MIT Godel Escher Bach Lecture 1

[@brucerose4383]

This guy clearly states: "I'm a senior math major at MIT".. he's 22 .. he's an undergrad .. he's visibly a young whippersnapper .. yet, comments take him to task for his flaws and shortcomings .. can any of you math geniuses step back and see the obvious .. he's presenting a fully complete set of lectures on a profoundly important and influential and pulitzer prize winning work - and he's doing a pretty damn good job of it .. what's the matter with y'all .. shame ..

[@ar-ux7kv]

it's similar to people that call out grammar and spelling errors.... they miss the point / focus on the wrong thing ... basically it is beyond their ability to comprehend lbs

[@nickshelbourne4426]

I don't think he's an undergraduate, he said he taught the course two years ago.

[@inasuma8180]

@@nickshelbourne4426 probably in his masters or PhD track.

[@stevennewman5442]

@@nickshelbourne4426 He says very clearly in the first 30 seconds that he is a senior in mathematics at MIT.

[@Brutal_Warlord]

''y'all''

[@westtech001]

'I got through it in seven years'; Good to know it's not just me.

[@diallobanksmusic]

Hahahaha I started reading GEB my sophomore year of high school and finally bought my own copy my senior year. I’ve been taking notes and stuff. Ins honestly a monster of a book.

[@luizcastellar]

I'm trying hard too

[@valentinochristian936]

@Reed Morris I speed read through War and Peace in 1 week too... It's about Russia.

[@DUNCZI]

I got through it in 18 years. And today slowly its analogical knowledge becomes absorbing to the universities.

[@clintgolub1751]

😂

[@zhihengxu5011]

Lecture Notes 1/2: ***Tool for thinking (from non-self to self) 1) Isomorphism - means equal in this course but means something more specific in abstract algebra - [[8:40]] - [[11:02]] e.g. skateboard vs. car, each structure can be mapped onto the other (inverse). But this example is homomorphism since skateboard is missing parts. 2) Recursion - repetitive process that includes self. - [[11:10]] - [[17:14]] - e.g. mixing egg or Fibonacci sequence or fractal [[13:42]] - [[17:14]] - which is the number of dimensions in a doubling process 2^d = N. 3) Paradox a) Veridical (eventually true) b) falsidical c) antinomy - [[17:20]] - [[26:30]] e.g. Birthday paradox a) Veridical (eventually true) e.g. Zeno's paradox & atom movement; b) falsidical e.g. 1+1-1+1-1=0 or 1? illegal moves c) antinomy e.g. the liar in Russell's paradox "This sentence is not true." & barber's paradox cannot shaves his own beard [Omega = {all set that doesn't contain themselves as a member}, so is Omega contains itself?] 4) Infinity integers vs. real numbers[][](kzbin.info/www/bejne/p3i8dYSNoplsrbc) - [[26:34]] 5) Formal systems - how do things gain meaning and exit the system [[38:35]] which is metathinking - [[27:37]] - [[37:58]] e.g. MIU puzzle from MI to MU -> algebra system with axiom, string, rules, and theorem. ***About the system - [[39:20]] The lecturer's favourite quote on metathinking by Hofstadter (p24 in lecture notes, p37 in book): "Of course, there are cases where only a rare individual will have the vision to perceive a system which governs many people’ lives, a system which had never before even been recognized as a system; then such people often devote their lives to convincing other people that the system really is there, and that it ought to be exited from!" e.g. Karl Marx and communism exiting bourgeois' system; the media / the government / the church / the school (contrary by Montessori Education). 3 modes of interacting with the system - [[42:33]] 1) mechanical - follow 2) intellegent 3) unmode / zen

[@stephclements6226]

c is a key,phonetics discus has no abstract sanity too write of too to?!..feefiefoeSpyWiserQueen

[@davidtriplett8105]

🏆✊🏿👏🏿👍🏿

[@SergioPerez-cp7wr]

Thank you!!

[@user-hp1tt1el9d]

Thank you!

[@Whydoyoukeepdeletingmyaccount]

Many thanks!!!

[@fierce-green-fire8887]

Classic...right as he begins to describe what the class is about a student immediately raises his hand and asks "what is the class about." And all the poor guy can do is say "okay, so that's what I'm going to go through right now" as if it wasn't obvious he is trying to begin to describe what the class is about. lol...even at MIT undergrads are undergrads.

[@Baraa.K.Mohammad]

@I unless they are stupid...

[@gabriellucero3540]

He said he would talk about zen. He challenged him to give a short reply. It looked like he thought about it

[@joansola02]

Hahaha so true

[@turbostar101]

I also noticed this. He handled it well. That student is now immortalized as owner of Bill Engvall's "Here's your sign!"

[@3기오세현]

After I knew him Kurt Gödel by the book written by Rebecca Goldstein, I met this book by chance in the local bookstore year ago. And now, I even hesitate to open it because i cannot imagine from what he says while reading. I just know it is profound work but, It makes me terrible if i can't reach his thought so that i think i should stop reading and need to read something else that help my depth of thought be deep+my English speaking. I didn't imagine these kind of lecture talking about such a book and get impression of people and you professor. Thank you for offering these video. Now these are my guider to understand it with deep depth.

[@realname1314]

Just to clarify on the Birthday Problem mentioned at 17:30 : The lecture refers to the high probability of another person, from a group of 40, sharing your birthday. It should be the high probability of at least two people from the group sharing a birthday. If you constrain beforehand who one of the people will be (ie. yourself) then it becomes a lot less likely. The chance of a unique pair is extremely high, the chance of you being part of that pair is relatively low.

