It's a reflection in the window behind him? Don't know anything about music.

Paul Simon - You Can Call Me Al 😉

Does this one stays ? Nope

When it comes to physics, I would say the assumption of spacetime is the problem. Reality may not be discrete nor infinitely discrete ("continuous"). What's ironic is that there is more truth to "infinite-dimensional" QFT that is being obscured by a PREMATURE idea of quantization, which is based on a bogus interpretation of measurement. The mass gap is not a problem using the continuous classical field equations of QFT, neither are entanglement nor superposition. Continuous math is simply the degenerate case of discrete analysis, so it arises where there is more simplifying symmetry. What we know right now is that the degrees of freedom in nature are unbounded but not necessarily infinite. It's actually better to use the classical field equations because they more closely approximate reality, a field ontology. In other words, we can describe nature with "continuous" descriptions that allow arbitrary resolution (decimal points). Quantum computers are absurd, seen from this perspective. As for MMT, talking about debt really misses the point. Public debt can crowd out private investment and lower growth rates. If fractional reserve banking and the printing press are involved, the result will inevitably be inflation. Remember, there are two sides to every trade. Banks borrow short to lend long and lend at a fraction of quality assets. They can also borrow reserves from the central bank and the central bank can monetize public or private debt. These things increase the total money versus goods in the economy. The only way that debt doesn't become a problem is if the debt holder doesn't get paid. There is no escape from this physics of exchange.

​​​​@@matthewcory4733 Ok, well, i.d.k. if i am/'will become' annoying by asking further questions, especially since i intend(, for now,) to comment on your next videos as well. My guess is that it'll be annoying to repeat yourself, but even with someone ignorant it can sometimes help in arranging one's own thought if the discussion is stimulating enough. I'll then (presumptuously )'hope that'&'see if' i could (surprisingly )help, since that's my only guess here(, i.e., i know that i'll learn some things, but can only guess/hope that you'll not lose your time in return) : - To give a little bit of context : I've downloaded more videos from you than i have watched them, but can't remember the username you had then{~7 years ago}(, you still had the picture of E.Galois, but it was before you changed your username to "Fuck you", and afterwards it was the profile picture of Lilo&Stitch, then the name Mod Tremil... with the current p.p., then Matthew Cory, and now Max Stirner). I've also screenshotted more tweets from you than i've read them(, and lost them when i lost my phone). I initially kept you in mind because i needed an example to show that KZbin search function sucks, and blahblahblah. It was funny because you've hidden your videos a few days after i downloaded them(, in 2017(2016?)), and i was unsure if 'it was because of me'/'you noticed it somehow' ^^. Just for the record : you're the only account(, if i remember correctly,) that i'm following with a few (dozen of )views, and also the only one on twitter/𝕏 that i've systematically screenshotted entirely like i did, it's not an habit of mine, just that 'you seems&are awesome'/'i can only love that/you(, am still straight tho^^)' ! I've always postponed the time for me to truly understand what you were saying(revealing), and even if i think that everyone should aim to be like you, i'm at the same point in my life than i was ten years ago, only even more late, so i don't intend to give these topics the attention they deserve. Now that the ~necessary introduction is done, back to being serious. And even your answer to a random comment is ultra-dense, it's obvious that you clearly have a lot to say. While it's far from your only topic i wonder if you ever seriously thought of a book(, if only to help you arrange your thoughts, since our current society 'wouldn't be interested'/'has other things/problems in mind'). - reality may not be discrete nor continuous : I don't know how, except as an intermediate between the most extreme acceptions of both ; if so, it's indeed important to point out that there's more than finitism and ultra-finitism on one side, and continuity on the other. This sentence made me think of the aspect of God as the Alpha, which may not be the Beginning nor the Eternal but a third/fourth/.. thing, or when Spinoza pointed out that humans only have access to the material and ideal world but others may exist(, i know that you're an atheist so... sorry for this example perhaps). It's the same as when i picked the example of sqrt(2) for your refusal of proofs by opposition : there may be a third option that would make the rule "a number is either rational or irrational" false. - You're adding in your answer that the "mathematical artefact" of the wave function collapse isn't linked to measurement, it's just something that we don't know yet, not a real physical phenomenon. At first sight, it seems logical that Bohm thought that hidden variables are yet to be discovered in order to 'explain why'/'predict that' this wave function will result in a thing rather than an other. But yeah, it isn't suddenly decided once observed(, Shrödinger's cat isn't half-dead half-alive). - I didn't know that the quantum field theory uses infinite-dimensional mathematical space, it'd seem suspicious indeed under an ultra-finitist approach refusing to assimilate 'unbounded' with 'infinite'(, e.g., by refusing to use ∞ to express the number of positions that a particle can have), but it also do make sense to consider voxels/'a discrete spacetime' instead of something continuous, and i didn't know here as well that the QFT does both : first via classical partial differential equations, and then by treating the resulting ∞ via normalization techniques. Do you think that ~problematic concepts such as the mass gap, entanglement, and superposition, are inherited from the "partial differential equations" step, and that an ultra-finite approach could lead to a different explanation of the same observations(, hopefully without the paradoxes) ? - I.d.k. how to replace ∞ with "arbitrarily big" in mathematics, but from a layman's point of view it'd seem interesting to try, especially in this case. Would it also render useless the "normalization" step that follows, since no ∞ would appear(, and even perhaps result in a theory more compatible with continuous/classical mechanics) ? - If i understood you correctly, you're also adding that calculations in a so-called "continuous" space only work under the assumptions that we can simplify by symmetry(, i.e. when variations are smooth enough to support a continuous approach)(, e.g.. translation symmetry for the same physical laws across the universe, or temporal symmetry across time) ? (Not sure that it was your point, but )Would such assumption still hold at the Planck scale ? - The granulary scale of such unitary/undivisible voxel at the basis of our reality would also be the kind of context that doesn't allow to « describe nature with "continuous" descriptions that allow 'arbitrary resolutions'/'decimal points' », right(, b.t.w., kinda interesting that ChatGPT cites as examples that the equations of Navier-Stokes can have a higher resolution for turbulences, Maxwell for high-end optic systems, or Einstein's relativity for planet's movements or black holes) ? - Also, is it not monetary creation when banks give a credit, and a monetary destruction when this credit is reimbursed ? Hence, a state deficit would create inflation, and a subsequent deflation when it is reimbursed(, schematically speaking of course) ? Not sure that i've got much to bring you, so we can stop here if you prefer, bye :) Edit : I'd like to know if you received this comment or if it was shadowbanned though, since i'm only seeing this comment in the "most recent" section, and not on p.c.

