Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.
- 208
- 3
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Did anyone see Terrence Howard on Joe Rogan? Would love to see what the motte thinks.
Personally I'm withholding judgment until he goes up against someone credible.
I watched it, I liked it.
If you want to listen to someone who doesn't say 1x1 = 2, then much of what he was talking about reminded me of Eric P Dollard. If you can stomach a two hour podcast, maybe consider this three-and-a-half hour lecture, History and Theory of Electricity.
The real meat and potatoes of his views are not new. He's deep into the waves/frequencies/spin is everything method of analysis, which makes sense. This is also part of his criticism of 1x1=1, in that it assumes axiomatically a rectilinear universe, which is not the way the actual universe exists. The most interesting parts were when he was talking about the periodic table and the solar system.
For the periodic table, he claims that elements are essentially harmonics of one another, the same frequencies (spin) doubled can turn one element into another.
As for the 1x1=2, I'm very sympathetic. I distinctly remember my complex algebra course, where we rederived addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division such that they are consistent with what we see in a number line. It reminds me that these operators are axioms themselves, and that axioms are taken as true, not proved. Ultimately, I think he gets lost in the weeds of units. For example, he asks what is $1 x $1, and reports that people say $2, and don't want to accept $1. But of course, $1 x $1 is $^2 1 (one dollar-squared, or one square dollar). What the hell is a square dollar? The same thing as a square second, but with currency.
The other reason I dislike it is because you can derive multiplication from your fingers, in a similar manner to addition. Put one finger up on each hand, and count them, and you get to 2 (addition). Two fingers on each hand gets you 6, and three fingers gets you 9. Now, instead of counting them, cross the fingers of one hand against the other and count the overlaps. One finger and one finger, overlapped, gets one intersection. Two fingers on each hand, 4 intersections, and three fingers gets 9 intersections.
His problem is root 2. For our finger example, what combination of fingers gets you two intersections? You have to use different numbers on each hand.
But notice, we have changed units! We are counting intersections, not fingers! So again, I'm sympathetic in general, but in particular it breaks down.
Perhaps I’m missing something, but what you’re describing with the units and the axioms sounds like sophistry. As in—sure, he can define whatever domain-specific operators or fields or rings or whatever the math term is. (Wow, it’s been a while). That doesn’t privilege his definition over the boring version that works on Peano numbers. Does he have a reason to go there other than scoring points in arguments?
Also, I don’t think that’s what “spin” means. But what do I know.
Yes, reality does not conform to our models, and therefore we should look to reality instead of retreating into theory. Although I suspect he leads with it out of contrarian impulse.
He also gets into this on the idea of the identity property. The identity property, when it comes to multiplication and division, states that you can perform an action on something and get the same thing back. That in itself doesn't really make sense in the world, does it? If you act on something in any way, it will change, and if it didn't change, you didn't really act on it, did you? For 0, our conception is one of nothingness, emptiness, or lack, but that's not what exists in reality. There is no such thing as emptiness, or lack, or 'zero' in that way. We we do observe in nature and the universe is that 0 does not represent nothingness, it represents equilibrium. It represents inflection points, it represents the middle of the sine wave, the repeat of periodicity, and spin.
So his argument is essentially that our conception of numbers, especially 1 and 0, are inconsistent with observed reality, and therefore we should keep reality and reject our conception. At least, that's how I understood it.
Thank you.
I don’t like how he makes claims about “our conception.” Or I really disagree with them. There’s something very perverse about a guy complaining about misleading terms and then throwing out his own underdefined versions.
I will freely admit this is my interpretation of what he's saying, which is as inconsistent and incoherent as you expect. That particular phrase is mine alone. The sentiment absolutely applies. He describes everything and explains nothing.
As I mentioned elsewhere, this is basically warmed over electrical universe, free energy, Tesla stuff. He's got some cool geometry that I find fascinating, which are his props and visualizations. I prefer Eric Dollard, who has at least spent his life building and using electrical equipment.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link