Joe Rogan Experience #2171 - Eric Weinstein & Terrence Howard

1. 0:00 – 9:26

   Why Eric’s here: steelmanning Terrence vs. academic pile-ons

   1. THTerrence Howard0:00

      (drum music) Joe Rogan podcast, check it out.

   2. NANarrator0:04

      The Joe Rogan Experience.

   3. JRJoe Rogan0:06

      Train by day, Joe Rogan podcast by night, all day. (rock music) Gentlemen, here we go. Terrence, thank you for coming back. It was, uh, a lot of fun having you on the first time. Obviously, a lot of people wanted to talk to you after they heard all these, uh, ideas of yours. And, and then my friend Eric reached out, and he said he would love to do it. Eric, one of my most brilliant friends. Um, y- tell everybody your background, like your academic background so people understand what you...

   4. EWEric Weinstein0:36

      Sure. So I'm, I'm a PhD in mathematics, specifically in mathematical physics. Uh, I've had positions in economics, mathematics, and physics departments at places like MIT, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Harvard, after my doctorate, uh, Oxford, um, and I'm a podcaster in part-

   5. JRJoe Rogan1:00

      Very good podcaster.

   6. EWEric Weinstein1:01

      (laughs)

   7. JRJoe Rogan1:01

      Boosted- Bring it back to Portal?

   8. EWEric Weinstein1:03

      Uh, you have a lot to do with all of these things, Joe.

   9. JRJoe Rogan1:06

      This is my f- my, one of my favorite episodes of any podcast was your interview with Werner Herzog.

   10. EWEric Weinstein1:10

       Oh, man.

   11. JRJoe Rogan1:11

       That was a great episode.

   12. EWEric Weinstein1:12

       Have you had him in here?

   13. JRJoe Rogan1:13

       I have not, but I would love to.

   14. EWEric Weinstein1:14

       'Cause it seems to me like that's the conversation I wanna listen to-

   15. JRJoe Rogan1:17

       I would like to corner him-

   16. EWEric Weinstein1:18

       ... is you, you, and Werner.

   17. JRJoe Rogan1:18

       ... because I believe that Grizzly Man was a secret comedy.

   18. EWEric Weinstein1:21

       (laughs)

   19. JRJoe Rogan1:22

       I really do. There's something about h- the way he edited Grizzly Man, I'm like, "This motherfucker is being funny on purpose." I know he is. I know he's, like, editing these, like, short clips so it's- the guy's so ridiculous-

   20. EWEric Weinstein1:34

       Yeah.

   21. JRJoe Rogan1:34

       ... that you start laughing.

   22. EWEric Weinstein1:36

       I didn't see it 'cause I, for-

   23. JRJoe Rogan1:37

       You haven't seen Grizzly Man?

   24. EWEric Weinstein1:38

       We have different tastes, sir.

   25. JRJoe Rogan1:39

       How dare you.

   26. EWEric Weinstein1:40

       By the way-

   27. JRJoe Rogan1:40

       It's a work of art.

   28. EWEric Weinstein1:41

       ... I, I need to also just say that I was not, uh, Terrence, I think, you know, I heard him on TMZ, um, the, I, I am not, I was not looking for a debate. I wanted to make sure that Terrence had his position steel manned so that anything that he didn't know how to do within mathematics that was legit, uh, gave a chance to put his best foot forward before he got, like, reviewed. And, uh, I didn't ask to come on. You asked to have me on. I'm happy to do it 'cause a friend of the show, but I'm just-

   29. JRJoe Rogan2:09

       Well, you reached out about the episode specifically-

   30. EWEric Weinstein2:11

       Yeah, sure.
2. 9:26 – 14:28

   Neil deGrasse Tyson, public science, and what “welcoming outsiders” really means

   1. THTerrence Howard9:26

      ... to show Neil DeGrasse Tyson that he would not even really take a look at and to see if it's valid. But no, he did take a look at it, right? He responded in a b- a long video recently.

   2. EWEric Weinstein9:34

      Yeah, but his response was disingenuous.

   3. THTerrence Howard9:37

      (laughs)

   4. EWEric Weinstein9:37

      Guys, may I make a recommendation? Let's start with the ideas-

   5. THTerrence Howard9:40

      (laughs)

   6. EWEric Weinstein9:41

      ... because I think we all care about those.

   7. THTerrence Howard9:42

      Yes, for sure, but hold please because this is an important thing that just came out.

