This video indeed is a treasure trove of valuable philosophical information. Much thanks to James and Arkadiusz. And James, thank you for mentioning my book.
The premise of Richard Feynman methods as a failure is mystical by itself. Because anyone can see that video where he says "The easiest person to fool is yourself", and by implication the task of unfooling one's self is paramount. Following only the logic of this in the context of Wheeler's One Electron Theory Wave-packaging, which Feynman Diagrams presented in graphical format, at least made it available to examine according to Euler's e-Pi-i flash-fractal 1-0-infinity probability range of relative-timing differentiates and the quantization bubble-modes of Neutronic potential positioning oscillation holography in Susskind's Singularity-point Lensing reasoning. It's always NOW, a Piaget's Stages style of integrated metastability superposition in relative-timing holographic-quantization. Without the beginning-ending concept of Feynman, it is absolutely not going to make a sense-in-common type Sciencing objective of nothing floating in No-thing i-reflection Aether of Absolute Relativity. "Each to their own opinion", and state of being. Keep up the discussion.
what a wordsalad this sounds to me, either you're trolling with these seemingly random jargon words, or you know so much you can just spit this out and it means something to people in the know, like wtf is this? "Euler's e-Pi-i flash-fractal 1-0-infinity probability range of relative-timing differentiates and the quantization bubble-modes of Neutronic potential positioning oscillation holography in Susskind's Singularity-point Lensing reasoning. It's always NOW, a Piaget's Stages style of integrated metastability superposition in relative-timing holographic-quantization."
Edward W Younkins has several great articles on rebirthofreason talking about the correlations with menger's views and objectivism. His lecture about Rand and the Austrian Economists on youtube is also really good.
@@Inductica Awesome. I've linked the discussions you had to zulu and others in his community keep telling me that they really enjoy our content too. Also told him he should talk to you about the method of the social sciences and objectivism if you would be down, I think it would be a great discussion.
@@prohereticsI would like to talk to him! Thanks for the suggestion. Just have him email me. My email address can be found on my UA-cam page, or my personal website
Everything is made out of stuff! And if it's all stuff, then it's all the same stuff, and there's only one kind of stuff, and we're all it all at the same time!
The many problems with psychology are definitely result of incorrect methodology. Psychology deals with the question of why people adopt various ends and how they go about adopting them, the thymological method forsure needs to be worked on though.
That was a profound statement: but then why try ? In my humble opinion. Because, through our own, capacious life course & myriad of experiences, we have come to intuitively more so know the possibilities, as to be potentiating & realizing, our imaginations. It is a greatly protracted, evolving of informations & informationalizations & currently, unfortunately yet remains, as such. Inherently, it can & usually does take years to bring to fruition, such evolvements of informations. The old addage: try & try again. Some of us are more proficient at this than others, irregardless it can & usually involves years. Especially, as pertaining to the promulgation of truly wholistic systematizations (i.e. cohesive combinatorials - of informations & informationalizations) Why do it ? Because we are willing to sacrifice ourselves in the pursuit of potentiations, for the greater whole. Or as Spock conveyed: the needs of the many, exceed the needs, of the one. 😮
I disagree with all of this. Why try? Because certainty is possible, because knowledge of existence brings us more power, and this process of learning the world and mastering it is joyful, it is not a sacrifice!
This video indeed is a treasure trove of valuable philosophical information. Much thanks to James and Arkadiusz. And James, thank you for mentioning my book.
I'm glad you liked it! Was worried my accent is gonna kill this 😅
I've finally made the time to watch it in one go. Thank yuo!
Glad you enjoyed it!
1:36:40 Yes! Bayes' Theorem! That's what moves induction toward "algorithmity"!
A deep and rich discussion! Thank you very much for this video.
I will be listening to it a second time, that's for certain.
Glad you found it helpful!
I'm glad you enjoyed it too!
The premise of Richard Feynman methods as a failure is mystical by itself.
