Are we made of math?

[@fat-zer1508]

1:08 just to make sure it's not hallucination: can anybody confirm that it's really German and not just some German-sounding nonsense?

[@WackyAmoebatrons]

It is proper German. "Und das macht irgendwie keinen Sinn, oder?" = "And that doesn't really make sense, does it?"

[@nomizomichani]

How would you know anybody else is not hallucination?

[@frrrmphpoo1700]

@@WackyAmoebatrons could you check and see if these Hitler reacts videos are legit? The subtitles are questionable

[@nwogamesalert]

@@CAThompson I'd like to falsify this idea, but first I have to falsify the notion of "Nonsense".

[@fat-zer1508]

@@nomizomichani Isn't it obvious? I ask them to say something in German, post them on youtube and ask people to verify if it was proper German or not... *Added:* Unfortunately, most of times, some trolls try to convince me that there are no one at most of the photages...

[@KevinOMalleyisonlysmallreally]

I really really enjoyed this. Well done Sabine. "Doesn't mean it's wrong, it's just unscientific." There's a lot packed into this statement.

[@CAThompson]

I find her take on religion - there's nothing in science to say whether or not religious belief is real or not because religion is outside of science - to be quite a useful framing.

[@bimmjim]

I asked a philosophy professor, "Was there math before the sun began to shine?" He said, "No." That's how stupid philosophy professors are.

[@CAThompson]

@@bimmjim That's a stupid reply.

[@aresaurelian]

The question "Is mathematics reality?" is a scientific question. However, "Math is reality." is unscientific until proven so. Everything not proven is unscientific unless it involves a question to be answered.

[@olbluelips]

@@bimmjim I think this comment says more about your arrogance than his stupidity. Whatever philosophy he believes in simply assumes math is invented rather than discovered, in which case he'd be right. I don't know if I agree, but it's funny to just call it stupid and not use critical thinking

[@slash196]

A trivial point, but Sabine's fashion choices are next level.

[@jonathanlatremouille9746]

She got that Cartesian plane look 🔥🔥

[@johnkelland]

Graphically speaking in this case

[@WhiteChocolate74]

This channel doubles as a fashion channel

[@KhalilEstell]

+1

[@stevenverhaegen8729]

A reference to Kraftwerk I think. 😉😎

[@AndrewErwin73]

One of my degrees is in linguistics. I have actually always thought of math as a descriptive language that we use to describe certain things (obviously at odds with Tegmark)... real is real. It is (in my mind) similar to the difference between cave paintings, more organized pictographs and hieroglyphs, and actual alphabets. What Newton and Leibniz discovered was just as real before they created the language to describe it (calculus) as it was afterwards. Obviously the "better" the alphabet (that is, the more descriptive it can be without a priori experience), the more fluently it can be used to describe a thing. Pictographs (or even hieroglyphs) can only describe things in terms that you already understand (things you have seen and therefore recognize). With alphabets, even if you don't know the word, you can work it out and at very least have a reference for deciphering... this is how I think of math. It is a language (sometimes, not even a perfect one) that allows us to describe things in nature (like you said, the number 3 is real (at least) within certain contexts).

[@joshuacadebarber8992]

This is a beautiful perspective, thank you so much for having shared it!!

[@vhawk1951kl]

With all your degrees in linguistics-etc, it did not cross you dreaming/associative apparatus to enquire about the meaning of "real"? What do you suppose it is about the " real"that*makes* it " real"?

[@AndrewErwin73]

@@vhawk1951kl just as within philosophy certain things must be assumed, outside of philosophy we also just assume some stuff...reality being one of those things.

[@vhawk1951kl]

@@AndrewErwin73 you clearly have yet to learn what every grown-up man learns the hard way, namely never assume anything, but I assure you that sooner or later you will learn it and if necessary the hard way, and there are only 2 ways to learn anything in this existence and there is no easy way but sadly others have learned that the only way that you can learn it

[@AndrewErwin73]

@@vhawk1951kl I just have to disagree. Life itself is based on assumptions. To do science, you must assume that your brain can even do science. To do philosophy, you assume the laws of logic. Without some fundamental assumptions, I doubt one could hold one's mind together. I could be wrong. I leave room for that.

[@ScotPeacock]

This is a fascinating subject. I am a former student of astrophysics and I am also a current student of Buddhist philosophy. The question, 'are we made of maths?' is very intriguing to me because it hints at the deepest tenet found in Eastern thought: that everything that we can observe is the nature of mind. It's not inside our head, as it were, but every observed phenomena is a dependent-arising, an interaction between forces and (here's the clincher) observation. If math can be said to be real because it describes what we observe, then we can also say that we create reality to some extent because maths is also a product of thinking. However, whether math exists 'out there' or 'in our minds' doesn't really matter, but we can say it is made of parts, it has function, it is an imputed phenomena that is both conceived and observed by a consciousness. These are the five definitions of how a thing exists, according to Buddha. I have always suspected that physics will one day make an existential breakthrough in this field. The Copenhagen Interpretation was close. This video exploring the nature of reality (from the point of view of maths), also scrapes the surface. I find it very insightful and intriguing. Thank you again, Sabine x

[@alexanderabrashev1366]

I bet you're British 😂

[@ethelredhardrede1838]

> an interaction between forces and (here's the clincher) observation. You know perfectly well that is not what the science says. No mind is needed in the math or any model based on the math. The observer is the apparatus of the experiment, not the maker of the apparatus. Buddha did not test his ideas. So they are not worth much. Interesting is not enough. Ideas need to be tested. Max's ideas are tested, really. Its based on the observation that if we test new things we find that the math usually fits, at least for the Standard Model and General Relativity.

[@Unfamous_Buddha]

Math is like language and language isn't reality, it's just a description, a convenience. The Taoists call the Ultimate Reality, "That which can't be named." Theoretical-physicist Max Planck: "Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are part of nature and therefore part of the mystery that we are trying to solve." Buddhism wants us see beyond dualism, the illusion of self and other, realizing that the self doesn't end at the skin - or just as easily, saying there never was a self to begin with. Alan Watts, a popularizer of Eastern thought would say, "Trying to describe the Ultimate Reality is like trying to grab your own fist, bite your own teeth or taste your own tongue." Max Planck's musing seems to concur.

[@Unfamous_Buddha]

@@ethelredhardrede1838- The observer and the observed. In buddhism, they arise mutually. Just like you can't have up without down, inside without outside, self without other. In Zen, which is Buddhism streamlined, one might reach enlightenment after being asked, "What is the sound of one hand clapping?"

[@ethelredhardrede1838]

@@Unfamous_Buddha Max suffered from being a fanboy of Indian Woo. Still a major source of nonsense today.

[@isntitabeautifulday1648]

Sabine gets how language works, this is in itself very pleasant and most of all allows her to have interesting point of views, because she does not pretend to have to misunderstand opposite views to be critical of them. Very relaxing attitude.

[@reasonerenlightened2456]

Real things make stuff. There is nothing made of math therefore math is not real. I want to see a video on 'causality' and 'correlation' and how to derive them automatically from sensory input. "X causes Y ", " X corelates to Y" is the basis of all reasoning. Math is as real as human labor is. Human labor is needed to make real stuff but the labor itself is not real, because it is 'an activity' applied to stuff. Generally speaking 'verbs' are not real , 'nouns' are sometimes real.

[@Kenjuudo]

@@reasonerenlightened2456 You need to explicitly define what you mean with "real". By saying human labor is not real but is needed to make real stuff you are asserting that something that is not real causes what is real.

[@reasonerenlightened2456]

@@Kenjuudo it "Transforms", not "causes"

[@Kenjuudo]

@@reasonerenlightened2456 What exactly is the difference?

[@reasonerenlightened2456]

@@Kenjuudo The difference is the same as the difference between "idea" and "matter"

[@bobbyrobmaxey]

I'm a big fan of all the top/reputable physics channels on YT & yours is consistently the best Sabine 🔥

[@johnkim3840]

Mathematics is a language that helps describe and predict what we observe. It is real in that sense and to that extent.

[@LuisAldamiz]

Goobledokies and dragons are real? They are part of (the English) language and language "helps describe and predict what we observe" but not all language is equally useful.

[@LuisAldamiz]

@@roger_isaksson - I believe that was exactly my point. Good rephrasing anyhow.

[@ASLUHLUHC3]

Yeah, to say it is fundemental is like a modern version of naive realism

[@ASLUHLUHC3]

​@Annoying Commentator There's no reason why mathematics isn't unlike language in the sense that the existence of its meaning is wholly within the thoughts of our brain-stuff, as opposed to being part of some Platonic realm (that our meat-brains for some reason evolved to access), or worse still, being the fundamental nature of reality.

[@LuisAldamiz]

@Annoying Commentator - It's not a language, it is a logical method. Not sure if you are familiar with propositional logic (aka "propositional calculus") of the kind "if p then q..." Math is in that family of systematic logical methods but far more elaborate and succesful. It's still not real but mental. Apples can be affected by language/culture and so does color. Historical linguists are often amazed on how the Illiad does not have the color blue, one of the most universal colors, at all. Maybe that's the reason why Homer was said to be blind, but the case is that it is empirically demonstrated that color perception and language/culture are related, the endless teal wars about that shade is green or blue pale in comparison with intercultural color perception. The same happens with many other things, notably apples, which can include potatoes in French (pomme-de-terre = land apple) or tomatoes in Italian (pommodoro = golden apple), if we go back to the Greek classics again we end up with Hercules not clearly stealing the apples of the Hesperides because the same word (meles, from which melon) can also mean "cow", which is what apparently he stole from Geryones in a parallel narration. Apples are linguistically uncertain to a surprising degree but the problem is not really in language, because we assume that a strict definition is implied, the problem is one of set theory and how we define sets. Numbers (and thus maths) are attributes (adjectives, sort of) of sets and sets are defined by people. The set is the axiom and the axion is an intellectual action. There's no "three" alone ever, it always refers to a specific set, just as "red" refers to an specific object or electromagnetic wavelength and does not exist on its own. Said, that maths is generally speaking a very good logical tool, but, as any tool it depends on how we use it. It may be as the saying goes: "if all you have is a hammer, all problems become nails". Careful there! A criticism of the hype of maths is needed in order to secure that the logical tool that is mathematics serves us well.

[@sanxofon]

This video is a clear example of how hard-scientists get confused when they want to talk about subjects they "really" don't know about. Specialization has slowly separated them from being "wise men" (o "wise women"). Usually they stopped reading post-Plato philosophy and only mention Poper or Lakatos when they don't know what more to say. There are several problems in Sabine's analysis, the main one being to avoid defining what is the "opposite" of reality, is it fiction? Is it a lie? is it virtuality? For most people, the "unreal" is abstract thinking. Philosophy continued to think about the world far beyond Plato, perhaps they should read a little more about aesthetics and talk less about those who do not "really" know.

[@cherubin7th]

I am German so you speaking German makes perfect sense in my hallucinations...

[@markokriegel5787]

Hallöchen :D

[@ChayComas]

Simulation bro ...

