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 think Terrence Howard has a truly above average aptitude for language and verbal reasoning.
The scientific underpinnings of what he's talking about are nonexistent. It's gobbledy-gook nonsense. But it sounds cohesive and logical. He is obeying and staying within his basic axioms (which are all bananas). It is no different that a buzz-wordy consultant who says "if we align incentives to drive synergy, we can realize asymmetric outcomes that act as network multipliers" or the Progressive Activist who says, "active anti-racism necessitates a conscious awareness of embedded attitudes and beliefs that are not necessarily learned but may be, nevertheless, omnipresent due to cultural inertia."
They're all playing by their own rules, but the rules are made up and divorced from reality. This is LARPing, this is D&D "You can't use lightning bolt without rolling at least 15 on summoning first!" It's fun to do with your friends, but you're not allowed to call it science ... or non-fiction.
Because it is fiction! And fiction is about creating engaging stories and narratives for people. And this is exactly what Terrence Howard is doing - creating a narrative for people to feel like they've "uncovered" some hidden truth about basic math, multiplication, the elements, space, whatever. And the bonus narrative is that he's like really,really,super,duper genius smart. So, I can feel good about watching Hustle and Flow because the dude playing the street pimp is actually on a meta-narrative about the frequency-hopping abilities of music and sexual slavery .... I think.
Truth is elusive, but we love the sound of it.
But that's just "this looks like a situation where two or more people working together can get more than twice the work of two individuals working alone so let's see what it would take to get everyone interested in working together" said with more buzz. There's a perfectly logical concept behind that statement even if the language used might make it harder rather than easier for the listener to get the meaning.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It is someone living in a totally unadapted mytho-poetic sense. Saying “his first experience being alive was dropping into his mother’s womb like being dropped in the dark” is a poetic feeling, what a post-enlightenment person would merely call a metaphor. It brings him some personal motivating value, and so he asserts that the feeling is a literal fact to heighten its potency. It reminds me of a less adapted Javier Milei, who speaks to the spirit of his dog (currently residing at the foot of God) and receives economic advice from him. Or Napoleon who believed that he was guided by a particular star. Terrence’s asserted metaphor sadly have to do with things where literal factuality is very important and cared about.
More options
Context Copy link
I'm reminded of that 4chan(?) favorite, the middle aged white man who talked about "they glow in the dark" etc. I can't recall his name. He had a kind of mental illness that supercharged parts of his intelligence. I didn't listen to more than around 10 minutes total of this Terrence Howard character, but he might have something like that going on. A bit of unusual brilliance mixed up with a stream of crazy BS.
Terry Davis, peace be unto him. There’s a really cool video out there about his TempleOS project, but I don’t remember the name.
I don’t know that the schizophrenia boosted his intelligence. Comorbidity, perhaps. It certainly didn’t do him any favors in the end.
Was it this one by YouTuber Fredrik Knudsen (Down the Rabbit Hole)?
https://youtube.com/watch?v=UCgoxQCf5Jg
It's one of the most popular videos on TempleOS and the one I saw when I learned about him.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The man, the myth, the schizophrenic computer programmer, Terry Davis.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
What are you withholding judgment on? He seems like a pretty garden variety hotep logician, the kind of guy that believes a lot of incredibly dumb shit and says it smugly because it makes him feel like he's actually very smart.
That was the recent Katt Williams episode, which was also unbearable.
Howard goes even further, because I don't think Williams questions basic math.
More options
Context Copy link
It's less Hotep nonsense and more aether/Tesla/free energy stuff. He talks about Michelson-Morely and Schumann resonance and the Walter Russell periodic table.
I particularly like the Russell table because of what I know of just intonation and music theory. Essentially Russell proposed, and Howard agrees, that elements exist in different pressure states, and that hydrogen and carbon and silicon and cobalt are essentially 'octaves' or harmonics of one another.
More options
Context Copy link
I believe that your confidence in believing something should be proportional to how close you are to that something.
