BBC Magic Numbers Mysterious World of Maths 1of3 720p HDTV x264 AAC MVGroup org

[@QAYWSXEDCCXYDSAEWQ]

I love this lady. She is more than just a presenter and a mathematician; she is a genius-a very good-looking genius. And I could listen to her all day.

[@jamesrgoes]

As an American, I love BBC documentaries...been watching them for decades...always have to listen carefully because of the accent😆 and always thorough and engaging

[@rjlchristie]

The BBC used to be known for requiring the highest standard of diction in the world of broadcasting in the English language. It still sets the standard, yet you make it sound as if they aren't doing it right.

[@jamesrgoes]

@@rjlchristie no, I was merely saying that although it is English, a British accent and dialog can sometimes seem like a more foreign language if I try to multi-task while listening 😆

[@Call-me-Ishmael]

Then you will love the BBC Radio 4 programme The Curious Cases of Rutherford & Fry.

[@snowfolk]

For the average person, this is perhaps the best series ever produced depicting the origins, foundations, and beauty of mathematics. It is truly wonderful.

[@Veggamattic]

For someone more than average mathematically...it's boring.

[@snowfolk]

@Fried Bananas Thank you for sharing your feelings and be aware that there is no need to feel guilty since many young boys fall in love with older women in their 30's who are married and have children.

[@richtmason3792]

but where did mathematics really originate? Greece?, Egypt?, China?, Persia?, any other pre-historic civilisation or does the beeb only have enough funds to employ a gcse history teacher whose bored with the national curriculum?

[@snowfolk]

@@richtmason3792 Read "A History of Mathematics" by Merzbach and Boyer...if you get through that book, then you will know more about where "mathematics really" originated than most people!

[@missionpupa]

Not as boring as you im sure. @@Veggamattic

[@MarkMiller-zm2th]

Utterly brilliant . I could listen to this lady all day.

[@tatec5]

That's Dr Hannah Fry. She has more videos on youtube for Numberphile, Ted Talks and The Royal Institution

[@thetessellater9163]

She is not a lady, which is a title - like lord - just a woman.

[@nextchannelnext8890]

@@thetessellater9163 a man's lady

[@64batsalex]

It's an american thing

[@steviebudden3397]

@@64batsalex As a Brit myself I would quite happily call her a lady - the word is used as a polite way of saying 'woman' - it's the female form of 'gentleman'.

[@ryPish]

There's something special about the combination of math, freckles and British accents

[@steffen5121]

It's Hannah Fry!

[@Steinersthresholdguardian]

I couldn't say it better

[@TMPreRaff]

and red hair...

[@ThisisJamesK]

way to make it creepy!

[@HarrySatchelWhatsThatSmell]

She's smokin' hot.

[@ileilanambingaamtheleader1154]

I am thankful because this video has taught me Dodecahedron(s). I have made many of my own dodecahedrons by printing the papers of them, writing on them, cutting the unneeded parts and sticking them together. I am happy of my own dodecahedrons thank you.

[@jedics1]

I love this format of science, I don't understand why youtube has taken 2 years to serve it up to me...I'd watch and learn way more if there was more of this kind of content.

[@rabmcnair4488]

WHat have you actually learned that is useful? Don't get me wrong I found the programme very interesting as well.

[@HonestlyHolistic]

perhaps not useful in day to day life, but it does make one think and notice patterns and get one interested in mathematics altogether, added wisdom is always useful imo, even if just on a fun or philosophical level@@rabmcnair4488

[@Teddy_Miljard_Genius_Work]

It took 6 years for me the have this in my feed 😮

[@fiona2617]

This is such a lovely introduction to the philosophy of maths!

[@digitalesklassenzimmer7278]

I just love her voice. Could listen to her all day.

[@whirledpeas3477]

Much better than looking at her 🤮

[@digitalesklassenzimmer7278]

@@whirledpeas3477 Dude that is not ok. You can have your taste for sure, but actually saying that is just rude. Also I think she is a beautiful woman and many people think this way.

[@whirledpeas3477]

@@digitalesklassenzimmer7278 so you decide what is okay, you must love North Korea 🇰🇵?

[@digitalesklassenzimmer7278]

@@whirledpeas3477 Everyone with a bit sense should realize that you should not just make rude statements about someone's appearance. You can have your opinion, that's fine, but being like this to someone who hasn't done any harm to you is just not ok. But listen: I didn't say that you are not allowed to say that. You just shouldn't do it for obvious reasons.

[@jerometaperman7102]

@@whirledpeas3477 - You're nuts. She is lovely.

[@stanleypius1912]

This is a wonderful documentary that allows and average person to understand about the vastness of Mathematics

[@dipi71]

26:13 In the background to the right, there's Carl Sagan’s book »COSMOS« in the shelf. Parts of his work here go back to ancient Greece and the Platonists as well. I recommend the TV series »Cosmos«, still a great watch. Cheers!

[@CopperCityPatriot]

Finally. A great educational documentary. But not many views as most KZbinrs are affected with ADD, and rather watch ridiculous 5 minute videos that make them an...expert.

[@theeternalgus9119]

I have ADHD lol

[@tuforu4]

​. I bet your an apostrophe.

[@danielmedina3748]

I wish I could of had her teaching in my math class, she makes it understandable. Enjoyable.

[@thetessellater9163]

Daniel, to correct your grammar, it is "...could have.." not "..could of.." if it helps.

[@Anudorini-Talah]

@@thetessellater9163 To correct your preferences of life, it is "Focus more on social aspects and topic related dues" not, trying to correct irrelevant issues compared to the current topic. Trying to accomplish perfection where no perfection can be accomplished nor is it needed to be flawless. Adapting to different ways of language while still trying to understand and comprehend the complete meaning of things. Good luck, heal well, it will help.

[@MottiShneor]

She didn't try to teach any mathematics in this video. just discuss the meta-aspects of it (a little reduced history, philosophical distinction between discovered and invented, and such). very little math was there. However, I'd still really like her to be my teacher. She's enchanting, and sexy, and red-hot interesting

[@TranslatePlease]

it makes sense that humans discover the already existing laws of maths, as we call it, and invent human systems to describe the discoveries. enjoyed watching. thank you

[@TomlinsTE]

I could watch and listen to Hannah Fry talk about anything. Even math, especially math.

[@nickjackson4293]

Maths

[@thetessellater9163]

Why do Americans abbreviate MATHEMATICS to MATH, and not MATHS ??

[@bryan__m]

@@thetessellater9163 Because it's one shorter.

[@milliosmiles5160]

OMG, three hours of Hannah Fry's voice; excuse me while I quietly melt.

