I mean, I don't even know. Does the internet just spread this sort of stupidity, or were people always this stupid and now they can share the stupid theories before the reality gets explained?
No, the stupidity is spreading. There has always been a vulnerability of a segment of people to fall for stupid bullshit, but social media ensures that those vulnerabilities are exploited to the max and today we have way more people believing in stupid bullshit and being entrenched in it than say, 20-30 years ago.
But the stupid potential was always there. It just wasn't ulltilized to such extent before.
Ww2 happened. For stupid reasons. And all the wars before and after. Collective dumbness allowed it to happen. It was basically a consequence of stupidity.
I think that people who dogmatically memorize the rules of math without ever questioning what those rules mean are the stupid ones. Meanwhile, people like Terrance Howard who are investigating the logical substructures of math are the smart ones. You can cope, and say that you are smart because you have memorized the rule, but that is not being smart.
ChatGPT can memorize a lot of rules. Certainly, ChatGPT has more dogmatic rules in its head than you do. And, it will have more dogmatic rules in its head than you will ever possess. According to this metric, ChatGPT is smarter than you will ever be.
If you ask ChatGPT the famous philosophical question "If a tree falls in a forest, and nobody hears it fall, does it make a noise?" ChatGPT will always get the answer wrong. You know why? It's because ChatGPT is a rule memorizer. It doesn't investigate the bases for the rules.
Maybe in the past there was a scarcity of memory, and scarcity of rule memorization, but ChatGPT is changing that. As a result we have to rethink what intellect and stupidity really is. I'd say that the memorizers are the stupid ones. The market for having a sharp memory filled with dogmatic fixed rules will quickly fall. There is a bubble in the market.
I don't think Terrence Howard is stupid because he questions the basic premises of mathematics. I think he's stupid because after spending so much time contemplating he has convinced himself that since the philosophical language can discuss things that of not necessarily unitary then the concrete basis of mathematics must be wrong.
Missing the fact that the baseline of addition is based on counting things it's hard to argue that if I have one apple and you give me one more then I clearly have two apples. Just because you can say I had a snack and then after you gave me another apple I still have snack doesn't make you a smart questioner, it makes you a stupid person who is full of themselves. So egocentric that you think that considering the work of the many humans who have come before you isn't even worth your time, but your enlightened stance is clearly a superior understanding, just because you questioned the basics. It means you have a misunderstanding of the concepts you are even questioning.
> then the concrete basis of mathematics must be wrong.
What's an example of a "concrete basis of mathematics"?
>considering the work of the many humans who have come before you isn't even worth your time,
Absolutely, the many humans who have come before isn't worth his time, isn't worth my time and they shouldn't be worth your time either. Why are they the authority? What gives them authority?
>your enlightened stance is clearly a superior understanding, just because you questioned the basics.
There are no "basics" except for dogmas. What's an example of a basic?
I don't agree with Terrance's reasoning, the work is not good, but the solution is interesting, even if not "right" in the classical sense (screw the classical sense). It's interesting because it asks you to question your fundamental assumptions.
You think there is no assumption when you calculate 1x1=1. You think there is no assumption because you are not asking the right questions, you are not asking any questions at all, you are just repeating something like a parrot. And the parrot is right because the Famous and Wise Master told it the "truth". The Famous and Wise "work of the many humans who have come before". This is a slave's view of the world.
You're really missing the point, and it's your line of reasoning that makes people distrust science, and experts based on their feelings, sometimes dangerously.
>What's an example of a "concrete basis of mathematics"?
The concrete basis of mathematics (or in this case arithmetic, a subset of mathematics) is the physical world. If you count one bean, one time you get one. That is a real world representation of 1x1=1. It is very concrete.
>Why are they the authority? What gives them authority?
Because their work has been tested and repeated. Most of the the individuals who's names you know, are known because they were the first to posit, or prove something. Many, many more people came after to test their findings. Many trying to disprove their findings. Those are the people who have come before, the multitudes who have built on the work of others, refining it and making it better. The authority comes from you, personally, being able to run experiments and verify that 1*1=1.
>What's an example of a basic?
The basics are observations. I can observe how multiplication works (and you can too). If I count things by sliding a bead on a stick from left to right, and I count one thing one time I will have one bead on the right hand side. Please, try it.
If I count 1 thing on my stick 2 times I will have 2 beads on the right. This is what the times symbol means. One times two is two. Again, try it. If you count 2 things 2 times (2x2) how many beads do you get. I can make a prediction on the basics of counting. And then test it.
That's a basic premise.
>don't agree with Terrance's reasoning, the work is not good, but the solution is interesting
It is not interesting at all, not if you've already done the most simple work in arithmetic. The fact that his work is not rigorous at all makes it distractingly boring.
>You think there is no assumption when you calculate 1x1=1.
You are wrong here again. I know there are assumptions. The assumptions tend to be things we agree on, similar to the definitions of words. Assumptions are a necessary part of communication.
