Leonard Susskind - Why Do We Search for Symmetry?

Free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
Symmetry is when things are the same around an axis. Turn it and it looks the same. A simple idea with profound implications for understanding the universe and for predicting how it works. Finding symmetries, and discerning when they break, is one key for understanding fundamental physics.
Watch more interviews on the search for symmetry: bit.ly/2UTcE80
Leonard Susskind is the Felix Bloch Professor of Theoretical Physics at Stanford University, and Director of the Stanford Institute for Theoretical Physics. He received a BS in physics from City College of New York and a PhD from Cornell University.
Register for free at CTT.com for subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/2GXmFsP
Closer to Truth presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.

[@CloserToTruthTV]

Do you agree with Susskind's assessment of beauty and symmetry? Leave a comment below with your thoughts!

[@Dr_MKUltra]

What we do know is that we are getting closer every year, our knowledge base increases with new ideas, new discoveries and experimental data. The future is bright.

[@FABRIZIOZPH]

I agree 100% with his assessment... What he is saying is that the concepts of beauty and symmetry are not objective.. They are imposed by our brains.. Which are by definition subjective.. Our brains are the result of million of years of evolution.. What we perceive as symmetric and beautiful is just an accident of evolution.. yes it works... But it has nothing to do with the objective reality of the universe..

[@dunklaw]

These kind of speculations are fairly useless until we learn how to deal with the complexity of open systems. Mandelbrot is the only real attempt I have seen to deal with reiterative nature of all things and structure. A sample example would be - how many leaves are on a tree. For a real living tree it is always in flux. One could estimate on fixed point in time - in aspic, but living systems are never in aspic.

[@dunklaw]

@Salena Shakti Radford I think you will find that to be more cultural than intrinsic. Aboriginal concepts are well worth investigating. It is evident in Muslim art and renaissance gardens.

[@uremove]

I think Susskind’s example of quark symmetry is cherry picked! There are much more fundamental symmetries that are exact & not approximations, not least between quarks and anti-quarks (up quarks and down quarks are not really symmetrical at all!). Symmetry gets complicated, but other examples I can think of that are not approximate are Lorenz symmetry due to the speed of light (Special Relativity), CPT symmetry for the Strong and Electromagnetic forces or the proposed broken symmetry (unification) of Strong, Weak and EM forces.

[@michaelanderson4849]

"Not in the circles I move in" What a diplomatic way to exclude the crackpots 😁

[@user-xs3og8us3d]

Circles: Who is that?

[@robertkucmik7536]

Classy way

[@rer9287]

Emmy Noether and her respectable circles would call these circles the crackpots.

[@omkarrajebhosale4153]

Love the way he presented his thoughts and the point where he says that Nature is what it is, regardless of whether we think it is beautiful or not!

[@vavsvsvs]

My professor!!!!! What a privilege see him on class.

[@Warguard9]

These talks are refreshing and thought engaging, I agree with Susskind " the Universe" doesn't give a damn what we think or whether we are right or wrong!

[@Warguard9]

@Eagle Tactics Why do you QUESTION that which you are?

[@hunk2140]

@@Warguard9 becoz we can and we choose to

[@Warguard9]

@@hunk2140 What have you to offer "becoz you can and you choose to" that will shed understanding on the topic?

[@myothersoul1953]

@Eagle Tactics You are right, we are part of the universe, not a byproduct, just a extremely tiny bit of it, maybe the most complicated bit.

[@ThomasDoubting5]

The more you think the further away from understanding you become. Hence after hundreds of years of philosophy ideologies science academia. Mankind is still none the wiser It's acquired knowledge it creates concepts and that is nothing to do with reality or understanding.

[@douglasauruss]

That grin after asking the symmetries question at 5:41

[@ananth1994]

Killed it :D

[@GreySectoid]

Good chemistry between them.

[@attilakun7850]

The answer was 0.

[@Neura1net]

Awesome guest

[@joneps8021]

I think that people look for symmetries for two basic reasons 1) Symmetries simplify the problem you are looking at, so of course you are happy to find one in your calculations 2) Symmetries are mathematically described by groups and there are many nice mathematical theories for understanding these groups (Like representation theory, specifically for the groups that appear in the standard model you can also use many methods from geometry and topology). So when you try to model your physical system using groups there are many methods you can use to understand your system.

[@fongchienyoong7656]

And as Susskind hinted in the video, the applicability of symmetries is a consequence of making approximate assumptions about the phenomena being studied.

[@Drbob369]

Good work and not too long

[@lunalaufmann7527]

correct: SU(3) symmetry of quarks is generating a messed-up model. But before rejecting symmetry I would reject quarks...

