Discussions 4th Tape, incl. FW Lawvere, A Peruzzi & M Wright

0:00 There should have been a very good panel discussion at the end of the meeting, which I think began promisingly Giuseppe Longo, who probably gave a very good overview of where he saw historically the lines of divergence of geometry and logical arithmetic stem from and the reconvergence of those lines coming into view, and then the discussion began well, but then unfortunately it was derailed, it was hijacked by... I didn't say anything remotely insightful except to denounce, but without any clear basis for the denunciation, denounce Korn's Platonism. But he didn't actually go on to attack to criticize Platonism at all. In fact, he actually promoted an extreme form of it under the guise of attacking it and without actually coming to grips with any of the detail of what Korn said.

2:30 The guy who followed him is trying to find something. The man who has spoken, the commentator for Girard Talk was another French logician, computer scientist. Well, he was clearly, he didn't feel there was anything there that he could agree or disagree with, so he tried to find something positive to say, because only Girard is a big cheese, and he made a few sensible points. You might think that what Girard was trying to say about proofs and about what computation is, and then he said one or two sensible but rather disconnected things, but no, it was really not a commentary on what Girard had said at all. It was just an attempt to try and make some sense of it. I probably forget the name of this one. I would say I've got it. I would sum it up in this way. What name? Now, these words, they might denote something of great interest to computer science. It's not proof at all that Girard's mathematics touches any of these. Because Girard said these words, computer scientists embarked on a discussion of what he thought, that these were all relevant to computer science. Yes. Which was a perfectly sensible point of view. Perfectly sensible, except that he's suggesting that this is somehow... Categories were modeled by the U.R.M.F.I. That was basically what the response was, no actual connections with the U.R.M.F.I. at all, just talking about resources, location, in a very generic way. And Giroppas presented this extraordinary ludicrous, ludicrous, ludics was the term, ludics.

5:00 It's not even fun, it's just disgusting when he comes up with these outlandish labels. It's a kind of, I can't make any sense of it at all, it's a kind of games theoretic semantics with a bit of logic to do with it. What's he saying? Semantics? Yes. He just mentions games. Just in the same way as he mentions resources and interaction. I had great pride in trying to take that role as someone who's never lived up to it. The computing aspect of the meeting was a drag on the serious scientific discussions. The only person who gave a talk on the computing side that I thought was interesting was Robert Milner. Robert Milner. Robin, sorry, Robin Milner. Yes, yes, yes. Yes, they really seem seriously looking for correct organizing concepts in the name of mathematics. That looks interesting. Several very interesting points came up, well actually indeed.

7:30 Interesting historical points which came up in the discussion of Bill's paper, because Anders made a reaction. He said that amongst the points that he made was a historical point about Hilbert and about the Hilbert Programme. The formalist attempt to reduce Hilbert's mathematics to the Hilbert Programme. The sort of thing you see, of course you see a kind of yellow press parody in that thing that you were showing me this morning. It's such a distortion of the Sparty grade of mathematician to an eldest viewer of foundations of mathematics. This is enough too. Thanks for the choice. No, no, no, no, no. More than enough. I will give you some of this, but it's a little bit awkward to see, so I'll swap around. It's delicious, as you say. Only a little bit, just a spoonful. That's more than enough. Let me... Okay, that's fine, thanks very much. Don't take any more. Thank you very much. It looks very interesting. Lovely... What do you say this is called? The 16th century lasagnole. This is the thing you were saying, this is absolutely delicious. This is a simple spaghetti with sausage. It's good, I mean, we want you to...

10:00 No, no, this is delicious. What Bill's given me here is more than good enough. This has walnuts with it. It's very good. But note the discussion after Bill's paper and in the... Actually, there wasn't too much of a discussion after Angus MacIntyre's paper, which was a pity. It is. Was there a discussion, really, in a public discussion about the books given by the speakers? Not really. I think most of the useful discussion probably came in private amongst the speakers at the dinner and the one-to-one interactions. Having such a very large meeting and such a broad set of themes was that it was difficult to get really fruitful interaction in the relatively short period that there was for public discussion. There should have been and they showed every prospect of being good. Discussion, good interaction in the general discussion at the end, but unfortunately, as I say, it was derailed by these, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, You better ask the Oracle here. I lack the confidence in your presence, I have to be honest.