For example I (I believe) I should not be more confident about string theory than an actual physicists that deals with the frontier of string theory on a day to day basis. Which means if the most knowledgeable string theorist is 95% sure that string theory is true/viable/useful, then me who gets all my information second hand (through YouTube videos, podcasts, articles, lectures, papers) should not be more than 95% sure about string theory.
Watching the Terrence Howard podcast I realised that I cannot defend against anything he is saying. I'm not saying he is correct. I'm not saying he is incorrect. I've simply deemed myself too far away from where the actual science happens to say anything intelligent on the matter at all.
Everything I know about physics comes from people who (supposedly) know more than most people on physics. I just took their word for it. I've never seen a proton, neutron or electron. I've never looked through a telescope and observed different galaxies. I've never sat down and really tried to understand the math that supports quantum physics. Yet I believe all these things. I just understand that I am trusting these high status people (Physicists) and their findings. But these people that I trust can be wrong. They could have missed something.
In my experience the best way to learn as a layperson is to watch experts (or people who have spent a longer than average time on a subject) debate each other and google/chatgpt/research all the points of disagreement that come up.
Other than entertainment, what value does one's confidence in something like the laws of physics or string theory have to the average layperson?
It honestly doesn't matter if it's correct or not unless you're working on something where that knowledge has a direct impact on something you're engaged with. For most people, your ability to function in the world is no better or worse whether you choose to believe in or not believe in string theory.
Usually, the "value" in this kind of sophistry in trying to recontextualize the lens to view the world is to open up people's mind to the possibility that maybe our fundamental assumptions about the world are incorrect and in doing so you might be able to unlock a new way of viewing the world or thinking that can yield positive results.
Okay, I can agree with this that, so why not use an actual useful example that can show that instead of arguing that if you change the axioms of mathematics 1x1=2. This feels just like that 2+2=5 controversy that just happened a few years ago. All the conversation gets lost in the absurdity of the example because frankly speaking, nobody goes around changing the axioms of mathematics in their day-to-day lives. It's only useful to mathematicians and philosophers.
Since you're deferring to the experts for subjects you don't understand, why are you listening to Terrence Howard, who is an actor and not a mathematician or logician or philosopher or scientist?
If you want to listen to a counterpoint of Howard's ideas, here's a video by YouTuber Professor Dave Explains: https://youtube.com/watch?v=lWAyfr3gxMA
This is a guy who typically makes videos debunking pseudoscience ideas like flat earth theory. He's probably just as qualified as Terrence Howard to talk about the subject.
I watched the first twenty minutes, and the utter contempt is expected, but this part bothered me. He mocks an interview where Howard says he can rebuild Saturn without gravity, and claims that any simulation would need gravity, yet that's not true at all! You can build a model to any specifications you want, including not having any gravity. He explains this in the podcast that Dave clearly didn't care to watch, that it's based on electrostatic forces and vortexes that meet at deliberate angle of incidence.
If you can create a model of the universe without including gravity, and can run that model a recreate known and observable phenomena, then congratulations, you can in fact rebuild Saturn without gravity.
I still don't believe 1x1 = 2, but when you choose not to understand I'm not going to give you much credence. He just completely repeats that everything is meaningless and counters with the established science as an appeal to authority.
If you can't prove this shit from first principles, or explain how it was first proven from first principles, then you don't know anything. This video in forty five minutes long, it can't be an issue with time length.
Not reading all this shit or watching some smug deboonker, but at a certain point, nonsense is too nonsensical to deboonk or deconstruct. You can't deboonk Timecube, for example.
Proving that 1*1=1 from first principles is very easy - natural-number mathematics defines 1 axiomatically as the multiplicative identity!
In what axiom set? Peano arithmetic just defines 1 as the successor of 0, and showing it's the multiplicative identity then requires a proof by induction.
More options
Context Copy link
You don't prove axioms, you take them as a given. That's what makes them axioms.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Link to full transcript from JRE episode with Terrence: https://www.happyscribe.com/public/the-joe-rogan-experience/2152-terrence-howard
The relevant text is from [01:17:54] onwards
Timestamp to the relevant part where he talks about Saturn:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=lWAyfr3gxMA&t=2007
Now the content of the video is available for us to reference without needing to watch the video.
