attention dr. mmcirvin

[rone]

I seek your opinion on Garrett Lisi's "An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything" (other physicists or physics fans are welcome to chime in).  Thanks to venividi for bringing it to my attention.

Comments

[eb-oesch.livejournal.com]

I am neither physicist nor "physics fan", but perhaps it is no handicap that I have not mastered the tools with which the physicist oppresses his own imagination.

Why do we expect simple laws of attraction? If we cannot understand human love, how can we expect to understand the relationships of objects whose size and scale are beyond human conception? Yes -- I tell you that atoms and galaxies know love! Nothing could be simpler, yet more complex. Existence without love is not existence, and galaxies exist indeed (though I am not sure about George Bush). But why do we expect physicists, of all people, to understand such things? Newton never married; Einstein was divorced!

"Falsifiability" is held as a great virtue in physics, but why should a tendency towards wrongness be held a virtue? I tell you that my expositions of the natural order are correct now and will remain correct a million years from now, and I defy you to ever prove otherwise! Are not physicists' continued refinements and revisions mere proof of their failure? Picasso did not find it necessary to correct his paintings decades later!

Finally, I read in these comments about such ugliness between this "Lisi" and this "Motl" and this "Woit" -- knowing that truth is beauty, how can these physicists fail to understand that they are on the wrong path?