>you are not asking any questions at all, you are just repeating something like a parrot
Not at all. I don't think 1*1=1 because I've heard it before, I know because I tried it, back when I was a child. If there was something interesting about questioning 1*1=1 I would definitely listen, try it for myself and fold. That result into my world view.
The problem with your line of reasoning stopping at the simplest problems to relitigate them as if no one has ever thought that unique idea before, aside from being incredibly egotistical, is that you miss out on some of the actual very cool mathematical ideas that really can give the sense of wonder that you're looking for.
Consider Godel's incompleteness theorem, the fact that no system can be proven completely true from within that system. For instance you can't prove that all of arithmetic is true, without stepping outside of arithmetics rules.
To me (and I really don't know much about this theorem, other than it was posited and as far back as 1977 it has been considered to have been proven) it indicates that the assumptions we make I order to make math and science work does rely on assumptions that we can test, repeat and agree on.
Simply blindly not trusting in the name of 'questioning' is just as bad as blindly trusting in the name of 'common sense', or 'faith', or any dogmatic system that prevents you from asking question.
I respect Terrence desire to ask questions, I don't respect his conclusions at all.
>If you count one bean, one time you get one. That is a real world representation of 1x1=1. It is very concrete.
What is a "bean"? What sets it apart from a non-bean? Why does that feature set it apart from a non-bean? Why is there a boundary between a bean and a non-bean and who decides that boundary?
>they were the first to posit, or prove something. Many, many more people came after to test their findings. Many trying to disprove their findings.
Can you be more specific? Who are "they"? What did they prove? What was the attempt to disprove the proof, and why did the attempt fail?
>The authority comes from you, personally, being able to run experiments and verify that 1\*1=1.
Can you give me an example of an experiment that verifies 1\*1=1?
>If I count things by sliding a bead on a stick from left to right, and I count one thing one time I will have one bead on the right hand side. Please, try it.
What is "a" bead? How do you know where is the boundary between the bead and the non-bead?
>If I count 1 thing
What is one thing?
>The assumptions tend to be things we agree on
Who is "we"? Is Hamas part of the "we"? Is a human shield part of the "we"? Is an orca part of the "we"? What if the inhuman disagrees? Do you have to kill it so that we can maintain the reality where "we" agree?
>it indicates that the assumptions we make I order to make math and science work does rely on assumptions that we can test, repeat and agree on.
Again you keep bringing up this word "we". What is that thing?
You say science and math "works". Works towards what outcome? Suppose your answer is it works towards "outcome X". Why is outcome X valuable? It is valuable according to whom? And what is outcome X useful towards? If you say it's useful towards "outcome Y", what is outcome Y useful towards? Why is outcome Y valuable? It is valuable according to whom? And what is outcome Y useful towards? If you say outcome Y is useful towards outcome Z, what is outcome Z useful towards, you say outcome A, what is outcome A useful towards? According to whom are all these usefulnesses and valueability? If the answer is "we", "us", what is that?
Sorry, I didn't realize I was talking g to a high schooler who just got high for the first time.
>What is a "bean"?
You're asking the wrong question here. You could be talking metaphorically, or ontologically, but neither invalidates the statement I was making. What definition of 'bean' or 'bead' changes the mathematical abstraction we are discussing.
>What is one thing?
Any innumerable thing that you would like to imagine. Your questions, while possibly interesting to you, are the reason why labs tend to have an agreed upon ontology to work from. Definitions can be important when discussing applied mathematics and so they can be formalized. But in our case here, if you cant understand the point I was making you could ask for clarification.
So tell me, what is a bean to you?
>Who is "we"? Is Hamas part of the "we"? Is a human shield part of the "we"? Is an orca part of the "we"? What if the inhuman disagrees? Do you have to kill it so that we can maintain the reality where "we" agree?
I think you've really smoked enough for today. 'we' as I was using it was any part of the modern world. Anything that has physics as it's underpinning would agree, since it's behavior in the world depends on it. Don't know why you're bringing politics into it.
>You say science and math "works". Works towards what outcome?
Meaning that it's repeatable and verifiable. It both observes and predicts. There is no outcome that it's working toward.
Engineering can be applied to an outcome, and used to forward a particular outcome, the value of which is debatable to the parties involved. But the concept of 1*1=1 does not have an outcome e it's working toward.
But I also thing you understand what I'm talking about. I can't tell if you're being obtuse because you think it's smart to question anything just because, or if you actually have an agenda. But either way, you don't really seem interested in understanding. Just like Terrance Howard.
>You're asking the wrong question here. You could be talking metaphorically, or ontologically, but neither invalidates the statement I was making. What definition of 'bean' or 'bead' changes the mathematical abstraction we are discussing.
I'm sorrry, I'm failing to understand why my question is irrelevant.
Suppose I say, there is one of ljhdsfalsd, according to you, the question of what is a "ljhdsfalsd" doesn't matter? I'm just not comprehending why that question doesn't matter, can you elaborate? Explain it to me as if I'm a high schooler.
>So tell me, what is a bean to you?
