As did I. I'm gonna assume Tomas or his copy-editor is just overwhelmingly busy (or generically blame AI software ;p) - Happy Holidays Tomas... thanks for the always insightful reads
Most of your subjects are super interesting. I'll tell you about a problem that I am wrestling with that I believe deserves your analysis.
Many prominent physicists, including Nobel laureate Gerard 't Hooft in a 2021 paper, have stated that fundamental physics needs new ideas.
Yet paradoxically, while the field calls for revolutionary thinking, the institutional structures actively resist it. I've experienced this first-hand trying to get feedback on my theoretical work in physics, but the problem goes far beyond my personal case.
As I see it, the system faces two interlinked challenges:
1. Individual level: Professional physicists cannot afford to engage with outside theories, regardless of merit, due to reputational risks and career incentives that reward incremental progress.
2. Institutional level: There's no mechanism to effectively evaluate potentially revolutionary ideas while filtering out genuine pseudoscience.
This creates a catch-22 where new ideas need credibility to get attention, but can't gain credibility without attention. Even 't Hooft, despite his Nobel Prize protection, carefully positions his unorthodox views to avoid being dismissed as "crackpot" thinking.
This seems like a perfect topic for your analysis: How do we design institutions that can both maintain scientific rigor and create safe spaces for evaluating revolutionary ideas? The current system appears optimised for incremental progress at the expense of potential paradigm shifts.
How many potentially valuable ideas are we missing because our institutions lack the mechanisms to properly evaluate them?
You should look up Metascience. That’s the field you’re talking about.
Patrick Collison and the Ark Institute are doing interesting stuff in the space. As is the Institute for Progress.
It’s a hard topic and I’m not expecting to tackle it soon because I don’t think my audience would be very interested in it. I also find in general governance to be a dry topic, so the stakes need to be extremely hard to counterbalance.
Thanks for those references. While metascience is studying the systemic problem, I'm still wrestling with my immediate situation: having developed what I believe are worthwhile ideas in physics (specifically about multiple time dimensions), I'm finding it nearly impossible to get meaningful feedback from the physics community.
I've tried local universities, written papers, created a website, and started a YouTube channel (which has grown from 650 to 2300 subscribers last week). While some physicists have been privately encouraging, none will publicly engage with the ideas.
Since you often write about innovation and how ideas spread, do you (or any of my fellow subscribers) have any practical advice for someone in my position?
You provide some of the best journalism I know of.
I repeat myself here, but you really, really need an index of all your contents, hierarchically sorted. Much easier to link as a recommendation and to follow your overarching post themes/storylines this way.
I've been thinking a lot about why some places didn't have great civilizations. For example, why was the region around Rio de la Plata not the birthplace of a great civilization? Taking into account some of the factors you've mentioned throughout your articles, they have access to navigable rivers and the ocean, they have rich soil, they have great climate and they have countless species (animal and vegetable) that could have been domesticated by mankind. Yet, the native people did none of that. In fact, I think they were still nomads when the Europeans got there. So, why is that? Was there simply no need, due to the overabundance? Was it that humans got there too late? What do you think? The "humans got there too late" doesn't work on Central USA, though, which is pretty similar from my point of view.
2 factors, very connected to the same: the vertical length of America.
Eurasia is horizontal so the climates from Portugal to Japan are very similar. A technology or plant developed in China made it to Europe within a few decades or centuries, and vice-versa.
In America those adapted to the Pacific Northwest were not adapted to the Mexican desert. Those from that desert were not adapted to mesoamerica. Those were not perfectly suited to the Yucatán. Going from the Yucatán to Panama was yet another struggle. Those who made it adapted to mountain landscapes and created the Inca empire. From there you had to adapt again to valleys in order to go to Argentina. And by adaptation I don’t mean just human customs. I mean local flora and fauna and technologies.
Note the dates here: Mesoamerica was basically in high-development mode in the 1500s when the Spaniards arrived. The culture there had mostly 1000 years of history. Incas had less. Civilization would have arrived to Argentina.
The other thing is that there was a budding civilization in the Mississippi basin. Look up Cahokia. But:
- ppl arrive there later
- this is a massive massive area that is easy to move on, so raids were constant
- there are very few other areas close by that are connected yet separated, which would allow for independent kingdoms to emerge
- its north-south, and what works in the Great Lakes doesn’t work in New Orleans.
