Max Tegmark - Why the ‘Unreasonable Effectiveness’ of Mathematics?

[@yusefaziz3114]

I love the diversity of subjects in science you talk about. Definitely top 5 on my KZbin Channel list!!!

[@crazydileep14]

what are other 4?

[@tac6044]

Not a strength

[@mikedziuba8617]

I'd say there is a good reason why mathematics is so effective at describing the world in a precise and an accurate way. And this reason is that basic concepts in mathematics are based on physical reality. Two plus two equals four isn't just a mathematical idea. This is something you can deduce from testing and observing in the world and in the universe. And the rest of mathematics is an extension of these basics concepts through deductive logic. Deductive logic makes sure that if your starting premises are true, then any deductive conclusions you make also have to be true, no matter matter how many deductive steps you take, provided that you haven't made even one mistake in all of your steps. So, the effectiveness of mathematics is perfectly reasonable, and it can't be in any other way. Because the only way mathematics can end up being false and ineffective is through mistakes in its logic.

[@samuelzhang1882]

Wigner addresses this in his original paper. :) Yes, we derive mathematics through deductive reasoning. However, Wigner's point is that this deduction applies surprisingly well to the real world. You say that, "if your starting premises are true, then any deductive conclusions you make also have to be true," but there is no inherent, self-evident reason why the universe must work this way. The physical universe seems to be always governed by rules, such as logical deduction, which did not have to be the case. Yet, our observations seem to show that this is the case. Wigner's second point is that this deduction works in unexpected ways. As Wigner writes in his original paper, ""mathematical concepts turn up in entirely unexpected connections" in physical reality. The same number pi (3.14) we originally calculated through physical measurements of circles somehow also ends up being the same number we use in statistical equations for describing population trends. Now, I've worked through the proofs of these statistical equations several times while studying computer science in college, and I can confirm their elegance. Drawing circles does not seem immediately related to population statistics, yet the language of mathematics seems shockingly universal.

[@mikedziuba8617]

@@samuelzhang1882 I think it's nonsense to talk about our universe being surprising. Because surprising is when you have some kind of an expectation or a pattern and there is a break in this pattern. It's nonsense to talk about a pattern or an expectation, when you have only one instance, our universe, to look at. When you have only one example of something to look at, then there is no pattern and you don't know what to expect. So, you just have to accept our universe the way it is, and say that you don't know whether it's usual or unusual. Saying that your example of one is surprising is nonsense. Because it's an indirect way of saying that it's somehow unusual. But then you have no idea what usual is. So, it's an indirect way of claiming to know something that you don't actually know. I suppose, there is another reason why some people might say that our universe is surprising. It's the same reason why religious believers thought that God must've made our universe. They had an elaborate ancient Greek model of how our Solar system worked. And it was such a complicated and an elaborate mechanism, that it had to be deliberately designed by some divine engineer. And they were sure they were right. Because their elaborate model did predict the movements of the planets. We now have a modern version of this. We've created an elaborate model of the universe and fudged it with all kinds of constants to make it work and predict how everything moves and behaves. And this new model is so complicated and it requires such precise fudging numbers that it surprises many people and bogles their minds.

[@jeremiahcastro9700]

You still haven't shown why *2+2=4* and nothing else. Put another way if we look at the work of Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz on binary numbers he didn't immediately understand why the numbers in our decimal system follow the order they do: but once he understood that they are ordered by the predictable arrangement of zeroes and ones then the it was clear why *0* is followed by *1* and so on. With the example of Leibniz you must also show why *2+2=4* to be the only true answer and why it couldn't be any other way.

[@finwefingolfin7113]

@@mikedziuba8617 for the same reason we shouldn't call quantum mechanics '' weird ''

[@ReynaSingh]

Math just like any language is representational of reality. We can keep adjusting our model but the map is not the territory

[@bltwegmann8431]

Maybe, but I think Plato would disagree.

[@mangalvnam2010]

The question is that the deterministic logic of math does not cover certain kind of phenomena, that is, they are NOT homologous to the determinacy, they behave sometimes "chaosically", wildly in non-deterministic ways, they often involve emergence of new eidos, new forms, thus founding a real creative time, ontologically creative, that is, something that has no place in a logic of determinacy (which is forever locked by definition in the cage of the sameness, thanks to Plato and Aristotle, the forging fathers.)

[@matthiasp3225]

Well, that's speculation. I would say reality is the map and math the territory.

[@chetankumar9027]

How can we meet.

[@mangalvnam2010]

@@matthiasp3225 But to confuse the model of reality with the reality itself is a ontological mistake called IDEALISM. There is something we call reality, but that something never had, or have, to be exactly like some model we use to think about it. Math is incomplete and contains some assertions that remain undecidable to prove, as Gödel has shown. So, why the heavens should, could or would reality be intrinsically undecidable in something of its own!?

[@thereligionofrationality8257]

One of the reasons I love this channel is that that it ALWAYS provokes ironic questions in me. (Not sarcastic, just slightly ironic)! Today's is, "Why is language so unreasonably effective at allowing animals to describe the world to each other?"

[@JohnSmith-ft2tw]

An excellent question, though I would think it the opposite. "Why is language so ineffective at describing the world"? And more to the point, if language is older than math, used robustly worldwide, and a skill adapted before math in developing brain's, why is it still second fiddle to math?