[@danijelandroid]

I'm Dutch so it makes sense to me too.😎🇳🇱

[@timebird78]

Dachte mir auch gerade; als Englisch sprechender Deutscher macht es keinen Unterschied, ob eine Halluzination zwischen diesen Sprachen wechselt. Aber ich denke, ich verstehe auf was Sie hinaus wollte :-). Schöne Videos, weiter so!

[@reasonerenlightened2456]

Space-time and particles are not mathematical representations. Mathematical representations are man-made constructs, not reality. Math is a system of thinking and representing ..like philosophy. It it a bag of tricks that sometimes is useful.

[@typha]

"Most writers on the subject seem to agree that the typical "working mathematician” is a Platonist on weekdays and a formalist on Sundays." ~ Reuben Hersh

[@adh921ify]

What about Saturday?

[@erisesoteric7571]

On saturdays we pray to the dark lord and the ancient eldritch ones to finally give us a proof of the Riemann-Zeta-Hypothesis.

[@typha]

@@adh921ify Yeah, presumably also formalists on Sundays. I don't know for certain why Hersh left Saturday out but I'd guess that he might have been an orthodox jew, in which case he probably felt that such things should not be discussed during the sabbath.

[@alexandershendi7428]

Constructivism Saturday.

[@meccamiles7816]

Real talk.

[@RonTaco]

I hope you don't mind a somewhat longer post here. I have a metaphysical question along this line and maybe Sabine and some people here find it worthwhile. To start with, I’m a fan of this channel. I find the philosophy of science fascinating and I think the topics and the way Sabine approaches them are both solid and refreshing. Let me first try to sum up what I think this video boils down to: math that corresponds to physical reality can be called ‘real’ and math that isn't can’t. My question is about a reverse case: what if there was a mathematical framework that describes all of reality, so that in a way there is no reality outside of mathematics? At least not outside the mathematics involved in this description. Does this mean that reality IS the mathematical framework? Not a new question, but I hope my approach to it below is helpful. There are a number of caveats here that make it doubtful if such a framework can be constructed. That’s why I’d like to present it as a thought experiment. It even goes one step further than ‘merely’ having a Theory of Everything. I'd like to think of this framework as a ‘God’s eye view’ of the universe that somehow contains all the information about everything in it. Again, there are caveats - where to store all the information? - but such questions can be conveniently disregarded in a thought experiment. It’s a matter of taste, but I find it easier to think of such a description as a giant graph than as any other type of mathematical construction, such as an infinitesimal manifold. In that case, the rules of physics ‘simply’ restrain the ways the vertexes and edges of a graph can be connected to form a mesh that has a definable relationship to space, time and energy. So there is a mesh with certain properties and space, time and energy are emergent properties of this mesh. (I’m not sure, but it seems to me that Loop Quantum Gravity goes into that direction). Again, there is no certainty that reality can be described as a graph with rules, but it makes asking questions about the relationship between a mathematical construct and reality more tangible. Because graphs are so very simple, containing only two elements: vertices and edges. To continue the thought experiment, let’s say such a model has been constructed and is perpetually being tested without any measurable differences between the (predictions of the) model and reality coming up. My argument goes as follows: let’s say someone isn’t satisfied about this model. Reality can’t be purely a mathematical thing he says. So he proclaims that there must be a ‘substrate’ behind the model that, when added to it, turns the model it into an actual reality. So, according to this person, reality is ontologically different from the model. To state it more simply: what if we ask what the vertices and edges represent? Maybe wavelike things, maybe mechanical things like springs, or even nuts and bolts? The rebuttal then would be that the extra ‘physicalness’ of these added entities add no relevant information or functionality to the model. The combined edges and vertices contain all the information there is in the universe and that’s that. Adding nuts and bolts just adds turtles and elephants. This leads to the following premise: if the mathematical model is indistinguishable from reality, it is reality. What are your thoughts about this? There is an extra bonus for the metaphysical search to the explanation of ‘everything’. Abstract entities like the number 5 or the law of Pythagoras do in a sense not need to be ‘created’ to exist, we can presume they exist a priori. Loosely reasoned: if something can’t be destroyed - like the number 5 - it makes sense to say that it doesn’t need to be created. This means, that if reality is a (very complex) mathematical entity, it too doesn’t need ‘creation’. It just exists. Of course, who says that there is an explanation ‘for everything’? On the other hand, denying a priori that such an explanation may exist seems to be an unnecessary restriction to our search for knowledge, so I think this quest is legitimate until we can prove that it is meaningless or holds no answers we can comprehend.

[@danielnagy5721]

It amuses me, any time Sabine passes by multiverse, she kicks it. :D

[@rockyfjord3753]

One could do far worse than to watch Adam Curtis film in six parts titled 'Pandora's Box.' The Cartesian revelation that led to physics, synthetic chemistry, and unsafe nuclear energy has brought with it, ecological destruction that is irreversible like PFAS pollution. We need a new revelation for our Carsonian epoch of climate change we now suffer under. Scientists and mathematicians operated with no small amount of hubris, to our detriment. Or so I think.

[@jandroid33]

That's the right thing to do actually. I want to elbow drop the multiverse!

[@timothyandrewnielsen]

Are them bitties real? Because daddy likey.

[@Φλωρος-Θωμασου-Ξ5Ξ]

she has once proved it unscientific, now it's just for fun's sake

[@ziggyfreud5357]

:-)

[@99xpert99]

Sabine's humor never fails to make me chuckle, which is pretty hard to do.

[@nandfednu3502]

the first 70 seconds had me rolling

[@jasondoe2596]

Wait, you mean it's hard to fail to make you chuckle?!

[@anywallsocket]

The problem with correlating the colloquial "reality" with 'that which explains observations' is that it's unfalsifiable for one, and two, when it comes to math, you're actually using math to make that correlation - i.e., the logic of association. So it's like asking if purple is a rectangle - you're already outside of the set of what you can associate. To put it plainly, it isn't that math explains our observations, it's that math IS our explanations - regardless of the observation.

[@PlayTheMind]

Isn’t it like asking “is English real”, speaking of the language? The words are labels to help us represent reality in our minds, or something like that.

[@CAThompson]

Language gives us how we define reality and categorise things including its usage, so I'd say English is real.

[@LukeKenji]

the equations of a mathematical theory are like sentences in a language, but what they aim to describe are relationships between real physical quantities e.g. if the question is whether the word “electron”, or the concept of electron, is real, then you would have to give an answer such as you described; but that doesn’t automatically mean that you should answer the question - are electrons real - in the same way

[@Ni999]

@@roger_isaksson And how does that differ from math?

[@estranhokonsta]

Exactly. This whole idea of "is math real?" cannot be discussed at that level. One must always distinguish between words and what they aim at labelling. The word "one" is not the same as the concept of "one" (who knows, maybe in the future someone will prove that they are only projection of the same thing). One can then ask two completely different questions: is the concept of one real; is the word "one" real? In the same manner one can make distinctions and questions with languages. Like with "English" etc But one comes rapidly inside the rabbit hole with those endless classifications. That is the work of the dictionaries and encyclopaedias (and they have to 'update' their content every year). The essential problem that is hidden in all of this is still that there is no good and commonly accepted definition for "reality". Everyone use a very diffuse meaning like if it was self evident. An i believe that most of them are more than right when it is for the normal everyday use. When it is philosophy or any such set of endless words and arguments, people should know that they are in the wrong place at the always wrong time. Sabine did try somewhat to give us her temporary good definition for the argumentation on this video, but i must say that in my opinion it was really a completely failed experiment. Not really a problem since she said that her goal was to foment the discussion of the subject, not to solve it.

[@HarryNicNicholas]

@@CAThompson no english is definately invented, otherwise we'd just have one language and words would never change, "english" was grunting once upon a time, the problem with math is it works in the real world and it works as a concept, and we can make new math to fit new concepts, so, as i just said elsewhere here, even einstein didn;t have the answer to "is it a thing or is it invented".

[@felipemonteiro5877]

I'm really digging these new animations!

[@nandfednu3502]

Very effective application, almost elegant

[@lukewilliams7020]

I’m really digging YOU

[@shortshortshort]

Sabine, you are one of the few people I have ever come across that sees physics and science the same way I see it. I hope there are more of us. I think it is a much more useful way to see it. Keep it up!

[@MartinLear_CChem_MRSC]

Thanks for these thoughts 🤓 Maths is like a language. It is a descriptive tool; sometimes accurate, sometimes not. It is in the reading that matters. Hopefully though, the writer has done a good job, so as to avoid misinterpretations and poly-meanings.

[@jonnyblamey]

Yes, compare “language is real” or “statements are real”. The example of three apples being real showing that the number three is real is intriguing, does it imply the “red” is real? Then we have the question “where is red?” “Where is 3?” Here we can see the sense of reality that people may have when they are dissatisfied with Physics explanations. X is real if it is extended in space and time. So numbers aren’t real.

[@vhawk1951kl]

Really, how interesting, how does one say pass the bread - or perhaps where did I leave my glasses, in maths? One thing is certain and that is mathematics is no kind of language in the ordinary understanding of the meaning of the meaning of the word language - it certainly has nothing whatsoever to do with the tongue.

[@vhawk1951kl]

If you please, how do you ask what time is the next train to Manchester in mathematics? - Where does the tongue fit into mathematics?

[@vhawk1951kl]

If maths is a language or to use your words like a language, exactly how does one say when is the next train to London in mathematics or perhaps pass the bread or where did I leave my glasses, in mathematics? You will say only is not that kind of language is another kind of language, will you not? - Why do you not set out exactly what you said above in mathematics if it is a language? At which point the entire aeroplane of mathematics is language plunges burning to the ground like a shot down fighter aeroplane

[@vhawk1951kl]

If"maths is like a language", how do you say pass the bread or this bread is no good in maths? Or how do you say tomorrow or yesterday in maths? What are you calling maths? Counting, arithmetic, what?

[@Dystisis]

I recommend checking out Foundations of Arithmetic by Gottlob Frege, maybe the best work ever on the philosophy of mathematics. He rigorously argues against the idea that numbers are properties of objects. They are extensions of concepts.

[@boogerie]

Frege may be the first word but he's hardly the last word on the matter

[@janeknox3036]

Or perhaps objects are encodings of numbers?

[@swavekbu4959]

I would say most mathematical objects are the extensions of concepts, not just numbers. Continuity, for instance, is nothing more than a rigorized version of an "idea" human beings have probably had forever. True continuity exists nowhere in the real world, but rather is an idea simply of our minds. The "rigorous" definition of continuity is merely an attempt (weak and imperfect at that) to communicate these ideas or concepts, similar to the "idea" of "beauty, for instance, but for which a "rigorous" (read: SHALLOW) definition does not exist, and therefore is more difficult to grapple with. For example, you can express continuity with a simple definition, but you need to read a book in the humanities to get even a glimpse of what the idea of love might be. Both love and continuity are based on underlying concepts, but one is much more shallowly "rigorized" than the other. It's one reason why the objects of mathematics are much more simply defined than constructs in the humanities, for instance. Symbolic representation is among the weakest and trivial forms of expressing a deeper concept. But for the purpose of communication, it helps.