[@henrytjernlund]

She must be loved at restaurants. (9:00) Waitress: "That redhead is writing on the windows again."

Haha! "Tell 'er to write the specials when she's done her 'thing'; red and green only! "..

[@vinitvsankhe]

dont worry it can be easily wiped... whiteboard markers on glass can be easily wiped with even hands and leave no marks

[@henrytjernlund]

@@vinitvsankhe You do realize that it was meant to be funny, right?

[@jimknox8720]

Henry Tjernlund he's a terrible heckler!!

[@henrytjernlund]

@@jimknox8720 I sure am.

[@sundberg39]

I think I can get my 12 year old son interested in Math this way.

[@yru435]

and girls.

[@lazaruslong697]

I think you can get a 100 year dead eunuch interested in math this way.

[@annoyed707]

@@lazaruslong697 That would be Lazarus without the long...

[@nextchannelnext8890]

GOD Will Guide

[@peterpetersen4619]

Wow, that smart woman, that red hair, that skin like marble and the eyes to sink in ... I fell in love...

[@UnimatrixOne]

you forgot her beautiful voice

[@ronniechilds2002]

I can dig it. You should check out her colleague (sorta), Dr. Holly Kreiger. She's another lovely redhead math whiz with beautiful skin.

[@danki2000daniel]

She is so beautiful and intelligent. Perfect combo!

[@dannyyo7948]

and redhead!!

[@davidwatkins204]

Inna-lect and beauty, a dangerous combination, last thing you want is a woman with a mind of her own, "these are words to live by" peace out bros.

[@watchyourtimeco1]

You ever wanna go back and delete a comment you made while drunk? Yes, that's what happened here.

[@Tethloach1]

@Mr Scratch She has some good qualities. she looks good.

[@Tethloach1]

she can make a man horny, you kind of just want her.

[@birdy369]

I longingly WISH I had the interest and fascination with math, numbers, and learning that I do now, back when I was in like 7th-9th grade! But I remind myself that it's never to late, and now more than ever there is more access to free educational material online than ever before!

[@RealQinnMalloryu4]

I have watched BBC i didcnot see this six years ago although thank goodness uploaded on KZbin

[@dmisso42]

37:50. It's more likely that we developed the basic addition/subtraction ability as an essential preservation awareness. If we see three enemies approaching and then we see only two it might be useful to be able to deduce that the third one has concealed itself ... perhaps for nefarious reasons.

[@fractalflight5752]

They didn't do her justice with the thumbnail

[@glutinousmaximus]

Teacher: "Johnny - what's five add five?" Johnny: "Err... that's ten Miss" Teacher: "That's very good Johnny! Johnny: "Very good Miss? It's bloody perfect"

[@cheesywiz9443]

WTF XD

[@TAYLORHWALL]

i roared at this! you just made my day!

[@glutinousmaximus]

@@TAYLORHWALL :0)

[@glutinousmaximus]

@@TAYLORHWALL - Actually there is a slightly naughtier one:- "Now Johnny, I saw you counting your fingers there! This time, put your hands in your pockets, and add five and five" "Err... Okay Miss" _Shuffles and fidgets for a minute_ ... Err ... That's eleven Miss" ...

[@TAYLORHWALL]

@@glutinousmaximus hahahahahahahaha!

[@owl9026]

Anybody know where is the park at 0:18?

[@priyankavinchurkar612]

Just now realised before Rene Descartes we didn't know we can definitely tell the location of point with coordinates on x-axis and y axis

[@povilastarailis6888]

"I get that there are people who really buy into this other 'realm of reality' and especially if your days and nights are spent thinking about and investigating and researching this realm - that doesn't mean that it's real." - Brian Greene. That's so true in so many different fields, starting with religion and philosophy.

[@archonofthelivinggod7091]

Everything we see and do not see except the creator and the created objects: space and what fills it planets (Earth) stars satellites (moons) nebulas galaxies all forms of life including us (humans and all forms of life on earth) quite literally come from our thoughts, those same thoughts come from a realm called the mind. Our bodies purpose is to protect the brain right to hold the brain? Well we don't at all hold onto with our hands thoughts until they become manifest through the act of creation. Before any of these objects become manifest they are only held in one place the realm of the mind. A very real realm that while appears to be only held by the brain can't be held with the hands. Just because we can't see it or hold it with our hands before the act of creation does not mean it does not exist. Like gravity or oxygen. We can't see either of them yet they do exist gravity holds us down and oxygen allows us to live and without either we would float away or suffocate. And Technically if the object exists in your mind before it exists in this world it is real. As real as the realm it came from. Why or how you might ask? Because before you see it in your hands you first see it in your mind using what some people refer to as the minds eye. -JC The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence -Nikola Tesla

[@annoyed707]

@@archonofthelivinggod7091 Ah, the ever-invisible deity that never shows up, and needs YOU to tell us about him/her/it. "space and what fills it planets (Earth) stars satellites (moons) nebulas galaxies all forms of life including us (humans and all forms of life on earth) quite literally come from our thoughts, those same thoughts come from a realm called the mind" How did the moon create tides and the impact of those tides on the geological/fossil record before there was any mind to conceive of these things? Your post is nothing more than unfalsifiable and meaningless word salad dressed up to seem profound.

[@archonofthelivinggod7091]

@@annoyed707 You know it's funny that you call what I said "word salad" because all you did was state the exact opposite of what I said. The atom was first defined in between 450 and 535 BC by a Greek philosopher named Democritus. The atom wasn't proven to exist until 2000 years later simply because people like you didn't have the instruments to prove Democrituses findings during his time. And that's a fact. Care to tell me how Democritus knew the atom existed before there was an instrument to prove it? Sir Isaac Newton claimed the atom did not exist but did believe a creator exists. Your the exact opposite of him. You believe an atom exists but you don't believe a creator can and/or does exist. It "Annoys" me that you argue against what should be considered common sense. Building blocks don't assemble themselves. You would do well to research what a (self organized) system is. All of the wisest men in history knew what a self organized system is. And they all knew the creator as the self organized system. Self organized meaning: without a creator to create said creator unless it be the one single creator in and of itself. The creator in and of itself created all things including itself without any outside intervention. So as to say the creater was and is now and always will be both; 1 and 0 True and false Real and imaginary Chicken and egg Alpha and omega Male and female Positive and negative Symmetrical and asymmetrical And I'm sure you know where this is going. All things we see do come from human thoughts. Except any and all forms of life and the Earth and space along with whatever fills it. We are... along with all other things both living and not that arent created by human thoughts, thoughts made manifest by the only one authentic binary force know as "God" or the creator. Jesus christ Sir Isaac Newton Nikola Tesla Albert Einstein Buckminster Fuller Earnest Rutherford And the list goes on. Every one of these men knew the very words I'm speaking now. Whether or not their faith was as solid as the philosopher stone. A creator exists whether or not said creator makes an appearance.