   8. EWEric Weinstein9:45

      Uh, yeah, he, he was so disingenuous because I sent him the long email after he sent me back the red-line thing thanking him for reviewing it and saying, "Look forward to when we can discuss these things." 'Cause I sent it, the treaties to him, so we could discuss that on the show. He, his whole point was, "I'm going to bring you on my show, and we're gonna talk."

   9. THTerrence Howard10:04

      Right.

   10. EWEric Weinstein10:04

       "So here is this stuff that we're gonna talk about that I would b- like to talk about." He never followed up from that point forward, just sent one-line emails, "Any other thing you got, you gotta go to somebody else." So he, he's pretended like, "Oh, I was trying to be, you know, very helpful," but that's not what the email trails show.

   11. THTerrence Howard10:24

       So he did make this one very large response though, right? He did. He did go over the treaties, very- Yes, very thoroughly.

   12. EWEric Weinstein10:32

       ... like all the red-line stuff. He only has so much time, you know. He might be in a position to defend him, but he might be in a position where he's like, "Look, I, I just said what I said about all this stuff. Good luck. I don't have the time to, like, sit here and discuss these things in depth." Maybe that's possible.

   13. THTerrence Howard10:48

       And that's great.

   14. EWEric Weinstein10:48

       Maybe-

   15. THTerrence Howard10:48

       That's great, but it's like you invited me to come and do your show. I put this stuff together to come and talk to you on your show, and then there's no follow-up with the show.

   16. EWEric Weinstein10:57

       Got it. I, I, I wouldn't-

   17. THTerrence Howard10:58

       (laughs) So where's the beer? Where? (laughs) I understand it. I mean, I understand your perspective for sure, but- It's like come on, man. Let's ... If you're gonna do it, do it.

   18. EWEric Weinstein11:04

       Yeah, he might have got to the point where it's like a, like if a thing where he thinks it's ridiculous, and he doesn't wanna engage it on his show.

   19. THTerrence Howard11:10

       And ridiculous. Amen. And I believe that.

   20. EWEric Weinstein11:12

       Yeah.

   21. THTerrence Howard11:12

       But if you got 97, 98 patents and four supersymmetrical systems that you're claiming you have and all you need is someone to review them-

   22. EWEric Weinstein11:21

       I'm gonna have to jump in. I don't, I don't wanna do it this way.

   23. THTerrence Howard11:22

       That'd be great. Uh, uh, uh, this- Listen, we're just having a conversation. This isn't a ... This isn't about Tyson. No, but what's the problem?

   24. EWEric Weinstein11:26

       This is a col- this is a colleague of mine.

   25. THTerrence Howard11:28

       Yeah, this isn't about Tyson.

   26. EWEric Weinstein11:29

       And the-

   27. THTerrence Howard11:29

       And I love him. I love him. He, I grew up watching him, and I appreciated him. But what is the problem? We're defending him. I certainly am.

   28. EWEric Weinstein11:37

       Because Neil's a complicated guy, and part of what's going on is this, that there's a problem in general, which we scientists do not behave honestly with respect to certain things. We'll make these claims that science is about communication and challenging ideas and, and all of these things, and everybody can be a scientist and all these sorts of, of, of things that we say. Science is interesting. Science is fun. Well, very often it's not interesting. Very often it's not fun. Very, very often you can't really say that everybody can do science 'cause it's super demanding. Um, we don't welcome people. Uh, "You know, you're a mathematician too." We'll say that to kids, and then the kid will say something, and then we'll say, "Be quiet."

   29. THTerrence Howard12:17

       Yeah.

   30. EWEric Weinstein12:17

       And so what ... This is not about ... This is not peculiar to Neil. It's like science in general has portrayed itself as a place where everyone's welcome. We debate out the ideas. We have the scientific method to tell us what's true and what isn't. And that's disingenuous. It's not really how the game works, and w- this is going to involve peer review. It's gonna involve people who are dual in terms of both doing research and being public figures. People who are public figures who we think of as researchers who aren't really doing much research.... people who are, you know, pushing crazy agendas in public without a recognition that their colleagues don't think much of what they're doing. I mean, this is a very complicated story that Terrence has walked into. And I have to think about my colleagues, and I have to think about how they hear things, what they will say. And so I am, in part, speaking to your audience, but I'm also partially speaking to a thousand people who are seeing this at a different level. And so-
3. 14:28 – 21:34

   The ‘1×1=2’ claim, the specialness of 2, and Eric’s push to define terms precisely

   1. THTerrence Howard14:28

      No, and what he forgot is when I say one times one equals two, that's a metaphor for challenging the status quo. Despite the fact that the square root of two has all of its issues when you cube it or you multiply it by two, which creates a contradiction. The fa- despite the fact that the square root of two has a problem in, with the prime numbers, the fact that they call number two a prime number-

   2. EWEric Weinstein14:57

      Mm-hmm.