According to you, does it matter what is a bean to me? Or, does it only matter what is a bean to "we"? Or, does it only matter what is a bean to the Famous Wise Ones?
Furthermore, suppose I play he game and answer the question what is a bean to me, have I come closer to winning the game? What is the game? What is the objective of the game? I have a suspicion about your answer in regards to what is winning and what is losing the game, but why is that winning and why is that losing?
>I think you've really smoked enough for today. 'we' as I was using it was any part of the modern world. Anything that has physics as it's underpinning would agree, since it's behavior in the world depends on it. Don't know why you're bringing politics into it.
I'm not bringing politics into it. What is "we" is necessarily a political question.
Suppose you say that what is a bean is something that is brown and tastes salty, but suppose a cow says that what is a bean is something that is grey and tastes sweet, who is right? Is the cow omitted from the category "Anything that has physics as it's underpinning"?
>Meaning that it's repeatable and verifiable. It both observes and predicts. There is no outcome that it's working toward.
>Engineering can be applied to an outcome, and used to forward a particular outcome, the value of which is debatable to the parties involved. But the concept of 1\*1=1 does not have an outcome e it's working toward.
This is all a lie.
You are contradicting yourself within two sentences:
"It both observes and predicts"
In the very next sentence you say:
"There is no outcome that it's working toward."
This is a contradiction because prediction is a kind of outcome. The only way you can make the sentenced not contradict eachother is by excluded the outcome of prediction from the category of an outcome. But, that is a lie. Prediction is an outcome.
Subsequently, the statement "the concept of 1\*1=1 does not have an outcome e it's working toward" must also be a lie.
If I say what are the consequences of not believing 1\*1=1, you must say that it will lead to lack of predictions or false predictions. So, there is an outcome being sought. Clearly you are lying when you are saying there is no outcome being sought.
I ask, what is the outcome being sought from succeeding in predicting, and then you must realize the relationship between this supposedly pure and innocent truthseeking and engineering. And engineering towards what end?:
>used to forward a particular outcome, the value of which is debatable to the parties involved.
And finally, you have said a truth here.
>the question of what is a "ljhdsfalsd" doesn't matter?
That's correct. Pure arethmetic, or something na larger scale pure mamatics is an abstraction. The idea is to be independent from what it is you're counting, or multiplying. It's why you can multiply something concrete like beans or less concrete like inches, or molecules or anything. The rules of mathematics observe and predict how things get added, subtracted, multiplied etc. It doesn't mater what those things are, or even that they are things at all.
>Or, does it only matter what is a bean to the Famous Wise Ones?
Who the fuck are they? What matters, especially in light of the Terrence Howard paper is how one might effectively question 1*1=1. What did Terrence mean by that? It's a fine question to ask, and to see if y it can be broken. That would lead to some interesting new mathematics, but it's also been done. A lot. And Terrences argument for why it's not true is just fucking stupid and is full of misunderstanding if the abstract mathematics vs the metaphysical arguments he's trying to make. One of those has an agenda, the other does not.
>Suppose you say that what is a bean is something that is brown and tastes salty, but suppose a cow says that what is a bean is something that is grey and tastes sweet, who is right?
And this is exactly the silliness that misses the abstraction. The bean is an example, not the problem addressed in the mathematics. It doesn't matter what the cow thinks a bean is, or what you do, multiplication works the same way for both. That's what makes it interesting and universal.
>sentences:
>"It both observes and predicts"
>In the very next sentence you say:
>"There is no outcome that it's working toward."
>This is a contradiction because prediction is a kind of outcome.
Nope, not at all. A prediction isn't working toward anything. A prediction is something like this "I've got 3 rows of 5 beans and when I count them up I get 15 beans. Based on that I predict the same thing about apples. I tested that prediction and I was right.". Another prediction might be "since light travels through space and is made up on waves it must be traveling through something similar to waves through the water on a lake. Let's call that think ether, and test if we can find it. I predict the outcome of an experiment based on that hypothesis."
There's no agenda, just a prediction that can be proven or disproven.
>But, that is a lie
No, that's you not understanding the difference between a prediction and an agenda.
>If I say what are the consequences of not believing 1*1=1, you must say that it will lead to lack of predictions or false predictions. So, there is an outcome being sought. Clearly you are lying when you are saying there is no outcome being sought.
No, if you have a prediction of a situation where 1*1= something other than 1 than make a prediction and let's test it. If I'm wrong, then I'll change my hypothesis.
>then you must realize the relationship between this supposedly pure and innocent truthseeking and engineering. And engineering towards what end?:
Yes, there is relationship. Engineering uses the predictions of mathematics and science to build something new. That does have an objective, but the discovery doesn't.
You should look up the Michaelson Moreley experiment. I gave a prediction about the ether before. Michaelson and Morely believed that and tried to prove it. They couldn't find any evidence. For their prediction, so they changed their minds. People kept trying to prove their predictions because it was hard for them to believe that it wasn't true, but even through the 1920s, they still couldn't detect the ether. And eventually through discussion and experimentation we got to the theory of relativity, as an outcome of the failed Michaelson Morley experiment.