[@empemitheos]

Nature's tendency to approximately approach perfect mathematical structures can still tell us a lot about what is going on underneath the apparent chaos

[@kidzbop38isstraightfire92]

Yea, this dude is wrong, symmetry is real and permeats nature

[@vhawk1951kl]

What does it tell You - yes you about what is "going on" underneath apparent chaos, and what you suppose to be going on "underneath apparent chaos"? Presumably by "we" you refer to yourself and some identifiable other, but it is hard to tell you creatures seem to chuck the "we" fantasy around like confetti, despite the fact that only you experience whatever it is you experience, for if it were otherwise the pain of the one would be the pain of the many - and self-evidently it is not

[@empemitheos]

@@vhawk1951kl whether solipsism exists is not the point of this discussion, we, yes we, can accept that likely, you are surrounded by other apparently conscious entities that apparently pass tests of consciousness, so for the sake of discussion we can assume this is true and your model of the world will tend to be more accurate with this assumption, now yes possibly we are all in our own little observer slice of the universe and things we see in reality are mirrors of other conscious observers but not actually the observer itself but seriously, for all practical purposes and discussion this is apparently what is going on around us right now, the most likely explanations tend to be correct on average, that's common sense, though everything boils down to probability and there is always a small chance that we see complex things that are just coincidence

[@vhawk1951kl]

@@empemitheos hat would not be quite so hilarious if you had the faintest idea what you mean by 'conscious', but you are about to demonstrate that you have no idea whatsoever, because conscious is a blur-an unclear or unfocused word/idea /image that was *never focussed for you; if you just said stuff it would come to exactly the same thing. How could a dreamer like you and apparently similar dreamers possibly be conscious? That you simply *cannot* understand that merely illustrates that you are a dreamer. 'Conscious', my arse. That you imagine that you even * might* ever have been conscious simply illustrates that.

[@alive2583]

@@empemitheosWhere did you get solipsism from symmetry? Are we suppose to be half of self and allow other panpsychists to use our minds? I don’t get your point. Sounds like your a good human under your chaos

[@davidarbuckle7236]

The Universe is unfolding elegantly and beautifully and exactly as it should even if we do not see it. It may be violent and ferocious, but still wonderful and all empowering as I sit on my recliner peering into the sky on this star-lit night...

[@vhawk1951kl]

What is, or what you mean by, "the universe"? Is it not no more than some vague generalisation? If not, what you supposedly specifically and other than a vague generalisation?

[@davidarbuckle7236]

@@vhawk1951kl Just a slice of the Milky Way. Forgive me.

[@joseleon8235]

I think we might be able to appreciate the simetry and simplicity if we take probability into account in order to comprehend everything.

[@waynelast1685]

Hey! Slugs are beautiful too.

[@SpewnyBard]

The only difference between a butterfly and a moth at a glance, is how loudly one catches our eye. We have a bias, and we pass it down as a blessing.

[@jimsteen911]

LS is my favorite physicist. Brilliant. Humble.

[@rer9287]

neither

[@31428571J]

Great stuff. It's an oldie though (I recognise his t-shirt:-). Just finished Sabine Hossenfelder's "Lost in Math". Many of his points agree with it.

[@Metaldetectiontubeworldwide]

Haha just my thought ...that T shirt , i also recognized

[@31428571J]

@Space Monkey Yes, certainly. She's well respected in her field.

[@noodlerancid]

​@@31428571J I don't think so, she always wants to get into controversies out of nowhere.

[@jalalabdallah7879]

#my Teacher and my father in Physics , i Hope Long - Life with Healthy to you Prof. Leonard Susskind

[@madslundgaard3890]

I don't know of it is left out by intent, because of the kind of symmetry this video is addressing, but I have heard many address Noether's theorem and the symmetries it addresses as a "beautiful" part of physics.

[@alexanderberan77]

Yesterday I had the argument with a friend how, If we don't know how it all truly works, we can say that nothing important is lost in approximation. If someone says 'yeah, but we can calculate and measure its mass with an incredible acuracy up to the 15ths decimal digit", how come we know that a small mistake in the 16th digit wouldn't change everything. Just because in our view it's so tiny, it couldnt matter? If there was a threshold (for whatever reason) that led to completely different (chaotic) outcomes; maybe that threshold splits outcomes exactly after the 15th digit or whatever (just as an example). "Ist es ein Tropfen auf den heißen Stein, oder der Tropfen, der das Fass zum überlaufen bringt?"

[@peteryip947]

Logically speaking, the less (systematic) we know about the world, the more poetic it is to us. But it’s just a metaphor, in reality, there is always infinite amount of information out there that we can absorb, so as long as you keep searching, the world would never bore you. Just to be clear, the motivation behind searching for symmetry is because it is a beautiful/soothing concept, and our mind tend to bias towards beautiful/soothing concepts when it comes to discovering the unknown.

[@vhawk1951kl]

You wrote "Logically speaking, the less (systematic) we know about the world," You say the less systematic I know about the world, but what exactly do you mean by "the less systematic I know about the world? Presumably you are hiding behind some imaginary "we" and can only possibly be referring to yourself. Why do you say "we" rather than "I"?