12:30 The main development is to take an algebra and treat the category of modules over it. Yes, the guiding analogies. And then he's got some way of just generalizing this structure, just generalizing the algebraic actually fits within the ring of all spaces. And that's because, in a sense, they've just given up on the notion of space at all.

15:00 That's the way that I like to explain the profilo because when you take, when I take a category, I don't know if you know this, but there are problems here, there's a lot of unexpected spaces, but instead of considering the room structure, the analog structure, and what happened to the fusion product, the space, like these things, the analog which is... They claim that their logarithm is a special bi-factor, a lesser-factor, an algebrer of an algebrer of a three-factor, and that it means that even though two algebrers are not two-factor, in their texture product, an element of this and an element of that differs by this. So, Duhl in his texture product defines it as a sub-factor between bounds and subspace. In the pre-product, if you look at these set of algebra, you can take their product as such and be represented by the pre-product if it exists, but you can take a smaller category of algebra and it doesn't matter. But the point is that the tensor product of algebra, by grinding the convolution, will turn it into a sub-component of algebra. These elements are figures, pairs of figures. It doesn't make sense to say that the figures commute, but the functions on these, those special pairs. The general pair belongs to the Cartesian product, but might possibly belong to the sub-product. So there are some types of figures that can be used for such a point. So the group structure, quantum group, is really just a binary operation of an object.

17:30 In a sense, though, that the domain is the tensor product. So it's only giving you an actual product where those pairs are the figures. So it loses all the benefits of Cartesian clothing. Well, I mean, you... So these are less than, these are, monocles are simply less than roots, and you have a sort of partial, that's what most of the study is about, that's the thing where you can sort of restrict your own roots. Even though we have insisted on non-cognitivity, you use the product where the negative and the negative come from different factors. Yes, yes. But nobody explains it as it is. No, and I wouldn't, I mean, thank you very much for your... I could have done this, but I don't think I would have done it as well as that. I think I would have gone the other way. On the contrary, I think that I could have done this. Space, I don't know. I don't notice that. Naturality implies that. Almost. Specifically, let's consider three different pre-sheet categories of set value functors on computer domains which are generally generated. Okay, and among these there is an underlying set functor. The line is a specific example. In that case, it's just a polynomial, because it's represented in some way. If you, if you considered finite dimensionals, these are so few, that would then be basically formal power series. I mean, this is telling you about the points with the little heads around them. I sense that that sort of space is the domain of the formal power series, viewed as wholesome, since there's no collision between the points, there's no actual convergence of the set at each point from the formal power series view of what is still commutative, so now if we go to non-commutative, how to put it, but finite dimension.

20:00 There is a striking difference, namely, what we also change is that instead of set-value factors, we consider values of chronological totals. So the natural transformations we consider, I don't know if you take bounding sets and bounded sets, very loose sort of, but if we combine them with just the naturalities, with respect to the finite dimensional algorithms, it turns out that they are exactly the same, at the end of all of those analytic functions, or let's say we consider complex algorithms, we consider real algorithms. These natural maps are exactly as you see it, didn't we, Max? And this is quite an amazing... This is incredible. It's one of his most brilliant discoveries right now. And you can exploit them not too much. Just take three by three matrices. So when we say a natural endomorphism, it means for each algebra there is an endo-map that will make this very... The key condition that it takes to bound itself is continuity, which is more than enough. But for each algebra, and then when you have an algebra of homomorphism, things are required to match up. That's the naturality. Imagine an ordinary function. Try to apply it to square matrices by some kind of operational calculus. How does this work? Well, it turns out that you have a 3x3 matrix.