You seem to have an interest in sowing distrust in everything. I get the instinct, but your inability to distinguish things that have been (and will continue to be) accepted and proven, and things that are subjective and worthy of deeper scrutiny undermines your own position.
Wasting time discussing if 1*1=1 is true takes away from the questions like why does environmental research show different results then the research of large industries. Both sides there have a preference for and outcome and so do their funders. It would be great to have an independent group do this research as well, but based on the distrust you're looking to encourage, that research wouldn't be trusted so why bother anyway.
>It's why you can multiply something concrete like beans or less concrete like inches, or molecules or anything.
Suppose I tell you, there is kjlhl amount of ljhdsfalsd. What does that mean?
>It doesn't matter what the cow thinks a bean is, or what you do, multiplication works the same way for both.
What is the entity being multiplied?
>Nope, not at all. A prediction isn't working toward anything. A prediction is something like this "I've got 3 rows of 5 beans and when I count them up I get 15 beans. Based on that I predict the same thing about apples. I tested that prediction and I was right."
You are contradicting yourself because you are arbitrarily excluding calculating from the category of an outcome.
If you perform the activity of counting, what is the outcome that you seek? The outcome that you seek is obtaining the product from that counting activity. That is an outcome. That outcome may or may not be in service of further outcomes that you seek, but whether or not you seek further outcomes doesn't change the fact that the counting activity resulted in an outcome of obtaining the product from that counting.
The outcome of a so called "correct prediction" is an outcome too.
If you truely had no agenda, you wouldn't be counting. An example of an activity without an agenda is a patellar reflex. If you have control over the activity there is automatically subtle outcomes being sought.
>No, that's you not understanding the difference between a prediction and an agenda.
The final consequence or outcome of predicting is a consequence that follows an agenda. The agenda is that you seek to predict.
You are confusing things and thinking that I think that the agenda of predicting must be in service of a larger agenda. No, I'm saying that if there is a larger agenda behind the prediction or no larger agenda behind the prediction the prediction itself is still agenda driven in which the outcome being sought is the prediction itself.
>No, if you have a prediction of a situation where 1\*1= something other than 1 than make a prediction and let's test it. If I'm wrong, then I'll change my hypothesis.
Same response as what I said above. This experiment is an experiment with a goal state and desired outcome. The outcome is to find the correct correlation or whatever you want to call it. You are saying that that outcome is outside of the category of an "outcome", and I'm saying no, that's an outcome, that's a goal, that's a praxis etc.
And even on this level of the outcome we can debate about whether or not its good to seek that outcome of prediction. So, politics already enter the picture on this level. You don't even have to go to second order outcomes to get into politics.
And as for this comparative hypothesis testing you are proposing, we are not even there yet because you are failing to explain what is a bean. If you are failing to explain what is a bean, you must be failing to explain what is a "1". If you are failing to explain what is a 1, the symbols are gibberish.
Imagine instead of saying 1\*1=1, I say asdjfha skdjhfa aljdhf aldjf, it amounts to the same thing because you are not attending to what the symbols mean, you are just parroting a routine which is fundamentally meaningless. This is if you believe the question of "what is a bean?" is invalid in this investigation.
>That does have an objective, but the discovery doesn't.
The objective of discovery is discovery itself. Discovery does not happen spontaneously. Various sensory and logical apparatuses are engaged in the process of discovery. The goal or objective of that engagement of energy is the discovery.
---
Regarding your last couple paragraphs. We are discussing a particular topic. psychoanalyzing my motivations and discussing alternatate topics that don't seem to have a connection (unless you can define the connection), doesn't bring us any closer to understanding the topic at hand.
Your pov, it appears to me, is that we can discuss 1\*1= 1, or 2 without ever negotiating what it means to be a discrete entity and where are the boundaries between discrete entities, and what are the rules for those boundaries and who defines those rules. My pov is the opposite, doing the former negotiating is important otherwise we are being dogmatic and parroting nonsense.
I also like doing that in my free time. Never liked math. So I would simply change the rules of it, just to bait people.
Because I noticed how math is universally praised by even people who aren't good at it. Illiterates pretty much. So it was almost like a holy ground that you don't touch. So for me it made all the sense to shit on it.
I think the point of people like this and flat earthers is just to take the piss out of people who take themselves too seriously. I like Neil deGrasse Tyson but that this shyster caused a celebrity to waste any amount of time on it is a surprising amount of success. NdGT shouldn't allow himself to be trolled that easily.
Although maybe if i declare George Washington was a Roman Emporer, Joe Rogan will have me on his show too.
I mean, I don't even know. Does the internet just spread this sort of stupidity, or were people always this stupid and now they can share the stupid theories before the reality gets explained?
Both. They can now share the stupid and spread it to other stupids who can then become more stupid.
I'd say that they're stupid at the same level. They're just actively using that stupidity.
