|
|
|
|
|
by _Nat_
1549 days ago
|
|
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. |
|