After looking: sadly, it seems no “solution of science” is forthcoming:
[W]e do not lay claim to
‘solve’ any major ontological problem in this essay, such as the question of
existence of an essence for every ontological item, or indeed how highly complex
systems, processes or ‘items’, in general, have come into existence...Instead, we are enquiring here if new
methodological tools may be brought to bear...
(from p.225, or p.3 of the PDF). One possible reading of this is: “we’re full of you-know-what, and we know it, but in the event that the reader is too clueless to notice, we don’t mind getting a publication out of it.” But of course the authors may be legitimately confused or deceiving themselves. Or it could be a hoax (a multi-article one, as the authors have apparently published more than one of these things).
The paper presents what appear to be accurate surveys of various topics in mathematics and physics, linked together with buzz-talk. It’s basically a work of postmodernism: Sokal, but possibly with sincerity and without the politics. To put it in terms the authors should be able to appreciate: it’s locally correct but globally nonsense.
Before looking at the paper: my guess is a Sokal-style hoax, or spoof of some sort.
At least one of the authors appears to be a legitimate mathematician.
After looking: sadly, it seems no “solution of science” is forthcoming:
(from p.225, or p.3 of the PDF). One possible reading of this is: “we’re full of you-know-what, and we know it, but in the event that the reader is too clueless to notice, we don’t mind getting a publication out of it.” But of course the authors may be legitimately confused or deceiving themselves. Or it could be a hoax (a multi-article one, as the authors have apparently published more than one of these things).
The paper presents what appear to be accurate surveys of various topics in mathematics and physics, linked together with buzz-talk. It’s basically a work of postmodernism: Sokal, but possibly with sincerity and without the politics. To put it in terms the authors should be able to appreciate: it’s locally correct but globally nonsense.