This is not a field of my expertise, but
1) Their intention with the PM was not to prove that 1+1=2
2) It's not the conclusion of the PM.
3) It is under contention if they succeeded in their intention, but the book led to advances in a number of sub-fields in philosopy. IOW you are speaking as if it is accepted that this was their intent and that they succeeded. Both are false.
So, right off the bat, a very short time into the video, there is confusion.
You then generalize that human consciousness has been convinced that 1+1=2 is valid by the PM. That is also false.
There are very few people who have even heard of that book, let alone read it. That is not why people find 1+1=2 and all its cousins extremely useful. Many of these people may not think it is a kind of convention. Others may not realize ontology is implicit, in a certain sense, in some of the ways the number system is used. On the other hand people with all sorts of metaphysical views find the numbers useful and most poeople don't care about this topic.
It's an incorrect view of how human consciousness find 1+1=2 valid or useful. You're rescuing people from something they've never heard of and aren't interested in.
After 4+ minutes you bring in Occam's razor and you present it incorrectly. It is not that the simplest and most comprehensive answer is the best one.
The OR is suggesting parsimony with entities. The simplest answer that explains X and no other explains it better. It does not have to be more comprehensive, but as comprehensive...and posits less entities. It's not a big mistake, but I now already have to keep track of this confusion to see if it is playing some role.
Also, your did not present, so far an explanation or an arguement in support of your one sentence. You simply asserted something.
Assertiosn are only convincing when power is involved.
So far, you haven't demonstrated that your explanation/argument is simpler, just your conclusion is. And simpler than the PM: For some reason you are acting as if the relevant authority to challenge and compare parsimony with is the PM. That is simply not the case for most people. As you say only 12 people can understand it. I don't care if that's the number, the general point I agree with.
"All the technology that the mathematics has produced has us addicted to the technology."
Your glasses involved technology and math. I don't think it is meaninful to say that you are addicted to your glasses. And if you think you are, I cannot imagine how you have a solution to the problems of the truly addictive technologies since you haven't found a way to correct your vision without technology - and, by the way, there are several methods that even non-enlightened people have managed to use to cure their nearsightedness and farsightedness and that's on a very mundane level.
I think that sentence is false. But then if you think it is false, why are you addicted to technology and how could you be the teacher to help us?
You repeat yourself a lot. I understand that you are trying to get people to have the ah ha moment you've at, but more or less as you say, it is self-evidenct to you.
If you want to improve this, you need to justify why you consider mathematics a message. I'm 8 and 1/2 minutes in. Perhaps you justify this later. But sure, your explanation is simpler than the PM, but a LOT of it is unjustified. There's a lot that is assumed and merely asserted. I'm not saying such a presentation can't be useful or true. However it's simplicity in comparison to something else may well be grounded in not trying, as Russell and Whitehead did, you justify every single step. And, again, their goal is not your goal. Their argument and your argument are not covering the same ground.
And now you return to challenging the PM as if it is taken as the authority on the issue you are focused on. It's not taken as that. You even mention Gödel, so you should know this. And then also it's goal was not what you say it is.
At 11:30 about, watch your own brain freeze. And note I am not saying you are wrong. In fact I believe I agree to a great extent with your conclusion about what it means that math is invented and discovered. What I am saying is then you get frustrated, right there, it's because, I think, you see the conclusion, not via rational steps, but through an intuitive insight. Fine. And you are trying to get this across to people, mainly through a lot of assertiona and reassertion. You cannot break that intuitive leap into tiny steps. It is not like what the Russell and Whitehead were trying to do. The OR is utterly irrevelant because it applies to theories with arguments in steps and explanations/how parsimonious they are. You are doing something other than the kind of communication R and W were doing. It's comparing apples and bicycles. The OR is not relevant.
And to get at this kind of idea most teachers avoid the pretense of a philosohpical discussion. They try to get people to realize things via experiences and practices. I know you do this to some degree also.
But I can't go on. It's like a trail of things that are slightly to totally off, your talk.
I also think it is misguided pedagogically. This is not how to get the idea across, in a pseudo logical, pseudo philsophical presentation.
Couple all this with how fucking rude you can be and how you treated the only person who supported you here. Your constant blaming, superiority, posturing and smugness and I think I have gone way overboard in watching your stuff.
Try meditating a few more years, but then that will never get at the emotional and interpersonal imprinting that taints every single presentation of yours.
You still can't see what's being reflected back to you by the people you look down on. Maybe you are addictd to that feeling superiority.
who knows