   3. THTerrence Howard14:57

      ... when it's clearly a composite number. Any other prime number, and I'll jump into this, any prime number that you subtract from another prime number, you always get a composite number, except with the situation of the number two. And there's so many people that... And that's why the, the prime numbers are unpredictable, because of that problem associated. So there's been a problem with two for so long.

   4. EWEric Weinstein15:20

      Two is different. I mean, y- you will find that, um, mathematicians will often talk about, uh, proving something for characteristic not equal to two. So they'll single out two as being just very, very different. So look that up when you, when we're done, and I'm happy to-

   5. THTerrence Howard15:35

      Yeah, but why? But why would they do that?

   6. EWEric Weinstein15:37

      Because then part of what you're saying, the prime two, two, it does belong as a prime, but it is also special. And in other words, I have the opportunity to straw man you if I want to, because what you just said sounded crazy, and I also have the prob- possibility to steel man you. So all the algebraic topologists who just heard, you know, for characteristic not equals to, to two, they're like saying, "Yeah, yeah, yeah, that's fair." And so in part, by just jumping into the middle of this, we don't have the benefit of putting your best foot-

   7. THTerrence Howard16:08

      Um, walking through...

   8. EWEric Weinstein16:08

      ... forward because, you know, if you say one (laughs) one times one equals two, everybody knows that that's crazy. But what you actually may mean and what, the fact that you don't use certain terms or the fact that you use certain pronunciations that c- communicate to me something very positive, which is that you taught yourself, you learned this stuff from reading about it because nobody taught you, or you wouldn't pronounce certain words the way you pronounce them.

   9. THTerrence Howard16:31

      True. True. Um-

   10. EWEric Weinstein16:32

       Yeah, so, you know, in part, you always have the ability to make fun of somebody who pronounces a word the way it's read on the page, and then you also have the opportunity to say, "Holy cow, that guy actually taught himself. That's more impressive."

   11. THTerrence Howard16:44

       Right.

   12. EWEric Weinstein16:44

       And so, so in part, what I wanna do is I wanna (laughs) start by giving you your best, your best foot forward and see if I even understood what you said when you went into this whole flower of life rift that becomes your, y- your larger theory. And the only way I know how to do this is to see whether or not I actually grasped it.

   13. THTerrence Howard17:05

       Let's go.

   14. EWEric Weinstein17:05

       Because, you know, I also had to spend some time. I didn't spend a ton of time, but, you know, my time is valuable, your time is valuable.

   15. THTerrence Howard17:12

       Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm.

   16. EWEric Weinstein17:12

       So let's do this thing.

   17. THTerrence Howard17:13

       Yeah, so I, I, I will follow your lead. Um-

   18. EWEric Weinstein17:16

       All right.

   19. What's going on with the number two? (laughs) I'm sitting over here going, "Hey-"

   20. The CIA, the CIA is in charge of the number two.

   21. What's up with two?

   22. Two is different, because of what he said, you know?

   23. Right.

   24. The, the fact that the even/odd distinction-

   25. Isn't that odd, though, that two is different?

   26. THTerrence Howard17:29

       But the problem-

   27. EWEric Weinstein17:29

       What a strange thing.

   28. THTerrence Howard17:30

       The problem that associ- that's associated with the number two is because of the identity principle, which I call the Jim Crow laws of mathematics.

   29. EWEric Weinstein17:39

       (laughs)

   30. (laughs)
4. 21:34 – 30:57

   Multiplication, addition, and the ‘principle of explosion’: why contradictions terrify mathematicians

   1. EWEric Weinstein21:34

      I was trying to get to something. Do you have a problem with the way we do addition? I understand that-

   2. THTerrence Howard21:38

      Addition is the addition, the subtraction, and division is all right beyond... The only problems I have is dividing by... You can't divide by zero, but you can multiply by zero. And if division is the inverse operation of, of multiplication, then you should be able to divide by it, but if you divide by zero, you end up with an infinity. And there was, there was a great system put together by Marco Roden, um, the vortexual, um, based m- math system where they removed the zero, but it's able to predict all the things necessary. It was 100% precise as a model, but it's been abandoned or it's been relegated to, to the outskirts.