[@petertrahan9785]

Our current best understanding of the fundamental "properties" of subatomic particles are all numbers. We give them names like "spin" but for each particle, its spin has a numerical value. As such, any particle you can "name" is, according to our best understanding, just a collection of particular numerical values. I agree that the number 1 is not a property of 1 red apple or some such but that is not to say that all the properties of things are not just a collection of numerical values. Max Tegmark makes this case, that you can strip away all the words like "quark" and "electron" and when you dig down you are left with "objects" that are, insofar as we can know them, completely known by the numerical values that are intrinsic to them. For example, the numerical value of a particles spin, or the numerical value of the frequency of its wavelength and so on. We can talk about their emergent properties and their behavior and classify them on that level, but when we dig and dig we eventually hit a number, like spin 1/2. There does not seem anything deeper than these numerical values when it comes to the properties of things and these numerical values seem to be enough for the Standard Model to describe all the matter we have found in the universe to date.

[@Lxx-tc4xc]

dfoisdf Numbers are equivalence classes under certain equivalence relations over a domain of sets. This is not true under the canonical ZFC set theory, but is true under Quinian set theory.

[@ForOrAgainstUs]

Math is a concept that we map onto reality. Concepts can be valid or invalid, but math as a concept isn't more real than other concepts just because it's a good map. "The map is not the territory." When you correctly describe an object in reality, the description is valid, but it's distinctly separate from the object being described.

[@Tore_Lund]

Yes, this is even more Plato: If you can describe a phenomenon or relationship, like "This is my sister" or g is inversly proportional to distance, you are only confirming that you observe the same thing as others. However reality is not a consensus dicipline and as long as reality is only a presumption and presumed to follow set rules, math can also only be a presumption. So Sabine is right, in that Math is as unreal or real as anything else. The territory you mention is also only existing because of your senses, which you describe with math like: It is green and hilly and unplesant to walk on without shues.

[@ForOrAgainstUs]

@@Tore_Lund Show me where the universe has a concept of "sister" that can be derived from the physical laws of the Universe. You can't. You have a conception of "sister," and then you use that to determine whether physical laws agree with your conception. If you look at any other "sister" for physical evidence, the actual physicality of the relationship does not exist. It's just quanta. If you define "sister" as two genetic codes coming from the same genetic source, you're preassigning definitions in order to distinguish what you want reality to show. In other words, you're creating a conceptual box before seeing if reality fits into that box. Conception always comes first, which is not to say it is more base than reality. It's to say you're creating a map, and then you're checking to see if it fits onto reality. You're not purely deriving the concept of "sister" from reality itself. There is no conception within reality other than within your mind. In other words, show me the *concept* of sister in physical reality separate from your mind that you can then use as your concept. It doesn't exist outside your mind. "Sister" is a conceptual box you've mapped out, which you then use to map onto reality. It's simply an approximation. It's the same with numbers. If you show me a circle in reality, how do you measure it? Are you taking the numerical value from the object itself, or are you defining the object as having the value you want (by measuring it or arbitrarily placing a random value on it)? It's the latter. So say you're looking at what appears to be a perfect circle in reality. How do you know it's perfect? The only way you could know is if you know the "code" to the universe. What if the circle is bumpy because the Universe is pixelated? Does your equation of pi*r^2 account for that? No, because the area of a circle is an approximation if it's not otherwise a pure conceptual circle that doesn't exist in reality, so your answer for the area of the physical circle will always be an approximation or a guess. You can't derive the value of r of a circle in reality because you don't know the code. You don't know how literally anything created/formed/measured by the Universe. All values taken from measurements in physical reality are inferred--they are not derived. Instead, you use conceptual maps to give you approximations in order to assign values, which are arbitrary regardless of how useful they are. In other words, the map is not the territory.

[@Tore_Lund]

@@ForOrAgainstUs I think we agree completely then, if we agree that any human or intellectual concept is artificial. However how do you determine what is the territory then? How can you measure that? You have your senses and your brain. The only thing you can be sure of is that there are some rules in the natural world, which math reflects, because it works to some degree, i.e. logic is real as a principle, but entirely imaginable. So yes we can agree that there is "something", but not the nature of it or as I claim, whatever concept we humans derive, it will always be an invented concept, we have no real perception of, so in that repsect it is excatly like math which is purely culture, not found in nature as discrete objects, it only lives in our brain, but so does everything else, like chickens, rocks or girlfriends. Things are only real when we imagine them and they are only real in imagination, so I don't think it is possible to distinguish between ideas and objects, everything is equally real or unreal if you like.

[@Merriwether-w8k]

But if we live in a simulation - then the map is the territory

[@allaamrauf8214]

Maths exists regardless of whether we map it onto reality, whatever 'reality' means. If you mean the physical world, then we do not need physical objects to prove that 1 + 1 = 2.

[@EzraWilson1]

Sounds like William James was right; truth is what helps us achieve our goals, which in this case is to create a coherent view of reality. Math is true because it works.

[@LuisAldamiz]

That's an engineer's approach to "truth", which ends up in "add 50% of everthing just in case" (and still sometimes it does collapse). Goal-oriented "philosophy" or "science" is not really science, it is technology (applied science).

[@patrickfitzgerald2861]

Ah, my good buddy Willy! There's a lot of him in Sabine's world-view, whether she realizes it or not.

[@lovecraftscat5044]

Okay, but the question is if math is real, not if it is true. (And I would argue that that’s not a good definition of truth, but that’s not relevant.) Here is an argument similar to OP’s last line that was presented in the video: math is real because it explains observations.

[@EzraWilson1]

@@lovecraftscat5044 Are you saying that there are untrue realities?

[@EzraWilson1]

@@LuisAldamiz so you’re saying that science has no goals? An odd point of view indeed.

[@brothermine2292]

It looks to me like people are playing with different definitions of "real." And not always being rigorous in their definition.

[@Encephalitisify]

I love this dress. It’s the perfect space time dress to talk about space time. If we are made of math, and math is made in our mind, then we are made of mind, and reality is made from the math in our mind.

[@RadicalCaveman]

According to General Relativity, what look to be her breasts are actually just indications of the presence of mass.

[@HectaSpyrit]

@@RadicalCaveman And true to itself, GR's prediction does agree with observasions, since breasts do have mass. Thereby we can infer scientificaly the existance of breasts.

[@rodicapopescu2038]

exactly

[@Songfugel]

Didn't even notice it before you pointed it out, you are absolutely right, what a perfect choice of attire!

[@scptime1188]

The maths in our mind is not the maths in the physcial world. If i have 3 apples and 3 oranges, then the set that describes the apples and the set that describes the oranges have a a property in common, which is that they both contain 3 things. But this would still be true without a conscious brain to declare it; the apples would still exist, the oranges would still exist, and there'd still be the same amount of each. The thing that would be different is that the _concept_ of 3 would no longer exist. This is not surprising at all; concepts and thoughts and abstractions are just connections in a brain. No brain, no connections, no abstraction. But note how the abstraction in the hypothetical brain of the idea of "3" and the amount of things that exist in physical reality are not the same thing. If you use Sabrine's definition of reality to define "numbers" (which is also extendable to "maths") as a property of a set, then numbers (and maths) can still exist without a brain.

[@daveogarf]

I think that you're already great looking, intelligent, and an excellent teacher.

[@rockyfjord3753]

Maths is essential reality like the being of Centaurs; it is not existential apart from the actual existential objects, observable or not. Only the real ponies of 3 ponies are existential.

[@freefall9832]

Attractive topic

[@cainabel2553]

"Real numbers are not real" hum

[@rockyfjord3753]

@@cainabel2553 No, not existential reality they aren't. They are ideas, idealism, they have essence not existence.

[@cainabel2553]

@@rockyfjord3753 But then no number exists. Nothing abstract does.

[@kidhardt]

Fearless! Wish every discipline had more Sabines.

[@timothyandrewnielsen]

IF YOUR GOAL WAS TO JUST SIT AROUND AND DO NOTHING, SURE!

[@kidhardt]

@@timothyandrewnielsen Not sure what you mean, but we engage in science, philosophy, and religion. All of them are meaningful, but best distinguished.

[@timothyandrewnielsen]

@@kidhardt There's nothing fearless about what she said.

[@Setmose]

So, the next step is to ask: "What, exactly, really (!), *is* an observation? When you drill down there, you will come ultimately to this consideration: "What then *are* the exact, necessary, moments of subjective experience that give rise to the possibility of objective experiences? Only after having established the foundations of subjective and objective experiences, can you even begin to analyse: "What is description?" and in particular, what is mathematical description, as a methodology in the practice of science. All this was worked out by Edmund Husserl in his Philosophy of Transendental Phenomenology in the years 1890 - 1938.

[@labibbidabibbadum]

Yes - thank you. That's the proper question. I love it when I encounter people who have read Husserl. Hard work, but worth it (although not as hard work as his student Heidegger).

[@nachoijp]

"Real" packs a lot of different meanings. Something can be real in some of those meanings and not in others. Sabine does a great job at using a broad enough meaning and analysing thing from it. You could argue that her conclusions don't work for other meanings of "real", but that's a completely different thing.

[@edomeindertsma6669]

Yep, one of the meanings of real is 'That has objective, physical existence'.

[@SandipChitale]

@@edomeindertsma6669 Agree. I think of real the same way. However she is using real = explains observations ..then it is almost trivial. 1 apple + 1 apple = 2 apples. However, we can come up with math for things that as not known to exit in our universe. So is that math non real? That is why I do not like her definition. IMO there are parts of math that describes what we observe in our universe. the describe or model is the keyword. Unfortunately it has become fashionable in physicists and philosophers to say we are made of math or information at the bottom of it all. It is kind similar to insisting that theories have to be simple and/or elegant. And Sabine has videos objecting to that. Therefore I am surprised that she does not object to this proposition that math is real the same way.

[@theultimatereductionist7592]

Is human culture, entertainment, music, sports, the arts real? Is any of it useful or important? Nobody needs entertainment (culture, nationalism, music, sports, religion). Mathematical theorem proving + mathematical modeling are among the greatest human achievements & disciplines, along with drugs, anesthesia, mass production of food (Bosch Haber nitrogen fixation process), and now biocultured meat I'm a mathematician, not a physicist. I really don't care what physicists do with math. That's their problem. We mathematicians have more than enough of our own problems to work on. If physicists feel that physicists are wasting too much of their own time doing math rather than physics or computer programming than physics, that's physics'/physicists' problem. Not mathematics/mathematicians', programmers', coders', engineers', machinists' problem.

[@reasonerenlightened2456]

​@@SandipChitale It is stupid to equate "real" with "useful". "To explain observations" is 'useful' but not necessarily 'real'. Only 'causality' and 'correlation' can define 'real' within a given 'context'. I want to see a video on 'causality' and 'correlation' and how to derive them automatically from sensory input. "X causes Y ", " X corelates to Y" are the basis of all reasoning. Math is as real as human labor is. Human labor is needed to make real stuff but the labor itself is not real, because it is 'an activity' applied to stuff. Generally speaking 'verbs' are not real , 'nouns' are sometimes real.

