Licia Verde - Why the ‘Unreasonable Effectiveness’ of Mathematics?

[@stephaniekrok4898]

It really is a pity Alain Badiou was not interviewed. His views, as presented in his philosophical work (notably "being and event") are extremely interestimg and relevant to this question.

[@someone1059]

I read a book which was collection of essays by various scientists and initial 2 essays of that book brilliantly captured this idea about strange relationship between physics and mathrematics

[@bozo5632]

Try to imagine the alternative - math that was not self-consistent.

[@craigwall6071]

Here it's called "Unreasonably Effective" which implies mystery and awe. Greeks called it divine.

[@billnorris1264]

An interesting comment friend.. I would respond that observations reveal our Cosmos is both uniformly self-consistent, and can be PRECISELY described by math..This is NOT surprising in the least, math was discovered by, NOT invented by humans..

[@samuelarthur887]

I guess an underlying question is why is nature coherent, as illustrated in the coherence of math?

[@billnorris1264]

Yes, why is it coherent AND so uniformly self consistent..

[@johannpopper1493]

Nature as it is, is the given context of our lives. The only possible way to evolve toward survivable complex intelligence, which is what we are, is to mirror nature as it is. Life that doesn't mirror natural coherence couldn't survive. There is no possible experiential standpoint outside of nature -- for us -- to relate nature as a whole to anything non-coherent (i.e. non-coherence is only a conceptual negation of what experience is like as a whole; there is no such thing as non-coherence, and thus no rational basis for asking why nature is coherent). It's like pulling one's hair out asking why 2+2=4. No other outcome is ever possibly experienced, so it's an abuse of language to ask why it is the case.

[@billnorris1264]

@@johannpopper1493 An interesting comment friend. Let me see if I have it right... Nature is what it is, and its wrong to question it.. did I miss something?

[@johannpopper1493]

@@billnorris1264 Yes. You missed the categorical distinction between questioning how anything within nature exists in all their measurable and logical and aesthetic complexity, versus that nature as a whole is what it is. It makes sense to ask questions about things within nature because the mental tools by which we cognize reflect nature; it is contradictory in the manner of an infinite regression to apply explanatory ruleset of experience and deduction, for example, to an imagined structure outside of nature, or pretend our explanatory tools are meta-natural such that we can explain our explanatory tools themselves. There is either a terminus to explanatory value, or we run into the categorical contradiction of saying we can fully explain using deduction why deductions obtains, which is the category error even distinguished (albeit untrained in philosophy) scholars make when they erroneously attempt to speculate about why mathematics is successful vis-a-vis physics. The answer they are looking for is self-contradictory because they are imagining there is a meta-logical standpoint from which they can demonstrate in a manner very much like deduction, yet somehow above it, why deductive mathematical relationships have predictive value.

[@billnorris1264]

@@johannpopper1493 That too was very interesting Johann... Your arguments are well taken.. In the spirit of debating ideas, and with NO personal offense intended, here's one man's opinion: ONCE philosophy gave birth to the scientific worldview and the scientific method, (Thankyou Socrates) it had completed its Magnum Opus... For THOUSANDS of years philosophers have been arguing about HOW to argue, term definitions, category errors and the like, but what physical benefits has it provided for our species?ASSUMPTIVE knowledge derived SOLELY from philosophical considerations can't be verified.. it can't be falsified.. it can't even be tested for its veracity.. Finally, there's often a dubious thread of metaphysics or supernaturalism woven into philosophy beliefs... Dualism in hundreds of different forms, deism, theism and much more.. In physics it's all about the Math brother, and Math is something anyone can verify! Anxious to hear your response, PEACE friend.

[@shashikamanoj1160]

Mathematics is not only about counting as 1, 2, 3.. it's also about how numbers are related to shapes, surfaces and solids. Classic example is the mathematical equations done by Srinivasa Ramanujan, The man who knew infinity. His mathematical patterns are still in use for physics of blackholes. On the other hand, mathematics is itself makes its correlation to its own branches as algebra, geometry, Calculus, matrices. As Roger Penrose puts it, it's capable to survive even without a physical world. Finally, mathematical equations are able to predict not only the quantity but also the quality and nature of a physical theory. Ongoing argument regarding the string theory's dimensions are purely about what math supports. Of course, I would argue for otherwise 'Why Math is reasonably effective?' . But I changed my mind after going through 'incompleteness theorems' of Kurt Godel which basically rip through certain axioms of whole edifice of Mathematics. Thanks for the video Dr. If it's possible I would suggest Dr John Lennox for an interview. God bless you