[@archonofthelivinggod7091]

@@annoyed707 And to answer your question. The creator has existed since the beginning of time. In fact the creator is responsible for time. So if there is any reason our universe is shaped the way that it is. It's because the creator made it so. I wasn't saying humans created the universe. I said the creator did. I said that any and all human creations came from the realm of the mind. I hope this makes sense. If it was my lack of punctuation that confused you than for that I apologise. I will start addressing proper punctuation more effectively.

[@charlesdacosta2446]

"Mathematics" - man made or ... Patterns are all around us. They are the relationships that exists in the universe. Math is just the way these patterns / relationships are described. We sense a pattern / relationship, explain it to each other via what we call mathematics. So, "Mathematics" is how we communicate about the patterns and relationships. As we discover patterns and relationships, mathematics is unfolding like words to a poet or linguist, one who fines a new way to express themself! Because of logic, our ability to imagine and our desires: mathematics, like thoughts, may predict unknown patterns and relationships. All this is just to say: the universe doesn't "speak mathematically;" nor are we the creators of mathematics. Instead we discover and create "patterns and relationships." And we explore and explain them in mathematical terms.

[@vicbonett7772]

Why did we start looking at patterns and relationships ?

[@charlesdacosta2446]

@@vicbonett7772 animals in general are curious, and being driven by desire we seek satisfaction. So what is desire driving us to ... The mind naturally sees patterns and relationships. From them we are guided to potential forefillment, i.e. desire satisfied, may be. It could be argued that, we started looking for patterns and relationships because of the search for food, safety and water.

[@mantoniol24]

The question is whether we created math or has math always been there and we are discovering it.

[@riggs20]

@@mantoniol24 I'd say it has always been there. But the question is, what is "it." I believe that math itself does not really exist. It is simply our way of trying to understand the characteristics and logic of the universe.

[@michaelmoore8680]

@@charlesdacosta2446 It's the mind of the predator to look for patterns and relationships, to find what stands out or doesn't belong, in the search for food...... or prey. In the long hours of searching for prey, humans discovered their fascination for patterns and developed the language of mathematics to describe them, and copy them, for his/her own needs and/or uses.

[@KevinS3928]

Intelligent, conversationalist, beautiful, lovely voice, humorous, wonderfully freckled, and adventurous, the only thing preventing you from being the perfect woman is you're not a redhead... Oh, wait, you actually are one! As I said, literally perfect! Try and convince me otherwise.

[@marktime9235]

Humans invented language in order to communicate ideas and descriptions, I see Maths in the exactly the same way ie a language to better describe the world and the universe.

[@RebelsInc969]

And to leave messages in the construction of the buildings

[@MottiShneor]

But that could not be done, unless the "world and universe" were yielding... unless our experiences (pre-described) were expressing so much symmetry and rules.

[@myescape607]

@@MottiShneor i get that they r expressing so many rules and symmetry and patterns, but I feel like those patterns are there so that the things we see today look the way they are, and constant rates need to be made otherwise how will be see the same thing. Otherwise how can we have multiple trees looking similar, flowers, anything else. There is a particular structure that we see (that is constant) that helps us form everyrhing we see today, created naturally but because of the mathematical side of the human mind we see these patterns too but the way we express it is through mathematical symbols and ideas.

[@myescape607]

@@MottiShneor almost like in English you have personification. U see something doing something but as humans, we have seen It and have developed language over the years and we can describe it in a human context.

[@KipIngram]

That was really excellent, Dr. Fry.

[@vivablasfemia7604]

Ontological Mathematics answer's everything in this documentary. There are some great books written on this topic. For example, see the: ''Truth series by Dr. Thomas Stark'' or ''Ontological Mathematics for the Curious: An Introduction to Ontological Thinking by Dr. Cody Newman'' is also a great read. :)

[@jojomerou4075]

Or Why Beauty Is Truth: A History of Symmetry by Ian Stewart.

[@nextchannelnext8890]

Are you both saying the beautiful host is misleading her followers? Maybe?

[@vivablasfemia7604]

@@nextchannelnext8890 No, The books I suggested explain everything where she talks about in this documentary.

[@nextchannelnext8890]

@@vivablasfemia7604 hmmm ... brb

[@2795731]

I'm definitely in love with Hannah Fry

[@conspiraciesarejustgreatst2059]

Yup. Me too

[@rattlesnakz9716]

Haha I was opening my pringles and this comment caught my eye ... I actually laughed pretty hard Was funny that pal

[@octaviusvanzandt3695]

If you watch her many videos -- she often hides her ring with her other hand. She might be married -- but she is open to options ;) (I wrote this above, but it might fit better under your comment ;) )

[@Stefan-jk5gx]

@@octaviusvanzandt3695 simp

[@garrick3727]

I was going to say that I wish I had a maths teacher like Hannah Fry, but then I realized that I would never pay any attention to the actual maths.

[@IslandHermit]

Relationships are discovered. Notation, algorithms and techniques are invented.

[@michaelxz1305]

yes exactly, this is the problem with the world - everything is either - or.. false choices... what was invented was simply the language describing these relationships

[@auniversa]

We are all supporting in various different ways from the negative and or positive and their combinations by comparing the binary nature of energy itself.

[@auniversa]

@Roger Loquitur The number it self always, only when the symbol and definition of the symbol is manipulated.

[@M4rtingale]

Can we take a moment to recognize the AMAZING CAMERA WORK?!?!

[@riggs20]

I wish I could be as enthusiastic about, well, anything as this lady is about math. Maybe cheese. I might be able to work up this amount of enthusiasm over cheese.

[@bettyswollocks1670]

maths

[@riggs20]

@@bettyswollocks1670 Brits call it maths, Americans call it math. Look it up. There's a whole hubbub about it online and even on YT.

[@bettyswollocks1670]

@@riggs20 never fails

[@annoyed707]

Something about a sketch set in a cheese shop...

[@helenchelmicka]

😅😅 Hannah Fry goes *crazy* over maths in all her interviews, podcasts etc especially fluid dynamics which she's a professor of

[@Thallod]

Watching this girl cut up a ball painted to look like Earth to explain Riemann sums was the start of one of the best mushroom trips ever! Sooo nice

[@lessd685]

I have always considered Beethoven to be a fantastic genius of a mathematician, even more so than a musician for he wrote his greatest piece after he was tone deaf. He must have known how the numbers fit together.

