Physics is so far removed from everyday experience, common sense, human society, etc. that it's irrelevant who's doing the work in physics. Photons aren't concerned with who's Jewish.

The most popular conception of "Jewish physics" comes from the Nazis when they chased out Jewish physicists from all German schools after calling their work less Aryan for some reason that I don't remember.

The modern reality is that "Jewish physics" still exists through the extreme over-representation of Jews in academic physics and among Nobel prize winners in physics. It's just Jews being tribal Jews, which is nothing new.

Libs might call this racist, but at the same time, libs are retarded and came up with their own racist but more socially-acceptable concept of "white male science." The idea is probably even more racist than what the Nazis dreamed up to the extent that the concept is even coherent. But this is just lib academics jerking each other off into irrelevance.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5861154&forum_id=2.#49847763)

Can any of this be applied today? If the Nazis weren't so violent, we'd just call their "Jewish physics" naive, racist, and stupid. The reality is that a lot of modern physics, whether theoretical or experimental, is trash. Take the question of dark matter: tons of varied theoretical explanations with countless experiments finding absolutely nothing. This goes back to my original point: "Jewish physics" only exists as the extreme over-representation of Jews in the field.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5861154&forum_id=2.#49847854)

Also I agree Dark matter is complete bullshit. The constraints are derived from what the fluid needs to be to fit the observations, not from any underlying theory of what it is. The term that gets inserted into the stress-energy tensor models CDM as a perfect fluid, zero pressure, zero temperature. There is no evidence something like this could even exist in principle. To me this isn't Jewish Physics, it reminds me more of Caloric theory where it was inferred entirely from the phenomena it was invented to explain. Which was Birdshit folk-physics invented by Lavoisier who was obviously a genius and believed in it, but it was still fake.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5861154&forum_id=2.#49847934)

Another crazy story about Jewish Philosophy is Edmund Husserl. Heidegger was actually his student and Husserl was a big mentor of his, but when Husserl was accused of practicing Jewish Philosophy Heidegger, who was a Nazi, actually abandoned him completely. As rector of the University Heidegger had to even reinforce Husserl being stripped of his emeritus status and banned him from using the library.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5861154&forum_id=2.#49849694)

re: Heidegger, that's crazy

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5861154&forum_id=2.#49849712)

It's about Reference and connects to a broader idea that I was thinking about all throughout school. It's specifically arguing that a singular description (definite description, name, etc.) can have multiple Semantic Referents in the context of an utterance, specifically when the Justification for the utterance is mixed between different targets. It plays off of some of the classic Kripke and Donellan thought experiments like the ones about "Smith's murderer." It started as a seminar paper I wrote in my junior year but earlier this year I came back to it and made it way more technical. Barely had to touch the Positive Proposal as it has stood the test of time imo. Now the bulk of the argumentation is there but I still have to say a bit more about truth value implications, and I need to do a lot more reading to substantively situate my theory among contemporary ones. Then I need to do all the necessary rewriting once ALL of the ideas are on the page. So I've made a lot of progress but still have a long way to go.

What kind of stuff do you want to write about?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5861154&forum_id=2.#49849840)

I'm actually really not a big Kripke fan, I get that he was a math genius or whatever and invented an important modal logic. But a lot of his philosophical arguments are insane. I hate Naming and Necessity I think its idiotic. The entire thing was meant to refute descriptivism, but IMO ends up needing a hidden descriptivism at the metaphysical level to even get off the ground. I actually have a strong argument I was building up against it that I was thinking about a couple months ago about levels of description and their incommensurability that I'm not sure fully exists yet but i'd have to do a deep search to make sure I'm not just restating something. Maybe I'll try to write that one actually. The other position I have been trying to develop lately when I'm bored has to do with mathematical platonism.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5861154&forum_id=2.#49850331)

2. You havent looked at witten’s’early life’ have you

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5861154&forum_id=2.#49847907)

Witten was born on August 26, 1951, in Baltimore, Maryland, to a Jewish family,[8] as the eldest of four children. His brother Matt Witten became a writer, and his brother Jesse Amnon Witten became a law partner in the firm Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath.[9] Their sister Celia M. Witten earned a Ph.D. in mathematics from Stanford University[10] and then an M.D. from the University of Miami.[11] Edward Witten is the son of Lorraine (born Wollach) Witten[12] and Louis Witten, a theoretical physicist specializing in gravitation and general relativity.[13]

