[_Nat_]

Those 9-lines don't imply all of physics. They don't even mention most of physics. A lesser problem is that they're not correct, either.

For example, Line-5 suggests that entropy is never below the Boltzmann-constant. Which simply isn't true; there're notions of zero-entropy, where zero is less than the Boltzmann-constant.

For another example, Line-2 suggests that nature itself is local; this would contradict non-local effects, e.g. entanglement, and would seem to prohibit faster-than-light recession.

Or, maybe those lines were meant in a way that doesn't have those problems? But maybe they have different problems? Who knows! -- which is the bigger problem.

This is usually described as ["not even wrong"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong ). Because, to be wrong, it'd have to make more sense first.

[PrettyPebble]

Of course the 9 lines imply all of physics. Just mention a part of physics that is missing, and I'll buy you a beer.

"Zero entropy" is indeed against the laws of physics - in this universe. It may be different in other universes.

Line 2 does not speak about locality, but about the speed of light. Entanglement does not violate the speed of light - in this universe. It may be different in other universes.

If you know what a Lagrangian is - in quantum theory, in quantum field theory, in the standard model and in general relativity - you also know that there is no random interpretation in the 9 lines.

[_Nat_]

There's no Lagrangian in those 9-lines. Nor is there Quantum-Theory, nor the Standard-Model, nor General-Relativity. Nor is science there, really.

Which is kinda my point -- those 9-lines aren't all of science.. unless, I guess, if you assume that all of science is a given. But then, why even have 9-lines when 0-lines could do?

Then it's hard to avoid critiques because there're obvious flaws. For example, yes, there're totally productive notions of zero-entropy -- even if not in the models you're used to. For another example, macroscale-constants haven't been demonstrated to emerge from the Standard-Model -- for example, it hasn't been demonstrated that astronomical-scale measurements aren't influenced by unknown factors, such as many-body forces, which might cause results that'd differ from those predicted by the Standard-Model. And since we can measure some of those things not known to emerge from the Standard-Model, the idea that the Standard-Model captures everything -- including those things not known to emerge from it -- doesn't follow.

But then that seems to be getting off-topic, because while there'd seem to be many things off about this, the one I'd really stress is that those 9-lines don't contain what they claim to.

[blablabla123]

I can see how this is almost offensive to the whole subject of Experimental Physics since it ignores all of it - and for that matter Solid State Physics as well. But for Theoretical Physics (minus Mathematical Physics) it seemed to me almost like a sport where professors tried to boil the theory down to a minimal set of assumptions while taking symmetry arguments to the extreme. Obviously this doesn't contain any QM postulates but OTOH for practical purposes QFT is what many people use to compare theory with predictions. IMHO Theoretical Physics without Experimental Physics is useless and vice-versa. And there isn't much research going on with QM (despite plenty of open questions)

[PrettyPebble]

In physics, experiments are everything. That is why the page says: "No known observation contradicts these nine lines."

Indeed, it is a sport to boil down everything to a smallest set of assumptions. That is how the nine lines arose.