Terrence Howard on Reality

[Brahman]

11 minutes ago, Salvijus said:

After contemplating more. I realized there is a flaw in x^3=2x after all. 

My explanation. 

2x means you double the value of x. That means you increase the value of x by 100%

x^3 means you increase the value of x by 100% and then you do that again. 

So you get this. 

x increased in value by 100% and then you increase that value by 100% again. = x increased in value by 100% once. 

This looks like a flaw in math. 

To be completely honest I think his math reconstruction stuff is by far his weakest points

having a harder time understanding what hes fighting for there..

 

[Salvijus]

26 minutes ago, Brahman said:

To be completely honest I think his math reconstruction stuff is by far his weakest points

having a harder time understanding what hes fighting for there..

 

Yea his might be digging his grave with that one

[LSD-Rumi]

These podcast guys like to interview lunatics and conspiracy theorists, for sure.

I now understand why conspiracy theories are so popular. They satisfy the inner desire of man to find the "truth" and experience the high of finding new understanding without the burden of doing serious mental work or the stress of changing their core beliefs, like serious philosophers do. And most likely, it would end up feeding their already existent biases

It is like those guys that make stupid stuff in their garage, and they then call themselves "inventors". Of course, what they end up with is trash.

[Leo Gura]

The one thing I heard him say right is that we are all God. So points for that. But even Alex Jones says stuff like that sometimes.

But the problem with all these conspiracy guys, including Rogan, is that they mix up kernals of truth with a lot of pure BS.

The best conspiracy theorists do that. The trap is not that it is 100% wrong, but that 20% of it is right and that bit of truth is used to sneak in a mountain of bullshit and fantasy.

The problem with this kind of thinking is not this or that fact being right or wrong, but the overall big picture ends up being a delusion: that some evil people are plotting to withhold truth from you.

The one withholding truth from you is you!

Edited May 28 by Leo Gura

[aurum]

On 5/25/2024 at 2:52 AM, zurew said:

This guy says 1x1=2 , which would violate some of the fundamental math axioms  (some math nerd on this forum probably can specifically spell out which axioms are violated and they can probably break down the logical entailments that would follow from such violation(s))

You don’t even need to be a math nerd to see the flaws. His “proof” doesn’t even follow basic laws of algebra. Most high school kids should be able to debunk it.

[LSD-Rumi]

7 minutes ago, aurum said:

You don’t even need to be a math nerd to see the flaws. His “proof” doesn’t even follow basic laws of algebra. Most high school kids should be able to debunk it.

It actually requires a grade 3 school kid to do it, lol.

This breaks the very definition of Multiplying. 1 times 1, means that 1 is repeated one time which equals 1.

Anyone trying to debunk the basics of science is virtually a lunatic. They couldn't have a camera shooting Their stupid ass telling BS if such basic things in science are wrong.

[Leo Gura]

Guys! Did you know that 1+1 actually equals 11?

The government doesn't want this cat out of the bag, so if I'm ever found dead, just know: not suicide.

[Buck Edwards]

He is like a conspiracy nutcase adding some ill math and bad science into it. 

[Buck Edwards]

8 hours ago, zurew said:

Thats all nonsense.

Why would a "formula" has to work with all numbers - Which math axiom implies that?

You are also wrong about the formula not working with other numbers than √2, it works with 0  and with -1*√2 as well , but I don't think any of this is in any way relevant to math being consistent or inconsistent.

The basic tenet of math is consistency. That's how formulas are derived if you didn't know. 

[Leo Gura]

If you actually discovered an inconsistency in basic arithmetic you would win a Fields Medal, which is harder to win than a Nobel Prize.

The crazy stuff I say cannot be formally proven, which is why I can get away with it. But if you say crazy things about formal systems like arithmetic, you're in trouble without proof because all of math hinges on formal proofs.

In order to criticize math, logic, and science effectively you gotta call meta aspects of their work into question, the psychology of their paradigms, not their content. Because the content of math is quite solid.