[@user-mp9ez3me7d]

What about the so cold symmetries regarding classical mechanics and electromagnetism? Are those approximate to?

[@johnbuckner2828]

You found it! all these centuries from Plato until now we've been trying to figure out... where is the Good the True and the Beautiful? Thank you for solving this problem.

[@_n2d2]

I am in love with Leonard. He is charismatic.

[@trevormcquoid7433]

what about how trees, lightning, rivers, veins all have similar structures? Or how connections in the brain have a similar structure to galaxies in the universe and cities(big hubs of activity connecting to smaller hubs with voids in between)? theres gotta be some kind of purpose to the patterns in the universe even if they aren't 100% exact down to the atom

[@vhawk1951kl]

Exactly how much experience do you have of whatever you mean by "atoms", and if and when you experience an "atom", how do you know that it is an "atom"? Do you encounter a lot of atoms frequently and how do you know that they are atoms? I have no experience of an atom having never had any experience of an atom and been able to identify it as a matteran atom, but apparently you pick them up and examine them and perhaps even conversed with them, daily or by moments, since you are so apparently familiar with atoms which you experience exactly how? - Do you recognise them by taste touch smell or what?

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

what does time symmetry with conservation of energy mean for universe?

[@Dyslexic-Artist-Theory-on-Time]

02:38 "There are no symmetries all symmetries of nature are approximate and therefore accidental". There is an alternative that the Universe as a process can form spherical symmetry that has the potential for entropy, broken symmetry and even greater symmetry formation!

[@vhawk1951kl]

When a speaker or user of the word "we", uses that particular word, he can only possibly be referring to himself and his interlocutor, may or may not experience what he experiences, and unless it is not the tells him that he searches for symmetry and simultaneously leave the speaker also searches for symmetry, only you can know or experience what moves him to as he puts it "search for symmetry, and there could be any number of disparate reasons why disparate beings might seek to discover what he calls symmetry in the conditions in which they find themselves, but it would not be unreasonable to assume that if it is ever reasonable to assume, that Men's (human beings) bodies are broadly speaking symmetrical, assume or expect the conditions around them to be similar to what they directly immediately experience such as the mechanisms that they inhabit, or their bodies

[@raimundohenriques1433]

Symmetry and beauty is a human construct and as this exist only in human mind. Then I can “view ” the world as beauty or not

[@Arn.Sussekind]

Human and throughout the animal kingdom, symmetry is an evolutionary factor.

[@eyebee-sea4444]

Exceptional successful scientists like Einstein were inspired by the idea, that the fundamental laws or principles behind all the complexity around us are in nature simple and elegant and the duty of science IS to find this laws or principles. This is the essence of "explanation". Bohr was another type of scientist, also successful but not as exceptional as Einstein. He once said to Einstein: "Don't tell God what to do", that is similar to Susskinds "The Universe doesn't give a damn what we think". But the truth is, the Universe doesn't give a damn what Bohr or Susskind thinks too! What matters is: how do we deal with the Universe? What is more scientific? Looking for simplicity, even if it seems hopeless, or shrugging the shoulders, because "it is as it is"?

[@turdferguson3400]

The scientific thing to do is submit our ideas to nature, not force nature into our ideas.

[@eyebee-sea4444]

Sure, I tried to explain why this accusation is unfounded.

[@AlexanderShamov]

There's no contradiction here. Theorists investigate the space of possible hypotheses, looking for the simplest ones that fit the experimental data. If even the simplest ones turn out to be complicated - then so be it. But the reluctance to accept this possibility is entirely rational, and not just a matter of aesthetics or personal biases.

[@phildurre9492]

I have never seen a person with arguments so sharp even in everyday life. amazing

[@williamhardes8081]

i think there many cases in nature in which a slight asymmetry is what enhances it's beauty?

[@Andres-is3lj]

how come symmetries are approximate? how about the space-time movements?

[@johnunvaxxed1918]

Leonard is downplaying the importance of symmetry and simplicity here

[@franciscocevallos5084]

Is it Symmetry that wishing or making sure that there will be no more wars,big wars or small for at least a hundred years from now?

[@Dantheon]

So the universe fundamentally doesn’t have translational, rotational and temporal symmetry? So there’s no such thing as the conservation of linear, angular momentum and energy?

[@kevinmm20]

Those symmetries are valid in classical physics. In general relativity, they are approximations.

[@christophercoulter7782]

We could go onto say that, is it possible that symmetry might turn out ot be the ultimate mystery. How do we know if Dark Energy has symmetrical properties or not? Do we even know how DE grows yet? Or is it at the opposite spectrum when talking about symmetry?

[@kumar2ji]

Beauty or not beautiful is based on the positive or negative stimulation it triggers.

[@johnrowson7639]

The symmetry is the quality that allows math to differ with observation?

[@kidzbop38isstraightfire92]

Every single time we've discovered a new physical theory, its turned our symmetric, with no preferred frame of reference.