   3. EWEric Weinstein22:18

      I don't know that we, we do, do things where sometimes we can divide by zero. Um, we have concepts like the pointed infinity where you can complete a structure that the original structure can't accommodate a problem, uh, an operation, but you can complete it to a larger op- uh, larger system in which that, that thing does become sensible. So as an example of the one times one, assume that Terrence doesn't have a big problem with addition, because addition doesn't have the division by zero problem. Okay. It is the case that, um, if you take any two numbers A and B, two real numbers, right? Or make them positive.

   4. THTerrence Howard23:00

      Mm-hmm.

   5. EWEric Weinstein23:01

      And take the natural logs of those two numbers and add those together, then you take the exponent of that. So we haven't done a times operation at all.

   6. THTerrence Howard23:11

      Right.

   7. EWEric Weinstein23:11

      Right? The exponential of the Ln of A times, plus Ln of B, that is equal to the A, to A times B. In other words, addition and multiplication are what we would say is isomorphic or an ordinary person would say exactly the same thing. So in other words, if you don't allow me multiplication, but you would allow me because you, you like waves. So with waves you need exponentials-

   8. THTerrence Howard23:38

      Mm-hmm.

   9. EWEric Weinstein23:38

      ... and you need natural logarithms, there's no way of changing the law of multiplication and accepting the law of addition because they're the same system.

   10. THTerrence Howard23:49

       Multiplication should initially started as exaggerated addition. That was the whole point of it.

   11. EWEric Weinstein23:55

       Well, the, the real, the, the precise statement would be that the positive real numbers under multiplication with the identity element being the multiplicative identity being one are isomorphic to the total real numbers under addition with the additive identity being zero, and the natural logarithm and exponential are group homomorphisms that connect the two with one being the other's inverse. So by the principle of explosion, the reason that people are in part gonna freak out about your stuff is that we have a vulnerability. And that vulnerability says that from a single contradiction, if you can sneak one contradiction through TSA, the entire airport collapses. Everything that we do just is destroyed. And so the idea is that the security on mathematics and physics and physical sciences is extraordinary.... for outside ideas because the first contradiction in the unity of knowledge destroys all of it. If you've ever seen one of these warehouse racking collapses-

   12. THTerrence Howard25:03

       Yes.

   13. EWEric Weinstein25:03

       ... where some forklift guy hits some strut and the entire warehouse goes ... (laughs) That's what you're dealing with, with the principle of explosion.

   14. THTerrence Howard25:11

       And that's what I'm... That's the problems with the identity principle that they've been trying to work on for years. For years, it's, it's... Norman J. Wildberger talks about it. It's, it is what's s- ... Because you have to cancel, um, conservation of energy and you have to cancel the, the action and reactionary laws in order for one times one. Now, I understand, you're seeing one, one time. But because of the associative law, the associative law that says, "If A and B are both positive integers, then A is to be added to itself. In multiplication, A, A is to be added to itself as many units as is indicated by B."

   15. EWEric Weinstein25:54

       Well, hang on there. If I change the word "itself" to the word "zero", which you're gonna say, "There is no zero."

   16. THTerrence Howard26:02

       Why do I say there's no zero?

   17. EWEric Weinstein26:03

       Because you ha-... Well, this, uh, this is why I w- I keep trying to get back to what I understand-

   18. THTerrence Howard26:07

       (laughs) No, but the thing is-

   19. EWEric Weinstein26:07

       ... of Terrence's underlying metaphysics.

   20. THTerrence Howard26:09

       No, what I'm saying-

   21. EWEric Weinstein26:10

       You can't do this with me.

   22. THTerrence Howard26:10

       ... that there... To s- to say "zero", zero is supposed to represent no thing.

   23. EWEric Weinstein26:16

       Right.

   24. THTerrence Howard26:16

       Nothing whatsoever. But they have re-... Zero as a number, set up as a number, but to say "no thing", your brain creates a chemical structure even in saying "nothing". So there is... What I'm saying-

   25. EWEric Weinstein26:29

       So there's a difference b-

   26. THTerrence Howard26:29

       ... philosophically-

   27. EWEric Weinstein26:30

       There's a difference between the empty set and-

   28. THTerrence Howard26:32

       The empty set.

   29. EWEric Weinstein26:33

       ... zero.

   30. THTerrence Howard26:33

       That's the difference.
5. 30:57 – 38:15

   Back to the start: the Flower of Life as a ‘shadow’ of higher-dimensional structure

   1. EWEric Weinstein30:57

      Let's start with the flower of life. You're wearing it on your shirt, on your sweatshirt.

   2. THTerrence Howard31:00

      I'm wearing some apparition of the flower.

