Does Math Reveal Reality?

[@janedherrera1916]

I am a Colombian trying to study English to teach it to our young people... You can NOT imagine how much pleasant it is to listen to all of you with this outstanding topic to be shared with my students. There's beauty in the desire of sharing such deep and basic ideas. That would be for me the real result of a mathemathics that lies underneath, inside, outside, in and about our desire of sharing such awareness deep in us.

[@HB-fz7dw]

Thank you Dr. Brian Greene for all the work you do to make physics more visually accessible to people who think in images. Such a great video!!

[@karmasutra4774]

Me :)

[@TrampConnoisseur]

Once you realize how beautiful and literal math can be, how it makes the unknown and the future come to reality, you’ll instantly fall in love with it and it will be your best friend throughout life.

[@jamesaz637]

Let’s also remember that our brain is part of nature Also let’s remember that mathematics is a derivative of logic which itself is a derivative of language (Logo, Logic relationship) And language is INNATE, according to Chomsky. Therefore it is not that far fetched that mathematics and nature reality have the same root. James Ziazie, Alkmaar The Netherlands

[@outtrun]

Thank you Humpty, you have always been a wise egg

[@kurtgodel28]

Very well said.

[@tylergully7389]

Same thing has been said about meth

[@bellakrinkle9381]

@@jamesaz637 there's math that are numbers, then there is math that speaks to some fortunate higher iQ people. What's the break off, in points?

[@hamsandwich4451]

I love the concept of knowing things about mathematics we can't know but intrinsically understand. As Shelly put it, "Consciousness is left out" is something I have experienced when thinking through a mathematical problem. All of the sudden my brain will put it together without me consciously connecting the dots by doing the work. Like our brains sometimes know what our conscious mind does not. So many more questions.

[@markcampbell1795]

Maybe consciousness, is that little bit of weight we lose when we die, maybe it transfers back to origin, consciousness being soul. 21 grams.

[@yanair2091]

@@markcampbell1795 that’s an urban myth. We don’t lose 21 gram when we die.

[@markcampbell1795]

@@yanair2091 Maybe you should tell the internet, although, there is a suggestion that its sweat from a rise in body temperature as the inhalation of air is no longer cooling the blood cells in the lungs. Although, if the body was being weighed upon a scale at the moment of death then the sweat would also be weighed. Not much experimentation has been done since the original in 1911. M

[@kuntamdc]

@@markcampbell1795 He appears to be telling the internet... but yeah, I think the brain is inanimate ham sand. Brain don't know nothing.

[@vprice509]

Not all knowing requires logic. Intuition is every bit as valid when it comes to knowing something. Not proving it to other people, which is surely secondary in importance, but knowing. If someone is approaching me and I get a weird feeling and know something isn’t right about them, no logical steps were involved in knowing this. There isn’t time for logical analysis, forming a hypothesis, testing a theory. Oops! I’m dead. We CAN know things without being able to prove them. Shall I prove that? I don’t have to. Like I said, knowing is primary, proving secondary. And besides, I’m just some dude on the internet (presumably) that has an opinion. I did not just state that all hunches are correct. The most important aspect of being a mathematician is not logic, but creativity. Breakthroughs don’t usually happen until you give up. You might remember someone’s name, for example, only after you stop trying to think of it. In our culture, of course, we value logic and dismiss intuition as “women’s intuition”. Humans don’t make logical decisions. Oh, we can justify our decisions alright, but every decision we ever make is an emotional decision. There may be a light dusting of logic for color, but come on, primate. Who you trying to fool? I am you. 🙂

[@alex-dn9to]

this has got to be my favorite WSF talk. I really think we need to have more conversation about understanding conciseness and how it is *actually* very deeply related to the universe, physics, and even mathematics.

[@felix144444]

Dude!! How many have you seen? I don't think I could just choose 1.

[@Elizabeth-mp6tr]

Ok Dr. Greene! I am driven to tears by the awesomeness of this! Can I make a comment: Maybe consciousness comes from our senses yet the interpretation of those senses, is intelligence. And morality, comes from the senses, in what hurts us and does not hurt us. Fear comes from what hurts us. Is there an electron charge to the feeling of hurtness? Or is the feeling of hurtness, a quantum mechanics response of one impulse which effects another entity, which is our senses in our body? We thus apply those feelings of safety on a broader scale in society. This is morality. And, in time, for example, a child of 2, does not cross over, a plate of glass at a high level. The child's innate depth perception, is to keep the child safe. But with interpretation, and experiences over time and growth, we interpret that piece of glass from our ability to perceive safety, and interpret that information through reasoning. So what are the basic elements in morality: safety and not safety? So if the number 5 is safe to me, then its moral, its a moral entity. Its just all our perceptions and interpretations. Is there a mathematical model to the colour brown of the bark of a tree? Or a mathematical model to the concept of perception? The colour brown is a perception. I dont understand the discussion on morality, without a neuropsychologist on your panel.

[@johnphil2006]

This conversation really reveal the "beauty of mathematics " . Thanks Brain.

[@amihart9269]

Next you can read, _Lost in Math: How Beauty Leads Physics Astray._ 😏

[@jerryiuliano871]

Concerning the value , from your video, -2.002319304, for the G-minus 2 number, I have been studying this special number for years. Always have been slightly disappointed in the current evolving value for this number not matching with my formula exactly to the G-minus 2 number to at least 10 decimals. Low and behold the number posted on your video matches my formula exactly. What gives? The formula uses the collective unconscious constant..mod37=.891891.... 10^((144/37)-7)=7.79636...*10^-7=x, 10^-7=erg. The formula uses the special number 864. ((864+x)/(864-1))*-2=-2.002319304, which matches the video number for the G-minus 2 value exactly.

[@Quark.Lepton]

Brain is so cool!

[@jaycarpenter9287]

I greatly appreciate the opportunity, thank you very much; it means a lot.

[@michaelbakalios9592]

I admit that by the end of the 12 minutes of introduction, I could hardly keep my tears. Mister Brian Greene, you really give me goosebumps each time, you are the ideal person to express the true magic of science.

[@artificialintelligenceplus1321]

Found the mathematical phenomenon. A very interesting channel-"Artificial Intelligence Plus Lottery".

[@solutionrevolution7221]

This Channel is the best youtube channel out there, such good topics and the in-depth conversation that happens. Love this 5, 6-panel group style of presenting the information. You get some great information from various good views on things from people from many fields.

[@yanair2091]

They each discussed a certain topic.

[@donald763]

Nice talk! As a software engineer I often see a similarity between consciousness and a computer when it's turned on. In a computer there is a flow of electricity that makes it "alive" - processing information, reacting to different inputs, storing or retrieving data, all according to an existing program. The brain can be seen as a computer with a memory, inputs and a program (that is being constantly developed during our life). Then consciousness is when some kind of energy flows through the brain, directed by the program and inputs (senses), creating chemical impulses when passing through specific memories and those impulses are in a loop affecting the flow of the energy and directing it further. I would agree with miss Jonas, if we want to mathematically describe consciousness, we first need to understand what exactly do we want to describe. Math can describe things that can be quantified. How do we quantify consciousness?

[@NullHand]

Magnetoencephalography is the current tool in humans. The SQUID devices need a whole gang of dendrites firing synchronously to make a detectable field, so resolution is low, but apparently, we can do things like diagnostically image psychopathy. If we ever get anything like a complete audit log of individual synapse firing, we will have all the quantification we can handle.

[@johnmcvey7014]

You say that the brain can be seen as a computer, always remember if the input is rubbish, the output will also be rubbish no matter how accurate the computation.

[@chemquests]

I like Daniel Dennett’s metaphor for consciousness as a GUI. Much like how the desktop icons represent underlying code, thoughts/sensations/perceptions in consciousness represent underlying neuronal firing patterns.

