My little finger can thwart Pythagoras!

Geometry and economics are not in any way comparable.

Geometry worked before humans evolved and will continue to work long after we're going. It has no need of human input.

Economics, on the other hand, is entirely dependent on human behaviours. Rationality might be a factor, but you would have to be willfully ignorant of history to argue that human behaviour is always rational.

Economics is not a science, and it's certainly not logical.

Honestly, you could not have picked a worse comparison. Imagine if Pythagoras' Theorem was "the square of the hypotenuse is mostly, kinda equal to the sum of the squares of the other two sides"? Or "the sum of the angles in a triangle is 180 (except on rainy days)"?

^ You can make all of that make sense by simply shifting your epistemological position to the only ones which truly make sense i.e. phenomenology &/or perspectivism.

To rephrase that in less impenetrable terms:
"Materialism" (or in your case I assume "Scientific Materialism") that is to say 'matter is primary', from a philosophers POV is a deeply flawed assumption. Flawed because there appears to be not one experience in human history that did not occur entirely within the mind.
When one see's say a Dog, one only ever experiences the images and sensations occurring within ones mind. You don't see the photons hitting your retina, only the way your mind as interpreted the data.

However the opposite position "Idealism" (mind is primary) is also fundamentally flawed in the exact opposite way. If our minds are the only "real" things then where exactly are they? And how do we even derive logic and reason if there is not something outside of ourselves which it describes? etc. etc.

Philosophers like Husserl, Heidegger and Sartre' got around this by defining a new category, "phenomena". We know for certain that "phenomena" exist in some sense because we experience them, the categories of mind and matter then become secondary properties, both only existing as definitions we apply retrospectively to experiences. i.e. stuff happens and then our brains kick in and say "that happened because of X because in the past X has preceded similar experiences" or "that thing looks like other examples of Y so is probably Y".

The problem then is that this appears to come no closer to telling us what is objectively happening in the universe, it's more like linguistic/logical housekeeping. The phenomenologists and existentialists did a superb job of clearing away all of the old invalid baggage about how we try to describe things, but they did little or nothing to solve the problem of Kants "nouminal world" (i.e. the "real" stuff that we are experiencing by simulation in our minds).

Its stumped philosophers for centuries as we don't appear to have any way to ever get at this "nouminal" or "real" world we naturally assume must exist in some way. But....

I reckon ultimately one of the first western philosophers in history nailed the way out 3000 or so years ago. Pythagoras said "all is number" and due to the work of Euler, Riemann and Fourier in particular I think we can now make it stick. (yeh its turning into an essay sorry )

Without wishing to go deep into a subject you could spend half your life on; Fourier transforms are involved in signal processing. It is a mathematical means by which spatio-temporal signals (e.g. the vibration of a string or the movement of a record needle) can be converted with no meaningful loss of information into frequency (analog) or binary (digital) forms and back again.

Mathematically speaking there is no reason to regard the "signal" as any less "real" whether it is in frequency form or spatio-temporal form. It is the same "signal", it can be converted 100% either direction.

So then here's the biggie: Is there any reason why we could not regard instrumental mathematical numbers and operations (i.e. the stuff we write down and practice as "mathematics") and the phenomena in the universe they appear to describe. I.e. when we use man made mathematical equations to describe and model the behavior of "phenomena" we experience like say Physicists do, could we suggest that we are using a form of Fourier transform? And moreover that this indicates an Ontological (existing objectively outside of yourself) aspect to the mathematical "signals".

Or to put it another way, is mathematics itself really real?

The Reimann sphere and Eulers formula provide a mathematical basis to describe the entirety of known existence in purely mathematical terms, but they indicate that pure ontological mathematics itself is more primary than anything we ever experience. It suggests infact that we ourselves are ultimately reducible to Ontological mathematical phenomena (what Leibniz called "Monads").

What we think of as "reality" could then perhaps be regarded as non dimensional (enfolded) mathematics interacting in such a way as to create the experience of a dimensional (unfolded) universe of extension (such as ours).

(R = distance between two points)
Enfolded universe: R=0
Unfolded universe: R>0

Neither is more "real", they are simply different perspectives from which Ontological mathematics can observe itself.