[@thereligionofrationality8257]

@@JohnSmith-ft2tw All Interesting questions! But I still believe language itself sits in first chair. After all, how could we even formalize and communicate maths without language?

[@JohnSmith-ft2tw]

It is true that the formulation process requires language first. But language is always fuzzy. If I tell you, here in this virtual world's lanfscape, that I'm wearing a green shirt, you understand enough to deduce the general area this shirt would be on the spectrum, but not just exactl what shade of that color it actually was. By the same token, if I'm selling you a car, no amount specifications and descriptions, representing all aspects of the vehicle will seem complete to you if I don't include visual representations. I think math and language are two sides of the same coin. Music, with it's scales, which have not all been as they seem set today, is an example of math that touches communication, just as communication touches math by providing "nouns" and such to the descriptions.

[@PeterStrider]

@pouya "programmed"? What is a program? A set of steps to repeatedly generate an output to approximate a solution to a problem. What is a "problem"? At its most basic it would appear an impediment to a goal. What is a "goal"? One reasonable response might be a good, a valued outcome. So even if you honestly believe your own free will is an illusion, the very language you use suggests free will on the part of the programmer in pursuing some valued end (which could be nothing more profound than playing a simulation game, but of some sufficient interest and value to devote the energy to get it started). Math and science open deeper questions of philosophy which since the time of Pythagoras and Plato have puzzled great minds. Max Tegmark and Eugene Wigner are among the latest in this parade of deep and humble minds. Dismissing the questions as an illusion as you appear to may give you a sense of superiority, but smarter people than you and I will continue to grapple with the ultimate questions and might move the collective knowledge of humanity a little bit further forward. Solipsism and predetermination such as you appear to advocate is a literal dead end. I encourage you to read more widely and not just limit yourself to deterministic materialism. Perhaps start with the ancient Greeks for some really amazing thinking.

[@spiralsun1]

This is the much better question. I just wrote something to this effect. 🥰🙏🏻

[@Gotenham]

Dang this video quality is much better!

[@FR-yr2lo]

When you confuse reality and the DESCRIPTION of PERCEIVED patterns of the behavior of this reality. Which, ultimately, is consciousness/experiences.

[@saleemt9937]

He is almost there.

[@JavierArveloCruzSantana]

This is a brilliant channel!

[@gulllars4620]

A clever candidate for a deeper truth on how math underlies everything is an even more fundamental approach that space and everything in it is not distinct mathematical things but emerging from computation on a hypergraph. Or rather multicomputation on a hypergraph with all possible rulesets computation can be done, which weirdly gives rise to both relativity and quantum-effects, and has the interesting property that unlike math, there is no way to get the result other than running the computation. You can find math to describe emergent pockets of reducibility, but most of computational space is irreducible. If anyone comes across this and are interested, what I'm referring to is the Wolfram physics project. There is a series of very interesting podcasts with Lex Fridman and Stephen Wolfram where they dive into this that is well worth the watch if this is an area of interest.

[@spiralsun1]

I think everything is writing like a novel and mathematical ideas are counting words and punctuation. Specifying the construction of the meaning like in a computer: but it takes a person looking at the mathematical constructions for them to mean anything.

[@Yzjoshuwave]

We certainly use language to coordinate the interpretation of math functions, proofs, etc., but I imagine there’s also a more general notion of language that could formalize this notion, so it wouldn’t be confined within human language…. But if this notion can be formalized, what functions of language are really essential for making it meaningful? (This reminds me of Escher’s hands drawing each other, because the interpretation that deciphers what makes language meaningful is itself meaningful.) The specific selections of words - their phonetic elements, or the specific root words that build them - seem generally contingent and arbitrary, but they have an assemblagenic aspect to their construction and are capable of integrating logic into the manifold of their organization… But it’s interesting that every feature we’re capable of drawing out of this connection can be described with math, most likely in a variety of different ways. My feeling is that the way consciousness operates through language (maybe understood more broadly as “code”) and math in coordination is what generates a sense of meaning - that consciousness, language and math (especially logic) are all fundamental for meaning… But in any case, I also agree that the “novel” aspect is key, because it’s what conjoins innumerable micro-vignettes into a higher form of coordination in which the “event” is given a sense.

[@spiralsun1]

@@Yzjoshuwave well-said! I rarely encounter one as thoughtful as you. I wish we were friends. God knows I need friends…. ❤️ I love especially the last paragraph. The echoes of a larger unity being built, or engineered by something like what people call (contentiously) “God”. I feel that when you see unity behind the world and even the universe and all it’s people, you are seeing that. I love the MC Escher drawing of the hands drawing themselves ❤️ You might as well draw a picture of the infinity symbol. Anyway thanks for your comment. It felt thoughtful-and they say it is the thought that counts. The real gift. It’s one I have tried repeatedly to give the world, but they forgot what counts. They forgot what love is. Which is why I live in my car. 😐🤷‍♀️😂

[@scoreprinceton]

The universe might be an expression of relationships and mathematics being the language of relationships might be a natural ally to each other.

[@KpxUrz5745]

A wonderful intelligent discussion of physics and related deep topics. Thanks for a great video.

[@superjaykramer]

Max you're the man...Full stop the smartest logical human being ever!!!!! full stop.