@@sousmerde2retardataire I simply had too many videos posted, many of rushed quality. It's not the PDEs but the quantization procedures and lattice theory. Consider the idea of bandwidth-limited functions in Nyquist-Shannon sampling theory and you will see the triviality in the distinction between the so-called "continuous" and discrete. Again, continuity is simply the degenerate case, not something different than discrete analysis. QFT only admits something like particles in very basic instances of the theory. See Tian Yu Cao on structural realism and the history of QFT.

@@matthewcory4733 I'm not answering your comment yet, just testing because every comment i send you, on any video, since i've started last week, systematically get shadowbanned, this one may be an exception but i've answered each of the comments you've sent me for now, and i just think you should know 🤷 If this comment passes i'll edit it. Yep, this one didn't pass either.

@@matthewcory4733 test

Yep. The link is in the description.

On the other side : Israel would still(/'perhaps even more') be unaccepted if it was christian, buddhist, atheist, .... So the Israel government probably do not think that pursuing this path of peace would be enough to be accepted(, and that giving up on the illegally occupied territories would be worthwhile). Also, such period of peace would probably give more time for their enemies to build their strength(, not every anti-zionist has been overthrown yet), since acceptance would be impossible. While it may be possible to be accepted via propaganda(, in theory), it could be easier to give something of equal/’obviously/convincingly superior’ value for Israel(&Palestine). There would still be some unacceptance, since some things can't be bought, but that'd be a starting point for being accepted. Another option would be the destruction of any state that would oppose their will, which is the current plan, however it's the only one pursued, and could work with the previous one. Iran/Syria/Yemen/.. are countries(, Hezbollah, ...) that will continue to be targeted for their anti-zionism, if our finances(/neo-colonialism) allows it, sanctions aren't going to stop as long as they'll want Israel out(/'forever disappeared'). Another option would be to trust the goodwill of their neighbours, with an accurate propaganda, if they go to a lot of interviews and build some kind of friendship, in an ideal world(, religious people are supposed to ‘flee sins’/’adore virtues’). That's also an option compatible with the two previous ones. You may not read this answer, but since other options almost certainly exists, perhaps have you thought of one ? Thanks for being so knowledgeable(&intuitive?) and for whatever you're doing in your life :) !