"Reality": R>=0

I've explained parts of that poorly sorry. Its an immense subject and can be tackedled from many different (often completely incompatible) paradigms. I hope at the very lest I have perhaps demonstrated that the Holographic universe theory could have legs if we combine the advances of scientific exploration (i.e. study of matter) with those of Philosophy and neuroscience (i.e. study of mind & reason itself). The latest big theory doing the rounds with neuroscience is that the mind/consciousness is a fractal phenomenon, which plays into what I've been discussing here more than you might think.

Then again maybe you just wrote me off as a crackpot within the first few lines "lawl" etc..

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Pythagora, experiment, squares, triangle, Pythagorean Theorem' to 'Pythagoras, experiment, squares, triangle, Pythagorean Theorem' - edited by xxovercastxx

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Pythagora, experiment, squares, triangle' to 'Pythagora, experiment, squares, triangle, Pythagorean Theorem' - edited by lucky760

Your video, Vi Hart - Pythagoras was a Murdering Cult Leader, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 6 Badge!

>> ^Ryjkyj:


It's really just a matter of perspective though. Compare a bee with a slug. Bees are way ahead of slugs as far as visible complexity, yet to us, they're complete idiots. Even if we do rely on them.
And humans have been around for what? Maybe fifty-thousand years? Yeah, we've done A LOT in that time. But what could we do with another fifty-thousand? What about a million? (If for some reason we overcome the astronomical probability that we'll destroy ourselves) I don't really think there's any telling what we could do.
Not to mention the fact that everyone just assumes that aliens will be some sort of humanoid or even just act human or share any of our characteristics at all. Sure, here on Earth, life is carbon-based. But then why does everybody just assume that if we encounter life, it will also be carbon based? Answer: because we can't possibly understand how it could work any other way. And not because we just assume, but because we looked and it seems impossible according to the laws of chemistry. But that doesn't mean we're right just because we can't see the answer.
What about this: math is an abstract concept like you say. But the system most of us use is based on the power of ten. The digit repeats and a new one is added at the tenth place. Could that have something to do with the amount of fingers we have? Well what if the alien in question used a system that repeated at the ninth place? Their whole system would follow different rules. What if they used a system that had an individual symbol for every number up to two-hundred fifty million, seven hundred sixty-seven thousand, eight-hundred and fifty-three? What if they were so evolved that powers didn't even make a difference and they could fill a quadratic equation with numbers that were all based in different powers?
And if they were a race (another human term) whose individual bodies consisted of different, interchangeable parts, then math would be essential to their existence. It would be as natural as eating. To a species like that, we would look like childish morons playing with our own snot. Even though we use separate, distinct powers to program computers.
And that's just assuming that our aliens only understand things as far as the three dimensions we live in. What about a fourth dimensional alien that only communicates through careful waves of sulfur emission? To us, it might just be a giant blur that smelled like shit. You know what we'd do? That's right, we'd light it on fire.


I will admit that a species that has absolutely no comparable experience with us would be a problem. There's a mad, wonderful chapter in Greg Egans Diaspora that discusses the idea of complex creatures that have evolved in multi-dimensional space. I don't recall the exact maths, but they essentially live "rotated" into extra dimensions. I'll grant they will pose a challenge.

But it's not unreasonable to assume that some life forms would have evolved on a similar ecosystem to ours. We're already comfortable in working outside base 10, and there are some smart people who are working out establishing common symbol patterns based on fundamental mathematical principles. I don't care if you can interchange your head with your elbow, or you reproduce by thought, 1+1 =2. That does not change. Same for Pythagoras' theorem, prime numbers and so on.

My overall point is that something that is smart enough to figure out all the problems of going out into space will figure out how to communicate with us.