[@melgross]

It’s interesting, but I’m not convinced. I’ve gone back and forth on this issue over the decades. Just because math can describe most everything we know about the universe doesn’t mean the universe is math. What about human languages? Math is actually part of that. But there are many different ones, and many more that have disappeared. What about Pi? They just calculated it to over 60 trillion digits, but still no understanding why it’s so irrationally, and apparently random. There’s no math that’s able to explain that, yet it’s a very basic relationship.

[@timozomerman]

Tegmark addresses this argument in his book 'Our Mathematical Universe' - especially with regards to how mathematics is different from ordinary language. Worth a read!

[@melgross]

@@timozomerman I have the book. Interesting indeed, but still not convincing.

[@rohanjagdale97]

We cant go beyond this I think. Human brains ends here .

[@melgross]

@@rohanjagdale97 well, I’ve thought that might be the case a long time ago. It’s just possible that our brains may not be wired in a way that enables us to even think about the right questions to ask about the most basic , and I believe, the possibly incomprehensible aspects of the universe. It may always remain hidden. And the question of whether math is invented, or discovered, is one of them. If it’s invented, then this question goes away. But if it’s discovered (as patent offices around the world use as a basic concept) then it’s harder to say. But who can answer the question? Physicists, philosophers, mathematicians or theologians? None, so far.

[@Paulus_Brent]

In fact, a mathematical universe does not imply that its foundation is math. But the real question is why is math so successful in the first place?

[@keithschwab1]

Love Max!

[@Pleasebeopenminded]

It is because the universe exists as a mathematical object. Just as the Mandelbrot set gives rise to an infinite amount of fractals, there is a master equation that gives rise to all possible universes and all possible equations. This might be what people refer to as "the logos."

[@kosmonparran4495]

for some one who is so smart its surprising to hear him say "intelligence" synonymous with machines having the ability to be great at computational tasks. To me that is a simulation of only part of what intelligence actually is.

[@David.C.Velasquez]

Agreed, but what word would you choose to represent "having the ability to be great at computational tasks as a simulation of only part of what intelligence actually is"? With the limitations of human language, concessions sometimes have to be made for brevity, like using similar conceptual constructs as placeholders, until a term is agreed upon to encapsulate said concept. This problem reminds me of how every presentation pertaining to quantum mechanics, has to begin with a lengthy primer on double slit, and Schrodinger's cat.

[@itsjkforreal]

@@David.C.Velasquez @kosmon parran Could it be an important difference between computation and intelligence is analogous to differences between predictions made using Bayes' theorem algorithms and human intuition?

[@David.C.Velasquez]

@@itsjkforreal Very possibly.

[@mikebaker2436]

If the opening two minutes was about language instead of math: Long ago we had this word "attraction" that was originally abstract and about human behavior and we applied it to express and describe how magnetism works... and how amazing is it that we can now use it to describe how atoms hold their shape and galaxies interact?!? Yes.... because that is how finding new applications of previous principles works. What am I missing?

[@ellengran6814]

Unreasonable ?? In my view, its rather the most reasonable.

[@pretzelogic2689]

I wish he said something about why the math of Super Symmetry is so useful with zero physical support for complementary particles ever being found. (If my limited understanding has not made this a stupid question).

[@Everywhere4]

The proper way is to look on some physical entity and look at its mathematical property. But super Symmetry goes from a theoretical mathematical structure and postulates physical entities. You can get with this maybe something that is useful in certain cases but maybe this has not much to do with the world. Super symmetry may still exist in another universe or in another part of the universe if you want to go full MUH.

[@lierx.agerate8230]

What about the question where if you remove human perception do all these things hold true

[@alanbrady420]

I could watch max talk for hours.

[@richardventus1875]

I don’t think this episode goes far enough to explain how simplicity can generate infinite complexity. Of course, I’m thinking of fractals of which the Mandelbrot set is an example. I believe that scientific evidence suggests that the universe is fractal rather than quantum in nature. For example, looking at the boundaries of the Mandelbrot set we know that there are an infinite number of similar 'looks' and complexities regardless of how closely we look - even if we look trillions of times more closely. Perhaps 'locality' and 'non-locality' are the axes to plot the fractal of the universe on an Argand diagram? This could also be a substitute for the 'multiverse' theory so that every possible outcome of the wavefunction collapse plays out in all the other 'fractal scales' all at once - and we only observe the result that is at our fractal scale. By mathematics we can now envisage that the Big Bang seeded a fractal structure to the universe so that other universes could lie within each other at differing fractal scales. Indeed, an infinite number of fractal scale universes could lie within every one of our fundamental particles! Furthermore, could dark matter be the evidence for the ‘information energy’ of the sum of an infinite number of fractal scales which we are not aware of? It was only in the 70’s that we discovered fractals by mathematics, but perhaps in this case the results really do give a hint to reality rather than reality leading to the discoveries of mathematics .

[@bobcabot]

...he cleverly did eschew the big one: did we invent math?

[@chmd22]

He clearly does not believe that, since he posits that the whole universe is a mathematical structure. How could math invent itself?

[@2CSST2]

All we invented is symbols to represent mathematical structures. Nobody invented the fact that the 3 angles of a triangle add up to 180 in a Euclidian space, it was always there and we just discovered it once we had the symbols for it.