   3. EWEric Weinstein31:02

      Okay. That's right.

   4. THTerrence Howard31:03

      But-

   5. EWEric Weinstein31:03

      So I think the way I came to understand what you're doing, 'cause it's, it's confusing, right? And the one thing I can't go with you on, is I can't go on the Nantucket Sleigh Ride, where we're talking about the Bose-Einstein condensate, and then we're talking about the period-

   6. THTerrence Howard31:15

      Oh, I'm gonna show you that.

   7. EWEric Weinstein31:16

      We can do that.

   8. THTerrence Howard31:17

      I'm gonna show you the thing-

   9. EWEric Weinstein31:17

      But he wants to stick to spec- specific topics one at a time.

   10. THTerrence Howard31:21

       Yeah.

   11. EWEric Weinstein31:21

       Because otherwise, it's just ...

   12. Yes. It's impossible. Yes.

   13. I'll be chasing, I'll be chasing after you and you'll get nothing.

   14. Yeah, that was part of the plan today.

   15. Yeah.

   16. I just wanted to kind of let some of it play out.

   17. THTerrence Howard31:27

       Okay. So you wanna start with the F-

   18. EWEric Weinstein31:29

       The flower of life.

   19. THTerrence Howard31:30

       ... the flower of life.

   20. EWEric Weinstein31:30

       Yeah.

   21. THTerrence Howard31:30

       Can ... Jamie, can you pull that up from ... please, from, uh, my book. It's on page 120-134. Uh, T-C-O-T-L-C.com, or it should be in the regular thing.

   22. EWEric Weinstein31:42

       And also that, that blender thing is very cool.

   23. THTerrence Howard31:45

       Yeah, which ... For rebuilding of Saturn? Or-

   24. EWEric Weinstein31:47

       No. The one that you were talking to this other guy, where he's asking you questions-

   25. THTerrence Howard31:51

       Yeah. Jeff Manzi.

   26. EWEric Weinstein31:51

       ... about the five forms. And you have-

   27. THTerrence Howard31:53

       Jeff Manzi.

   28. EWEric Weinstein31:53

       I fou- I found that through sleuthery on the internet-

   29. THTerrence Howard31:57

       Oh.

   30. EWEric Weinstein31:57

       ... where it was, it was doable. And, and because it ... You know, in particular, when you, when you do them opaque, it's very hard to see. Sometimes when you let it become translucent, it's easier to see.
6. 38:15 – 41:02

   Crystals, straight lines, and the ‘perfect vs. physical’ argument (with the Mexican crystal cave detour)

   1. EWEric Weinstein38:15

      So if I, if I show this to Terrence, 'cause I just bought this from the end of the seventh ray.

   2. THTerrence Howard38:21

      Mm-hmm.

   3. EWEric Weinstein38:22

      And-

   4. THTerrence Howard38:22

      A lot of straight lines.

   5. EWEric Weinstein38:23

      ... a lot of straight lines.

   6. THTerrence Howard38:24

      Yeah.

   7. EWEric Weinstein38:24

      Now Terrence is gonna say-

   8. THTerrence Howard38:24

      Or what it's, you would think is a straight line.

   9. EWEric Weinstein38:26

      You see what, see, exactly.

   10. THTerrence Howard38:27

       But when you look at it under an electron microscope-

   11. EWEric Weinstein38:29

       Mi- it's-

   12. THTerrence Howard38:30

       ... you're going to see the crystalline structure. So again, this configuration is an, an illusion.

   13. JRJoe Rogan38:36

       It's not, you're just saying it's not perfect.

   14. THTerrence Howard38:38

       Well- It's an optical illusion-

   15. EWEric Weinstein38:39

       He's-

   16. THTerrence Howard38:39

       ... because crystals form in symmetrical-

   17. EWEric Weinstein38:43

       Yes. O- y- very often like-

   18. THTerrence Howard38:45

       But a lot of straight lines.

   19. EWEric Weinstein38:46

       A lot of straight lines.

   20. THTerrence Howard38:48

       Perceived straight lines, but are they-

   21. JRJoe Rogan38:49

       Right. But it, and, and, but every atom is filled with empty space. I mean, we could take this down to the, like there is no matter.

   22. EWEric Weinstein38:55

       Well that's, that is ...

   23. JRJoe Rogan38:56

       We could get crazy.

   24. EWEric Weinstein38:57

       So I'm try-

   25. THTerrence Howard38:57

       (laughs)

   26. JRJoe Rogan38:57

       What, where, we're, we're, you know what I'm saying?

   27. EWEric Weinstein38:59

       We're about to.

