Our Mathematical Universe with Max Tegmark

[@josephpeter6796]

I highly recommend his book: Our Mathematical Universe _ my quest for the ultimate nature of reality 4 all maths and physics lovers. I have read it twice. Thanks professor Max for this great effort

[@childofthecreatorgod9962]

I highly recommend the Bible (King James Version) for TRUTH. "Twice" you wasted your time. Your "... quest for the ultimate nature of reality" was in the wrong direction.

[@josephpeter6796]

@@childofthecreatorgod9962 just wondering how you landed on this video. r u not satisfied with the answers provided in the Bible (king James version) ?

[@childofthecreatorgod9962]

@@josephpeter6796 Your reply is definitely confusing. I'm Definitely satisfied with answers in KJV Bible (are you?) that's why I posted my comment RECOMMENDED the King James Version of the Bible. As for how I landed on this site, It came up in my "Up Next" column, "maybe God wanted me here to tell you not to listen to man but listen to God and come to Jesus and get saved, time is so short. BTW, did not watch video or read your books, only your comment.

[@josephpeter6796]

@@childofthecreatorgod9962 btw, just 4 ur info ...... I am a physician and cardiologist, currently on the COVID warfront. i graduated in physics b4 I stepped into medicine. patient's relatives often feel helpless and ask me abt the prognosis of their near and dear ones. I asked them to have faith in God, while we do HIS work. The rebuttals that I get are more on the lines of ...... Is there a God and if there is, then why is HE so cruel? Why so much vengeance on HIS own creation? If you find answers to these questions ..... pls let me know (but don't give me anymore BS

[@Lebronwski]

@@josephpeter6796 Well why do you think God is cruel? God is a just God who acts in vengeance because that's what justice is

[@alcyone1349]

We need to appreciate people such as Max more often. Great lecture and many thanks to Ri.

[@seabeepirate]

I always enjoy Max’s talks.

[@dk6024]

I'm nearly done with his book of the same title and it is totally mind blowing.

[@TeaSpoon2008]

dk6024 yup

[@cupajoesir]

i don't use the phrase lightly and yes, mind blowing is the right phrase.

[@maxnullifidian]

It's not turtles all the way down, but equations.

[@hikerstl]

Its mind blowing because you don't understand what he is taking about and neither does he.

[@ALMEYTRIX]

Hiker SanDiego it’s called philosophical ignorance. So many metaphysical assumptions, Aristotle dealt with the same ideas coming from the Pythagorean’s thousands of years ago. Forget about the theory not having scientific support, the whole theory undermines the project of science entirely.

[@erickwilberding5786]

Great teacher. Wonderful analogies, colloquial expression, enthusiasm, he's enjoying teaching.

[@albertomartinez714]

Max Lexmark is one of the greatest voices on these topics -- what a fascinating speaker!

[@RAFA-kb2te]

Wild imagination and accurate intuition, that afterwards is proven scientifically. Humans will do in time whatever think they'll do.

[@joeldoxtator9804]

I still don't understand why science assumes that the galaxies are speeding away from each other. Is it not more reasonable to assume that between that great distance and time there is enough matter in the vacuum of space to cause the same effect that our sun has when it is low in our atmosphere? The sun is not any closer to us or further away from us just because it turns from blue white to deep red, just as it does not mean that the sun is suddenly accelerating away from us at a faster speed when it is seen as red in the sky. Variance in the speed of light can also be seen on earth by sending light through water. It seems to me that we are trying to make space itself some kind of sterile environment where all physics are constant when that is clearly not the case. The Oort cloud of our own solar system should be enough to tell us that there must be similarities to how light behaves in our atmosphere and how it behaves in space. While the density may be different, if you multiply that density by position of the Oort cloud comets by the billions of year that light took to reach us it makes more sense and it is not the only debris field between us and other galaxies. 25:23 - Of course there is a rational explanation for the usefulness of math. Math is a language created to describe specifically the quantities of nature. Nature itself does not describe math. The fact human intelligence reflects nature is only more proof that nature is the parent structure of our intelligence. When we use math to describe nature we are describing ourselves. Math itself is a deeper understanding of self. Mathematics is born of intelligence which mean the universe itself is an intelligent structure.

[@tedl7538]

Love you Max, you're a real treasure to humanity.

[@Jackieception]

There is a point where the description becomes what is described. Symbol becomes the meaning behind it.

[@daithiocinnsealach1982]

Has happened in much of religion.

[@WhirledPublishing]

@@daithiocinnsealach1982 and also in the fake science that the gullible public and programmed fake science gods have been indoctrinated to believe is real.

Max is so great when we talk about communicating science to public.

[@JackQuark]

The idea that this universe is fundamentally a math structure, is fascinating.

[@fred_2021]

Max is a great guy. Could listen to him all day.