[@shuepsx652]

He "listened" by perceiving the vibrations through contact instead of using his ears. Maybe he was aware of the mathematical patterns within music as well, either way extremely impressive.

[@DurokSubaka]

In the beginning we discovered the relationships between the objects that make up the universe, we invented mathematics as a language to describe these relationships. The very same statement can be applied to music, we discovered music within our minds and hearts, the notes on the pages are the language we invented to describe the music.

[@richarddeese1991]

I cannot recall a time when I disliked math. Studies, yes. Homework, yes. Math, no. I understand that a lot of what Plato said is clearly mystical religiosity. But it does not follow that all math is therefore invented. In fact, I believe that the place Plato spoke of, where mathematical objects exist is simply this: the sentient mind. They exist there in potentiality, and they exist in the universe itself in potentiality, as well. That 'place' is just the realm of the possible. There are, without doubt, mathematical properties built into the fabric and very existence of the universe; the speed of light in a vacuum; the charges of the electron & of the quark; the Planck length, time & mass, etc. These are all, inescapably mathematical, whether you like Plato's ideas or not. What we "discover" is the quantities & relationships in the universe itself; what we "invent" is what to call them & what to do with them. We are like children watching a game they don't understand, which has rules they also don't understand. What we do is figure out the rules. That's what we're discovering: what the rules are, whether they ever happen in objective reality (whatever that is!) is secondary to the fact that they are rules. They are, at least possibilities. That's all it is. No mystery; no religion involved. Now, that wasn't so hard, was it? Rikki Tikki.

[@davidwhitmer8295]

Eloquently said, sir.

[@mantoniol24]

Who made the rules?

[@craftchrome1618]

The beauty of mathematics is unbounded

[@kurtiserikson7334]

Math is the abstract representation of patterns in nature which encompasses both quantities and their relationships. It started with simple observations like two rocks are more than one. Four rocks are twice as many as two. Humans developed language and writing to express these relationships and this evolved over time. I don't see a conflict here. I think people sometimes become overawed by abstractions and mix up semantic arguments for substantive ones.

[@777lucifero]

exactly. I hate when almost everyone speaks of maths (or any other subject) as something abstract that explains to US something, when it's just some way that we have devised to describe and communicate the reality/matter/patterns/etc we see around us. Like at the beginning she says ''we look for math deep inside our brain''. No we don't, we try to understand how the brain works, and we can attempt to describe and communicate our findings by expressing them in different modes. We can do that mathematically (with numbers, equations, etc), literally (with words), chemically (by explaining the chemical processes/etc), and such. It is not that literature or mathematics or chemistry explains to US something, it's the other way around. I hate this angle that 99% of lecturers, videos, books, etc take.

[@richarddeese1991]

Amen! No one would ever say, "Did you invent your amazing verbal description of a tree, or just discover it?" The very question makes no sense. 3 (and therefore any other quantity!) clearly existed before humans, we just invented the language called math that's so good at describing nature's patterns (because it's a PART of nature's patterns! Way too much is made over Platonism. Rikki Tikki.

[@tjthreadgood818]

Mathematics is a study of patterns by humans. The study is invention, the patterns are discovered. The patterns ‘exist’ whether humans discover them or not. Some, myself included, like MIT physicist Max Tegmark, suspect that these patterns are foundational, as in the foundations of the ‘physical’ world. Because (abstract) patterns exist independently of our physical world, e.g. pi is (IS!) precisely the same whether the world exists or not, patterns therefore provide a possible foundation for all of existence. Some worry that this contradicts religious principles, but it does so no more than other ideas about how the world works. Furthermore, since abstract pattern, our limited human studies not withstanding, is both ultimately infinitely infinite, and “perfect”, characteristics usually attributed to deity, perhaps it is no wonder the Pythagoreans saw it as a religion.

[@mantoniol24]

@@tjthreadgood818 yes to everything you said.

[@omikronweapon]

@@tjthreadgood818 you only really have to look at crystals (salt being a common example) to realise there is some fundamental shapes that govern the shapes in the macroscopic world. Most materials are simply too complex to easily recognise that. I don't see them as perfect in the real world though, as they almost always have flaws and too complex shapes. Attributing this to deities, seems to me more a point of lack of understanding at that time, than simply the shapes. Stars (and other natural phenomenon) were seen as deities at one time. Not so much because they were perfect, but inexplicable. I'm actually a little surprised at Pythagoreans (and others) not spotting the difference between the abstract versions made by human hands, and the examples found in nature. Which approximate some shapes, and are governed by them, but almost never are perfect. So, in a way, the greek mathematicians were able to make shapes more perfect than those found in nature, and thus improving upon creation? It seems to be contradictory to their beliefs. All that doesn't take away from that being intriguing though.

[@powelllucas4724]

This lady asks the question: How do we know these maths work? From my point of view I just look at the buildings behind her. They're still standing because some engineer was able to calculate the loads and stresses that would have to be overcome if the building was to serve the purpose for which it was being constructed.

[@TheBukaj150]

@11:09 fun fact the half circular divisions in between the segments are actually called involute of circle that is the only shape in geometry that is capable of being stacked inside a circle or a spiral

[@sawaria123]

Beautiful presentation. Just wow. Seen all the series. Wonderful presentation. Mine is 1000th comment. 999 also done by me.

[@Manifestivemedia]

It's amazing that to hear about the most beautiful structures in nature from someone who is clearly one of the most beautiful forms nature has manifested on the visual spectrum.

[@davidvegabravo1579]

And sound spectrum.

[@blumbergmusic]

Great content. Thanks Oscar for had posted it on YouTUBE.

[@loughkb]

Holy crap! That gimble system on the camera during that roller coaster ride was amazing! That camera turned and rotated on every axis and I could only just make out the one horizontal rod it was riding on. I'd love to see how that thing is built. Ok, on to the rest of the show.

[@livinggreen]

I think that might be a 360 degree camera and the rotation is digital, possibly edited that way after the fact.

[@COZYTW]

50:23 >Euler's Formula comes out like 3 times >Logarithm product rules But they're not even the active component in calculating the differential equations of air flow (mildly triggered)

[@KipIngram]

I find it very interesting that Hanna's right brain lights up when she thinks about math. But she *is* a mathematician - she's very very skilled at math, and may have made it "part of her" in a way that allows her to engage her "creativity engines" when working with math. I don't think it's a "given" at all that everyone's right brain would light up in response to math. One of my "high skills" was doing digital logic design back in the late 1980's and 1990's - I was very good at it, and could do large amounts of it "in my head" before I ever started to right anything down. I wonder if my right brain would have lit up when doing that. It could be that becoming expert in some field actually MEANS "getting your right brain in on the game," so that you can just "flow the stuff." BTW, I *absolutely love* Hanna's voice. Just fabulous. :-)

[@JamesJoyce12]

have you ever questioned what "lights up" actually means - we can measure something but have no idea how it relates to actual thinking

[@HonestlyHolistic]

I mean in the video they did mention that it's the same for most people on the experiment right?

