Terrence Howard on Reality

[Salvijus]

@Ero please... I just I want to know this one question. Is it possible to make the new model be it mine or somebody else's and make it perfectly consistent. And it would have new rules and new formulas and new definitions. Is that doable or no. It's a yes or no question. 

[Juan]

The fact that people are taking this guy seriously is quite laughable. But because he is a celebrity well people are giving some credibility. I’m ok and open to new ideas, but you can see clearly he is trying some non logical mental gymnastics to make sense what he is saying, so I move on with my day. 

Edited June 17 by Juan

[Juan]

Was this video share here? I quick checked the thread but didn’t see it. 

In any case, if a celebrity nowadays would create a cult, besides Kanye, I think it would be this guy Terrence.

[zurew]

 

[Ero]

2 hours ago, Salvijus said:

@Ero please... I just I want to know this one question. Is it possible to make the new model be it mine or somebody else's and make it perfectly consistent. And it would have new rules and new formulas and new definitions. Is that doable or no. It's a yes or no question. 

I already showed you that your model is inconsistent. You cannot have a functional relationship that matches for the same value two different results.

[Leo Gura]

Definitions of standard math were made to correspond to empirical reality.

You can easily have other kinds of math. You could make a computer world in which 1+1=11. It would be analogous to a non-Euclidean world. It would feels weird and alien and it would mind-fuck you because none of your intutions would work.

Also, keep in mind that the human mind evolved to do math in and about our empirical reality. Otherwise it would be useless.

You can have an infinite number of different kinds of logics.

Edited June 17 by Leo Gura

[Nemra]

1+1=2 (base 10), 1+1=10 (base 2)

So, 2 (base 10) = 10 (base 2)

However, in the same numeral system, they aren't the same.

Have people forgotten that numeral systems exist?

Edited June 17 by Nemra

[Leo Gura]

Right now, you can make a computer world where if I give you one egg and another egg, you end up with 11 eggs. God could create worlds like that.

Edited June 17 by Leo Gura

[Nemra]

5 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Right now, you can make a computer world where if I give you one egg and another egg, you end up with 11 eggs. God could create worlds like that.

You mean, the concept of "2" would be the same as "11"?

Or would the addition work differently?

[Leo Gura]

2 minutes ago, Nemra said:

You mean, the concept of "2" would be the same as "11"?

No. There would still be a concept of 2, but combining eggs would not give you 2 it would give you 11 eggs.

You could make a world where combing two things of the same kind will always give you 3 of those things instead of 2.

Edited June 17 by Leo Gura

[Nemra]

49 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

You could make a world where combing two things of the same kind will always give you 3 of those things instead of 2.

Yes, if I program it as such.

But then that's not an addition. It's a custom-made arithmetic operation based on other defined operation(s).

I could even make the "addition" process yield different results for "adding" the same or a different thing. Or maybe it'll yield a unicorn.

Edited June 17 by Nemra

[Salvijus]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

You can easily have other kinds of math

I think so too. It's debateble tho if the current math is the most accurate representation of observable reality imo. 

Edited June 17 by Salvijus

[Salvijus]

1 hour ago, Ero said:

I already showed you that your model is inconsistent.

I believe It can be made consistent tho. You would just have to adjust the rest of the math, all the formulas and all the rules and definitions to be in alignment with the new model. It feels like you're dodging to acknowledge this for some reason. 

Edited June 17 by Salvijus

[Leo Gura]

14 minutes ago, Salvijus said:

It's debateble tho if the current math is the most accurate representation of observable reality imo. 

It's better than anything some fool on a podcast conjures up in his basement.

It's not like there don't exist non-convential versions of math and logic within the field of academic mathematics. You can go study those crazy, weird sub-fields if you want. But that's a lot harder than spitballin on a podcast.

Edited June 17 by Leo Gura

[Salvijus]

Just now, Leo Gura said:

It's better than anything some fool on a podcast conjures up in his basement.

Uuuh... Gheesh... that was unexpected lol

[zurew]

7 minutes ago, Salvijus said:

It feels like you're dodging to acknowledge this for some reason. 

I don't know why you would imply that he is being bad fath and at the same time demand him to do all the work for you.

Some of you guys are lazy and arrogant as hell.

 

[Salvijus]

1 minute ago, zurew said:

I don't know why you would imply that he is being bad fath and at the same time demand him to do all the work for you.

Some of you guys are lazy and arrogant as hell.

 

You also think there can't be any other way to make consistent math except for the one that exists now? 

[Salvijus]

5 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

It's better than anything some fool on a podcast conjures up in his basement.

It's not like there don't exist non-convential versions of math and logic within the field of academic mathematics. You can go study those crazy, weird sub-fields if you want.

Bruh...it's cool. Relax

All I sayed, it's that it's debateble if the current math is the most accurate representation of reality. I think that's fair thing to say. There's no need to get so worked up imo. 

[Salvijus]

Okay it's official. The world is going mad. 

[zurew]

Just now, Salvijus said:

You also think there can't be any other way to make consistent math except for the one that exists now? 

No (if by math we mean an axiomatic system), but that wasn't your question to him originally. Your question to him was specifically about your system where you presented specific operations.