[@mariaazcapri]

No. I don't think my input would be relevant to you or others. Nevertheless, I do believe it could. I see a space here and when I'm compelled to write then, so I do, the rest, is up to each one's mind and heart. This is as well, with all due respect: You are so correct when you relate the creation and functions of a computer device, with the creation and function of mankind. To me, the mystery resides in the way we set our minds. Us humans, tend to focus in the form of things, thus creating abstractness in everything we think we cannot understand, we need to understand in order to do. Instead of focusing on the function of things, to do in order to understand thus, we can relate to the concreteness of reality. We want to own it all...but, in reality, we do not own nothing, but the power of decision. If you think abt it "Ready or not, some day it will all come to an end. There will be no more sunrises, no minutes, hours, or days. All the things you collected, whether treasured or forgotten, will pass to someone else." Having said aaaall that, conscience comes from con-with / science- knowledge. How much or many consciousness? Or, to quantify it...just remember knowledge and wisdom are not the same thing, wisdom is how knowledge is applied. 8? 9? 100000000? What will give you understanding is not the quantity, but the quality. We were all conceived with knowledge. Conscious beings. What people lack is God, and men can go on, and on, and on, but will never find the answers, without God. Computers can work without its creator being present, but can never work without a source of electricity, without a man manipulating its buttons and a program with instructions. Computers are automatons. What would be the antonym of automaton? Person, human...the difference? We cannot create freedom, liberty, free will, we just exercise it... but we don't own it, it was given to us. I'm not the wisest woman alive, but I know one thing, and that is, that we own nothing. 😁 We were Created. Our con-science is just a bit of His knowledge implanted in us. We were turned on, and we will be turned off. That much, is for sure. God, the Creator, is outside of His Creation, He is above it, beyond it, in it, through it, remains unaffected.. Same way the creator of today's computers, is not inside the monitor... Our bodies are His devices, and His Word, is our instructive. Our body will perish, but our con-science won't. Neither our book of life, which is how scientists call the DNA... Again, it's not in the form, but in the function...

[@chemquests]

@@mariaazcapri with all respect humans are automatons, wet robots if you will. What you wrote is poetic but they’re simply untestable or debatable assertions, truth claims based on an assumption of a creator. While I accept that you truly believe what you wrote, one should not confuse belief with knowledge. You can’t know any of those claims to be facts. Liberty, free will, & freedom don’t actually exist in an absolute form as we are bounded by our biology & subject to the physics of our circumstances. These are testable claims. In the end I’m an empiricist & will require some proof to accept what you’ve said, but I respect your right to hold an opinion. Just please don’t say you know it to be true because you can’t

[@AmberlightES]

I have been binge watching this channel since I came across it a few weeks ago. Such eloquent debates are difficult to find sometimes on the Internet these days... How about "Mathematics: Tangible or Theoretical". Thanks.

[@promisinganuj]

It's so wonderful to listen to these discussions around Mathematics and its relationship with physical reality. At the same time, I find it quite interesting that people discuss the topic of Conciousness without actually describing it or having a common definition of what it really means to be conscious. I so wish to see Brian in conversation with Swami Sarvapriyananda on this very topic.

[@jameshughes135]

YES, great idea💡

[@bruceneeley1724]

Wow, an excellent topic & panel. It was good to see some familiar faces again. The presentation format was brilliantly executed. Thank you all for being such great educators.

[@artificialintelligenceplus1321]

Found the mathematical phenomenon. A very interesting channel - "Artificial Intelligence Plus Lottery".

[@MCASDI]

Just a comment on this very interesting discussion,...I think Max has a permanent, beautiful, smile... always shining! A joy!

[@ominous-omnipresent-they]

Max is an awesome and humble individual.

[@captainzappbrannagan]

Love this panel and the important topics here. Math and numbers are concepts used only describe things. Though math isn't a real thing, but math describes reality in the best way possible.

[@johnstrawb3521]

Wow--that was incoherent.

[@captainzappbrannagan]

@@johnstrawb3521 Or you lack the brainpower to get it.

[@twt2718]

I think math is discovered, not created. The math that underpins GR, QM, QED, QCD, etc was still true before someone put it down on paper. Uranus and Neptune were real before we discovered them, and excitingly there’s more to be discovered

[@captainzappbrannagan]

@@twt2718 Agreed. Trying to say math is the only real thing in the universe doesn't make sense. Because the universe follows measurable laws and math can describe the laws doesn't' mean the math is core, just that there is no supernatural magic at play.

[@artificialintelligenceplus1321]

Found the mathematical phenomenon. A very interesting channel - "Artificial Intelligence Plus Lottery".

[@lucasalvarez4176]

Im just about to finish reading your book (The Fabric of the Cosmos) and all i can say is that this is an spectacular time to be alive. Sience is open to everybody like is never happened before, im 41 years old and my need to learn about physics and science is growing every day like it never had before. Really enjoy this video. (Sorry for my english).

[@keyboardevangelist]

Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without EXCUSE. Science is just knowledge human beings discover. they don't make them. The real question is? Who is smart enough to create science /knowledge out of nothing..

[@sostoney]

@@keyboardevangelist yes okay but we’re talking about science lol

[@MikhalisBramouell]

@@sostoney Science is experimentation and observation, not just blindly putting faith in whatever the priesthood in the white lab coats tells you.

[@sostoney]

@@MikhalisBramouell ...... we’re talking about science

[@MikhalisBramouell]

@@sostoney No, believing something written or said by someone determined to be a "scientist" by the people in power is not science, it is faith.

[@abedalrahman3918]

I have certainly enjoyed this discussion. I feel it intuitive and also mysterious that mathematics is discovered, and that it was always a part of our universe.

[@artificialintelligenceplus1321]

Found the mathematical phenomenon. A very interesting channel - "Artificial Intelligence Plus Lottery".

[@HarryKoppel]

I can see why mathematics is discovered, but I can't see how morality is discovered, to me morality seems pretty subjective

[@IQDave]

@@HarryKoppelyou’ve nailed it when you said to you it seems subjective. Anything based only on what you think is subjective. Objective truth exists outside of your mind. You can observe objective reality, but its “object” is outside of your mind.

[@Paul_Ch52]

You folks put together the most compelling environment with graphics folded seamlessly into the intellect of the discussion. The panel was fantastic! At some points I wanted to slap either David or Max. Loved it! Congrats, again, Dr. Greene, on another touchdown.

[@lewisoutten1610]

Yep, you got that right mate.

[@kevin2706]

You're funny man

[@sirilandgren]

Mmmmm David and Max. 😍

[@YHWH711]

😆

[@helenmansfield7771]

Eepeeeeeeeeeeeeeepppppppepeeeeeeeoooooppppeeeeeeeeeeoeooooooeeeeeeeeeoeeoppppppppeeoeeeeeeeoeoppppppppeeoeeepepeppppepeeeeepppppeeeeeepeepeepppppeeeeeeeepppppeeeeeppppppppppppppepeeeeeeeeeepeppppppppppepeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeepppppppppppppeoepeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeoeeeeeeeeepppppeeoeeeeeeeeeeeeeppppppepeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeepeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeoeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeepeeeeeeeeeeeeepeeepeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

[@KieranGarland]

This is a great format, with terrific annotations and animations, for virtual discussions about such difficult subjects. Fantastic work.

[@dsm5d723]

Animation is the DEATH of intelligence and understanding. Visual thinking begets a floating dot in the mind and an unreasonable effectiveness to 2D calculator math. I've found that physics IN the math of physics floating dot. The Lyman Alpha Line Split. Permeable to the eyes and a decay PAIR, e(c) is the 1D error correction for one conscious node. .577 + .0006 angstroms, .003 per eye. Boom, 58% matter-energy transfer efficiency. THIS is the inward facing intuition for Banach-Tarski. Also fusion as a math model IN US. I did it in the heat map of the Earth as well. I will do the standard model over right in math, but it ain't what you think. With the Observer Effect mathematically corrected, now what you are observing matters. EVERYTHING is best described as a time stamped decay-accretion of radiation packets, hard light, into EM, and into solids, which are themselves a matter of decay from perfection with time. e(c), sq2 and Pi, and WITH coherence to "irrational" algorithmic expansion. The solution is in Fibonacci palindromes in the decimals. e(c) = .0577*21, sq2 = 1.414*21, Pi = 3,141. . . .*--211 at the 95th decimal place. NJWildberger explains this as the thirds power series being an OBJECT, and not a function, a thing constructed BY an operation. He is the best out there at asking the REAL questions, I just chimed in with the answers.

[@bitterlyhonest2307]

This is for the religious people that try to undermine scientific research and hold humanity back. This is to save humans from their own cognitive biases or cognitive dissonance as reality does not rely on a sky pokémon daddy.

[@YHWH711]

Are you joking? I hope

[@YHWH711]

@@bitterlyhonest2307 Yeshua loves you and is waiting for you to knock so He can open the door. All knees will bow, don't let the world deceive you. God bless my friend.

[@bitterlyhonest2307]

@@YHWH711 hahahaha my point exactly another Pokémon

[@marzlarz1399]

This is by far the greatest slam poem I've ever heard/seen performed

[@SoCalFreelance]

I'm going to need to watch this several times so I have the time to think and to carry forward the opinions of those who presented or generate my own novel opinion. Thanks for whoever put this together, we are all better for it.

[@vincentrusso4332]

Myself as well, I would also suggest, "A World Without Time" and "Godel Escher and Bach", as material to ponder, it will take several readings as well. Cheers, - Surry Virginia.