Because anyone can see that video where he says "The easiest person to fool is yourself", and by implication the task of unfooling one's self is paramount. Following only the logic of this in the context of Wheeler's One Electron Theory Wave-packaging, which Feynman Diagrams presented in graphical format, at least made it available to examine according to Euler's e-Pi-i flash-fractal 1-0-infinity probability range of relative-timing differentiates and the quantization bubble-modes of Neutronic potential positioning oscillation holography in Susskind's Singularity-point Lensing reasoning. It's always NOW, a Piaget's Stages style of integrated metastability superposition in relative-timing holographic-quantization.
Without the beginning-ending concept of Feynman, it is absolutely not going to make a sense-in-common type Sciencing objective of nothing floating in No-thing i-reflection Aether of Absolute Relativity.
"Each to their own opinion", and state of being. Keep up the discussion.
what a wordsalad this sounds to me, either you're trolling with these seemingly random jargon words, or you know so much you can just spit this out and it means something to people in the know, like wtf is this?
"Euler's e-Pi-i flash-fractal 1-0-infinity probability range of relative-timing differentiates and the quantization bubble-modes of Neutronic potential positioning oscillation holography in Susskind's Singularity-point Lensing reasoning. It's always NOW, a Piaget's Stages style of integrated metastability superposition in relative-timing holographic-quantization."
@@heterodoxagnostic8070 It is word sallad and it tastes horrible.
sounds exactly like postmodern BS to me. That's original though, because it's normally only seen in postmodern "philosophy"
17:58 great discussion so far! I'd love to come on some time to talk about dialectical materialism, Hegelian logic, and Bayesian epistemology! 😉😜
1:39:18 Popper wasn't a raiser! He was only a razer! Or a razor! 🤪😎
Carl Menger > Karl Popper
Investigations into the method of the social sciences is a forgotten gem
Edward W Younkins has several great articles on rebirthofreason talking about the correlations with menger's views and objectivism. His lecture about Rand and the Austrian Economists on youtube is also really good.
I’ll look into him, thanks for the suggestion.
@@Inductica Awesome. I've linked the discussions you had to zulu and others in his community keep telling me that they really enjoy our content too. Also told him he should talk to you about the method of the social sciences and objectivism if you would be down, I think it would be a great discussion.
@@prohereticsI would like to talk to him! Thanks for the suggestion. Just have him email me. My email address can be found on my UA-cam page, or my personal website
@@Inductica You want him to email you? What are you smoking dude? Did you bother searching that name into google?
Everything is made out of stuff! And if it's all stuff, then it's all the same stuff, and there's only one kind of stuff, and we're all it all at the same time!
Get stuffed! Not the complement you were expecting I suppose. The all is one concept lives on reincarnated as stuff.
The many problems with psychology are definitely result of incorrect methodology. Psychology deals with the question of why people adopt various ends and how they go about adopting them, the thymological method forsure needs to be worked on though.
That was a profound statement: but then why try ? In my humble opinion. Because, through our own, capacious life course & myriad of experiences, we have come to intuitively more so know the possibilities, as to be potentiating & realizing, our imaginations. It is a greatly protracted, evolving of informations & informationalizations & currently, unfortunately yet remains, as such. Inherently, it can & usually does take years to bring to fruition, such evolvements of informations. The old addage: try & try again. Some of us are more proficient at this than others, irregardless it can & usually involves years. Especially, as pertaining to the promulgation of truly wholistic systematizations (i.e. cohesive combinatorials - of informations & informationalizations) Why do it ? Because we are willing to sacrifice ourselves in the pursuit of potentiations, for the greater whole. Or as Spock conveyed: the needs of the many, exceed the needs, of the one. 😮
I disagree with all of this. Why try? Because certainty is possible, because knowledge of existence brings us more power, and this process of learning the world and mastering it is joyful, it is not a sacrifice!
If the method of these philosopher were not accurate,then why do we still follow them?
@@subedichandri3113 physicists have yet to learn how they are bad methods. Convincing them is one goal of this channel.
I just realized inductia is a card carrying member of the Ayn Rand club. Ouch...
What's your disagreement with Ayn Rand?