[@l.w.paradis2108]

Beat me to it, naturally. It was a minor lapsus; he knows, he just misspoke.

[@taylorj6177]

So.. framed another way: "In a room of about 40 people, you should be able to find at least *one* you should be able to tolerate enough to date."

[@pmorris1940]

@@taylorj6177 That probability becomes > 1/2 when you reach 23 people in the room.

[@dus10dnd]

Good call out. The way he stated it is the way I always hear it discussed where "you" is stated. But those are indeed very different probabilities.

[@TheDavidlloydjones]

@@l.w.paradis2108 "Misspoke"? He said, and then published, something utterly wrong and quite stupid. He had the chance to correct it, and didn't Don't you think this suggests both laziness and lack of pride in his own work?

[@williamwinslow6582]

By the time I got to college, my copy of GEB was dogeared. It was my bible. How I would have dreamed to have a class such as this on offer at my university. Finally, in the 90's I had a chance to attend a lecture by Hofstadter himself. The lecture was about computer music and alluding to the Turing test.

[@chaidle]

sir. would you please tell me how I can approach to its understanding

[@kerem1k0]

?

[@dalef9441]

That’s awesome. I’m unable to locate my copy, an 80s softcover. I’m just thrilled with these videos. His mention of Fibonacci sequence at 12 minute mark is telling😉

[@dalef9441]

vos je do you have training in algebra? If so, the book can be supplemented with companion text that explains in depth exactly what Hofstadter means. The similarities between the drains in your sink, the shape of hurricanes, and the structure of some galaxies (like our own) are so intimately tied to mathematics that we will eventually be able to create something congruent with human consciousness out of math. Or something.

[@suzyhiphop]

@@dalef9441 A copy can be bought on ebay for $5.00 Yes, I was shocked myself!

[@christopherwalsh3101]

I quickly read through the book after high school thinking it was a spiritual book on consciousness. 10 years later, I come to find it was a book on mathematics!

[@dalef9441]

Christopher Walsh it’s both.

[@sonnenhafen5499]

it is? because it's more than that. congrats on reading it quickly, i don't manage this, for better or for worse :D

[@lbblackburn]

17:22: The birthday paradox is stated incorrectly. If you are in a room with 40 people, the probability that someone shares your birthday is actually low. However, the probability that there are two people in the room with the same birthday is very high. It is this that is called the birthday paradox.

[@torquemada6956]

thank you. that was useful and much relevant.

[@mliuzzolino]

Good catch!

[@aarongoldsmith9967]

Also, pi can be in included in a correspondence with the natural numbers (27:00). It seems what he meant to say is that given any list, you can always find an irrational number which is not included in the list.

[@sabetaytoros4123]

He stated correctly. Leonard Blackburn you are completely wrong Before you write here it was enough to assert with Google. It is not so easy to be a lecturer on MIT. In a room of just 23 people there's a 50-50 chance of two people having the same birthday. In a room of 70 there's a 99.9% chance of two people matching.The birthday paradox is strange, counter-intuitive, and completely true. If you are in a room with 40 people, the probability that someone shares your birthday actually is not low but very high.The probability is % 89.1

[@aarongoldsmith9967]

+Sabetay Toros you need to go back to the statement made in the video. Your answer is correct, but the statement in the video is subtly incorrect.

[@prem4302]

37:51 Great lecture series... I really liked the idea suggested here about the importance of stepping out of a formal system to see the larger truth about it. Justin generalized this idea to breakthroughs happening in human society. He quoted the example of how Carl Marx. For good or for evil, these people stepped out of the cultural formal system and introduced new ones.

[@stephclements6226]

human-socie 'cluster'!..overview'nodes'zit..

[@prem4302]

@Abhishek jha You should go to websites like math stack exchange if you have specific questions. The people there will guide you well. You should also try reaching out to seniors, teachers and professors of your school/college.

[@tehdii]

I have just read David Foster Wallace History of Infinity, finishing Rebecca Goldstine about Godel, and have read few chapters in GEB by Hofstadter. Thank you for this lecture. It is like a candy for the mind :)

[@andreacvecic]

He goes from logical elements without value and works it to selfawarness. Isolated the most pertinent parts of the text. Read the book for 7 years. I got to know the book from the outside, but never read it myself. It is a book you treat with reverence, it looks like a good book. Godel, Escher, Bach.

[@stevemack7110]

I've read GEB 3 times and I recommend it to people all the time. It was very influential on a book I wrote on Forensic Science.

[@ellemaio8186]

Same 😂

[@nobooksleftbehind]

This is brilliant!! thank you for posting this!!! i love lecture videos

[@kendrafavaro1922]

Thank god. I’ve been reading this book forever lol

[@LaurieWhite-TheShorterWord]

Jason, thanks so much for posting this video! I am on the last chapter of GEB and thought it would be fun to watch these videos to help me digest the book a little better. It's the most creative book I have ever read, but I never would have tackled it had my software engineering son not encouraged me to (dared me?). These videos are a great summary. Thanks again!

[@ToriKo_]

Any books they are a close second? I’d love to know!

[@adamblankenship3651]

I read the first hundred pages of Godel Escher Bach and struggled a bit. Watching your lecture after really helped.

[@arashkarimi2158]

And people say its difficult to learn/educational opportunities are limited. We live in a time when one can get GEB pdf online and take the MIT companion course for free. Instead people decide to put their time into FB and twatting (or is it tweeting?).

[@ikbuhguhphonk]

Or people decide to talk gossip about others on you tube. Plus, not quite sure it is worth to download the pdf.

