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 · yt0.786

   You can collect evidence forever, any kind  of empirical evidence you could ever imagine. And   the idea of that not being enough to pin down  what the universe is like, that's something   that naturally pops up in theories of space and  time. So I don't think GR is special here. I think   you can prove a similar kind of theorem pretty  much in any space-time theory that's modeled on   a manifold with geometric structures on it.  So a Newtonian version of space-time physics,   you'd have similar results there. So I&nbsp…

   yt/iGOGxaZZHwE-it-s-not-that-we-don-t-know-it-s-that-we-can-t/transcript.txt

2. 02 · yt0.781

   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

3. 03 · yt0.766

   Where he was under house arrest in Florence. Thank you for taking me there. Um, what I would say is the problem is the following. Imagine you go to a seminar in theoretical physics. It might begin with the following world words. I'd like to thank everybody for coming. Let us assume uh that X1 comma 3 is a space-time manifold. As soon as you've said that, the game is already over. You can't do physics at the deepest level after you've said those words. In my opinion, the problem is Einstein baked in this assumption of a space-time metric at such a fundamental level that we can't actually do any…

   yt/BVkUya368Es-why-people-are-terrified-of-eric-weinstein-s-geometric-unity/transcript.txt

4. 04 · yt0.762

   I accept general relativity,  but everything we do is slightly wrong. We call,   we call Pati-Salam by the wrong name. We have  the wrong grand unified real forms of the group.   SU five is really SU three comma, uh, SU three  comma two. SO 10 is really spin 10 and spin 10   is really spin six comma four. Like the amount of  wear and tear on the mind to hear somebody say,   no, no, no. I accept all these things, but  we've, we've minorly got everything shifted. I   think there's a huge barrier to entry in Geo. But …

   yt/ILlhFKuu3NQ-geometric-unity-unifying-all-forces-generations-eric-weinste/transcript.txt

5. 05 · _intake0.759

   > 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

6. 06 · yt0.755

   Therefore, you're working in two realms. You have the You have the quantum realm, but then the measuring system is in another realm. Yeah. level up, right? And and then not only that, but the measuring equipment has been designed and that's a level up. And then it's being utilized by that level, which is a level up from that. So, so just by virtue of the the the whole system of measuring, you can see that there is a hierarchy. It's not flat, right? Is that Is that partly what you're saying? You You've got the point perfectly and you've expressed it perfectly. Exactly. Um the cosmos is hierarch…

   yt/8NWHGX53agc-dr-wolfgang-smith-renowned-physicist-on-vertical-causation-i/transcript.txt

7. 07 · yt0.753

   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 · blog0.750

   For a brief introduction to manifolds and the spacetime view, see the section on modern spacetime theories in the entry on the hole argument in this Encyclopedia. For more detail with minimal technical demands the reader should see the first four chapters of Geroch (1978) or the more demanding chapter 2 of Friedman (1983). For our purposes, the defining feature of a manifold that is a Newtonian spacetime is that the temporal interval between any two points or events in the spacetime, \(p\) and \(q\), is a well-defined quantity. This quantity is well-defined in that it does not depend upon poin…

   blog/plato-stanford-edu/being-and-becoming-in-modern-physics.md

9. 09 · yt0.748

   And then how and why is what  we would call the equations in the Lagrangian.   And so that's a pretty good idea about how to  remember how a physicist thinks about reality at   the deepest level. Tell me where it's going on.  Tell me what the equipment and the players is,   are, and tell me what the rules are and what the  consequences are. So basically geometric unity   says that we have this wrong, not wildly wrong  in the sense of I can't connect it. It's very   connected to what I'm claiming and what Einstein  …

   yt/ILlhFKuu3NQ-geometric-unity-unifying-all-forces-generations-eric-weinste/transcript.txt

10. 10 · yt0.745

    Uh whereas contemporary uh, physics and its reductionism, uh, but also our understanding of number, uh, seems to me to be to have a more, um, additive character in which wholeness is something that is achieved by the addition of parts, right? Rather than preceding the parts, where parts would be instead a division from the whole. Is this Do you Do you follow my distinction here? Yes, I uh, what you have touched upon here is, in my opinion, very, very central to the entire problem of uh, of ontology, namely the Platonist and the Pythagorean schools looked upon mathematics in a completely differ…

    yt/V_ZWBkSNMFg-platonic-physics-in-dialogue-with-wolfgang-smith/transcript.txt