[@SoCalFreelance]

@@vincentrusso4332 Absolutely, Gödel, Escher, Bach should be required reading/discussion for anyone going through graduate school as it was for me.

[@richardshane456]

@24:00 A thought for both of us = 3 Two apples when you are starving is not mathematically relevant... however mind pleasure especially science the art of trying to understand at a very finite point of observation while mathematically we are on a trajectory of spin spiraling through space... creating our reality... Have a great day!

[@keyboardevangelist]

Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without EXCUSE. Science is just knowledge human beings discover. they don't make them. The real question is? Who is smart enough to create science /knowledge out of nothing..

[@ivaerz4977]

I'm surprised Science videos are gaining popularity in KZbin

[@julietvijn1545]

I agree with Max. It was discovered. His illustrations make sense as well

[@OmarHernandez-nq2jo]

Yes. We invented the words and phrases in whichever many languages known to mankind. Nature and the entire universe is art intertwined with math. A never ending sequential numbers and patterns.

[@AquaStevae]

I really really liked everyone on the panel, including the host. But if I were to be tasked with choosing the person I most liked, responded to or agreed with, it would surely be Max. His infinite enthusiasm, and diplomatic way of arguing for or against any of the other panelists was a thing of beauty. I felt he was by far the most convincing, and had the largest influence on my thinking while observing this video, and beyond. I truly look forward to more of these discussions, and will subscribe to this channel, as I think you've earned it.

[@patwall8822]

I found Max most convincing. Consciousness is a manifestation of high level information processing in the brain. It is a quality which emerges from complex self reflective thinking that is the product of eons of evolution. It has a natural explanation amenable to scientific discovery. Maths is the best tool to tackle the job.

[@daphnejordana86]

"Consciousness is a manifestation of high level information processing in the brain.." This suggests that anything without a brain, anything that can't "think", has no consciousness, so trees, flowers, particles... "It is a quality which emerges from complex self reflective thinking that is the product of eons of evolution" suggests that eons of evolution ago, people with the exact same physiological brains as we do today, had no or at least less consciousness than we do. Is it really complex self reflective thinking that one implements in order to be aware of, to be conscious of, let's say, ones own fart?

[@kjekelle96]

Yes and it's like we're patterns that consist of smaller patterns that partake of bigger patterns which may be why we can understand the world at all. Maybe if we couldn't, maybe if it weren't "mathematical" (i.e. internally consistent) we couldn't understand it?

[@amihart9269]

Agreed, I think the "high level information processing" part is particularly important, and in some sense is why I'm not convinced that simply increasing the number of neurons an artificial neural network has will replicate the human experience of consciousness. The human experience is part of our brain structure and how it evolved. The "high level information processing" section, being the frontal lobe, evolved _last._ This means our brains have a sort of "sectionality" to it (called "functional specialization"). It doesn't interpret information everywhere at once, but parts of our brains are dedicated to processing visual input, to processing tactile input, to processing auditory input, etc, and all these things are processed by our primitive brain _subconsciously._ After this subconscious processing is done, only _then_ does this information stream to the frontal lobe for high level information processing. I think this is why we experience qualia as such a magical and mysterious thing. Because were are completely unconscious of how our brain actually produced the image that we experience. The consciousness is not the _entire_ brain but only the frontal lobe with the high level information processing, and so it receives information from lower level processing which it has no information on how it was actually processed. There feels like there is a huge disconnection between the experience of green in our consciousness and green in reality. Because we don't experience how our brain actually produced that. It makes consciousness feel magical and disconnected, but there is a connection, we're just unaware of it. Hence, that's why I say simply scaling up the number of neurons might not replicate human consciousness. If the AI does not have this sort of "sectionality" in its brain that humans have evolved, then it might be conscious of how it processes its sensory inputs. If it is conscious of how it processes these, then it would likely not experience qualia, and would not find consciousness to be so mystical. Although, a side point, there is a paper currently in preprint (not yet peer reviewed) published literally last month that argues for evidence that the sectionality of the brain actually arises spontaneously as a part of neural network optimization, demonstrated through artificial neural networks. If this paper is true, then the experience of qualia might arise spontaneously as well with sufficient intelligence. But, again, this is still in preprint, but it's interesting nonetheless.

[@tomingrassiaimages8776]

Max is my hereo....same with Brian Greene and Sean Caroll.

[@conspansion]

The universe could be a multidimensional fractal set of algorithmic equations where our individual consciousnesses input root information into regenerative scaffold-like language matrices, thereby manifesting our relative space-time reality construct experience.

[@RoboticEngineerAutomation]

Thank you for working around the parameters of covid and producing high end quality videos for KZbin!! It's good to see you again!

[@jlthompson4425]

Thought provoking and appreciated.... 😊

[@artificialintelligenceplus1321]

Found the mathematical phenomenon A very interesting channel-"Artificial Intelligence Plus Lottery".

[@isatousarr7044]

Numerous scientists and researchers have put forth the argument that mathematical frameworks serve as highly effective tools for describing and understanding the fundamental laws that govern the natural world, particularly in fields such as physics. This is illustrated by various mathematical formulations, including the equations of motion and the principles of quantum mechanics, which have been successfully used to model physical phenomena. From this standpoint, it becomes clear that while mathematics may not provide a direct window into the underlying reality of the universe, its remarkable effectiveness in generating precise and accurate predictions implies a significant relationship between mathematical concepts and the intricate workings of the physical world around us. Therefore, even if math does not capture reality in a straightforward way, its powerful predictive capabilities hint at deeper connections and correspondences that exist between abstract mathematical ideas and tangible physical entities.

[@scottterry2606]

WOW! I've been a subscriber for a while and this is absolutely the best yet. Home run intro. Home run panel. Home run discussion. Home run production. I'm geeking out.

[@DhruvaDevOnline]

I have to congratulate Brian and the WSF team on the production quality and the attention to detail of the video. I think this type of video production could definitely compete with or supplant the standard setting as well. I love the use of green screens here into aiding immersion. Beautiful work. *Edit - The content was eye opening thanks to the exquisite panel.

[@artificialintelligenceplus1321]

Found the mathematical phenomenon. A very interesting channel - "Artificial Intelligence Plus Lottery".

[@ProfessorStephon]

Lmmfao 🙄😂

[@SpotterVideo]

Does the following quantum model agree with the Spinor Theory of Roger Penrose? Quantum Entangled Twisted Tubules: "A theory that you can't explain to a bartender is probably no damn good." Ernest Rutherford When we draw a sine wave on a blackboard, we are representing spatial curvature. Does a photon transfer spatial curvature from one location to another? Wrap a piece of wire around a pencil and it can produce a 3D coil of wire, much like a spring. When viewed from the side it can look like a two-dimensional sine wave. You could coil the wire with either a right-hand twist, or with a left-hand twist. Could Planck's Constant be proportional to the twist cycles. A photon with a higher frequency has more energy. (More spatial curvature). What if gluons are actually made up of these twisted tubes which become entangled with other tubes to produce quarks. (In the same way twisted electrical extension cords can become entangled.) Therefore, the gluons are actually a part of the quarks. Mesons are made up of two entangled tubes (Quarks/Gluons), while protons and neutrons would be made up of three entangled tubes. (Quarks/Gluons) The "Color Force" would be related to the XYZ coordinates (orientation) of entanglement. "Asymptotic Freedom", and "flux tubes" make sense based on this concept. Neutrinos would be made up of a twisted torus (like a twisted donut) within this model. Gravity is a result of a very small curvature imbalance within atoms. (This is why the force of gravity is so small.) Instead of attempting to explain matter as "particles", this concept attempts to explain matter more in the manner of our current understanding of the space-time curvature of gravity. If an electron has qualities of both a particle and a wave, it cannot be either one. It must be something else. Therefore, a "particle" is actually a structure which stores spatial curvature. Can an electron-positron pair (which are made up of opposite directions of twist) annihilate each other by unwinding into each other producing Gamma Ray photons. Does an electron travel through space like a threaded nut traveling down a threaded rod, with each twist cycle proportional to Planck’s Constant? Does it wind up on one end, while unwinding on the other end? Is this related to the Higgs field? Does this help explain the strange ½ spin of many subatomic particles? Does the 720 degree rotation of a 1/2 spin particle require at least one extra dimension? Alpha decay occurs when the two protons and two neutrons (which are bound together by entangled tubes), become un-entangled from the rest of the nucleons . Beta decay occurs when the tube of a down quark/gluon in a neutron becomes overtwisted and breaks producing a twisted torus (neutrino) and an up quark, and the ejected electron. The phenomenon of Supercoiling involving twist and writhe cycles may reveal how overtwisted quarks can produce these new particles. The conversion of twists into writhes, and vice-versa, is an interesting process. Gamma photons are produced when a tube unwinds producing electromagnetic waves. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Within this model a black hole could represent a quantum of gravity, because it is one cycle of spatial gravitational curvature. Therefore, instead of a graviton being a subatomic particle it could be considered to be a black hole. The overall gravitational attraction would be caused by a very tiny curvature imbalance within atoms. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In this model Alpha equals the compactification ratio within the twistor cone. 1/137 1= Hypertubule diameter at 4D interface 137= Cone’s larger end diameter at 3D interface A Hypertubule gets longer or shorter as twisting occurs. 720 degrees per twist cycle. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How many neutrinos are left over from the Big Bang? They have a small mass, but they could be very large in number. Could this help explain Dark Matter?