For example, you can criticize math for being too reductionistic and too formal, or too narrow to capture reality.

Edited May 28 by Leo Gura

[Salvijus]

Apparently he sayed during the Joe's podcast that he understands the counter argument that 1 times 1 = 1. (Because it happened once) Despite of that he still insists on his position for some reason. How to understand his thinking process how he got there. 

Credit to him for thinking outside the box tho. Even if he's wrong. Most people just accept blindly what is being told to them in schools without ever questioning it. It shows intelligence and indipendant thinking. Those are nice qualities. 

Edited May 28 by Salvijus

[zurew]

5 hours ago, Buck Edwards said:

The basic tenet of math is consistency. That's how formulas are derived if you didn't know. 

I don't know whats this specifically responding to, cause I haven't implied that math can be inconsistent and if you think I did, then im not even sure how you you inconsistent there.

6 hours ago, aurum said:

You don’t even need to be a math nerd to see the flaws. His “proof” doesn’t even follow basic laws of algebra. Most high school kids should be able to debunk it.

Sure but one thing to say "your definition is wrong" but its an another thing to actually lay out what kind of logical entailments would come from it.

There are a bunch of ways to create other formal systems by starting with different axioms and if you don't violate those axioms then those formal systems will be consistent as well, but they probably wouldn't be as useful as math right now.

5 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

The crazy stuff I say cannot be formally proven, which is why I can get away with it.

You could actually formulate your arguments in syllogisms if you wanted to, as long as there is no contradiction in them ( I don't see in principle why you couldn't).  You can show there what the logical connections are and what kind of inferences  you are making to get to your conclusion.

If you did that, it could bring a ton of clarity, cause people who can read syllogisms (which is not hard to learn), could see the whole path how you get to your conclusion in detail , without logical jumps.

 

Edited May 28 by zurew

[Salvijus]

2 hours ago, zurew said:

There are a bunch of ways to create other formal systems by starting with different axioms and if you don't violate those axioms then those formal systems will be consistent as well, but they probably wouldn't be as useful as math right now.

I was thinking this aswell. You could make 1x1=2 and have a consistent math based on that aswell. 

I believe Howard's pointing more at a phylosophical problem rather than mathematical problem. Somehow according to him 1x1=1 does not exist in the universe and is somehow from phylosophical point of view incorrect way to look at the world. Not that I understand his thought process fully myself. 

Edited May 28 by Salvijus

[zurew]

1 minute ago, Salvijus said:

I was thinking this aswell. You could make 1x1=2 and make it consistent math aswell. 

I believe Howard's pointing more at a phylosophical problem rather than mathematical problem. Somehow according to him 1x1=1 does not exist in the universe and is somehow phylosophically incorrect way to look at the world. Not that I understand his thought process fully myself. 

Yeah but a formal system being consistent alone is not that big of an achievement. The axioms of math doesn't seem to be arbitrarily choosen - it seem to very precisely align with how we percieve the world. But this is the part that requires studying and I don't have the necessary knowledge to give answers about this.

Howard seems to be very confused and that confusion seems to come from his lack of understanding and knowledge. For example the very idea that all parts of math has to directly correlate to physics or that numbers somehow has to exist in the world are all axioms that he is adding onto things ,but they are not necessary.

You can be an antirealist about math, but still acknowledge and recognize its usefuleness and its applications.  So for you to acknowledge math to be useful you don't need to presuppose that mathematical or other abstract objects somehow exist in the world.

[Salvijus]

18 minutes ago, zurew said:

Yeah but a formal system being consistent alone is not that big of an achievement. The axioms of math doesn't seem to be arbitrarily choosen - it seem to very precisely align with how we percieve the world.

The question becomes. Which axioms are more in alignment with Reality from phylosophical point of view ? The ones that Howard is proposing or the current ones. It's a debatable matter if you ask me. I definitely don't know the answer but I'm open minded about it. 

