I like the way this channel goes from the foundations to advanced stuff
with clear lecture notes (instead of the typical scribbles that many
other youtube channels come up with).
https://www.youtube.com/@jetbundle
On 01/06/2026 07:57 PM, sobriquet wrote:
I like the way this channel goes from the foundations to advanced stuff
with clear lecture notes (instead of the typical scribbles that many
other youtube channels come up with).
https://www.youtube.com/@jetbundle
I looked to the first slide and it just
seems yet another logicist positivist
of the nominalist fictionalist sort.
"I think my argument is trying to
separate pure from applied is [sic]
doesn't really do anything. [...] Application is
just engineering, building things or whatever
that approximate the pure form. Physics is in
the same platonistic realm as mathematics,
hence my reasoning to claim a derivation of
mathematics contingent upon physical/metaphysical
assumptions as natural."
Doesn't use complete sentences, doesn't have proper grammar, ....
If you'd like to know about jet bundles,
there's Hermann's books.
They're called "Vector Bundles in Mathematical Physics".
In https://inspirehep.net/literature/392193 , for example,
the abstract of the paper suggests the incompleteness of
the usual enough vector bundle formalisms, or connections.
AI-slop-assisted, ..., maybe so.
Op 7-1-2026 om 18:51 schreef Ross Finlayson:
On 01/06/2026 07:57 PM, sobriquet wrote:
I like the way this channel goes from the foundations to advanced stuff
with clear lecture notes (instead of the typical scribbles that many
other youtube channels come up with).
https://www.youtube.com/@jetbundle
I looked to the first slide and it just
seems yet another logicist positivist
of the nominalist fictionalist sort.
"I think my argument is trying to
separate pure from applied is [sic]
doesn't really do anything. [...] Application is
just engineering, building things or whatever
that approximate the pure form. Physics is in
the same platonistic realm as mathematics,
hence my reasoning to claim a derivation of
mathematics contingent upon physical/metaphysical
assumptions as natural."
Doesn't use complete sentences, doesn't have proper grammar, ....
If you'd like to know about jet bundles,
there's Hermann's books.
They're called "Vector Bundles in Mathematical Physics".
In https://inspirehep.net/literature/392193 , for example,
the abstract of the paper suggests the incompleteness of
the usual enough vector bundle formalisms, or connections.
AI-slop-assisted, ..., maybe so.
I'm not specifically interested in jet bundles. I'm interested
in the philosophy of mathematics as a kind of universal conceptual
toolkit.
So how we can unify things conceptually to boil things down to the
essentials in a kind of minimalist framework.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yBH3P6x-cgc
AI can potentially revolutionize science and math. Not the current AI language models, but AI that might potentially be developed in the near future, where it starts processing information in a more reliable way
(when AI masters the skill of critical thinking) to debug human culture.
I like the way this channel goes from the foundations to advanced stuff
with clear lecture notes (instead of the typical scribbles that many
other youtube channels come up with).
https://www.youtube.com/@jetbundle
sobriquet wrote:
I like the way this channel goes from the foundations to advanced stuff
with clear lecture notes (instead of the typical scribbles that many
other youtube channels come up with).
https://www.youtube.com/@jetbundle
A person who bluntly claims that a statement regarding or in a science is "a lie" without qualifying that, either does not know what a lie is or is a crackpot or conspiracy theorist, not to be taken seriously.
Unsurprisingly, that person makes several false or misleading claims about (what mathematicians say about) mathematics from the start:
1. They claim that mathematics would not exist independent of physics
because it is a result of the human mind (1:24). While the latter is a
true statement as far as human mathematics is concerned (who knows if
another intelligent species has developed their own mathematics or would
develop it in the future), the argument itself is a logical fallacy:
/ex falso quodlibet/ "from false, anything follows (even true
statements). Mathematics *also* *does* exist independent of physics and
there *is* such a thing as pure mathematics that has nothing to do with a
description of the physical/real world but just with logical connections
between invented, abstract concepts.