[@GururajBN]

Not being learned in mathematics, I was always bugged by the extensive use of maths in physics. You have answered it. To the extent mathematics describes the reality, it is real. That’s a very elegant answer. 👌 All the mathematics need not be real. Determining that is not important either. Thanks Guru!

[@robertdaly9162]

This is perhaps even more evident in spoken languages (if we consider math to also be a language). Languages can describe reality, but they are also REALLY good at describing unreal things.

[@fbkintanar]

@@robertdaly9162 Languages describe reality and nonreality, like reconstructing the factual past from incomplete memory or data. Or describing events outside you light cone but accessible to somebody else who told you. Even physicists have to describe the nonfactual domain of what hasn't happened yet when making future predictions, and verifying predictive claims after the facts of the matter have come to pass. So language has evolved to deal with real and nonreal, with the actual world and with hypothetical worlds with a more tenuous link to actual (measurable) events. Physics is classically concerned with actual objects moving in actual trajectories. But modern physics is increasingly concerned with modeling spaces of possibilities, and how these project into (submodels of) real events. The mathematics of physics in increasingly concerned with bundles (tangents, cotangents, vectors, fibers) that cover a base space of real trajectories. Path integrals are calculated over all (possible) histories or paths, not just an actual trajectory. Frederick Schuler's Lectures on Geometrical Anatomy of Theoretical Physics kzbin.info/aero/PLPH7f_7ZlzxTi6kS4vCmv4ZKm9u8g5yic seems to provide an accessible introduction to this perspective, from what I have watched so far.

[@klausschmieman4503]

I remember a Quote (dont know by whom): Math is the science of the possible, physics is the science of the real.

[@CraftyF0X]

@@klausschmieman4503 But then again who decides what is possible and what is not. For example, the idea of anti particles arised first from math (by Paul Dirac) and later it turned out to be a real thing as they can be observed. While on the other hand, the mathematics of string theory gave us the prediction of super symmetric particles, which are yet to be found. So the question is then, are super symmetry is a thing or not ? Certeanly seems it is just math right now, but in case of CERN announcing the discovery of one tomorrow we all find ourself suddenly agreeing that it is a real thing.

[@TheSunnyD831]

I've always believed this. Many people say we invented math not discovered math and this has never sat well with me. We invented our own way of thinking about mathematics but I think the fact that it explains everything so well means there is definitely some reality to it apart from our conceptualization.

[@namangaur1551]

Well.. Here's my take to it.. Do you remember the Roman numerals? Or the greeks having a mathematical system without 0? I think maths purely at heart is based off of Logic.. And we know that Logic is always true in reality.. So maybe Maths is invented in the same way that Language is invented Meaning just like we have our own form of mathematics Aliens(if they exist😅) will have a different version Maybe it won't even be a number set or real line There concepts and SI units may also greatly differ than ours simply because they have a different perspective.. It's like the question of whether the glass is half full or half empty🤓 Neither answer is wrong, it's our perspective that helps us decipher the reality.. So maybe Maths is Invented by us But it stems from a deeper understanding of reality namely Logic And any other maths varients posed by the aliens would in some sense be fundamentally similar to ours as they would ultimately be describing the same reality, the same Logic.. So in a sense if you see, maybe Maths is both invented and discovered🚀🚀

[@TheSunnyD831]

@@namangaur1551 Yea that's how I look at it.

[@noxiouspython]

I always just assumed mathematics is a language. It can be used to describe both fiction and fact. That is why you have solid mathematics behind many scientific theories that were proven wrong through observations. Mathematics is as real as any language.

[@charlesmanning3454]

Mathematics is a very meager language with a restricted vocabulary and a rigid grammar. But because it is simple and scrupulous it is very powerful.

[@Duiker36]

And then you have Godel numbers, in which every symbol or sigil with which you express language is encoded as a number that can be exponentiated to create statements.

[@imengaginginclown-to-clown9363]

@@Duiker36 What do these have to do with this comment?

[@malleusflavus1160]

I made statements similar to yours to my brother, resulting in an argument, but I still think "a descriptive language" is the best, or at least "most useful" way to view mathematics, in general. Is language real? Most people would say so. Is math real? Sabine has thoughts. My brother was willing to argue to the death that math wasn't a language, and the very idea was preposterous and an insult to every mathematician, living or dead. Well, maybe that's a bit of an exaggeration, but my brother has a Ph.D. in Nuclear Physics and I only have a B.A. in Anthropology. So who's right? Perhaps on some specific, technical level my brother is correct, but I still believe my definition (and yours) is more useful ... especially to non-mathematicians. Doesn't make my definition "right," i.e., absolutely accurate and correct in every circumstance or situation, and from every perspective. It also doesn't mean I'm wrong, but perhaps I am not being scientific. I'm not backing down, though.

[@malleusflavus1160]

@@charlesmanning3454 Say on, brother! I note that many colleges and universities award a bachelor of arts degree in mathematics, in addition to, or instead of, a bachelor of science. At the same time I haven't encountered bachelor of arts degrees in biology, chemistry, engineering, or physics. Hmm.

[@TheJDLonline]

New look Sabine, I like it. Great video on explaining the difference between theory versus observation.

[@V1br8tor]

Maths is like the fundamentals of information processing; essentially emerging from Noether's theorem and the 2nd law of thermodynamics. All interactions in a given reference frame are solving conservation of momentum and energy on the fly - nature 'does the integrals' by acting them out - mass times velocity and force times displacement or power times time etc. etc. - maths 'just happens', regardless of whether anyone's around to appreciate it. For our part, we're processing information via a system of entropy reduction (this is why we experience octave equivalence and rhythm induction, incidentally), so the processes underlying consciousness are inherently mathematical, as are logic and reason.. The elementary nature of primes in relation to integers is often brought up in these discussions.. but that's a whole 'nother rabbit hole eh.

[@edomeindertsma6669]

Ptw

[@theosib]

I see math as a system we have invented to abstract, symbolize, and describe our observations. There are holes in math, as demonstrated by Gödel’s incompleteness theorem. So far, there’s no reason to think the fundamental laws of the universe are incomplete. Therefore the universe seems more fundamental than math.

[@SoloRenegade]

I agree, math is an invented tool we use. Numbers and math are also not the same thing, but people seem to interchange them seemlessly.

[@omega82718]

There are holes in classical mathematics, but not in computable mathematics which is just the realizability interpretation of constructive mathematics. If we restrains existence at everything that is computable then there is no problem.

[@LukeKenji]

I think you’re using the word “incomplete” in a rather indeterminate way. As you know, the theorem is that in any consistent mathematical theory some propositions can be stated (in the language of the theory) that are not decidable from the axioms. It’s not true that “the fundamental laws of the universe” seem to be complete in this way, since we can very well formulate propositions in the language of our physical theories which aren’t decidable from their postulates, such as “do black holes exist” (we know that they do, but that is not decidable from the postulates of general relativity).

[@Alkis05]

I agree, math is a tool box that we use to explore abstract patterns so we can find connections between stuff that on the surface seems disconnected. The models we create with math are like archtectural models that we build to study the relationship of space and light, proportion, etc.. But just because the model is representative of reality, it doesn't mean that the model is the building. It is a representation, not the thing itself.

[@LukeKenji]

Also, I don’t think that mathematical relations are “abstract” in the sense of being abstracted from reality. After all, if I say that I know a mathematical proposition to be true, this is not because I can observe many diverse concrete objects that actualize the same mathematical relations, and then I abstract from that. It’s perhaps useful to think of mathematics as a science of relations and operations; it tells you what you can expect from objects that relate and operate in definite ways (for whatever reason), and it knows this from studying their abstract (i.e. algebraic) structures. I also think that these structures exist objectively, in that I don’t think there’s anything inherently psychological about them. It seems that you can only abstract a mathematical object from regularities in our perception of concrete objects by already having the relevant mathematical knowledge, e.g. I can only look at some harmonic motion and think “it’s a sinusoid” because I already have the concept of “sine” to some extent. If this mathematical relation weren’t there objectively, I wouldn’t have an objective ground to think that these perceptions are “regular” to begin with.

[@andrewclifton429]

Here's why I think Sabine is wrong, here. What we are supposing, when we judge that Sabine is "real", is that our observations of Sabine are best explained by the hypothesis of a real person, causally interacting with us in space and time. Mathematical ideas, concepts and properties, however are abstractions - which means they have neither causal powers nor location in space and time (or spacetime, if you want to be fancy). Of course, abstractions may have many instances, but these are not to be confused with the abstract properties they exemplify. It's absurd to suppose that scientists might discover the exact physical location of the square root of Pi, or that this number is either the cause, or an effect, of certain scientifically observed physical events. We tend to think of mathematical entities as "real", I think, because our knowledge of them is reliable and consistent; when many different mathematicians apply mathematical rules to ask questions about such entities, they tend to come up with the same answers. This does not, however, make math "real" in the same sense we use when thinking about events, experiences and observations that we observe occurring around us in time and space.

[@andrewclifton429]

Here's another way of looking at it. The surface of the earth is real, in the sense that the hypothesis of its existence explains our observations of it. Likewise, maps of the surface of the earth are "real" insofar as they are accurate, because they serve as useful descriptions or abstract summaries of our collective knowledge of the surface of the earth. Given an accurate map, we can make reliable predictions about observations we make when travelling around, or observing the Earth from space. However... The Earth is not a map. A map of the Earth's surface is a description or representation of the Earth, whereas the Earth is not a description, nor or representation of anything. It just is what it is.

[@VolodymyrLisivka]

@@andrewclifton429 Now try to explain to a physicist, that warping of spacetime is just math, like a shader in OpenGL. I tried to do this on HackerNews while ago, and got 240 downvotes from physicists and ban in one day.

[@andrewclifton429]

@Are You Going To Do The 'Ora Ora' Thing? I didn't claim that abstractions are not "real" in any sense. I just argued that the phenomena we observe in space and time are not abstractions and cannot be constituted by abstractions. And of course, thoughts are just as real as any other contingent phenomena we might chose to study. I don't know about you, but I experience my thoughts as located in time - and whilst I can't pinpoint an exact location in space, they are associated with me, my body and brain - and I do have a location in spacetime. Also, my thoughts appear to to interact causally with the world I observe around me - this conversation being an example!

[@andrewclifton429]

@@VolodymyrLisivka I'm not sure what you mean by "just math". The warping of spacetime is a hypothetical phenomenon which predicts observable physical consequences. Sure, the warping of space time is described by math, but the math itself has no possible observable consequences. You could come up with all kinds of different, mathematically beautiful descriptions of the warping of space time, none of which correspond to observation. A description which does predict observations doesn't have some special, distinctive, mathematical quality which empowers it to do so. It does not cause nature to behave the way it does, any more than a map of a country's coastline causes it to adopt that shape.

[@VolodymyrLisivka]

@@andrewclifton429 Spacetime is 4D array: [x,y,z;t]. Warping of spacetime is applying of a mathematical formula directly to the array, like shader in OpenGL. The corresponding physical process is deformation of a medium of unknown origin.