[@gyro5d]

@@ProfessorStephon free bb R cage er t press ure#'ax8i889

[@Tahycoon]

I like how you turned a zoom meeting (that no one would watch) into a nice editing, nice job!

[@stephenkamenar]

i've always found it interesting that the concept of consciousness doesn't exist at all in physics. and would never be discovered if we didn't experience it directly ourselves. because it's irrelevant to cause and effect, it's outside of physics. classical mechanics, even quantum mechanics simply has nothing to say about it.

[@letusSMART]

Consciousness is meta Physics...

[@marcellira]

Until you know your self you wont be known. try again!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[@2CSST2]

It's not at all surprising when you realize the fact that consciousness happens as a result of the most complex structure we know about: The brain. You could just as well say life "doesn't exist at all" in physics, yet now we know it's a just a very high level emergent phenomenon, and the fact it doesn't *appear* in physics is a mere consequence of the fact that physics is focused on the lowest hierarchical levels of complexity. Life's lack of appearance within physics was never a sufficient reason to say it doesn't "exist" within it, it certainly does in a sense, since it arises from it. Now consciousness, that's on an even higher level than life, why would you expect to see it appear in physics? And likewise, its lack of appearance is most definitely not a proof that it can't arise from it, as your comment seems to imply. -Additional notes: I'm also curious as to why you think you can assert that it's "irrelevant to cause and effect", because everything points to the fact that it certainly is. When you're driving, if your attention is on your phone, and what's in front of the road is in your peripheral vision yet you're not conscious of it, the "cause and effect relevance" is pretty damn real. Without consciousness, the best we can do is unconscious reflexes, yet that clearly isn't sufficient for most of the dangers we face, most particularly middle and long term ones. You could assert that a "zombie (unconscious)" AI could conceivably calculate and have the same behavior as a human, but in fact there's no reason to think it could do it as effectively and adaptively. In fact, the most complex and adaptive AI models are converging towards neural networks that mimic the brain neural networks, and it's quite conceivable that if we actually do create a general AI, that's as effective as a human brain in terms of the volume/energy/mass it requires, it *also* will have consciousness. Hence the practical benefits for behavior of consciousness also make it very relevant to cause and effect. Not only that, but "the cause and effect relevance" in the other direction is already well established. In the sense that if you're given an anesthetic, your consciousness disappears, we're even starting to have better and better knowledge of exactly what kind of neural firings lead to someone being conscious or not. Basically, there's a million different ways, in both direction, in which consciousness is causally related to everything else, so it very much puzzles me that you'd make such an out of the blue assumption that all of a sudden it isn't.

[@titchman9097]

@@2CSST2 may i ask why you were not personally at this debate i think you deserve a seat there. Can we all agree that awareness is the only true intelligence everything we know we become aware of 1+2 is just art on a screen or page until we are more aware.

[@2CSST2]

@@titchman9097 Thank you haha! And I very much agree with your beautiful assessment. Consciousness amplifies intelligence to a higher level, a computer program might be able to recognize a face as well as a human, but its lack of awareness of it does translate to a lower intelligence in a real sense. The awareness of a face creates an emergent additional information that the brain can then try and connect with other information in the form of unconscious or conscious thoughts. Its resemblances to certain geographical shapes, maybe the facial expression reminds you of a past painful experience, or some other creative thoughts, etc. It generates a dynamic of information processing centered on the object of awareness, which adds an additional dynamic in terms of which next object will take place at the center of awareness. You see a tree and think of how green it looks and suddenly realize you didn't water your plant this morning, allowing you to link seemingly random things together. On the other hand, an unaware computer program would only generate a single bit of information: face or not, tree or not, green or not. The ability to generate additional information and link it with past information from and centered around one current piece of information requires to "know" what the current information is, and ideally not only know it but have a concept and a sens of what it is, hence be aware of it. I don't how exactly it does arise, but awareness seems to me an inevitable and crucial part of an adaptive information processing system, so it makes all the sense in the world that evolution would naturally develop it if it's possible.

[@hiennganguyen6364]

I think consciousness is pattern identification. Sometimes, there are loose connections among neurons that discover new creative patterns that brain sees "aha! It makes sense." For example, at night during REM sleep, brain runs multiple simulations randomly that connect the dots. Modern math is a math of patterns like coding. String theory is awesome! With high energy, strings vibrate to the point of massless, and the knots of strings form definitive packs of energy. If strings stop vibrate, these packs of energy exert the feeling of mass, and they are called particles.

[@letusSMART]

Consciousness is Meta Physics which is yet to be described as in color hex ... I'M certain that we are not far now with the proper use of quantum compute we will discover its maths structure soon...

[@youtubeviewer5017]

Sometimes during REM another reality is experienced…

[@dennisbiroscak1597]

I also think consciousness is pattern recognition and that human brains are very good at recognizing, storing and manipulating patterns of electrical signals the brain receives. Distinguishing light from dark, edges, and movement of patterns (objects). It seems like an extension of pattern recognition to understand and develop mathematics.

[@hiennganguyen6364]

@@dennisbiroscak1597 Thank you for your inputs! Consciousness is pattern simulations by running tiny electrical circuits in the brain. We can play Lego or design an architectural building in multiple ways multiple times in our mind until we find the one we like the most. We then write or draw down the strategy or the design plan. These are like in a dream, and the products are not real until we use our hands to move the Lego or to build the building. In order to successfully move all the same color squares to the same plan or to make a stable building, we have to use the laws of the nature that govern the Lego ( the way the Lego cubes are kept together and move together) or that govern the building ( the forces of gravity, earthquake, and winds). Brain is a super computer that run by electron transfer chains, hydrogen movements and electrical charges of bio-molecules. However, brain can grow by itself but computer cannot. Maybe a bio-computer can grow and multiply by itself.

[@dennisbiroscak1597]

@@hiennganguyen6364 I agree with your comments. I always remember that the brain has 89 billion (~9X10^10) neurons and 10^14 connections. I see each neuron as similar to a computer processor which can connect to up to 10,000 other neurons and only fires after it receives certain inputs at certain levels from some of these connections. So, I think we're pretty far from a conscious computer. I think (not sure) that current supercomputers have only about 700,000 processors max and the number of connections to each processor is far less than 10,000. I don't think computer memory (bytes) compares at all to brain function. Also, you're right that brains can create new connections or strengthen connections so they grow and dynamically change.

[@ushatambat1258]

I wish WSF and WSFU regularly keep posting something on KZbin. Anything of any duration! Anything from the world science festival and Brian Greene is jus awesome and so motivational!! Making you fall in love with science every time!!

[@ai_serf]

ty for this. im lonely while studying math and logic, so this helps me more than you could possibly know. adam from Florida.

[@YHWH711]

Stop this is all nonsensical nonsense and you're wasting your time and energy. Everything based off a false premise. Just plain ridiculous.

[@youtubeviewer5017]

@@YHWH711 go drink your beer

[@YHWH711]

@@youtubeviewer5017 I'm clean and sober ,own my own business, do some research.

[@youtubeviewer5017]

@@YHWH711 research where? what sources do you respect? any?

[@youtubeviewer5017]

@@YHWH711 Let other people determine what is a waste of their own time and energy, and you determine what is best for you to spend your time on.

[@ConnoisseurOfExistence]

Great discussion. My view is the same as Tegmark's, also shared by Penrose, Plato and many other great thinkers throughout the history.

[@GreenSkid]

I have never had an affinity for Plato's view, but I do find Max's arguments very convincing, especially given the historical context. I am also a software developer and feel like there is a correspondence with computer code and mathematics in relation to simulated worlds and our physical world. I have enjoyed reading Max's books, and he is a really good computer coder as well. I assume more mathematically intuned minds may appreciate the views as expressed by Penrose/Plato.

[@ConnoisseurOfExistence]

@@GreenSkid The point is: mathematics is all that exists and our physical universe is a small part of it. That's what Max and all of them are saying.