[@geraldsnodd]

I came from the up and atom video. Nice and entertaining documentary. 😀

[@clearz3600]

I knew I was finally a computer programmer when I realized there was nothing special about the number system I used. I knew I was finally a mathematician when I realized there was nothing special about the symbols themselves. There is an abstract idea of a pencil separate from the physical object, just as numbers have an essential quality separate from their usage. Mathematical objects just have a lot less entropy than something like a pencil. It doesn't surprise me that we see these patterns in biology since things like the number of petals on a flower are just an expression of the highly compressed information stored on a lot simpler structure called DNA. A lot of time this has to do with nature 'liking' to minimize energy usage. It could also have something to do with building 2-dimensional objects in a 3d world.

[@Aguamarina38]

I wonder the detailed stand point about Math & Fibonacci numbers series.

[@timpreston459]

These programs are not aimed at the Know it All’s for after all they know it all. They are aimed at intelligent ordinary people who are interested to learn more and as such do an excellent job. Thank you BBC for occasionally getting it right.

[@smallsignals]

I love her voice so much.

[@thomass.4674]

I love math as an adult! the tragedy is that the potential interest in math that is in all of us is supressed by math teachers from whom roughly 90% suck.

[@estebancarrasco5823]

thanks for uploading this

[@stevenhernandez8966]

Math(s) is there as the superstructure behind our universe. The most fundamental concept of math is "1" or "wholeness" I think, and I think "MATH" singular is more precise the term. I think math, like the Mandelbrot, is contiguous--all connected--one thing. But to describe math as plural is to give math a godlike treatment, as we call God Elohim (a plural Hebrew word used to describe one thing) and that is not so bad, because math is very close to the sacred. How each culture describes, explores and exploits math(s) (or simply enjoys them) says a lot about their pursuit of noble, abstract ideas, which is a function of humanity. Math is beautiful! Great video.

[@machshevnik]

Its full proper name is Mathematics which ends in 's'.

[@yadali1381]

Invention vs Discovery brings us back to perspective. If it were invented, there was a possibility of its existence; therefore, if it is invented, it is also discovered.

[@franmorrison1080]

originalgospel.blog

[@smithgeorge5429]

As a child I love to stare at the sun with my eyes closed and would often go into states of trance and would see mathematical formulas scrolling around in 3d space just like in the movie the Matrix, only this one was in the late 60s, so maybe it is a part of the fabric that has our world is made of.

[@bruceblake9942]

Note that Hannah pronounces it "maths", the correct abbreviation of the plural word mathematics. Also, just like maths, physics is plural. [Aussie in BC]

[@alrisan71]

@@CPLWeeks data comes from the latin word data and it is plural, the singular version is datum. Cheers.

[@PLecN]

Is 'mathematics' plural? If so, what exactly is one mathematic?

[@MsSonali1980]

@@PLecN Pants, glasses etc are also only in plural, while Messias only exist in singular. But I think it comes more from the context "the field of mathematics" rather than being a plural form; like when I say I study Genetics, I can't say "Genetic". The field of Physics etc.

[@robwebb6936]

21:50 Small pedantic correction, no the Platonic solids are not the only objects where every side is the same shape. There's the Kepler-Poinsot solids www.software3d.com/Kepler.php Or if we restrict ourselves to convex polyhedra, there's the Catalan solids, www.software3d.com/Archimedean.php duals of the Archimedean solids. Any deltahedron would also suffice, eg the Snub Disphenoid www.software3d.com/J84.php Also the dual of any prism, such as the pentagonal dipyramid www.software3d.com/Dipyramid5.php or the dual of any antiprism, such as the pentagonal deltohedron www.software3d.com/Delto5.php The Platonic solids are the regular convex polyhedra. To be regular, all faces must be the same regular polygon, AND all vertices must be surrounded in the same regular way. That is, the cross-section through any vertex must also give a regular polygon, and all must give the same regular polygon.

[@gunslinger11bravo]

Oh Hannah, model like beauty, genius level intelligence and so far out of my league she might as well be on another planet

[@jason1440]

Oh she could only have like 5 or 6 kids with those hips.

[@BradCozine]

@@jason1440 Looks like someone is trying to multiply.

[@dan43544911]

@Peter Lustig yes, narrating a bbc documentary makes you pretty basic 😏

[@annoyed707]

@@BradCozine Exponentially.

[@nigelbenn4642]

Always surprised at how close objective and subjective topics crossover, the further and deeper you delve into science and mathematics the more it begins to be Philosophy and Religion, and vice versa of course.

[@tejloro]

Where are the lakes/mounds (with paths) she keeps walking on ?

[@dickhead8775]

I think it might be the Garden of Cosmic Speculation in Scotland.

[@nigelnix1]

Tellytubby land

[@MrUrsi05]

1 minute 48 seconds and I am in love with this woman. Gorgeous redhead who is a maths genius... can't beat that in my book

[@valmarsiglia]

02:14 - So Agent Mulder retired and became a mathematician. Makes sense.

[@ellenmarch3095]

Lmao!

[@orwamefleh2772]

thank you so much such a brilliant show !

[@johnrtrucker]

I think the universe is in us as well as us being the universe so mathematics in its pure unwritten form is the universe but by writing out numbers and equations is like deciphering hieroglyphics and translating that into a language we can understand

[@pfreddyp]

I agree. Neither invented now discovered. A hunter gatherer or MLB outfielder knows where the projectile is going to land even if neither of them took a calculus course. As with Newton and calculus it would appear to me that maths are innate in the way we think and perceive our environment. So mathematical symbols are a means to articulate what the brain was doing anyway, whether we paid attention to it or not.

[@johnrtrucker]

@@pfreddyp in a weird way "the universe we live in is a simulation like the matrix" is plausible looking at it purely from a mathematical standpoint because it's all information ones and zeros if you will running calculations from how planets orbit to how our DNA replicates and quantum fluctuations keeps us on our toes lol

[@newtonjin]

Does anyone know the name of the piano piece at 0:00 mark? Thank you so much.