[@samuelfine9140]

This is like listening to a lecture from Prismo and I love it.

[@mz1rek]

pure mental power of Eratosthenes was not enough to prevent the lecturer's mistake at 1:36 in presenting his finding :)

[@mz1rek]

40 thousand kilometers in diameter? I dont think so...

[@viktornerminhilic2767]

A mistake like that is irrelevant. It has been noticed so many times that it proves its irrelevancy. Simply said:"Good that the audience is knowledgeable of such data."

[@travelmania209]

Beautiful , thanks to both The Royal Institution and the great intellectual Mx Tegmark. It was a beautiful experience to hear your views. Thanks again!

[@nassimhadjbenali3819]

This is one of the best talks I have watched during the last few months. So well thought, and on so many levels. His transitions in thinking are so smooth, hovering from topic to topic. Brilliant Work !

[@bhangrafan4480]

The universe is NOT mathematical. It is consistent. Because it is consistent it has logical structure. Because it has logical structure we can use our maths (a language based on logic) to model bits of it. The model is not the same as the thing itself, it is an approximation and it only represents or emphasises those aspects of the universe which are of interest to people in that context.

[@Am_I_really_not_really_I_AM]

Just was wondering if you still disagree that the universe is mathematical, presently? If so, I would suggest some critical thinking about exactly what language is and it's relationship to the acausal, eternal nature of mathematics/logic.

[@bhangrafan4480]

@@Am_I_really_not_really_I_AM First point. Yes I still think the universe is not inherently mathematical anymore than it is inherently, English language, Chinese language or any other language. Maths being something to do with how the human mind works to impose order on the phenomena it experiences. In this process simplified representations of phenomena are used to model phenomena. Maths deals with the representations of reality, not the reality itself. It tells us about a circle, not a circular object. What relationship though the human mind has to the universe is another deep question. The second point I do not really understand. If you have something particularly in mind, please explain.

[@IndraneelMukherjee-yd8fc]

This is what Eugene Wigner stated in his "Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences", while dealing with a phenomenon from a mathematical perspective, we ignore the influence of other factors. For example, while dealing with the electromagnetic theory, we ignore the effect of temperature, pressure etc. Despite this, the mathematical theories we formulate are found to be consonant with the experimental observations.

[@jasonfeingold2314]

His book is brilliant.

[@Kfarris22]

Jason Feingold it sure is. I read Our Mathematical Universe three times and can’t understand it well enough to explain it clearly. That said, there is no more hearty an intellectual nourishment than this book & the ideas espoused therein, as counterintuitive as they are. He’s a great, witty writer that makes such tough subject matter enjoyable to immerse yourself in for endless hours.

[@Raydensheraj]

I actually enjoy how his book is setup... Asking a question and answering them Scientifically - without it being dry. Definitely great explanation of the Cosmic radiation Microwave Radiation Background.

[@acetate909]

Book(s)

[@qwertqwert5568]

I am in class 8th is it good for me? Can I understand the content.

[@leftblank6036]

I just bought life 3.0

[@ajeethkumar3569]

Its very interesting to hear the way max is explaining!...😍👍

[@DanielKarbach]

PS: 40,000km is the circumference, not the diameter

[@Ramkumar-uj9fo]

In Plato's philosophy, the concept of Forms suggests that there might be an ideal form of beauty, but it's not expressed mathematically in the same way as numbers. Rather, it's a conceptual ideal, which could include the notion of an ideal face. -- Certainly, people may consider Cleopatra to be the closest approximation to an ideal form of beauty based on their subjective opinions and historical accounts. However, it's important to note that beauty standards can vary widely across cultures and time periods. -- When i was younger i used to believe in a certain numerical or statistical ideal of beauty

[@dr.tre90]

I think that his theory is most likely true. I've been thinking a lot about the nature of reality. I realised that everything has to be logical. Reading Harari sets you in the right direction. While he only starts at physics, I realised that if you take a step back further, there is mathematics, so it has to be the basis for everything. I looked it up and I found this theory. It seems to confirm what I've figured out. The strange thing is that even though I think this is the answer, I'm not very happy about it. I feel so empty now, like nothing matters at all...

[@jakeceraso8356]

we can only see a small fraction of the complex mathematical structure of the universe. we experience life as 3 dimensional space, but reality is more than just animals on planets

[@JBSCORNERL8]

What about it makes u sad?

[@dr.tre90]

@@JBSCORNERL8 I don't know extactly... I guess the lack of so many things I thought to be true earlier.

[@JBSCORNERL8]

@@dr.tre90 I was pretty bummed too. I had a bad trip and distorted my whole perception of reality. So I spent a year and a half researching everything and came to the conclusion that everything is math. And it was exciting at first but I kept getting depressed because it meant that I kinda don’t exist in a physical sense. But it also made realize that im immortal and that this reality is way more complex and magical than I ever realized.

