[irickt]

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=6551

>>> Tegmark’s career is a rather unusual story, mixing reputable science with an increasingly strong taste for grandiose nonsense. In this book he indulges his inner crank, describing in detail an utterly empty vision of the “ultimate nature of reality.”

[djtriptych]

Unless this vision can be directly disproven, why should anyone attach labels like "grandiose" or "nonsense" or "empty"?

[irickt]

It's a fair question. The quote is one reviewer's opinion. I posted it without explanation as context for the paper.

A more neutral warning is that Tegmark has moved from conventional science towards untestable speculation. That and the fact that he has cultivated funding sources more aligned with the occult than with science has left many of his peers seemingly resentful.

[abritinthebay]

That's the exact opposite of the correct approach.

Unless it can be proven (and he doesn't, at all, prove his case) then there is no reason to not describe it as such.

(Grandiose is the exception - that's a stylistic judgement and quite apt here, irrespective of its truth value)

[derrickdirge]

Can you think of something that's sufficiently 'disproven' so as to make those labels appropriate?

[dafash]

One has to pay attention very closely to Mr. Tegmark's presentations. He will state very eloquently a number of facts, and then slip in subtly a very important fundamental assumption upon which all of his subsequent statements are built.

[omarchowdhury]

Hey let me know your email if you'd like to talk about how LSD is affecting your life after it opened a spiritual realm for you as you said.