GHETTO EYES
Arti Tisi Lyrics


We have lyrics for 'GHETTO EYES' by these artists:


Playa Fly [Fly talking] Exactly ya South Sucka Take to much ah this bu…


We have lyrics for these tracks by Arti Tisi:


A Little Too Early Look into my eyes and tease me What am i supposed…



Can't Face Another Night It's too late Can't turn back the hands of time I …


The lyrics are frequently found in the comments by searching or by filtering for lyric videos
Genre not found
Artist not found
Album not found
Song not found
Most interesting comments from YouTube:

@TheoriesofEverything

TIMESTAMPS and LINKS MENTIONED:
- 00:00:00 Introduction
- 00:02:27 Chaitin's Unconventional Self-Taught Journey
- 00:06:56 Chaitin's Incompleteness Theorem and Algorithmic Randomness
- 00:12:00 The Infinite Calculation Paradox and Omega Number's Complexity (Halting Probability)
- 00:27:38 God is a Mathematician: An Ontological Basis
- 00:37:06 Emergence of Information as a Fundamental Substance
- 00:53:10 Evolution and the Modern Synthesis (Physics-Based vs. Computational-Based Life)
- 01:08:43 Turing's Less Known Masterpiece
- 01:16:58 Extended Evolutionary Synthesis and Epigenetics
- 01:21:20 Renormalization and Tractability
- 01:28:15 The Infinite Fitness Function
- 01:42:03 Progress in Mathematics despite Incompleteness
- 01:48:38 Unconventional Academic Approach
- 01:50:35 Godel's Incompleteness, Mathematical Intuition, and the Platonic World
- 02:06:01 The Enigma of Creativity in Mathematics
- 02:15:37 Dark Matter: A More Stable Form of Hydrogen? (Hydrinos)
- 02:23:33 Stigma and the "Reputation Trap" in Science
- 02:28:43 Cold Fusion
- 02:29:28 The Stagnation of Physics
- 02:41:33 Defining Randomness: The Chaos of 0s and 1s
- 02:52:01 The Struggles For Young Mathematicians and Physicists (Advice)

LINKS MENTIONED:
- Meta Math and the Quest for Omega (Gregory Chaitin): https://amzn.to/3stCFxH
- Visual math episode on Chaitin's constant: https://youtu.be/WLASHxChXKM
- Podcast w/ David Wolpert on TOE: https://youtu.be/qj_YUxg-qtY
- A Mathematician's Apology (G. H. Hardy): https://amzn.to/3qOEbtL
- The Physicalization of Metamathematics (Stephen Wolfram): https://amzn.to/3YUcGLL
- Podcast w/ Neil deGrasse Tyson on TOE: https://youtu.be/HhWWlJFwTqs
- Proving Darwin (Gregory Chaitin): https://amzn.to/3L0hSbs
- What is Life? (Erwin Schrödinger): https://amzn.to/3YVk8Xm
- "On Computable Numbers, with an Application to the Entscheidungsproblem" (Alan Turing): https://www.cs.virginia.edu/~robins/T...
- "The Major Transitions in Evolution" (John Maynard Smith and Eörs Szathmáry): https://amzn.to/3PdzYci
- "The Origins of Life: From the Birth of Life to the Origin of Language" (John Maynard Smith and Eörs Szathmáry): https://amzn.to/3PeKFeM
- Podcast w/ Stephen Wolfram on TOE: https://youtu.be/1sXrRc3Bhrs
- Incompleteness: The Proof and Paradox of Kurt Gödel (Rebecca Goldstein): https://amzn.to/3Pf8Yt4
- Rebecca Goldstein on TOE on Godel's Incompleteness: https://youtu.be/VkL3BcKEB6Y
- Gödel's Proof (Ernest Nagel and James R. Newman): https://amzn.to/3QX89q1
- Giant Brains, or Machines That Think (Edmund Callis Berkeley): https://amzn.to/3QXniYj
- An Introduction to Probability Theory and Its Applications (William Feller): https://amzn.to/44tWjXI



@priyakulkarni9583

Math and reality:
Language is mixture of conceptual words. Long sentences carry big concept. Reality is much bigger complex than language and or math.
Math is nothing but interplay of concepts and jump from one concept of problem to another concept solution. It is conversion of objectivity into subjectivity back to objectivity. It is mind play with objects in the universe.