[@vhawk1951kl]

When did you - yes you "discover a new physical theory"?

[@kidzbop38isstraightfire92]

@@vhawk1951kl Peter, if you didn't see that "we" = collective humanity, then you probably don't belong on this video. Every rational human would have looked at my comment and knew immediately that I wasn't speaking of my personal self. You also failed to address the crux of my comment (likely because you can't, but that's yet to be seen). Your gotcha moment failed and you embarrassed yourself.

[@vhawk1951kl]

@@kidzbop38isstraightfire92 "collective humanity" is imaginary in the sense that you- yes you titch cannot directly immediately personally reexperience it. Since you struggle with English "we" connotes the user of the term and his immediate interlocutor, an in the premises at the time you were short of immediate interlocutors to the tune of any at all, leaving only you titch but now, I drew the short straw.

[@kidzbop38isstraightfire92]

@@vhawk1951kl I see now that you don't understand (or speak) English past a remedial level. So, here's a lesson in English: "we" is frequently used to denote humanity in a broad sense. It's much easier to understand than the alternative ("they"), as they would require an explanation as to what specific group "they" represents. Since it's generally understood by most people that "I" personally wouldn't have discovered a new physical theory, the remaining parts of "we" represents the rest of humanity. By saying "we", I don't have to worry about excluding someone because they didn't belong to whatever noun I chose to use. For instance, if I said "every single time *Physicists* discovered...", I'm limiting the discoverers to only physicists. As it's possible that some physical theories weren't discovered by classicly-trained physicists, I would have made an error. Plus (and this is the key), it's much easier and quicker to say "we" than "physicists". Therefore, "we" is absolutely the correct choice for this sentence. Unfortunately, it's clear by your response that your grasp of the English language is tenuous at best, and I should have accounted for that. From now on, Peter, I will dumb down my comments for you.

[@vhawk1951kl]

​@@kidzbop38isstraightfire92 To what is English relevant? Not only do I speak English, but I *am* English and speak here English not some degenerate dialect of English spoken by halfwits that cannot understand pure English If that rather feeble tantrum is your best and only shot no wonder you are a mouse (nothing and nobody) ​ @Kidz Bop 38 is Straight FIRE!!

[@darwinlaluna3677]

Thank u for ur concern but maybe its not meant to be, very complicated.

[@amirkhalid5449]

Of course he's right. When we say something is beautiful, we're making an aesthetic judgement which is necessarily subjective. aesthetic

[@vhawk1951kl]

You are are you? Obviously you can only speak for yourself so in effect you are saying "I (referring to yourself) - Who else? make aesthetic judgements which of course are subjective, as is everything that you experience - it could not be otherwise.

[@neitherpeternorpaul]

What he says around 2:40 is simply not true. Just because natures symmetry is "approximate" doesn't mean it's accidental. I'm not in the position to give very good examples, but it's obvious that there are many body parts, or parts of plants that are 'approximately' symmetrical and one advantage of that is, that they can be replicated more easily. What I mean by that is, that developing symmetrical body parts is less complex than developing (and inheriting the genetical information) the same pair of body parts without any symmetry. It simply reduces the amount of 'information' needed to develop the same amount of body parts. 'Information' has to be seen as shorthand and Paul Janich has written a wonderful small book on the reasons for why the term 'information' is misleading. And the universe does care what we think insofar, as we influence the reproduction of certain species on the basis of our perception (domestication and sexual selection). Another example would be the shape of some flowers that are based on the preferences of bees because they look a bit like bodyparts of bees and are thereby attracting them. This again could be seen as some type of 'symmetry' even if it's only approximate. There is another book called "The Secret Life of Trees" by Colin Tudge, and the introductory chapter is a really curious one for anyone interested in philosophy because he makes the connection to philosophical thoughts about order in nature very explicit.

[@fongchienyoong7656]

Susskind is talking about a different matter altogether. He's pointing out that the fact that we use mathematical symmetries to model physical phenomena does not mean that the symmetries actual exist. The symmetries are only applicable because of the mathematical approximations made. They are epistemic, not ontological. I don't see how the examples that you've given are related to what Susskind is referring to. They're valid, but they reside in the realm of evolutionary biology. Anyway, the examples you've given are quite interesting. Thanks for suggesting Colin's book. Personally, I think the effectiveness of the approximate "symmetry" of flowers could be because the bees simplify the flower shapes into symmetrical patterns in their minds. Also, the universe "cares" or change in response to our actions. What we "think" indirectly influences our actions and, therefore, the examples that you've mentioned occur. There's no direct causality between nature's response and our thoughts. Just a random train of thought.