[@Φλωρος-Θωμασου-Ξ5Ξ]

the visual and audio effects are so cool and in line with the text, but I can not stop focusing on them more than the explanation itself.

[@vinceturner3863]

Thanks as usual, Sabine, for a thoroughly thought-provoking and interesting video.

[@dnyalslg]

There is something sobering in how, just as you think something's come up that seem to blur the line between science and ontology, Sabine comes and categorically says, "This isn't scientific."

[@blotski]

I'm just pondering Sabine Hossenfelder's use of the North American word 'math' as opposed to 'maths' which is the preferred form in the rest of the English speaking world (not just the UK as many mistakenly believe). So many questions. Will that fact that most native speakers of English are now actually American be the reason that non-American vocabulary will eventually die out and be replaced by American vocabulary? Why does Ms Hossenfelder adopt a more British pronunciation in her English but use North American vocabulary? Is this a good compromise or just an odd hybrid?

[@jasonwiley798]

Math is correct. Who says ECONS?

[@adamnoble1689]

We've been talking about this for a year in school. The math/reality relationship is so confounding. Bless Plato!

[@rockyfjord3753]

Essential reality has being, consistency as idea, but does not have existential reality. The difference between the being as Centaur and the existence of a pony I place a finger upon. Mathematics I think is essential but not existential apart from the existential things equations express. But those equations of things are essential, not existential. Or so I think.

[@juanausensi499]

It will be no confusion if we had an unambiguous definition of what 'exist' means.

[@reasonerenlightened2456]

Space-time and particles are not mathematical representations. The definitions presented in this video are wrong. The correct answer is "we do not know". What is "fabric of space? "Virtual particle" is an oxymoron! Mathematical representations are man-made constructs, not reality. Math is a system of thinking and representing ..like philosophy. It it a bag of tricks that sometimes is useful. Dialectical materialism is the king.

[@juanausensi499]

@@reasonerenlightened2456 Heuristics are important, not being dogmatic also is, but unless you point to any particular problem and its possible solution, your words are empty.

[@nking4584]

clearly Sabine, your talented seamstress has a sense of humour... who would have thought of illustrating Einstein's gravitational theory, how mass distorts space-time, like that?... thank you ;-) ... Now where did the Math come in? I must have missed something... is it with the KZbin algorithm having to count all those extra views? ...from all the guys who got distracted from the subject having to watch it over, several times... ;-) great for the YT ratings... but quite unfair competition for poor old Unzicker I think. Don't you just love theoretical physics! ...Nosmo.

[@RickyMud]

Bro

[@shaunc-b6c]

Ive wanted a shirt like that my entire life!

[@jamesharmer9293]

The important mathematical question is, how many dresses does she have ??

[@jasondoe2596]

@@jamesharmer9293 infinite, obviously.

[@deusexaethera]

It doesn't matter how much you obfuscate your catcalling with lots of big words -- it's still catcalling. If you want to stare at her cleavage, go ahead, but keep your mouth shut about it.

[@Marcin_S_Przybylek]

Thank you. A little observation: "observing" is throwing rocks at... things, and hoping they will bounce back. When they do, we imagine things. So "observing" is just ackowledging, the rock bounced back and imagining. How is it different from imagining when the rock does not bounce back? Well, when it doesn't, we just know, that the thing (or lack of it) whe threw a rcok at, doesnt interact with the rock. The problem is, we don't have other methods of "observing" than throwing rocks.

[@alexandradavis7901]

I love your channel Sabine! Thank you so much for making these videos! In my view mathematical models are used to describe reality but that doesn't mean they are the underlying reality itself. We use words to describe colors, that doesn't mean the words are the colors. Max Tegmark's theories are full blown idealist, in the philosophical sense. I wonder if you've ever come across Christopher Caudwell's work: The Crisis in Physics. It was written in 1939 but amazing to read even nowadays. I'm probably the only one asking, as it's not a well known book, but I would love love love to hear your opinion on it!

[@gert8439]

''In my view mathematical models are used to describe reality but that doesn't mean they are the underlying reality itself. We use words to describe colors, that doesn't mean the words are the colors. '' Yes I agree, there's a meaningful distinction between what is real, and a description of what is real. The description only exists in our minds, where-as the reality presumably exists independantly of our minds/observations/measurements. Unless you're an Idealist.

[@a156a2]

Yes and I want to emphasis that mathematics and mathematical model of a physical system is also completely different. Mathematics itself is real but completely unreal with repect to physical world. Mathematics never say something about physical world. Modern physical theories are mathematical modeling of physical world. It states some part of mathematics have relation with physical systems but it is not a physical world itself. So, most of things Dr. Hossenfelder says that something is real is just statement about certain mathematical modeling-the correspondence between some maths and physical system, not about math.

[@myllerfilm]

This dives deep into philosophy. Without defining „real“ it leads nowhere. Real as in tangible? Real as in True inside a certain mental structure? Real as Existing. And what does that mean?

[@jjeherrera]

Definitely! It's a philosophical question. Furthermore, maths stem from logics, which is a branch of philosophy.

[@stephenbutler3929]

It's really a philosophy question: "What does it mean for something to be real? Or for something to exist?" etc. Fortunately, you can do useful science and mathematics without having the answer to those questions because I think the philosophers are still out on the answers to those sorts of questions :-D.

[@edwarderiksson4136]

Didn't she give a definition of real though? Relating to observations

[@guyjackson4165]

That’s why she started the video by defining “real”.

[@sciencegremlin8307]

Real means an object(that which has shape) with location.

[@Thomas-gk42]

'....in which case I'd probably better looking..' no Sabine, you're already on top😊great explanation again. So nice, that you educate people

[@bobbilderson8556]

You are amazing. I love your videos and I'm so glad that we have people like you spreading knowledge of physics. It takes a lot to put yourself out there- and I admire you so much for doing it. I graduated with double majors and science and philosophy- so I love discussions like this. That said, I think that you're making a pretty common philosophy mistake. You're mixing up ontology and epistemology. Math seems to function a lot like words. That is-- it describes reality. You, like many people, think there's little difference between the words they use and the reality those words describe. I think this is a mistake. There must be a gap between words and reality or else there's no way for sentences (combinations of words) to be true or false. If something is true or false based on observation- then there must be something other than words (sense data, etc) that we use to determine reality. Since the correctness of math is determined by observation, you can say that a mathematical statement is "real" in the sense that it describes what observations we have. But I think you're confusing epistemology with ontology. Because something is "true" does not make it "real". Sentences and maths are true- but they are not real. They describe the real. There's not some box of the perfect forms of math up in heaven- but that's what you seem to be describing. Reality ~= Truth. Ontology ~=Epistemology. Btw- love you're videos. Thank you

[@thepiratepeter4630]

Does math actually work like words? I mean, the character "3" it's clearly just a symbol with a meaning, like a word, but the thing that character refers to is a structure that can be found in nature, which in a sense means it's real.

[@vhawk1951kl]

I suppose there is a certain naïve or innocent charm to be discovered in those that -for some inexplicable reason, suppose that they can be " given" knowledge or understanding, but bless them they have absolutely no idea what knowledge is and seemingly suppose it to be identical to or with information.

[@alexander_nunezf]

Great video; my suggestion for a next one: how human is our current mathematics? i.e. what percentage of our maths is universal and could be found with a certain degree of confidence in other intelligent civilizations? And what parts are deliberate and unique to our human minds?

[@vhawk1951kl]

I suggest you read a book called Alex is adventures in number land which begins with that very subject and in particular the approach of certain South American Indians to number and those that can't no higher than four

[@vhawk1951kl]

Would you not be better engaged in wondering means by "real or what anyone means by "real"? As a matter of interest how exactly do you understand the word "real"? - What exactly is it about the real that makes it real - whatever you mean by real and apparently you have no idea, which I have to say comes the surprise to me that has some experience of you creatures who seem to use words that having the faintest idea what you mean by them

[@janerussell3472]

Just to tidy up, Feynman didn't use Least Action when he proposed that the particle takes all paths. That comes from the Uncertainty Principle. But earlier, Hamilton had imagined all possible trajectories that a system could conceivably take, computing the action (a functional of the trajectory) for each of these trajectories, and selecting one that makes the action locally stationary. That's diametrically opposed to Feynman's "all paths"; but I suppose Feynman would say quantum mechanics is weird. Leibniz talked of Sufficient Reason. [ If something exists, then all of its requisites have been posited. if all of a things requisites have been posited, then it exists. Thus all of a thing's requisites are a thing's sufficient reason. Modern scientists don't like talk of reason. ] lol. Earlier, Lagrange had set up 2 energy fields from Newton's one, the kinetic and potential, to try to avoid using force fields in the 3-Body problem. That trick is called "creating a degree of freedom" where none existed before. And is a 'sleight of hand' all too commonly used today by modern physicists.

[@chriswhitt6618]

I tried to imagine life without maths and it was impossible. Literally. Thought stimulating it most certainly is. You’re videos are always thought provoking and at the same time fun. I love it. Thanks.

[@vhawk1951kl]

I was supposedly taught mathematics as a child and have never once in all my very nearly 3/4 of a century on this infernal planet ever had to use mathematics once assuming that ordinary arithmetic is not mathematics - it never even remotely interested me but I can understand the interest others including my wife who has a in mathematics and it has to explain mathematical things to me, but never in my entire life have I ever had recourse to mathematics unless ordinary arithmetic is mathematics which I rather suppose it is not. It is utterly futile to ask "is maths real" unless you define what you mean by "real" which must also extend to "real" to or for whom?

[@NachtmahrNebenan]

Please everyone, read "Lost in Math" by Sabine Hossenfelder! The best book I've read in years. (Nice idea, talking about a generated Sabine and wearing a top looking like an empty Holodeck 🖖)

[@uninspired3583]

That's next

[@guest_informant]

Yes, in a decently ordered world (imo) it would be seen as a really important book.

[@learningwithiyam731]

Reading it now and loving it. It is certainly a good balance to some of the other "pop" science books accessible to the general public that I have combed through over the years. Sabine is a very clear thinker and a much needed and appreciated voice for the times.

[@PrivateSi]

Mathematics can be 'realistic' but it will always be a way of expressing an abstraction of a conceptual or physical system. Entities and relationships. Math can exist at many levels of reality, with AI and Simulations running on a supercomputer currently being the most 'real' we can make maths on the most levels of reality, but these are still abstractions. Mathematics = relational abstractions / abstracted relations.. Reality is Reality, it obeys laws that can be expressed using mathematics.. I don't believe in 'Simulation Theories', their Creationist pseudoscience.. For our reality to be math we'd have to be living in a simulation.. This is just a LIBERAL HYPE argument to PUSH UBER-MATH Love!

[@CAThompson]

@@guest_informant There's time yet for that. :)

[@ryanatkinson2978]

I feel like understanding what falsifiability means for science is one of the most important things someone who wants to become well versed in science needs to know

[@anywallsocket]

exactly this. if you can't derive an experiment to affirm or deny the 'reality' of anything, then the question of the 'reality' of things is moot.