   28. THTerrence Howard38:59

       (laughs)

   29. JRJoe Rogan38:59

       Well, you've seen that Mexican cave.

   30. EWEric Weinstein39:01

       (laughs)
7. 41:02 – 58:37

   Entangled photons ‘yin-yang,’ ether talk, and why the vacuum isn’t empty

   1. JRJoe Rogan41:02

      All right. I wanna show you something and I wanted to ask your opinion before I forget.

   2. EWEric Weinstein41:06

      Sure.

   3. JRJoe Rogan41:06

      There was a r- a recently, well, I've recently d- uh, found it online.

   4. EWEric Weinstein41:09

      Yeah.

   5. JRJoe Rogan41:09

      Um, of these two photons that were entangled, and it looks like a yin and a yang. Have you seen this?

   6. EWEric Weinstein41:15

      No. Uh, yes, no, I, uh, it's not true. I have seen it out of the corner of my eye. I did not study what caused this.

   7. JRJoe Rogan41:20

      Um, I d- I had to run it by you 'cause you're probably the only one that I know other than maybe Terrence that could understand what the fuck they're saying.

   8. THTerrence Howard41:26

      I have a model of it.

   9. JRJoe Rogan41:27

      (laughs)

   10. EWEric Weinstein41:28

       I don't ... Okay. I-

   11. THTerrence Howard41:29

       I do. And I believe-

   12. EWEric Weinstein41:30

       And I don't.

   13. THTerrence Howard41:31

       I do, I ain't bullshitting.

   14. JRJoe Rogan41:32

       I believe you. I believe you.

   15. THTerrence Howard41:33

       (laughs)

   16. EWEric Weinstein41:33

       I have a model of it.

   17. JRJoe Rogan41:33

       So what are they saying? How did they see this? Like, this biphoton digital holography. Can someone explain that?

   18. EWEric Weinstein41:40

       I ... Maybe, but I don't have, I don't know what those words mean yet.

   19. JRJoe Rogan41:42

       Okay. Do you know what it means, Terrence, like how they could see this?

   20. THTerrence Howard41:47

       Uh, a biphoton, bi always meaning two, but they're, they're examining two-

   21. JRJoe Rogan41:52

       Someone get Mitch Hirakawa on the phone.

   22. THTerrence Howard41:53

       Did they, did they smash them?

   23. EWEric Weinstein41:54

       (laughs)

   24. THTerrence Howard41:54

       Are they smashing them together? What's their process of looking at it?

   25. JRJoe Rogan41:58

       Okay. I, that's a very good question. Um ...

   26. THTerrence Howard42:00

       And they're using the same interferometer that, that Michelson-Morley experiment which turned out to be, it, it turned out that it actually proved there was an ether. They just, there's a paper-

   27. EWEric Weinstein42:11

       Well, there's a way in which you're right about the ether, to be blunt.

   28. THTerrence Howard42:14

       That's what I've defined is the ether.

   29. JRJoe Rogan42:15

       Just listen to this statement in the beginning.

   30. EWEric Weinstein42:17

       Yeah.
8. 58:37 – 1:07:48

   Curvilinear solids from spheres: tetrahedral and octahedral ‘void’ geometry (and negative curvature confusion)

   1. EWEric Weinstein58:37

      So then, what Terrence does is he has, in Blender, um, some means of bringing up platonic solids that are not the usual. So, I bought some of these platonic solids, uh, from Amazon. And you see that they're all, uh, extremely Cartesian.

   2. THTerrence Howard59:01

      Mm-hmm.

   3. EWEric Weinstein59:02

      They're made up of flat faces, or a best attempt to do flat faces. Terrence says, "I don't think that that has to be the case. If you generate these things from this pattern ..." Um, and he focuses on the tetrahedron and an octahedral structure that-

   4. THTerrence Howard59:17

      Can you go up, Jamie, please, so we can see it as, um, from th- that, that side perspective of it? Yeah. Go around.

   5. EWEric Weinstein59:24

      Okay. So, what that is, is a curve linear tetrahedron with spherical ... And it's not actually hyperbolic. Those are gonna be, uh, positive curvature, not negative curvature.

   6. THTerrence Howard59:34

      This is negative curvature.

   7. EWEric Weinstein59:35

      No, that's not gonna ... That's gonna be positive curvature.

   8. THTerrence Howard59:38

      Compressing in.

   9. EWEric Weinstein59:39

      Eh. It ... I think it's positive curvature because those are gonna be s- cer- parts of spheres.