[@benjamin_markus]

Why this is an interesting question to so many just eludes me. Why _wouldn't_ maths be effective in describing relations between quantities, probabilites, trajectories, etc when it was precisely the purpose it was developed for, or least the starting point for the various branches that developed in it? The ones who make a big fuss about it seem to be ignorant of the deeply interconnected history of (what we now call) physics and mathematics since the very early ages of human thought.

[@benjamin_markus]

Also, almost the whole of the Wigner paper is full of ill-defined, subjective, elusive terms, like "magical" (the human mind, that is), "miracle", "surprising", and so on. What role do these terms have in a rational line of reasoning? Nothing, they are subjective descriptions of an inner state in Wigner which we have no access to. I think the same holds for the title itself: what does "unreasonable" even mean here? It is unreasonable in what sense? What would count "reasonable"?

[@dabonemarrow5337]

One of The Best shows too real!! I frikn luv Max One of The smartest guys around for a long time!! Very easy to understand!! Thanks you guys!! Keep it up were all getting a Lil smarter!!😉

[@mukeshvats4128]

I believe Knowledge changes the view, Am I Right, if Yes, then, Next thing, Knowledge which you possess, is it reliable/ true, to make further decision/ conclusion, Again, Am I Right, if Yes, then, You got my point, 100Nu.

[@Pheer777]

I read somewhere that most mathematicians subscribe to this platonist view, and believe in a sort of "heaven," a third realm beyond the material world and the world of mental forms, where pure abstract concepts like math exist. Really interesting idea - perhaps it's naive but I have to say, while I'm agnostic generally, I'm more seriously considering ideas like deism or the necessity of some kind of unmoved mover that created and/or sustains the universe.

[@ravichanana3148]

Space is a confined entity and one gets orderly behaviour in a confined space. For example, average energy of molecules in a confined space.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

How does mathematics describe development of time?

[@xspotbox4400]

How would you describe getting bold?

[@ili626]

Maybe math ends up being a manifestation of our shared consciousness and not the base reality

[@dy8576]

the fascinating thing when it comes to "knowing reality" is that very manifestation is our view of reality, because is anything else conceivable? as in knowing an apple is red, is being able to not only perceive but also correctly communicate it as "red", and as much as we try to seperate language of knowledge, with perception, its possible we're stepping on our own feet again and again, as the only thing that can ever be knowledge for a human being is from the pov of a human being and the relation of that information with other human beings (so i may say apple is green while u say its red, as we have different beliefs abt what is red possibly, even with the same sense perception, we would be arguing for correct belief and not knowledge, but how do i exactly represent my perception if not in words and my beliefs, that is all i am capable of). So yes math as a language is not inherently visible (as in u dont see numbers floating around or equations) but the perceptions and results(the laws followed, the data) of all processes maybe are in reality.

[@ili626]

@@dy8576 Well, simply put, i think math ultimately ends up being conceptual. We - as a society or community of intellectuals - decided how to utilize math for various purposes, and these applications reflected prior conceptualizations, and in-turn developed and influenced our more modern conceptualizations of the world. Because math alone, is just a numerical system with no inherent meaning. Its meaning is something we assign to it

[@luizbotelho1908]

Wigner told that famous phrase probably in the realm of Los Álamos Project and WW2 war technology (Radar Theory , Operational Mathematics , Linear programming , etc ) . How Advanced engineering mathematics has produced such unthinkable tools , like the prime example being given by the Hidrogen bomb being triggered by a Atomic bomb ! ( S Ulam -Wigner- Feynman- , etc ) ? .Most of the Bomb work could ONLY be successful , after so many advanced mathematical physical statistical calculations !. Another example is the use of Fast Fourier Transfom or Laplace transform for the Signal-Radar -Sonar theory . The correct question : Why the "unreasonable Effectiveness " of Advanced engineering Mathematics (including Computing Math ) .

[@georgegrubbs2966]

Think about this folks before you view the video. Think about what mathematics is and is not; what mathematics does and does not do. Take your time. If you have done that, you will see that there is nothing unreasonable about the effectiveness of mathematics. In fact, there are situations in which one could say, "the remarkable ineffectiveness of mathematics." I'll get back to you.

[@B.S...]

Would a fundamental equation necessarily solve the interpretation problem of Quantum Mechanics? Would it eliminate quantum indeterminacy?

[@samuelzhang1882]

A fundamental equation of everything would include quantum mechanics and therefore, yes, show us which theoretical interpretation of our current quantum observations is correct. However, that does not necessarily eliminate quantum indeterminacy, because this equation could just describe that such systems have indeterminate values.

[@matishakabdullah5874]

Mathematics is just another language or symbol that represents information.... to be specific information of a physical reality or relative truth.

[@wilsonkorisawa7026]

The phone you have is all built with mathematics. There is no room for literature bla bla...

[@matishakabdullah5874]

@@wilsonkorisawa7026 The phone 📱 is itself representing information/(~ knowledge) in creative language. What happened was that someone has translated the mathematical language into creative language.

[@wilsonkorisawa7026]

@@matishakabdullah5874 Bla bla bla,.. your problem is that you never had a scientific education. I know guys like you who studied nothing else but literature (and religion) and try to debate topics beyond their horizon and intellect. Save the electricity and have a nice day.