[@mheermance]

I've spent more time than I should have exploring the Mandelbrot set, so it feels real to me.

[@jppcasey]

When I step on a scale, I silently wish those numbers were not real.

[@marcoscastaneda2567]

I avoid stepping on scales so that my weight is completely imaginary

[@rh001YT]

keto

[@onesandzeroes]

@Otávio Rapôso I choose not to observe my weight.

[@andsalomoni]

The scale doesn't know the number of its steps.

[@ceejayc6502]

The only number that matters is that you weigh one perfect Joseph Casey unit.

[@phillipnunya6793]

Numbers are real in that they are an abstract idea that meets a series of definitions. They are not real in a different sense for the same reason. The idea exists, but does not exist in the physical world. It's basically the same as asking if Monday exists. I think this debate is over definitions, not actual differences of opinions beyond that.

[@OccultDemonCassette]

Love the holodeck shirt vibe you got goin on there.

[@guffaw1711]

Yeah, very fitting.

[@danijelandroid]

Holodeck! Ah, yes!

[@tbudd803]

Math is real. Math can be used to model certain aspects of reality other than itself, but math is not equivalent to the things for which it models. The map is not the territory.

[@okieinexile]

Exactamente!

[@HarryNicNicholas]

on the other hand maths is not real, it describes phenomena in reality, but it doesn't exist itself. " + " is maths, but a thing and another thing next to it just is.

[@HarryNicNicholas]

luckily i believe even einstein couldn't say if maths is discovered or invented, so, i feel i can say anything and get away with it. a bit like a theist.

[@PrzemyslawSliwinski]

But somehow mathematical objects and their relations are persistent (eternal) and thus prior to the real world.

[@LukeKenji]

in that sense, our concept of an electron (or any physical object) is also a “map” that we can use to explain our observations, that doesn’t mean the electrons themselves don’t exist physically (that they are just concepts)

[@danuttall]

Mathematics is one of the greatest tools we have for describing the universe, but that does not make the tool reality. In the example given in the beginning of the video, the apple is the thing, a noun. The number 3 is a property of our observations so is an adjective, just as the colour red could be used to describe those apples. The colour red has its own properties that are consistent for anything we can describe as red, such as the wavelengths of light that we will describe as red light. In a similar way, numbers have their own set of properties and manipulations that we call mathematics. People have been finding new manipulations for a very long time and some of them have helped us describe the universe, but some have yet to do that. Math itself is not the nouns of reality, but an adjective of reality, helping us to understand and describe what is real.

[@ARi-ht7su]

MY subconsciousness does speak German 🇩🇪

[@nicolaiveliki1409]

Meins auch. Außerdem Englisch, Spanisch, Russich, gelegentlich auch Latein und ein paar Worte die ich von chinesischen Freunden aufgeschnappt habe. Das ist, wenn ich in Sprachen träume, was auch nicht immer der Fall ist

[@bimmjim]

In Australia, English is spoken with German word order, oder? To some degree.

[@pronounjow]

I wish mine did. My dreams would be SO much more interesting!

[@OppenMinerDev]

Meins auch. Und das ErGibT Sinn! :D

[@ARi-ht7su]

@@OppenMinerDev Hmm, ja... Aber "macht Sinn" ist inzwischen so weit ins Deutsche vorgedrungen. Der Kampf ist verloren. Lass dich nicht Sick (sic) machen.

[@MaryAnnNytowl]

How do you keep making such amazing videos, Sabine? However you do it, you do it very _~bleeping~_ well! Stay wonderful, Sabine!

[@vhawk1951kl]

Why so coy

[@david203]

The valid concept "3 apples " doesn't mean that the number 3 has real existence. The 3 is just a way to count or measure. In the phrase "3 apples", we are really intending to say "what we observe is both the count of 3 and the object "apple". Another way to say this is as a multiplication: the product of 3 and apple. What are the units of measurement here? 3 is in units of "items" and apple is a ratio obj(apple)/item, where obj() is a function that describes any object in terms of its complete quantum mechanical state. So the product 3 x apple describes three apples. Of course, this is simplified: I omitted the quality of being in a horizontal row, and the exact structure and chemistry (or perhaps just the pixels that describe the appearance) of a typical or abstract apple. All of this is to say, as someone who has seen speculative physics papers that describe QM states or fundamental particles as various kinds of ordinal or cardinal numbers in combination with functions, ordering, symmetry, or other mathematics, that I am skeptical that math alone can model all of physics. The math would somehow have to contain all the observable qualities of objects at all scales, such as position, momentum, taste, mouth feel, color, chemical composition, and shape, and much more.

[@ajr993]

Saying we're made of math really makes no sense. That's because math is just a language that describes reality the best way we can. But there are tons of languages that describe reality. English can describe reality pretty well as can Chinese, or German. Math can do so with possibly more precision, but it is just a language fundamentally. Its a lot like asking whether we are we made of English. Well no, not really. We are not made of a language; that's a pretty absurd philosophical position to hold. Platonism is a dead idea--the concept that numbers are real and exist in reality doesn't seem plausible. Saying we're made of math is a lot like saying that the number one really exists somewhere. But now you've crossed out of the domain of the conceptual into the physical. It would be as ridiculous as saying that love itself exists in reality. No, it doesn't, we've simply described a phenomenon in our brains with the label "love". The label itself doesn't exist in physical reality, similar to the label of "one" doesn't exist in physical reality either.

[@marcossidoruk8033]

Clearly you haven't dared to touch a philosophy book in your life, saying that platonism is dead the way you mean it, or that there is no people that think we are made of language (I mean, you are right that nobody believes we are made of A language, but language in general is a completely different story.) And there are also many many philosophers that would find your ideas of love extremely problematic, that is, because empirical phenomenon happening in the brain are extremely different to subjective experiences, and how exactly do such phenomenon turn into subjective experience is a hell of a debate that has lead many to reject materialism completely.

[@DocBree13]

“Math is just a language that describes reality.” I could write a book of reasons why that statement is untrue. If you removed “just” I wouldn’t have an issue with it, other than it wouldn’t be exactly profound. Edit: Also, just because something is abstract, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. 🤦🏽‍♀️

[@ajr993]

@@DocBree13 well what is your definition of exist? When I say exist I'm referring to physical existence, not conceptual existence or transcendental existence. Math does not exist in the physical universe which was what exist typically means. I don't know what it means to say something conceptually exists

[@DavidGuyton]

Energy is equal to math times the velocity of light squared. Oops I mean mass.

[@MassageWithKlay]

to a point, there is also other energy equations, that one is good for objects with mass, but when there is no mass, the capability of that equation holding true =0 as anything times by 0 = 0, but this doesn't explain electricity, which holds no mass, so then in the equation anti-particles and anti-mass is used, in order to bend reality to the will of math.

[@brocksamson3282]

full equation is: E^2 = p^2 + m^2 where c = 1, and p is momentum

[@cosmikrelic4815]

@@MassageWithKlay anti-particles are not anti-mass. they have opposite charge, and some other anti properties but mass isn't one of them.

[@MassageWithKlay]

@@cosmikrelic4815 I guess it all depends on what you're talking about, although it's all just variables. Sometimes they refer to a magnetic field being filled with anti-particles, or it could be photons, although it's neither and also carries no mass as a magnet before it's magnetized is the same weight and density after it's magnetized. It's a bit like electricity, how all the great minds in electricity were against the idea of a charge carrying particle. I really doubt that Einstein was even close to the brilliance of them, as they created the electrical grid and he stole equations and theories from French and Hungarian guys and also managed to make the fridge. But when you see everything as a particle, then everything has to be a particle, which in essence slows down the progress of science, as time is wasted on things like finding the gravity particle.

[@cosmikrelic4815]

@@MassageWithKlay you are not being very clear. electromagnetic fields are mediated by photons. who refers to them as antiparticles? photons are their own anitparticle. what do you mean it is neither, that's crap. anyway you said antiparticles have antimass, they don't.

[@testostyrannical]

The distinction between representation and reality is why you don't say numbers are real. Or any description at all. It is in fact empirically important to maintain the distinction between the methods we use to describe things and the phenomena we are attempting to describe. I don't think the argument about numbers matters very much, but it is pretty obvious to me that the apples in a bag or on a table don't actually contain a property that is the quantity of apples in those specific locations; the number of apples is not fixed and any subset of apples you choose to count you are making an explicit choice about, i.e. it is you, not the apples, by choosing to count these apples and not those apples, that ultimately determines the value of a specific quantity. And of course counting isn't even the most scientific way of quantifying apples.

[@justinwhite368]

Mathematics would seem to be a symbolic language that can be either descriptive or fictional. The Universe appears to behave according to the maths when you get it right, but mathematics is also a very abbreviated description so it might leave out relevant nuances like apples and oranges when counting accurately yet taste quite different in fact.

[@dard1515]

I analogize trying to understand math vs reality with understanding calories vs food. The former is useful for understanding the science but the latter is far more useful for how our brains intuitively understand things. Overall, both are useful.

[@andsalomoni]

Calories are a concept, the food that you eat is real. I don't think that you will ever be able to eat "calories". You can do without "calories", not without food.

[@dard1515]

@@andsalomoni It's an analogy for how we can live without math, but not the things that math describes.

[@vhawk1951kl]

How exactly do you define or understand "reality"? - Whose reality? Fortunately that which may or may not be whatever you mean by "real" is only real for you and nobody else and for that all men should be particularly grateful, for were it otherwise the pain or discomfort of the one would be the pain or discomfort of all and it simply is not. That is of course assuming that pain and discomfort are whatever you mean by "real". Is it not a bit pointless to speak about whether or not something is real without defining what you mean by "real"? Let us suppose that you experience X as whatever you mean by "real" then you can address whatever it is about X that makes it whatever you mean by real, it strikes me that is rather obvious that what makes the real real, but apparently it is not obvious to all I'm going to guess that it is not obvious to you, but who knows? - you may surprise me

[@SecularMentat]

I recently ran into this issue 'what is a particle'. My girlfriend has a PhD in cognitive psychology, she really dislikes hanging ideas. She's the kind of person to ask 'why' right up until you're to base definitions. Which is amazing, but also tedious on occasion when trying to explain things. How can we say something has 'particle and wave like attributes' if we can't describe or define particle in a useful way? This topic intrigues me. Knowing what little I know of atoms, there's a cloud of electrons. With the idea of 'particle' being something like a discrete line that divides identity. Atoms can't be defined as a particle. Just that the cloud has a near zero probability after a certain distance. (Also, that distance can be change due to excited energy states further 'clouding' the issue).

[@SecularMentat]

I think the problem with 'particle' defined in the way that I used is, is that it has a history of being the 'simple' explanation. At very least with the layman. Though now I find myself wanting to learn what gauge functions are. I'm guessing in my definition of 'atom' and 'particle' the electron cloud is the 'non-zero' value of those things in the gauge function. (or field that applies).

[@lordemed1]

Math describes reality---to a limit...that is very different from math being reality, ne c'est pas? Reality will always be beyond our ability to describe it, measure it, categorize it, or fully comprehend it, sich einigen?