2. They claim that John von Neumann was a physicist, and therefore the
von Neumann hierarchy would be related to physics. This is a fallacy
by omission, perhaps from ignorance: John von Neumann was "an American
mathematician, physicist, computer scientists, and engineer". The
von Neumann _hierarchy of sets_ is a *mathematical* concept that *might*
have applications in physics, too (as mathematics is an important tool
in theoretical physics), but it is NOT inherently physical. The
von Neumann universe, as this hierarchy is also called, is NOT
the physical universe, but a much more abstract concept.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_von_Neumann> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Neumann_universe>
I stopped watching there, 3 minutes into the first video.
For a better understanding of mathematics, and how it is related to physics, I recommend these resources instead:
The Feynman Messenger Lectures: "The character of physical law". "2. The Relation of Mathematics and Physics." Cornell University/BBC, 1964/1965. <https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/fml.html#2>
Grant '3blue1brown' Sanderson
<https://www.youtube.com/@3blue1brown>
(He has actually studied Mathematics, while the scientific credentials of
the philosopher whose videos you referred to are unknown. Be careful not to fall for crackpots and other wannabes on social media who claim to be able
to explain science to you better than professionals.)
Op 8-1-2026 om 20:39 schreef Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
sobriquet wrote:
I like the way this channel goes from the foundations to advanced stuff
with clear lecture notes (instead of the typical scribbles that many
other youtube channels come up with).
https://www.youtube.com/@jetbundle
A person who bluntly claims that a statement regarding or in a science
is "a
lie" without qualifying that, either does not know what a lie is or is a
crackpot or conspiracy theorist, not to be taken seriously.
Unsurprisingly, that person makes several false or misleading claims
about
(what mathematicians say about) mathematics from the start:
1. They claim that mathematics would not exist independent of physics
because it is a result of the human mind (1:24). While the latter
is a
true statement as far as human mathematics is concerned (who knows if
another intelligent species has developed their own mathematics or
would
develop it in the future), the argument itself is a logical fallacy:
/ex falso quodlibet/ "from false, anything follows (even true
statements). Mathematics *also* *does* exist independent of
physics and
there *is* such a thing as pure mathematics that has nothing to do
with a
description of the physical/real world but just with logical
connections
between invented, abstract concepts.
That is a philosophical quibble that is unlikely to be resolved any time soon. I would say it's an overstatement to claim that math can be said
to exist independent from reality, because ultimately math is an
abstraction and you need something to abstract from. So math obviously originated in reality, because if we come up with the concept of a
number, that is an abstraction that starts out from differentiating and identifying 'things' in our perceptions/conceptions and then we start to recognize patterns of shared characteristics that we objectify. For
instance we recognize the number 4 as a common aspect of a collection of
4 trees or a collection of 4 planets. Or we abstract geometry from our experience with how things can be spatially related in our environment towards generalizations of spaces of an arbitrary number of dimensions.
Sure, we can also abstract from abstractions and we can have layers of abstraction stacking up, but ultimately it originates in and relates to reality, though you can consider things in isolation without any concern
for the real world or what's physically possible. But that doesn't mean
the real world goes away, because in a way you can't leave the real
world temporarily to spend some time in the platonic realm to interact
with idealized mathematical abstractions.
2. They claim that John von Neumann was a physicist, and therefore the
von Neumann hierarchy would be related to physics. This is a fallacy
by omission, perhaps from ignorance: John von Neumann was "an
American
mathematician, physicist, computer scientists, and engineer". The
von Neumann _hierarchy of sets_ is a *mathematical* concept that
*might*
have applications in physics, too (as mathematics is an important
tool
in theoretical physics), but it is NOT inherently physical. The
von Neumann universe, as this hierarchy is also called, is NOT
the physical universe, but a much more abstract concept.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_von_Neumann>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Neumann_universe>
I stopped watching there, 3 minutes into the first video.