22:30 Well, even if you might... The point is that, essentially, if the matrix were diagonal, you simply apply the function to each diagonal. If you want something off-diagonal, it turns out that automatically, because of this naturality requirement, dividing one algebra into another one that should match up, you are forced to be putting in the off-diagonal entries exactly different quotients. We have a certain function f, so you apply it to x, y, z on the diagonal, but then on the off-diagon, the only thing we could possibly put there to make it natural is f of x minus f of y divided by x minus y, as long as x is different from y. But now, it would mean that x approaches y, you get the derivative, f prime, difference of function. I've remarked previously that the fact that the difference quotient takes bounded sets to bounded sets is sufficient to ensure that the force to be derivative would actually move as well. So, in other words, what I've just proved, or sketched, is that a consequence can be applied naturally. It must be differentiable. By using bigger and bigger matrices, you can see that's even C in Kennedy. 3x3 matrices give you various second-order difference of motions and first-order difference of motions and positions. This is forced by the naturalities. So the functions which can be applied in this way... In the complex case, differentiability implies magneticity, so even the first one that I said already implies magneticity. So these notions are tortuous, and this is the locally smooth, just because of naturality and it's very, very weak in cohesion. Very weak in cohesion, which you have in the bornological category. So that is absolutely fascinating. Steve Shaniel has not published this one, unless this is his last time. But why isn't it? This is incredible.

25:00 This should be known to everyone. This should be taught in high school or some day school. They can't help but think of Bob. Bob was taught really well. Except for a few days. But Bob discovered H because he thought H was not 10 to 0. But then it did. Inside this was also the germ of this whole idea of non-conjunctivity. I think that maybe... Good to see you! Good to see you! Good to see you again! Only a week, well, it's about 11 days, I think, exactly, yes. Good to see you, I'm afraid, leaving for Milano. Very good to see you again. I sent an email just... Was that dress right? Yes, I got it. It went through. Your address was right. I sent it about two, three days ago. I'll send it again when I get back. It was just a joke. Thanks for your talk and how much I enjoyed it. I'm asking if you could let me have some of your papers. Oh, well, it's good to see you again. So please send in the mail. I'll send it again. I'm sorry if you didn't get it. Okay, I'll double check. But I did... You gave me your email. Yes. You gave it to me. Strange. It was about three days ago. When I get back, I'll check. If not, I'll contact you through Alberta.

27:30 You probably want to stay here and correct philosophical errors. You can't change your travel plan. Ah, is that where you're going to go to finish this? Is Steve also retired from Buffalo now, is he? No? Because it's such a miserable time to be in Buffalo. What is the book that you're completing? The second part of Conceptual Mathematics? So this is the first edition of our study. No, we'll wait for you. This is the Brunelleschi dish, which was appreciated by Brunelleschi. What can I say? I was looking up at the dome just as we walked here and thinking what a giant stride that represented. Speakers include mathematics, geometry, physics, physics theory, quantum mechanics, physics theory, quantum mechanics, physics theory, quantum mechanics, physics theory, quantum mechanics, physics theory, quantum mechanics, physics theory, quantum mechanics, physics theory, quantum mechanics, physics theory, quantum mechanics, physics theory, quantum mechanics, physics theory, quantum mechanics, physics theory,

30:00 I won't say any more about mathematics, there's a very good volume, it's a special number of foundations, it's dedicated, but there's a nice application of the topology theory, perhaps I'm not sure there's a particularly good application. Decoherence, various other suggestions of interpretation of the structure of the wave function, quantum physics, and some work that he did with Jeremy Blackerfield. It's a good talk about Advertising the relevance and importance of Doppler's theory for physics. It was published in the most recent issue, or possibly a couple of issues back, of Foundations of Physics, which is a journal. If you send it to me... I certainly will send it to you. I certainly will send it to you. Because you mentioned this program some two years ago. Well, that was other work we did with you. There's nothing particularly deep in the idea. I think he himself is rather intrigued from the view that this is the way to handle the problem of the interpretational structure of the wave function. I mean, he certainly sees toposther as being very important, but not in the way that he then, I think, probably before he made his first contact with the field, even thought.