You don't have to model for gravity but then your model must adhere to the observed qualities of gravity, otherwise it's a junk model. This isn't really addressed though and not the main point here. Maybe I missed it in the video and Dave may believe that a planet based simulation needs gravity but he doesn't seem to actually make the claim you say he is claiming.
He says "So he's pretending to explain planetary formation without gravity, and without explaining anything about what he's doing." which you could argue implies that Dave believes the model should have gravity but to me, I see it as just summarizing what Terrence is claiming to have accomplished.
We don't actually know if they built a model that rebuilds an adequate representation of Saturn, he just claims it does and shows a video of the supposed simulation. Until they publish the actual software, methodology, and information for others to be able to examine and replicate the formation of the planet as well as other celestial objects, this is as true as me claiming I have the cure for cancer and showing some 3d animation I made that I cured cancer. If you're going to be skeptical of the 'established' science you should very well be just as skeptical of these alternative scientific theories as a matter of principle and adequate proof has to be provided.
Also, they didn't rebuild Saturn. The set criteria of what defines Saturn matters here. Models are only as useful as the utility they provide. I could build a mold that has the rings of Saturn and the hexagon shape on top, fill it up, and then claim I have a model that creates Saturn if I define Saturn to be an object that looks like Saturn and has the hexagonal shape on top. Obviously, this is not a very useful model except for making model Saturn replicas.
Let's try to glean what we can about their supposed model and simulation tool. The claim about this simulation they use is that they have these set parameters such as angles of incidence, lynch pins, motion, pressure, crystallization, and vortices. If you look at the sidebar on the video you can also throw in harmonics, energy field, supernova, uhh torus, sphere, circle, cube? We'll just ignore those last 4 for a bit and come back to them later.
Suppose this is true, and that if you set all these little parameters to just the right amount you can get a bunch of objects that resembled Jupiter. How is this useful? How exactly do you determine all the values for the parameters? What determines the values of the specific parameters that lead to the output of the planet? It seems like they worked backward and just tweaked a bunch of the parameters until they got the object they wanted.
Also, the video of them creating Jupiter is literally done with Blender: Here's a video tutorial of Blender so you can see what it looks like: https://youtube.com/watch?v=Yrif5lXX7WY&t=208
Take a look at the area on the right. Now compare that to the video they are showing as proof of their simulation: https://youtube.com/watch?v=FWXlLNqkJls&t=251
See the sidebars on the right? Those are objects in a scene in Blender, which is a 3d computer graphics software tool. Now, maybe there is a plugin for Blender that is a separate simulation software that is supposed the same used as Princeton as claimed in the interview that actually can simulate some shit. Maybe they calculated the mathematics necessary outside of the blender and then ported that information onto objects inside of the blender to show the process. But honestly speaking, this makes me extremely skeptical about the robustness of their supposed simulation software. They essentially have to rebuild a physics engine from the ground up since their so-called model of the world is fundamentally different from how everyone else is modeling the world.
Furthermore, the video doesn't actually show a believable formation of Jupiter. Remember the odd objects I mentioned before? They literally have a "torus" object and 2 spheres defined in the blender software. That's the inner core, the outer core, and the ring. It honestly looks like the objects are predefined. There is nothing in the video that leads me to believe that they can actually demonstrate the life cycle of a planet or even how its formed. Maybe it simulates some aspects of Jupiter but that's not what the claim Terrence made in the interview is.
Terrence later claims they've modeled the Milky Way better than NASA and we just have to take his word for it? What is he talking about here? What model of NASA? What's the benchmark they are comparing against to prove their model is better? I really wish Joe asked for more information here.
Now does this mean their model is wrong? No, it doesn't prove it, but it doesn't give much reason to be confident in it. They need to release the full details of their model, their simulation software, the blender files, and everything. There hasn't been much information provided in this segment of the interview here to give confidence to any of the claims made about this. When in doubt the choice shouldn't be to believe the thing as true.