[@catherinemira75]

If it is true that it is possible to describe everything mathematically, including intelligence, and maybe even consciousness... is it going to be enough to save us from the fear of death, the loss of a loved one, the pain of diseases? Will we breathe easier for it? At the end of the day, I'd give all the equations of the world for a clue to understanding the meaning of life and I sense that it won't be fiund inside a mathematical equation.

[@woofie8647]

We can describe anything with math. It is not a "driver" of the universe nor of any single physical process...it only describes the process in a language of numbers. The trick is to find the equations that fit what we see. If an intelligence created the universe, he/she certainly did not do it by calculating its requirements ahead of time. And if the universe just popped into existence then obviously no math was required. Change the universe in any significant way you want and you will still be able to find numbers that describe how it works...but not why it works.

[@greyangelpilot]

Is Math a Discovered phenomena or a Created one ? A deeply philosophical question to contemplate. The universe seems to come back to basic numbers. The Divine Ratio & Nikola Teslas numbers to unlock the keys to universe. Tesla stated "If you knew the magnificence of 3 6 and 9, you would have a key to the universe." The only deduction is Simulation & Simulacra or "The Matrix."

[@Bill-uo6cm]

Max's last sentence was wrong. The statement that the whole universe is mathematical cannot be falsified by a single apparent exception because the apparent exception can never be verified, only falsified ... and then the falsification can be falsified which can be falsified ad infinitum.

[@zgobermn6895]

Penrose would disagree. The Mind is NOT computational. Tegmark is presenting a simplistic understanding of intelligence.

[@georgegrubbs2966]

Insering a comment here that I made in the Ed Witten video on the same topic. I humbly disagree with Eugene Wigner's claim that mathematics is unreasonably effective. In fact, there are cases where mathematics lacks effectiveness, and in many cases, mathematical models are approximations. In addition, one would expect within reason, that mathematics would be effective in modeling the processes of the natural world. Thus far, mathematics is not doing too well to model, described, and explain "mind", "self," and "consciousness," all of which are part of the natural world. That said, I love mathematics and physics having taken a degree in both. Both are quite powerful and amazing at times, but not unreasonably so."

[@SandipChitale]

It seems there is confusion between description of something and that thing. Mathematics is a language for describing or modeling something. Any regularity in anything can obviously be described by more compact math to varying degrees of precision vs approximation. In fact the word regularity in a deep sense means that. And even turbulent flows in fluids which are highly irregular are described by Navier-Stokes equations. However those equations describe only some aspect of it with coarse graining. Thermodynamical laws are based on similar coarse graining. Entropy is another example. Physicists famously use spherical cows as an extreme approximation to produce compact mathematical models. And complete description of a system so that it could be simulated 100% is different story and will require a lot more verbose math. So if we think about it for 100% complete description of our universe and it's all aspects so that it can be simulated or recreated 100%, the current math is not that effective. But yes potentially Math can do it. So in that sense "Unreasonable Effectiveness’ of Mathematics" is little bit of fashionable statement popular with scientists. Just like saying everything is information at the bottom. IMO a general meaningless statement. Turing machine is to any computing that math is to describing or modeling anything. Math is a general purpose system. Math can generate other universes that are unlike ours. String theory apparently generates 10^500. Some universes may be able to be described by very economical math. Some may require more verbose math. All of the above is true. However saying universe IS math is a mistake and is sloppy, IMO. It is correct to say that a complete description of our universe is a subset of everything math could describe. It is interesting to think about the degree of economy of math that may describe our specific universe. The fact of 4 forces, 17 particles, about 110 elements and their physics and chemistry seem to indicate that our universe is fairly regular and thus probably requires relatively economical math.

[@Paulus_Brent]

But the question is WHY does math describes so many things in the first place?

[@SandipChitale]

@@Paulus_Brent Math is open ended, general purpose system. I am not only talking about all the math we know currently. But all the math that can be discovered, developed in future.

[@wayneasiam65]

Love your videos, and Max is always a treat for us viewers. Maybe Mathematics is a Primordial Wave Collapse Function... Amy mathematical equation or theory, or even whimsical mathematical thought can be divided in half forever, never having a soluble answer...hmmm?

[@mickeymoon7547]

I've read about Max Tegmark's books but haven't read them yet. Funny how he does not look like I pictured. I pictured an old, grey-haired, bearded professor. I now want to read his books.

[@ravichanana3148]

Consciousness is amalgamation of body-mind-spirit.

[@fsilber330]

I never realized Charlie Sheen was this bright.

[@danishali6746]

Math is God's language ......

[@faismasterx]

You can't describe ethics with math. Checkmate, Tegmark.

[@HiFiAwardTour]

Mathematics is an extension of relativity. That’s why it works.

[@francesco5581]

humm dreams are math ? emotions are math ? a song is math ? painting is math ? language is math ? stories are math ? history is math ?

[@MrBoybergs]

Well especially music and maybe to a lesser extent, visual art can be described mathematically....

[@francesco5581]

@@MrBoybergs but math does not have a weight when one artist makes them, it's like to say that art can be described with color pigments.

[@MrBoybergs]

@@francesco5581 You are correct. However, shape/form/perspective and more that pleases the human eye can be described mathematically...

[@francesco5581]

@@MrBoybergs not sure about that ... subjectivity is sovereign ..for example i hate Picasso...some else love it ... i like mountains or sad places ...someone else like the sea ... so its still a part of the whole affair.