For a better understanding of mathematics, and how it is related to
physics,
I recommend these resources instead:
The Feynman Messenger Lectures: "The character of physical law". "2. The
Relation of Mathematics and Physics." Cornell University/BBC, 1964/1965.
<https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/fml.html#2>
Somewhat dated, but still interesting to watch.
Grant '3blue1brown' Sanderson
<https://www.youtube.com/@3blue1brown>
Of course I know his channel and I've enjoyed many of his videos.
(He has actually studied Mathematics, while the scientific credentials of
the philosopher whose videos you referred to are unknown. Be careful
not to
fall for crackpots and other wannabes on social media who claim to be
able
to explain science to you better than professionals.)
There is indeed a lot of pseudo-scientific information on youtube and
it's good to have an open mind but also a critical attitude. On the
other hand I think we can agree that all humans are basically idiots at
some level, given the way humanity collectively is destroying the
environment with their mass stupidity.
So I tend to think of human intelligence as a social phenomenon rather
than something we can ascribe to individual brains. Human intelligence
is a matter of having huge numbers of people fucking around for a very
long time while collectively accumulating scraps of knowledge so that
they can appear seemingly intelligent if they master some of all that collectively accumulated knowledge.
If an individual was brought up by apes on a deserted island, their intelligence wouldn't differ substantially from the other primates on
the island and they are unlikely to independently invent calculus.
On 01/08/2026 06:58 PM, sobriquet wrote:
Op 8-1-2026 om 20:39 schreef Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
sobriquet wrote:
I like the way this channel goes from the foundations to advanced stuff >>>> with clear lecture notes (instead of the typical scribbles that many
other youtube channels come up with).
https://www.youtube.com/@jetbundle
A person who bluntly claims that a statement regarding or in a science
is "a
lie" without qualifying that, either does not know what a lie is or is a >>> crackpot or conspiracy theorist, not to be taken seriously.
Unsurprisingly, that person makes several false or misleading claims
about
(what mathematicians say about) mathematics from the start:
1. They claim that mathematics would not exist independent of physics
-a-a-a because it is a result of the human mind (1:24).-a While the latter >>> is a
-a-a-a true statement as far as human mathematics is concerned (who
knows if
-a-a-a another intelligent species has developed their own mathematics or >>> would
-a-a-a develop it in the future), the argument itself is a logical fallacy: >>> -a-a-a /ex falso quodlibet/ "from false, anything follows (even true
-a-a-a statements).-a Mathematics *also* *does* exist independent of
physics and
-a-a-a there *is* such a thing as pure mathematics that has nothing to do >>> with a
-a-a-a description of the physical/real world but just with logical
connections
-a-a-a between invented, abstract concepts.
That is a philosophical quibble that is unlikely to be resolved any time
soon. I would say it's an overstatement to claim that math can be said
to exist independent from reality, because ultimately math is an
abstraction and you need something to abstract from. So math obviously
originated in reality, because if we come up with the concept of a
number, that is an abstraction that starts out from differentiating and
identifying 'things' in our perceptions/conceptions and then we start to
recognize patterns of shared characteristics that we objectify. For
instance we recognize the number 4 as a common aspect of a collection of
4 trees or a collection of 4 planets. Or we abstract geometry from our
experience with how things can be spatially related in our environment
towards generalizations of spaces of an arbitrary number of dimensions.
Sure, we can also abstract from abstractions and we can have layers of
abstraction stacking up, but ultimately it originates in and relates to
reality, though you can consider things in isolation without any concern
for the real world or what's physically possible. But that doesn't mean
the real world goes away, because in a way you can't leave the real
world temporarily to spend some time in the platonic realm to interact
with idealized mathematical abstractions.