My guess is if you have 3000 more years to North America, you’d get an equivalent of China emerging there. And you’d get a civilization in Argentina
This is exactly the type of question that caused Jared Diamond to write Guns, Germs, and Steel. As Tomas already pointed out, it all comes down to geography (direction of the landmass and territorial fragmentation due to natural barriers).
Are you trying to say that nothing is more important than AI or are you saying that, in general, no specific thing is more important than any other?
I would actually be ok with saying that religion/culture/the collective stories we tell ourselves are more important than the technology we are using. Of course one influences the other and vice versa (hard to say which one more strongly) but I see the collective brain, the guiding narrative, more important as the tech, but maybe it's just my romantic mind:)
You, Sir, are apparently smarter than all the world’s climate scientists put together, both today and the last several decades, happily flying directly in the face of all established knowledge and consensus, cherrypicking feelgood hopium fantasies in a morbidly fascinating celebration of pure confirmation bias.
It would be funny if it wasn’t so god damn tragic — and damaging, considering your reach.
I wonder, when shit continues to deteriorate, you will be like the antivaxxers denying reality literally to the death as they passed away from COVID-19, or whether you at some point decide to trust authority, expertise, empirical evidence, or your loved ones telling you you have gone off the deep end.
Don’t get me wrong; I wish you were right. Nobody wants the world to crumble. But how’s it going for us? Where are the 50K nuclear power plants we need? What does accelerating CO2 levels end with? Both the science and the evidence reached 100% certainty on this decades ago; maybe you missed the memo.
Just noting a couple editorial typos in the intro paragraph... "Each articleNormally"... "YouMany"... "we’ve createdwe’re doing"...
Ugh, thank you. Corrected!
As did I. I'm gonna assume Tomas or his copy-editor is just overwhelmingly busy (or generically blame AI software ;p) - Happy Holidays Tomas... thanks for the always insightful reads
It's Tomas, it's Tomas. The editors are preparing the knives.
Most of your subjects are super interesting. I'll tell you about a problem that I am wrestling with that I believe deserves your analysis.
Many prominent physicists, including Nobel laureate Gerard 't Hooft in a 2021 paper, have stated that fundamental physics needs new ideas.
Yet paradoxically, while the field calls for revolutionary thinking, the institutional structures actively resist it. I've experienced this first-hand trying to get feedback on my theoretical work in physics, but the problem goes far beyond my personal case.
As I see it, the system faces two interlinked challenges:
1. Individual level: Professional physicists cannot afford to engage with outside theories, regardless of merit, due to reputational risks and career incentives that reward incremental progress.
2. Institutional level: There's no mechanism to effectively evaluate potentially revolutionary ideas while filtering out genuine pseudoscience.
This creates a catch-22 where new ideas need credibility to get attention, but can't gain credibility without attention. Even 't Hooft, despite his Nobel Prize protection, carefully positions his unorthodox views to avoid being dismissed as "crackpot" thinking.
This seems like a perfect topic for your analysis: How do we design institutions that can both maintain scientific rigor and create safe spaces for evaluating revolutionary ideas? The current system appears optimised for incremental progress at the expense of potential paradigm shifts.
How many potentially valuable ideas are we missing because our institutions lack the mechanisms to properly evaluate them?
Interesting!
You should look up Metascience. That’s the field you’re talking about.
Patrick Collison and the Ark Institute are doing interesting stuff in the space. As is the Institute for Progress.
It’s a hard topic and I’m not expecting to tackle it soon because I don’t think my audience would be very interested in it. I also find in general governance to be a dry topic, so the stakes need to be extremely hard to counterbalance.
Thanks for those references. While metascience is studying the systemic problem, I'm still wrestling with my immediate situation: having developed what I believe are worthwhile ideas in physics (specifically about multiple time dimensions), I'm finding it nearly impossible to get meaningful feedback from the physics community.
I've tried local universities, written papers, created a website, and started a YouTube channel (which has grown from 650 to 2300 subscribers last week). While some physicists have been privately encouraging, none will publicly engage with the ideas.
Since you often write about innovation and how ideas spread, do you (or any of my fellow subscribers) have any practical advice for someone in my position?
Well done Brother
You provide some of the best journalism I know of.
I repeat myself here, but you really, really need an index of all your contents, hierarchically sorted. Much easier to link as a recommendation and to follow your overarching post themes/storylines this way.