32:30 ...modelling the structure that he wanted to express his ideas about quantisation of equality. And now I think he has a completely different and much more soundly, philosophically grounded view of topos theory. He's trying to fit it into his existing framework of perspectives. Now I think he's seen that, in fact, taking on board the ideas of topos theory forces him to go back and rethink his entire framework, which is good. It would be wonderful to get some interaction going between him and you. So the meeting about Leibniz and the contention, tell me more about that. I don't know. The curious thing is that this department is... If someone organizes something and everyone else doesn't know how to make it work, that's the problem. It's a pity because it sounds like a very interesting subject. The others are presumed to be informed by themselves. Life has many aspects that you are involved in and many things to, at least to send an email. Well, yes, exactly. I'm a bit surprised. I mean, there's so much. I have to say, I mean, my attitude towards likeness is very ambiguous. I think that, yeah. Oh, no, I'm so sorry. What am I doing? Wait a minute, let me pour that back into yours.

35:00 The Leibnizian ideas are now a very strict heuristic for people writing in areas like mathematics and physics and quantum gravity, and I think that there's a great deal of spent or very wrong edited philosophical mapping on thinking as a result, at least to do with losing sight of space, which is not to say that Leibniz was not a very... People, great creative thinking, perhaps very speculative indeed, but the people. Now that you're on the plate you're more awesome. This is absolutely delicious, you must have some of this. Would you have some more? I'll show you what that is. That's the best thing I think I've ever tasted in Florida, so that's saying something. What would you ask for next, then? Well, well... I'd like to see this. I've spent my life... ...wishing for another one. Who's more of us? Well, then be my guest. It is pretty good, isn't it? I'll have some of this one. Okay, if you insist. Just a little bit. Oh, thank you. I'm going to have to write down what this was. This is something else. Yes, the Brzezinski is fantastic. It is fantastic, isn't it? Thank you very much for choosing it for me. I would never have known without your guidance to choose that.

37:30 You're a living proof of this? Absolutely. If Brunelleschi achieved the amazing feats he did, it would be incredible. Really, was that seriously a view of Pivotrius? Oh, yeah. I'm so sorry that he's passed on. I would love to have met him. As a young boy on the farm, I was completely blown over. My students asked me to tell them that there were seven courses of different wines, and each one was a different type of wine. I gave them the jar and made them go to the apps. I've never had that experience. On the other hand, it is good, essentially good, hasn't it? It's not the food of the Medici that's interesting to me. I mean they might have stolen it and they might have covered it with fancy sauces, but essentially it's good peasant food. Outlining support for the use of gyrochemicals and the way that it makes use of the minimal cohesion that you have in the biological catalyst, it's fascinating to start with. I look forward very much to seeing that appear in the book. Now, he was starting to say about certain symbols that are supposed to work where you see them. ...was very quickly seen in that light.

40:00 I mean, I've never talked to you about physics. I mean, do you think there is any... I mean, this is sheer speculation, but is your feeling, your gut instinct, that there's likely to be any margin for instance Mendelsock's idea that age might emerge as the weak coupling limit, the linear limit of relying on linear? It's always seemed a very attractive idea to me. The idea is that the 1 over 137 is actually based on a certain fundamental domain, the conformal group. And which is also perceived by some people working in general relativity we were talking about earlier on as actually being the underlying fundamental symmetry group of the great classical theory of gravity rather than a general covariance.

42:30 And they have a volume that includes the quantum structure constant. The quantum structure constant is really the result of the electromagnetic theory without any real addition to it. And hence, some of these lines can also be directly drawn to the weapon. And now it's being shaped on the so-called flexing line. This has been carried out in details. I know how in Zurich, we've obviously been offering this result. In fact, you might have heard of him. He also calculated the mass of the proton. Imagine the proton is 1,000 meters and comes down to 5,000 meters. He calculated this by the force of the mass of the volume and the force of the mass of the volume. Basically, the proton comes down to 5,000 meters. Okay. You get the same percent. So we'll get it all the way to the moon. I think he was, you know, charging his shoes down with the academic world. The so-called objections were raised throughout this month. Basic domains as well. They have both of them. My God, you know, they're particles too, my friend. But this was seen as an objective. I asked various people and they have decided to give them the margin margin margin margin margin margin margin margin margin margin margin margin margin margin margin margin margin Topology seems to be very fruitful. No, it seems there's so many roads on travel in physics, so many roads on travel in physics, because it's essentially a story or, well, that's the intellectual position, but certainly it's the hegemony of the...

