>>11865719>I gave you a kid gloves video. I understood what he was trying to say. That's not the problem. The problem is a video isn't the same as a paper. I skimmed through it because it seemed very word salad-y and, again, fuzzy and not concrete. Papers are concrete and can be critiqued.
It's the same with Eric Weinstein's Geometric Unity theory. There's no reason he can't put out a paper. His argument is that he doesn't have the math exactly quite right and that the important part is more the elegance of the theory, but even if so, he can still put some kind of write-up.
Wolfram's automata theories are also interesting and verge into similar realms, but avoid the egregious problems here by 1) making it clear he is not certain in this theory and just finds it an elegant and simple model, and 2) wrote up the idea with lots of words and visuals and formulas. Even if his theory has little or no relation to actual reality (which I think is probably the case, but who knows), at least he's making an effort and isn't completely delusional.
>We have ALREADY been peer reviewed by dark web. What part of the "dark web"? What did they review, if there's no paper? What's the name of the model?
>if you don't know about it, that's only because YOU are not elite enough. WE ARE the elite. You sure are. You, the elites, are suppressing knowledge by not letting us mere /sci/ mortals see any details. You're hiding this information from us, because you think you're smarter and better than us. You allege this bullshit conspiracy theory and then go and do the thing you're claiming to criticize.
You're projecting your hatred towards non-existent "elites" because you so desperately desire to be one yourself, but were probably born poor, sad, and mentally ill in a shitty country to shitty parents, so this is the only way you can feel that feeling of elitism.
>>11865719>The most high profile fellow from the Institute for Advanced StudySo high-profile he has no name?