[@shashikamanoj1160]

@@Skyhigh275 firstly, S Ramanujan as ' man knew infinity ' has nothing with morality or belief. It's due to his incredibly mathematical brilliance to formulate equations and he was well ahead of his time. Please spend quality time with his Pi formula. Secondly, my whole point was to affirm that mathematics is not just symbols with quantity value but it's able to predict the quality according to variables

[@EthelredHardrede-nz8yv]

@@Skyhigh275 " Mathematics doesn't explain morality.. " Nor bizarre non sequiturs. "Believe in Jesus" Why, he treated the Great Flood as real so he was just another ignorant man.

[@elgatoconbolas]

If we only apply Mathematics where it works, then, does it imply that, where it doesn't work, it is inaccessible to reason?

[@samuelarthur887]

That's profound, I think. But can you conceive of an area where it might not work?

[@elgatoconbolas]

@@samuelarthur887 well, that's the point. If it is not accessible to math then, I believe, it is not accesible to reason. The Halting problem is an example of something that is not accesible (solvable) by math nor reason.

[@ENGRAINING]

math is the proof that we can create a formalistic system from scratch without reason behind it, which says a lot about the concept of reason in itself.

[@carmelpule6954]

The effectiveness of mathematics is more than that of written or spoken languages because all its printed symbols have logical relations to themselves and reality around them which language symbols do not have and hence the reason for the many tribal languages trying to describe the same actions using different sounding, action verbs, and tangible nouns and the other linking "glues" to join sentences together, as found in any language. If people in society had to live together in silence, then their actions and processes could be related to a natural evolution which depends on the nature of the laws of physics and chemistry within the organic stuff that makes living things, but it is not the same with describing an issue using any artificially made language whee many misunderstanding can occur as in the written law. Let us take the numbers 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,........10,11,.....20, 21, 90, 91.....100.....1000......10000.....etc and the alphabet a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i,j,k,l,m,,n,o,p,q,r,,s,t,u,v,w,x,y,z. First of all, it must be said that the printed number symbols as shown are not written correctly, as the rounded symbols from a typewriter have lost the value appreciation of the number quantity in the written symbol. The real original numbers had sharp CORNERS which anyone, unfamiliar with the number symbol could easily count by looking at the number symbol. Hence "0" has no corners and so its value is zero. "1" has only one corner and so its value is one. " 2" should not be rounded on the top-right corner and thus it would have two corners, confirming that its value is two. " 3" should not be rounded off on the top right- hand and bottom right and corner and thus the symbol would contain three corners confirming and projecting its value of three. And so it goes on. There is "logic", "reason" and " rational " thinking in the evolution of the written symbols of numbers. Another logic is that each adjacent number is linked by the value of "1 corner" being added or subtracted from the adjacent numbers in the sequence. When one runs out of corners, the basic numbers are " shifted" to the left to increase their value by ten times, hence "10" has a value of 10 due to the shift of the symbol "1" and the fact that "1" has only one corner, while in the symbol "100" the "1" has been shifted two times and " 1" has only one corner, while the other spaces are filled with "0" with no corners, meaning that the value is one hundred. "1325" would contain the processing logic of " one "1" with one sharp corner being shifted three times hence its value is one thousand, "3" containing three corners, being shifter twice hence its value is three hundred, " 2" with its two corners, is shifted twice hence its value is twenty, while " 5" is not shifted at all, it has five corners thus its value is merely five, through the operation of counting its corners. Now any operation with numbers be it multiply, divide, add, subtract, finding sine, cosine, logs, squared and cube roots, etc, they all have their logical operation on the numbers handled and so the answer must always be logical, reasoned and effective and real as in the case of the square root of minus one which contains the logic of rotation to have a practical answer. Now the above conversation could not be made using the symbols of the letters of the alphabet "a" and " b" or "A" and "B'" as the logic is not contained in the symbol as "1" and "2" but it is an artificially agreed sound or written symbol which every tribe on earth developed through accidental soundings and heliographic as in art, where art itself has no logic but simply emotions and it is the structure of art and sounding and writing of a language that contains engineering logic and rational thinking in its construction. The video shown above illustrates the illogical soundings of a language and they are successfully communicating only because the mind of man can produce an error-correcting code through sound recognition. The interviewer at 0:04 is adulterating his English language with a voice including additional sounds as "em", "eh", "em, em, em", and the lady Licia Verde, while