[@omikronweapon]

The credits in the description claim "Hidden in the Clouds" is used in the video. It's not the piece at the beginning, but it sounds similar in style, so possibly by the same artist. In any case, you might like the music on the album. www.universalproductionmusic.com/es-lae/discover/albums/15726/Momentum-and-Meaning

[@MRayner59]

The seething hatred in the comments (variously for women, maths, and/or the BBC) is really quite astonishing.

[@make.and.believe]

And the various collective shrug at the misuse of plurality (it's Math - short for Mathematics) is equally as astonishing. It's not like you're ignorant, you're aware and do it anyway.

[@make.and.believe]

That (the below for some reason KZbin?) being said, the BBC and Women are awesome things.

[@eminence_]

It's like all the crazy people on KZbin suddenly decided to comment on this video.

[@terryrobinson9549]

@@make.and.believe Wrong, the Commonwealth Nations such as UK, NZ, Australia, South Africa all say "Maths".

[@leeharris4813]

@@make.and.believe We (not just the UK, so dial in your ethnocentric neck) prefer maths; mathematics is plural because it covers many disciplines, maths is simply short for that and does not denote a lack of plurality, so why drop the 'S'?

[@aligator7181]

2021's Biggest breakthrough in Mathematics. String theorist Brian Greene was looking at this problem for all his life but nothing clicked. Well somebody had to do it, so I stepped up the plate, here it is, hot off the presses : We can pair every positive floating point number using up only about 20% of the integers Algorithm #1 : Convert a float with a zero whole part into an integer 1. Reverse the character sequence representing this float 2. Remove the decimal point to obtain the desired integer Example : Convert the float 0.002743 into its integer equivalent 1. Reverse the float string to obtain 347200.0 2. Remove the decimal point to obtain the integer 3472000 3. Note : All corresponding integers will be terminated by the character “0” Algorithm #2 : Convert a float with a non-zero whole part into an integer 1. Count the number of whole digits or NWD (those preceding the decimal point ) 2. Append a number of “0” digits equal to NWD to the float. 3. Append a digit “1” to the resulting float 4. Remove the decimal point to obtain the desired integer Example : Convert the float 1230.0098 into its integer equivalent 1. Count the number of whole digits : NWD = 4 2. Append NWD = 4 “0” digits to obtain 1230.00980000 3. Append a digit “1” to obtain 1230.009800001 4. Remove the decimal point : this gives us the final integer of 1230009800001 Note : We append a digit “1” to distinguish the integers derived from floats with non-zero whole parts from integers generated by floats with zero whole parts . This can be done for every float [whole.fraction] where whole > 0 !!! AMAZING!!! We just came up with a scheme which pairs each positive float with a positive integer. Note : .

[@charis6584]

I just got sent here from my math teacher 💀

[@alfie_cowell09]

Omfg mine did half an hour ago

[@aggieledwell]

same!!! 8th?

[@limoncello3488]

@@aggieledwell you are in fact, in my math class

[@nikolaki]

Mvgroup , now that's a name I haven't come across in years!

[@bryantherocker]

HUMANS DISCOVERED THE CONCEPTS AND IDEAS OF MATHS. THEN INVENTED THE SYMBOLS AND LANGUAGE OF IT TO MAKE IT MORE RELATABLE TO US HUMANS.

[@nextchannelnext8890]

Math and Mindfulness Come From PERFECTION (SPIRIT) Alive and Active

[@shakesrear7850]

But maths itself was always there else there would have been nothing to discover, perhaps no discoverer either.

[@ronniesthedon5034]

how did they film this crazy turn of camera and rollercoaster at around 3:30? its awesome.

[@BirdBrain0815]

I kinda wonder why it's so hard to think that there are patterns in the real world that we discover and maths is the language we invent to express what we find, at the same time. Of course there is a relationship between what you discover and how you describe it, but that's true for natural languages, too. The words you use influence the way you think about things. 2 + 3 is only 5 if you're thinking in a decimal system. Maybe irrational numbers wouldn't be special, if we didn't. Physical laws are real, reality is real. Once you start discovering natural laws and describe them, you start finding them all over the place, surprise, surprise. And still mathematics are a system to model reality in our heads, just like anything else we understand. Because the only reality is out there. As soon as we start thinking about stuff, what we deal with is a model of reality in our heads. But oh well.

[@mantoniol24]

How do you prove reality is real and not some perfectly put program? I think thats really what the video is about

[@derekofbaltimore]

At 18:30 they play a stringed song that I think I recognize from Waking Life. What song is it?

[@izzyrjones]

It's called 'Summer Breeze' written by James Woodhall and was commissioned for the show. It was performed by Intermezzo Music.

[@SouravBiswas-hw1om]

Never knew Madhuri Dixit is a Mathematician, wow!

[@deezynar]

If you pick up some objects, then pick up some more, you just did addition. If you give a name to each group of objects, and remember what groups combined with other groups give you an even bigger group that you have a name for, you can use that information in the future. All you have done is come up with names for those groups, and remembered the combinations. That is what arithmetic is, just providing names for things, and remembering the results of what you discover when you combine them in some way. Algebra is realizing that you can work things out with arithmetic by going backwards. Geometry and trigonometry are playing with shapes, noticing the results and remembering them. Once you get used to the things you've figured out, you can apply the methods to learning about the real world. The real world is made up of stuff. Does that mean the world is made of math? I have words to describe things in the world, the world is not made of words even though when I look at everything, there's a word in my mind for each thing, or I make one up. I take a stick, rub it on a flat rock until it is flat and straight. I use a flint to carve marks on one of its edges that are all spaced evenly. I just made a ruler. I can start to measure things with my ruler. The things are not any different after I measure them. It's just that now I feel better because I have a name for the measurement I took of it. I can make a disc and put marks on it like I did with my ruler. I now have a protractor to measure angles. A stick with a string in the middle, strings at both ends that each hold a disc can be used to see if an object put on the left disc will balance the object on the right disc. I can take rocks and rub one on a rough rock until enough of it has come off so it balances the other. I can put both of them on the right disc and rub another rock until it balances with them. I have a scale to see how hard things want to be on the ground. The universe did not make my ruler, protractor, or scale. I could have made my marks a bit further apart, or used rocks that were slightly bigger for my scale. They work either way because I'm just matching an object with another. How could you have a universe and not be able to match things up together?

[@iflyme]

Math is the language of Truth, the language of God -- or at least our best shot at it so far.

[@nextchannelnext8890]

GOD is ONE EXPONENTIATION GOODNESS, PERFECTION (SPIRIT)

[@StrawHat6]

It's all related to the hierarchy of energy exchange. Maths are the reaction to energy as it fractalizes throughout the universe (Most likely beginning with the inherent lattice of the underlying fabric). It's also the system we've named and categorized to understand this process. It is both an invention, and a discovery. We discovered the world, but we invented the language to talk about it. It's probably even the explanation to abiogenesis. If matter can't handle energy exchange, it is deconstructed and reused. If it can survive, then it continues on in a more complex form. I'm sure the implication to maths is clear (and hopefully the expansion of what natural selection is as well).