[@AyoRhymer]

Arash Karimi /r/iamverysmart

[@ikbuhguhphonk]

Yo, Arash Karimi , please do instruct me where I could get a degree online, would you?

[@Metagross923]

Arash Karimi the knowledge is useless without a certificate

[@TorrAlstad]

Metagross923 Funny, I was thinking the exact opposite.

[@paulmertens5522]

Just started reading the book; really looking forward to these lectures!

[@evedotcom]

How did you go?

[@pharofx5884]

7 years later he should be close to finishing

[@adamstricoff9708]

I got the book in two divisions. Animals and then Foods. AI though.

[@tototrapsilo]

it has been 7 years, what do you think?

[@phillaysheo8]

He never finished it 🤣

[@curtisradke9213]

Thank You. This is going to be so much fun. You saved me at 27:51. Skipping the first 3 chapters. Ive been stuck in that part of the book.....also you are a very good teacher. I can tell already. This whole course is going to be so fun. ♒♒✨✨✨✨

[@nissimlevy3762]

Gravitation can be used to model a physical system that exhibits Godel incompleteness. This gravitational system is the three body problem.

[@paullee7398]

Thank you, Dr. Justin Curry, for this wonderful lecture.

[@parksuyoung6622]

this valuable lesson refreshes my sight on how to observe the mathematical world. Great thanks!

[@clearmenser]

At 17 I sat with the book for 4 days straight on a train ride across the country. Got it all. That said most people don't have that kind of time to focus on one thing.

[@svendbosanvovski4241]

Very instructive, Jason, Thank you for posting. I'll follow on with your four other posts.

[@b00i00d]

Beautiful - thanks for posting this! I partially read GEB two decades ago as a young undergrad, and it was a profound influence. I've taken it up again now that I find myself with lots of spare time (hope I'll read it all this time!...) and it's interesting to see other people's takes on it. Thanks again!

[@coolkidcrypto386]

Whats the book called thanks ?

[@b00i00d]

@@coolkidcrypto386 I'm not sure whether you're asking me the obvious, in which case the clue is in the title and my initials (Godel Escher Bach)

[@coolkidcrypto386]

@@b00i00d yes ! Im asking the obvious question, what's the book name.

[@coolkidcrypto386]

@@b00i00d thanks for the smart ass reply

[@b00i00d]

@@coolkidcrypto386 Anytime... Ever heard of Google search?

[@PianoGesang]

I read 90% of the book at age 18 in the eighties and followed up with "The Mind's I" by Hofstädter and Dennett which was similar but different in its form of presentation. Both books deeply influenced me (I called them my personal bible) and when internet came out in the late nineties one on my first e-mails went to Hofstädter asking him about how he could cope with his overwhelming knowledge? He kindly responded that it was no problem for him. I was clearly struggling to find meaning in life and not become a nihilist back then. I'm still around and I'm still fascinated by GEB that uses a twist that AFAIK no one ever mentioned anywhere: SPOILER ALERT!!! The book itself is self-reflecting and it ends where it starts - like an eternal golden braid. Am I the only one who noticed that genius move by Hofstädter?

[@viezlimo]

I think I read about this in an amazon review of the book... and I hate spoilers :)

[@PianoGesang]

@@viezlimo Sorry, I now updated my comment with "Spoiler Alert". However, I have never met anyone who realized the mentioned twist.

[@stephclements6226]

fascist emotok

[@talastra]

@@PianoGesang It is very circular all throughout the book: GEB and EGB throughout: eternal golden braid. My memory, from a thousand years ago, is that it's constantly reiterated. Plus, all the circular figures in the book, the crab canon (and the crab canon dialogue), self-referentiality in general (and in LISP), the looping images from Escher. Eternal Golden Braid. Eternal Golden Braid.

[@talastra]

Also, James Joyce's Finnegans Wake is usually considered the first literally circular book; it wraps around from its last sentence to the first. But Samuel Delany's Dhalgren might be much better known, and it too wraps around. Both books were published before GEB. Speaking of which, and circles, GEB is the father of the Egyptian gods (so to speak) and the god of snakes, which in Egyptian iconography have at times very famously swallowed their own tail, i.e.,, they form a circle.

[@carlosmbaziira4137]

at 8:09, someone walked out. This brings me back to my university days. Whilst the lecture is talking, some students gobble up his dictation verbatim. Some listen to his spew, and actually have original thoughts of themselves for themselves . This is a brilliant lecture 😊👌

[@blahblahblahblahblahblahblahbl]

/r/IAmVerySmart

[@carlosmbaziira4137]

@@blahblahblahblahblahblahblahbl WTF????

[@TheOneAndOnlyZeno]

@@carlosmbaziira4137 r/WTF????

[@doneyrussell]

i raised my hand for 24 min and he didnt even look at me.

[@johannsebastianbach3411]

+The Devil (Satan) If you examine his behaviour in early minutes of the class, you can see that he was out of breath and had a weird tone to his voice. He was probably too excited and nervous at the time. Happens to anyone.

[@Ihateradiohead]

+Johann Sebastian Bach word

[@DavidLima-le8no]

that was fynny

[@aaaab384]

He was too busy saying "like" in every freaking sentence.