Most of what Terrence says when he tries to explain his ideas is meaningless because he fails to properly even define the terms he are using and he misuses words. Now, perhaps if you read the source material that he's getting some of his ideas from it might make sense, but it's not the job of the listener of the JRE to have to do the research to figure out what the hell he's saying. Joe should've pressed Terrence to explain more but he didn't.
Terrence fails to do this very thing since nowhere in this interview does he adequately explain the concepts he throws around (a large part due to Joe just not asking Terrence to explain). It's basically you just have to take his word for it, but he doesn't do a good job, and frankly speaking, when you introduce new ideas, you better do a damn good job of explaining those ideas and setting the foundational knowledge to be able to communicate about it because otherwise you just end up with easy criticisms like those sprinkled in Dave's video.
Dave doesn't HAVE to prove anything. All he has to do is counter what Terrence is saying, It's Terrence's job to provide ample evidence to support his position. This is a logical fallacy and doesn't properly dismiss criticism. Now you could argue Dave didn't properly counter Terrence's points but honestly, Terrence doesn't make many points.
Yes, Dave does come off as quite condescending to Terrence with insults and does make a strawman of some of his points, and skips over parts in the video but his core points stand. Terrence uses nonexistent jargon, doesn't explain his points, and makes outlandish claims.
By the way, here is a Terrence paper if you want to see the quality of his academic output.
https://x.com/terrencehoward/status/925754491881877507?lang=en
This is something where he had the chance to fully refine his arguments, and not a live interview where he has limited time to explain his ideas. Honestly, I was giving Terrence some the benefit of the doubt that he's just not explaining the ideas properly but he genuinely has no idea what he's talking about. Maybe the source behind the ideas he's pushing out has some value to it but Terrence is not the guy you want to be the ambassador of these ideas.
Just to give 1 example of what is wrong with his "paper", on the first page in the 2nd half where he adds 1 to both sides of 1x1 = 2 he uses 1x1 = 2 as proof that 1x1 =2.
Here is a video Terrence put out to try to explain his concept, a video should be more accessible to people than a paper:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=zloGu1tBThY
He essentially says the equation X^3 = 2x has 1 answer (it has actually 3 real numbers as an answer), and other numbers doesn't fit into the equation, therefore there is something wrong with math!
This guy just doesn't understand mathematics and doesn't provide the rigor to properly redefine the axioms that would make his equation true. I legitimately feel dumber for having tried to understand his line of thinking and I might dare to go as far to say that it is is an cognitohazard and nobody should watch his video or read his paper for the sake of their sanity.
The funny bit is that this is kind of true. The reason stars usually have planets is that a contracting gas cloud has to shed angular momentum to slow down its spin enough to contract to stellar size, and the only way to do that (prior to the star getting hot enough to create stellar winds) is to shift it into orbits - either it splits into two and becomes a binary (with the angular momentum stuffed into the stars' orbit around each other) or it spits out a disc of matter around its equator that coalesces into planets (with the angular momentum stuffed into the planets' orbits).
Of course, Jupiter doesn't have excess angular momentum, so it's not going to spit out the Great Red Spot or anything else.
More options
Context Copy link
This is absolutely true, and where he falls completely flat. I just wish this was the criticism instead of saying you can't do it.
I watched the remaining 25 minutes of that video too, and I agree with Dave. He's right about all of those things, and the claims are nonsensical much of the time. Yet at the end of both I'm endeared to Terrance and have contempt for Dave.
I also read through his paper, and tried to get through that stuff. I left without any reasonable impression or actionable takeaway. Cognitohazard is right.
Goes to show that being right doesn't make you likable and that delivery matters as much as the message.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I'm trying to have an accurate view of the world so I'm (somewhat) constantly checking my confidence levels in certain beliefs. But yes you are correct the latest findings in string theory does not affect my ability to function in the world day to day.
You could say "why are you trying to have an accurate view of the world ?" and to that I don't have a real answer other than truth is a terminal value to me.