2. They claim that John von Neumann was a physicist, and therefore the
-a-a-a von Neumann hierarchy would be related to physics.-a This is a
fallacy
-a-a-a by omission, perhaps from ignorance: John von Neumann was "an
American
-a-a-a mathematician, physicist, computer scientists, and engineer".-a The >>> -a-a-a von Neumann _hierarchy of sets_ is a *mathematical* concept that
*might*
-a-a-a have applications in physics, too (as mathematics is an important >>> tool
-a-a-a in theoretical physics), but it is NOT inherently physical.-a The >>> -a-a-a von Neumann universe, as this hierarchy is also called, is NOT
-a-a-a the physical universe, but a much more abstract concept.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_von_Neumann>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Neumann_universe>
I stopped watching there, 3 minutes into the first video.
For a better understanding of mathematics, and how it is related to
physics,
I recommend these resources instead:
The Feynman Messenger Lectures: "The character of physical law".-a "2.
The
Relation of Mathematics and Physics."-a Cornell University/BBC,
1964/1965.
<https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/fml.html#2>
Somewhat dated, but still interesting to watch.
Grant '3blue1brown' Sanderson
<https://www.youtube.com/@3blue1brown>
Of course I know his channel and I've enjoyed many of his videos.
(He has actually studied Mathematics, while the scientific
credentials of
the philosopher whose videos you referred to are unknown.-a Be careful
not to
fall for crackpots and other wannabes on social media who claim to be
able
to explain science to you better than professionals.)
There is indeed a lot of pseudo-scientific information on youtube and
it's good to have an open mind but also a critical attitude. On the
other hand I think we can agree that all humans are basically idiots at
some level, given the way humanity collectively is destroying the
environment with their mass stupidity.
So I tend to think of human intelligence as a social phenomenon rather
than something we can ascribe to individual brains. Human intelligence
is a matter of having huge numbers of people fucking around for a very
long time while collectively accumulating scraps of knowledge so that
they can appear seemingly intelligent if they master some of all that
collectively accumulated knowledge.
If an individual was brought up by apes on a deserted island, their
intelligence wouldn't differ substantially from the other primates on
the island and they are unlikely to independently invent calculus.
There's a few hundred hours of my video essays, https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson , with courses
like "Descriptive Differential Dynamics", "Reading from Einstein's
Out of My Later Years", "Moment and Motion", "Logos 2000",
and a bit of "Reading Foundations" in a "Philosophical Foreground".
About the monkeys and Shakespeare - according to the
theory of evolution, they share a common ancestor.
I.e., how many monkeys it takes according to chicken-and-egg
that one of them _is_ Shakespeare, is not necessarily so
relevant to whether for example Francis Bacon's waste-book
had many Shakespearean writings, or as to whether that
Shakespeare was a panel of a man.
The "Logos 2000" bit, about the ancient and modern concept of logos,
the "A Theory" and "Foundations briefly" are summatory.
There shouldn't be any ads on them, or, I don't see any.
https://www.youtube.com/watch? v=lm6jPaqB8BY&list=PLb7rLSBiE7F795DGcwSvwHj-GEbdhPJNe&index=44
Then for example "Logos 2000: physics today" has a lot of comments
on the material from Google Gemini, since it readily reviews
the "Youtube Videos" and their transcripts.
Op 9-1-2026 om 18:33 schreef Ross Finlayson:
On 01/08/2026 06:58 PM, sobriquet wrote:
Op 8-1-2026 om 20:39 schreef Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
sobriquet wrote:
I like the way this channel goes from the foundations to advanced
stuff
with clear lecture notes (instead of the typical scribbles that many >>>>> other youtube channels come up with).
https://www.youtube.com/@jetbundle
A person who bluntly claims that a statement regarding or in a science >>>> is "a
lie" without qualifying that, either does not know what a lie is or
is a
crackpot or conspiracy theorist, not to be taken seriously.
Unsurprisingly, that person makes several false or misleading claims
about
(what mathematicians say about) mathematics from the start:
1. They claim that mathematics would not exist independent of physics
because it is a result of the human mind (1:24). While the latter >>>> is a
true statement as far as human mathematics is concerned (who
knows if
another intelligent species has developed their own mathematics or >>>> would
develop it in the future), the argument itself is a logical
fallacy:
/ex falso quodlibet/ "from false, anything follows (even true
statements). Mathematics *also* *does* exist independent of
physics and
there *is* such a thing as pure mathematics that has nothing to do >>>> with a
description of the physical/real world but just with logical
connections
between invented, abstract concepts.
