—“Isn’t her work about superdeterminism?. The maths thing is just her daft opinion about why progress isn’t fast enough for her. Maybe she is just annoyed her theory isn’t taken more seriously.”—
There is a human tendency to evade seeking to understand, seeking to produce alternative arguments, and seeking to deny their need to cognitively and behaviorally adapt by the use of ‘gossiping, shaming, ridiculing, rallying, moralizing, psychologizing, undermining, canceling, and denial.’ (GSRRM for short).
You’re making an ad hominem attack on the individual, not on the argument. It means you can’t defeat the argument. If you can defeat the argument you might be able to explain the incentives that that person is following. But GSRRM so to speak is claiming you have knowledge and understanding that you do not demonstrably possess.
In Sabine’s case she makes a very clear set of arguments (and she’s right) and this debate has existed in mathematics and physics since Hilbert. While most fields reformed SOME of science – requiring we limit claims to testimony that is in fact testifiable – the failure of mathematicians during the late 19th and early 20th centuries to avoid foundations in set theory and instead in computation re-idealized mathematics.
This has resulted on a conflict between what is testifiable in physics under the limitations of mathematics that is insufficient for the description of observables. And it has resulted in mathematical observables not physical observables. And this is all an extension of ‘just calculate’. Which is where ‘math and physics went wrong’.
S0 the failure of our physics community over the past seventy years is largely due to the incorrect founding of mathematics in sets, producing a mathematics of analogies rather than existence, and a resulting physics of analogies rather than existence, and limited to testimony that causes the failure to transform the discipline back to realism, naturalism, materialism, and away from ‘infectin’ by idealism.
You may or may not be able to understand that and I’m one of the top two or three people living that understand this problem – and all of us have a background in computer science and artificial intelligence (and me in economics and law), where it’s well known that mathematics has a limit and ‘we’re at it’.