Dope Tech Episode 2

<<@JoshShannon-em2ft says : If you can't listen to TH for two minutes (much less hours) and know beyond a doubt he's at the very minimum out of touch with the facts, then you're just as deluded, lying, or a complete effing idiot. Nobody needs Eric Whinestein to make that call. My sense is this guy was completely lying at 2:00 into this vid. Not a big fan of those BS politician tactics. Plenty of better channels to waste time on.>> <<@marcmorrison4297 says : Literally zero devotees of Terriology. 1x1 does not equal 2>> <<@db76177 says : Eric didn’t debunk disprove or say anything of relevance. All just mumbo jumbo Talmudic trash.>> <<@qthirteen13 says : Wait till they see the most recent Terrence podcast 😁 It was a lot more interesting than the Rogan one and a bit more understandable… it’s just sad that people just laugh and call him dumb… man is nice and tries to understand the universe which is in probably unknowable 🤷🏽‍♂️… and why do people take time out of their day to shit on others 🤦🏽‍♂️>> <<@michaelkatz9686 says : They don’t mention long Covid or other variants. We were lied to then and are being lied to now.>> <<@Darin.Pearson says : The most important and revealing comment made by Eric was (I'm paraphrasing): If the math community was to accept such a fundamental change (1 + 1 =2), the entire system would collapse. To the extent Eric is correct, our mathematical systems work to a very high degree of precision. Facilitating incredible feats of technology, engineering, science, medicine, etc. Our mathematical systems do not need to be reconstructed from scratch.>> <<@heiligart says : Def one of my favorite JREs yet. The trump interview was so pathetic I nearly gave up on Joe, but he saved some face with #2171>> <<@CG-dd9tb says : You can’t speak to it with authority, but degrasse Tyson can. Bad Ideas shouldn’t be spread because they might spur a good idea, that’s insane.>> <<@ast453000 says : The problem is Eric won't engage honestly with ideas. He spends hours platforming a guy who doesn't understand second grade arithmetic, but when asked to engage with a critic of his "Geometric Unity" theory, he tries to shut him up and runs away (claims he has to walk his dog). Also, if you have a better method of advancing scientific discourse than peer-review, let us know. I've been on both sides of the peer-review process, and let me tell you, it is an incredibly hard and grueling process - as it should be. Science is hard. It's not just the free association of multi-syllabic words. And not everyone gets a prize. Peer review is anonymous. You don't know whose paper you are reviewing. You are trained for years to distinguish good ideas from bad ones. Bad ones are incoherent, or unclear, or already known, or not supported by evidence, etc. Good ones are new, significant, clear, well-supported, etc. That's what a PhD program trains you to do. You criticize these ideas ruthlessly. You're not supposed to be nice about it. You shouldn't be rude, but it's not about people's feelings. This is the way it should be. That's how discourse advances. If the author can fix the paper and make it better then maybe the paper gets published. Or maybe you have to go to a different journal. You are given an unlimited amount of chances to get it right and publish. Journals want to publish good ideas. But there is a difference between good ideas and bad ones. Science is about distinguishing good from bad ideas in as objective a way as possible. That's why the process is anonymous. Unlike Joe Rogan's podcast, not everyone gets a prize in science. Nor should they.>> <<@unstandard_mutant says : this is just dangerously dumb and self-important people critiquing people who are so comprehensively dumb, their only real danger is their contribution to the degrading of the concepts of evidence and explanation themselves. if you take rogan seriously, you're an idiot. if you take a weinstein brother seriously, you're a pretentious idiot if you're a 50 year old who looks like a rejected member of Linkin Park, and you outright reject the notion of scientific peer review and journal publication, you really shouldn't have a channel designed to dumb down a vulnerable public that is already intellectually compromised, you're getting into "seriously bad person" territory.>> <<@hammct2569 says : Elon never made "Tesla". He bought shares. After this phrase all the rest is irrelevant>> <<@TheShadow-n3p says : 27:27 You became a genius. The dunning kruger effect is insulting to anyone who is trying to learn anything at all. We point and make assumptions before testing, and testing does not always warrant an answer. Ask anyone in theoretical physics if the frontiers of their knowledge doesn't hold an answer? This is why they are afraid to talk. At least that's what I think... Anyone who is stubborn will call someone a narcissist because they want control of something they can't have. Psychological dogma to chaff is just bs. Tenure doesn't make you a god, having a PHD makes you no better than the home-schooled. Covid- Proved that.