[Krei-se]

i have a similar background to OP and went into physics mostly by accident learning geometric algebra, so i wonder why it's shunned skipping the deductive concepts you have to forget/correct later anyways - for me it makes a lot more sense building from the most abstract ground i can barely stand on.

[godelski]

Mostly because it is like trying to teach people how to swim in the deep end. It's definitely possible but not a great idea for the majority of people.

Do you really want to start learning physics from String Theory? You could, but it isn't a great idea. Even if you replace ST with an alternative proposed ToE.

[Krei-se]

Thanks for answering and: Valid point. I like about GA that it's not initially presented with the "added note" other theories are contradicting already with it which is giving me a hard time learning physics so far.

So to answer the question: Well, i think if you come with relational database experience which is n-dim - learning string theory first is ... not that stupid. Maybe encouraging people to try this route would be better than forcing them to take the whole curriculum.

Taking discreet numbers as common ground GA provides a stable scaffolding - i think in terms of a finite state machine getting stuff on a screen it's fair to say it's the right tool for that job in this constrained environment.

I also dabbled with scattering amplitudes, but from what i understand so far it's similar to what category theory is in math: Structure before even agreeing on (countable, etc.) sets.

I'm always open for dialog on these and like digging to solid grounds, still i think it makes sense to take a look at the environment then agree on a common ground to build from.

In medicine this can be biochemistry and in computer aided rendering i think OPs "first" principles are not that far off.

[godelski]

  > learning string theory first is ... not that stupid

I disagree, it would be stupid to start with ST. I think you're making judgements without fully understanding what the conclusions entail. This requires so much more complexity that doesn't matter for 99.9% of things. We leverage emergence because it allows us to drop complexity at different levels.

For a different look maybe check out Wolfram's Metamathematics, since it's arguably a candidate for a ToE. Or think about learning math by stating at ZF set theory. I think you might think this is fine at the beginning but are going to quickly hit a wall.

And remember that GA also has lots of limitations. Don't forget that just because you're advancing doesn't mean you've gotten to the beginning.

[Krei-se]

Thanks a lot for again answering, i'm always open to correction and further hints. Wolfram Metamethematics sounds really cool and captures what i think about structure before data - i'll certainly have a look and try to bridge it to my category theory understanding.

I wrote an n-dim engine based on graphs -> 4D tree -> rendering you might like as it would basically support any ruleset and honestly after getting there orientation personal for me died down so maybe me talking without not much academic background is a way to find further pointers.

The choice of words for "first principles" is misleading, granted, but the discussion about what these are might be less fruitful than encouraging the author to stay at it and keep it constructive criticism.