>watch recent interview with edward witten>he starts talking for 20 minutes about his views on consciousnessso this is why physics didn't advance since the 70s? because the scientists have moved on to researching about philosophy and /x/ rated topics?https://youtu.be/sAbP0magTVY
>>16919200different size feet; unsubscribed
In a year or 2 gauge theory and string will be completely overthrown t. knower
>>16919238Just two more weeks!
>>16919238By who/what and how? And what do you even meab by overthrown.
>>16919337who: indiewhat and how: new framework for interpretationoverthrown: demoted to effective theory status (not even wrong but less) gauge stays as redundancy bookkeeping, strings stay as a useful duality, but neither is fundamental, keyword constraint->compaction, ss this
>>16919200>he starts talking for 20 minutes about his views on consciousnessHonestly, anyone as smart as he is would be stupid NOT to focus on this.Physics is not something that we have now any particular reason to believe will benefit greatly from deeper work on core theories. We can't rule out that there will be more serious breakthroughs, but it's the kind of subject where a lot of people keep working in it because it's been the smart, fundamental prestige science for high IQ people for the past few centuries, rather than because there's any need right now to reinvent quantum mechanics.Cognitive science on the other hand is THE vanguard of the current day. We are finally, just now, making serious progress into understanding how thinking as we know it is actually possible (via AI, neuroscience, philosophy and other approaches) and so any forward thinking, ambitious person has every reason to throw themselves out there trying to gain insight into this very novel and accelerating frontier that we still know barely anything fundamental about, despite it being a core object of study that humanity has barely been able to crack for thousands of years. And yes, for the sake of this subject, philosophy absolutely should be taken seriously (given there is no way to 'objectively measure' the contents of conscious), and acting otherwise is intellectual hangup on your part.Seeing theorizing about cognition as something essentially schizo while physics as a permanently more serious subject is backwards thinking. Especially so given the former is more valuable to work on *precisely* due to the current lack of good theories that would allow solid predictions to be made about it, in spite of the practical progress being made.
>>16919395>who: indieI hope this indie is not a hindi