[@alejandrorivera3068]

I raised it for 25. :(

[@taghreednaser1886]

المفاهيم ذات العلاقة Homomorpfism and isomorphism Paradox Recurrences Infinity Formal systems 0:00 - 7:00 محاولة الربط بين ما فعله جودل حين جعل العبارات الرياضية تتحدث عن نفسها بشكل راضي .. وبين الإنسان حيث هو مجموعة من العناصر ولكنه قادر على الحديث عن نفسه من خلال وعيه و.. ويدعي هناك تناظر بين هذين النظامين في النهاية تحدث عن formal system وعما إذا كان الكون formal system كبير مكتوب في الطبيعة وانتهى إلى التساؤل عن الإرادة الحرة كيف نشأت إذا كان مسلمات النظام هي مادة في هذا الكون .. هل الكون حتمي أن لا وانتهي إلى الموسيقى وختم بين أحلام هلبرت وواقع جودل

[@Frodohack]

55:40 Is the universe a formal system and we're living in a simulation? I thought about that reading the initial chapters and my answer is: if a universe is a formal system, it should have some non-resolvable problems, it should be inconsistent by Gödel theory. So are there any inconsistencies that we can spot? or we're not living in a simulation? Or since we're inside the system, we can't easily go outside and see the inconsistencies?

[@juanjoseguva]

What a fascinating and fun lecture!

[@evansiegel1732]

He pushed through the S-triangle example too fast, which is a great shame. A few more minutes would've made the argument clear. The issue is that the S-triangle upon doubling gives an empty triangle in the middle and three triangles that are exactly identical due to a property of fractiles called self-similarity. This is why you have three *identical* S-triangles left after the doubling process. If we had a normal solid triangle, it would have had four copies of the original triangle, yielding a dimension of 2 (log_2(4) = 2). Similarly, if we were looking at the triangle's two dimensional perimeter, it would have twice the number of each edge, for a dimension of log_2(2)=1.

[@SighrisSargon]

Thanks, I was wondering why it was 3 and not 4... I was guessing (correctly) the whole in the center was the cause; but I didn't fully understand until I read your explanation.

[@MatthewDuPuy]

Right, he is changing the function on the set (number of dimensions). He defines the line as 1 dimensional and then bisects it in one dimension to get 2. He defines the square as two dimensional and then bisects it in two dimensions to get 4 squares. He defines the cube as 3 dimensions and bisects it on each dimension to get 8 cubes. Then he changes the function; the triangle is set in two dimensions but he no longer bisects it, he trisects it. He is no longer operating on the same premise he originally defined. If you change the function, of course the results are different. This is not a partial dimension or "A really cool concept".

Matthew Du Puy Evan Siegel i think the explanation is not really clear in this video, but the concept of fractal dimension is about how the area is increased when the figure is scaled using a 2x factor. In the case of the S-triangle is the area is increased 3 times when triangle is scaled using 2x factor instead been increased 4 times as you expect for any 2d figure. I think it would be clearer if the area was shaded and you can see the inverted triangle in the middle is not part of the area.

[@evansiegel1732]

Yes, I know that. Just wish he'd done a better job of it from his video. Thanks.

[@grb9330]

Thank you!! Love this lecture. And the work of Hofstadter. Currently reading 'I am a strange loop'. I always enjoyed thinking about that kind of issues. ♥️🧠🤯

[@bendavis2234]

I’m stuck between starting that book or GEB... which one should be started first? Are they essentially about the same subject?

[@dylanesguerra3492]

@@bendavis2234 GEB I have never read strange loop but I have heard some people are turned off by it because it is too preachy compared to the example filled GEB

[@bendavis2234]

@@dylanesguerra3492 I've actually started Strange Loop since my last comment and I didn't like it that much. I'm about half way through but have given up unfortunately. I was listening to the audio book and the reader was driving me nuts! I'll have to order the printed GEB and see if it's any better.

[@dylanesguerra3492]

@@bendavis2234 I think you will like it more. I’m halfway done with it and started about a month ago. No matter what you will find certain parts very interesting whether or not you believe in the grand message of the book.

[@bendavis2234]

@@dylanesguerra3492 yup I think you’ll be right. The subject matter is extremely interesting so you can’t go wrong. I think it was just his writing style that turned me off in Strange Loop for some reason. From what I’ve heard GEB is unanimously liked more so it’s worth giving a shot despite my opinion of his other book. Also it would be nice to finish this lecture series while I’m at it. Completely forgot about this until you commented!

[@muffinspuffinsEE]

please turn on community-contributions for a subtitle to let people add subtitles...

[@salmodan]

His assertion at ~17:30 about "finding someone else with your birthday in a room of 40 people" was misstated. He should have said "finding two people with the same birthday". The probability of the two statements are very different. The first one is not surprising, but the second one is.

[@UriahBennett]

If that guy that asked the question @1:48; "What's this class about?" wasn't wearing a tanktop I'd be really surprised.

[@goosew3266]

He's in a tanktop and at MIT, you're not in a tanktop and not at MIT

[@Sam-um9nu]

Gray Wagner dude relax

[@goosew3266]

@@Sam-um9nu k

[@Sam-um9nu]

@@goosew3266 thanks

[@samuelnuzbrokh3027]

The Birthday Paradox concerns the probability of find two people in a room with the same birthday. The probability of a particular person finding another with the same birthday is a different thing and much smaller.

[@NathanOkun]

The Monte-Hall 3-Doors Puzzle with only one door being a winner seems to fall under one of the types of apparent paradoxes where the answer seems arbitrary but is absolutely true. The puzzle: You choose one door (1/3 chance of winning), but then Monte opens up one of the remaining doors, which is a loser, and he gives you the chance to choose again between the remaining 2 doors (stand pat or switch to the last non-chosen door). What should you do? The answer is ABSOLUTELY to switch to the non-chosen door since the chance of winning goes way up then. Most people do not see the point, but it seems that the Universe is lazy and if you do nothing, your odds remain 1/3 but if you now choose the other door, the chance now goes up at least to 1/2. But you HAVE to make the switch to change to the new odds since otherwise, the old odds remain. The Lazy Universe Theorem?

