Virtualization
Breaking down the Eric Weinstein Terrance Howard Joe Rogan | Tom Reacts
Tom Bilyeu, Co-founder of billion dollar unicorn Quest nutrition, breaks down the Joe Rogan debate with Eric Weinstein and Terrence Howard. We react to the physics, mathematics, assumptions and the barrier to entry for new ideas. If you enjoy this format, leave a message in the comments and it just might make it on the show!
Check out our latest interview with David Friedberg here:
Follow Me, Tom Bilyeu:
Website:
X: / tombilyeu
Instagram: / tombilyeu
If you want to dive deeper into my content, search through every episode, find specific topics I’ve covered, and ask me questions. Go to my Dexa page:
[ad_2]
source
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.
“so we can out perform other people” sounds evil at its core.
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.
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.
Elon never made "Tesla". He bought shares. After this phrase all the rest is irrelevant
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.
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.
Tom is a gas bag 🎒. Why does he think his opinion is of any value, baffles me.
Tom's got his nose SO FAR UP Eric Weinstein's bum EVEN A DEEP-SEA SNORKEL WOULDN'T SAVE HIM LOLOL….
Terrence is a tard.
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
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
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.
Actually, Terrence Howard does not seem like a nice guy when you consider his history of being a woman beater.
Kudos to Drew! Wow! Tom really puts Eric's interaction with Terrence into sharp focus.
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
"covid ripped the mask off…" Pun intended? Lol
Horseshit
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?
This was great
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.
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.
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 !!
Howard is not your boy talk to him with respect just how you talked to Eric enough is enough no more bull crap
Eric Weinstein doesn't become bombastic? Which one what
Your logic is sound, Tom. I hear you.