[@GreenSkid]

@@ConnoisseurOfExistence Yes, that is indeed the point of it. I was sharing that for me it was Max, who has helped me understand, what for many at first glance does sound ludicrous. I know that Penrose is super smart person, and I enjoy watching his talks and interviews, however I never got a deeper understand from him as to why one could have such a viewpoint. But Max is like a kindred spirit to me, and would have loved to work on collab project with him (but I am not of the same calibre - I do have some friends who might be though).

[@bondedtvirus754]

Pattern recognition is the heart of mathematics. We express the observation of those patterns with numbers.

[@hamentaschen]

Thank you WSF for feeding my brain such a healthy dose of awesomeness.

[@maxwellsequation4887]

@Chris Tarzan Hayward that was irrelevant

[@bryanmavis8771]

@Chris Tarzan Hayward Last time I checked, Tarzan rejected civilization, not meat.

[@artificialintelligenceplus1321]

Found the mathematical phenomenon A very interesting channel-"Artificial Intelligence Plus Lottery".

[@Felipe-zl1rj]

Damn, this David Albert rules. I certainly want to hear more from him.

[@fotwen]

As a person that loves math, I talk about this a lot. I say math is discovered. Geometric laws are a part of reality with or without us. We are still discovering π today, we aren't inventing it. Regardless of what we call it, two, duos, or 二, what it represents is beyond the symbol. Imo.

[@abbygalerowe1254]

Truth !!

[@Raptorel]

There could be some invention going on in the axioms that we use and that we first have to put in.

[@fotwen]

@@Raptorel some times you have to invent something to discover something. In order to discover land across the sea, you gotta invent a boat. It prob does take some creativity to discover mathematical relationships with things.

[@channelwarhorse3367]

Faraday sees a circle 🔵 and lines manifest, Benjamin Franklin path least resistance. Math 🧮 bares fruit beyond General Relativity mechanically Applied 1915 Child to curve energy, mass to content immovable frame. Or manufacture clean energy technology as the Sir Issac Newton machine is manufactured.

[@channelwarhorse3367]

@@Raptorel energy invention, inventors are listed in Public Law to Presidential Duties. IS MATH LAW? Is law Math?

[@IIIllllIIIIlllll]

The graphics and editing on this are fantastic

[@JATMA14383]

An important question that I have been curious about for the last couple of years. This was an excellent presentation of this complex topic. I hope you will do another program on it and that you might also consider offering it as a course or at least posting some suggested readings so we could continue our learning. I think Mathematics is discovered rather than invented. The things we have learned through mathematical exploration describes real objects and dynamic interactions. Max Tegmark is right that we are living in a mathematical structure; we are a small part of something bigger but how does one describe that structure. The math we have discovered thus far is also our tool to continue to discover even more about our universe. What is that process of discovery? How is it that some people can perceive the hidden mathematics and that other people cannot? We will eventually discover even more advanced math that will be necessary to continue our exploration and understanding.

[@artificialintelligenceplus1321]

Found the mathematical phenomenon. A very interesting channel - "Artificial Intelligence Plus Lottery".

[@uweburkart373]

You are right it is more so a pure discovery, like we do not so much invent (from nothing anyway not) as we as mankind do discover how a stone being cut is useful as a knife (tool). Same as we invented language by giving us acoustical signals to express a certain motivation or aim. It's more like language, being developed to express quantitative relationships between objects of any kind. Or geometry relations being translated into algebraic terms. But maths is eternal like ideas, they do not need time. This extra dimension is already becoming transcendent and imaginary numbers are needed to describe complex equations for description of processes that include "time". Exactly as you assume that imagination is needed for finding new "qualitative" beyond the purely quantitative relations. Like Einstein did his ""thought experiments" to find new relations between mass, energy, time, space, forces and topological structures (including Minkowski instead of Riemann or Euklidian geometry as base). Hidden structures are also hidden dimensions of reality therefore another maths or logic instead of the atistotelean (yes/no) duality is needed to unlock other dimensions like the fifth ot 6th dimension to explain "qualities" like consciousness and life (as such) that our maths of today cannot describe (!) or why there is apparently a teleological development of the cosmos and world we live in. We are not machines nor just ultra complex computer androids or whatever transhumanistic fiction is "inventing" we are something else and live in a world with laws beyond our mathematical language can describe! But that needs and involves a more complex and multidimensional logic than our today's geometry and math. Aliens would demonstrate it to us if we could listen or grasp it without dieing from fear before as we die of fear from a tiny virus!

[@bellakrinkle9381]

Judith T...I think some people are more adept at understanding the complexity of mathematics because they have had more education in math; also some are smarter, if not brilliant.

[@andersonmachado9739]

How is good you partipated of a conversation, where you can understand the grandiosity about mathematics, and have a notion that nothing at the world is easy.

[@YuriDeryous]

Brian, you are a living legend! Thanks so much for this work!

[@llray1971]

Ybor b y BBC w 010

[@artificialintelligenceplus1321]

Found the mathematical phenomenon. A very interesting channel - "Artificial Intelligence Plus Lottery".

[@TimLeahy2]

Excellent discussion. Glad to see the new format, works really well.

[@bassem500]

Thank you for this most inspiring conversation, which made me want to think. Since I went ahead and wrote some of my thoughts down, I decided to share what I wrote. The way I see it is: there cannot be a count without a counter. And “counting” is the starting point of mathematics, in my view. Put differently: I cannot see counting without a consciousness of some sort. Between a rock which does not itself count, yet still follows a geometric path around the sun within its gravitational field, and us humans, there is a threshold to consciousness which, I believe to be marked by the ability to count. Our intelligence/consciousness as humans has brought us to the point where we keep on projecting our “counting” onto the universe in attempts of grogging it. With the help of mathematics ( counting ), we were and are able to model aspects of the universe evermore closely, yet not fully. Take the Gregorian Calendar for example, which has to deal with 365 earth rotations and a fraction around the sun, mapping this on a duodecimal and base seven system in turn… what a mess! While the truth of the matter is that the earth follows a helical path around the sun as it move around the galactic center, where our galaxy is moving within the local group, and so on and so forth. In the end all what we achieved are approximations, arrived at through models which we have come up with through conciseness observation and iteration. If one would submit to the concept that the universe is ruled by qualities rather than quantities, one might have a better chance at describing the universe more fully. The universe is innocent of our interpretation of it. As long as we are counted out of the universe, that is. And yet, we emerged from the universe with consciousness and are on our way of becoming evermore conscious of where we live. P.S.: I like the production of this video.

[@somjasa]

Please, never stop doing videos, shows, etc...

[@fairblues]

Thanks very much for this - I realise it must take an enormous amount of work to set this up! The whole presentation worked extremely well and has a very similar effect to the previous shows where everyone could sit together 'live'. Please keep them coming if you can - I for one, deeply appreciate your efforts.

[@truthsocialmedia]

They are doing a zoom meeting. My sister is wacky, and she does these every day.

[@bellakrinkle9381]

@@truthsocialmedia just curious - why do you call your sister wacky? Because she loves what she's doing?

[@truthsocialmedia]

@@bellakrinkle9381 shes on it 18 hours a day. thats a little excessive.

[@orlando5385]

Brian..One of my favorite science guys, always deliver never disappoints.

[@ninadesianti9587]

Wow! This is incredible! Thank you for bringing Silvia Jonas into the discussion! I was wondering about morality realism and mathematical realism and it’s discussed here. Thank you Dr. Brian Green and all the brilliant guests!

[@808bigisland]

She has no bearing. Neither have you. Physics is blind to emotional Femalism.

[@ninadesianti9587]

@@808bigisland I don’t care if someone who discussed morality realism and the connection between that with mathematical realism and mathematical sense was female or male, but it happened to be that she is female. I’m glad that she brought that up. Let’s not focus on who said it, but whether what’s being said has some truth or not. I had a conversation with friend before I watched this discussion about wisdom and knowledge. My friend thought wisdom is completely different from accumulation of knowledge or intelligence, whereas for me there’s no separation between the two, when someone intelligent made a bad decision, it’s just because he or she didn’t not include other factors in the decision making, there’s incomplete knowledge or information. But it could be also that our brain somehow ignore important piece of information to be able to function in every day life, we take big risks every day. And there’s also confirmation bias.

[@ninadesianti9587]

@@808bigisland everyone in the panel have interesting opinions of course, but for me it’s the first time I heard morality idealism, there’s a form of pure sense of rightness, just like in mathematics, there are platonic objects. But of course, I will continue to evaluate it. I’m also on Max Tegmark side for now, that mathematics is discovered. Although Stephen Wolfram (I wish he were in the panel) said that we think that way because mathematics is the only tool we have, therefore it’s limited, in a way we will square everything in mathematics, it’s our hammer for every problems. No other panelists discussed it that way, or maybe express it differently and I didn’t get that.

