Maybe Terrence Howard is the one to figure it out and mesh it together..he really despises 1×1=1...I kinda understand what he means and the other shit he is putting patents on look fucking legit.
I also understand what he means, but what he means is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of what multiplication actually is on a definitional level. Technically he is misunderstanding what multiplication is when looking at standard number systems, higher level math introduces types of number systems and other algebraic systems in which multiplication may be defined differently, but he simply talking about elementary mathematics in his 1x1=2 fixation. A simple visual demonstration of why he makes no sense and shouldn't be given a second thought on this is to visualize multiplication of two whole numbers is to lay out an object in a rectangular shape where the multiplied numbers represent how many of said object make up the length and width of the rectangle. Now if the width is 1 and the height is 1, how many objects are you left with, that's right, 1. There is no way 2 objects can appear in a way that is logically consistent with multiplication more generally.
When it comes to math, things are quite cut and dry. You're either right or you're wrong, no in between. It is based entirely on formal logic (i.e., we made it all up and thought super hard about how new insights can be determined from a small set of fundamental assumptions called axioms) and if there is any inconsistency at all in the logic, that idea has to be reworked or thrown out. Its not like science where previously popular theories can be thrown out upon the discovery of a more empirically sound model. It is completely possible to make an entirely new way of doing arithmetic operations. It can be done and it is done, abstract algebra is a field that investigates this kind of mathematic pursuit. However, that system has to built up logically with its own axioms and cannot lead to contradictions. It also won't be applicable to the natural numbers, integers, rationals, reals, or complex numbers. If you are succesful at creating a truly rigorous new system, that still has no impact on the correctness of elementary arithmetic as that is already completely logically consistent with its own axioms and which has been effectively in use for thousands and thousands of years. And while physics is a science which does not find static, definite truths but only best approximations, Terrance has not proposed any theories that fill current holes without creating bigger holes in already well explained phenomenon. If you want to completely replace a huge part of scientific thought in a field, it damn well better do a job at explaining EVERYTHING you are replacing.
The problem with Terrance Howard is that he has just enough about more advanced physics and mathematics to know the names of people, theories, and concepts in those fields, but he has almost no comprehension of the meaning of these things. He likes to throw around jargon most people have never heard and play on common misunderstandings/oversimplifications of science and math that most of the public is familiar with so that he sounds like he is saying something meaningful to people without a good education in those subjects (which is almost everyone). If you start to actually learn about these subjects and understand what it takes to be rigorous, you quickly realize what he says is almost entirely gibberish. He also feeds into many people's antiestablishment bias and commonly held individualistic values (I am not exempt from these bias and beliefs, although I try to be mindful of them) to appeal to people's pathos and ethos. In the current age of rising populism, information oversaturation, anti-intellectualism and lack of access to good education, people like Terrance Howard are able to spread nonsense theories and a sizeable amount of people will think he's onto something. He is clearly unwell and quite narcissitic. Also, patents are given for all kinds of shit. Patents don't act as an endorsement of the efficacy of the thing that is patented. Their job is not to verify that a concept will work or is correct/logical, just to protect intellectual property of an idea that does not conflict with other patents. It is just an attempt to give the veneer of legitimacy and authoritative validation to something that is not logically sound enough to withstand legitimate scrutiny.
I get why people like Terrance are able to inject nonsense ideas into public consciousness and have it stick. Education has been getting shafted by vested interests for years. Higher level intellectual fields are impenetrable without years of studying and science communication is getting harder and harder to do effectively. Corruption, stagnancy, dishonesty, and deliberate harm to undeserving people have soured people's trust in institutions. Propaganda is being effectively distributed to encourage people to reject scientific knowledge in favor of other narratives of reality. Things suck, there are problems everywhere, and there is always room to improve even when things are relatively alright. However, science has still provided the most useful way of explaining the world and expanded our understanding of many things. There is not a better alternative to describing the natural world in a manner that provides accurate predictions. I don't expect people to know a lot of science of any particular field, but I do think that people should learn more than is taught in many primary and secondary schools, and people should also be taught techniques in how to determine if information they don't know is being provided by a credible source.
