philosophy of mathematics

Terrence Howard maybe a crackpot, but he isn't all wrong. Terrence Howard is mostly known as an actor, but he’s recently been interviewed by Joe Rogan for his book 1 x 1 = 2. The book is intentionally provocative and intended to critique how trusted math and science are in a civilizational context.

I haven’t read the book, and I think Terrence introduces much more confusion than clarity, I think there is something of value in what he is attempting to do (even though the attempt has little if any merit given the conclusions and claims that Terrence makes).

I think he is attempting to bring a qualitative sense of humanity back into relevance (with a sense that numeracy has overly quantified and objectified our experience).

While Joe Rogan expressed that he didn’t fully understand the point that Terrence was trying to make, he did stay open to the possibility that he was missing something that would help get Terrence’s point.

Most critics have been hard on Terrence (claiming pseudo-science, fraud, sensationalism, or insanity), and have been critical of Joe Rogan because he didn’t push back harder on obviously non-sensical ideas. My friend Erik has posted a video criticizing one of the debunkers for seeming to intentionally miss Terrences intended insight. It can also give you a bit of a brief intro into the topic if you are interested.

But I think there is a deeper motive and validity to be discerned.

One claim by Terrence is that 0 x 1 apple being equal to zero apples is nonsensical because you’ve destroyed something that used to exist (the apple), whereas what is intended by the equation is there are zero occurrences of the abstract category apple which results in zero actual apples.

Another claim is that $1 x $1 = $1 is nonsense if you also say that 100 cents * 100 cents = 10,000 cents.

It is clear in this example that there is a confusion about units (we don’t recognize units of a square dollar or a square cent).

I think Terrence is trying to point out something similar to what Bucky Fuller says when Bucky claims that the continued use of the word sunrise is harmful, even if we know what is meant is a portion of the earth turning into alignment with the sun’s rays.

The very subtle point that I’d make is that saying 1 x category of apple = 1 actual apple seems to be valid to us, but misses that there is still a whole lot of context that is missing from that actual apple, and much abstraction that pollutes our understanding of what is actually happening in the world.

Thoughts?

Terrence Howard maybe a crackpot, but he isn't all wrong. Terrence Howard is mostly known as an actor, but he’s recently been interviewed by Joe Rogan for his book 1 x 1 = 2. The book is intentionally provocative and intended to critique how trusted math and science are in a civilizational context.

I haven’t read the book, and I think Terrence introduces much more confusion than clarity, I think there is something of value in what he is attempting to do (even though the attempt has little if any merit given the conclusions and claims that Terrence makes).

I think he is attempting to bring a qualitative sense of humanity back into relevance (with a sense that numeracy has overly quantified and objectified our experience).

While Joe Rogan expressed that he didn’t fully understand the point that Terrence was trying to make, he did stay open to the possibility that he was missing something that would help get Terrence’s point.

Most critics have been hard on Terrence (claiming pseudo-science, fraud, sensationalism, or insanity), and have been critical of Joe Rogan because he didn’t push back harder on obviously non-sensical ideas. My friend Erik has posted a video criticizing one of the debunkers for seeming to intentionally miss Terrences intended insight. It can also give you a bit of a brief intro into the topic if you are interested.

But I think there is a deeper motive and validity to be discerned.

One claim by Terrence is that 0 x 1 apple being equal to zero apples is nonsensical because you’ve destroyed something that used to exist (the apple), whereas what is intended by the equation is there are zero occurrences of the abstract category apple which results in zero actual apples.

Another claim is that $1 x $1 = $1 is nonsense if you also say that 100 cents * 100 cents = 10,000 cents.

It is clear in this example that there is a confusion about units (we don’t recognize units of a square dollar or a square cent).

I think Terrence is trying to point out something similar to what Bucky Fuller says when Bucky claims that the continued use of the word sunrise is harmful, even if we know what is meant is a portion of the earth turning into alignment with the sun’s rays.

The very subtle point that I’d make is that saying 1 x category of apple = 1 actual apple seems to be valid to us, but misses that there is still a whole lot of context that is missing from that actual apple, and much abstraction that pollutes our understanding of what is actually happening in the world.

Thoughts?