Edge question for 2006 (Lee Smolin's answer)

  • Thread starter Thread starter marcus
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Edge
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The forum discussion centers on the concept of "dangerous ideas" as posed by Edge magazine, specifically through the lens of physicists Lee Smolin, Carlo Rovelli, and Leonard Susskind. Participants debate the interpretation of "dangerous" in the context of revolutionary scientific ideas, with Smolin advocating for the application of Darwinian principles to physics and Rovelli providing a rebuttal to concepts like the Landscape. The conversation highlights the tension between radical ideas and their implications for understanding the universe, emphasizing the role of Category Theory in advancing relationalism in physics.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of "dangerous ideas" in scientific discourse
  • Familiarity with the works of Lee Smolin, Carlo Rovelli, and Leonard Susskind
  • Basic knowledge of Category Theory and its applications in physics
  • Awareness of the Landscape concept in string theory
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the implications of Darwinian principles in physics as discussed by Lee Smolin
  • Explore the critiques of the Landscape concept in string theory
  • Study the fundamentals of Category Theory and its relevance to relationalism
  • Investigate the historical context of "dangerous ideas" in science, including the Copernican and Darwinian revolutions
USEFUL FOR

The discussion is beneficial for theoretical physicists, philosophers of science, and anyone interested in the intersection of radical scientific ideas and their societal implications.

  • #31
Kea said:
I have been browsing the Edge essays. Quite a number of non-physicists are saying something about physics. Have a look at the essay by Donald Hoffman, a cognitive scientist, entitled
A spoon is like a headache

http://www.edge.org/q2006/q06_3.html

:smile:

YES!..some really interesting essays, I have nearly completed reading them all(though I started reading some, and had to re-read them again:eek: )

What is pretty obvious is that there a number of emminent people not being asked?..for instance:Penrose-Baez-Weinberg-Close..to name just four who I would love to have been really interesting in hearing their comments?

That does not demean the authors who have been asked, there are still a wealth of amazing essays, something I will be going back to over the next couple of months no doubt.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Graduate Susskind/Steinhardt/Smolin discussion at Edge
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
6K
Edge: THE WORLD QUESTION CENTER 2011
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Graduate Foundations of physics Special Issue: Forty Years of String Theory
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Lee Smolin and Brian Greene on Science Friday show
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
5K
Graduate Michael Dine: Is There a String Theory Landscape
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
5K
Graduate RIP Chen Ning Yang (1922-2025)
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Graduate Gamma ray burst, LQG and String Theory
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Graduate Recent Activity in Smolin/Polchinski Discussion on String Theory Validity
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
5K
Graduate Max Tegmark, Lee Smolin-polite conversation at Peter's
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
8K
Graduate Smolin letter to a string believer
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
7K