[@plhebel1]

I love the golden ratio,,, Can't wait to see where we will journey to ,,, Please keep your arms in the ride at all times and remain seated and enjoy the ride,, I know I will.

[@heliocardoso3884]

The ancient Egyptians were already aware of Maths way before the Greeks. The Maths are all over the ancient pyramids and other buildings in ancient Egypt. There's a theory that assumes the ancient Egyptians discovered/invented the a feasible and more accurate unit of measure which we now call Metre, which many other measures the derived from. Apparently the Egyptians might have discovered the Metre by measuring the constant size of drops of water from the river Nile. It is very much known that Pythagoras, Plato, Euclid and others did visit ancient Egypt at some point and probably took back (and probably claimed for themselves) a lot of new info back to Greece

[@raremathbooks5989]

If you like math, follow us on instagram. instagram.com/raremathbooks/

[@leonardobrunorende5363]

With "such" a teacher... would have loved math classes!

[@robertgriffin6049]

we invent the symbology and apply it to what we discover

[@davidchojnacki2996]

Agreed. It is quite ridiculous and arrogant to think humans invented math

[@davidchojnacki2996]

Even so called "invented imaginary numbers" are only tools to help explain the discovery of that which already exists

[@robertgriffin6049]

@Roger Loquitur The human race F*ckwit

[@stephengayda5202]

33:28 I am curious if the areas for maths in the brain can be compared against an athlete's mental calculation needed to hit a moving target. The need to calculate parabolic arch, gravity pull on a projectile, wind, and the target's movement, do they relate to doing ballistic math on the fly? Does a sharpshooter calculating a shot or a javelin thrower trying to kill dinner show up on similar fMRI? Does practical application of math correlate to abstract paper math?

[@eloujtimereaver4504]

"This is not a maths lecture" -Hannah What...?! Where am I? What is happening?!

[@BetWWait]

Hi. On the issue of infinity, where will the guest in room infinity go?

[@Infernal07]

Very well made documentary, but i am bothered by the misinterpretation regarding USING imaginary numbers. There are many many fields of mathematics that use the 2nd dimension of the number line (the up-down part), and that mathematics is the same as the mathematics of imaginary numbers. But the scope is viewed backwards, and should be : " mathematics with 2nd dimension on the number line is the general scope, and mathematics using imaginary numbers is a special case of that scope where the unit for up-down has the special property of i*i=--1". In other words, if mathematics involving imaginary numbers does not use the property i*i=-1, it is mathematics of Two-dimensional space.

[@andrewdias2690]

Hannah did address what you are talking about. The "two-dimensional space" you refer to is the Cartesian plane. This is distinctly different from the complex plane (with imaginary numbers in one axis). It's not so much that the Cartesian plane is the "general scope" (or usual case, as you stated) and the complex plane is the "special case." They are really describing two different things. You can view the complex plane as the "full" representation of the number line, whereas the Cartesian plane is used to represent relations between variables.

[@ProperLogicalDebate]

Where is that terrain we see at 38:07 & elsewhere?

[@thetawaves48]

a more relevant question is who or what could "discover" math but a conscious mind?

[@aaronshirk2530]

A delightfully imaginative documentary. Maths as a discovery or an invention. As someone who actually likes mathematical ideas and ideals, I decided to give this a try. The question I finally focused on, was the issue of the imaginary numbers. This was the bit of evidence that convinced me that maths are a discovery the we invented a language around. Things such as the Fibonacci scale, actually exist in the natural world without the invention of the language to understand it, therefore, maths exist as a real thing to deal with, but man has a need to understand and prove, and play with things he likes. Enter the general creation of the language of mathematics. Zero/0, for example, is nothing more than a word/symbol, to describe the idea/reality of nothing. Negative numbers are a construct used as an aid to help us understand the universe, such as wave events and the like. I'm not sure, but I have a difficult time understanding why this isn't apparent to anyone who looks at mathematics. I am not a mathematician, just someone who enjoys and loves to play with math.

[@kchausheva]

That wink at 8:43

[@grantadamson3478]

Yep she has me in the palm of her hand.

[@MegaBanne]

I'm melting under her amazingness O.O

[@BPantherPink]

Kristina Chausheva Naughty, naughty girl... you 😝😘😍😉 ‼️

[@mustavogaia2655]

@@MegaBanne O.~

[@outsidethepyramid]

it's cringe worthy

[@brianmclaughlin5764]

Can I drop a question in here? It appears I'm by nature the opposite end of the spectrum existentially. I function well with geometry, but am totally allergic to all other higher mathematical endeavors. I'm one of the few to exit high school and complete 6 years of college with NO math classes. It helped that I was off the chart with my SATs in all other catagories. And I had to go to war to make that happen. While I could properly draft out a spiral staircase in perspective, basic algebra was always 100% a complete brickwall for me. While I had a fairly accomplished career as an illustrator/graphic designer, I always wondered WHY I had this cognitive deadzone. Any input from viewers?

[@omikronweapon]

I'm just spitballing here, out of own experience, but not based on much more than that. My more creative friends seem to have an aversion to the more exact studies. While I, value precision a lot, but (feel I) do worse at being creative. I always felt it's an inherent push and pull system. I can readily imagine people who want to be creative, dislike being forced to think in set boundaries. If someone wants to paint, dance, express themselves, why would they choose to sit down and memorise algebraic rules? It's almost completely opposite. A teacher saying "This is everything there is. This is truth, and no-one can change that or go beyond these rules". I hypothesize it probably is largely determined at birth or in early years. If your brain is actually better at maths, you'll probably enjoy it more, because it comes easy to you. A child gets praised for that, feels good, and does more of it. Inversely, if you can draw well, you'll probably be more inclined to keep thát up. Partly because of the way of least resistance, and positive reinforcement. (Most likely it's a lot more intricate than that, but then we'd be here all day..) I think the paradox lies in the mystique of the things that dón't come easy to someone. Maths is seen as magic by people that aren't good at it. But likewise, beautiful art is seen as impossible to do for people who aren't good at thát. Forgetting that both are skills that anyone can learn (to varying degrees) but it might take significant effort. Most people seem to be more content just claiming "Í could never do that" and even trying to find some physical reason to not feel guilty about not making the attempt. (Which, in the greater scheme of things is pointless, as people are free to do or not do anything they want) With respect, "I am totally allergic" falls into that category for me. It's (obviously) a metaphor, unless you áctually get sick from attempting maths. Which could be interesting it inself... I say that without any judgment. You're free to dislike maths, or never even attempt it at all. (I haven't kept it up after highschool myself unfortunately) I do wonder what your aversion áctually is. Lack of results? Confusion at even trying? Perhaps your brain is just very bad at remembering things, like times-tables. In the end, what I think is important: if you wánt to learn maths, you cán. It might just be quite hard for you. And if you don't care or need it, why worry about not being able to do it? Personally, I finished the highest level of maths at my highschool, but I remember a few tests where I honestly had to hold back tears of frustration, where I just couldn't figure out what I was doing wrong. I'm sure Hannah Fry had difficulties along the way as well. Though perhaps, simply not as many as you or I. It's the hidden price we áll have to pay for our skills. Hidden because other people only see the results. Not the years of struggling to get to that level. If yóu showed me yóur illustrations, I'd probably be amazed at the technical skill, as well as the creativity. Now, in my 30's I've learned I cán become as good as you are, I just know I don't have enough passion for it to put in the needed time and effort. Comes down to choice mostly. Aside from some natural talent that might make it easier to stick with it.

