ah, thanks
you can find discussion of these sorts of things if you like to troll the blogs of physicists or computer scientists
indeed. we expect improvements in language to be able to convey entire neurological systems to a person with a damaged brain. it's simply impossible. there's no way to explain to a child that a wolf id dangerous, explain to a nigger not to kill and rape a woman, or explain via language a mathematical principle that needs a certain type of neurology to process
I think probabalistic is just a stand in for stochastic equilibrium seeking functions whose low energy states we don't completely understand.
even if we come to understand low energy quanta states (before they settle into newtonian states) it won't necessary resolve any of the fundamental contradictions that exist.
human bodies, minds, principles, all exist in a realm of molecules that is beyond our control. that is truth. it's not reified. and people like you create a huge problem by smoking weed and stealing the mic from mathematicians who are trying to actually do substantive work.
I did watch it. he's a cook, but some of the things he pointed out are common sense.
another poster alleges set theory is counting angels dancing on the ead of a pin. I agree to some degree, mostly.
on the other hand, if we attempt to redefine 1 or 0 in terms of the sets of probabilities or energy states the represent, it might go a long way to smoothing out a lot of data that looks chaotic now, but really represents high energy and low energy temporary equilibriums.
again, math represents systems and relationships. we need to try and unwind the relationships of 0 and 1, the way we unwound it for pi, and the way einstein unwound space via relativity and geodesics.
or not. who knows. that's why the field is in a rut.