her logic is unquestioned, her English accent is adulterated by her Spanish influence of Barcellona. If this conversation was to be made by other persons using other languages, with other rituals and cultures, then, not only the soundings would be different but the sentence construction would also be structured in a different manner, and the result will only be an approximation to what is being projected as sound in this video and the hidden real substance of the subject spoken through symbolic utterings. Mathematics is not ambiguous and irrational, as the relationship between various states is no different from what the natural material did with the evolution of the years of changing states that existed with its own logic at the time where each operation and step in evolution had to be logical, reasoned and completely rational which languages do not have. It seems that what was illogical in natural evolution, it destroyed itself. That is why languages are ever-changing, but not mathematical operators. The states in differential geometry are related by the rate of change of a function, which is another son or daughter blood-related function, and this creates regularity and contingency in the mathematical action. This cannot be said of any language, but only of the human mind that speaks and writes the language with " approximate artificial operators which can only be symbolic and produce images and shadows of the truth and reality" Each language produce its own superficial shadows and blurred artistic images of the real universe while science and mathematics go a little deeper than the superficial scratching the surface of reality using artificial language meanings with written and noisy hieroglyphs appertaining to different language brought about through its isolation of different earthly surface zones. Mathematics is the language of the common universe available to all people and so it does not work in isolation with the different people who use it. Language does and writing this using the English language will come out in a different dialect to what Licia Verde presented as similar to Licia. The English language is not my mother's tongue and so the reader would, in addition to what I wrote, add his own interpretation generated by his own upbringing and tribal culture. If language is used to tell a story to a child and he is asked to repeat it to another child who goes through the same process, then the original story represented with any language, would after ten repeated recitation by totally different people and would finish up being a totally different story where, if the original story was fiction, the last one would probably believe what he was told as being reality itself. This happens in politics, law, literature, religion, philosophy, but never in mathematics. It is the real substance that emanated from mathematics and engineering that produced all the modern tangible guaranteed comforts in and out of our homes, that most families now want and that is what they now seek rather than old philosophies, politics, laws, and religions, arts, though the latter will always be emotional and need to always be used as entertainment to calm people down when they cannot understand the mathematics and engineering that gives them what guaranteed tangible comforts they have, which languages, religions and philosophies, and politics could not do. It is so unfortunate that most people are proud to buy and own and operate things around them as the " success story" these modern days is not to seek a deeper understanding of the universe but to make as much paper money as possible in any legitimate or illegitimate manner, and using the existing laws to change the paper or electronic money into real assets, normally buying other people land! That is too monotonous for mathematicians and engineers. Others who use the symbolic language, as lawyers and senators, politicians, psychologists, and religion do, they prefer to stay with the illogical, unreasoned, and irrational structure of a language. Others who emotionally prefer to subconsciously use mathematics and engineering to construct their irrational artistic displays, supported by differential contrasts in trajectories and color mixing and the emotional music engineering combinations, without ever delving into the hidden mathematical orderly relations as to what projects and depicts the emotions of monotony, excitement, gentleness and aggression.

[@williamwolfe8708]

"Math speaks exactly the same to all of us" -- yes! That's why it is bred into human dna -- It is inside us because we are a product of the natural processes that created the universe -- it reflects the structure of the universe, and gives us a critical survival mechanism -- for understanding the world around us.

[@bozo5632]

No one marvels at the unreasonable effectiveness of maps.

[@johannpopper1493]

@@donthesitatebegin9283 Where does the experience of the color blue come from? If I intentionally collect and stare at every similar shade or hue I can find, will I get any closer to answering that question? No, but I will show myself why such questions have no sense.

[@williamwolfe8708]

All important things will eventually succomb to mathematical analysis. We have demonstrated that science is best expressed in mathematics, and we will eventually reduce all endeavors to mathematical reasoning -- Why? Because math represents the truth. Why? Because math is the internal/underlying structure of the universe. Why? I have no clue.