[@bananacabbage7402]

I agree with Susskind that beauty is a side show. The real reason we use gauge symmetry is because it leads to consistent field theories that agree with nature. However he is wrong that symmetry is approximate and accidental. There is no justification for that claim. Susskind's famous holographic principle is a consequence of hidden symmetry but he fails to see it because of his blinkered view. There is still reason to think that there is a lot more symmetry in nature, regardless of beauty. In QCD, flavour symmetry is approximate but SU(3) colour symmetry is not. Susskind's selective choice on which symmetries to look at is not objective. Gauge symmetries are real. Just stating that everyone in his circle thinks otherwise is not justification. This is combined with the mistaken belief that energy conservation in general relativity is approximate. Symmetry is important in physics and this negative attitude towards it explains why theorists have ceased to make progress with understanding the underlying fundamentals of string theory and everything else.

[@cristianm7097]

Correct, the Universe has ONLY symmetries (at the full scale of the Universe) that contain LOCAL asymmetries.

[@mikeoxlong2144]

Symmetry is a balance and nature strives to always balance things out.......doesn't always succeed but it keeps trying.

[@bloggerfromthefuture]

Does phi, "the golden ratio," appear in string theory?

[@user-pk5rc4or2w]

Phi is related to an finite space, which means parallel lines intersect at some point.

[@michaelcoolen8716]

The question was "why do we search for symmetry?" Not, is there symmetry? And what is the relationship between the search for patterns and the search for symmetry?

[@alexeigaina3729]

Obviously peoples able to operate with simple cathegories ( such as symmetries) could go very far

[@isaacgarza3307]

Is symmetry relative to entropy?

[@robot7759]

Wabi sabi, the beauty of imperfection. Symmetry or balance?

[@Evan490BC]

Quasi-symmetry.

[@tomingrassiaimages8776]

Finally!! someone smashes the over importance placed on symmetry and beauty.

[@RSEFX]

Is this true, that this doesn't mean that "beauty" isn't there because no one is around to observe it? --the case being that the observer just gives a name to something that is there that has a particular relationship with all the "parts" of everything that surrounds it. Acknowledgement is the interference interlock of material and data. Beauty at its broadest is a layman's term for emergent patterns.

[@bruinflight1]

woah.

[@xspotbox4400]

Best example of symmetry in nature i can think of is a principle of equal and opposite attraction. Ancient Greeks realized natural logos is possible because of an infinitely small dot, a perfect circle and a perfectly straight line. All fundamental particles are point like, they radiate ball shaped fields and light always travel at a shortest path. Most beautifull things i have ever seen are a beautiful girl and a sun.

[@douglaswims5763]

I do believe Suskins view and he is my favorite physicist

[@bl8896]

When things escalate, heat is released, when heat is released, we become Closer To Truth

[@turdferguson3400]

Typically heat is absorbed, not released, when things escalate in energy. When ice escalates in energy and turns into water, it captures heat from its surroundings. When water escalates in energy and turns into steam, it captures heat from its surroundings.

[@bl8896]

@@turdferguson3400 Absolutely correct, since heat is really just motion, it is transferable and due to the 2nd law of thermodynamics, will always move to equilibrium aka maximum entropy. I was saying that bc Mr. Susskind and Mr. Kuhn started to get into a mini heated discussion at one point but as they digressed, i felt closer to the truth, you see.

[@vhawk1951kl]

When things go up what? - To help you you write "when things escalate, heat is released"What is heat - Without defining the undefined in terms of another or other undefineds or saying X=Y=X where neither X nor Y are defined or or ascribed any value or meaning In my experience when I ask you creatures what something is you say that it is something else, thus doing little more than X=Y=Xwhere neither X nor Y are defined or or ascribed any value or meaning or something like heat is energy and when I ask you what energy you say that it is something else that you have no idea what it is, or in simple terms you fall back on cognates and synonyms all the while not having the faintest idea what you mean by the words you use, but that appears to be the nature of you creatures that inhabit this strange planet - you can never say what you mean by the words you use because you have no idea what you mean by the words you use.

[@DanWilan]

I call Suskind the punk rocker of science, hes so competent but also alternative

[@theophilus749]

"It is we who impose beauty on it [the universe]". "It something in we humans and not in the universe." " It is to impose our own human values a physical universe that doesn't give damn". . . and so on. This seems to imply that we humans are not a part of the physical universe. How can we, if we are a part of nature that doesn't give a damn about beauty, impose beauty upon it?

[@samyb2834]

Pretty much nature thinking that nature is beautiful. Nature = narcissist confirmed.

[@rinkeheerema1102]

Well, you're not wrong. But the quality "beautiful" can only be given to an object by someone who beholds it. In other words, the universe does not have the quality or given characteristic "beautiful" as long as there is nobody there to observe and value it. I think that was what they where saying? I might be wrong though ;)

[@johnnytass2111]

Theo Philus. Indeed! And not only that, but how can we impose our own claim as to what "the Universe" has or "cares for"? If we are part of the Universe and we can experience beauty, harmony, love, etc, how can we possibly say the Universe doesn't have beauty, doesn't care for harmony, doesn't have any love?

