Completely agree (and sure, I am using somewhat overemphatic language)

Perhaps. IMO there’s also a behavioural difference. People here seem to bubble wrap everything. I’ve not yet witnessed an interesting intellectual confrontation. There’s a kind of fake facade of performative kindness to every interaction here

it seems like everyone I care to follow has stayed on Xitter, everyone here is so boring and literally nothing has happened that matters since I joined. what a waste of energy.

Probably classical mechanical systems as in: arxiv.org/abs/2206.12996

In my defence, it is but one tiny equation! 😅🤣

Fair enough. I’m just pointing out that there are several such demonstrations available, many of which involved Karl. The idea that he doesn’t care much about empirical validation is a meme, and not an especially good one

Also please note that the FEP has been validated as a method to study real physical and biological systems, again and again and again. This worry about falsification is getting pretty stale TBH. Let’s do better please. For the most recent such demonstration see: www.nature.com/articles/s41... 2/2

Folks do care about empirical validation of the FEP. The FEP is a piece of mathematical reasoning, so it’s not subject to direct empirical validation (much like calculus). But the fact that systems conform to the FEP is a striking empirical fact—see royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/abs/10.1... 1/2

Open letters like these have no business on ArXiv or similar services IMO. They’re glorified blog posts

That sounds great, please apply to both!