>> <<@Jamesrwatsonx says : 1 ÷ 1 = .99999 Or 3 ÷ 3 = .99999 If not... 1/3 = .33333 2/3 = .66666 3/3 = .99999 Therefore 3 ÷ 3 = .99999 or 1? Flaws in math = flaws in its utility We've come to a deadend. Math only deals in the visible which is why it will evolve as we start exploring and merging with the EMS with Artificial Intelligence. AI will get us there. We're all on a planet in motion. We are all 'of' this planet in motion. That means everything is in motion. Toms high on Adderall and/or Cocaine. I sure hope he has people that love him around him to tell him. I love you Tom, don't do drugs.>> <<@ShakthiDhasan-e8h says : Tom is a gas bag 🎒. Why does he think his opinion is of any value, baffles me.>> <<@micnorton9487 says : Tom's got his nose SO FAR UP Eric Weinstein's bum EVEN A DEEP-SEA SNORKEL WOULDN'T SAVE HIM LOLOL....>> <<@ChicagoMike13 says : Terrence is a tard.>> <<@Theplanettd87 says : The fact that it took COVID to realize you were being lied to shows how ignorant many of us are. I always knew we were being lied to for the simple fact the closest people in my family did hurtful things including lying to me at a very young age, made me aware if my family can be this way you DAM RIGHT SOMEONE WHO I DONT KNOW AND NOT RELATED TO WILL BE THE SAME IF NOT WORST>> <<@joekiplik9108 says : It simple to have early indicator of T theory .... Just check his Paten ... Is it develop base on his theory? Does it work and usefull in real world and aligned with his theory ... ? Too many agenda in this world ... Fact speak louder>> <<@ericgenaroflores7069 says : Yes, I think Terence is misunderstood. He, uh, is difficult at articulating himself correctly, but... I'm the same boat, but just investigating this conundrum, this dilemma, I mean this, uh, bickering... The set of natural numbers, n, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, can be paired with the set of even numbers, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10. By pairing each natural number n with its double of 2n, despite the even numbers being a subset of the natural numbers, the pairing shows that both sets have the same cardinality because there's a one-to-one correspondence between them You’ve captured a fundamental concept in set theory quite well. The pairing of natural numbers with their doubles (even numbers) illustrates the fascinating and sometimes counterintuitive nature of infinite sets, where a part can have the same “size” as the whole. This concept of cardinality, which you’ve described, is central to understanding the peculiarities of infinity. Summary of Key Points: • Natural Numbers and Even Numbers: • The set of natural numbers \( \mathbb{N} = \{1, 2, 3, 4, 5, \dots\} \) can be paired with the set of even numbers \( E = \{2, 4, 6, 8, 10, \dots\} \). • The pairing is done by associating each natural number with its double . • One-to-One Correspondence: • A one-to-one correspondence means that for every element in one set, there’s exactly one corresponding element in the other set, and vice versa. • Despite being a subset of , this one-to-one correspondence shows that both sets have the same cardinality (infinite), demonstrating that they are “equally large” in terms of size. • Understanding Infinity: • This example highlights the unique properties of infinite sets, where subsets can have the same cardinality as the entire set they belong to. This is a key concept in understanding the nature of infinity and is a departure from our usual experience with finite sets, where parts are always smaller than wholes. On Terence and Articulation: It sounds like you’re expressing a sentiment that resonates with many who grapple with complex ideas—sometimes it’s challenging to articulate these concepts clearly, especially when they involve abstract or counterintuitive principles like those found in set theory. It can be difficult to communicate these ideas precisely, but the effort to understand and explain them is valuable. Misunderstandings are common in such intricate topics, but persistence in investigation and discussion can lead to deeper clarity and insight.>> <<@paulthomas5901 says : Actually, Terrence Howard does not seem like a nice guy when you consider his history of being a woman beater.>> <<@leveretth says : Kudos to Drew! Wow! Tom really puts Eric's interaction with Terrence into sharp focus.