union.

While we are at it, lets include every experimental algorithm programmer at the same time. They tend to go along similar lines. That should add what about 30,000 pseudoscientists easily using this criteria, many of them tenured who have to produce exploratory work. They often have no idea whether the produce actually works or is falsifiable, yet is a key part off their job.

The idea being i thought that we retain a large intellectual pool of mathematicians, in the Darwinist sense of sponsoring variety just for that time we might actually need an active pool of exploratory mathematicians keeping their skills sharp, and passing those skills on to others. It takes a long time to build up such a pool of genius intensity which is why we sponsor these people. So its there when we require it.

Darkchilde wrote:Sorry Brain Man, but did you really look at that book?

For one, it contains articles that have not passed peer review. Pitkanen's article is one of them. In fact, there are very few articles contained there that have gone through peer review. The problem is that those articles were not written specifically for that book, so, in this case, peer review matters.

Secondly, 90% of Pitkanen's references are his own work! And of those that aren't most have not been published and have not passed peer-review.

That book looks fishy. I cannot find it in print, seems that it exists only on Google Books or online. And one of the authors seems to have a record for fringe hypothesis. Read here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progress_in_Physics
http://www.mathematik.tu-darmstadt.de/~bruhn/toRabounski030508.html

Walter J Freeman one of the most respected neurophysicists of the late 20th century and regularly citied in university texts, yet rarely references anything but his own papers in his own papers.

Differences in field aside seeing as none of us are more qualified to judge Pitkanen's work, Freeman is socially skilled and gets on with people. Pitkanen does not. There are a lot of mathematicians who have awkward personalities and cannot deal with editors.

from progress in physics

""Owing to furtive jealousy and vested interest, modern science abhors open discussion and wilfully banishes those scientists who question the orthodox views. Very often, scientists of outstanding ability, who point out deficiencies in current theory or interpretation of data, are labelled as crackpots, so that their views can be conveniently ignored."

this happens a lot. The fact is that at that level most of these people can barely understand each others work. Reviewers cannot understand papers, and authors cannot deal with close minded reviewers who reject a paper because they do not understand it. their creative temperaments grind, they fall out and go independent. so what ?

Fringe means nothing. How much of todays science began as fringe ? The majority of these works you put here are by experienced and accomplished scientists far more qualified than yourself. Your sole criteria appears to be that they dont fit some kind of narrow view of behavior. If anything eccentric should indicate they may be highly original.

On top of this I have not seen you once anywhere in the most remote ballpark, technically critique these work you put in here.

I believe Pitkanen has a bona fide mathematical physics training/educational background. I don't think I'd be 100% confident in labelling him as a pseudoscientist, it's just that his work is so extremely left-field, it's impossible for mere mortals to penetrate.

twistor59 wrote:I believe Pitkanen has a bona fide mathematical physics training/educational background.

Indeed he is. Has a Phd in physics as I recall.

I don't think I'd be 100% confident in labelling him as a pseudoscientist, it's just that his work is so extremely left-field, it's impossible for mere mortals to penetrate.

Quite. It's also almost completely intractable for anyone not well versed in mathematics. As I said above, I've tried to read some of it but can't make out if all of that calculation, solid as it is in and of itself, really has anything to do with the real, observable world as Pitkänen claims. An actual matematician who has looked at his work seemed to be pretty much in agreement.

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

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.

tnjrp wrote:

twistor59 wrote:I believe Pitkanen has a bona fide mathematical physics training/educational background.

Indeed he is. Has a Phd in physics as I recall.

I don't think I'd be 100% confident in labelling him as a pseudoscientist, it's just that his work is so extremely left-field, it's impossible for mere mortals to penetrate.

Quite. It's also almost completely intractable for anyone not well versed in mathematics. As I said above, I've tried to read some of it but can't make out if all of that calculation, solid as it is in and of itself, really has anything to do with the real, observable world as Pitkänen claims. An actual matematician who has looked at his work seemed to be pretty much in agreement.

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

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. 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.

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.

did the OP put Matti's work here or was it moved ?

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

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?


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?

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.

tnjrp wrote:

Brain man wrote:

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.

Depending on local upbringing, some researchers will tend to do a lot of work and handwave if they think they are on to something, where as others will just drop pursuing a project if its not going to be easy to get a reward. Be it social approval from academia self satisfaction at reaching a stagepost where something that works is produced, patents etc.

In other words at any given time there are two broad categories of researchers.

type 1. Pure researchers who pursue tasks relentlessly on their own without monitoring social reward.
type 2. Opportunists who calculate their probability of a social reward before engaging.