Okay forget the word "expert" and replace it with the phrase "people with above average interest and time spent on a subject". Terrence Howard and Professor Dave have both spent more time on this subject than me so I'll listen to them both. I mean you also listened to Terrence Howard no ? Listening is not necessarily an endorsement and he popped on the biggest podcast in the world.
We live in an era of information bombardment so it's crucial to be able to figure out what deserves your attention and what doesn't. By the way, I defer to the experts for a lot of my knowledge too, it's unavoidable. I couldn't get anything useful outside of Terrence Howard's ideas except amusement so I didn't listen to the whole thing. Maybe you see something of value in there I don't.
I think I would enjoy his ideas if it was presented as a system in a science fiction novel but it's being presented as reality and I can't decouple that to take his ideas seriously.
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
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.
It is possible to build up a thorough and comprehensive axiomatic theory starting from a geometry without the parallel postulate. But what's described here seems like an extremely painful, sloppy, and intentionally confusing usage of notation. Possibly just wrong, probably not even wrong.
In terms of foundational mathematics, building up from geometric definitions like crossing lines is an extremely cumbersome method of defining your axioms. Even if you do not insist on using intentionally confusing notation like 1x1=2. As you said, you immediacy run into annoyances in terms of defining basic things like the irrationals in sqrt(2).
If you wanted to make a serious attempt at analyzing alternatives to the conventional axiomatic assumptions, it would be much more clear to begin with variations on Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory, with or without the axiom of choice and the continuum hypothesis. This would be a much more rigorous and clear way of showing how your systems produces a non-Peano arithmetic. If someone is unwilling to go through that work, it seems extraordinarily unlikely that they are producing anything interesting, correct, and non-trivial.
Though the foundational crisis may non be resolvable, the generally accepted formalism provides the necessary mathematical tools to do an extraordinarily good job of describing reality. If someone wants to propose a different formalism, it better provide a better or more useful description of reality. Saying that the current formalism does not perfectly describe reality so we should adopt a formalism that is less useful and more confusing, is pure nonsense.
To quote Hilbert (1927 The Foundations of Mathematics):
Laying out a formalism with overlapping but ill-defined versions of "spin" and "product," is not cleverness or some deep philosophical insight, it's an expression of sloppy thinking.
More options
Context Copy link
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
Okay, so let's say I get on my bike and I ride for one hour at one mile per hour in a straight line. When I'm done, I will have traveled:
A. One mile
B. Two miles
Which of these answers most closely resembles reality?
I know how to do math, thank you.
Do you know how to do complex math?
I'll answer your question with my own. If I go a mile in either direction, what does the shape of the earth look like? Does it look curved, or does it look flat? Which one of these is a better model of reality?
All of the sensors and equipment on an airplane assumes a flat, stationary earth. They do that because the approximations are good enough, not because the earth is actually flat.
Yes, I do know how to do complex math.
Of course it is curved, and furthermore a geoid.
Now that I've answered, please explain if 1 mile or 2 miles traveled at 1 mph after 1 hour is a better reflection of reality, and how that connects to why 1 x 1 = 2 is a reasonable statement.
You can't tell that from walking around a mere mile. You can barely tell that at all. You certainly can't derive that from first principles without significantly more information.
That's the point. The flat earth model is a good one, for many things. Imagine, if you will, your house. It has walls, and those walls are vertical. For simplicity, let's say that a plumb bob was used, and that therefore the walls are plumb, and the ceiling which joins the walls at right angles is level. Except, it's not. The two plumb bobs are not parallel, and in fact converge. That doesn't matter for your house, because there's no difference at that scale. It's wrong to assume a flat earth, yet we do it anyway in many circumstances because the differences don't add up and aren't apparent.
In your example, if you travel for 1 hour, and at the end are 1 mile away, then you could say you averaged one mile per hour. However, in reality you were above and below that speed at many points throughout the hour. I say your hypothetical does not reflect reality, it merely approximates it locally.
Very interesting. However, I still am curious if 1 mile or 2 miles is a better reflection of the reality of my travel distance, since you said that 1x1=2 is looking at reality rather than avoiding it and retreating into theory.
So by all means, let's look at reality.
You sure can if you're walking uphill.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link