Or more likely, simply harvest the planet for resources. They're bound to be low on food and fuel by then

>> ^Mcboinkens:

This is so ridiculous I can't even really take the comparison seriously. Not discovering the Americas earlier in the history of Earth was mostly due to our own ignorance. We though the world was flat, and assumed nothing else existed. The vikings are alleged to have made it to the Americas much earlier than Columbus, even.
On the other hand, physics is holding us back in space. Sure, if we learn how to bend spacetime or use wormholes we may have a shot at getting off earth, but it's silly as hell to think it will actually happen within the next 1000 years or so. By that time, we'll probably all be extinct already.
Terra-forming is out of the question, it would be impossible in anything but science fiction, and the only reasonable planet we could even do it to is Mars, which we can hardly get a probe to that worked successfully. Will we make progress? Yeah, definitely. But to think we'll leave this planet is absurd. The only hope for humanity is progress in renewable energy, population control(limiting births, not promoting genocide)and learning to accept other people for their culture and religion. The faster we figure that out, the better off we'll be.
Also, that west wing clip was flat out dumb. Sending men to Mars would do nothing for us but inflate our Space-peen. There is literally nothing to gain from sending humans there rather than robots. It is riskier both cost and liability-wise. The only thing remotely useful would be setting up a base, which would require huge funds, and a ridiculous amount of new research. Plus, they really wouldn't be able to do much once it was set up. We already know the atmosphere, composition, and features of Mars. What would a man do?


First, the issue of whether or not the earth was flat was pretty much settled by Pythagoras in the 6th century BCE. Columbus had so much trouble drumming up funds precisely because anyone who knew anything about cartography (i.e., the Portugese) knew that he was either lying or suicidally deluded. We don't know why Columbus thought what he thought, and we probably never will. Perhaps he believed but could not prove that there HAD to be something between the Western coast of Ireland and the eastern coast of Japan. As for why no one else tried it, you're right. Others had. Don't forget that there is strong evidence of others visiting the Americas prior to the Vikings. Given how many Polynesians must have given their lives to map out the ocean currents that led to the fragments of rock jutting out of the ocean, it was apparently something intrinsic to the species, but no longer as strong a yearning.

And I never precluded the use of robots to get us where we're going, at least initially. I do think that there is tremendous hubris in the fields of science when it comes to what we know and what is left for us to discover. It does seem like there's a lot of space out there, and the distance which once seemed so insignificant to the early sci fi writers now seems insurmountable. I take Pascal's Wager (or at least the fallacious logic that drives it) and say that the actions we must take to get us out there would benefit the human race as a whole far more than it would hurt. To give up would be to surrender to a nihilism quite endemic in the species. Consider for a moment the construction of the cathedrals. Would such populist public work projects even be possible in this day and age? Would the average Joe be willing to start a project, knowing that he would not be able to live to see its completion? If we don't get off this rock, I blame that attitude far more than I blame the laws of physics.

To get back to the present topic, it's possible that the railgun technology being developed could serve as a kind of propulsion, but it seems as if they've worked out the mechanics of the propulsion, and only need to get the scale down pat. They know how to send something really fast, but they want to weaponize it, to better kill at a distance, an attitude that has never won us many friends. As a result, I'd pull money out of this program.

Finally, I cannot really respond to your dismissal of a manned trip to Mars, because it's clear that you don't see what I and so many others see. Maybe it's a simple matter of me being that Polynesian sitting on the shore of Rapa Nui, wondering what other islands were out there. You, on the other hand, would rather we invent some better way to catch fish, or to figure out what to tell people so they don't chop all the freaking trees down and doom us all to a nasty population crash. Your instinct and my instinct don't run contrary to each other, as long as I'm willing to plant a few trees on my way out to sea. What you learn and what you do help me to do what I want, and what I might learn would benefit you and what you do.

Heh, this showed up on the Sift just the next day after I started giving serious consideration to joining the O.T.O.

As it happens, it's the only serious initiatory order with a presence within three hundred miles, so far as I can find. And, having bought a copy of Crowley's Thoth Tarot years ago, I've finally begun seriously studying it. Beautiful artwork, profound symbolism.>> ^gwiz665:

Ultimately Crowley was as hypocritical as the religions he disliked though, creating his own based on Magick and weirdness. As usual the small cults are based on hedonism and sex, and while everyone likes that, it doesn't make for intellectual honesty. Magick isn't real.


Crowley repeatedly cautioned against ascribing objective reality to the phenomena experienced in the practice of magic. Which is why he phrased the first goal of magic in such a ridiculous fashion as "the Knowledge and Conversation of the Holy Guardian Angel." It is absurd, precisely in order to remind seekers that ascribing objective reality to such theories is always absurd. He did all sorts of things like this. He asked followers, for instance, to align their rituals so that "East" in the books always faced his home--indirectly indicating that it was entirely arbitrary what direction one faces.