If you read the history of any major or minor theory thats out there, you find the type 2 is good at stepping in to claim a groundswell of work from numerous unsuccessful type 1 that helped the state of affair get to that point, but were not good at playing the game of social realism. Not always but overall its broadly appearing like that. Try randomly pick a dozen theories then wiki the history of their development.

At any given time you can call a lot of the type disparaging names for not getting the reward from the world, or being crazy for not caring. That saying about not wishing to be the intellectual soil from which seeds grow drives the type 2 to disengage, and the type 1 to engage. The type 2 is "pure" researcher, because they aren't bound by everyday practical requirements to calculate a social return that nourish the average person. They are on a quest for their own satisfaction to understand the world as a priority. Its like a child's curiosity. Both types are required.

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?

sorry i dont get what you are saying about tenure here.

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?

Of course not. How often does evidence come from the get go ? How many of todays accepted ideas are intuitive in origin ? So matti could not finish what he started. So what ? Not everybody can complete every project. Does not make them a pseudo-scientist ? it makes them a scientist with a failed or stalled project.

if Garret Lisi's geometry approach turns out correct, then Matti was in the right ballpark and so stands a good chance of becoming referred to by historians as one of the type 1 players if geometric physics becomes a major branch of quantum physics. So we are starting to see a convergence occur to these geometric approaches which ought to tell you its not pseudoscience. And why not. What are these works but quantizations of reality, which we are already aware exist in the natural world. To what degree geometrical approaches can explain all reality is another question altogether. And yes in that sense Matti has got too carried away with himself, but thats all it is. Over-enthusiasm.

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.

So why did you feel so strongly as to post it here ?

I wont report it. They dont move posts out of pseudoscience. Ever (its a political labelling thing ) Theres examples a plenty here of science with problems, incomplete science, musings, works in progress... Using the label of pseudoscience for these kind of works, which matti's is means you contribute to denigrate the validity of the term pseudoscience.

Brain man wrote:

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?

sorry i dont get what you are saying about tenure here.

Sorry I misunderstood what you were implying. It seems it had something to do with where the researcher is schooled and not where he's tenured, if anywhere. I can't really comment on that I'm afraid as I have no experience with more than one university.

The point I was making is that somebody (other than Mr. Pitkänen himself + a few ardent fans who don't seem to be themselves physicists) should be interested in TGd by now even tho he isn't in the mainstream. It doesn't seem to be the case as far as I can tell.

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?

Of course not.

Ok, nice to be in agreement on the principle at least then.

How often does evidence come from the get go ? How many of todays accepted ideas are intuitive in origin ? So matti could not finish what he started. So what ?

You seem to have missed my mentioning that Mr. Pitkänen claims to have specific evidence, not all of it in the nature of his theory being able to explain the likes of the Shnoll effect, telepathy & the like where mainstream physics can't. He just doesn't seem to be very eager to provide it, instead relying on lenghty assertions when not going for "shut up and calculate".

Not everybody can complete every project. Does not make them a pseudo-scientist ?

Of course not. And I never claimed it does.

if Garret Lisi's geometry approach turns out correct

Bit of an "if" there ATM.

then Matti was in the right ballpark and so stands a good chance of becoming referred to by historians as one of the type 1 players if geometric physics becomes a major branch of quantum physics.

And another "if" there.

So we are starting to see a convergence occur to these geometric approaches which ought to tell you its not pseudoscience.

So can you explain better than Mr. Pitkänen himself in what way the Surfer Dude's approach converges with TGd? I do believe Pitkänen wrote something about it on his blog when Lisi was in the news but given TGd is rather intractable it's a bit of the case of needing to take him at his word. I could use a clarification and I'm sure other participants would be interested as well.

And yes in that sense Matti has got too carried away with himself, but thats all it is. Over-enthusiasm.

We have to disagree there then. I seem him purposefully stepping outside of the bounds of science to bolster his theory while, if TGd does have a core of merit (cannot be completely ruled out), he should very strongly concentrate on expanding on the basic physics aspect of it instead and should be able to do it better than saying that he believes M-theory to be "the worst waste of time in the history of science" or "they haven't found the Higgs boson yet, so there!"

Please note that I'm not claiming that an inability to focus makes him a pseudoscientist in and of itself.

So why did you feel so strongly as to post it here ?

TGd is an intermittenlty popular subject on Finnish Skeptics board where it's used to bolster fringe claims. This is why I maintain enough interest in it to talk about it with people who actually have a physics or mathematics background. As to why I posted it here specifically, I've already explained it more than once so repeating it again won't do a world of good I suspect.

