Topological Geometrodynamics

[Anonymous No.10605209]

What the hell is topological geometrodynamics? It seems to be an alternative cosmology based on a modified general relativity that claims to also act as a generalized number theory when quantized.

Has anyone encountered this before? Is it complete bullshit or is there something to it?
http://www.tgdtheory.fi/
http://www.tgdtheory.fi/bookpdf/tgdview.pdf

[Anonymous No.10605216]

>>10605209
Looks like woo

[Anonymous No.10605218]

>>10605209
Looks like schizophrenia.

[Anonymous No.10605228]

>>10605216
>>10605218
The website is definitely fishy, and the talk about consciousness is always alarming, but the author's writing seems clear and reasoned.

[Anonymous No.10605237]

>>10605228
If it is clear AND reasoned AND makes predictions that can be tested, why has nobody paid any attention to it?

[Anonymous No.10605253]

>>10605237
>TGD predicts a lot of new physics and it is quite possible that this new physics becomes visible at LHC. Although calculational formalism is still lacking, p-adic length scale hypothesis allows to make precise quantitative predictions for particle masses by using simple scaling arguments. Actually there is already now evidence for effects providing further support for TGD based view about QCD and first rumors about super-symmetric particles have appeared.

Certainly looks like it makes predictions.

> why has nobody paid any attention to it?
It uses a bunch of jargon from a lot of fields of math and physics that aren't normally seen together. Definitely a lot of number theory. I guess "clear" isn't the best way to put it.
The time investment to get into it seems pretty high.

[Anonymous No.10605260]

>>10605253
Do you understand it? Does anyone besides the author understand it? He needs to be able to communicate for it to matter

[Anonymous No.10605269]

>>10605260
>Do you understand it?
No. I have only glanced at some of it. I don't have enough of the background needed.
>Does anyone besides the author understand it?
I have no idea. Seems like only the author publishes on the subject, so probably not.

I was hoping someone might have encountered it before, and explain exactly what its getting at, or if its worth looking at.

[Anonymous No.10605279]

>>10605269
I doubt anyone here does. My intuition says that if it is both
>proclaiming to be a revolutionary theory of everything and
>completely ignored
then it is likely bullshit

[Anonymous No.10605282]

>>10605209
>Geometro

[Anonymous No.10605358]

>>10605282
bad bot

[Anonymous No.10605430]

it looks like straight up pseudoscience

first of all, most of the resources about it are short blurbs devoid of any equations, i.e. they have no content. he rambles about some group theory crap which may or may not be correct, but look, that's exactly what the Bogdanovs did. the only real resource i could find is this:
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?rep=rep1&type=pdf&doi=10.1.1.212.6243
and it's clear that this too is mostly ramblings, as evidenced by the fact that there are almost 0 real equations throughout the whole thing, and the only ones i can see (i spotted about 2 lagrangian density equations after scrolling through probably 50 pages [this is far too little]) are basically trivial lagrangians that aren't new or unknown.

then he goes into characteristic newage pseud crap like this:
>TGD has forced the introduction of p-adic number fields besides real numbers and led to a gener-alization of number concept: p-adic number fields play a key role in the proposed physics of cognitionand intentionality [E4, E6]. The notion of infinite primes [E3] leads to a generalization of the notion ofspace-time point [E3]. Space-time point becomes infinitely structured in various p-adic senses but notin real sense (that is cognitively) so that the vision of Leibniz about monads reflecting the external world in their structure is realized in terms of algebraic holography. Space-time becomes algebraic hologram and realizes also Brahman=Atman idea of Eastern philosophies.
okay, sometimes physicists are allowed to mention philosophers, but concluding that he's discovered some deep truth that validates Leibniz and in addition realizes Brahman crap.... just sigh.

clearly a pseud

[Anonymous No.10605450]

>>10605430
Thanks. I think you're right.

[Anonymous No.10605676]

>>10605209
Well if string theory is a legit theory, I don't see an obstacle as to why this couldn't. If anything it can provide some new math that can be used. From the first glance at the book it doesn't seem to be alternative.

[Anonymous No.10605746]

Sometimes men ramble on so long about truth they begin to lie.

[Anonymous No.10606903]

>>10605282
My first car was a Chevy Sprint. The geo metro before they started the geo line.
It was so dinky but I loved it. I could drive for over a month on the 7 gallon tank.

[Anonymous No.10607181]

>>10605746
I dont smoke any more, but I'd kill to hot box the ISS.