That is a philosophical quibble that is unlikely to be resolved any time >>> soon. I would say it's an overstatement to claim that math can be said
to exist independent from reality, because ultimately math is an
abstraction and you need something to abstract from. So math obviously
originated in reality, because if we come up with the concept of a
number, that is an abstraction that starts out from differentiating and
identifying 'things' in our perceptions/conceptions and then we start to >>> recognize patterns of shared characteristics that we objectify. For
instance we recognize the number 4 as a common aspect of a collection of >>> 4 trees or a collection of 4 planets. Or we abstract geometry from our
experience with how things can be spatially related in our environment
towards generalizations of spaces of an arbitrary number of dimensions.
Sure, we can also abstract from abstractions and we can have layers of
abstraction stacking up, but ultimately it originates in and relates to
reality, though you can consider things in isolation without any concern >>> for the real world or what's physically possible. But that doesn't mean
the real world goes away, because in a way you can't leave the real
world temporarily to spend some time in the platonic realm to interact
with idealized mathematical abstractions.
2. They claim that John von Neumann was a physicist, and therefore the >>>> von Neumann hierarchy would be related to physics. This is a
fallacy
by omission, perhaps from ignorance: John von Neumann was "an
American
mathematician, physicist, computer scientists, and engineer". The >>>> von Neumann _hierarchy of sets_ is a *mathematical* concept that
*might*
have applications in physics, too (as mathematics is an important
tool
in theoretical physics), but it is NOT inherently physical. The
von Neumann universe, as this hierarchy is also called, is NOT
the physical universe, but a much more abstract concept.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_von_Neumann>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Neumann_universe>
I stopped watching there, 3 minutes into the first video.
For a better understanding of mathematics, and how it is related to
physics,
I recommend these resources instead:
The Feynman Messenger Lectures: "The character of physical law".
"2. The
Relation of Mathematics and Physics." Cornell University/BBC,
1964/1965.
<https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/fml.html#2>
Somewhat dated, but still interesting to watch.
Grant '3blue1brown' Sanderson
<https://www.youtube.com/@3blue1brown>
Of course I know his channel and I've enjoyed many of his videos.
(He has actually studied Mathematics, while the scientific
credentials of
the philosopher whose videos you referred to are unknown. Be careful
not to
fall for crackpots and other wannabes on social media who claim to be
able
to explain science to you better than professionals.)
There is indeed a lot of pseudo-scientific information on youtube and
it's good to have an open mind but also a critical attitude. On the
other hand I think we can agree that all humans are basically idiots at
some level, given the way humanity collectively is destroying the
environment with their mass stupidity.
So I tend to think of human intelligence as a social phenomenon rather
than something we can ascribe to individual brains. Human intelligence
is a matter of having huge numbers of people fucking around for a very
long time while collectively accumulating scraps of knowledge so that
they can appear seemingly intelligent if they master some of all that
collectively accumulated knowledge.
If an individual was brought up by apes on a deserted island, their
intelligence wouldn't differ substantially from the other primates on
the island and they are unlikely to independently invent calculus.
There's a few hundred hours of my video essays,
https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson , with courses
like "Descriptive Differential Dynamics", "Reading from Einstein's
Out of My Later Years", "Moment and Motion", "Logos 2000",
and a bit of "Reading Foundations" in a "Philosophical Foreground".
About the monkeys and Shakespeare - according to the
theory of evolution, they share a common ancestor.
I.e., how many monkeys it takes according to chicken-and-egg
that one of them _is_ Shakespeare, is not necessarily so
relevant to whether for example Francis Bacon's waste-book
had many Shakespearean writings, or as to whether that
Shakespeare was a panel of a man.