[@obiwanpez]

“When I taught this course two Springs ago…” as a Sophomore. I didn’t get up in front of a class and formally teach a subject until my Senior year, and that was about once every 2-3 class days, since all of us MathEd-majors had to take turns.

[@davidwilkie9551]

QM-TIME singularity is the context of particular quantitative resonant phase-states of "self-referential" existence, persons, in a content that combined, has the quality of "I", and because all these resonant phase-states are tuned-timing images of the singularity, the individual combinations represent some degree of focus of the whole. (That's a short description in current terms of a very old repeat discovery of a personal self in the context of a Universal self. It is what it is, elaboration doesn't enhance the principle.)

[@stephclements6226]

CAr2neat charRevPol'key2goRuby'edge-semails?..

[@rgaleny]

In Zen and the art of Motorcycle maintenance, Persig talks about dynamic quality ans stratified levels of static order. it is a vision of complexity.

[@stephclements6226]

desCeasERdoltSPApar0tER

[@flamencoprof]

I bought GEB when it came out. Best non-fiction book I have ever read & I treasure it, even if it is only a paperback!

[@HitomiAyumu]

flamencoprof I recommend The Fabric of Reality by David Deutsch. Its equally as mind blowing!

[@TerjeMathisen]

You were too patient: I ordered the hardcover as soon as I heard about it. :-)

[@kevinleeds979]

my paperback copy has really fallen apart

[@lukeang5615]

16:20 if you double the side length of a triangle, its area still grows by a factor of 4 though?

[@donalekor]

please turn on community-contributions for a subtitle to let people add subtitles...

[@AnnoTube]

When I read the book in the early nineties it was about the god-feeling, that every piece of the puzzle falls into it's place, but you can't prove it's right, because you need to step out of the framework you just built. Now it's about the "I"... Times and interpretations change. Although this lecture is interesting I highly recommend to stop watching and read the book first.

[@stephclements6226]

suduku/timesLitSupp'crossWord'[Win10/95!]!CSgas

[@EmanuelePaoliniMaths]

The term "fractal" refers to the fact that the set presents many details at many scales (fractionated in the sense of broken set) not to the fact the dimension is not integral. In fact fractals can have integral dimension and when the dimension is not integral it is usually irrational and hence not a fraction.

[@stephclements6226]

any info has 0moored explain,2unes allieds!?..

[@subramanyam2699]

This is why we say .. copyrights sucks ! Lets all hope for a free world.

[@clintgolub1751]

Have you heard of sci-hub.io? It literally unlocks any research paper that would otherwise cost money. The founder is this Russian women that believes exactly as you do and says cost-barriers are prohibiting advancement of science and higher qualities of life, super cool, check it out

[@shadowgallery97]

Deus Ex Machina! Finally I can read a very critical piece i needed

[@chaidle]

@@clintgolub1751 it is locked in this point. can you tell me another one?

[@literatureandideasdotcom9907]

I think the extract would have been allowed under "fair use", but the law isn't entirely clear, which makes people err on the side of caution.

[@HappyLobsterShow]

This gets SO much more interesting as it goes on. Even though this guy needs to work on his public speaking skills, he is clearly well-versed on some seriously deep sh*t. More power to ya, boooyyy. I'm watching all these vids. Quantum physics is getting boring. I'm interested in the limits of logic, and how it applies to philosophy and the mind of [the creator of the universe]. Logic, symbols, and how they fit together and break down might define human reality. (Although I think there is much more, somehow.)

[@thenowchurch6419]

HappyLobsterShow. You should be into Wittgenstein . Have you checked him out yet ?

[@alexroitburt323]

c c

[@merikaramocan6774]

His PS skills are way better than Terrence Tao's.

[@bawol-official]

All intelligence, complex or simple, must be recursive in nature. The feedback loop is necessary for references and definitions to evolve into a human language. Human language is the byproduct of a logical system that is recursive. Biological evolution is a variable, naturally occurring, recursive process(albeit an incredibly slow one) that only stops when the conditions needed for specific DNA mutations are met.

[@stephclements6226]

no natUREz,No logiCAl..

[@bawol-official]

@@stephclements6226 ???

[@WilliamThomas2040]

🛹 and 🚗 - no steering wheel, but you can abstract the function of steering and still map since both systems do have steering - lots of ways to cut and sort

[@ToriKo_]

33:00 how do you go from meaningless to meaning. Think CODE pg. Think materialism. Think idealism. Also an isomorphism seems to just be a translatablism.

[@stephclements6226]

jurno starbuks

[@suomynona7261]

This was posted ten years ago. It’s 2023 and ai brought me here to gain more insight self. We are in the future

[@raulbustosintriago4856]

Acabo de comprar el libro, estoy emocionado por empezarlo 😌

[@doilyhead]

Read the book independently while taking "Computability and Formal Languages" at Barnard/Columbia back in the 80s.

[@elizabethdudley4341]

I believe you misspoke when you were explaining the "Birthday Paradox". You said that most people assume that you would need a large group of people in order to ensure that someone in the room has the same birthday as you, and you said that you would really only need about 40 people in the room for this result. There is no way that that could be true. Did you mean to say that, in a group of about 40 people, there will very likely be two people with the same birthday as each other?