45:00 It's all fraught with all sorts of medieval superstitions and theories and prohibitions and such that's quite well thought about. You're free to create anything you'd like and all based on experiment is to oppose that universal idea of abstinence from doing those things. Go there and not regard it very seriously after you've practiced it. Not based on experiment. Speculations are very excellent. But there are no confines, you're not allowed to go outside. Second logic, you see, the Comers, Harvey Friedman, Steve Simpson, and others of those, were rabidly attacking MacIntyre against him. The greatest in discovery of mathematics in this century, the people who are responsible for this foundation of mathematics website. Foundations of mathematics, Simpson, Friedman, Attack-McIntyre, Vandendries, and anybody working in that line of taking really sort of deep, geometrically guided algebraic approach to the structure in logic and looking at where the incompleteness really comes from across the piano. And denouncing them as traitors because they didn't accept Gödel's result, as it were, as the final truth of that mathematics, namely that it is inherently incomplete, and that John Zimmer indicates either, on the subjective idealist view, the unknowability of truth, or on the objective idealist view, the need to go to the mind of God in order to have the completion of Europe. To have an insight into the complete structure of being, which are the two ways, the fatalist way and the kind of tyrannist way. The subjective, trans-economic stuff.

47:30 Absolutely. Yes. Morally based on the road. Yes, yes. Look at his attack on the conquerors. I never contributed to any of these. Well, then of course it's helpful. No, I get it. And the patients that you intend to adjure your abuse and challenges of. Would you like to stand up? Would you like to stand up? Would you like me to challenge you? I'm surprised. There are also a number of other fields of study, such as quantum mechanics, quantum mechanics, quantum mechanics, quantum mechanics, quantum mechanics, quantum mechanics, quantum mechanics, quantum mechanics, quantum mechanics, quantum mechanics, quantum mechanics, quantum mechanics, quantum mechanics, quantum mechanics, quantum mechanics, quantum mechanics, Thank you for your attention. Oh, it's absolutely amazing. Simpson's exchanges are just incredible. I mean, I seriously doubt the man's sanity. You know, he was threatening the... Extreme Ayn Rand Society. The Ayn Rand Society, of which the... Chairman of the Federal Reserve, of course, is an honor.

50:00 Thank you for watching this video. What do you reckon? You're pleased, aren't you? Well, no problems with that after what I just ate. Please do. Thank you for your attention. So, the ancient version of Newton-Hawking today is an ancient one. And why did I look at Kurtzman? Well, according to the statistics that we've seen so far, he is sort of at least as open-ended for all of his support in this matter. It is important for us to provide the means to man who wishes to be a good man. Pick. Yes, pick. Procurement. They say try anything once and it's a successful folk dance. It's as good as what I just had from the main course. Well, the Pope is a bit... The Simpson-Freeman stuff is quite, quite extraordinary. And, of course, the consistency, in fact, the graveness. Not exactly graven, in fact, but graven.

52:30 The Leitmotif, yes, that's indeed, and on Grosvenor, certainly on you. I thought there was a question, just a question, just a question, where I thought it was really a personal attack on me, with Charlotte, Dan, and Tesla, and things like that, but it was a complete personal attack, and I said, I think that went further than the fact that I was going to go on for a minute. Thank you for your attention. As soon as he entered this serious town, It was a dance. It was a sound guitar. Don't think you're in on it. Don't think you're in on it. You can insist on starting at the bottom of the board. And learning about you in like character in an old movie, a western movie, a John Wayne movie. It's a good idea to check whether the guy, you smash the chair and the head is actually on your side among others. John has absolutely no time to speak. Thank you for watching. That's an accusation of which I think you're going to get fired for, aren't you? Well, yeah, technically, of course, they started with that. But the... It's amusing to see them fighting about that.