>> <<@islandbuoy4 says : *I wish I had been there to help clarify how to merge symmetry with biology, chemistry, physics AND I know Eric would have been onside, maybe Terrence too* ... both men need to add *CHIRAL and ACHIRAL* to their glossary of terms when discussing what is 'symmetry'. *ACHIRAL is perfect symmetry* in that it has both rotational and reflection symmetry. The equilateral triangle, circle, cross in a circle, square, hexagon, octagon, star of david ALL exhibit ACHIRAL symmetry. Many of those symbols are used to represent 'god' or 'perfection'. *CHIRAL is imperfect/broken/asymmetric* and it exhibits only rotational symmetry. The right/scalene triangles, pentagon/pentagram, sepatgon, and swastika are all CHIRAL geometric shapes. Looking into a mirror you see your CHIRAL image. Your L/R hands are CHIRAL. *Now it is important to know that ALL LIFE IS CHIRAL* We are discussing a 'creation' process correct? So is the mythical 'hand of god' CHIRAL of ACHIRAL?... maybe one of both? hahaha>> <<@Angeltara02 says : "covid ripped the mask off..." Pun intended? Lol>> <<@victorhiggins2118 says : Horseshit>> <<@GoolsbysUniverse says : What if what Eric knows is inherently flawed, yet since he’s studied the traditional way for so long he’s unable to understand what Terrence has figured out?>> <<@tabithasantos9809 says : This was great>> <<@qmack8005 says : Please realize Eric was wrong and he didn't debunk anything. They disagree about the theoretical law of motion that either everything is in motion or whether anything is actually being motionless. Nothing can be motionless because at a molecular level everything vibrates at different frequencies. Meaning even potential energy not moving by eyesight is still moving just at it's vibrations frequency. Terrance Howard has showed us a correlation of frequency in quantum physics that can be utilize and never unaccounted for. Unlike the theory of motion Eric Epstein believes where frequencies are unaccounted for. Don't be fooled by anyone who isn't a 9 ether intellectual being.>> <<@QMack-r5v says : Organizing the discredit in the findings of Terrance Howard correlating frequencies to the periodic table and figuring out the authentic math of SCIENCE!! One with actual foundation!! will be one of the biggest regrets this country has ever made as we watch the rest of the world evolve America will remain the most stagnant, the most racially judgemental, and systematic prejudice country in existence.>> <<@sisandamatomela3272 says : All Eric Weinstein did was engage in self fellacio at the expense of Terrence Howard, he amused himself with Terrence elongating a discussion that Neil de Grasse Tyson dealt with in a few minutes !!>> <<@Michael-j7m3j says : Howard is not your boy talk to him with respect just how you talked to Eric enough is enough no more bull crap>> <<@gravytopic says : Eric Weinstein doesn't become bombastic? Which one what>> <<@ROBLOXTHANOS says : Your logic is sound, Tom. I hear you.>> <<@BruthaMuzone says : Dude you're insane! He actually believes that one unit of one is two!! Genius is impossible from the atrocity of such ignorance!!!>> <<@xandertreffers says : When somebody says "we should be traveling the cosmos" you know the low brain capacity in front of you. "Debating the world's most important ideas" but having no clue about science, physics, math, whatsoever. Please don't talk about stuff you have no clue about. If as an early teenager, you weren't completely baffled by the Universe, by math, by physics, chemistry, biology. If you didn't take all science classes possible before going to University. If you didn't go to a University to discover more about how the Universe, math and physics work. Then it's very unlikely that as an adult you have the capacity to grasp even the most simple science stuff. Like for instance: "why aren't we traveling the cosmos"? (just phrasing it at the "level" that this podcast is at) MisterHatOnBackwards is a clear example of how this lack of basic education leads to the Dunning Kruger Effect.>> <<@gen-zeke-8571 says : We're all crazy to think we know anything.>> <<@TheJonnyEnglish says : Got excited that I may have found a good podcast but seeing who you primarily have for guests instantly turned me off to everything lol>> <<@DD-gi6kx says : eric was a disgrace to science in this, he sat there and said nothing as terrance spewed nonsence from his first thought, then after terrance spews countless idiocies eric politely corrects him on one stupid point. terrance said dewey decimal system several times and eric did not say a thing terrance said 1x1=2 due to conservation of energy, and eric let him go on and on>> <<@50shadesofgayy says : He just doesn’t understand that the number 1 is representational of a single unit of everything based on context. 1 apple is still 10^27 atoms. 1 is just EVERYTHING. The universe as a whole. He’s arguing language instead of reality.>> <<@janicelgo4522 says : Professor Dave was the sunlight needed.>> <<@rickmoor1615 says : If Tom Bilyeu doesn't know that one times one, does not equals one...., all hope is lost.