Corpus evidence — top 10 passages

Most-relevant passages from the entire indexed corpus (67,286 paragraph chunks across YouTube transcripts, PubMed, arXiv, archive.org, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, OpenAlex, and more) ranked by semantic similarity (bge-small-en-v1.5).

1. 01 · _intake0.979

   > ideas and intuitions and so on. I always think we need to rely on nature giving us a hint. Uh-huh. Because theory space is infinite dimensional. And if you tip with your finger somewhere and you say, “oh, the metric may be non-symmetric.” Einstein did that, right? I mean, Einstein in his later years, he fanatically looked for the inclusion of Maxwell theory into the geometric framework

   _intake/claims-allbranch/curated-low/einstein/002-ideas-and-intuitions-and-so-on.md

2. 02 · _intake0.890

   > that you say Maxwell theory is correct. Right? And so I think seeing through one idea can open doors. Yeah, so that's what I mean by it's a modest idea. One can make many constructions and ideas and intuitions and so on. I always think we need to rely on nature giving us a hint. Uh-huh. Because theory space is infinite dimensional. And if you tip with your finger somewhere and you say,

   _intake/claims-allbranch/curated-low/maxwell/001-that-you-say-maxwell-theory-is-correct.md

3. 03 · yt0.865

   Actually, Schrödinger did that,   right? Schrödinger had a modified idea. Again,  Schrödinger had an idea of modified gravity.   And he said, “no, no, no, no. Einstein does  these non-symmetric metrics. But actually,   a deeper structural concept than the  metric is the connection.” And there   are connections that come from a metric, and  they're more general connections, right? So,   that was Schrödinger's idea. Actually, a wonderful  book by Schrödinger, Space-Time Structure.   A very beautiful, thin book o…

   yt/Bnh-UNrxYZg-frederic-schuller-the-physicist-who-derived-gravity-from-ele/transcript.txt

4. 04 · yt0.861

   I mean, Einstein in his later   years, he fanatically looked for the inclusion  of Maxwell theory into the geometric framework   of general relativity. And of course, we  had Kaluza-Klein, all these nice things,   all very nice, but ultimately it doesn't work.  So far, we think. Einstein didn't find it. So,   once Einstein, let's take Einstein also as  a counterexample in a sense, once he started   thinking in this formal way and had an idea we  could include this here, that didn't work so much   anymore. I th…

   yt/Bnh-UNrxYZg-frederic-schuller-the-physicist-who-derived-gravity-from-ele/transcript.txt

5. 05 · yt0.856

   How do we know that this isn't just pure mathematics? And that would take us into a wonderful conversation along the lines of the material that we just discussed. So yeah, I think he would warm to these ideas pretty quickly. Do you think we're sort of in the realm of philosophy here? One of the criticisms that I see of string theory as somebody who doesn't understand the first thing about it is that because of this lack of experimental data, you can say that in principle it could be tested. But there are all kinds of philosophical theories that in principle we could test. Ideas about personal …

   yt/o9z5il_FQUw-string-theory-multiverse-and-divine-design-brian-greene/transcript.txt

6. 06 · yt0.847

   So I mean I'm fond of taking that line of discussion too but I think of it more as a postdiction rather than a prediction for the very reason that you mentioned. We've known about gravity. Isaac Newton wrote down a mathematical understanding of gravity. But if you imagine a counterfactual universe for instance a universe in which there was no Einstein and we did not have Einstein's general theory of relativity and yet somehow people came upon string theory and they began to study the mathematics of string theory within the math of string theory a clever string theorist would extract the genera…

   yt/o9z5il_FQUw-string-theory-multiverse-and-divine-design-brian-greene/transcript.txt

7. 07 · yt0.839

   It's just the model. The point is, we are prepared for something that  hasn't happened yet, right? If somebody sees   matter that cannot have due to their behavior  a Lorentzian background but you would then,   phenomenologists would pretty quickly figure out  what may be the simplest background that could do   that, then the question comes up, but what's the  action for that background? It can't be Einstein,   right? Einstein is for a Lorentzian metric  or a metric in general. But then you would   try to solve our equa…

   yt/Bnh-UNrxYZg-frederic-schuller-the-physicist-who-derived-gravity-from-ele/transcript.txt

8. 08 · blog0.839

   Cassirer argues that Einstein’s theory in fact stands as a brilliant confirmation of this conception. On the one hand, the increasing use of abstract mathematical representations in Einstein’s theory entirely supports the attack on Aristotelian abstractionism and philosophical empiricism. On the other hand, however, Einstein’s use of non-Euclidean geometry presents no obstacle at all to our purified and generalized form of (neo-)Kantianism. For we no longer require that any particular mathematical structure be fixed for all time, but only that the historical-developmental sequence of such stru…

   blog/plato-stanford-edu/ernst-cassirer.md

9. 09 · yt0.834

   So Einstein comes along and says, "Well, okay, can I make a version of Newton's theory of gravity that is compatible with my new theory of special relativity?" And after trying, he said, "No, I can't." You have to do something much more dramatic. And what he realized is that gravity is a special force of nature. You know, Maxwell talks about electricity and magnetism. If I wanna know what the electric field is at one point in space, it's very easy to do. I put a positively charged particle, a negatively charged particle, they get pushed in opposite directions by the electric field. But Einstei…

   yt/_TBNJyztai0-sean-carroll-explains-the-biggest-ideas-in-the-universe-full/transcript.txt

10. 10 · yt0.832

    And the problem is that even though quantum mechanics works incredibly well in the micro domain and general relativity works incredibly well in the macro domain, whenever you try to put the two mathematical theories together, it breaks down. When you do any calculation that blends the math of quantum mechanics and the math of general relativity, you get one single answer. And that answer is infinity. And infinity might sound well that's kind of you know cool and poetic sounding but it's nonsensical in the context of physics. There's no quantity that you can measure that's ever infinity. So inf…

    yt/o9z5il_FQUw-string-theory-multiverse-and-divine-design-brian-greene/transcript.txt