[@FalkFlak]

thats why she asked for a different definition of "real". I also think the mathematical definition isn't very helpful in explaining whats "real".

[@randyzeitman1354]

If the issue is the word “real” then denounce it and use “physical”.

[@joesands3350]

An alternative thought when defining reality: What is an object ?= something which has a shape (defined by a boundary) What is real? an object that has location A number is simply a concept which can ONLY describe. What is the physical reality underlying space-time? Describing an observation does NOT explain the mechanism underlying it. e.g. the speed of light is a number = 299 792 458 m / s - This is a description - it does NOT explain WHY light is that fast.

[@billyt8868]

oh man i love sabine on a saturday morning.

[@KeithCooper-Albuquerque]

I'm right there with you, Billy T.

[@csucskos]

Woah! So if you ask me whether math is real the right response is: how do you define real? :D

[@CAThompson]

* brain loop commences *

[@d.t.4523]

Reality is just something that sticks to the bottom of your shoe. 👍

[@andsalomoni]

Mathematics' reality is conceptual.

[@xario2007]

I always think of the question whether a mathematical object is "real" of a categorical question. You can't touch or measure math, you only ever see and measure (and touch?) physical objects that represent a mathematical idea. But that addresses only the existence, not the realness. I have to think about the definition of "something is real if it describes our observations" a little more. Thank you!

[@katgirl3000]

Wonderful and, yes, it got me thinking about this subject farther than I already had! Thank you!

[@danielnikolov2860]

The exponential function: “Am I a joke to you?”

[@haraldmilz8533]

I think we're deep in the philosophy of science. To me, math is primarily a model, and a model is not identical to the observations is describes. In some parts, the model may be lacking, i.e. not explain certain observations (example: Newton's theory of gravitation did not explain the mercury orbit correctly, and today we have no theory of quantum gravitation). In some other parts, it may allow predictions that are not covered by observations (yet), as we saw so often in astronomy and particle physics, or which have no direct observational evidence whatsoever, like the complex numbers. Long story short: we should not confuse model and observations.

[@seanspartan2023]

Excellent video. Having pursued a degree in Mathematics, I like the idea that all math is real. However, having studied foundations and seen how different set theories fail to be consistent, I doubt that is the case. Math is still beautiful and useful though.

[@LuisAldamiz]

It's a powerful logical tool, use it wisely, do not become a tool of the tool like Plato and his followers.

[@patrickfitzgerald2861]

Yes. And like any useful tool, it can be either used or abused. Just look at the nonsense spouted by business economists. Internally consistent maths that perfectly describe every scenario . . . until they don't.

[@Qdogsman]

Sean, Setting aside the admitted beauty, usefulness, and the questionable reality, of mathematics, have you given any serious thought to the question of why all those different set theories fail to be consistent? I have given it a lot of thought and come to the conclusion that it is the acceptance of Cantor's theory of infinity in the body of mathematics that is responsible. (I am convinced that Kronecker was right and that Hilbert was wrong). Looking at the results of the first fifty years of accepting the notion of infinity, it seems obvious that inconsistency is unavoidable. The proof that 1=2 by Banach and Tarski should have closed the case. Goedel's theorems only apply to mathematical systems that are sufficiently robust to include arithmetic. That means the acceptance of the infinitude of the natural numbers. That is the Trojan Horse that allows Goedel's theorems to be proved. In any finite system, there would not be enough Goedel numbers to complete the proofs. Of course, denying infinity would lead to a grainy, finite mathematics. But that should be better suited, than the inconsistent mathematics currently in vogue, to representing reality which, by all indications, is quantized and grainy . I'd be interested in your thoughts.

[@LuisAldamiz]

@@Qdogsman - But isn't Pi infinitely irrational ("trascendental" or whatever they call that kind of numbers)? If you deny infinity, especially infinity a la Cantor, you might end up denying Pi and all the principles of mathematics. Granted that, as I said before, there is granularity in real life and thus mathematics is not real (also not particularly "beautiful" for many people, what's with that insistance on "beauty", the most non-scientific concept ever, plaguing everything in science?), nor is maybe infinity, but in their particular abstract realm in which "objects" do not abide by the rules of physics but only those of maths, you can certainly live with infinities. It's only when you have to bridge the gap between the abstract logic of maths and the physical reality, when such issues arise, but not in pure maths (which are not real but logical).

[@Qdogsman]

@@LuisAldamiz Luis, If you accept Cantor's notion of infinity, then Pi is irrational and transcendental and it has an infinite decimal expansion. But, if, as I suggest, you deny infinity, then your question is meaningless because 'infinity' is undefined. And, you are correct; if you deny infinity you would be left with only approximations for the notion of Pi. But that's no problem because that's all we can ever use anyway. You would also lose many other mathematical principles, like real numbers, continuity, open sets, etc. Those would still be interesting to mathematicians who are interested in furthering the results of the currently accepted foundations. But if new foundations were accepted, which deny infinity, all computation and calculations by everyone from accountants to physicists and their computers would work the same as they do today or even better. The switch would be similar to the switch from analog to digital music or digital cameras. There are probably some die-hards who imagine that their vinyl records or their Kodak film capture continuous information and thus are superior to digital signals. But any such superiority disintegrates with higher and higher resolution and pixel density. So let them have their fun while the world moves on.

[@WackyAmoebatrons]

I'd say that the Universe is not made of math, the same way that a map is not made of the area it depicts.

[@anthonyowen6204]

Mother nature doesn't own a calculater

[@BlueMushroomSmurfCat]

Mathematics is just a way we can describe the universe and unlock its mysteries

[@infinite_flesh]

Of course not .. Universe just based on dusts rays different types of matter and energy but Universe has shapes and Structures which are all mathematical

[@amAntidisestablishmentarianist]

Not completely agree. I agree that universe is not made of math but math is more real than universe. Its detailed parts of are inferior to universe (are like maps as you mentioned) while other holistic parts are superior to universe (thye exist outside spacetime).

[@seanalexanderza]

This might not be a technically accurate view, but I find it helpful. I view maths as a language of relationships. When I see it that way, then I can describe anything that has a relationship in those terms (not me specifcally, maths can be used to), whether the relationship "exists" in the usual sense or is simply a hypothetical or theoretical paradigm doesn't matter, maths is useful for either. If one were to argue that we cannot perceive the truth of reality as it is, merely as we are evolved to perceive it, then we only ever see a slice of reality. This means we can only describe reality or things/objects/forces with references to each other or relative to each other (As we can measure/perceive them) as we don't have an objective reference as we can never see the whole. Maths is the universal language we use to do this. I don't know how mathematical philosophy fits into this view as I'm not an expert (I think you need to understand really Godels Theorem etc. and I don't) but I believe those who can understand maths to that degree would be able to tell if my perspective is helpful for a layman to have.

[@aeomaster32]

Maths is a system of quantifying relationships of things that exist. All entities are the sum of their properties. That is, the sum of their attributes; they are what they are. That means the laws of physics, are them - their attributes. They are not nebulous objects looking for some logic to conform to. I find it strange that that after observing mathematical relationships in existence, some claim that the maths IS the existence and not about the reality they measure. I quote from the AR Lexicon: AR Lexicon: Mathematics is a science of method (the science of measurement, i.e., of establishing quantitative relationships), a cognitive method that enables man to perform an unlimited series of integrations. Mathematics indicates the pattern of the cognitive role of concepts and the psycho-epistemological need they fulfill.

[@vhawk1951kl]

If mathematics be a language how exactly do you say when is the next train to London or pass the bread or where did I leave my glasses, in mathematics? I think perhaps you have yet to understand what language is; the root of the word is tongue - where do tongues come into mathematics whatever mathematics is some sort of jiggery-pokery with numbers seemingly. In all my nearly 3/4 of a century on this infernal planet I have never once in my entire life had any need for mathematics unless you say that simple arithmetic is somehow or other mathematics is an old red Indian saying if you can't eat it fuck it or put it in your pocket, it is utterly worthless, and there seems to me to be a good deal of sense in that

[@donhayward9825]

Thank you, if we could all just begin every day by asking an unanswerable question, we would have a day full of thoughtful wonder.

[@Drudenfusz]

As mathematical fictionalist, I would say maths is a narrative we project onto reality to describe the patters we perceive, but it is not reality itself. Math is like language, it can be used to describe things, but it also can be used to tell fantasy tales.

[@passerby9123]

Sabine, I have watched this video many times now, and from what you say, in it, it seems to me that the hierarchical and preferential patterns of maths might have forgotten their place and role in the natural order of human life. Because we say, "one apple," this doesn't actually make the one more powerful than the apple, or more worthwhile, or even more descriptive of that item than the word apple, and if we use maths to list and measure that which is substantially real to us in another way and say "apple - one," then this small shift in position can invoke a subtle change to our understanding of what enumeration, and the preferential patterns of mathematics, are actually describing. Where maths loses sight of its roots and its position in the natural order of living events it also loses legitimacy, and ends up imagining or proclaiming its abstract superiority to the world while ignore the natural coupling of its creation. In the natural world, the egg comes before the chicken, just as the circle and cycles of life come before the square, and when Plato looked out of the entrance to his cave, through the physically real eyes that sensed a very real world that existed all around him, he noticed that everything else in his cave, all of its listed treasures, its illegitimate values and inbred measured preferences, were forming distracting shadows on the inner walls of his very real skull.

[@gregmark1688]

Even if math doesn't "describe reality", it's still real: Ackerman's function (for instance) produces a sequence of numbers that can be observed, and it also perfectly describes those observations. How is that any less real than anything else?

[@MarkAtTrees]

Does that sequence of numbers or the function exist independent of humans constructing it? If not, then what makes it more real than some piece of fiction with precise human made rules? We can observe Harry Potter after Rowling wrote her books. The rules for Rowling's universe aren't as precise, but they follow a certain logic as the story plays out.

[@dannygjk]

@@MarkAtTrees The issue in debates is often difficult to resolve due to terms which don't have a clear definition agreed upon by the parties involved in the debate. For example the word, 'real'.

[@ottoweininger8156]

@@MarkAtTrees the sequence of numbers as and outcome of an equation is real in the sense it remains true independent of human - or any - observers. What's most interesting is maths remains real independent of reality itself, which isn't true of anything else

[@user-zu1ix3yq2w]

I think math is something objective but also subjectively interpreted.

[@MarkAtTrees]

@@dannygjk Real meaning ontological.

[@avinashkale7229]

One of the best channel I found on KZbin 👍🔥

[@DnCtopher]

The way I currently understand it is, Math is a language that is used to describe observations therefore, we’re not made of math just as I’m not made of the English language. We’re simply manifestations of these descriptions. For example, the three apples you mentioned discusses the existence of “three” symbolized as “3”. “Three” is a concept locked in the ether of idea that manifests when three apples are brought together thus, defining what it is to be three. Therefore, “three” exists in nature along with the whole of Math and it’s operations used to describe the natural world.