   10. THTerrence Howard59:44

       The spheres are interacting-

   11. EWEric Weinstein59:47

       Yes.

   12. THTerrence Howard59:47

       ... pushing inside of this.

   13. EWEric Weinstein59:47

       But negative curvature would be more like a Pringles trip, a chip, where the, the principal axis of curvature went in different directions. So, I think it's not negative curvature.

   14. THTerrence Howard59:58

       So, this isn't a negative space between four bubbles?

   15. EWEric Weinstein1:00:00

       No. What you mean by negative space ... Negative curvature and negative space are different concepts. So, the word negative is appearing twice, and that's why we're confused. Again, you know, there are a million of these gotchas where you're- you're not g-

   16. JRJoe Rogan1:00:10

       Can you, uh, describe the difference between the two?

   17. EWEric Weinstein1:00:12

       Sure. If I take the tip of my nose, that's gonna be positive curvature because I've got one, uh-

   18. THTerrence Howard1:00:19

       Extending out.

   19. EWEric Weinstein1:00:21

       One curve going one direction, and the other is going in ... They're curved in the same direction. On the other hand, if you look at, like, the crease of my nose, um, that's gonna be negative curvature because I've got one that's going like this and another that's going like that. Jamie, is it possible to take a look at a monkey saddle?

   20. JRJoe Rogan1:00:43

       Oh, wow.

   21. EWEric Weinstein1:00:44

       So, that would be negatively curved, right? 'Cause you'd have, you'd have things going in opposite directions.

   22. JRJoe Rogan1:00:50

       That looks like a cool seat.

   23. THTerrence Howard1:00:52

       Yeah.

   24. EWEric Weinstein1:00:53

       (laughs)

   25. THTerrence Howard1:00:53

       (laughs)

   26. JRJoe Rogan1:00:53

       Yeah. That looked a little comfortable.

   27. EWEric Weinstein1:00:55

       Okay. So, negative curvature is-

   28. THTerrence Howard1:00:56

       I actually have a model of that.

   29. EWEric Weinstein1:00:57

       Yeah. So, negative curvature would be what we would be talking about with like, um, hyperbolic space. And spherical curvature would be what we were talking about with the inside of those curve linear triangles on his ... So, he's making ... Again ...... I don't see this as... This isn't where I think it's worth, you know, saying he's wrong. He just doesn't know the language and doesn't know that there's a, a formalization of it. Now, if you take, um... So the other structure that he keeps running across is an octahedral curvilinear, um... I don't know what... It's not really a platonic solid because it's not flat. It's-

   30. THTerrence Howard1:01:36

       Well, no. If you go and push ... You have to push on the, um, jewel on the side, Jamie. If you go to the side of the thing, press on that jewel, and then go to the purp- to that blue on that right. That blue, yep. And then you get where-
9. 1:07:48 – 1:14:50

   From inspiration to artifacts: Terrence’s dream origin story and ‘all-shape’ building blocks

   1. JRJoe Rogan1:07:48

      Wh... Can I ask you, Terrence, before we go any further, what was the inspiration for diving into this? Like, what revelation did you have that caused you to start looking at this as a 3D structure and the space inside of it?

   2. THTerrence Howard1:08:00

      I... (sighs) Um, they're gonna call me crazy again, but it... When I was 42 and had been kicked out of the world as a result of the allegations, I t... I had another dream, and that same being woke me up and took me back to where I was when I, when I was a child. And I saw the fl... I st- started putting the pieces together, the all shapes, uh-

   3. JRJoe Rogan1:08:23

      In your dream?

   4. THTerrence Howard1:08:24

      ... in, in the dream together, and then I was like, "Oh." So it, it's where four forces meet that makes a difference, so when I put four spheres, four circles... I cut four circles out, and I made the all shape. And then when I started adding them together, then I saw the flower of life. I didn't see-

   5. EWEric Weinstein1:08:41

      Sure.

   6. THTerrence Howard1:08:41

      ... the flower of life initially. I saw that after when... Well, I'll show you the piece of this

   7. EWEric Weinstein1:08:47

      But the all shape is a different thing because-

   8. THTerrence Howard1:08:49

      The all shape.

   9. EWEric Weinstein1:08:49

      ... in this case, in order to do this, what he did is he said, "I'm gonna make mathematical spheres. They're gonna start to intersect each other." Right? And the intersections, uh, are going to be ignored because it's made out of fictitious math material until they close off the holes in the cubicle lattice structure, leaving octahedral voids with this kind of curvature. To make what he calls the all shape, you do something very different. You'd start off with a tetrahedron, which is distinguished among the five platonic solids as being self-dual. That is, there are four vertices and there are four faces, and you can interchange faces with vertices. And in fact... I don't know if you guys have these things. You, you have this?