[@trevormcquoid7433]

agree, humans are apart of the universe so we're nature just as a cell splitting into two is nature or two galaxies colliding. just because we're intelligent and self-aware doesn't mean we're separate from the rest of the universe. if we are able to notice symmetries in nature it makes sense to think they're purposeful

[@leemichaels2304]

how can you judge beauty if the observer and the observed are the same. we are the universe. the observer, observed and observation. is the symmetry in the balance of the 3, not the randomness beneath it

[@mukeshvats4128]

I Couldn't full fill just one requeirment, (As requested ), How could I full fill the future/further requirments, may be I am not the perfect, one for you, find another one, or in other word, a person who full fill all you'r requirment's, 100Nu, By.

[@Dyslexic-Artist-Theory-on-Time]

I disagree, we come out of beauty, is a sphere more beautiful if we are looking at it?

[@bpclowery]

I admire scientists like Leonard Susskind, however, I have so many issues with their thought processes. For example, Professor Susskind states at 3:01. "The Universe doesn't give a damn what we call beautiful'. The fact that we are even alive as a species and can look at the Cosmos is beautiful. The face that human life evolved over billions of years to what it is today is beautiful. It is testimony of what is possible in this Universe; human intelligence that can discern itself. His statement that symmetries are only approximate and therefore, accidental in nature just does not ring true with me. The Anthropic Principle states that things are the way they are because this is one of the successful Universes to live in. In non-successful Universes, we are not around to ask questions about the Universe because we cannot exist in them. So to me, nothing is accidental. If we are alive and can question our existence in the Universe that we live, then it has a purpose.and we therefore have a purpose. To exist in a successful Universe, too many accidents have to happen for us to be here, way too many.

[@fongchienyoong7656]

The "successful" formation of the Universe could be accidental. Regarding our propensity to question our existence, check out Ernest Becker's book, The Denial of Death.

[@karlschmied6218]

The Goedel of physics

[@brololler]

could we say symmetry is simply a heuristic in which we attempt to understand the universe?

[@vhawk1951kl]

What exactly is it that you call "the universe" and what you mean by "understand"? My left pocket bets my right pocket that you are unable to answer either of those questions and will demonstrate that by signally failing to set out what you mean by either the universe or understand

[@rezakhanzadi2854]

Interesting; however a more interesting question would be “why human values symmetry (or close to symmetry) from evolutionary point of view?” Maybe symmetry has been a measure of healthiness and hence being a proper mate?

[@vhawk1951kl]

Yes it is an interesting question, but what has unrolling got to do with it?

[@Arn.Sussekind]

In biology, beings with greater symmetry are the most sought after for mating. So symmetry is an evolutionary factor.

[@rubenverheij4770]

On a distance, something can look simple.🌍 But zoomed in, it does not! 🧬

[@saulberardo5826]

👏👏👏

[@amrmark01]

Infinity is greater than one. One is older than Infinity. Is that symmetry? Is it beautiful? If beautiful is the universe beautiful, according to all observers?

[@ibperson7765]

What about the Oldershaw symmetries. I think if you interviewed whoever is his best protege or representative, youd be very surprised. It is not as Nostradamis -ish as I thought. Rigorous predictions. The scaling from subatomic to macro is same *to the third and fourth decimal* as the scaling from macro to cosmological. Whether you agree or not, I bet youd fight it way more compelling (if not legit) than predicted.

[@ddacaro]

Beauty is not objective. Beauty emerges inside brains and is therefore only knowable as an experience, subjective, personal, and empirical. However, it's not entirely volitional as Susskind suggests. At least not in the case of experiencing beauty in response to certain opportunities for which we've evolved predilections for fitness, like mates (some aspects of attraction including but not limited to bilaterally symmetrical features). In several cases at least, beauty response is not in the eye of the beholder.

[@mickeybrumfield764]

Maybe in another universe symmetry matters looks like in our universe they are meaningless will go along with Leonard Susskind. Don't know how beautiful they would be though they could be thought of as ugly in another universe.

[@eksffa]

NTS: ok/100/use

[@loriclark505]

Hes a philosopher I am here for facts

[@mikecayole7819]

"...there are no symmetries. all symmetries of nature are approximate and therefore accidental." wow

[@ThomasDoubting5]

Who's we?

[@chriscrumly]

Beauty and symmetry being subjective - yet does not physics rely on the basis of symmetry in balancing every one of the great equations? I've taken to thinking of the universe ‘model’ as a black hole counterweighted against the anti universe of antiparticle nature, created and destroyed in and out of the dark matter working in symbiosis to inflate, expand and deflate - perpetually yet finite; bouncing between the bounds of the beginning and the end of time. Symmetrising the equations of Einstein with Hawking-Beckenstein and bound by the end of time, I say in trepidation; my resultant mass of the whole universe to be the reciprocal of two Planck areas, having omitted a contextual constant 'kT', set to one - thinking that the temperature, T, on the bangcrunch horizon would be massively higher than the temperature of the sun; specifically the reciprocal of the Boltzman constant, k. (Or perhaps using the Planck temperature for the 'Big Bang' temperature would put kT=1.956x10^9) Could each Planck area be the beginnings of two symbiotic universes? Far too simple I guess - for such a complex mess.