I wont report it. They dont move posts out of pseudoscience. Ever (its a political labelling thing )

Can you cite, say, two or three examples where a move has been requested but "they" haven't complied? Not that I expect them to just do it at the drop of a hat every time, mind you.

Theres examples a plenty here of science with problems, incomplete science, musings, works in progress...

ORLY? zOMG!

(I hope you are not assuming I wasn't aware of this)

Using the label of pseudoscience for these kind of works, which matti's is means you contribute to denigrate the validity of the term pseudoscience.

You have the right to your opinion of course, even if you're wrong

tnjrp wrote:In the spirit of celebrating one of the biggest holidays of the year in Finland, Juhannus (that is, Midsummer Day), I present for your delicate perusal the rather against-Finnish-mainstream-physics alternative explanation for the functioning of universe, consciousness and pretty much everything... In other words, perhaps the longest running (the author's been at it for more than quarter of a century!) and most scientifically heavy weight local contender for the lofty position of Alternative Theory of Everything.

Ladies, gentlemen and assorted other forumites... Topological Geometrodynamics by Matti Pitkänen.

Should keep the mathematically inclined folks busy for day or two

Help! I'm snow-blind on syllables!

tnjrp wrote: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?

The point I was making is that somebody (other than Mr. Pitkänen himself + a few ardent fans who don't seem to be themselves physicists) should be interested in TGd by now even tho he isn't in the mainstream. It doesn't seem to be the case as far as I can tell.

Come on it does not work like that and you know it. In fact you said it "physics crowd". For him to be citied he would need to produce something precise and so entirely usable that his input would be indispensable to compensate for his freewheeling offbeat temperament. I have been reading Mattis PDFs from his book. He comes across as a scaled down Hofstadter. getting into anything and everything being pretty general but not focusing well. I picked out areas i know about such as neuro to judge him better.

for example here he reviews the respected Joe McFaddens work on EMF fields of the brain (chapter 7).

http://tgd.wippiespace.com/public_html/ ... prebio.pdf

Mattis solution to the problems of McFadden is magnetic flux to pass through cell membranes. this concurs with the work of 8 authors publishing regularly in respected journals in the past few years and a speedup occurring in this area. So in this one area i could understand Matti not only shows he can comprehend whats going on fully he predicts the state of the art well in advance.

Mattis work on consciousness is really just extending out the ideas of penrose and hameroff. Which are now in remission due to problems most of us know about. You dont call penrose and Hofstadter pseudoscience. Its free intellectual exploration. What about them discussing electromagnetic fields in microtubules in mitosis ? When this idea was first mentioned in the quantum biology crowd it was called ridiculous. I just read a pile of recent papers on cancer breakthroughs that are making the news. Papers from labs in Institutions. This new generation of researchers mention the importance of understanding the electromagnetic fields in mitosis through microtubules, as if it was old hat and there had never been a controversy.

That sequence about ridicule, violent opposition and acceptance as self evident is clearly at play in this case. time will tell if quantum effects are at play in DNA error correction.

You seem to have missed my mentioning that Mr. Pitkänen claims to have specific evidence, not all of it in the nature of his theory being able to explain the likes of the Shnoll effect, telepathy & the like where mainstream physics can't. He just doesn't seem to be very eager to provide it, instead relying on lenghty assertions when not going for "shut up and calculate".

I dont know about that. you would need to illustrate the interaction clearly. Maybe he couldnt get the result he wanted, maybe there was another problem. Lack of information here.

So can you explain better than Mr. Pitkänen himself in what way the Surfer Dude's approach converges with TGd? I do believe Pitkänen wrote something about it on his blog when Lisi was in the news but given TGd is rather intractable it's a bit of the case of needing to take him at his word. I could use a clarification and I'm sure other participants would be interested as well.

Interestingly Matti just posted this today.

http://matpitka.blogspot.com/2011/08/qu ... atics.html

He discusses the p-adic Lie group G, which can have a simplified representation of E8.



http://www.aimath.org/E8/representation.html

We have to disagree there then. I seem him purposefully stepping outside of the bounds of science to bolster his theory while, if TGd does have a core of merit (cannot be completely ruled out), he should very strongly concentrate on expanding on the basic physics aspect of it instead and should be able to do it better than saying that he believes M-theory to be "the worst waste of time in the history of science" or "they haven't found the Higgs boson yet, so there!"

