That is indeed evidence against his credibility, if not particularly strong evidence for me. I don't know enough math to know directly that saying P=NP is a joke; I only believe it is because the math community says so.
Merely saying it wouldn't be so bad, as long as there was some substance behind the assertion.
But basically his argument boils down to this:
"If you dunk two wooden boards with wires poked through them into soapy water and then lift them out, the soaps films between the wires are the solution to an NP-hard problem. But creating the boards and wires and dunking them can be done in polynomial time. So as long as physics is Turing computable, P = NP."
This is a fantastically stupid argument, because you could easily create a simulation of the above pr...
Federov's Rapture at Charlie's Diary
This is a follow-up to his article on Singularitarianism last week, which was also discussed here.
His own introduction:
I'm not sure if the point is really anything more than guilt-by-association, because he doesn't really make a complete argument for anything in particular.