[@ManofKef]

The creator is not outside of the creation. He/it is inside, part of every piece of reality. But our corrupted consciousness unable to sense His presence, withers and disappears in the darkness

[@user-xs3og8us3d]

Butterfly: WHO DAT?!?!

[@ramonchiritoiu6131]

If life is a symmetry based system it has to be a deeper fundamental concept of this world rather than "accidentally" "aproximative". A world without meaning it is a mindless one , but a world of all possibilities have to have a mind. At least to count them...

[@brandonwilkinson]

Have Randall Carlson on?

[@djtan3313]

He just turned my universe upside down :(

[@alexandroochoa5858]

If your universe is symmetric then maybe its still the same :)

[@doodelay]

I love that he calls the universe a rube goldberg machine and a monstrosity :D

[@mitchellhayman381]

I honestly thought symmetry was the holy grail.

[@lassoatrain]

Eye glasses, ear rings , two feet ,,a pair of shoes ,two ears, two eyes,these are some reasons that symmetry is important . Right lane must turn right ,left lane 101 south no exit 20 miles. This is the world with broken symmetry, it sucks.

[@EGarrett01]

I think he's off to say that people impose beauty on the universe. The universe imposed the concept of beauty on people. We came to find pleasure in certain observations because those are most likely to lead to us surviving, and in many cases, to be able to survive by making good predictions. That's a major reason why we find open spaces attractive. The problem seems to be though, that the types of patterns this led us to look for, may not exist at extremely small or large scales of reality. So we have to be open to ugliness as well.

[@fongchienyoong7656]

Well, biologically speaking, the brain approximates that which we perceive through our senses and look for patterns. Hence, our obsession with symmetries. Moreover, our tendency to derive beauty from nature could be an evolutionary byproduct. Just a random thought

[@woongda]

It is beautiful because you can see God in it. (or behind it)

[@stevenverrall4527]

Wow, LS could not be more wrong about natural symmetries! Just because he has failed to find the underlying symmetries of nature does not mean they don't exist!

[@Dismythed]

What the ancient Greeks called "elements", we call "states of matter". They in no way thought that there were only 4 (actually 5 by Jesus' day) elements as we identify elements today. They identified elements as we define them today, calling them instead "materials" or "fabrics". They knew that one metal was different from another and that one mineral was different from another and classified them. They also knew that fire was an excited state of gases. Physicists repeat these things without ever investigating whether they are true or not, which scares me. I know that they wrongly claim that Newton was an alchemist, that the Bible teaches a flat earth and that the Greeks taught that the atom as we call the conglomerate particle today was the smallest possible structure in nature. All those are wrong ideas that get repeated ad nauseum by physicists, but they never bother to check those claims. It is easy enough to check and find that they are all false. What else are they repeating by rote without investigation?

[@richbuckley6917]

The great symmetry seems to be universal-cosmic consciousness. Is there a qunta level of consciousness sort of a Planck Length of consciousness below which consciousness does not exist?

[@genghischan69]

Interestingly, humans and the rest of life are also approximately symmetrical, in line with the fundamental approximate symmetry. For this reason I actually like this conclusion better than that of 100% symmetry.

[@uremove]

Why are there symmetries in Physics at all? Leonard Susskind makes it sound a bit like “symmetry is in the eye of the beholder”, but they seem quite fundamental - even the ‘approximate’ nature such as the CPT symmetry and CP violation of the weak force, which is a mystery in itself. Things like Noethers connection between gauge symmetry and conservation laws seem fundamental. Even the invariance of the speed of light (is that a symmetry?) is fundamental (sorry - I know Susskind hates that word), to space/time and Relativity. I like that he admits we cannot yet tell if at root, Physics will eventually boil down to some fantastically simple but elegant T-shirt equation. Maybe like Biology has found eg. in the structure of the genome, the universe will be like a messy jumble of concepts, with no elegance and no seeming overall plan. 🤔

[@agodfortheatheistnow]

Susskind I FIGURED IT OUT! Just now! as Einstein said mankind is optically deluded We think we are separate but we are one mind Like is a dream we create people and events We are the dream of the I AM creator of us 8 BILLION minds each sharing the perception Of a reality that is a NOW SINGULARITY... FAITH in memories of a past gone from now HOPE for a future not yet created now and LOVE of the NOW SINGULARITY which is all that exist for us to experience creating life with We use virtual particles to create this dream Like a light the photon creates them and they MOVE giving them mass energy through movement we measure as wave pressures as Einstein indicated ... which are then given definition as angstroms and decibels which are the SIGHTS AND SOUNDS we perceive as the Dark Matter particles of information of FAITH in thoughts of a past and the Dark Energy antimatter information of thoughts Of HOPE for a Better future and thoughts of the LOVE of the NOW SINGULARITY, we are creating those past and future VIRTUAL REALITY PARTICLES. Of course physicists in sync with the now cannot understand those particles are not created or destroyed they are the REPRESENTATION of the NOW SINGULARITY ... as it changes and recreates itself from now to now to now obeying the laws and minus laws of physics.....

