He makes a mistake, "larger divided by smaller equals 0.618" then he says the same thing for smaller over larger, the first one should 1.618.
The guy is a little bit up himself, " I don't think it's described anywhere else except this lecture".
His points aren't really that convincing though, using the example of nothingness and possibibly, he says that for there to be nothing, it must be posible, but for it to be
He makes a mistake, "larger divided by smaller equals 0.618" then he says the same thing for smaller over larger, the first one should 1.618.
The guy is a little bit up himself, " I don't think it's described anywhere else except this lecture".
His points aren't really that convincing though, using the example of nothingness and possibibly, he says that for there to be nothing, it must be posible, but for it to be
BenignInsanity 1 year ago