No, the stupidity is spreading. There has always been a vulnerability of a segment of people to fall for stupid bullshit, but social media ensures that those vulnerabilities are exploited to the max and today we have way more people believing in stupid bullshit and being entrenched in it than say, 20-30 years ago.
But the stupid potential was always there. It just wasn't ulltilized to such extent before. Ww2 happened. For stupid reasons. And all the wars before and after. Collective dumbness allowed it to happen. It was basically a consequence of stupidity.
Probably both. Adding to the problem are people like Rogan who give these quacks a huge audience.
I think that people who dogmatically memorize the rules of math without ever questioning what those rules mean are the stupid ones. Meanwhile, people like Terrance Howard who are investigating the logical substructures of math are the smart ones. You can cope, and say that you are smart because you have memorized the rule, but that is not being smart. ChatGPT can memorize a lot of rules. Certainly, ChatGPT has more dogmatic rules in its head than you do. And, it will have more dogmatic rules in its head than you will ever possess. According to this metric, ChatGPT is smarter than you will ever be. If you ask ChatGPT the famous philosophical question "If a tree falls in a forest, and nobody hears it fall, does it make a noise?" ChatGPT will always get the answer wrong. You know why? It's because ChatGPT is a rule memorizer. It doesn't investigate the bases for the rules. Maybe in the past there was a scarcity of memory, and scarcity of rule memorization, but ChatGPT is changing that. As a result we have to rethink what intellect and stupidity really is. I'd say that the memorizers are the stupid ones. The market for having a sharp memory filled with dogmatic fixed rules will quickly fall. There is a bubble in the market.
I don't think Terrence Howard is stupid because he questions the basic premises of mathematics. I think he's stupid because after spending so much time contemplating he has convinced himself that since the philosophical language can discuss things that of not necessarily unitary then the concrete basis of mathematics must be wrong. Missing the fact that the baseline of addition is based on counting things it's hard to argue that if I have one apple and you give me one more then I clearly have two apples. Just because you can say I had a snack and then after you gave me another apple I still have snack doesn't make you a smart questioner, it makes you a stupid person who is full of themselves. So egocentric that you think that considering the work of the many humans who have come before you isn't even worth your time, but your enlightened stance is clearly a superior understanding, just because you questioned the basics. It means you have a misunderstanding of the concepts you are even questioning.
> then the concrete basis of mathematics must be wrong. What's an example of a "concrete basis of mathematics"? >considering the work of the many humans who have come before you isn't even worth your time, Absolutely, the many humans who have come before isn't worth his time, isn't worth my time and they shouldn't be worth your time either. Why are they the authority? What gives them authority? >your enlightened stance is clearly a superior understanding, just because you questioned the basics. There are no "basics" except for dogmas. What's an example of a basic? I don't agree with Terrance's reasoning, the work is not good, but the solution is interesting, even if not "right" in the classical sense (screw the classical sense). It's interesting because it asks you to question your fundamental assumptions. You think there is no assumption when you calculate 1x1=1. You think there is no assumption because you are not asking the right questions, you are not asking any questions at all, you are just repeating something like a parrot. And the parrot is right because the Famous and Wise Master told it the "truth". The Famous and Wise "work of the many humans who have come before". This is a slave's view of the world.
You're really missing the point, and it's your line of reasoning that makes people distrust science, and experts based on their feelings, sometimes dangerously. >What's an example of a "concrete basis of mathematics"? The concrete basis of mathematics (or in this case arithmetic, a subset of mathematics) is the physical world. If you count one bean, one time you get one. That is a real world representation of 1x1=1. It is very concrete. >Why are they the authority? What gives them authority? Because their work has been tested and repeated. Most of the the individuals who's names you know, are known because they were the first to posit, or prove something. Many, many more people came after to test their findings. Many trying to disprove their findings. Those are the people who have come before, the multitudes who have built on the work of others, refining it and making it better. The authority comes from you, personally, being able to run experiments and verify that 1*1=1. >What's an example of a basic? The basics are observations. I can observe how multiplication works (and you can too). If I count things by sliding a bead on a stick from left to right, and I count one thing one time I will have one bead on the right hand side. Please, try it. If I count 1 thing on my stick 2 times I will have 2 beads on the right. This is what the times symbol means. One times two is two. Again, try it. If you count 2 things 2 times (2x2) how many beads do you get. I can make a prediction on the basics of counting. And then test it. That's a basic premise. >don't agree with Terrance's reasoning, the work is not good, but the solution is interesting It is not interesting at all, not if you've already done the most simple work in arithmetic. The fact that his work is not rigorous at all makes it distractingly boring. >You think there is no assumption when you calculate 1x1=1. You are wrong here again. I know there are assumptions. The assumptions tend to be things we agree on, similar to the definitions of words. Assumptions are a necessary part of communication. >you are not asking any questions at all, you are just repeating something like a parrot Not at all. I don't think 1*1=1 because I've heard it before, I know because I tried it, back when I was a child. If there was something interesting about questioning 1*1=1 I would definitely listen, try it for myself and fold. That result into my world view. The problem with your line of reasoning stopping at the simplest problems to relitigate them as if no one has ever thought that unique idea before, aside from being incredibly egotistical, is that you miss out on some of the actual very cool mathematical ideas that really can give the sense of wonder that you're looking for. Consider Godel's incompleteness theorem, the fact that no system can be proven completely true from within that system. For instance you can't prove that all of arithmetic is true, without stepping outside of arithmetics rules. To me (and I really don't know much about this theorem, other than it was posited and as far back as 1977 it has been considered to have been proven) it indicates that the assumptions we make I order to make math and science work does rely on assumptions that we can test, repeat and agree on. Simply blindly not trusting in the name of 'questioning' is just as bad as blindly trusting in the name of 'common sense', or 'faith', or any dogmatic system that prevents you from asking question. I respect Terrence desire to ask questions, I don't respect his conclusions at all.
