🚀 go-pugleaf

On Aug 9, 10:40 pm, postdoc4e...@gmail.com wrote:
> http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=762#comment-42541
>
> http://www.fqxi.org/large-grants/awardee/details/2008/baez says,
>
> "Dr. John Baez
> University of California at Riverside
>
> Project Title:
> Categorifying Fundamental Physics
>
> Summary:
> In ordinary mathematics, and physics as well, equations are
> fundamental. However, every equation is a half-truth: after all, if
> the two sides of the equation look different, why are we saying
> they're the same? 'Categorification' is a fancy name for coming clean
> on this issue: instead of merely saying that two things are the same,
> we specify a way of regarding them as the same.
>
> This has surprising consequences. For example, we usually think of
> quantities like energy as continuously variable, or 'analog'. Quantum
> mechanics shows there is a certain discreteness built into the world,
> but it still uses analog ideas. Using categorification, we can phrase
> large portions of quantum mechanics in a purely discrete way. We want
> to know how far we can push this.
>
> In addition to thinking about physics in new ways, we shall explore
> new methods of carrying out research. We intend to share not just our
> results, but the process by which we find them. We will do this by
> incorporating a wide range of multi-media into our research, including
> videos of lectures and seminars made publicly available online. "
>
> Good to see John Baez got some funding, but then again, FQXI is using
> Baez’s very own “crackpot index” as a metric by which to parcel out
> the two+ mil:
>
> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html
>
> Is it just me, or does Baez’s description seem somewhat snarky,
> especially in light of his crackpot index?
>
> Baez writes, “In ordinary mathematics, and physics as well, equations
> are fundamental. However, every equation is a half-truth: after all,
> if the two sides of the equation look different, why are we saying
> they’re the same? ‘Categorification’ is a fancy name for coming clean
> on this issue: instead of merely saying that two things are the same,
> we specify a way of regarding them as the same.”
>
> I guess we will find out what it means to “regard things as the same”
> when his youtube videos go live: “We will do this by incorporating a
> wide range of multi-media into our research, including videos of
> lectures and seminars made publicly available online.” Imagine that.
> Publicly-available video on line!
>
> Too bad Sesame Street already did this whole study on “two things
> being the same,” and also has the scientific genius to post it online
> in a publicly-available multi-media format, including video, words,
> categorification, and music:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZIvgQ9ik48

Baez is an absolute genius: a few months ago he was still the Great
Educator of Einsteiniana's zombies, then suddenly realized that
Einsteiniana was a failure, called the science he had taught
"schizophrenic" and is now making a lot of money by teaching the
following:

http://www.fqxi.org/large-grants/awardee/details/2008/baez
John Baez: "Instead of merely saying that two things are the same, we
specify a way of regarding them as the same."

John Baez' confession a few months ago:

http://www.edge.org/q2008/q08_5.html
John Baez: "On the one hand we have the Standard Model, which tries to
explain all the forces except gravity, and takes quantum mechanics
into account. On the other hand we have General Relativity, which
tries to explain gravity, and does not take quantum mechanics into
account. Both theories seem to be more or less on the right track —
but until we somehow fit them together, or completely discard one or
both, our picture of the world will be deeply schizophrenic.....I
realized I didn't have enough confidence in either theory to engage in
these heated debates. I also realized that there were other questions
to work on: questions where I could actually tell when I was on the
right track, questions where researchers cooperate more and fight
less. So, I eventually decided to quit working on quantum gravity."

The only problem is that Einsteiniana's zombies are still waiting for
John Baez to tell them what the photon's mass is:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/5f3d12021141e34c
John Baez, Oct 27 1995: "You can see that I did not assert anything
about the photon's mass.  I know what the photon's mass is, but I
never talk about it around here because the endless discussion of the
photon's mass is boring, boring, boring."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com