4:30 - Let's redefine the number system to be gaps between vertical bars instead of Arabic numerals. e.g. 2 is | | | because there are 2 gaps between the three bars and addition is the binary operation of concatenating vertical bars together. Then, 2 + 2 becomes | | | + | | | = | | | | | | - but wait, there's five gaps! So 2 + 2 DOES equal 5 in this system, AND I just changed how math worked! The presentation is an instance of Russel's Teapot: ""If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a teapot, too small to be seen by any telescope, orbiting the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense." There is no way to disprove anything said in this presentation was a design of God. Like Russel's Teapot, there is no possible avenue to disprove anything stated because it requires disproving the existence of someone's God, and there absolutely nothing whatsoever on this Earth to make someone that believes in God to stop believing, so how can the assertion be taken seriously? But why God, and not, say, the Hindu god Brahmin? If you were born and raised in India you would have made EXACTLY the same claims that it was in fact Brahmin, instead of the Christian God. Why not the Islamic god, Allah? Our number system does use the Arabic numerals, after all. One can only **wish** it is the deity they were brought up with (i.e. the the "correct" depends on where you were born) that invented mathematics. Everyone in every religion can make exactly the same presentation substituted with their "correct" god, which is exactly why its so meaningless. This presentation is a circular fallacy; An appeal to authority. Human's invented mathematics. Your channel is full of high level mathematics, but this presentation is an insult to the self-determined individuals that contributed to the field; Their genius and creative contributions across thousands of years, and different countries, have been reduced by you to a deity most of those mathematicians did not believe in. All those mathematicians that believed in a different God to your own, or no God, having their contributions over millennia being attributed to your God in the space of 30 minutes is ultimate display of sanctimonious egotism.
It's not clear to me where God comes into play in your argument. It's also not clear how your example of solving for x using two different methods demonstrates (or is valid evidence) towards the idea that mathematics is designed in any capacity. I think it's just as reasonable to say that out of the infinite set of axioms one can adopt, certain subsets will produce self-consistent frameworks. For example, the axioms that underlie algebra are widely used because they happen to be self-consistent and extremely useful. The fact that the order of operations or problem solving strategy within that framework doesn't affect the final result is precisely why we use those axioms. It wouldn't be particularly helpful to adopt a set of axioms that make it so that when solving for an equation within the context of physics, the order of the steps taken to solve for a ball's velocity change the final result for the ball's velocity. The fact that we've found and studied the frameworks established by certain sets of useful axioms doesn't mean that they we designed, and it especially doesn't tell you that that designer is God.
4:30 - Let's redefine the number system to be gaps between vertical bars instead of Arabic numerals. e.g. 2 is | | | because there are 2 gaps between the three bars and addition is the binary operation of concatenating vertical bars together. Then, 2 + 2 becomes | | | + | | | = | | | | | | - but wait, there's five gaps! So 2 + 2 DOES equal 5 in this system, AND I just changed how math worked!
The presentation is an instance of Russel's Teapot: ""If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a teapot, too small to be seen by any telescope, orbiting the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense."
There is no way to disprove anything said in this presentation was a design of God. Like Russel's Teapot, there is no possible avenue to disprove anything stated because it requires disproving the existence of someone's God, and there absolutely nothing whatsoever on this Earth to make someone that believes in God to stop believing, so how can the assertion be taken seriously?
But why God, and not, say, the Hindu god Brahmin? If you were born and raised in India you would have made EXACTLY the same claims that it was in fact Brahmin, instead of the Christian God. Why not the Islamic god, Allah? Our number system does use the Arabic numerals, after all. One can only **wish** it is the deity they were brought up with (i.e. the the "correct" depends on where you were born) that invented mathematics. Everyone in every religion can make exactly the same presentation substituted with their "correct" god, which is exactly why its so meaningless.
This presentation is a circular fallacy; An appeal to authority. Human's invented mathematics. Your channel is full of high level mathematics, but this presentation is an insult to the self-determined individuals that contributed to the field; Their genius and creative contributions across thousands of years, and different countries, have been reduced by you to a deity most of those mathematicians did not believe in.
All those mathematicians that believed in a different God to your own, or no God, having their contributions over millennia being attributed to your God in the space of 30 minutes is ultimate display of sanctimonious egotism.
I love this presentation.
Looks like it had to have taken a tremendous amount of insight, work, and time.
Beautifully done
It's not clear to me where God comes into play in your argument. It's also not clear how your example of solving for x using two different methods demonstrates (or is valid evidence) towards the idea that mathematics is designed in any capacity. I think it's just as reasonable to say that out of the infinite set of axioms one can adopt, certain subsets will produce self-consistent frameworks. For example, the axioms that underlie algebra are widely used because they happen to be self-consistent and extremely useful. The fact that the order of operations or problem solving strategy within that framework doesn't affect the final result is precisely why we use those axioms. It wouldn't be particularly helpful to adopt a set of axioms that make it so that when solving for an equation within the context of physics, the order of the steps taken to solve for a ball's velocity change the final result for the ball's velocity. The fact that we've found and studied the frameworks established by certain sets of useful axioms doesn't mean that they we designed, and it especially doesn't tell you that that designer is God.