[@MrBoybergs]

@@francesco5581 Again, you are correct. Except that breaking rules/creating tension/invoking feelings of discomfort are important in both music and visual art. I still maintain that visual art is most pleasing when underlying mathematical rules are employed (even if unconsciously) but that doesn't mean that many will enjoy the dissonance achieved by breaking those rules. Music (my area of expertise) is, without doubt, mathematical.

[@user-k229]

The language of Nature itself is Mathematics.

[@ripleyfilms8561]

A welcome short

[@davidrandell2224]

If you don’t know what gravity is don’t call yourself a physicist. “The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy”,Mark McCutcheon.

[@mangalvnam2010]

Problem with "all is math" is this: which kind of math with which underlying logics? Math does not work well with the SOCIAL-HISTORICAL phenomena, because history is made up of creative time, but the mathematical logic, what Castoriadis called the ensemblistic-identitary logic of determinacy, can't really accept this real time of the emergence of radically new forms "ex nihilo". So, maybe all is math, but not with that "ensidic" logic that negates the real time of history! A new mathematical logic is needed to cover certain new regions of being, such as the unconscious, the social-historical, even this for-itself thing called a living organism. Castoriadis proposed the notion of a logic of magmas...

[@rohanjagdale97]

We cant go beyond this I think. Human brains ends here .

[@2CSST2]

Math works perfectly well with social-historical phenomena, it simply is too complex a subject for people to develop the math for it. What you mean is he existence of consciousness, that's the thing math doesn't cover right now, the hypothesis is that it could if we could push it far enough.

[@mangalvnam2010]

@@2CSST2 If you think that math really works fine with social-historical phenomena, them you simply don't know what history, and society, really is. History is made of institutions, created imaginary institutions, but an actual creation -- such as historical institutions -- has no ontological place in the logic of the sameness, the mathematical binary boolean logic of determinacy. Mathematical logic is ontologically incompatible with the "social-historical", this taken as a new region of Being requiring its own new kind of logic. It's a philosophical,, episthemological, ontological question of deeply understanding what the social-historical of the human creative instituting imagination actually is. Plato, Aristotle and practically all other philosophers were never able to really think the human creative imagination per se because of such limited deterministic logic of the sameness, that negates time and creation, hence, negates history and society. Unveiling all that was the great contribution of yet another superb greek philosopher, Cornelius Castoriadis.

[@mangalvnam2010]

@@2CSST2 Mathematical logic tends to conceive mind and consciousness as a kind of algorithm, but as Penrose has already show in Emperor's New Mind and Shadows of The Mind, counsciousness is not a computation, is not an algorithm, no algorithm can even simulate consciousness. And the matter becomes even more hopeless for that line of research when one admits that the very underlying logic of math cannot grasp the specific nature of the human mind, which is radically non-deterministical and far beyond the legein and teukhein of ensidic incomplete and limited math logic.

[@dohduhdah]

Reality can't be math, because math is an abstraction and abstraction means you consider some aspects but not others. Is it any wonder that math is effective in describing reality given that math is an abstraction of reality?

[@WilliamBrownGuitar]

I don't think Tegmark is extreme at all in thinking that we live in a mathematical universe. This seems fairly obvious. The fact that the equations that we discover are not precise does nothing to undermine this knowledge. They are precise to an uncanny degree. The further mystery that astonished Copernicus, Kepler, Einstein, and so many other great minds, is that we are able to understand the mathematical structure. The universe is mathematical and thus rational, and that is why science has advanced most rapidly within a Christian worldview.

[@infinityeconomicsinfinitye2040]

💐

[@rptangwan]

Why existence at all? Why should there b laws at all? W not a completely random, lawless universe?

[@lllULTIMATEMASTERlll]

Math is not unreasonably effective. Because the universe works in a non-chaotic way (at least on the macro scale; I don’t know enough about quantum mechanics), it is logically necessary that there is math that can describe it. I don’t think it’s deeper than that. Perhaps there’s something I’m missing, however.

[@simsixzero]

The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible. - Albert Einstein[

[@caseyhawthorne7138]

Isn't Mathematics Quantitative Logic Which helps predict experiences Even Quantum Mechanics is Predictably Unpredictable 🖖

[@mediocrates3416]

Math is the natural science of *quantity* ; it not unreasonably effective, it's just what happens when there's *that* many.

[@genius1198]

Math sure made that thier feller alot smarter

[@bjm6275]

Numbers and math are natural abstract aspects of the order of reality. Numbers and mathematics are not physical, like words and language, are neither energy or matter. Mathisnin the mind that discerns and interprets the natural mathematical aspect of nature.

[@marcosgalvao3182]

Answer to the title ( because consciousness is the base of all reality ) .

[@2CSST2]

Wrong

[@dkimphoto]

Knight Rider. A shadowy flight into the dangerous world of a man who does not exist.

[@mikebaker2436]

I am an idiot... so maybe that is why I don't understand how "the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics" is a topic. I mean... it is not as though mathematics was developed in isolation of the Natural Sciences and then applied with spectacular effectiveness. The two grew up together and the principles of mathematics were tuned all along the way to better explain and predict the world around us.

[@tomingrassiaimages8776]

Max is my hereo.