[@williamwolfe8708]

Never heard "square root of minus 2" as an example of anything.

[@williamwolfe8708]

"Not everything, just the physical universe" -- hmm -- some people think that's all there is. Let's see, what is it that is not physical? Thoughts? Hmm -- they might just be a manifestation of neural activity. Love? Maybe that's just part of a mating behavior, etc. I love it when I can't even agree with the first thing an expert says -- keeps me puzzling.

[@Domispitaletti]

What he really wanted to know is if there is a platonic reality where numbers exist, because that would be a gap where to insert consciousness and spirituality too.

[@alephnull7410]

@Verdi most physicists scoff at this idea and would not use metaphysics and mathematics in the same sentence. They also have left quantum theory and relativity disjoint for over a hundred years. I wonder if there is a connection?

[@johannpopper1493]

A gap isn't necessary to model consciousness or life experience as such. It is a brute fact they exist. Nobody politicizes the so-called 'laws of nature' this way; they just (correctly) accept that they are the case at rock bottom, because you cannot pretend there are ever-more levels of tools for understanding that transcend and explain our ONLY tools for understanding. All such mystery mongering is an abuse of language, relying solely on infinite regressions of questioning that have absolutely no logical or empirical explanatory value. The real mystery is the aesthetic appreciation of these self-evident limits, not pretending they are proper subjects for further deductions.

[@johannpopper1493]

@@alephnull7410 Mathematics are meta-physics, by definition -- the relational toolset for describing empirical observations and making coherent predictions. Nonsense abounds when thinking mathematics by itself or some aesthetic descriptions add explanatory/technological value to empirical models.

[@alephnull7410]

@Johann Popper Yes mathematics is a metaphysical area and because it is, mathematics does not exist to fulfill some inherent need of it being a “relational toolset” for empiricism. It is solely self consistent systematized thought that can be “applied” to empirical models. The concern is not about adding any “value” to empirical models. The goal is in recognizing mathematics metaphysical presence in and of itself.

[@johannpopper1493]

@@alephnull7410 The question presented in the video was specifically whether math presents physics (an empirical science) with an overarching ontology, a metaphysical account. Math in and of itself can be regarded as an abstract natural fact that is applicable for use in empirical fact-finding, or a self-consistent set of abstract deductive relations, but it doesn't reveal anything at all in itself about why the empirical universe can be predicted via math, nor do the abstract deductive relations in pure math reveal anything about why they obtain as the rules of pure math.

[@markuslepisto7824]

To say "language is ambiguous" is to say "to say language is ambiguous IS ambiguous"..

[@markuslepisto7824]

If language is BY DEFINITION ambiguous then there's absolutely nothing to say with language without it being ambiguous..

[@markuslepisto7824]

Even if it is true "mathematics is not-ambiguous" THAT doesn't tell ANYTHING about what language is or is not..if language is ambiguous or not-ambiguous. Actually that doesn't say ANYTHING about anything else than mathematics.

[@markuslepisto7824]

Mathematics is ambiguous in the sense it says "mathematics IS not-ambiguous".. Language actually THAT'S ambiguous just because that's actually language saying it not mathematics.

[@dsc4178]

It could be, maybe, that when math has trouble describing/explaining something it's because math is the wrong way to look at it, explain it. Maybe.

[@Yj-Fj]

Interesting…. Like trying to insist on English to a native in the Amazon.

[@nicolasjimenezsierra8542]

Beautiful.

[@brianchambers1508]

The trouble is how many people really understand what the two of them are lalking about

[@williamwolfe8708]

"Same experiment, same result" ? What about Quantum mechanics?

[@ShubhamKejriwal]

she did talk about ambiguity in mathematics due to probability, which forms the bases of QM.

[@JeffChen285]

When down to human scale, all macro-level realities or natural laws if you like to call it, will behave as a phenomenon called "super smoothness. " For example, the simplest possible, linear mathematic format of Newton's law. Unreasonable Effectiveness is an elusive feeling due to an incorrect relationship between the human and the universe.

[@JeffChen285]

By my "super smoothness" hunch, the MUND method is more correct than the dark matter hypothesis except for one respect, it seems too abrupt to me. In my opinion, any reasonable mathematical modifications should be smooth at least to the level of the second derivative.