Edited May 28 by Salvijus

[zurew]

28 minutes ago, Salvijus said:

Which axioms are more in alignment with Reality from phylosophical point of view ?

I wouldn't go as far as to say 'aligns with reality' I would only go as far as 'it aligns with our cognition' - thats why I said earlier how it aligns with our perception of the world (not making any judgmenets how the world is).

This is the same confusion that Howard has about math that I pointed out earlier - he thinks that math and all parts of math has to have a 1:1 correlation with reality, but that just an unnecessary added axiom.

Im pretty sure most physics and math professors acknowledge that there  are parts of math that cant be mapped onto physical reality, but still useful for specific things.

[Leo Gura]

3 hours ago, zurew said:

If you did that, it could bring a ton of clarity, cause people who can read syllogisms (which is not hard to learn), could see the whole path how you get to your conclusion in detail , without logical jumps.

The stuff I talk about is too subtle, abstract, and experiential to be formalized with logic.

No amount of logic can get you to see features like holism, recontextualization, higher consciousness, or just a new distinction. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

Edited May 28 by Leo Gura

[Salvijus]

1 hour ago, zurew said:

I wouldn't go as far as to say 'aligns with reality' I would only go as far as 'it aligns with our cognition' - thats why I said earlier how it aligns with our perception of the world

Okay, then the same question can be applied anyways. Which axioms are more in alignment with our perception of reality. But "align with reality" is just as good. Maybe even better. It would make more sense to align the math with the Reality rather than our perception of reality. Because our perception of reality could be flawed. And why would we want to align our math with something that is not stable even. 

Edited May 28 by Salvijus

[zurew]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

The stuff I talk about is too subtle, abstract, and experiential to be formalized with logic.

But you do have a way how you make sense of awakenings and psychedelic trips   and you make a bunch of inferences based on those awakenings, you just don't formalize what those inferences are.

You also make a bunch of arguments on a day to day basis about empirical stuff lets be it politics or which method is more effective in general for awakening or other stuff.

You also make a bunch of statements about what can be achieved and what is possible and all of those includes you making a bunch of inferences that you don't formally spell out.

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

No amount of logic can get you to see features like holism, recontextualization, higher consciousness, or just a new distinction. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

Thats not the point, because no amount of talk in natural language will get anyone to see the features that you mention there either. It could just  radically clear up what inferences you are making, and it would make navigating the disagreements much easier and it would clear up your own thinking as well.

1 hour ago, Salvijus said:

It would make more sense to align the math with the Reality rather than our perception of reality. Because our perception of reality could be flawed.

Lot of things can be flawed, depending on what we mean by flawed. All formal systems for example rely on certain logical laws like the law of non-contradiction (even the ones that allows sometimes for certain contradictions to be true, becuase they are consistent about which contradictions can be true).

Im just saying you don't necessarily need to make certain ontological commitments (what does or doesn't exist).

But ,sure you can make it stronger by saying that some parts of math describes physical reality (but then you take on more burden as well), but even then you don't need to subscribe to the position that Howard subscribes to , that math itself has to have an existence in nature or that all parts of maths has to map onto physical reality.

Edited May 28 by zurew

[Leo Gura]

3 hours ago, zurew said:

But you do have a way how you make sense of awakenings and psychedelic trips   and you make a bunch of inferences based on those awakenings, you just don't formalize what those inferences are.

You also make a bunch of arguments on a day to day basis about empirical stuff lets be it politics or which method is more effective in general for awakening or other stuff.

You also make a bunch of statements about what can be achieved and what is possible and all of those includes you making a bunch of inferences that you don't formally spell out.

Yes, of course, every human mind makes use of some informal logic. But that stuff cannot be formalized.

Yes, it can be spelled out more, but I myself don't know all the logic that goes into my understandings. It's way too complex and abstract to spell it all out in some linear sequence. Impossible, really.

Yes, I make a lot of very clever inferences. That cleverness is the magic sauce which I could not explain even if I tried.

Edited May 28 by Leo Gura