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5861154&forum_id=2.#49847947)

String theory isn't "just" theoretical -- it's a fantasy. You need a particle accelerator the size of the solar system to actually test the theory. It's not going anywhere and is a distraction beyond whatever accidental, ancillary discoveries that came with it.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5861154&forum_id=2.#49847989)

Einstein stole most of his ideas from Germans anyway.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5861154&forum_id=2.#49848113)

OK so what you said is crazy because I loved Naming and Necessity, it was the first philosophy I ever read and I was IMMEDIATELY HOOKED, it was sososo interesting and fun to read and think about... but I never agreed with any of it. And from how I'm interpreting "needing a hidden descriptivism at the metaphysical level to even get off the ground," I may have had v similar criticisms. And like I wasn't buying any of the counterfactual/conceivability-based thought experiments he had, honestly they didn't make sense to me because they seemed to rest on some underlying beliefs I didn't share or couldn't quite grasp. Counterfactuals in Metaphysics still confuse me so maybe it's a skill issue.

Tell me MOAR about both "levels of description and their incommensurability" and the mathematical platonism idea.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5861154&forum_id=2.#49850414)

To me my first intuition would be to say that the H2O abstraction is a modeling artifact. It is a specific representation used by classical structural chemistry and early 20th century valence theory that was useful for certain purposes but got reified into an ontological category. The formula doesn't describe a natural object, it describes the output of a particular theoretical lens applied to a particular scale of interaction. At thermodynamic scales you have to talk about hydrogen bonding networks, at quantum scales the orbitals don't belong to atoms the way the formula implies. So there is already a big problem there between levels of description and what the representation is supposedly referring to.

Then to really twist the knife think about the following: imagine there is an alien civilization that has physics and chemistry as advanced or more advanced than us but they have a totally different path of discovery and totally different perceptual and cognitive machinery--well at least similar enough to have thoughts and representation and science and tech but deeply divergent because they are adapted to a totally different environment. I think its unlikely they would ever even converge on the idea of "h2o" or something that looks remotely equivalent. They might jump directly to representing it as something like bond topology and represent water as a specific graph invariant or maybe as symmetry group transformations or as an equilibrium point or attractor in a specific dynamical system or something even weirder we might not have the concepts for yet. Kripke seems like he'd have to say that the aliens, if they're really referring to the same stuff, will converge on H2O as the underlying nature. But this assumes that there is a single underlying nature, that scientific inquiry has a unique terminus toward which all civilizations converge, and that this terminus is what reference was tracking all along. Number 3 is completely insane to me because its implying that our ancestors use of "water" was about H2O even before chemistry. So he needs the reference to reach backwards through time to grab a description noone had heard of yet. Then I have a more general principle that I use to connect these two things that feel like two separate arguments that happen to be adjacent.

Oh yeah another thing, its implicit in what I said but probably needs to be made explicit, the main objection to what I said is that Kripke distinguishes from epistemic and metaphysical necessity and would claim the alien's description and our H2O description are both about the same underlying essence even if they don't recognize each other. But that makes the essence completely ungrounded. If no possible representational system is guaranteed to converge on it, if it's compatible with arbitrarily many incommensurable descriptions, then the "underlying essence" is doing no explanatory work whatsoever. If the logic is that "water" was always already referring to H2O even before anyone knew about H2O, because that's the underlying essence it was tracking then by exactly the same logic "water" was always already referring to the quantum field configuration, the hydrogen bond network topology and so on.

Oh yeah one more thing I forgot to mention was this hidden descriptivism charge. Thats contained in what I said even if I didn't explicitly get to it. To say H2O is the essence of water you have to already have a framework that says molecular composition is the right kind of property to be an essence which is a theoretical commitment. So it basically is smuggling in a privileged description at the metaphysical level. To say molecular composition must already be privileged as the metaphysically relevant level of description is the kind of descriptive theoretical commitment the causal-historical theory of reference was supposed to make unnecessary in the first place.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5861154&forum_id=2.#49850450)

Almost positive I argued at some point in college against the a priori vs. a posteriori distinction existing.

I 10000% agree with your last para summarizing the hidden descriptivism.

Honestly IMO you should put real philosophy on Substack in addition to the AI intellectual ragebait. I'm sure with the right tags and stuff you could get a lot of engagement.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5861154&forum_id=2.#49850530)