[@midi510]

At around 5:30 Hannah says that if pencils had never been invented, then the idea of a pencil wouldn't exist. I totally disagree. The idea or concept of everything that might possibly ever exist, already exists in a sort of latent abstraction. I've invented or created a lot of things (mostly specialty tooling) that were made, but also many that I've designed that weren't made. The designs were always there in potential, then at some point in time, I drew them out and held and set them in consciousness, but they still weren't physical. Something always exists to begin with. There are three aspects of a thing: the concept or idea of it, which might or might not be held at any given time by a conscious mind; the actual material thing; and a label, which is in practice many various labels as in different languages or popular vs. technical. Some people believe that everything comes from nothing or zero, but nothing can't exist. If it did, it would be something. Plus, if there ever was a state where nothing, or no thing existed, there would never be anything and no one tho consider the issue. If there ever was a state of nothingness, there wouldn't be anything to spawn any change of state - like Newton's first law. My assertion is that everything comes from one. If one is; completely preceding and unaffected by the whole time thing, then the concept of 'not one" bears it's teeth and we have two - "one" and "not one" - binary. From one and two, we get three, etc. The process also lends itself to the implications of fractions, negative numbers, etc. Edit: 0 is a symbol, a placeholder for where there is no number. It's the antithesis of every number. If you have 0 apples in your hand, it is fundamentally different than any other number of apples you might have. The idea or concept of nothing is just a construct of our imaginations. Nothing simply doesn't exist.

[@Tarteh]

Everything that can be known, can be known now.

[@midi510]

@@Tarteh Now is all that exists. The past and the future are constructs of our imaginations. That doesn't make them bad, they are a feature of being human. They just need to be seen in the correct light. They certainly aren't the real living present. Too bad so many people don't know the difference and spend most of their lives in the past and future. Reality is where it's at. It's where our source is. I think there might be a "fading away" of the present neurologically as it's replaced with the "new" present - like a computer monitor refresh - that gives us the impression of time. I've tossed the idea of a timeline as a primary contest for my life. I exist in the present and the nature of the present is to change. When I look "back", I'm creating images of what was once the present based on how I was changed by that present. Looking forward is projecting what we believe will happen, based on our knowledge that the present changes and how we evolve through the "fading away" process. I don't think this is incompatible with Relativity and spacetime. It's more of a consciousness study.

[@midi510]

@Floyd I've seen things that way since I was a little kid. Like it's just a matter of shining the light of our consciousness into a darkness. It's all there in the infinite chaos. Through consciousness, we create order. Chaos and order are like many other dualities like General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, analog and digital, Yin and Yang.

[@Tarteh]

@@midi510 I agree. Which makes you wonder how different we would've turned out had we made discoveries thousands of years prior. The ancient Egyptians may have had intricate knowledge of gravity and general relativity. It's crazy to think that whatever discovery or invention is ever found/created could've been done so just seconds after the creation of the Universe.

[@midi510]

@@Tarteh I'd say the evolution of consciousness and the way knowledge builds upon knowledge implies a progression, though, unless revelation is at work. Even in that case, in my experience, details and how to integrate the new knowledge into one's life are an active intellectual process. I also believe that consciousness is fundamental rather than emergent. I think that our brains and nervous systems allow us to experience consciousness somewhat like a radio translates EMF rather than creating consciousness. Lately, I've been thinking "pure" consciousness is the fundamental field that is excited to "birth" the fundamental particles, making the material universe a sort of frozen representation of consciousness. Modern physicists say that the particles of the standard model have their own associated fields, but my intuition is that it's a single fundamental field that is excited in different ways that gives rise to the different particles. Edit: By "evolution of consciousness" I didn't mean that consciousness itself evolved, but how consciousness evolves in sentient beings.

[@lsarasua2659]

How did they shoot the roller coaster scene? Where's the camera(s)?

[@JamieJamez]

3:53 you can see the 2 cams on the rail, Looks like a Insta360 ONE. Makes 360° videos which you can edit in software, and the base can't be seen because it's in its blind spot. kzbin.info/www/bejne/fZzdmqOYhqqil9k

[@DanEllis]

"... why mathematical rules and patterns seem to infiltrate everything around us." We invented mathematics to model the world around us, and then we act surprised that it seems to infiltrate everything around us.

[@itwasaliens]

If we never existed those mathematical rules would still exist.

[@DanEllis]

@Roger Loquitur With the square root of -1.

[@hareecionelson5875]

@@DanEllis Nice *left finger on nose whilst pointing to you with right finger*

[@kellysdad2326]

It is my understanding that Math is created alongside humanity; for without it we do not have application of universality. Math is a language like music that connects both on human's hemisphere. On the left is art and on the right is science....

[@erictaylor5462]

For me, a thing that is invented depends on who invented it. Take the airplane for example. There were several competing designs for the first airplane. The Wright Flyer happened to be the first successful design, but after that other built airplanes with radically different designs. Today airplanes don't look anything like the first airplane. A discovery however, has nothing to do with who discovers it. It will be the same regardless of who finds it, and it will stay the same even after it is discovered. Mathematics is the same no matter who invents it. An alien living in the Andromeda Galaxy will have "invented" Calculus that is identical to what Newton "invented". They will use rules for Algebra that are identical to the rules we have. It will know that Pi is about (but not quite exactly) 3.14. This to me suggests a discovery, not an invention.

[@Barxxo]

thx for uploading. i love BBC docus.