[@stevecoley8365]

X-Files Ever notice that beings who speak in the language of music can create joy that energizes thousands of beings to celebrate and dance? Ever notice that corpses who speak with brain numbing, soul sucking numbers do the exact opposite? Sanction, starve, torture, murder and bomb (wheeee)! Ignorance (hate) is bliss for vampires (greed). But not much fun for the humans who they are sucking the joy out of. The counting corpses can create stark, sterile space stations floating in emptiness and futuristic bombers. But the loveless, lifeless parasites can't create harmony (real intelligence) because vampires (greed) are far worse than stupid. The loveless, lifeless parasites are ignorant (dead). Vampires (greed) who suck the joy out of life have joined the zombies who eat the futures of their children. Zombie Apocalypse is here and happening now.

[@ujjwalbhattarai8670]

Relativity is wrong theory. Time =emc²

[@xspotbox4400]

Energy is everything, so everything is time? Then your equation is nonsense, time is also not measured in watts and joules.

[@rohanjagdale97]

@@xspotbox4400 nope time isn't everything. Time is everywhere

[@ianp3112]

Look everyone, we have a genius here, Time=Time, amazing!!! 'c' is a time derivative you dunce! Back to school or your cave! Cheers

[@ujjwalbhattarai8670]

@@ianp3112 wrong way of describe time. Time is fundamental constant and same everywhere. E=mç² is 100% wrong. I'm not blind fallower like you. I was not now. I used to think e=mc² was correct but not now it's 10000...... infinitely time wrong.

[@ujjwalbhattarai8670]

@@xspotbox4400 time is number time is everything time is nothing too and everywhere. What we can think about is time what we cannot think about is time. Time is illusion and time is real... time is everything and nothing.

[@nickhanley5407]

They say math is the foundation of reality, but what’s the foundation of mathematics? Did it come about on its own?

[@stargazer3364]

Nothing comes about on its own.

[@staculette1919]

Mathematical Logic is the most basic foundation of all other branches of math, that is known at the moment. If we consider every entity of existence as a mathematical entity, we can hierarchize these entities in an ascending order of complexity : Propositional Logic -> First-order Logic -> Set Theory -> Arithmetic -> Algebra -> Analysis -> Geometry -> Physics -> Chemistry -> Biology -> Physiology -> Neurology -> ...

[@bartdart3315]

The inordinate amount of make up applied to each individual in this fascinating interview makes them into approximations of who they really are. 🤣

[@xspotbox4400]

What does he mean by numbers and intelligence, real universe is not like that. Except if you put yourself in the position of an observer, then we can perform analysis and figure out mathematical proportions. Sure, all quantum particles of the same kind are exactly the same, but we can never observe those ideals directly. It's like saying, all particles are infinitely small dots, radiating potential around their center in the shape of a sphere, traveling at a perfectly straight path. But this is a paradox, lines, dots and circles are only illusions, they can't exist for real. Nothing can be infinite or perfect, the real physics doesn't allow for perfection. If we can't have ideal forms, then mathematical exactness is also impossible. Things might appear exact, but that's only because we can perform precise enough measurements. In reality, every measurement or observation contain some margin of tolerance. The same goes for physical equations, they all must be renormalized and balanced with some natural constants we made up. We are not sure even about speed of light, the most important tool we have for extreme measurements. How can we measure something absolute, with what, all positions and tools exist relative to each other. Let's say we have two satellites, firing lasers to one another, and a third one observing the event from the middle point at a distance. Observer can't see laser beams while traveling trough vacuum, he will see reflections after beams hit objects. It's always that delayed effect and clocks problem, we can observe causes, but not actual phenomena occurring in space between. So we must speculate and come up with some logical rules, trying to compensate for what we don't know and can't perceive. And this is exactly what mathematics is, a logical model that helps grown up people make sense of the real world around us.

[@eksffa]

NTS: ok/90/use

[@bradr3541]

Without consciousness would math exist?

[@willnzsurf]

🌴😎💯

[@willnzsurf]

this is everything.

[@shiblyahmed3720]

But numbers does NOT have feelings!!

[@hershchat]

Math is a tool of the mind. It is a paradigm of idealism. It is, therefore, as various and complex as the mind, and as reliable as idealism. Math posits perfect equalities, that at best approximate life. It reveals tendencies of an isolated system, when in nature none exists. Like any tool or paradigm, it has limited utility. Like any potent tool (or paradigm), it needs a skilled operator to wield it, and wisdom to apply it to real life. Math isn’t magic, and it isn’t good or bad. Like the mind, it is really good at something’s and sucks at some simple ones. Like how to pacify a sad baby.

[@tristanmaxwell8403]

One word: gawwwwwwwwwwd

[@rohanjagdale97]

Right

[@2CSST2]

🤣

[@charlie-km1et]

Sounds like he agrees with Stephen Myers and intelligent design.........what he doesn’t talk about is “where” or “who” or “what”designed everything based on math. Crushing to atheists. The implications to his feeling is huge. It just doesn’t make sense that if the universe is based on math like genetics is based on design and coded which also implies math well. And “consciousness” again? Geez. I really wish someone could please tell me exactly what consciousness is when they throw the word around all the time as if everyone agrees or knows what they are talking about. Is consciousness and intelligence and information and math and design linked?

