Ero

I agree that distinction is relevant, but I do think that there is some serious epistemology to be done in questioning your implicit Cartesian-like dualism between the domains of math and science. This is a topic for another time and I do plan to do are public-facing write up some time this year on this, but the basic epistemic question is this: How come the internal logic of the mathematics (i.e. doing math for its own sake) inspired by physics eventually leads back to physics instead of diverging? Case in point is the following epistemic genealogy: Newton/Leibniz formalized calculus as means of studying motion; calculus became real analysis after self-reflection on the foundations; real analysis lead to complex analysis because of the failures of those foundations; complex analysis was generalized to Riemann surfaces' which sit at the bedrock of GR, the correct physical generalization of Newtonian mechanics. I can give other examples with atoms and numbers/representations, but this one is I believe the most impactful. My thesis is that is a consequence of the fact that "the ontology must peer through", since everything is Consciousness experiencing Consciousness. As such, I believe that the increased mathematization of science is not only natural, it is ontologically necessary as a consequence of my earlier thesis that Mathematics is Hallucination, which is in some sense "less crystallized"/closer to Mind/Awareness than the Hallucination of physical reality. I understand where you are coming from, but this is precisely why I used the word "vindictive". I know this is a charged topic for you because of all the mindless "this is unscientific" slop that has been coming your way for years. Of course those don't deserve a soft or meek tone. I have never been on board with the hippie shit. My personal style of communication is probably more "intense" than yours (that's my most frequent descriptor, followed by "crazy"). That said, there is a sub-demographic of yours (me included), who are not only spiritual but have discovered their life purpose to be within the math/sciences. Among us nerds, there is an appreciation for all forms of devotion to scientific inquiry, because we resonate with all expressions of Curiosity (Consciousness wanting to Understand itself). I am not saying stop the critique, I am saying show that you care, because otherwise your readers/listeners may implicitly feel conflicted that they have to choose between spirituality and science, which is not something you have ever been a proponent of, but can come of across because of your lack of "appreciation" for the good science. Simply said, for every 2 or 3 sharp critiques, show a video or a quote of a Michael Levin or a Jacob Lurie or a Michael Atiyah - this not only builds you cred for "knowing", but also shows that you are not alone in your direction, even if your ideas are way more radical. I would argue those are the ones you should want to impact the most on this topic specifically, because they would go on to challenge the scientific establishment.

Let me preface by saying that I know this is where your heart is at after a decade of studying your work. That said, feel compelled to pushback on your messaging, because I think your heart gets lost on those reading because of the absolutism/vindictiveness ("weasels", "cogs", etc.). This is false. In Harvard's math department, about 30% of the people I met were explicitly in agreement with this aspect (they themselves have hallucinated math and actively seek that method) and about 40% implicitly. What do I mean by the latter? You will notice in a lot of mathematics "folklore" explicit use of the word "alien (1) (2)", "mystic delirium", "magic", "extra sense", etc. by other mathematicians when they speak of select individuals or mathematical results. And this isn't just metaphors or analogies, if you push them on it, you hear a lot of metaphysical weight behind the "mystic/magic" part of it, even if those people themselves are avid materialists. That is because if you do pure mathematics long enough, it is nearly impossible to come out untouched by this aspect of it. The reason this isn't explicit or vocalized in lectures or "layman communications" has a social defense mechanism behind it because of the principle of explosion. It is to protect the edifice of mathematics from the Terrence Howard's and the like that have only multiplied in number since the LLMs - we do not yet have an autonomous verification system that would accommodate an "intuitively correct" but formally inconsistent results. Terry Tao has been an avid proponent of this or as my Math PhD friend likes to say - "putting all the schizos to use". Mathematics is the most empowering field to any and all people because "social value" is not determined by origin, appearance (had professors in flip flops with after-gym clothes), speech impediments and even neurodivergence - the only thing that matters is "can you prove it". No one is above that, even Terence Tao or Andrew Wiles. The increasing autoformalization of Math that I have foreseen for more than 4 years is what I think will push this aspect from folklore between mathematicians to an explicit differentiating factor of the so-called "leaps of intuitions". Why did I add so many references and links? Because if you want to push science further, which I know you do, you have to genuinely change the vindictive tone and actually start highlighting the "brilliant spiritual individuals" (who still exist as I have highlighted). Because from reading your blogs or listening to your "deconstructing science series", people who don't know you well enough will get turned off. Shun less the ignorant and show more of the magic. This is more laborious but epistemically honest, because it requires due diligence and research to sift through, instead of spit balling to a caricature in your head.

Science Lacks Self-Reflection @Leo Gura I recommend for you to read Henri Poincare's "Science and Hypothesis", specifically Ch. 2 There is an aspect of Mathematics that you have never experienced: the process of crystallizing intuition by self-reflection. In that book you will see how Poincaré deconstructs the then-prevailing definition of the real line (\R) as the "bag of all real numbers" by repeatedly reflecting against what "continuity" feels like. That process is what gave birth to "Analysis Situs" or "Topology". This process of self-reflection, when done seriously enough, makes me hallucinate - 150-200 ug LSD equivalent. Below is a rendition of my literal hallucinations when I was reflecting on his words for 2 hours - what "hides" in the Continuum/ Abyss, if only one knew how to reach into it. There is a reason Plato and Pythagoras called mathematics divine. There's a reason Cantor went mad contemplating infinity. That aspect of it is what lied behind the true genius of Ramanujan or Grothendieck. Reflect long enough on any mathematical object and you will materialize it in front of yourself. Mathematics is Hallucination

Your blogs's style of writing is very similar to your speech in your videos, so would you say that the 100,000 words you have so far read similarly or no?