[@SpaceEndeavour]

Huh my subconscious speaks German now, I'm glad to know that I am making progress

[@d.t.4523]

You need to up your game! Maybe buy a book too. When your subconscious moves on to Mandarin chinese you'll want to heartily cuss it in German! 👍

[@HansLemurson]

Wait, you can see the same imaginary person on the screen that I do??!!!

[@gyozakeynsianism]

Your subconscious is also a character in A Scanner Darkly with Keanu Reeves.

[@thomask8225]

Great video! What I came about recently is the following question: Are there mathematical structures / objects that are real (natural numbers, geometric shapes) but derivable from different axiomatic systems? Are just the numbers and geometric shapes real but the axioms that have been used to "ground" these properties of nature "fictions" of the mind?

[@marvinhacking5777]

That order will come out of chaos shows there is something to Math imHo. There was a video that helped me see this ... which I would like to show you but ... ummm instead of posting a link .... just search youtube with "this equation will change" hope that helps

[@outl1t]

CONGRATS ON ONE MILLIE!!!!!!!!

[@someguyoverthere3275]

Math as reality is like saying sheet music IS music....🤔...isn't it reasonable to say the descriptor is not the discribed.

[@LukeKenji]

in that sense, our concept of an electron (or any physical object) is also a “description” that we can use to explain our observations, that doesn’t mean the electrons themselves don’t exist physically (that they are just concepts)

[@CAThompson]

The sheet music is real, though. :-D

[@someguyoverthere3275]

@@CAThompson ....🤔...yes. But it is still just a description. Not much unlike a recipe used in a chef's kitchen. From a spiritual point of view, some say the bible is the word of GOD. ...🤔...but we see that Jesus is The Word of GOD. ...😬...people don't get it. GOD spoke "Let there be light" so we see The Word as the prime and motive force of creation. 🙁...this is deep, but we can understand it. We are not separate from our own force of will whenever we speak earnestly. Our word is us in a similar way. 🙄...why is that important? Because Jesus had power over the material of reality. This is what GOD'S Word does. And the Word made flesh is not so hard to understand. ....🤔...so what is my point? Symbols are representattives of things brought together. Math is a symbolic language. Creation is not symbolic. ...🤔...these things are different. GOD did not use a symbolic language to express how we should be to one another. HE spoke. And delivered HIS message directly. And it is preserved in BOTH symbolic language and HIS manifestation.

[@CAThompson]

@@someguyoverthere3275 With respect to you, I'm an atheist. I don't believe that Jesus was God's son if he actually ever lived, nor that God exists. Even so, the words written about Jesus exist. Bibles are physical objects that impart information and spark devotion and philosophical contemplation in many people, but to a non-believer much of the Bible's content is less useful than a recipe book.

[@someguyoverthere3275]

@@CAThompson we are more than matter. We have a physical side and a side that we are aware of but don't understand. None of the science will ever replace what is broken at death. We are not random. Nothing is, so the design is not self emergent in its fuller properties. You do have an awareness of GOD. And at some point, you WILL cry out to something that your heart knows. At that point, remember that you cannot make your own way. ...you cannot imagine a world where Jesus had not lived and ascended. And your sense of justice is shaped by what he wrote on the hearts around him. And in your comfort, you allow yourself a lie. But that time is passing. And what is happening to our world will rip apart all of the things you take for granted. And because you are sedate and allow yourself to be yoked and placed in the mill, you assume your masters are going to watch out for you. They are not. There is a GOD. And HE is the light. And when men stop following. In the darkness they will be.

[@nziom]

That reminds me of the Math Has A Fatal flaw video by veritasium

[@ahmadkoopal3120]

Excellent description of math. Thank you for the logical clarity and mind-provoking thoughts. Now I have a specific answer to the question "why did you studied math?"My general answer to "why ... most anything" has been, because of a sequence of events since the big bang (destiny.).

[@Ajaxify]

Great video. I would be curious to hear your thoughts how Gödel's incompleteness theorems would play into this conversation.

[@Totalinternalreflection]

I fking love you, you’re inspiring and cool af.

[@CAThompson]

Btw, Aphex Twin is great. :) Sabine's track 'Theory of Everything' on Soundcloud has 'Girl/Boy Song' vibes.

[@Totalinternalreflection]

@@CAThompson oh that’s intriguing, ill take a look, thanks :)

[@CAThompson]

@@Totalinternalreflection Her SoundCloud account is 'Dr B'. I enjoy most of her music, she has some videos On KZbin too, if you haven't watched them yet.

[@ProgressiveEconomicsSupporter]

Nice pullover!! Great video, once more 😎 didn't quite understand if you said that the statement "All math is real" is unscientific or the idea that math and numbers are real in general - in terms of "they describe what we onserve" - so in my opinion also trained by your channel, mathematics and correct logic conclusions should be real. This is often the only way to give us scientific predictions we can look out to find in nature

[@-1-alex-1-]

I watch these videos only to hear Sabine saying the word "hypothesis".

[@principioequivalencia9455]

and "Einxxxxtein"

[@rbarnes4076]

She is typical of english speakers with German as their mother tongue. I've met many from Germany, and the weirdness of english pronunciation is a big issue for them. I also speak some German.. and the pronunciation of German is VERY logical (at least for High German.. I know basically none of the regional german variants spoken in German). In comparison, English is an utter mess (it matches French in the number of weird exceptions to pronunciation rules). English can be mastered in terms or pronunciation, but it means simply memorizing all the exceptions.. no easy task. Worse, which pronunciation do you pick? There is British, Irish, Scot, Indian, North American (these are the groups with the most speakers, but there are many other subgroups here). And even this list doesn't capture the richness of possibilities. US and Canadian english alone have a number of predominate patterns (South (at least 4-5 distinct variants), Midwest (2-3 variants), North Eastern seaboard (3-4 variants), 2-3 canadian variations.. it goes on and on).

[@-1-alex-1-]

@@rbarnes4076 "English is weird. But it can be understood through tough thorough thought though". 😂

[@rbarnes4076]

@@-1-alex-1- I'm sad I can only give you one up vote!

[@geraldford6409]

I must be made of math, since my wife says I'm half the man I used to be

[@skeltek7487]

'Being real' and 'existing' are two different things. The later can be futher defined as things being interconnected to our own existence somehow or their existence being derivable by ours or their coordinates and size having a finite relation to ours. A similar analog would be the gaps in between constructible numbers not existing from the viewpoint of whole numbers. On the other hand, there may be parallel universes, but just by the definition of the word 'universe', those others do not exist related to ours, since they have no interconnectedness with ours. Oh my, it is weird and makes me happy seeing such topics discussed online nowadays, whereas I had to think and get all those ideas and insight all by myself when I was a kid... knowledge and insights have become so easily accessible with the advances of the internet. Funny side note: If one is specific and takes logic seriously with sufficient effort, then one can argue the universe itself as a whole does not exist, but only its *content* exists (with relations of each thing to each other).

[@terryboyer1342]

Well this was/is something to think about.

[@kantanlabs3859]

The greatest observation is that the universe we observe obeys to some well defined laws that were valid at the origin of time and spread all over the visible universe today. But this remark arises because our mind is programmed to see and find structures in the flow of data it receives. So perhaps the universe is not made of math but our mind only is !

[@LukeKenji]

but we wouldn't be able to find any "structures" in the data, if the relevant mathematical relations did not exist objectively to me it seems that you can only abstract a mathematical object from regularities in our perception of concrete objects by already having the relevant mathematical knowledge, e.g. I can only look at some harmonic motion and think “it’s a sinusoid” because I already have the concept of “sine” to some extent. if this mathematical relation weren’t there objectively, I wouldn’t have an objective ground to think that these perceptions are “regular” to begin with

[@kantanlabs3859]

​@@LukeKenji "It seems" is a slippery slope argument here! Our mind has been programmed by natural selection to see structures everywhere, especially when they are none. We see images in clouds, a god supposedly ruling the world and many other illusions created by our specific brain structures. The way we perceive reality as we call it, is dramatically colored by our mind. This ill-defined absolute math idea is IMHO another dogma generated by our limited brain capabilities. It doesn't mean that we cannot make science but only that we must be aware of our own limitations.

[@silentobserver3433]

@@kantanlabs3859 I'd actually argue that you can't see patterns in something that's just random noise. Human brain is good at seeing structures everywhere, but only if there was some structure to begin with, maybe not the one we see, yes, but at least some structure. So for us to be able to invent math that describes the observations, even if we're just connecting the dots, there still has to be some of underlying structure, because there have to be the "dots" to connect in the first place. Basically the universe has to be made of something at least somewhat related to math, because the math works so well at least for in the limit of things that we can actually observe. The reality might be much more complicated than regular math, but it has to simplify to something math-like in the limit

[@kantanlabs3859]

@@silentobserver3433 The Rorschach test is a perfect illustration to the contrary!

[@silentobserver3433]

@@kantanlabs3859 There was a pattern though. A symmetric black and white image with clear lines and an undefined shape, produced by smearing ink on a folded paper. There was a pattern, there was structure to the thing, just not the one people see. (When I myself look a that though, it's hard to describe with anything but "shapeless ink blob", really)

[@frankwitte1022]

Something all mathematicians *should* know (because it is relevant for their discipline) is the rule: Never mistake the representation for the thing it represents! Mathematicians and Physicists making claims like "all math is real" seem to have completely forgotten this. Also, if "electron" is just the mathematical entity that best describes the physical phenomenon with the same name, then by definition the theory "electron" is just a representation of the "empirical" electron and hence the two should not be confused. The issue with the "realness" of some mathematical construct goes beyond a mere confusion between the "representation" of a thing and "the thing itself". The discussion of the "realness" of physics concepts is a question about the *narrative* that physics tells about the world. The step from theory to narrative requires *interpretation*. Unfortunately most physicists either ignore this aspect, or pick up a philosophy book about epistemology and think they know the answer after reading that.

[@lreadlResurrected]

Math is a language, nothing more. “Reality is that which does not go away when you stop believing in it.” Philip K. Dick

[@LukeKenji]

the equations of a mathematical theory are like sentences in a language, but what they aim to describe are (real) mathematical relationships between (real) physical quantities, at least to the same extent that the word “electron” refers to real physical objects

[@Adventures_of_Marshmallow]

Maybe death is when one truly stops believing in reality..... At which point reality does go away.

[@chattywalrus8485]

You can actually stop believing in Mathematics? I understand correcting it, but saying that it doesn't exist... ?!

[@a156a2]

No, Math is just math. Even in applications of math, it is not just a language. In physics or mathematical economics or mathematical biology, if one formulated a model using some math formulae F, then the math of F predict physical or economical or biological things. However, oviously we use a language for physics, economics, biology but are we use English grammar to predict physical thing? No. Therefore, even in applications math is not just a language.

[@lreadlResurrected]

@@a156a2 It is the map, not the geography. Math describes reality, it does not create or encompass it. It is a function of our pattern-seeking brain structure. Granted it is the most accurate and comprehensive function ever, but it is wholly something humans do in their heads. If you want to characterize a brain activity as something "existing" then sure, when I think of a unicorn it exists -- as a thought in my head -- much like the number three or i. But I don't think that's the kind of "existence" that is meant here.