[@dr.tre90]

@@JBSCORNERL8 How does that translate into being immortal? I'd bet it doesn't mean that our consciousness sticks around after our body dies.

[@sherylaustin998]

Your absolutely right!!! I'm surprised ...you have done well!! Continue in the direction your going. ...I see things in mathematics...everything is a math value.. pleasure to hear your excited voice. Seriously your right on track.. tip remember everything is a math code inside of a math code. .. congratulations your very brilliant. Proceed with no doubt!!!!

[@geronimomadrid7733]

Oooo

[@zoranvelickovic8814]

Mathematics is an abstract language adapted to us so that we can describe nature in a logical way.

[@writer684]

Or the language is the language

[@stevenvanhulle7242]

It's definitely a language, but it's way more than that. Language is a tool to convey information, but it's not information in itself. If you learn English, vocabulary, grammar and idioms, you can express information, but you still have no information at all. In this way math is different: it is a language AND a collection of truths.

[@audreyandremington5265]

Pfft get out 'a here you constructivist.

[@LPPFusion]

@@stevenvanhulle7242 NO, you can express things in mathematics that do NOT describe anything real. It is a language crated by humans, just like English, where we can describe fairies as well as stars. The difference is that mathematical language does not allow the expression of logical contradiction, while English does. You write a good English sentence that say" So and so is a real idiot, but he isn't'" but not in math. Tegmark's ideas on math are just Pythagoras' and they had to be overthrown to allow the scientific revolution. Today they stand in the way of scientific progress again.

[@user-kouritis-o-minoitis]

What is the number 1 without the symbol how you can describe. You can't so math isn't the symbols but the substance the mind of the universe. Plato ideas

[@DeusVult1775]

I love how at 40:21 he says “I’m kind of a numbers guy” 😂😂 ya don’t say?!?

[@Ramkumar-uj9fo]

I am understanding where my problem came from. Chalmers in Reality+ cleared it up. -- If Max Tegmark's Mathematical Universe is true, physics and math are the same subject, and like math, physics has no words.

[@courtneysalmon7826]

Very enjoyable and illuminating!

[@capitalismblows]

The universe is energy which forms mass and space. What is the mass of mathematics and where is its energy?

[@ImaginaryCyborg]

When he said the Universe is mathematics, you aren't supposed to take that in the literal sense. Mathematics is a concept derived from the observation of the laws of nature. Mathematics is a conceptual tool, it does not have a separate, physical incarnation. It was a metaphor, mate.

[@zoranvelickovic8814]

Your mind belongs to the universe as well, it's a physical thing. When you think about math, you also use energy. It's a mind bending conclusion, but you'll get there.

[@JK-pd7jf]

What if everything is ultimately mind energy? A mind of who or what?

[@astolfosobrelaluna.3099]

Yeah, I’m also trying to figure it out. I dream a lot about maths formulas and feeling subtle energy embracing me. And from an human perspective make me feel so loving and regenerating. But, what they really are? Downloads, fragments of a past lives, things I get from higher realms? And for what for? Just to make me feel loving and regenerate? 😄 oh well, Thanks a lot anyway to the divine consciousness 🌹🎼💚

[@jnekrep]

This guy does the best Christopher Walken ever...without even trying.

[@alexjaybrady]

+Josh Nekrep i think he looks like the spit of Richard Lewis i.ytimg.com/vi/-PDBiUzv2uc/hqdefault.jpg

[@alexjaybrady]

+FuZZy961 you a doctor? no?

[@acetate909]

Now that you've said that I can't unhear it.

[@Ramkumar-uj9fo]

I was presented this argument and after that did not think dark matter was dark or black holes were black. More like a naming peg. Physics is not literal. I guess as per Tegmark logico mathematical is enough. --- The "This is not a crow" example by Richard Feynman is a way to illustrate the difference between knowing the name of something and understanding it. In his explanation, Feynman describes how someone might know that a bird is called a "crow" in various languages, but just knowing the name doesn't mean they understand anything about the bird itself-its behavior, biology, or how it interacts with its environment. The essence of the example is to emphasize that true understanding goes beyond mere labels or names. It highlights the importance of exploring deeper knowledge and not confusing terminology with comprehension.

[@lorezampadeferro8641]

Very good lecturer

[@dhwanitsshah]

At 36:05 the video frame says the near future catastrophic events pertaining to life existential risks (back in 2014) that's in range of

[@ricke6854]

Now in late 2024, we survived the pandemic, but now AI is coming in fast, and climate change has accelerated faster than models predicted. Hope nuclear war can be avoided, but with Ukraine situation, N Korea, and China situation, who knows...

[@pastorlarry1950]

19:34 Nature of the gaps.

