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.”

Good motivation to build up our own industries. A good shake-up to the EU status quo that has become over- bureaucratic.

Very normal, especially considering the dose. Not all your trips will be “productive” or “useful”. Some will be twisted, convoluted and hard to translate. 2 out of my first 3 mushroom trips were like that. The third one was 5g and I barely remember stuff from it because if how “otherworldly” it was. Just take some time to ground yourself and go at it again.

My baseline is also pretty fluid. I get the dancing buddha a few seconds after I stare in one spot. If I focus for long periods (hours on end), especially on math, I get mild open-eyed visuals and strong closed-eye visuals (similar to 150 ug LSD)

Make sure to share your experience! Psychs are largely unexplored, so any and all experience are welcome in the name of science.

Human society lived through thousands of years of famine, disease and predators. More recently, the black plague and two world wars. It will withstand the ramblings of a brain dead narcissist. Of course it doesn’t mean you will remain unscathed. I am one of those immigrants at risk, despite being here legally. Still not gonna run like some kid at the first sign of resistance.

I realized I was taking for granted the fact that you are the only teacher who hasn’t crystallised on a single rigid model. I haven’t had the opportunity to thank you for being a constant source of epistemic novelty. It is what has largely prevented me from falling down formulaic model dynamics. Your alien awakenings were a really strong perturbation to my sense-making and a piece in the intellectual cascade that inspired the algorithmic improvements that made me rich.

That’s why I don’t respect philosophers. There’s nothing to ground them from pulling shit like this out their ass. Trump in his life hasn’t thought about anything more than himself.

“It’s the vibes, man!” Russel Brand is another. No good outcome from having poor epistemology. It takes a level of intellectual sophistication most will never reach.

I have had both. Interesting how different experiences can be. Granted, I was kinda asking for it in the latter and got humbled real quick.