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."
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!
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!
I have a challenge for you: Can you steelman the arguments for relativity and quantum? Do you know enough to properly steelman it? The way I see it, I can steelman your position and then show why it is mathematically and physically impossible. You seem only capable of strawmanning and then providing nothing to defend yourself or the strawman attack. Your real test for this project will be to fully understand Relativity and Quantum so that you can show exactly where they are actually wrong. Your inability to understand will not suffice for long. I will happily make a video on my end steelmanning your position and then disproving it. It would be nice if you sent your working book for a peer review as opposed to expecting a peer review from others for $50 for an unfinished book... (not even real finished books cost $50).
1:40:30 When? When are you going to stop talking about starting and actually start? Can we expect 1 iota of a positive claim of your work, or do you simply have a line-up of interviews of other people talking about random things that don't provide information about how or why this is an issue?
John Gabriel already made New Calculus. Which doesn't need Limits. Also, Dr. Alberto Martinez has proved that we can formulize a system where the Rule of Signs doesn't dictate that -a*-b=ab by MAGIC! Counting starts at 1. Measurement at 0. Take 0 off the number line and take those imaginary numbers with it!
James, the comments were because you have no theory. You have no reason to think science is wrong, in fact. You are just ignorant to what physics says and does, and people can see that immediately. You need to have something, literally anything other than "*shrug* just asking question hehe". You are not advancing science and you never will.
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.
@@geeslime2352I 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
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.
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 😅
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!
1:36:40 Yes! Bayes' Theorem! That's what moves induction toward "algorithmity"!
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"
1:39:18 Popper wasn't a raiser! He was only a razer! Or a razor! 🤪😎
17:58 great discussion so far! I'd love to come on some time to talk about dialectical materialism, Hegelian logic, and Bayesian epistemology! 😉😜
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.
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.
@@Inductica Convincing the correct is an insane task
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!
I have a challenge for you:
Can you steelman the arguments for relativity and quantum? Do you know enough to properly steelman it?
The way I see it, I can steelman your position and then show why it is mathematically and physically impossible. You seem only capable of strawmanning and then providing nothing to defend yourself or the strawman attack.
Your real test for this project will be to fully understand Relativity and Quantum so that you can show exactly where they are actually wrong. Your inability to understand will not suffice for long.
I will happily make a video on my end steelmanning your position and then disproving it. It would be nice if you sent your working book for a peer review as opposed to expecting a peer review from others for $50 for an unfinished book... (not even real finished books cost $50).
1:40:30 When?
When are you going to stop talking about starting and actually start?
Can we expect 1 iota of a positive claim of your work, or do you simply have a line-up of interviews of other people talking about random things that don't provide information about how or why this is an issue?
My theory of induction is already available on Patreon if you join the $30 membership.
@@Inductica Yeah, no. I am not wasting $30 on something that fundamentally is wrong. I am not failing for your scam
I just realized inductia is a card carrying member of the Ayn Rand club. Ouch...
What's your disagreement with Ayn Rand?
Calculus without limits 😂😂😂
Wow. Ok. Good luck.
😂
He didn't lack confidence 😂😂 he didn't want to get in trouble for laughing at a student
John Gabriel already made New Calculus.
Which doesn't need Limits.
Also, Dr. Alberto Martinez has proved that we can formulize a system where the Rule of Signs doesn't dictate that -a*-b=ab by MAGIC!
Counting starts at 1.
Measurement at 0.
Take 0 off the number line and take those imaginary numbers with it!
@@jaydenwilson9522 How do you change motion from 0 m/s to 1m/s?
Do you just discretely jump?
@@jaydenwilson9522 Omg so funny. I found his channel. Hahahaha
@Inductica I love your new fan base! They are so funny.
James, the comments were because you have no theory. You have no reason to think science is wrong, in fact. You are just ignorant to what physics says and does, and people can see that immediately.
You need to have something, literally anything other than "*shrug* just asking question hehe".
You are not advancing science and you never will.
Why don't you guys debate about it on stream
@@geeslime2352 I invited James. He said after OCON and then went radio silent
I will just make a challenge video for James as he will not debate. He will lose, and he knows it
@@geeslime2352My next video "the introduction" also debunks his whole project (accidentally)
@@ExistenceUniversity by "his whole project" do you mean him railing against the hypothetico-deductive method?
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.
@@geeslime2352I 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?
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.