[@jonkiparsky7369]

Not "very likely", but better odds than a toss of a fair coin.

[@alexcai1320]

Actually, he's right; you only need 23 people for a 50% chance that two people share the same birthday. You can read about it here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthday_problem

[@feedusafetus]

I started reading this about 6 years ago, got about 1/3 in and stopped for no particular reason. I have been thinking about it again recently...

[@matthewa6881]

Excellent, excellent lecture, thank you.

[@kevinleeds979]

I remember some of the book from when I read the book at age 15. There are these three contradictory ideas about what I thought it had in it: First, I don't remember clearly thinking that it was about trying to define a self. But, I found a paper I wrote for some philosophy class I took about the Mind-Body Problem - and the grader wrote on it "A book report on Godel, Escher, Bach is not a solution to the mind-body problem". And I guess it's funny now that when I think of the book, I don't think it had anything to do with the mind-body problem, because I don't remember that aspect of it. So here in lecture 1, I also don't understand how looking at math is going to answer anything about what it's like to have a mind. We're fundamentally physical bodies. The solution to the mind-body problem is that our brains are parts of our bodies and our bodies are part of the universe - so I think it's that everything is connected - I have read that the only consistent explanation for consciousness is that everything is conscious. And that is what actually makes sense to me.

[@jroc2201]

I think you may be correct, I also think that everything may exist and may not exist

[@kevinleeds979]

@@jroc2201 it's good to be open-minded. And some day philosophers with their careful definitions and carefully built structures of thoughts might really succeed in making the world comprehensible, if philosophers actually exist

[@talastra]

Unless you realize that without a mind you don't have a brain, you will remain stuck in naïve realism forever. The turn to "embodied consciousness" relatively lately is the beginning of a genuine paradigm shift. The Nobel Prize in physics last year that the universe is not locally real is the first major acknowledgment of this. GEB is too "in the 70s" to be addressing the problem you describe; I think that is correct. It was still very mired in the very false idea that the brain analogizes to a computer (never mind that a mind doesn't). Recursion is the magic bullet in the book, and self-referentiality is indeed essential. But the real kick in the balls is Gödel. The idea that no "system" can fully self-describe itself from within the system is exactly what connects GEB to the recently Nobel Prize. Uncomfortable as it makes people, the color "red" is not a property of things but arises only in the Mind, and attempts to reify "something out there" that is not already subject to the paradigm of Consciousness is an article of bad faith. Read some of the cyberneticians if you want to get a flavor how it works, especially Maturana & Varela's "Tree of Knowledge." It was (first-order) cybernetics fault that first analogized brain and computer, but cybernetics also realized the error (in second-order cybernetics), but the world hasn't taken up that baton in a big way yet. The paradigm is approaching for doing so, however. It is not only possible, but desirable, to do physics with space and time (that, again, is the gist of the Novel Prize); just let that sink in, physics without space and time as an assumption. Donald Hoffman is going to try to mathematize "Consciousness" (and that will still be a mistake), but it's a less critical mistake than imagining "space" and "time" (and all properties ascribed to "reality" including "reality") are literal. Of course, dharmic epistemology has known this for 5000 years. In 1957, Ross Ashby already said: living systems are open to energy but closed to information and control. Although he was writing when first-order cybernetics was the main framework, it is already the axiom of second-order cynbernetics. As Maturana & Varela put it, "Everything said is said by someone" (every perception arises from a perceiving living system). So, what we perceive is not "reality" (no serious philosopher thinks this anymore), but a description of an observation of an experience. When we say, "The sun set," we are already two removes from anything like "reality." Again, the illusion of maya has been known for 5000 years elsewhere. We're still playing catch-up, and looming extinction due to climate change is one of the most clear demonstrations that "we" have it incorrect. Meanwhile, again, until you realize that Mind is logically prior to Brain, you'll be hopelessly stuck in a self-created impasse.

[@thelesserknownmath]

Another ingenuous idea of Hofstadter related to Fibonacci numbers and recursion is to change a little bit the Fibonacci recurrence and to get another sequence with a really weird behaviour! ~This is explained here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/a3K2lHqwm5qCnJY

[@katttok]

"Finally, there is the concept of infinity. I can't really talk too much about it..." XD (and note "finally" ;)

XD you caught me off guard there but I did get it at the end after reading your comment twice

[@johnnowakowski4062]

The atoms, proteins and molecules are not "meaningless" they are just "uncorrelated" into the set we refer to as "I" ...

[@bladddeesa]

Solved the MU puzzle in

[@spencert94]

It's not possible. To get Mu you need to get Miii or any sequence where M is followed by 6x + 3 i's. This means you need the number of i's to be divisible by 3. You only have two operations that change the number of i's and neither will make a number that isn't divisible by three already divisible by 3. Mx -> Mxx is equivalent to multiplying by 2, Miii -> Mu is equivalent to subtracting 3.

[@davereckoning5910]

@@spencert94 "Solving the puzzle" can include coming up with the idea of "you can't get MU". You don't get MU (in M-mode thinking) but you do "solve the puzzle" (in I-mode). One (perhaps the main) point Hofstadter is making here is that you have to get into I-mode sometimes (as you did in your comment) to see what's going on. And indeed, unless you get into I-mode you can't follow his line of argument.

[@freddykruger8229]

I purchased this book 3 years ago. Still haven't read a page😂. I am attempting to now.