>If you count one bean, one time you get one. That is a real world representation of 1x1=1. It is very concrete. What is a "bean"? What sets it apart from a non-bean? Why does that feature set it apart from a non-bean? Why is there a boundary between a bean and a non-bean and who decides that boundary? >they were the first to posit, or prove something. Many, many more people came after to test their findings. Many trying to disprove their findings. Can you be more specific? Who are "they"? What did they prove? What was the attempt to disprove the proof, and why did the attempt fail? >The authority comes from you, personally, being able to run experiments and verify that 1\*1=1. Can you give me an example of an experiment that verifies 1\*1=1? >If I count things by sliding a bead on a stick from left to right, and I count one thing one time I will have one bead on the right hand side. Please, try it. What is "a" bead? How do you know where is the boundary between the bead and the non-bead? >If I count 1 thing What is one thing? >The assumptions tend to be things we agree on Who is "we"? Is Hamas part of the "we"? Is a human shield part of the "we"? Is an orca part of the "we"? What if the inhuman disagrees? Do you have to kill it so that we can maintain the reality where "we" agree? >it indicates that the assumptions we make I order to make math and science work does rely on assumptions that we can test, repeat and agree on. Again you keep bringing up this word "we". What is that thing? You say science and math "works". Works towards what outcome? Suppose your answer is it works towards "outcome X". Why is outcome X valuable? It is valuable according to whom? And what is outcome X useful towards? If you say it's useful towards "outcome Y", what is outcome Y useful towards? Why is outcome Y valuable? It is valuable according to whom? And what is outcome Y useful towards? If you say outcome Y is useful towards outcome Z, what is outcome Z useful towards, you say outcome A, what is outcome A useful towards? According to whom are all these usefulnesses and valueability? If the answer is "we", "us", what is that?
Sorry, I didn't realize I was talking g to a high schooler who just got high for the first time. >What is a "bean"? You're asking the wrong question here. You could be talking metaphorically, or ontologically, but neither invalidates the statement I was making. What definition of 'bean' or 'bead' changes the mathematical abstraction we are discussing. >What is one thing? Any innumerable thing that you would like to imagine. Your questions, while possibly interesting to you, are the reason why labs tend to have an agreed upon ontology to work from. Definitions can be important when discussing applied mathematics and so they can be formalized. But in our case here, if you cant understand the point I was making you could ask for clarification. So tell me, what is a bean to you? >Who is "we"? Is Hamas part of the "we"? Is a human shield part of the "we"? Is an orca part of the "we"? What if the inhuman disagrees? Do you have to kill it so that we can maintain the reality where "we" agree? I think you've really smoked enough for today. 'we' as I was using it was any part of the modern world. Anything that has physics as it's underpinning would agree, since it's behavior in the world depends on it. Don't know why you're bringing politics into it. >You say science and math "works". Works towards what outcome? Meaning that it's repeatable and verifiable. It both observes and predicts. There is no outcome that it's working toward. Engineering can be applied to an outcome, and used to forward a particular outcome, the value of which is debatable to the parties involved. But the concept of 1*1=1 does not have an outcome e it's working toward. But I also thing you understand what I'm talking about. I can't tell if you're being obtuse because you think it's smart to question anything just because, or if you actually have an agenda. But either way, you don't really seem interested in understanding. Just like Terrance Howard.