When you say for example: F=MA and 2+2=4
Each letter and number is a symbol of concept we created.
E=MC2 —- each letter is concept and we chose those concept and put them into play and make another concept!!!!!!!!!!!
Concepts exist in our mind subjectively.
Saying math exists discovered or invented is not correct

Math is invented my our mind



@TerryBollinger

Wow, I was so not expecting cold fusion and hydrinos in this video. But since both are there and because I know more about both than I care to admit, here are a few comments:

(1) There exists perplexingly good evidence that some arrangements of electrochemical systems, including various metals and hydrogen isotopes, sometimes undergo unexpected heating events without producing significant radiation. The problem is that the energy range of these events is intermediate between the energy levels of electron orbitals (chemistry) and those possible with nucleon orbitals (nuclear power). I’ve sat in labs in government facilities, talking first-hand to solid folks with zero interest in commercializing their results. I could not find any reason to doubt their reported results or images. In fact, in any other situation, I would have described what I saw as nothing more than standard good chemistry.

(2) Here’s a critical point that inevitably gets skipped over: Such results cannot be either chemistry or nuclear. No chemical reaction can support the measured heat bursts because the orbital bonds of chemistry are too flimsy. If the heat sources were nuclear, everyone doing the experiments would die. Why? Ask yourself this: If your task was to build a wooden box strong enough to contain the detonation of a small nuclear weapon, how well do you think you would do? Nuclear reactions are a scaled-down version of the same problem. I am continually astonished at how folks manage to focus only on “triggering” nuclear events while remaining oblivious to the insanity of trying to contain nuclear fusion radiation and converting it to ordinary heat without enormous shielding and cooling systems.

(3) The theory domain for these anomalous heat events can be described nicely as without value. No twisting of standard quantum theory, relativity theory, or whatever can do more than produce a confusing pile of equation salad that skims over the impossibility of all of this under known physics.

(4) My adamant advice to everyone who has ever asked me about investing in any of this: You will lose your money. Don’t kid yourself into thinking otherwise. It doesn’t matter if you are lucky enough to work with sincere chemists or hucksters (there are more of those): You will lose all of your money. If you have the cash to spare, have at — it’s your spare cash. But what I’m seeing is what I’ve seen for decades: Claims of being right on the cusp of commercial products. Always. For decades. Forever. (Hmm, stated that way, it also sounds a bit like hot fusion, doesn’t it?) If any energy company does not provide detailed reports telling you about how much energy they are already producing and what is needed to bring costs down. Never invest in a company that promises and theorizes but never posts actual results.

(5) Finally, hydrinos. Want a simple explanation? No joking, I can give you a better one than their long papers, which are not well organized and prone to misquoting key physics points (these are chemists doing this, not physicists): Since orbital angular momentum has energy, and thus effective mass, they are postulating — whether they realize it or not — that if you add enough orbital angular momentum to a bonding between two hydrogen nuclei (protons), you create a charged quasiparticle electron with sufficient total mass-energy to form a compact, muon-like orbital between the two nuclei. The result would be an orbital-angular-momentum-enabled analog to a muon. In most cases, the result would store energy in a metastable state, but the proximity could also trigger fusion like muons. What would then keep anyone around from dying from radiation, I don’t know.