[@zenicv]

it is not true that Zeon's paradox is resolved. It is a common fallacy, esp. to assume that Calculus solved it. Zeno was not that silly. He was referring to monism (how things can't be divided) and inherent complexities when you discretize a continuous concept like time or space. I've written a paper on it, refuting the claims of an MIT philosopher. Also, some books on philosophy of metaphysics throws more light into it.

[@luizcastellar]

It basicly states that I was a bad maths student because I was always metathinking

[@MrMathHead]

I started thinking on such a high level that I can't see the ground any more.

[@MrMathHead]

This is a great video

[@jedjedjedjedjedjed]

I just found this book at the bookstore and couldn't figure what the fuck it was, bought it, brought it home, am now here

[@germainperez7114]

I feel a lot better now, knowing that the 4 years it took me to finish I'm A Strange Loop is not out of the ordinary

[@paulbird2772]

How is it possible with Zeno's paradox that it wasn't clear that the time for each step is proportionate to the size of the step and cancel each other out to make no difference.

[@edwinbloemendaal1519]

2 + 2 = 4 breaks down in the real world, because no 2 things are identical. Numbers are abstractions with tremendous usefulness but contrary to the dreams of mathematics experts, there is a dimension (in a manner of speaking) of reality which is beyond numbers. E.G. consciousness.

[@Topbitcoinexchanges]

this is really unbelievable. its one thing to not post full pages of copyrighted works, but to refuse to even allow a reading session of brief passages? come on now...

[@stephclements6226]

COpy?..

[@devon9374]

Ever notice how many major unsolved problems in physics and AI lie at infinity. I would argue that we still don't really understand what infinity even is....

[@mikebocchinfuso9437]

I have been at it (on and off) for 30 years now and still have not got through it!

[@jacobscrackers98]

At 5:00 "refers to itself" and "has meaning" are used as if they are the same thing or at least truth-equivalent. Is there a proof for this later in the lecture or in the book? It would be a waste of time for me to read a book or watch a lecture based on assumptions that I don't hold.

[@petewerehere]

49:52 Couldn't 'q' just mean "there are as many '-' on either side of 'q', and 'p' is/are ignored". Then the axiom wouldn't be broken, correct? In other words, isn't it just a matter of framing the symbols to fit the axiom in different contexts?

[@stephclements6226]

!!2&6?..[8/16/23|64!]..rot

[@occamsrazor1285]

0:36 This is entirely anecdotal, but; ironically, that's not reverse culture shock, that's culture shock. The anecdotal part is I've read (though the comment wasn't made by a scholar...at least, not that I know of) "culture shock" is supposed to mean integrating into another culture, then returning to your own and now seeing your own in a different light. Through a different lens, if you will.

[@stephclements6226]

ocul0uiji nostroDaVinci!

[@Quantiad]

I mean no disrespect but to those of you who are exploring GEB for the 1st time, please buy the book. This guy isn't great at communicating or connecting the ideas, though I appreciate his effort. The book is multi-faceted and there are parts that will leave you amazed, truly enlightening. This lecture proves why Douglas H. took his 'sweet time' laying out the fundamentals.

[@stephclements6226]

maze spy key sink mass ,waste2x'plains?.. parallels networking synch!..

[@mlfnascimento]

Gödel, Escher, Bach: A Mental Space Odyssey - OCW-MIT, presented by Justin Curry and Curran Kelleher (2007). Very interesting view of Douglas Hofstadter's excellent book...

[@stephclements6226]

kornFL8sWallRUzs!

[@RestrepoRaul]

EXCELLENT, IS WONDERFUL. THANKS

[@salmodan]

Both. It is part of the search query and I did not understand the PQ system based solely on the usage in this video.

[@sharmabiswas]

I'm sitting here today because I want to really understand if the p vs np problem is beyond goedel's incompleteness

[@subramanyam2699]

+Biswas Sharma Is't the goedels therm its self not the proof to negate P=np ! My feeling ..

[@VeniVdVici]

I could sit down and read this in a day, it wouldn't be hard to read it. Absorbing it will take a long time.

[@jl3709]

Would someone explain the sierpinski gasket having ~1.5 dimensions? When you double it, it's true that it has 3 copies; however, it's 3 copies plus 1 original in the center (which equals 4, which equals 2^2...no surprises). Likewise, if you look at doubling the square, you have 3 copies plus 1 original. I can't help but feel there's either something I've missed or that there's a mathematical slight of hand that he just pulled.

[@guilldea]

I also had trouble understanding how fractals can live in fractional dimensions like 1.5 etc. What helped me most was this: Imagine the simplest fractal its a line that you divide in there slices and erase the one in the middle, you have now two smaller lines after the first iteration, in the second iteration of this process of dividing and erasimg you get 4 smaller lines but remember, a proper fractal doesn't have a finite number of iterations like 1 or 2, the process is done infinitelly many times. So the question now is what are you left with? You are left with infinitelly many lines that are infinitelly small, it is obvious that after every step you are ALWAYS going to be leaving some segments, no matter how small they are, you've done it infinite times so what you are left with is an object that's less than a line but more than a point, the line inhabits the first dimension and the point the 0 dimension your object lives in dimension 0.5, same with dimension 1.4789 it's an object that is less than a flat surface but more than a thin line, obviously it's physically impossible for us to create or observe such object since quantum mechanics tells is that space, energy and time is unsplitable (sorry I'm spanish) when we get small enough. I hope this was useful to you as much as it was to me :)

[@shootdaj]

Yes, the fractal is built by starting with the original big triangle and drawing an inner triangle. But the way the fractal is built is not part of the proof. The proof for non-integral dimensionality is that the middle part is actually not self-similar to the rest of the triangles. If you look up the Sierpinski Triangle, you will see that the inner triangle is always completely empty, so it's not actually copy from that sense. But yes, I agree there is something weird about it. In the sense that the proof of it comes from outside the system. But I suppose that is the entire premise of this book.