55:00 What kind of a game is that? It's more despicable. You see them more despicable than the rest of the time. All the political rags that have come out of it. I mean, so many names. As long as you have some money. Thank you. Some of the, I don't think it was Collins, somebody else, one of the Russian guys, I don't know if you've heard of him, I don't know if you've heard of him, I don't know if you've heard of him, I don't know if you've heard of him, I don't know if you've heard of him, The most important work. This is somebody with a great talent here. Well, I'm a six-year-old. I'm a six-year-old grandson. I can see why you yourself would refuse to get involved. The attacks were of such a level of nature that they didn't admit it in any discussion really. They didn't admit it in any serious international exchange. I mean, there is a movement, I suppose, that the commoners like to devote as much time to science as he does to the classes. And I'm glad he does it because those people really read his contributions. All right, in conclusion, what we've been speaking to has more to do with mathematics and the development of mathematics, so at that extent, I think it's probably important for us to talk about that. I don't think we know too much at this time. George Rousseau was saying he'd heard much of the history of economics just because he was going into it. Yeah. I can understand that. Yeah, I understand that. I'm sorry to interrupt you, but I think that you should... Subtitles by the Amara.org community

57:30 I just can't believe the stuff that was produced on that subject. It's a pity because that kind of is, certainly is stuff that was produced on that subject. That's why I was on that subject too. It's very, very quick to disappear. I'm reading the first few weeks of contributions. There are a lot of different kinds of music. There are a lot of different kinds of music. There are a lot of different kinds of music. There are a lot of different kinds of music. There are a lot of different kinds of music. There are a lot of different kinds of music. There are a lot of different kinds of music. There are a lot of different kinds of music. There are a lot of different kinds of music. There are a lot of different kinds of music. There are a lot of different kinds of music. There are a lot of different kinds of music. There are a lot of different kinds of music.

1:00:00 I was shocked because I always thought that they all studied Harvey because he was such an asshole, but I had somehow gotten along with him in a very personal manner. But, uh, I don't know actually what you're saying, you're thinking about me, you're thinking about Steve as the kindest person to do that. Yes, of course it is. I mean, it's just a... It's a great competition. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. What happened when he was there was that there was a chair called the Martin Chair, which he discovered to have been created in the 30s, and it sort of disappeared, and then they discovered the Martin Chair. All of these are quite good because they can be used as a tool for inviting visitors to come to us, not very generally, but very much like. So, there wasn't actually just a sign in some place in the United States before that. There was a brief period of kind of jam-packed lectures, but I thought that there was a very woven design on that. But it was decided that there would be a vote on the ship to be the next holder of the share, so the two companies were in severe treatment. The vote was the incredible lopsided, and we learned two votes, and I got 43 votes. Something of that nature, to be fair. Ah, this isn't the source of this. And it's because they all hated him, because he was such an obnoxious prick. So, you know, as much as my merit was also his, the fact is now that he left soon thereafter. All of this explains the idea of this grudge, so why didn't they come out with it earlier? Well, the whole point is also to always do those grudges a bit years later. That's the nature of it.

1:02:30 They never come out straight from the face. Well, I think this is probably not the real explanation. The real explanation is that they realize that the whole program really has no future. This is the greatest thing, so it's really very clear what the idea is. And, uh, and so, uh, the tempo is what you used to think about it. But anyway, it was taking so long, and it was so boring, that, you know, they wouldn't, they wouldn't catch me. So, I wanted to say, I do think it's really cool. It's worth waiting for. Thank you. Thank you for your attention. Thank you for your attention. So that's the background to Friedman's challenge. I think the trouble is he was a child politician. He was a professor of the age of 17 or whatever it was. I can't remember. Right, right. Right, right. Who else? Yeah. I think he's still in the Guinness Book of Records. The Guinness Book of Records. The Guinness Book of Records. The Guinness Book of Records. The Guinness Book of Records. The Guinness Book of Records. The Guinness Book of Records. Thank you for your attention.