[@vhawk1951kl]

Those that abuse capital letters emphasise nothing but the hysteria of the abuser, but they are blithely unaware of that as often as not

[@brandonwilkinson]

supersymmetry?

[@Domispitaletti]

There is no supersymmetry. String theory lunatics invented it in order to save their jobs, but they could not find it in the CERN.

[@brandonwilkinson]

Verdi Gauge Symmetry?

[@perttiheinikko3780]

Mystery, wonder, beauty, elegance etc. are just different names for different human emotions. Nature just is what it is and has nothing nothing to do with such things. But then again, humans who think of these things, are 100 % part of nature... So who the hell knows?

[@samsam2235]

If you only look for beauty and symmetry, you'll probably miss a lot of ugly facts.

[@CPLains]

If he thinks beauty is in the eye of the beholder, all aesthetic facts are anthropomorphic.

[@TheLuminousOne]

Likewise the reverse is true.

[@alinebaruchi1936]

.

[@pasquino0733]

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder? The "eye" of the beholder is itself apart of convergent evolution! ie in biology the same adaptations to life emerge in different times due to the same conditions here on earth. So it seems we should be cautious of assuming all our conceptions of beauty are relative - they came out of our evolution in the universe not some Cartesian spirit thing that is separate from reality.

[@turdferguson3400]

But different notions of beauty evolve from different contexts, and there is not one clear notion of beauty that evolution produces. Evolution produces different kinds of eyes and they see different kinds of beauty.

[@pasquino0733]

@@turdferguson3400 Are they entirely different, or interrelated? ie they must all be seeing parts of the same light wave particles. Something more visually apparent and concrete such as wings or fins on dolphins and sharks, one can't deny are very similar. I would say that sight would be much the same. At some level different species have similarities in what they see. Which would surely lead to similarities in the pleasure gained from seeing. This might be established by experiments that seek to identify / measure, what visual pleasure different animals have with similar levels of vision enjoy.

[@turdferguson3400]

@@pasquino0733 that hasn't been demonstrated though with something like beauty. Sure we have light receptors, but different species exist which don't see the same wavelengths. Some see more wavelengths than others. And then there is the subjective notion of beauty, which is ill defined as of yet. Is it attractiveness? In that case flies are attracted to rotting flesh, while we are repulsed by it. Is rotting flesh beautiful or not? You might be right about different notions of beauty possibly being interrelated. However, the precise relationship hasn't been demonstrated. It remains a form of speculation what the specific definition of beauty is that is present across all species.

[@pasquino0733]

@@turdferguson3400 The speculation and where that may lead us is a fascinating point of interest! Who knows, maybe in a Kantian sense we may one day be able to distinguish between taste and beauty in a fly? As an addition, one thing that does concern me is the way our culture has been influenced by late-Romanticism and Existentialism to almost non-critically assume that symmetry, beauty etc are personal and not collectively known, or grounded in the natural. I teach artistic anatomy and when I tell people that the protrusion of the femur bone (the great trochanter) is exactly half way on every person, or that the space between the hair line, eyebrows, base of the nose and the chin are exactly the same length, or the face is exactly five eyes wide or the distance between your outstretched hands are the same as the distance between your length, it is amazing, in the face of this evidence, the number of people who emotionally recoil and say but that cannot be we are all unique! I can't help but wonder how much these late nineteenth century existential subjectivist assumptions have infiltrated even the thinking of scientists, as they are so ubiquitous in our culture now.

[@turdferguson3400]

@@pasquino0733 just as some things are similar across people, some other things are different. We cannot ignore the imperfections.

[@davidkubisa1647]

When did it begin? It began with number, where does number begin? 1 it begins with 1. Where did it begin ? It began with form therefor it began with geometry, where does geometry begin ? with the symmetry of two intersecting circles from where all geometry cums, look to the heavens and thats some clue somthings going on in the form of the occulatation of the solar eclispe, the symmetry of the solar eclispe. The creation theory that built Stonehenge and the great pyramid is the correct one and someone from academia should take an interest in the work of the world first scientists.

[@AFRoSHEENT3ARCMICHAEL69]

Well music is symmetrical and 12TET isn't perfect except for the Octave. Why is it humans seemed programed, whether musically trained or not, to be able to tell the difference between a good singer and a bad singer? A bad note meaning one not in the scale? Even human beings are symmetrical. Your right side mirrors your left side? Honestly I think you know but lie.