[@vincentrusso4332]

Pointing out a panelist is female is rather childish...If we were arguing about the fall of mankind from a biblical perspective sure, however this is purely mathematical. I stand with the greatest minds.. Cantor, Godel, Einstein etc. Brian used the illustration of two sticks to determine the circumference of the globe, yet didn't acknowledge that someone in Egypt was orienting underground chambers to the cardinal points 6K years ago, and it was so nice to hear that Mesopotamia had mathamagics first, yet should have included that they recorded that someone taught them. They took no credit. - Surry Virginia

[@808bigisland]

@@ninadesianti9587 The gynists build social constructs. Ms Jonas cannot participate in physics research. There are 18x more men in the high IQ bracket than females and almost 0 females in the highest IQ bracket also precludes Ms Jonas from participating in the "wisdom" category. Morals have been superceded by ethics...she is a religious. Moral frameworks are designed as enforceable legal frameworks for the IQ group that cannot develop themselves. Look into her study record...she is what we commonly call witches. The genetics of females invariably lead to early arrested development at 19. Premodernism is built in. There are good reasons for that. Ms Jonas shares this trait with you. Neither you nor her sees this gynistic limiting factor. I do and history, genetics, statistics show that inclusion happens very very rarely. Her insights are severely limited. The human record shows this nonparticipation in all clarity for 100000 years. Ms Jonas is no different.

[@j.d.4697]

33:19 I also see what Greene is getting at. It does make mathematics appear like a translation tool, akin to transcription, that allows for compatibility between how the brain processes and understands things and how the universe actually works.

[@kd7jhd]

Good point. It's the language of prediction we learn from empirical observation and logic.

[@bendavis2234]

I would check out the video of Brian and Max that came out recently. They dive deeper into this discussion and Brian pushes back on Max’s opinion a little more. It was a satisfying follow up to this discussion and it sharpened their points on the subject a little more. Both of them are great.

[@elaineandrepont]

@@bendavis2234Thank you for sharing! Do you have access to the link?

[@artificialintelligenceplus1321]

Found the mathematical phenomenon A very interesting channel-"Artificial Intelligence Plus Lottery".

[@louistech112]

I remember watching him on Nova at the age of 14 it was so cool and made me love math and science

[@kenhiett5266]

Do you think math is discovered or invented?

[@channelwarhorse3367]

@@kenhiett5266 Einstein INCH sure does .. g = G Me / r^2 (1e -/+Ef/Eo) r = c .. the water molecule has an event horizon to pi line expands to freeze .. can be tic tac like a satellite to planet .. JPL to gravity assist .. object to water to earth the earth is by G to sun entangled .. is manifest or big bang .. I lean towards Penrose, follows Relativity .. Dark ages, writing is not allowed ... hard question is observable ...

[@CloudyShinobi]

@@channelwarhorse3367 wtf are u talking abt. Seems like almost random world and symbol salad

[@channelwarhorse3367]

@@CloudyShinobi must carry the units, mass is energy, only transferable .. the neturuo quarks have an Event Horizon, as does Blackholes to water molecules .. which when manufacturing a gravity engine, by simple water column, object to water molecule .. works well in mechanics using math to machine manufacture. Expand Sir Issac Newton's .. is the Einstein INCH, which is not theory 😑.. Relativity Applications of Mass published book by Troy McDermott manufacturing gravity engines, clean energy technology, and the same equation matches DNA pattern to manifestation. We have the Theory of Everything by Math. Demonstrate by machine manufacture. Am concerned, Kinetic Energy Experiment is banned book and author dies 😢 .. maybe people are lying to you ? WTF rights .. am too paired with Presidents under Public Energy Law ..

[@channelwarhorse3367]

@@CloudyShinobi Traditionally GM1M2/r^2 ... is actually particle wave duality, G Me (M2,M3) which forms a triangle 🔺️ to rs horizontal, circle, pi which has a line rs vertical .. Me ( 1e -/+ Ef/Eo ) G .. E = mc2. .. hope this helps, will not fail you, especially describing where entropy goes, G sub c.

[@benstallone6784]

I like Max - always smiling even when just listening.

[@ominous-omnipresent-they]

And it's so damn contagious, too.

[@Dadas0560]

So, the answer to the ultimate questions is 42, after all?

[@Nobody-zs4mg]

69

[@bellakrinkle9381]

There are so many fascinating topics presented on KZbin that it's difficult to explore such topics as mathematics. WOW! Where have I been all my life. (Just trying to understand the Craziness in our world - what a waste.) Give me something Precise like Math!

[@adrib3510]

Imagine polititians talking so gently, arguing ideas so respectfully. We need to put science in a higher pedestal than it already is. Only science can save us.

[@MrSpaz12]

They need a barfing emoji.

[@Broomful]

@@MrSpaz12 🤮🤮🤮 this one ?

[@cyrilhertz9740]

⁰7

[@Georgesoros7790]

What happens when the science is incorrect or incomplete? You’d be too dumb too get if the solutions were correct and get pp’d on by the government. "The numbers say we have to cut your wages and make you move out of your moms basement into a production line and house you in a Tesla tin shed! Yay!

[@havenbastion]

Math is descriptive of relationships of quantity. Quantity is recursive boundary conditions. In other words, math describes reality to the extent things can be quantified - separated in the identical way.

[@j3ffn4v4rr0]

Can you explain a bit, what you mean by "quantity is recursive boundary conditions"?

[@peggygilmour8905]

Math contains lots of uncertainty. Math can describe a matrix but all the equations and theorems in the world won't give anyone the nature of reality.

[@artificialintelligenceplus1321]

Found the mathematical phenomenon. A very interesting channel-"Artificial Intelligence Plus Lottery".

[@TheRollie10]

First time ive really thought about this and glad Max was there to give his analysis, i believe it is a tool which great minds over the millenia have developed to be able to explain our physical world. Glad they did ,it is applied to our development on a physical level , which is essential for our development , to give an example Elon and his many teams use it to exceed even NASA's speed of development . Grenne thank goodness asked the team about if E T's arrived they would pat us on the back and show us ,if they want, a totally dfferent analysis of time and matter within the Universe i believe our minds would be blown away , they may have advanced for millions of years and our advanced computers would seem like a plastic toy to them .

[@viratkohli_18official49]

""Eveything is easy if you are crazy . Nothing will be easy if you are lazy ."

[@Mcat_XX]

-K On

[@rahusphere]

😂

[@obiwan8972]

@@Mcat_XX wtf 😂😍

[@lobintool]

Thats' me screwed then...I'm bone idle!

[@letsif]

What happens when math breaks down at the singularity or the plank length? At those points(sic) there's no more math, but some kind of reality remains. And if math is discovered and not a purely human construct, there must be a reality beyond that doesn't require math.

[@yecril71pl]

Mathematics does not break at Planck length. Our models do. There need not be any "reality" at Planck length. Stay humble to win.

[@twt2718]

@@yecril71pl Was about to say nearly the same thing

[@MZANN365]

All realities require mathematics 🧮 Where in the earthly realm or eternal

[@lewisjones4158]

David Albert's approach makes sense to me. It's a cynical approach to science. Which is what science is. It questions everything.

[@KP_Oz]

Go Max and Sylvia! A brilliant discussion!💯

[@MadMax-xc4lr]

Thank you

[@twt2718]

Yes. Thank you. I watched this live with live messaging stream. Lotta Max haters out there. Dude is one of the best.

[@shashanks.k855]

I enjoyed this so much. Thank you, Brian.

[@artificialintelligenceplus1321]

Found the mathematical phenomenon. A very interesting channel - "Artificial Intelligence Plus Lottery".

[@artificialintelligenceplus1321]

Found the mathematical phenomenon. A very interesting channel - "Artificial Intelligence Plus Lottery".

[@elaineandrepont]

Wow, fantastic discussion that truly enlightened as well as inspired; thus, pushing me further. Reality of Basic Mathematics: 2 apples + 2 apples = 4 apples Illusionary mathematical concepts-a non-reality: Single panel mirror type reflection + 2 apples = 2 apples with the illusion of 4 total apples 2 juxtaposed stationery reflecting mirror panels + 2 apples= infinite numbers of illusionary apples Triple angled mirror + 2 apples = 5 apples. Does occulting reflective landscaping mirrors about our universe equate infinity/infinite space? ETA🌹

[@Skinny-me]

Thank you so much Brian for giving us these wonderful treats of great minds as yours!

[@artificialintelligenceplus1321]

Found the mathematical phenomenon. A very interesting channel-"Artificial Intelligence Plus Lottery".

[@sedenshop]

Thank you all for your contribution to this subject.