People who assiduously practice magick really do have visions; experience communication with demons, angels, and gods; experience mystic transport; and realize the integration of the self. The reality of the experience trumps, for Crowley, any "objective" claims.

>> ^enoch:

"do what thou whilt may it harm none" was a traditional pagan saying

Eh, not really. Most pagans prior to the rise of Christianity would have shuddered at the statement, aside from a handful of obscure philosophers. Certainly not Plato, Pythagoras, or any of the other pagan writers so often accorded great spiritual insight.

Though such formulations do begin to make an appearance whenever Paganism arises in post-Christian contexts.

>> ^MaxWilder:

LarsaruS, you are ignoring context. This was a geometry lesson, not a socio-politcal discussion. It was not intended to raise a topic for thoughtful debate. When you put together a word problem for a math lesson, you are implying that the content of the problem is something you might have to consider in real life, and in a fairly trivial manner. It is not appropriate to use immoral acts as the content of school lessons, no matter what the specific act may be. For instance, you would not want a teacher who used an example of how much children eat daily, and how much less they would need if you drowned some of them. You would not want to use the example of how many slaves you would need to buy to get a certain amount of acreage harvested. GeeSussFreeK's example above is funny because of how totally inappropriate it would be in school.
It doesn't matter whether it is a hypothetical. The context implies approval of the activities specified.


Ok, I have a couple of issues with your post.

1: "When you put together a word problem for a math lesson, you are implying that the content of the problem is something you might have to consider in real life, and in a fairly trivial manner".
1.1: No, that does not have to be the case. I never considered word problems in any lesson as something I might have to do in real life (anecdotal evidence but still). There is a skill called critical thinking, you use it to see what the lesson is about, here angles and probably Pythagoras, and learn that not just what the problem's solution is. That way you can apply what you have learnt on many things as you get the principle for how to solve all similar problems.


2: "It is not appropriate to use immoral acts as the content of school lessons, no matter what the specific act may be"
2.1: Umm, what? Not being able to use immoral acts as content of school lessons at all? Seriously? And who decides what these immoral acts are? (Hint: lobby groups) For some being homosexual is an immoral act as it is a choice/lifestyle, ergo no teachers are allowed to talk about HBTQ rights. Equality is therefore gone in school education. For some talking about evolution is immoral so good bye science. The list goes on. If you have an "Immoral list" you can always add more things to it as you see fit until only the things that the people in power wants to be taught can be taught and in a couple of generations all other knowledge will have vanished as the people who learnt it die off.

Also school is to prepare children for adult life. Adult life is filled with "immoral" actions and people. Sending kids out into the real world with a distorted world view is the most immoral act I could ever think of as they will be completely unprepared for real life and hit a lot of pitfalls that otherwise could have been avoided. "Everybody in the world is super nice and you are super special too!" so go with the man who has a rabbit in his cellar that he wants you to see...

2.2: What about classes about law or history? Lessons where criminals, or criminal acts, are discussed would have to go. For instance, lessons about the eradication of the Native Americans would have to go, No Nürnberg trials, no Pearl Harbour or nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki... the list of things which can be considered immoral or that contains immoral acts is endless. We are a violent species.


3: "For instance, you would not want a teacher who used an example of how much children eat daily, and how much less they would need if you drowned some of them. You would not want to use the example of how many slaves you would need to buy to get a certain amount of acreage harvested."
3.1: Kids and food problem: See this.
Also it is simple arithmetic. Example: "You have X food and Y people. Every person Needs Z food per day and you can add F food per day that can be harvested from your farms. How many people can you have without them starving?" What is the problem with a problem like this? Basic civilization survival is based on this formula. Natural resources - consumption/person = Sustainability/Starvation

3.2: Slave problem: Obsolete as slaves are inefficient compared to modern automated machines. Who would use slave labour when you could use a robot that never fucks up (unless you use Windows ofc.), never needs to sleep, never demands pay and never complains? Technological progress FTE (For The Emancipation )


4: "The context implies approval of the activities specified"
4.1: What context and why would it imply approval? That it was a lesson in a school? So if I bring up the attack on WTC in a lesson and how it was executed it means that I approve of the actions? (I guess that Nicolas Cage and a lot of other people who were in the movies about the attacks all support it then?) If I let my students calculate the forces that were subjected on the buildings from the planes mass M and its speed V + the force of the fuel exploding or the McVeigh bombing and the force that X amount of explosives generate I approve what they did? I abhor all use of violence but if I use these examples I approve of them? That makes no sense to me.