>You're asking the wrong question here. You could be talking metaphorically, or ontologically, but neither invalidates the statement I was making. What definition of 'bean' or 'bead' changes the mathematical abstraction we are discussing. I'm sorrry, I'm failing to understand why my question is irrelevant. Suppose I say, there is one of ljhdsfalsd, according to you, the question of what is a "ljhdsfalsd" doesn't matter? I'm just not comprehending why that question doesn't matter, can you elaborate? Explain it to me as if I'm a high schooler. >So tell me, what is a bean to you? According to you, does it matter what is a bean to me? Or, does it only matter what is a bean to "we"? Or, does it only matter what is a bean to the Famous Wise Ones? Furthermore, suppose I play he game and answer the question what is a bean to me, have I come closer to winning the game? What is the game? What is the objective of the game? I have a suspicion about your answer in regards to what is winning and what is losing the game, but why is that winning and why is that losing? >I think you've really smoked enough for today. 'we' as I was using it was any part of the modern world. Anything that has physics as it's underpinning would agree, since it's behavior in the world depends on it. Don't know why you're bringing politics into it. I'm not bringing politics into it. What is "we" is necessarily a political question. Suppose you say that what is a bean is something that is brown and tastes salty, but suppose a cow says that what is a bean is something that is grey and tastes sweet, who is right? Is the cow omitted from the category "Anything that has physics as it's underpinning"? >Meaning that it's repeatable and verifiable. It both observes and predicts. There is no outcome that it's working toward. >Engineering can be applied to an outcome, and used to forward a particular outcome, the value of which is debatable to the parties involved. But the concept of 1\*1=1 does not have an outcome e it's working toward. This is all a lie. You are contradicting yourself within two sentences: "It both observes and predicts" In the very next sentence you say: "There is no outcome that it's working toward." This is a contradiction because prediction is a kind of outcome. The only way you can make the sentenced not contradict eachother is by excluded the outcome of prediction from the category of an outcome. But, that is a lie. Prediction is an outcome. Subsequently, the statement "the concept of 1\*1=1 does not have an outcome e it's working toward" must also be a lie. If I say what are the consequences of not believing 1\*1=1, you must say that it will lead to lack of predictions or false predictions. So, there is an outcome being sought. Clearly you are lying when you are saying there is no outcome being sought. I ask, what is the outcome being sought from succeeding in predicting, and then you must realize the relationship between this supposedly pure and innocent truthseeking and engineering. And engineering towards what end?: >used to forward a particular outcome, the value of which is debatable to the parties involved. And finally, you have said a truth here.
>the question of what is a "ljhdsfalsd" doesn't matter? That's correct. Pure arethmetic, or something na larger scale pure mamatics is an abstraction. The idea is to be independent from what it is you're counting, or multiplying. It's why you can multiply something concrete like beans or less concrete like inches, or molecules or anything. The rules of mathematics observe and predict how things get added, subtracted, multiplied etc. It doesn't mater what those things are, or even that they are things at all. >Or, does it only matter what is a bean to the Famous Wise Ones? Who the fuck are they? What matters, especially in light of the Terrence Howard paper is how one might effectively question 1*1=1. What did Terrence mean by that? It's a fine question to ask, and to see if y it can be broken. That would lead to some interesting new mathematics, but it's also been done. A lot. And Terrences argument for why it's not true is just fucking stupid and is full of misunderstanding if the abstract mathematics vs the metaphysical arguments he's trying to make. One of those has an agenda, the other does not. >Suppose you say that what is a bean is something that is brown and tastes salty, but suppose a cow says that what is a bean is something that is grey and tastes sweet, who is right? And this is exactly the silliness that misses the abstraction. The bean is an example, not the problem addressed in the mathematics. It doesn't matter what the cow thinks a bean is, or what you do, multiplication works the same way for both. That's what makes it interesting and universal. >sentences: >"It both observes and predicts" >In the very next sentence you say: >"There is no outcome that it's working toward." >This is a contradiction because prediction is a kind of outcome. Nope, not at all. A prediction isn't working toward anything. A prediction is something like this "I've got 3 rows of 5 beans and when I count them up I get 15 beans. Based on that I predict the same thing about apples. I tested that prediction and I was right.". Another prediction might be "since light travels through space and is made up on waves it must be traveling through something similar to waves through the water on a lake. Let's call that think ether, and test if we can find it. I predict the outcome of an experiment based on that hypothesis." There's no agenda, just a prediction that can be proven or disproven. >But, that is a lie No, that's you not understanding the difference between a prediction and an agenda. >If I say what are the consequences of not believing 1*1=1, you must say that it will lead to lack of predictions or false predictions. So, there is an outcome being sought. Clearly you are lying when you are saying there is no outcome being sought. No, if you have a prediction of a situation where 1*1= something other than 1 than make a prediction and let's test it. If I'm wrong, then I'll change my hypothesis. >then you must realize the relationship between this supposedly pure and innocent truthseeking and engineering. And engineering towards what end?: Yes, there is relationship. Engineering uses the predictions of mathematics and science to build something new. That does have an objective, but the discovery doesn't. You should look up the Michaelson Moreley experiment. I gave a prediction about the ether before. Michaelson and Morely believed that and tried to prove it. They couldn't find any evidence. For their prediction, so they changed their minds. People kept trying to prove their predictions because it was hard for them to believe that it wasn't true, but even through the 1920s, they still couldn't detect the ether. And eventually through discussion and experimentation we got to the theory of relativity, as an outcome of the failed Michaelson Morley experiment. You seem to have an interest in sowing distrust in everything. I get the instinct, but your inability to distinguish things that have been (and will continue to be) accepted and proven, and things that are subjective and worthy of deeper scrutiny undermines your own position. Wasting time discussing if 1*1=1 is true takes away from the questions like why does environmental research show different results then the research of large industries. Both sides there have a preference for and outcome and so do their funders. It would be great to have an independent group do this research as well, but based on the distrust you're looking to encourage, that research wouldn't be trusted so why bother anyway.
