This is just a holding post. Already in my previous post on Carlo Rovelli, I was overdue a fuller review. Since then I’ve been reading Sean Carroll, and finding myself reading backwards, from the index of key topics and chapter headings. The reality is that every current philosophical physicist I read, I find enormous implicit overlap and reinforcement of fundamental models of physics despite explicit competitive disagreement. The critical half of thinking seems to win out in “scientists still haven’t agreed on xxx” whereas a synthetic view suggests enormous deep agreement – on things NOT recognised in accepted authoritative interpretations of the Standard Model and Core Theory of physics.
I’m musing on the idea that a simple matrix, polling who supports which concepts, might lay the points bare more clearly than more prosaic words on the topic(s). Roughly, physics effectively needs a metaphysical reboot from a different starting-point on Quantum Gravity and Emergent Time. Defence of existing bases (ie politics) is leading to supernatural denial of available rational natural explanations (ie science).
Anyway what I need to do is a summary of my recent readings of:
- Sean Carroll (“The Big Picture“)
- Carlo Rovelli (“The Order of Time” and “Reality is Not What it Seems“)
- David Deutsch(“The Beginning of Infinity” and “The Fabric of Reality“)
- Erik Verlinde (Not yet published, and existing presentations and articles)
- Sabine Hossenfelder (“Lost in Math” not yet read, and existing articles and papers)
- Max Tegmark, Lee Smolin and many others (previously read and blogged about on Psybertron)
- Rick Ryals (fellow traveller physicist on social media etc.)
And no, sorry to disappoint, The Matrix reference has nothing to do with a fictional parallel reality, just a means of presentation and organisation
– aka “For the love of spreadsheets.”
Also published on Medium.