One of the best things you can do as a teacher is to ground your lessons in reality and real life events as that increases the motivation and curiosity of the students IMHO.


5: "This was a geometry lesson, not a socio-politcal discussion. It was not intended to raise a topic for thoughtful debate."
5.1: As a teacher, no matter what your subject is, you have to be able to lead discussions on tough subjects as students can come in from recess and something horrible has happened and they need to process it and be "debriefed", think every classroom in the US the hours after 9/11 or after Columbine. If a student is assaulted/gets hit by a car/whatever you have to be able to have a discussion about it.

5.2: If a meaningful debate emerges from any lesson that interests your students you run with it. Simple as that. Learning and developing a lust for learning is the main goal of any teacher worthy of that title in my book.

Wow, that was a serious wall of text. Congrats on getting through it!

*edit for getting the + to show... forgot to put in extra blank spaces...

>> ^imstellar28:
"In conclusion, it is never immoral to do what you think is right at the time, and it is never justifiable to judge someones actions outside of their context."
Have to disagree. Pythagoras died 2500 years ago, and I'll be damned if a hypotenuse isn't the sum of the square of the other two sides...
The argument sounds dangerously familiar to the fallacy of irreducible complexity.
Furthermore, the resulting hypothesis reads "there exists no morality which can stand the test of time" or "there exists no absolute morality" which I have to say, is an awfully lofty claim to be making without any evidence


At what point did morality become mathematical? Oh, yeah. Never.

Morality is subjective. Looking at history, we can judge the general morality of a culture as compared to our own or some ideal, but you can't judge a person's morality outside of their culture. It's just not reasonable to expect one person, and by extension every person, to exceed the expectations of the culture they live in.

"In conclusion, it is never immoral to do what you think is right at the time, and it is never justifiable to judge someones actions outside of their context."

Have to disagree. Pythagoras died 2500 years ago, and I'll be damned if a hypotenuse isn't the sum of the square of the other two sides...

The argument sounds dangerously familiar to the fallacy of irreducible complexity.

Furthermore, the resulting hypothesis reads "there exists no morality which can stand the test of time" or "there exists no absolute morality" which I have to say, is an awfully lofty claim to be making without any evidence

Tags for this video have been changed from 'japanese, rube goldberg, device, machine, pythagoras switch' to 'japanese, rube goldberg, device, machine, pythagoras switch, Japan' - edited by Ornthoron

>> ^budzos:
D'Souza's "three basic faith-based principles upon which science is suspended" are utter fucking nonsense. Each one boils down to a logical fallacy, first and foremost being the straw man... I don't think any prominent thinkers are putting forth the idea that the universe is conscious, and I don't think anyone with intelligence is even able to confuse the laws of physics with the laws of man.
He's just a FUCK. ARRGH I CANT STAND THE BULLSHIT.


He does not say that the universe is conscious. He says it is rational. That is, it can be measured, chopped up conceptually into discrete chunks, bits of it can be mathematically compared to other bits, it shows order, and so on. The universe need not be conscious to be rational.

The three "faith-based principles" he mentions are indeed fundamental requirements for science as we know it. (Sort of. The third is only essential for the most popular notions about science, not for doing science itself.) However, the principles are not Christian in origin. They are Greek, from Athens rather than Jerusalem. The the universe is rational, and that the mind corresponds to it, can be found in Plato and Aristotle. That it shows a uniquely mathematical order can be found in Pythagoras.

The principles made their way into modern science through the Renaissance. The creators of modern science, men like Galileo and Kepler, were profoundly interested in Pythagorean theories of the universe.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'japanese, rube goldberg, device, machine' to 'japanese, rube goldberg, device, machine, pythagoras switch' - edited by mauz15