[@artificialintelligenceplus1321]

Found the mathematical phenomenon A very interesting channel - "Artificial Intelligence Plus Lottery".

[@sopranos2012]

Thank you so much for this video,incredibly interesting to think about!

[@sleeplessdev7204]

The editing and animations in these keep getting better and better, great work

[@twt2718]

Yeah they have but I miss the live panels 🙁

[@sebastiansea5122]

I think you raise the level on KZbin here enormously with such professional and beautiful stuff.

[@artificialintelligenceplus1321]

Found the mathematical phenomenon A very interesting channel-"Artificial Intelligence Plus Lottery".

[@wdking8833]

I'd like to see an expanded version of this discussion. Maybe a 2 or even 3 hour presentation.

[@cyrus723]

Brilliant thought provoking conversation. Thank you.

[@tomjohn8733]

Beautiful way of explaining mathematics, thank you!

[@tomjohn8733]

@Living Soulyou need help…

[@tomjohn8733]

@Living Soul as a 23 yr Vietnam vet, of two wars and a life fine of experiences and educated, oh, I awake, which is more than I can Say about you, the worst kind of ignorance is willful ignorance were one ignores all the evidence and science and believes they’re all wrong….what say you about your evidence, what is your field of expertise, weapons, war monger, a master of disinformation, misinformation and die hard fox network Trumper…what say you soul..whats your claim to fame…

[@nathanmadonna9472]

Just when it got good they ended it. I wish they talked about Kurt Gödel's incompleteness theorem more. I side with Einstein's view. Basically, math is very useful and powerful but limited in the description of our universe.🙂

[@sailor4076]

Really cool format, loved the discussion

[@emmanuelstamatakis8218]

When you eliminate the impossible whatever remains however improbable must be math

[@artificialintelligenceplus1321]

Found the mathematical phenomenon A very interesting channel-"Artificial Intelligence Plus Lottery".

[@troyterhune8006]

2+2=4 1.4+1.6= 4. Until you describe something greater than the sum of its parts. Art has a mathematical component. Music can be mathematical expressed but it losses something until it is heard by an imperfect ear but a prepared or hungry soil

[@iparkedmycar]

Great "remote" format in this age of isolationism! That said Brian's belt buckle is driving me nuts.

[@michaelelbert5798]

I have believed for a long time that maths were always in our minds" subconscious" but we have to explain it to our conscience. Alongside all the other secrets of the universe.

[@michaelelbert5798]

Today I believe mathematics is just another tool like all other tools. Tools are imagined and made and used. Used to interact with all aspects of the universe. Whether or not maths are discovered or invented is obviously both.

[@michaelelbert5798]

Actually in reality all our tools are given to us by realities and causality.

[@haydenwayne3710]

Great show!!! Congratulations. For me, it's all consciousness. The sheer fact that equations have to use the already existing components parts to describe anything, for me, clearly demonstrates everything already exists. Matter cannot be created or destroyed, thus everything exists and it is for consciousness to reveal the Truth of what is already there.... intelligent with the status of its totality.

[@MarkLucasProductions]

That introduction was just so good!!!

[@artificialintelligenceplus1321]

Found the mathematical phenomenon A very interesting channel - "Artificial Intelligence Plus Lottery".

[@NoLuv4Hoz]

Tegmark's argument is very "this-reality-is-just-a-mathematical-simulation" adjacent. But David Albert will have none of it.

[@firstcommenter202]

Tegmark ignores the fact that math is a product of human neurons. It has limitations.

[@jamesvalentine1059]

0

[@NoLuv4Hoz]

@@firstcommenter202 Couldn’t it be argued that the mathematical properties of ‘reality’ existed before the first neuron was ever formed? Also, wouldn’t those properties still exist if no neurons had ever formed, or wouldn’t they persist after the last neuron has vanished?

[@twt2718]

@@NoLuv4Hoz Exactly. The math behind General Relativity was true before Einstein put it down on paper. And it’s still true today.

[@wendykleeb2071]

Thank you Brian. I love scientists who share their knowledge with the public! Many laymen also ask these questions, and really become excited to listen to mathematicians on the forefront! (Especially us Liberal Studies Grads. )

[@artificialintelligenceplus1321]

Found the mathematical phenomenon. A very interesting channel - "Artificial Intelligence Plus Lottery".

[@sidrar5528]

This talk changed my mind. I see what they're getting at from a mathematical perspective, that I was seeing from a biological perspective (being an organism that can be described by the mathematics of evolutionary processes, at that level). Math isn't just a human invention, its definitely a human discovery. I'm just getting into math, and this was a nice talk that really brought in multiple disciplines in the most perfect way, in that its about the fundamentals of reality, like the physics of it, only math is also a fundamental quality. I was on the fence, but yep, I see it. Its a mathematical universe, and you're a mathematical object like Greene says in the end. The quality of conscious experience and mental representations doesn't stump me. Whether all of the mathematics that's invented is just as real as the real stuff, IDK... As mentioned in the following talk, Does nature need, for example, infinities to do its thang?

[@a.b3748]

It seems that most of them agree that math is discovered not created

[@maxwellsequation4887]

Mathematics is discovered. Calculus, arithmetic, geometry are the proofs. Saying it's invented are like saying I invented this baby because I named him.

[@MikhalisBramouell]

@Al Fata Ibney Tarique Rahat They did though.

[@marfmarfalot5193]

Mathematics is invented just as planed were invented yet discovered

[@HoratioHoodoo]

I see it as a painfully arbitrary topic.

[@danabarnett]

Great discussion! I enjoyed this very much. It's nice to see leading scientists beginning to take these sorts of questions seriously. For years physicists tended to dismiss such considerations as irrelevant or even meaningless. How times have changed! The problem I have with a view like Tegmark's is precisely this: What exactly IS a mathematical object? What is its ontological status? Neither he nor anyone else - certainly not Plato - has come close to providing a genuine answer to this question. To reduce the world to a string of numbers, but then to fail to adequately explain just what those numbers are, or the precise nature of the mind (or brain's) interaction with them, is, in my view at least, intellectually lazy. We think about mathematics, just as we are capable of thinking about anything else. I have trouble imagining that instead, numbers are really doing all of my thinking for me, which seems to imply that numbers are somehow capable of thinking about numbers! Just my two apples... er, cents :)

[@onebylandtwoifbysearunifby5475]

Yes, numbers are doing your thinking. That's probably the sticking point for most people. Neurons are "on-off", "fire/ no-fire" objects. No shades between. Very much binary. Collections of numbers- which fired, how many, for how long. Numbers all. And integers. No neuron half-fires, or 2/3rds fires. On-off, and how many, how often, where and when. They either fire or they don't. No degrees. Very much binary. Take some out, and you lose your function there. You are your body, and your body-brain is a statistical pattern of comparison to previous patterns. That's what we've named "thinking". But it arises from "on-off" states, as remarkable as this all is- yet it is. Also very much like frequencies of quarks and electrons ganging up to make "physical" objects- it's all frequencies. Stable patterns in unstable backgrounds. Those patterns- what are they? What would you like to call them? One option is "math". Math is what describes patterns. Could be what patterns are made of. You're made of patterns too- patterns without mass, for the most part. 94% of your weight is gluon fields. Gluons have no mass- zero. And yet something with zero mass is 94% of your mass. So is it any stranger to call their fundamental nature "math" or "particle"? Neither has any "mass", and yet here you are leaving a dent in your chair. That dent is the "weight" of "energy", which is itself an abstract object without physical form. Math as objects is just that. Objects are made of patterns. Patterns are objects.