PS: Have you heard/read about acetate lightless farming? Would be an interesting addition to your future of farming series: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S254243512400429X
Thank you so much, Walter!
If your editors read your comment, they might crucify me. I committed to doing this in the coming weeks!
Thank you for that paper. ASTOUNDING! Will refer to it in a future article. Thanks!
I've been thinking a lot about why some places didn't have great civilizations. For example, why was the region around Rio de la Plata not the birthplace of a great civilization? Taking into account some of the factors you've mentioned throughout your articles, they have access to navigable rivers and the ocean, they have rich soil, they have great climate and they have countless species (animal and vegetable) that could have been domesticated by mankind. Yet, the native people did none of that. In fact, I think they were still nomads when the Europeans got there. So, why is that? Was there simply no need, due to the overabundance? Was it that humans got there too late? What do you think? The "humans got there too late" doesn't work on Central USA, though, which is pretty similar from my point of view.
2 factors, very connected to the same: the vertical length of America.
Eurasia is horizontal so the climates from Portugal to Japan are very similar. A technology or plant developed in China made it to Europe within a few decades or centuries, and vice-versa.
In America those adapted to the Pacific Northwest were not adapted to the Mexican desert. Those from that desert were not adapted to mesoamerica. Those were not perfectly suited to the Yucatán. Going from the Yucatán to Panama was yet another struggle. Those who made it adapted to mountain landscapes and created the Inca empire. From there you had to adapt again to valleys in order to go to Argentina. And by adaptation I don’t mean just human customs. I mean local flora and fauna and technologies.
Note the dates here: Mesoamerica was basically in high-development mode in the 1500s when the Spaniards arrived. The culture there had mostly 1000 years of history. Incas had less. Civilization would have arrived to Argentina.
The other thing is that there was a budding civilization in the Mississippi basin. Look up Cahokia. But:
- ppl arrive there later
- this is a massive massive area that is easy to move on, so raids were constant
- there are very few other areas close by that are connected yet separated, which would allow for independent kingdoms to emerge
- its north-south, and what works in the Great Lakes doesn’t work in New Orleans.
My guess is if you have 3000 more years to North America, you’d get an equivalent of China emerging there. And you’d get a civilization in Argentina
This is exactly the type of question that caused Jared Diamond to write Guns, Germs, and Steel. As Tomas already pointed out, it all comes down to geography (direction of the landmass and territorial fragmentation due to natural barriers).
So great to see your incredible insights are so popular! Keep up the great work!
You might be interested to know that the Shakespeare authorship controversy has been resolved. https://medium.com/@vicmdatg/influences-in-shakespearean-writing-0ec0d35ad3a5. Have you ever investigated this issue?
Interesting!
No I hadn’t
Thanks to you, Tomás!
We'll stay posted, waiting for more insightful content 😊
Gracias Miguel!
Have to comment advocating for the "How to Design a Religion" theme!! Certainly more important/interesting than all of the AI stuff...
Not more important! Nothing is more important! But maybe more interesting!
Are you trying to say that nothing is more important than AI or are you saying that, in general, no specific thing is more important than any other?
I would actually be ok with saying that religion/culture/the collective stories we tell ourselves are more important than the technology we are using. Of course one influences the other and vice versa (hard to say which one more strongly) but I see the collective brain, the guiding narrative, more important as the tech, but maybe it's just my romantic mind:)
Thanks for the interesting stories you wrote. Have nice holidays and looking forward to read you next year.
You, Sir, are apparently smarter than all the world’s climate scientists put together, both today and the last several decades, happily flying directly in the face of all established knowledge and consensus, cherrypicking feelgood hopium fantasies in a morbidly fascinating celebration of pure confirmation bias.
It would be funny if it wasn’t so god damn tragic — and damaging, considering your reach.
I wonder, when shit continues to deteriorate, you will be like the antivaxxers denying reality literally to the death as they passed away from COVID-19, or whether you at some point decide to trust authority, expertise, empirical evidence, or your loved ones telling you you have gone off the deep end.
Don’t get me wrong; I wish you were right. Nobody wants the world to crumble. But how’s it going for us? Where are the 50K nuclear power plants we need? What does accelerating CO2 levels end with? Both the science and the evidence reached 100% certainty on this decades ago; maybe you missed the memo.
I am happy to take substantive criticism! What specific arguments or facts do you disagree with?