[@TheGarrymoore]

Long time ago the famous mathematician Henry Poincare wrote the following: “To localize an object simply means to represent to oneself the movements that would be necessary to reach it. I will explain myself. It is not a question of representing the movements themselves in space, but solely of representing to oneself the muscular sensations which accompany these movements and which do not presuppose the preexistence of the notion of space”, and further on “I have shown in ‘Science and Hypothesis’ the preponderant role played by the movements of our body in the genesis of the notion of space. For a being completely immovable there would be neither space nor geometry.” Movements are those entities that put us in interaction with the physical world. Our brains and thoughts about the space and geometry are formed through movements. If one does not recognize the crucial role of our bodies and movement ability in cognition of basic physical properties of space s/he won't be able to answer the question posed in this episode. Maybe Jean Piaget can tell us something about this topic? www.khanacademy.org/science/health-and-medicine/executive-systems-of-the-brain/cognition-lesson/v/piagets-stages-of-cognitive-development

[@James_Bowie]

If she were my tutor, I think I would have paid more attention to physics.

[@pebblebeach8517]

No. I’d be too distracted.

[@billnorris1264]

Another excellent show Robert.. My unsolicited View is that mathematics are NOT unreasonably effective at all, but exactly what we would expect.. At its simplest level mathematics is just Counting.. A kind of precise nomenclature that simply describes what we observe.. Of COURSE it's effective.. Relevant but an even more fundamental question is why the NATURAL forces, (Laws, rules) behind the curtains, and is it possible to consider their Genesis?

[@kevconn441]

At it's simplest level maths is about patterns, shapes, probabilities and much more. Counting is just counting. Maths appears to be unreasonably effective because we only study things in physics that can be described mathematically.

[@kevconn441]

@Language and Programming Channel Yes it does.

[@billnorris1264]

@@kevconn441 I respectfully disagree friend.. First came Counting, the "Quanta" of human MATHEMATICAL Concepts.. Our mathematical descriptions of reality evolved from there.. This is theoretical of course, NEITHER of us can claim factual certainty.. as our mathematical understanding became more accurate, it became more complex..THEN incorporates some of your ideas and other more advance Notions, like set theory and one of my personal favorites "Von Neumann universe" ...finally, I would suggest you are slightly missing the simplicity of WHY maths effectiveness is so reasonable.. it is a DESCRIPTION..Thats it.. A precise description of what is already there and how it works.. Right? Peace.

[@kevconn441]

@@billnorris1264 Yeah you're right enough. Maths is a descripton of what is already there. I like that definition. Peace to you as well.

[@JeffChen285]

[At its simplest level mathematics is just Counting] ----- Counting may be better treated or understood as a "sparsely digitizing skill" of a human invention. Counting itself is somewhat comparable to the sixth sensor of the human sensing organs. The powerfulness of the sixth sensor has been proved by today's computer technology. However, I don't think it is a proper way to analyze math as counting. Just like human's biological sensors are fundamentally analytic, math is analytic too. For example, A one inch long of math expression line can represent an infinite amount of integer apples.

[@X11X-M]

Greetings sir i think Mathamatic is unreasonable because code in world can have same values but code not same only values.

[@jonmeador8637]

As a Progressive, I love the fact that women are and can now be, experts and interviewees, in mathematics. “You’re welcome, Alicia!”

[@neomonk5668]

Don't hesitate: Begin! Right!

[@GradyPhilpott]

If you're so progressive, why is your statement even necessary?

[@thomascorbett2936]

Mathematicians trying to impress each other. Lol

[@gerhardris]