[@danabarnett]

Numbers, including binary numbers, are abstract descriptions of the world invented by humans. A pattern is not a pattern until it is perceived to be one. Without this crucial ingredient - the ingredient of conscious awareness on the part of an active agent - it cannot rightly be said to exist. If what you suggest is true, then the subatomic particles composing rocks, trees, and interstellar space ought to be just as capable of "thought" as our brains are, a situation which is manifestly not the case. The panpsychist hypothesis does nevertheless have its defenders (most notably David Chalmers), however implausible it may seem to most serious philosophers. "It is one of the greatest and also the least justifiable of all scientific or religious tricks to use a humanly made sound or written shape to express a personal notion and then to say that such a sound or shape means something 'absolute' - that is, existing without relationship of any kind to the human subject." - William Gooddy, "Time and the Nervous System"

[@onebylandtwoifbysearunifby5475]

@@danabarnett The stuff you ate made of _IS_ Patterns. Quarks are patterns, stable patterns in an unstable quark field. Same with electrons. And these electrons only occupy certain patterns around quarks, and no others. They are all discrete repeated patterns. Your "agent" is a made-up human term that doesn't exist outside human thought. The patterns, however, certainly do. They interact with other patters. But only certain ones with certain others. They select interaction among those patterns. By adding "agent", you're claiming these patterns and interactions don't exist without humans. Then how do these patterns recognize each other, and react with some, but not other? Now you have an "agency" problem, and it can only be resolved by saying all particles (patterns of field frequency) must be "consciously" interacting, consciously recognize each other as same or different, through "agency". Well maybe you're right, but that means every rock is conscious. Your argument sounds a bit out there to me, but who knows? Maybe rocks are conscious. I prefer to think consciousness is limited to "life" patterns. It seems more reasonable than your "everything must be conscious" argument, a requirement if patterns don't exist separate from human thought. Humans are made of patterns, and they were hardly the first conscious life. (Unless you believe without evidence Neanderthals were somehow "non- conscious" entities? Of course you have to be careful there- 5% of your "human" DNA is Neanderthal DNA. Patterns all, and preserved through time long before "humans" were even an idea, a thought. Numbers are information, information is numbers. How those entities interact is called by us "mathematical"- but that's just a name. Those patterns of interaction, information, long predate naming of them, or other thoughts about them. Thoughts themselves are impossible without patterns. You're a bit limited on who has your permission to have thoughts. "Trees". Ok, well trees secrete sap as defensive action against beetle attack. And not just at the beetle site, but the whole tree recognizes the attack and responds. Oh yes, i almost left out the other shoe... The trees around the tree being attacked by beetles also begin secreting defensive sap, even if they have no beetles on them whatsoever. They're thought to communicate this information to eachother through mycelium networks (mushrooms) in the soil, using them as communication relays. Making each other aware of the attacks. Aware of future events, so they can execute a defense not for current events, but future potential events (a.k.a. "planning"). Mycelium themselves communicate with each other through electric spikes of patterns, have similar word lengths to humans english (5 characters on average), and have 50 different words recorded, which effect behaviours of cells being talked to from different regions and in different conditions. About -5mv (5 electron millivolts) verse -55 mv for human neuron communication. And mycelium are not in a hurry about it either, with long time codes. So 'humans must be here to decide those were patterns'? That would really be odd, since trees and mushrooms were communicating before humans discovered communication. And before humans ever existed as a species. Humans have nothing to do with "inventing" patterns, patterns were always there. Everything is literally made of patterns- smallest sub-atomic particle on up. And the patterns act in concert with certain other patterns, not with certain other ones, and not randomly with any which ones. Humans are just another thing, one of many. Math is these patterns and interactions. It was around long before humans "thought" about them. Humans are full of arrogance, biases. These continue to plague humans and fluff their perceived importance in an infinite Universe. They are what led to "the Sun revolves around the Earth" nonsense. "Humans invented math and thoughts" is just another penny in that sac, and equally valid. Now, that said- i don't know whether rocks are conscious or not. You may be right, and maybe they are. Maybe patterns like rocks need "agency" to exist. So maybe nothing exists without consciousness to recognize the patterns that are the Universe. But if things must be "agents" to recognize their own patterns before they can exist, they would have trouble assembling those patterns in exquisite detail of repeating precision... before they could exist to recognize themselves in the first place. (Unless "time" is also invented by human "agency"? Interesting idea. Time is a mystery. And maybe all patterns are conscious assembly as your argument claims, rocks included. I will concede that i do not for certain know the counterexample must be true- that rocks aren't conscious).

[@dalep2403]

Brother what an eye opener ,can't wait to see the rest. Shalom and thank you for all your hard work and research. I know this is not easy but I can see the anointing of Yah on you for you make it look easy.

[@abushaad7511]

Thank you guys, I thoroughly enjoy it.

[@artificialintelligenceplus1321]

Found the mathematical phenomenon. A very interesting channel-"Artificial Intelligence Plus Lottery".

[@PheonixOmega]

I think mathematics is just the language humanity uses to define the nature of the world around us from an individual and collective perception.

[@dmar191]

Exactly. It’s our method of approximating what we’ve already experienced and then used as a tool to predict future events.

[@yanair2091]

Wow, what a deep thoughts.

[@spookytk]

I would have listened for two more hours!

[@CloudyShinobi]

Well said, it was like intellectual as well as spiritual manna. At least in my experience, the contemplation of these concepts and outlooks are some of the most spiritually-attuned and spiritually-invigorating meditative pursuits that a human being can engage in.

[@CloudyShinobi]

Ps. I love your screen name and what it refers ton; it’s quite appropriate given the conversation at hand.

[@artificialintelligenceplus1321]

Found the mathematical phenomenon A very interesting channel - "Artificial Intelligence plus Lottery"..

[@Capetown2233]

Beautifully presented , wish my zoom was similar

[@caty863]

Someone just convinced me I didn't really know what a table was. It's incredible what an eloquent person can do!

[@mosesonyango3409]

Absolutely fantastic, thanks guys!

[@gunnarsamuelsson4611]

I just love listening to Max Tegmark and how he's explaining how we live in the matrix! :) And then Albert was in distress and the Freudian slip occured with the "cucumbers and Ferraris". That was funny! :P Great show!

[@HarryKoppel]

I understood the "cucumbers and Ferraris" metaphor better than Max's attempt to mix up the description of an object with the object itself

[@kuntamdc]

I don't get the cucumbers and Ferraris metaphor or Freudian slip...

[@TroyYounts]

I had a bad experience with a teacher in math in the 4th grade which , essentially traumatized my relationship with mathematics. I have always felt like my understanding and appreciation of Science and the mystery of Consciousness and existence suffered from that moment on. How does you understanding , knowledge, and use maths impact your conscious life in the waking -world? I am interested in all everyone's answer.

[@gayfrogsociety]

I relate to your comment very much, I have decided to start learning maths again as my interest in philosophy and the universe never suffered. Im quickly realising your understanding of mathematics has a strong influence on your understanding of the universe around you and how consciousness is connected/related to that. Mathematics is truely enthralling stuff. It really is a tragedy that it is packaged with such a stigma in school. It's never to late to start learning. 💫

[@danielefarotti1061]

thank you Brian! wonderful episode!

[@artificialintelligenceplus1321]

Found the mathematical phenomenon A very interesting channel - "Artificial Intelligence plus Lottery"..

[@KP_Oz]

How come I never come across a Silvia Jonas in real life? ❤️ 😅

[@brokenwave6125]

They are busy spending time with guys on their level

[@KP_Oz]

@@brokenwave6125 or because they're one in a million and it's just a lottery?😃 Have you found one yet?

[@MikhalisBramouell]

@@KP_Oz They are not one in a million, they are common now. But they are looking for someone both attractive and submissive and able to pay off their hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of student debt while maintaining a high-class lifestyle.

[@brokenwave6125]

@@KP_Oz Can't say I'm interested

[@thebends6580]

Hehehe I love seeing Albert struggling to make Max come to his senses...

[@tedlemoine5587]

Excellent Video!!! I love how David Albert & Max Tegmark both see the world so differently & both make compelling arguments

[@artificialintelligenceplus1321]

Found the mathematical phenomenon. A very interesting channel-"Artificial Intelligence Plus Lottery".

[@airwaycherry4310]

Brian you closed this episode so eloquently and masterfully. Just like a great Professor can!

[@jivepepper]

Wow the blind leading the blind.

[@jamesberry4514]

If math reveals reality don't forget that linearity is a major exception to the rule of nonlinearity. By extension, in the world of nonlinearity, there is much more space of possibility than linearity would allow for.

[@michaelwhalan9783]

From the movie "Contact", a solution to a new type of mathematics was a three dimensional description of equations. A new great leap like that is required.

[@bernardofitzpatrick5403]

Interesting. Jacob Lurie , mathematician, mentioned something , in passing, about the need , perhaps for a new great leap. Sorry can’t remember exactly which talk.

[@RJAdams-yk6ku]

You should look into Euclidean Space and Geometric Algebra. Einstein spent a large part of his life studying those subjects as a kid before he discovered special and general relativity. They show you how math can be used to describe physical objects within a 3D or 4D plane and how they can change in time. I'm learning vPython from "Let's Code Physics" channel right now so I can learn how to make certain physics simulations. It's really cool stuff if you're into that

[@bernardofitzpatrick5403]

@@RJAdams-yk6ku great! Will take a look.👍

[@michaelwhalan9783]

@@RJAdams-yk6ku Anthony Garret Lisi explained how the E8 Group could mathematically explain particles. Can be an analogue of string theory not up to ten dimensions, though. A company is set up pushing this, but links mysticism to it and the leader has a shady past.

[@RJAdams-yk6ku]

@@michaelwhalan9783 Which company? I wish more VCs would invest in such things