1:05:00 My family has $20 billion, so I'm part of the real estate. I made a big point. This is a big illusion. These are precisely the people who are the willing agents of fascist spirit campaigns and so forth and so on. They actually have blue power at home because of the nemesis of them. They retain intellectuals. Nemesis of them, which is in a good sense the illusion that they are rich. The weird tools that were used to treat a little class that you couldn't possibly enter with less than a hundred brilliant people. Yes, yes, exactly, exactly. I don't have many, but I can't stop. The problem is that's the real reason. Just because you're brilliant, you ain't brilliant. You see, I'm more out of the picture. Because there's nobody else who would think that you've got such a lot of knowledge. I'm not quite sure if I should say that or not, but this is the leader of the class. Not a ruling class. No, no, they just use their name. But you're absolutely right. It reminds me of the lovely illustration of John Maybridge. Non-style mathematics, quantum physics, quantum physics, quantum physics, quantum physics, quantum physics, quantum physics, quantum physics, quantum physics, quantum physics, quantum physics. The Nelson-Bunker-Hunters. The Nelson-Bunker-Hunters, yes. Nelson-Bunker-Hunters died in 2014 when he was still in the United States of America, about 15 years ago, and gave a crock. He and his cronies, the Texas crowd, formed the Silver Boy of the Year. They failed. He lost a record of five and is still in contact with them. He's seriously dead.

1:07:30 And he was hauled up in front of a seminar to consult and he was asked how much he was worth and his reply was, Mister, if you don't have much of your worth, you ain't worth anything at all. Shut up! Use this as a memory illustration if possible. These are some examples of what was going on in terms of major problems. Not just kind of a measure theory, not just kind of an analysis. A very effective illustration. It's always stuck in my mind that this was what Musk really had stuck on freedom. To be reminded that if he could say, I want $20 million, then he was... This would be the amount of shit we would have. Thank you for your attention. There's a whole class in the Bush. The Bush, of course, has gone beyond that job. Well, maybe not, actually, but the way he behaves is something else. People who are fraternity boys belong to the Greek society. It's just ball games and everything is an analogy. The way they handle professors in any subject is they threaten professors that if they don't give them an A, that they would bring their father who is a powerful lawyer to New York. There were students at the university who were very progressive about it. They knew it. This has happened to me a few times. Even in Buffalo. Oh yeah, sure. You know, in Buffalo, a lot of these people, they couldn't get any of those better universities in the country. But they behave the same way. The majority of them just want to achieve what they really want.

1:10:00 So they're sort of people who are not trying to do the same thing. They're most obnoxious, narrow-minded people. Because they're more anti-conscious than what they're trying to do as well. Well, quite a lot of people might just have to kick out of this academy. Thank you. For both the French to mark quite a new one, we're having to do it properly. Yeah. So, we just have to do some more serious thinking, no matter what we think. That's how I find it. Well, it's good to remember that when we first came here, people looked at themselves as people who didn't know anything. We're often at this stage where we're completely off the mark in terms of the knowledge that we're learning. It's just a general understanding. Thank you. But then survivors from meditation, lunch, lunch, food, and so on, make a big difference. It's the same. Narrow richness is the same. So, the same thing. Corrupt is given. Thank you for your attention. Thank you for watching. I keep getting now that we, in the recent months, have been categorizing physics as coming from physics, and other parts of science, and cognitive science, and logistic science, and I want to say, of course,

1:12:30 I think category theory is great. I think my own ideas are good. So, basically, some of the things we've gravitated toward in category theory is mathematics, and in particular, we want to face a new future and gravitate in the following years. We can talk as though I've been posed for that. I'm glad that we have so far aware that we're going nowhere. So you see it as a rather sort of shadow of physics. Well, that's a part of it, except it's not universal. But in many cases, it may be the genuine sense that there is a... Well, there is a... a unified framework is lagging. They're looking for an organic... Yeah. No, no. No, I agree. I agree. But they have been following it a long time before. And they sense that it's a really small universe, but they're not necessarily... The striking thing is that this should be happening across such a wide variety of subjects. And the society itself is really in a terrible crisis and nobody admits it. People are aware of that fact too. They may fall off the cliff at any moment. People get damaged. Thank you for watching.