I dont know. Maybe he has burned out or just realizes he cant finish his model and is retiring gracefully. In regards to those opinions, he has the same view in common with Lisi. A lot of people share this view of M-theory.

TGd is an intermittenlty popular subject on Finnish Skeptics board where it's used to bolster fringe claims. This is why I maintain enough interest in it to talk about it with people who actually have a physics or mathematics background. As to why I posted it here specifically, I've already explained it more than once so repeating it again won't do a world of good I suspect.

Ok i get it, clash of interests. Still using the word pseudoscience for that is out of context.

Can you cite, say, two or three examples where a move has been requested but "they" haven't complied? Not that I expect them to just do it at the drop of a hat every time, mind you.

Its a mod issue and i don't know if get a warning for discussing my PM's in open so will not mention these topics. But you can see the threads at the top of this section where i question the raionale. The mods will tell you i have been repeatedly trying to get several topics moved out of pseudoscience for over a year now. All emails have been ignored. Its not even open for discussion, which had me thinking there is some kind of disgust and enforcement politics kicking in.

i.e. Mods and other a few other voracious members see themselves as guardians, heroes even protecting the weak from impure information and so set themselves up as a cultural immune system where discussions are closed and to be fought against with dirty tricks if necessary. That in itself is denigrating and insulting to the members, and also the seeds for intellectual corruption. I cant prove it, but i suspect there has been leaking of private information from mods who have database access to some of members higher in the hierarchy. They are not only saying they know better than others, but have superior judgment and strength of character so require to set themselves up in these positions where they can do what they like, and don't ask questions or rock the boat.

Thats how it comes across. Yet engage them on the topic, thats got them acting like corrupt police and the depth is not there, the level of knowledge is substandard to Ok at best. Often they barely comprehend the works they denigrate which indicates the motives are more emotional-political in nature. Its really pretty amazing on one hand this is happening to science, but we shouldn't be surprised. The Internet has few of the structures, regulations, standards, ethics and procedure of our highly prized western institutions including science. All that took thousands of years, and a lot just got dropped. The transition has not been great in some ways. Good in others. One example. The journals moved to a profit system which prices information out of institutions. I have full access from two good universities and very often i cant read papers for this reason.

Every area of high endeavor can eventually be corrupted. We have seen this throughout history, its what humans do without lots of regulation. Why should science be any different ?

tnjrp wrote:
The point I was making is that somebody (other than Mr. Pitkänen himself + a few ardent fans who don't seem to be themselves physicists) should be interested in TGd by now even tho he isn't in the mainstream. It doesn't seem to be the case as far as I can tell.

A few ardent fans ? He has a following which is right up there with top bloggers like Carl zimmer. he gets equivalent number of comments. 7500 profile views for a free google blog is pretty high. I dont think thats a few people obsessively re-reading the one paragraph who wrote about himself.

And how can you tell how qualified his fans are exactly ? Their replies to him appear to be pretty technical points.

Whats the case here is that there is some kind of peevement going on here that Matti has any followers at all. Never mind this many.

Why ? A well known aspect of social psychology which i am sure you are aware. Well you might not be, it could be subconsious dislike of it. This aspect is the first follower effect. As soon as a lone theorist has a crowd of persistent first followers its the tipping stage to them gaining a mainstream entry/ and or at least signifies they are not isolated. It also says a lot as its notoriously difficult to get to first follower stage for any lone scientist in a hard area like physics. The majority of people working in institutions at high level have a problem getting this far.

What those outside the first follower crowd do is then try and label the first followers as defective. There are a wide range of reasons based on various anxieties for this which you can explain for yourself. i.e Why did you do all this ?

1. You try and minimize his product by post a thread on him called pseudoscience.
2. You try and minimize the quantity of his first followers.
3. You try and minimize the qualifications of his first followers.

Minimize, minimize, minimize. As i have shown all this is questionable, and so perhaps you should explain why you are so concerned to go to all this trouble. Care to actually get his work here and discuss it ?

Of course not, it might actually involve reading some of it.

I find his product pretty interesting. He can rattle of a post on just about any topic and re-synthesize it in such an interesting way into new directions without actually leaving the realm of hard science, i would say there is a hallmark of creative genius about this man.

Have you considered the way Matti re-integrates many different ideas then is quite willing to say he could be wrong, but heres an idea for you to think about might be the reason people follow his blog ? i.e. He actually produces something stimulating. Far more interesting than all those other science blogs that just cut and paste like they were still writing essays for university work.

http://www.rexresearch.com/roschin/pitkanen.pdf

an actual paper purely on the basis for TGD itself.