>>11849367In my opinion, this is a good and valid point, and Dirac cites a clear example. However, it can also easily be used to prove too much, obviously. Anyone can come up with a number of elegant theories to describe the universe: the question is how to know which are right? You can't really compare them by "elegance/simplicity".
Forget the whole peer review and paper publication thing. He has a huge online platform. He can make a write-up - even a somewhat informal one - and link it on his website. It would be very easy.
It's still not clear to me exactly why he hasn't done this after many years. He dismisses people's requests for a paper and says he's explained the hypothesis in videos, which he kind of has, but it still seems very fuzzy. Even if he doesn't have a full grasp of the exact math of it yet and just wants to share the elegant framework of the idea, he can still write... *something*, can't he? Something that can be read and responded to point-by-point.
Bret wrote and released a paper, even though it was rejected by journals that probably should've taken it and possibly didn't take it due to the influence of Greider (it very easily could've been for other reasons, but seems plausible, if his story is accurate). He also pushed hard in this podcast about Eric calling it a "theory"; Bret insisted it was just a hypothesis (which it is), and Eric refused to accept that and maintained that it's a theory and he'll keep calling it a theory.
I truly do think he's very intelligent and insightful when it comes to many domains, including even math and physics, but when it comes to this theory of everything, he's really starting to look more and more like a physics crank.