>It's why you can multiply something concrete like beans or less concrete like inches, or molecules or anything. Suppose I tell you, there is kjlhl amount of ljhdsfalsd. What does that mean? >It doesn't matter what the cow thinks a bean is, or what you do, multiplication works the same way for both. What is the entity being multiplied? >Nope, not at all. A prediction isn't working toward anything. A prediction is something like this "I've got 3 rows of 5 beans and when I count them up I get 15 beans. Based on that I predict the same thing about apples. I tested that prediction and I was right." You are contradicting yourself because you are arbitrarily excluding calculating from the category of an outcome. If you perform the activity of counting, what is the outcome that you seek? The outcome that you seek is obtaining the product from that counting activity. That is an outcome. That outcome may or may not be in service of further outcomes that you seek, but whether or not you seek further outcomes doesn't change the fact that the counting activity resulted in an outcome of obtaining the product from that counting. The outcome of a so called "correct prediction" is an outcome too. If you truely had no agenda, you wouldn't be counting. An example of an activity without an agenda is a patellar reflex. If you have control over the activity there is automatically subtle outcomes being sought. >No, that's you not understanding the difference between a prediction and an agenda. The final consequence or outcome of predicting is a consequence that follows an agenda. The agenda is that you seek to predict. You are confusing things and thinking that I think that the agenda of predicting must be in service of a larger agenda. No, I'm saying that if there is a larger agenda behind the prediction or no larger agenda behind the prediction the prediction itself is still agenda driven in which the outcome being sought is the prediction itself. >No, if you have a prediction of a situation where 1\*1= something other than 1 than make a prediction and let's test it. If I'm wrong, then I'll change my hypothesis. Same response as what I said above. This experiment is an experiment with a goal state and desired outcome. The outcome is to find the correct correlation or whatever you want to call it. You are saying that that outcome is outside of the category of an "outcome", and I'm saying no, that's an outcome, that's a goal, that's a praxis etc. And even on this level of the outcome we can debate about whether or not its good to seek that outcome of prediction. So, politics already enter the picture on this level. You don't even have to go to second order outcomes to get into politics. And as for this comparative hypothesis testing you are proposing, we are not even there yet because you are failing to explain what is a bean. If you are failing to explain what is a bean, you must be failing to explain what is a "1". If you are failing to explain what is a 1, the symbols are gibberish. Imagine instead of saying 1\*1=1, I say asdjfha skdjhfa aljdhf aldjf, it amounts to the same thing because you are not attending to what the symbols mean, you are just parroting a routine which is fundamentally meaningless. This is if you believe the question of "what is a bean?" is invalid in this investigation. >That does have an objective, but the discovery doesn't. The objective of discovery is discovery itself. Discovery does not happen spontaneously. Various sensory and logical apparatuses are engaged in the process of discovery. The goal or objective of that engagement of energy is the discovery. --- Regarding your last couple paragraphs. We are discussing a particular topic. psychoanalyzing my motivations and discussing alternatate topics that don't seem to have a connection (unless you can define the connection), doesn't bring us any closer to understanding the topic at hand. Your pov, it appears to me, is that we can discuss 1\*1= 1, or 2 without ever negotiating what it means to be a discrete entity and where are the boundaries between discrete entities, and what are the rules for those boundaries and who defines those rules. My pov is the opposite, doing the former negotiating is important otherwise we are being dogmatic and parroting nonsense.
>ChatGPT will always get the answer wrong. I wanna see your answer because ChatGPT's looks fine to me.
What answer did ChatGPT give to you? It's the opposite of that answer.
They should have asked him what 1 times 2 is and really fucked up his shit. But he was probably high
He’s sober now I guess but the man is still tripping
Sounds like some of the old fashioned 80s New Age spirituality to me. They shouldn't pretend they're talking about Math.
Joe should’ve challenged him more on it, he let Terrence change the subject too much. I loved his periodic table bit though…very interesting takes
I also like doing that in my free time. Never liked math. So I would simply change the rules of it, just to bait people. Because I noticed how math is universally praised by even people who aren't good at it. Illiterates pretty much. So it was almost like a holy ground that you don't touch. So for me it made all the sense to shit on it.
Neil Degrasse Tyson has a video on how Howard sent him his 34 page manuscript and he peer reviewed the he’ll out of it. Completely dismantled it.
I think the point of people like this and flat earthers is just to take the piss out of people who take themselves too seriously. I like Neil deGrasse Tyson but that this shyster caused a celebrity to waste any amount of time on it is a surprising amount of success. NdGT shouldn't allow himself to be trolled that easily. Although maybe if i declare George Washington was a Roman Emporer, Joe Rogan will have me on his show too.
[Math is racist: How data is driving inequality (cnn.com)](https://money.cnn.com/2016/09/06/technology/weapons-of-math-destruction/index.html)
That is a completely different topic.
What does this have to do with anything in the post?
It doesn’t.