Ideas are cheap, execution is expensive. It is almost guaranteed that someone else has also thought of what you have and is working on it. As long as you don't give out technical IP/innovations, the communicating the idea itself is the only way to get "allies", be it employees, clients or investors.

Quote #655 - "When I write my book, I write at 1000 words per hour. I wrote 100,000 words so far." This is a tad too close to "tokenmaxxing" virtue signaling. @Leo Gura I have noticed an increased verbosity in your videos and writing over the last few years and I think it is hurting your messaging. Your imagined viewer doesn't always have to be a combative teenager. This is coming from an avid follower of the work.

Looking forward to it. Kriya already in the rotation.

I challenge all of you to work long enough on a math problem until you start hallucinating. The degree of imagination you need to comprehend higher levels of mathematics is not one accessible to normal humans.

Of course everything is imaginary, but simply stating that is lazy epistemology. Many people imagine they have a theory of everything and yet it doesn’t hold up.

@Nemra Please share trip reports once you have them. Safe travels

LSD for me by far.

If one only knew the degree to which Russian imperialism has been the cause of turmoil in Eastern Europe and the Balkans, there wouldn't even be base for comparison.

Nothing like a roach/bed bug or flea infestation to change your mind.

“An alien amongst the sheep, this is who I am.”

I don’t eat McDonalds, but I do occasionally eat fast food like chipotle, Bosnian grill or Popeyes/fried chicken sandwiches. I don’t have a chef, I cook myself mostly. I didn’t use to eat at restaurants that often, but now I am trying different cuisines.

I came on this forum in 2018 as a 16 year old. I was broke, sleeping on a mattress on the floor with my siblings (family of 7) in Bulgaria. I am now a millionaire in NYC, helping my parents and paying my sister's education. And this ain't even the fucking start. I have been on and off the forum over the years, but I always circle back to Leo's work. All of it is real. Take this shit serious. Drop the bullshit.

@LoneWonderer Thank you man. I never had a silver spoon, I’ve starved many times in my life, as recently as this June when I was trying to make this happen. Forget the money for now and figure out what have you been put on earth to do that no one else can.

@Lucasxp64 0) There are two approaches: the first is finding a market inefficiency and iterating directly with customers to solve it. This is “Y Combinator” style. They have a lot of recourses you can go through. The downside is that there will be a lot of other people who try get there before you so it’s all about speed and execution. A dog fight. The second is what I am doing, which is going after a strong belief of where technology should be going far in the future. Here, you are trying to crystallize a murky and sometimes illegible vision. Those bets are “deep tech” and require a lot of technical execution, because you are essentially creating the foundations from scratch. Approach 1 never interested me, approach 2 is what I have always been drawn to. I thought my first company with the cryptography was approach 2, but it was actually approach 1, which is why it didn’t blow up. What I am working on right now is as approach two as it gets. 1) You try and give it to customers as early as you can. Working in isolation is a risk, but if you know the field well enough, you will know the biggest pain points already. 1.1) I saw the problem first and then I built the algorithm. It was very much I saw a gap and went after it. 1.2) The first company was fully bootstrapped, the second also was for quite a while. I recently took on an investment from Sequoia. 1.3) No longer working on cybersecurity, but when I did, it was mostly cold outreach to CISOs through email and LinkedIn. 2) No one at Harvard is holding your hand for anything, but I did meet a lot of people who are building businesses on their own, some of which are now billionaires. 2.1) Harvard was absolutely instrumental. In more way than one. I could totally have done it without it, but it most definitely accelerated my path significantly. 3) I do not. I prefer the technical work, because that one is the crux and the most rewarding, but I can do a lot. Of course, as we scale, I will be delegating more and more of the operations. 4) Steve Jobs and Elon Musk’s biographies were very influential. Study Khosla, Thiel, Alex Karp, Zuckerberg, Gates, etc.

@ivankiss Thank you man

That’s not how money works. There was a question meant to check a person’s understanding of economics. Would you have 50k when everyone else has 30k or would you have 80k when everyone else has a 100k? If everyone had a million dollars, then a million dollars wouldn’t be that much. Capitalist outcomes are necessary following a power law.

I don’t know what you are expecting. I’m not there yet, but there is a level of money at which you can start bending reality, so whatever problem you think you are having, there is a way around it.

I do

Accounting and taxes, but that shouldn’t be surprising. I don’t regret anything.

You should spend some time on your own to filter through the noise. Build your understanding of the space, it will be hard for me to break that down in the span of forum posts. In general, my work is more rewarding than 9-5 but it’s still a lot suffering for that intensity.