Do I think this is an interesting hypothesis? It’s better than most and possibly could be made to conform with standard quantum theory by way of that added orbital angular momentum mass-energy. Do I think it works? No, not really, because if it did, the electrons would, at least in some cases, enter into these states inside large nuclei. Still, since it’s unclear how you would add an electron with extreme orbital momentum into a nucleus, the absence of such entities in the literature does not eliminate the possibility of electrons getting stuck inside a nucleus. Very early atomic researchers even proposed that idea before the neutron was found and solved the problem.

The disconnect in concept and papers arises in this case due to the source of the condensed-state concept coming from a 1983 paper [1] by a group of Russian physicists who, in turn, made use of some of the same math used in the well-verified phenomenon of Mott insulators [2]. To be a bit blunt, I don’t think the folks doing the experiments have enough background in physics to assess or leverage this paper fully.

But that brings me to the item worth pointing out: The first paper by Holmlid et al. [3] documents, though cryptically, some genuinely interesting data under “2.1 Coulomb explosions” and Figure 5 “Time-of-flight.” The energy releases (Coulomb explosions) and implied momenta are challenging to explain with conventional chemical bonding and dynamics. It’s a shame they couldn’t have found a better way to explain those parts in terms that folks not familiar with molecular spectroscopy could understand more easily.

The later Holmlid et al. papers… well, if you ask me, don’t bother. “Speculative” would be a horrendous understatement. It’s the data that’s interesting and a bit of a head-scratcher.

----------
[1] E. A. Manykin, M. I. Ozhovan, and P. P. Poluektov, “Theory of the condensed state in a system of excited atoms,” ZhETF, vol. 84, no. 2, pp. 442–453, 1983, [Online]. Available: http://jetp.ras.ru/cgi-bin/dn/e_057_02_0256.pdf

[2] N. F. Mott, “The Basis of the Electron Theory of Metals, with Special Reference to the Transition Metals,” Proceedings of the Physical Society. Section A, vol. 62, no. 7, p. 416, 1949, [Online]. Available: https://sci-hub.se/10.1088/0370-1298/62/7/303

[3] L. Holmlid, “Ultradense protium p(0) and deuterium D(0) and their relation to ordinary Rydberg matter: a review,” Physica Scripta, 2019, [Online]. Available: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1402-4896/ab1276/meta



All comments from YouTube:

@TheoriesofEverything

TIMESTAMPS and LINKS MENTIONED:
- 00:00:00 Introduction
- 00:02:27 Chaitin's Unconventional Self-Taught Journey
- 00:06:56 Chaitin's Incompleteness Theorem and Algorithmic Randomness
- 00:12:00 The Infinite Calculation Paradox and Omega Number's Complexity (Halting Probability)
- 00:27:38 God is a Mathematician: An Ontological Basis
- 00:37:06 Emergence of Information as a Fundamental Substance
- 00:53:10 Evolution and the Modern Synthesis (Physics-Based vs. Computational-Based Life)
- 01:08:43 Turing's Less Known Masterpiece
- 01:16:58 Extended Evolutionary Synthesis and Epigenetics
- 01:21:20 Renormalization and Tractability
- 01:28:15 The Infinite Fitness Function
- 01:42:03 Progress in Mathematics despite Incompleteness
- 01:48:38 Unconventional Academic Approach
- 01:50:35 Godel's Incompleteness, Mathematical Intuition, and the Platonic World
- 02:06:01 The Enigma of Creativity in Mathematics
- 02:15:37 Dark Matter: A More Stable Form of Hydrogen? (Hydrinos)
- 02:23:33 Stigma and the "Reputation Trap" in Science
- 02:28:43 Cold Fusion
- 02:29:28 The Stagnation of Physics
- 02:41:33 Defining Randomness: The Chaos of 0s and 1s
- 02:52:01 The Struggles For Young Mathematicians and Physicists (Advice)