('kay, this comment still doesn't appear everywhere, but at least it's still in my comment history unlike the first one(, because of the edit ?), strange but w/e)

@@sousmerde2retardataire KZbin is horrible with comments. They always disappear! Arafat officially accepted Israel in 1993 and the Palestinians are LEGALLY entitled to everything up to the 67 borders. It was Israel that funded Hamas and actively undermined a two-state settlement. The progress made during Tabba came much closer to an acceptable deal but Israel called off the negotiations. Israel's rejectionist stance has empowered hardliners among the Palestinians. The conflict is really quite easy to understand, if you don't listen to the US media.

@@matthewcory4733 Thanks for your answer :D !! Not that it matters a lot, but were you able to read what i wrote(, if not&'you want to', you can end a tinyurl link with "mr3tc7r4") ? And this censorship from KZbin doesn't come from their direction but as a direct pressure from our governments, so many people are fooled by accusing them instead of the real culprit(, yet like all social medias KZbin sucks, their comment section is ultra-basic, they don't offer any way/tool to edit videos such as enhancing their interactivity, their search function is almost inexistent, etc.) Thanks for insisting on 1993(, and 1995), because Israel continued to expand its illegally occupied territories afterwards, and i don't understand why(, perhaps the same eternal excuse/reason of a lack of trust ?). Hamas was only elected '13 years later'/'in 2006', i.m.h.o. as a reaction to the obvious lack of goodwill from Israel. On the money given to Hamas, it's i.m.h.o. a way to control them by threatening to remove their donations, but i may be seeing only a part of the truth. I'm so ignorant that i've never heard about the Camp David(2000) and the Taba(2001) negotiations, it's apparently objective to accuse Ariel Sharon for putting an end to this progress, and initiating the second Intifada. I'm still trying to understand why Israel gave up on peace, perhaps that M.Abbas lost its only occasion of peace(, since 2001,) with Ehud Olmert in 2008(, without follow-up since Netanyahu was elected in 2009), but i wasn't there, it's a bit too easy to judge things from afar, it still seems like Israel is the one refusing peace. Y.Rabbin was assassinated in 1995, and Netanyahu was prime minister from 1996 to 1999, hence why 5 years separated Oslo II(, 1995), from the camp David you're mentionning in the video(, 2000) The "two-state" solution was already agreed upon a long time ago in the end, even if it's an obvious loss for arabs, and there's no need for more original solutions i guess.

​@sousmerde2retardataire It doesn't matter if Izzy us Jewish, Christian, or whatever religion. The issue is not religion, it's the continuous oppression, land grabs, and ethnic cleansing.

Currently they are likely just unlisted.

Pigs hitting levers? Game theory is too recursive to work on real humans empirically (do pirates understand backward induction?) but it's not an entirely bad suggestion. However, much of the problem revolves around faulty assumptions. The tragedy of the commons, as Hardin pointed out, simply assumes a commons. A further assumption is that owners are separate from workers, but shareholder capitalism allows them to merge without the socialization of production (think of distributism or a sovereign wealth fund). Another assumption is that inefficient human labor is a bad thing, given that it incentivizes overall efficiency with technology. The simple-minded approaches, such as a negative income tax or Georgist tax on IP and urban property, are a move in the right direction. The most miserable assumption of all is the desire for more in a world of 8 billion people and ecological and material limits. Big problems are rarely reducible to toy models.

@@matthewcory4733 I appreciate the response, but you're over-thinking this. Game Theory is evidently not too recursive to work on real humans since it's used all the time, even if only implicitly. Governments are literally all about game theory. Laws against theft are about disincentivizing people from stealing other people's stuff in favor of producing their own fruits of labor instead. Such a law is a resolution to a Prisoner's Dilemma against stealing other people's belongings, assuming that said law is effectively enforced. Similarly, Georgism is a way of resolving a Tragedy of the Commons regarding land ownership, lest there be private land ownership and inefficient uses of land like what we have today. It's far from being "simple-minded" since most people think Neo-Communism / Socialism is the answer, even though it would make everything even worse, and fail to resolve the root cause of unequal wealth distribution, which is unequal land distribution. It is very unfortunate that the world population is continuing to increase, but nobody is assuming that that would be better, besides foolish Libertarians. It's just that people are having more children because that's what humans evolved to do, and there's no war, disease, or famine to reduce the world population, like it has usually been throughout human history. This world needs eugenic population control if it's going to thrive in the future. And if we're going to be technical, nobody is assuming that owners are separate from workers. It's just that that's how the arrangements usually are, even though many people would like different property arrangements.

@@questionablegenius9891 Circular reasoning doesn't impress me. I have read papers on the empirical evidence for much of game theory and it's not very impressive. Period. Georgism is not "how the arrangements usually are" but that's not an argument against it. Again, the current ideas about "productivity" are contradicting environmentalism in a very deep way. It's not trivial to redefine what it means.