[@danishali6746]

Does math reveal the reality?

[@stercraze066719]

The mathematical answer is 42

[@cerebellum46]

Can the pain a parent feels at the death of their child be described by math?

[@penzman]

Probably through imaging of a live brain. Can math detemine how fresh a fish is? By making calculations from the gasses it emits.

[@TheNaturalLawInstitute]

NOPE: Max is using the wrong term. The universe computes, and we discover mathematically reducible patterns in that universe of computation - not all of which is mathematically reducible. Math falls into statistics at both ends of the spectrum because the causes (operations) are no longer mathematically reducible. In this sense math is just another language we use to describe the world.

[@werkzeugmann6224]

Math is the Logos, Logos is the root of (logo - ic) logic. No truer words have been written than when St John wrote : "In the beginning was the Logos" and the Logos is God!

[@andreasplosky8516]

Humans created and refined a system to describe the world and then are surprised the system can describe the world.

[@machoopichoo2]

It is almost laughable how many steps man has tried to differentiate itself from other animals to make ourselves feel special. First, we created religions that say we are made in the image of the creator, then we say earth is the center of the universe, then defeated on that, we proclaim we are the pinnacle of evolution, which Darwin showed is untrue, then we define ourselves by making tools (but so do ravens), then we have self consciousness (but our ape relatives, recognize dots on their heads in a mirror, as on themselves), then we say something about ethics (but we commit genocide), then an AI becomes conscious, and then what do we say? I think the most important step to enlightenment for homo sapiens, is to finally accept, we are not that special, but we have special responsibilities, given our cognition, to the planet and its other inhabitants.

[@sergenemo3493]

It sounds weird that a falling hazel nut is solving some kind of differential equation, approximate or not

[@holgerjrgensen2166]

The Mathematic is an consequence of our Eternal Life-structure.

[@lairdgordonmcdoodle228]

If this is true, then it would point towards this being a simulation

[@Everywhere4]

So do you think that a meta-reality would probably not be mathematical? If we remove the screen and directly connect our brain with the simulation then there would be no metaphysical difference between a simulated reality and a meta-reality besides that the meta-reality contains the simulated one. If a simulated object looks like a electronic state in a computer or like a glass of water is not important since they are just different sense-experiences caused by the same entity and which both only contain a small amount of information about the entity. So if the simulated reality is intrinsically mathematical then we may conclude that the meta-reality is also quantitative/mathematical. But if that is the case, can we take the fact that the world is mathematical as evidence for a simulation? It seems like that the simulation hypothesis would not really explain why the world is mathematical. It would seem like explaining vision by postulating a homunculus in your brain, or in other words, it would be a redundant explanation which fails to actually explain the phenomena.

[@aforementioned7177]

I'm convinced its just all math. Just think about Black Holes, explain what's going on there.

[@haimbenavraham1502]

If we could transform the math to audio. Would we get a symphony?

[@maxwellsimoes238]

Greece great math show up reality phiscs .2021 Max math show up ultimate phisics. He says obvious what Euclides, Newton ,Leibniz made up math model .

[@RichardVemvillveta]

Max, världens smartaste svensk :)

[@davidthurman3963]

math is an abstractive model.....it's not hard.

[@soubhikmukherjee6871]

I'm really happy that Max has gone Vegan. He's got a lot of support from his wife.

[@chrisgreen8803]

It’s a phrase that the religious people claim is proof of the god of whichever religion they happen to belong to. The fact that they argue it proves contradictory gods should be a huge red flag 🚩

[@celiacherianne3358]

4qo6l vyn.fyi

[@damienroberts934]

Because God tweeked it..

[@Lalakis]

No I did not tweak it

[@em.1633]

"God tweeked" would mean he did meth. You meant "tweaked". But that's the education level I'd expect from someone like you!

[@damienroberts934]

@@em.1633 Oh no, so it's true - materialists care only for appearances? Damn shame.

[@ManiBalajiC]

I am not sure how adding an entity which you guys are not even sure how it exists eternally and attained or had power to create an universe.. Its just plain dumb...

[@em.1633]

@@damienroberts934 I'm not a materialist, nor do I have a problem with theologians. The difference is that you aren't actually saying anything. You're repeating the age old hand wave of "god did it" without any further perspective, nuance, or formulation of argument. As though literally anyone hasn't heard that before. It's the equivalent of a comment saying "God isn't real". Nobody hasn't heard that before and if you didn't believe it before it does nothing to change your mind. This is you virtual signaling that you're religious to strangers, not trying to argue your case or add to the discussion. I didn't assume you're stupid just because you're religious, I assumed you're stupid because you're religious but don't share any nuanced or complex thought about it besides parroting absolute truths your parents and minister told you. You're virtue signaling, not trying to learn new perspectives.

[@PaulHoward108]

If the world was completely mathematical, Gödel would have shown mathematics is complete and consistent instead of the opposite.

[@2CSST2]

Godel's theorems haven't shown that math isn't complete or consistent, merely that it is impossible to prove that it IS complete and consistent under any set of axioms. That's very different. Math still CAN be complete and consistent, we'll just never be able prove that it is under any set of axioms.

[@PaulHoward108]

@@2CSST2, If math can't prove its complete and consistent, it's incomplete. Also, physical reality is inconsistent. Otherwise meanings couldn't be represented in matter.