From Pseudoscience to Practicality: Evaluating Terrence Howard’s Anti-Mathematical Claims
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YeAQw9YJGtM
Part 1: The Pulse Episode Insights
Setting the Stage
In a recent episode (see above)of The Pulse, hosts Buddy James and Ramon delved into an incorrect claim made by actor Terrence Howard [on Joe Rogan’s Podcast and in his book]: that 1*1 equals 2. This assertion has generated significant debate, largely because it directly contradicts fundamental principles of arithmetic. During the episode, Buddy and Ramon provided a platform for discussing this claim, with Buddy sharing his personal experiences and the professional challenges [and betrayals] that arose from his generous collaboration with Howard.
Terrence Howard’s Controversial Claim
Terrence Howard’s claim that 1*1 equals 2 stems from his unconventional, linguistic interpretation of multiplication. He argues that since 1 isn’t more than 1, multiplying it by itself should result in 2. This perspective is based on a semantic [i.e. childish] misunderstanding rather than an educated, mathematical one. Multiplication, as understood in mathematics, involves grouping numbers, not merely adding them in a way that changes the fundamental operation’s result.
Buddy James’ Experience with Howard
Buddy James detailed his collaboration with Howard, which began with Howard’s fascination with geometric models and sculptures. Initially, their partnership seemed promising, but it quickly turned problematic. Howard not only misappropriated Buddy’s work but also took his entire team, including a mathematician Buddy had trained. This betrayal had a profound impact on Buddy’s professional life, underscoring the ethical issues in their collaboration.
Part 2: Mathematical and Logical Analysis
Correct Interpretation of Multiplication
To debunk Terrence Howard’s claim, it’s essential to understand multiplication correctly:
- Multiplication as Groups: Multiplication is about forming groups of numbers. For instance:
- 1*1 means forming one group of one, which is 1.
- 3*3 means forming three groups of three, which equals 9 (3 + 3 + 3).
This approach highlights the fundamental principle of multiplication, which is grouping rather than addition in a semantic sense.
Binary Logic and Circuit Design
In digital logic, binary arithmetic follows strict rules. Here’s how addition and multiplication work with binary numbers:
Binary Addition Example (Adding 3 and 3):
Hexadecimal and Digital Logic
Hexadecimal, a base-16 system, is used in computing for its compact representation of binary values. For example, the number 3 remains 3 in both decimal and hexadecimal systems. Hexadecimal is crucial for efficient representation and manipulation of large binary numbers, essential for digital systems.
Part 3: Evaluating Practical, Philosophical, and Engineering Values
Practical Value of Realizable Ideas
For an idea to have practical value, it must be implementable. Howard’s claim fails this criterion because it contradicts basic arithmetic and cannot be translated into functional systems. Ideas that cannot be actualized offer no tangible solutions or improvements, rendering them impractical.
Philosophical and Ontological Insights
Philosophically, even unactualizable ideas can stimulate thought and challenge existing paradigms. They push the boundaries of conceptual frameworks and provoke deeper inquiry. Ontologically, such ideas highlight the gap between potentiality and actuality, offering insights into the nature of reality and human cognition.
[However, that’s as far as it extends without a more practical inclusion. This is understood in MIMS’ Philosophy’s “P7 Resolution” which includes ‘plug-n-play’ status. If something has not been proved, or is not famous for its practicality in use, then it must be immediately pragmatic. ~Author]
Engineering Integrity and Ethics
In engineering, the feasibility and reliability of ideas are paramount. Howard’s claim lacks these qualities, making it unfit for practical applications. Promoting incorrect mathematical concepts can mislead the public and undermine scientific integrity. Ethical engineering practices demand adherence to verified principles to ensure the development of functional and reliable technologies.
Conclusion
Terrence Howard’s claim that 1*1 equals 2 exemplifies the dangers of misinterpreting [and misrepresenting] fundamental principles. While it may provoke philosophical debate, it lacks practical, philosophical, and engineering value due to its inherent flaws. This analysis underscores the importance of grounding ideas in empirical reality to maintain the integrity of scientific and engineering endeavors.
[The author feels there is significant evidence that Mr. Howard has committed a fraud. The author reviewed Howard’s book before release, and told Mr. David Johnson it was incorrect and fraudulent. Moreover the push suddenly matches a ‘Flat Earth’ like curve of propagation by algorithms that may indicate a strong PsyOp origin. As Mr. Howard is a part of Hollywood, it is also a considerable question from a Mockingbird//MK-Ultra question if he isn’t a CIA operative part of a generalized activity (or perhaps Communistic or Fascistic) and effort to dumb down society and socially deconstruct the West.]