>> <<@pollywops9242 says : Are brilliant and crazy mutually exclusive>> <<@petersimmons3654 says : No one realised the man has schizophrenia, familiar irrational raving to anyone who has experienced it. It may well appear to make sense to the patient, buy there is no logic, and attempts to decode it are pointless.>> <<@TheTDawson1 says : I love this channel so much.>> <<@ClearThinking-n1w says : honestly revolutionary ideas are faced resistance before being accepted. For example, the concept of zero and negative numbers were once controversial but are now fundamental. Similarly, non-Euclidean geometry, which contradicted centuries-old Euclidean principles, eventually revolutionized mathematics and physics. Terence Howard’s theory, though currently unconventional, could represent the next revolutionary step in understanding arithmetic. Mathematics is not restricted to a single set of rules. Different systems, such as modular arithmetic or matrix algebra, redefine operations in ways that diverge from conventional arithmetic. this could be interpreted within a new system where multiplication operates under different axioms. In this system, the product of 1 and 1 yielding 2 could be a valid result, similarly to how imaginary numbers operate within the complex number system. bro think about contextual applications where operations yield non-intuitive results! For instance, in certain algebraic structures or under specific conditions, the multiplication of elements does not follow standard rules. If we define a unique context or set of conditions under which 1 times 1 equals 2, this assertion could hold true insides that specialized framework. Then Weinstein says" Terrence you keep worrying about what things mean" Bro philosophy of mathematics OFTEN explores the nature and meaning of numbers and operations. Terrence's theory invites a philosophical discussion about the essence of multiplication and numerical identity. By challenging the conventional result of 1 times 1, he is questioning deeper assumptions about how we define and understand mathematical operations, potentially leading to new philosophical insights. physics and engineering, dimensional analysis sometimes leads to results that differ from straightforward arithmetic. Multiplying two physical dimensions (length X width = area) fundamentally changes the nature of the result. Howard’s theory might be seen as an analogy where multiplication within a certain theoretical framework or dimension results in 2, not 1, thereby offering a new interpretation of multiplication in a different dimensional context. his claim forces rigorous testing and exploration. By challenging a fundamental arithmetic principle, he stimulates the scientific community to explore and validate new theories. This process, even if it ultimately disproves his claim, strengthens mathematical knowledge and could lead to unexpected discoveries. if we were trying to move forward instead of "killin" everyone that introduces a new idea, we could for example alter the axioms of arithmetic within a controlled framework, we could demonstrate scenarios where Howard’s result is consistent and logical.>> <<@emmkingmk says : He interviewed himself for the first part.......come up for air and let the other guy speak.>> <<@elmecahomaja says : Tom Bilyeu, amazing commentary and thoughts about that podcast with Eric, Terrance and Joe! I'm grateful that there are people like you and the three aforementioned, you all are providing a priceless service for humanity.>> <<@qaddafi1000 says : It seem like all the white people are jealous or full of hate that it's not them so their going to speak against him.>> <<@yew2oob954 says : Terrance wants to go to teaching, without learning and understanding.>> <<@WayWhite-q5h says : 1x1 is 2. terrance doesnt understand basic multiplication.>> <<@silverblackguerrilla4370 says : This notion that we're just now living in the "conspiratorial" age is complete nonsense. Anybody that's over 50 knows that they would use words like "conspire" in history books to pretty must explain everything that happened with governments and worldly issues. What would be more accurate is for him to say that we live in a world of "conspiracy theory". Conspiracies are real and can be proven quite easily. Whenever a group of people are conspiring to do some sh*t then it's a conspiracy, literally. Conspiracy theories are just that, THEORIES. No, proof, facts or evidence. Just people stating their opinions. I have no problem with conspiracy theorists by the way. But to claim that this is the "conspiratorial age" doesn't make sense. But I can see someone calling this the "Conspiracy theory age". And it was clear to the world that we're all being lied to during the JFK assassination. The entire world watched the footage of him getting shot in the forehead, but still told everybody he was shot from behind! The most blatant lie in history was said in 1963. Nothing is new. Peace>>