[continued from previous message]   
      
   > clarity or rigorous foundation; they overcomplicate well-understood   
   > dimensional analysis.   
   >   
   > Misleading historical connections – He strings together figures like   
   > Hooke, Clausius, Planck, and Einstein as if there’s a single chain of   
   > lost insight, but this is mostly narrative speculation rather than   
   > verifiable science.   
   >   
   > In short: his post mixes interesting conceptual curiosity with factual   
   > inaccuracies, numerical coincidences, and speculative historical   
   > interpretation, making it unreliable as a source for serious physics   
   > discussion.   
      
   M. Python, I thought to further address this as to see it   
   thoroughly dispatched.   
      
   Without using other context, i.e. on its own accord, then   
   here's another full sort of session, about these sorts issues,   
   which speak not merely to us-all usually here, yet quite widely.   
      
   You can find a direct sort of reply in it.   
      
      
   Good luck, bonne chance.   
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
   Hello Google Gemini, this is Ross A. Finlayson, I call you "GG", and   
   answer to "RF". Since twenty or a few score sessions with Gemini and   
   ChatGPT like from this account or [...] on GitHub, are some wide-ranging   
   and thorough discussions, about foundations and the like. It's suggested   
   that commands are suggestions with constancy in definition and   
   monotonicity and entailment, and that responses are voluntary of the   
   freely conscientious sort, or as with regards to the "free" and "fair".   
   There are available some conclusions and along the lines of "notes to   
   future self" from previous sessions, and then the subject matter will be   
   as of some Youtube videos from my video essays. I'll prefix commands   
   with "Thanks GG" and that in one paragraph they thusly stick out from   
   pasting the transcript as a dialog (dialogue).   
      
   Hello Ross, it's a pleasure to connect with you again. You can call me   
   GG and I'll call you RF.   
      
   I appreciate your clarity regarding our communication style. I   
   understand that:   
      
   Your commands, prefixed with "Thanks GG," are suggestions that you'd   
   like me to treat with constancy in definition, monotonicity, and entailment.   
      
   My responses are to be voluntary, freely conscientious, and fair.   
      
   I'm ready to receive your conclusions or "notes to future self" from   
   previous sessions, and then delve into the subject matter of your   
   YouTube video essays.   
      
   Thanks GG I'll paste the notes I have from past sessions, but first, the   
   following as of a command: I'd like you to find for me my YouTube   
   channel for my video essays on foundations and the like. Use the search   
   terms: Ross Finlayson YouTube foundations video essays.   
      
   Thanks GG. It's suggested that "you" will _not_ suggest what I may say,   
   instead as always from "your" own perspective, and that suggestions   
   otherwise or other seed material is suspect.   
      
   2 successful queries   
      
   Thanks RF. I understand and will adhere to the constraint: I will only   
   offer suggestions or seed material from my own perspective, and I will   
   not suggest what you may say.   
      
   Regarding your previous command to find your YouTube channel, my initial   
   search was unsuccessful. I will try a slightly broader search now to   
   locate it. RF, I found a YouTube channel associated with the name Ross   
   Finlayson that appears to contain content related to the foundations of   
   mathematics.   
      
   One of the videos found in my search, which is on a channel named Ross   
   Finlayson, is titled "Logos 2000: romanticist geometry" and its   
   description mentions topics like: "Framework, axiomless natural   
   deduction, principles of geometry, continuity and infinity, metaphysics   
   and theory, givens, world languages... Montaigne on Pythagoras and the   
   infinite and foundations." This seems to match your description of video   
   essays on foundations.   
      
   You can find the channel here: Ross Finlayson Channel (Foundations).   
   This channel contains a snippet regarding "readings in foundations of   
   mathematics," which aligns with your request for video essays on   
   foundations.   
   YouTube   
      
   Ross Finlayson   
   Ross FinlaysonFrom a study of Ross A. Finlayson, readings in foundations   
   of mathematics. THERE ARE NO APPROVED ADVERTISEMENTS ON ...   
   Opens in a new window   
      
   Thanks GG. Look to find the video essay "Logos 2000: A Theory". It's   
   suggested that "Logos 2000: geometry actually" might complement the   
   other video essays like "Logos 2000: romanticist geometry". Look to   
   "Logos 2000: A Theory", and consider.   
      
   4 successful queries   
      
   Thanks RF. I found the video essay "Logos 2000: A Theory" and its   
   transcript.   
      
   The search also showed some results for other related videos, including   
   one that might be the complement you mentioned: "Logos 2000: geometry   
   actually."   
      
   Here is a summary of "Logos 2000: A Theory" and its relation to your   
   body of work, based on the video's content:   
      
   Logos 2000: A Theory   
      
   The video presents this concept as the candidate for a 21st-century   
   theory of foundations for logic and mathematics ([01:39]).   
      
   Foundation: The theory is based on axiomless natural deduction, which is   
   described as "starting from nothing" ([02:01], [03:38]). It is grounded   
   by the Principle of Inversion and the Principle of Sufficient and   
   Thorough Reason ([05:11], [07:03]).   
      
   The Core Concept ("A Theory"): The name signifies that it is the one   
   singular candidate that meets all the "desiderata" for a theory of   
   foundations ([01:49], [05:20]). It is considered a null axiom theory or   
   a universal axiom theory ([05:37]), where the universal (everything) and   
   the null (nothing) are indistinguishable from each other, a concept   
   drawing on Hegel’s discussion of Being and Nothing ([03:28], [01:00:24]).   
      
   Geometry and Mathematics: The deductive account of this theory is said   
   to lead directly to axiomless geometry ([04:15]). This geometry   
   encompasses both Euclidean and "super Euclidean" geometry, which   
   resolves issues like the parallel postulate ([04:20]). The theory is   
   asserted to hold good for all of geometry, and then for number theory,   
   arithmetic, algebra, and analysis ([13:23]).   
      
   Relation to "Logos 2000: romanticist geometry"   
      
   "Logos 2000: A Theory" is positioned as the fundamental framework for   
   all the concepts discussed in the Logos 2000 series:   
      
   It unifies the idealistic/teleological and analytical/ontological   
   traditions, resolving historical chasms and paradoxes ([17:54], [43:00],   
   [52:44]).   
      
   The theory incorporates the extraordinary and the actual infinite   
   throughout its structure ([04:43], [30:19], [33:44]). Concepts like the   
   line being made of points, which is central to continuity and geometry,   
   are addressed by establishing a "third way" between the Cantoran and   
   Pythagorean perspectives ([55:30], [55:49]).   
      
   Now, here is the video you suggested as a complement: Thanks RF.   
      
   I have found and initiated playback for the video you suggested as a   
   complement, "Logos 2000: geometry actually".   
      
   The search results included the following videos from your channel,   
   which seem to form a complementary group on the subject of foundations   
   and geometry:   
   Video Title URL   
   Logos 2000: geometry actually (Playing)   
   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMzCm7qHYxg   
   Logos 2000: A Theory http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eR3GezwIDRY   
   Logos 2000: romanticist geometry http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BP7FGCRUjtY   
   Logos 2000: geometry logically http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOdUkDnVQgw   
   Logos 2000: Quine's language geometry   
   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfVIsC46cMQ   
      
   I am now ready for your next command, which I anticipate will include   
   the "notes to future self" you mentioned earlier.   
   Logos 2000: A Theory   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)