[@bautibunge737]

Its been 6 years, I know. But for someone that reads it today, remember that when you add the trangles, you must leave the center empty, so when you double the length of the side of the triangles, you have three times the original triangle, not 4

[@stephclements6226]

@@bautibunge737 diamond pentiV too quad 'coyENteX!'caChaRi..

[@bautibunge737]

@@stephclements6226 ??

[@MrBrew4321]

In the first three minuets one the most profound questions pops up: HOW CAN we think if we are a collection of primitives? Then five min later an equally profound question: HOW DO we think? look @7:00 in none of those things seem to have anything to do with thought on the face of it.... lol crazy

[@euclidofalexandria3786]

thoughts can be inear, but actions eforce the asymptote on choice values, since there is only the act, regardless of the thought that was for or against said act.

[@stephclements6226]

shadescrypt0 hanoi battista ace turing shadesCkeyEDqwertys!.. cup0TeasChekMates

[@shawnirwin6633]

"This sentence is not true." The "Liar's paradox", is just as faulty as Zeno's paradox. A sentence, in itself, cannot be true or false. Only the information that is contained in a sentence can be used to draw a conclusion, and if there is insufficient information in the sentence, then one cannot draw a conclusion from it, and that is the exact problem with the Liar's paradox sentence. It is like saying "Dogs are false." - "Red rocks lie." - "Even numbers are false" it is lack of information and coherence of the information, in every sentence, including the sentence used in the "Liar's paradox". It is not a paradox at all, its just like the story of Euler's hoodwinking Diderot in Russia, simply because Diderot was not a mathematician, and did not realize that Euler's (a + b^n)/z = x proved nothing of the sort. The problem is lack of information, and, it is highly likely that most "paradoxes" are missing some form of vital information.

[@jacoberickson8930]

Cute but Godel's theorem uses self referencing sentences in its proof

[@marcdefant6027]

somebody named Tyreen in the class thought he was very intelligent and asked so many mundane questions that it completed ruined the course. Half the time of the instructors was taken up kindly answering this guy while the other students twiddled their thumbs. This course should really be called the discussion of the topic with Tyreen.

[@stephclements6226]

dynDiceCAratENterMS...

[@lukeinvictus]

I am 44 mins in, I'm gonna guess that it is impossible because in order to anihillate all the Is the number of them must be divisible by 3, but by doubling them the product will always be at 2 to the D power.

[@lukeinvictus]

I never lied, I might be wrong about something, and you are right nobody knows who I am, I am a high school sophomore in Brooklyn ;)

[@lukeinvictus]

No, thats not what I did. I ventured a guess and im not afraid to be wrong. Looks like you are projecting your failed academician mentality on to me. Not only this but you pretend to be in some elite club by having "the slightest inkling" about what this lecture is about. Im pretty sure the lecture was meant to be EASILY understood. You are the epitome of the Dunning-Kruger effect. Im expecting you to make an anger filled response, but I can't expect it to be very impressive considering your go-to argument is "Your a fucking moron" I guess this college educated genius never learned what an argument is or how to use the correct form of your (you're).

[@lukeinvictus]

Not to mention you are insulting someone on their merit on a FAKE ACCOUNT, accusing me of being morally bankrupt while not even accepting accountability for your own words.

[@deepnet_0]

+Luke Amendolara touche

[@deepnet_0]

+Luke Amendolara and fatality (as in MK)

[@BlantonDelbert]

Why did the instructor tell the students that he would give them 20 bucks to solve the MIU riddle and then get pissed when they weren't listening to him.

[@larrytroxler7017]

Why would any one think the birthday "paradox" is really a paradox? Isn't just a basic probability problem?

[@Mgtr14]

A "paradox" can also be an answer that goes against your intuition.

[@VeniVdVici]

Not an issue of failing to understand it, but the detail into which you want to adsorb it, but I do agree that some people like you will find the book more approachable.

[@VeniVdVici]

Having been 8 years; I will point out, I have read the whole thing; but still working on absorbing it. Lol.

[@planetglitch7058]

That's smart lecture notes numbered for the use of the refto book

[@SeiroosFardipour-sy3sh]

One if only lias,can not question if it lias because it has no comparative opposite reference.

[@bradleysampson8230]

Maybe quantum mechanics is governed by the subpixel position of fundamental particles. That’s how you execute a flagpole glitch.

[@JoeyTaylor-zh7pg]

I barely understood ANY of this but i think it's very awesome and beautiful

[@flynnfoil]

56:12 did someone edit in a keypress?

[@tango2olo]

While loop is not recursive..btw

[@aliozgurbaltaoglu]

Max Planck Institute in Marburg and the Philipps University in Marburg has stumbled upon the first regular molecular fractal in nature. April 2024

[@mappel2]

what would happen if pinocchio said my nose will grow now?

[@xcaluhbration]

Whoa

[@naftalibendavid]

It wouldn’t because he was wrong.

[@dyannhadgez7578]

He explodes of course!

[@sachadnhsk1732]

It wouldn't if he genuinely thought it will grow without lying

[@kylemaritz4673]

He becomes a real boy

[@adi_trades99]

31:40 the puzzle is considered to be impossible to solve, but he didn't want to risk more than 20 bucks that it is in fact impossible to solve. That's how much faith this guy has in the mathematicians before him.