The "Logos 2000" bit, about the ancient and modern concept of logos,
the "A Theory" and "Foundations briefly" are summatory.
There shouldn't be any ads on them, or, I don't see any.
I use an adblocker, which seems to work ok in firefox.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=lm6jPaqB8BY&list=PLb7rLSBiE7F795DGcwSvwHj-GEbdhPJNe&index=44
Then for example "Logos 2000: physics today" has a lot of comments
on the material from Google Gemini, since it readily reviews
the "Youtube Videos" and their transcripts.
I've seen some of your videos, but in general I'm rather critical,
since there is so much content on youtube, so I watch stuff selectively.
If a video just features someone speaking without any visual content,
they need to be really very good at communicating their point and not
just feel like a random philosophical word salad.
I usually prefer videos where people visually demonstrate math and I
think the best way to master math is to interact with it. So often I
like to see if I can reproduce visualizations in desmos so that I can
play around with them for some hands-on experience.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2h_9X7JOKo
https://www.desmos.com/3d/lqiozmwsr6
"I think my argument is trying to
separate pure from applied is [sic]
doesn't really do anything. [...] Application is
just engineering, building things or whatever
that approximate the pure form. Physics is in
the same platonistic realm as mathematics,
hence my reasoning to claim a derivation of
mathematics contingent upon physical/metaphysical
assumptions as natural."
Doesn't use complete sentences, doesn't have proper grammar, ....
Ross Finlayson wrote:
"I think my argument is trying to
separate pure from applied is [sic]
doesn't really do anything. [...] Application is
just engineering, building things or whatever
that approximate the pure form. Physics is in
the same platonistic realm as mathematics,
hence my reasoning to claim a derivation of
mathematics contingent upon physical/metaphysical
assumptions as natural."
Doesn't use complete sentences, doesn't have proper grammar, ....
That's rich, coming from someone who is posting ungrammatical pseudo-scientific word salad on a regular basis.
On 01/11/2026 05:23 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
Ross Finlayson wrote:
"I think my argument is trying to
separate pure from applied is [sic]
doesn't really do anything. [...] Application is
just engineering, building things or whatever
that approximate the pure form. Physics is in
the same platonistic realm as mathematics,
hence my reasoning to claim a derivation of
mathematics contingent upon physical/metaphysical
assumptions as natural."
Doesn't use complete sentences, doesn't have proper grammar, ....
That's rich, coming from someone who is posting ungrammatical
pseudo-scientific word salad on a regular basis.
With the ellipsis "..." indicating "complete this sentence
fragment", I'll aver and vouch that indeed my grammar is
nonpareil, though admittedly the style is a bit drawn-out.
One time I put a writing sample into a grade-level reader
estimator, it said "grade 26". That's though the longer
sections. So I understand if it's long-winded, really
can be read as if _it's always correct_, and indeed,
should be.
Then, about the scientific, it would be according to
a) our _philosophy_ of science, b) our _language_ of science,
c) our _practice_ of science, then d) the _data_ of science,
about "observability, reproducibility, falsifiability", and
the _scientific method_, that then about the very close
relationship with the _statistical method_, about what we,
and by we I mean any scientists who follow this methodology,
may say.
The configurationa and energy of experiment involves a
lot of implicits and necessarily peeling away the
hidden assumptions that threaten overall the soundness.
That it's a _mathematical science_ then gets all the mathematics
involved. All of it.
So, arguably your aspersions on my character as they are
were _wrong_ and have been _disputed_ and _refuted_.
You still have to eventually confront the 1/2/3 about
gravity and mechanics that have falsified the usual
premier theories, that have their usual definitions,
including over time the various historical definitions.
So, we have maxims like "Grice's maxims" of usual sorts
of "the Golden Rule" in representation and communication.
Rich, right. I'm comfortable, not a materialist.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 54 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 12:29:41 |
| Calls: | 742 |
| Files: | 1,218 |
| D/L today: |
2 files (2,024K bytes) |
| Messages: | 183,176 |
| Posted today: | 1 |