   10. JRJoe Rogan1:09:34

       No. What is it?

   11. EWEric Weinstein1:09:36

       So this is an engineering feat. So if you think platonic solids are old, a guy named Chuck Hoberman figured out how to take the self-duality of a tetrahedron and you can change the color of the sphere by throwing it up, and effectively, if you think about the four dots on the surface of one of these, in between them are four triangles. And he fi... figured out a mechanism. We can cut one of these open. There's a gearing mechanism inside that's hidden from the pu... public, where you get a dot come-

   12. THTerrence Howard1:10:13

       You should hold that up so they could see it, so the audiences could see it.

   13. JRJoe Rogan1:10:17

       (laughs) So as you pull this thing apart, it can change colors?

   14. THTerrence Howard1:10:24

       You...

   15. JRJoe Rogan1:10:24

       Yeah. If you spin it, spin it ever so slightly, Joe. (paper rustling) Oh, wow.

   16. EWEric Weinstein1:10:29

       Yeah? All right. That's for you guys.

   17. JRJoe Rogan1:10:32

       That's nice.

   18. EWEric Weinstein1:10:32

       It's cool, right?

   19. THTerrence Howard1:10:33

       Yeah.

   20. JRJoe Rogan1:10:33

       That's very bizarre.

   21. EWEric Weinstein1:10:35

       All right. Now my point is that one of the things that Terrence has going against him is people are saying, "Oh, you know, he's just playing with stuff people have played with since antiquity. There's nothing new." And then I would say, "Well, then why did Ch- Charles Hoberman create a mechanism realizing self-duality of the tetrahedron?" Nobody even talks about it that way. And by the way, here's something that people, you know, play Dungeons and Dragons, they don't really even have any idea of, is if you take the five platonic solids here and you put the tetrahedron in the middle and you put the triangular structures of the octahedron and the icosahedron off to the sides, there's a duality that interchanges the pairs with the center being self-dual. In other words, the cube has six faces and eight vertices. The octahedron has eight faces and six vertices. The dodecahedron, 12 faces, 20 vertices. The icosahedron, 20 faces, 12 vertices. They all have... All these pairs have the same number of sides because the number of vertices plus the number of faces minus the number of edges has to equal two for anything that is spherical in nature.

   22. THTerrence Howard1:11:52

       Now, if all of my things, when they come together, if they create a natural dodecahedron and they create a natural icosahedron, what does that say?

   23. EWEric Weinstein1:12:05

       They do and they don't.

   24. THTerrence Howard1:12:06

       They do. No, I'm gonna show you.

   25. EWEric Weinstein1:12:07

       No.

   26. THTerrence Howard1:12:07

       Oh. No, I'm saying you haven't seen yet. I haven't shown you yet. But they, they will when you see it.

   27. JRJoe Rogan1:12:12

       So, Ter- I-

   28. EWEric Weinstein1:12:13

       Why don't you show it to him right now? W- We're on it right now. Show it to him right now.

   29. THTerrence Howard1:12:17

       ... say for another hour.

   30. JRJoe Rogan1:12:25

       Shout out to all the homies right now trying to figure out what the fuck's going on. (laughs)
10. 1:14:50 – 1:26:52

    Patents, ‘supersymmetry’ as a reserved term, and the geometry-first vs. equations-first divide

    1. EWEric Weinstein1:14:50

       Well, there's a difference between ... You see, Terrence has much greater odds of contributing to the world of engineering than he does to the world of mathematics. I mean, the odds that he's doing something new in mathematics, I'll be blunt, are very, very small.

    2. THTerrence Howard1:15:04

       Even though I have patents on it that shows that all of this is probably-

    3. EWEric Weinstein1:15:07

       I don't wanna go there. The patents do not speak to what you think that they speak to.

    4. THTerrence Howard1:15:11

       That's ... Okay.

    5. EWEric Weinstein1:15:13

       And look, you, you, you can see into my heart. I'm not trying to-

    6. THTerrence Howard1:15:16

       No. No, no, no, no, no, no.

    7. EWEric Weinstein1:15:18

       All right.

    8. THTerrence Howard1:15:18

       But we were talking. I told, I told you that-

    9. EWEric Weinstein1:15:20

       Yeah.

    10. THTerrence Howard1:15:20

        ... they produce a super symmetrical su- structure there.

Episode duration: 4:03:25