Why the “Unreasonable Effectiveness” of Mathematics? Good question. Answer: after the 0 axiom that nothing is certain: that rules itself out subsequently taking the first axiom that the universe exists as a dualistic absolute something (atomos) and absolute nothing thus binary Bayesian mathematically all-encompassing paradoxical niche affair. Only applicable for education and (ironic) humor. Bayes can be logically consistently divided in number mathematics (i.e. counting), picture mathematics (I.e. geometry without the numbers and a set theory weighing machine) and other logic such as the English language used as unambiguous i.e. logic. These three “languages” are all part of the soul of our synapsis in our brain being consistent with the soul (defined as the physical order function of the cosmos (taken identical to “god”)). Then we see humans as mammals with more yet still too little memory space. Apes changing their biotope faster than that their neural networks can cope with. Making two axiomatic whopping axiomatic mistakes: 1. Egoistically placing humans outside the cosmos: god doesn’t play dice mistake: On the first axiom a given that it is deterministic. Yet the Socratic Bayesian yin and yang formula demands what risk you want to take on your whatever egoistic goal of even bare survival? Well given risk is chance x consequence you must logically go for the inverse: we have a free will and there is an meaning in life. How small that chance may be. Then we get that the cosmos must be described in an Euclidian way with the five axioms including that the cosmos is fundamentally not curved as Louis Carrol already explained. You’ll get in Alice and Wonderland and it will become unreasonable. The second mistake was forgetting the instrument between the ears during all lab sessions in school and afterwards. Had all scientists actually done that then one would of asked: “Is this correct that it doesn’t matter what I measure, because it is nurture and not nature the working of the human brain?” It does matter, for all thinking is DNA classical mechanical quantum (sub atomic) robotics. All observations are illusions that in drawn conclusions differ depending on the exactly identifiable sort of brain that you have. The greatest mistake you can have is have triumphs as Einstein knowing he was wrong had with a mistake. Humanity (and all mammals) can as a quick triage be divided in 20% mentally healthy ADHD types (such as Einstein, and Michelle Obama) having talent for spotting fresh irony / paradoxes, 40% healthy autistic people who have the most talent for number mathematics and are average in picture mathematics and thus can’t grasp fresh irony or paradoxes and the here not so relevant 40% healthy hysterics who don’t have any talent for picture mathematics and thus set theory and thus have incurable gender neutral female logic. The HRM / sales department of humanity. Due to the success of a mistake under a majority it has as a consequence become a religion even for artistic and spiritual R&D leaders (the ones with resounding voices) to become religious in the autistic “shut up and calculate” church. Most to blame for this are psychologists. Assessment is their social contracted job, and they knew this all along. Yet being mostly hysterics they didn’t spot the logic, for they couldn’t yet being dominant in the social sciences.

[@sangmeshbagbande3621]

Damn man she's supa cute❤️❤️

[@thomascorbett2936]

How can something be unreasonably effective, arrogant mathematicians. Lol

[@thomascorbett2936]

@@donthesitatebegin9283 Ok thanks.

[@pebblebeach8517]

Don't hesitate: Begin! Thx

[@mobiustrip1400]

Weird, I'm feeling uncomfortable that they are sitting and chatting so close to each other, I wonder why?

[@aminkanji5074]

Orang

[@xspotbox4400]

Main reason why mathematics is effective is because theory is in development for thousands of years and all nations adopted some sort of counting stuff. This is another reason why, since all nations and cultures developed their own number theory and axioms, mathematics became a bridge for converting same things into different systems and uses. But why number theory works, it must have something to do with quantum components, equilibrium and balance we can observe everywhere in universe. Markets and economy couldn't work if no permanent shapes could exist and lengths would keep on changing. But there are elementary particles and linear forces, things are not infinitely divisible, so mathematical tools and forms are part of a real world, not imaginary substance. Things get complicated deep down, but dimension of very small and very large were not available to humanity before, mathematics has just started dealing with border line extremes. Question is if mathematics still function once we exceed limits of our biological experiences, only thing we can use there are artificial tools build on mathematical constructs, if they fail, any number theory will have a hard time to expand beyond our physical dimension. Mathematics is adding and subtracting, counting is more like physics where things get measured many times, to confirm results or find more effective solutions.

[@Ermanariks_til_Aujm]

Mathematics are not rational, mathematical physics even less. They reify concepts as objects and "play" with these to fit their narrative. Could an object be that which has a shape? Then what's the shape of time? Of space? Of waves? Of a light? Of a blackhole? Is it a 2D hole or a 3D ball? And what about dimensions? These are concepts, yet they are used as object! Same with existence! Existence is that which has shape and a location, yet neither object or existence were defined beforehand! Egyptians had a kind of mathematics and developed many technologies with it, yet had beliefs that we would consider today "irrational". It is the exact same today, because the ability to develop technology does not equate with being "right" about the mechanisms underlying the technology. One person trying at least to define actual physical phenomenon could be Bill Gaede, but he isn't another dogma to follow, but at least another viewpoint not engaging in the consensus.

[@lucianmaximus4741]

Kudos -- 444 Gematria -- 🗽