LINKS MENTIONED:
- Meta Math and the Quest for Omega (Gregory Chaitin): https://amzn.to/3stCFxH
- Visual math episode on Chaitin's constant: https://youtu.be/WLASHxChXKM
- Podcast w/ David Wolpert on TOE: https://youtu.be/qj_YUxg-qtY
- A Mathematician's Apology (G. H. Hardy): https://amzn.to/3qOEbtL
- The Physicalization of Metamathematics (Stephen Wolfram): https://amzn.to/3YUcGLL
- Podcast w/ Neil deGrasse Tyson on TOE: https://youtu.be/HhWWlJFwTqs
- Proving Darwin (Gregory Chaitin): https://amzn.to/3L0hSbs
- What is Life? (Erwin Schrödinger): https://amzn.to/3YVk8Xm
- "On Computable Numbers, with an Application to the Entscheidungsproblem" (Alan Turing): https://www.cs.virginia.edu/~robins/T...
- "The Major Transitions in Evolution" (John Maynard Smith and Eörs Szathmáry): https://amzn.to/3PdzYci
- "The Origins of Life: From the Birth of Life to the Origin of Language" (John Maynard Smith and Eörs Szathmáry): https://amzn.to/3PeKFeM
- Podcast w/ Stephen Wolfram on TOE: https://youtu.be/1sXrRc3Bhrs
- Incompleteness: The Proof and Paradox of Kurt Gödel (Rebecca Goldstein): https://amzn.to/3Pf8Yt4
- Rebecca Goldstein on TOE on Godel's Incompleteness: https://youtu.be/VkL3BcKEB6Y
- Gödel's Proof (Ernest Nagel and James R. Newman): https://amzn.to/3QX89q1
- Giant Brains, or Machines That Think (Edmund Callis Berkeley): https://amzn.to/3QXniYj
- An Introduction to Probability Theory and Its Applications (William Feller): https://amzn.to/44tWjXI

@OverwoundGames

Curt, you should interview Bob Greenyer at the Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project about LENR, Exotic Vacuum Objects, "O-day" and "The gods' toolbox", and the LION reactor.

@priyakulkarni9583

Math and reality:
Language is mixture of conceptual words. Long sentences carry big concept. Reality is much bigger complex than language and or math.
Math is nothing but interplay of concepts and jump from one concept of problem to another concept solution. It is conversion of objectivity into subjectivity back to objectivity. It is mind play with objects in the universe.

When you say for example: F=MA and 2+2=4
Each letter and number is a symbol of concept we created.
E=MC2 —- each letter is concept and we chose those concept and put them into play and make another concept!!!!!!!!!!!
Concepts exist in our mind subjectively.
Saying math exists discovered or invented is not correct

Math is invented my our mind

@telesniper2

This guy is a LION in computer science. I'm impressed you were able to pull such a guest.

@nonpareilstoryteller5920

His statement that people are good at suppressing inconvenient facts couldn’t be more true when applied to today even though he’s referring to reactions of individuals in the past. In fact, I would say that “suppressing inconvenient facts” has run rampant to the extent that vast numbers are not only living in unreality or delusions to the point of mass psychosis that makes it seem extraordinary that anyone would come out and discuss fact based truths about anything. This interview here is sanity 101 and thank heavens for Gregory Chaitin and his ilk.

@siarez

He is a legend and so humble. Thank you for talking to him. It was very inspiring to learn he achieved all this outside of academia.

@robbyr9286

Excellent guest, Curt! I read his popular book about the Omega number back in the day & it was awesome.

@zazugee

Just wow, i never thought i would see an interview with Chaitin.
Been fascinated by his article, "the limits of reason" for many years.

@davidwright8432

Thank you both for an extremely interesting and idea-provocative discussion. A good couple of months for me just to sort out the ideas and understand something of them. My own background is in mathematical physics (relativity) but with sidelong glances in very abstract directions. Here there's a wonderful interplay between mathematics, logic in the form of computation, and mappings between these and the biological and otherwise physical. With a good sprinkling of the philosophically interesting informed by the rest. Thanks again! I've waited years for discussions like this.

@TheoriesofEverything

I'm so glad David! - Curt

More Comments

More Versions