[@JorgeMartinez-xb2ks]

This guy is amazing, what a brilliant mind

[@MrAlexscara]

Wonderful. Just a side note however. Urbain Le Verrier was the man who, after confirmation by Johann Gottfried Galle, discovered Neptune, thus becoming "the man who discovered a planet with the point of his pen". But here (22:17) it was Adams and then(!?) Urbain Le Verrier that did. And notice how very peculiar it is that it's ... 'one of them' (!!) who wrote the letter to Astronomer Galle in Berlin. 'One of them' ??! It was actually Le Verrier of course. It's interesting how subtly history can be spun.

[@cseeger1]

For years I've suspected that "mathematics" is far more fundamental and expansive than it appears -- that perhaps everything we experience (nature, music, design, et al) are manifestations of mathematics. A mathematical universe makes a lot of sense. Now, what about this Mandelbrot Set?

[@KimStennabbCaesar]

You should check out KZbinr Vi Hart if you want to see some cool uses of math in (Western) music. It gives you a good perspective on where some of the pseudo-science fields can have emerged.

[@TheGuruNetOn]

If we use English language to describe stuff, does it make all the stuff British? If we measure stuff and describe patterns using X language, does that make those measurements and patterns X?

[@LuigiSimoncini]

@@TheGuruNetOn exactly

[@omega82718]

@@TheGuruNetOn No, because english is a natural language with human baggages and connotations, math is a formal language, purely syntactic without any meaning. Math is objective, not english.

[@ALMEYTRIX]

Can someone explain to me how this theory can account for the self-evident fact of change? By that I mean, this thing losing and gaining another, succession. Also, how does this theory not result in idealism? There is no physical world in this view, only these immaterial mathematical forms, and the universe is one of them. So everything we know about the universe is mental representation. But if we only know mental representations, then we never know the universe as it is, and that includes any mathematical properties of the universe. And if we want to say matter exists, then we have something other than number and have no explanation for it. Another problem is that it doesn’t seem as if their theory can salvage induction at all. How can we guarantee the mathematical universe we live in is going to continue behaving nicely, as opposed to the many many other mathematical universes that don’t behave with any regularity at all? Since things in this theory aren’t substances with real natures that ground how they act, and instead are just random assortments of numbers that can make a mathematical object, we have no sound basis for induction. Let alone trying to explain how colours, sounds, smells and all other forms of qualia can be explained by mathematics. It would seem to rule out qualitative plurality entirely, because it’s all the same stuff, it’s all just numbers. I’m not sure what saying an electron just is -1 and all it’s other properties that can be described mathematically even means. What brings all these numbers together to make a single electron? Is an electron just a collection of numbers? What makes this electron different from that electron, if they’re all just the exact same collection of numbers? You might say spacial location, but then they’re a different collection of numbers and therefore don’t share a common nature. So we can’t speak of electrons anymore? These are just some thoughts I have about this theory of his. I don’t buy it.

[@Grgazola]

Math does describe change. Mathematical formulas are employed in other disciplines to represent an outcome starting from an initial position. Math is idealistic. Everything we know about the universe is mental representation. In trying to know our reality better we are following a series of steps towards the elemental, the indivisible ultimate, from which we can then reconstruct all the physical manifestations we perceive. This series from biology through chemistry to physics and all the way down to the smallest observable units follows a path of ever more abstraction. Properties of matter emerge and vanish depending on the order of magnitude, matter and energy become interchangeable, even formerly fundamental forces seem to combine, and bereft of the many characteristics from our everyday experience everything seems to obey strict symmetry-rules. The idea of a mathematical universe appears to be a logical consequence of the approximation through abstraction said series is taking.

[@jshook]

basically this mathematical structure is one that is so complex that it harbors a dynamic reality. It is hard to wrap your mind around if you are thinking of mathematics as you learned them is school.

[@Louis13XIII]

All these words to say absolutely nothing

[@WhirledPublishing]

Max, you're one of the very few with a functioning brain.

[@Louis13XIII]

@@WhirledPublishing we must disable him

[@randomytname8005]

1:42 he says 40000 km is earth´s diameter but I´m sure he meant to say circumference instead.

[@jonathanday6692]

Maths is discovered, not invented, and was just as true before life or even before stars. Maths is a branch of philosophy, physics is a branch of maths. I like how Tegmark analyzes it. Knowing that something is obvious isn't the same as understanding it. Tegmark understands, the best I can do is observe. I saw people talking about pairs in physics, but nothing in physics talks of pairs, only symmetry. N-fold symmetry is fine.

[@jonlopezt]

My friend needs to visit a nose and throat doctor or hydrate himself

[@garmd4953]

At the base of mathematics is LOGIC, and this in turn is the fundamental essence of the universe's structure; logic.

[@khalidnezami5056]

gar md that’s the last destination I’ve reached in the search for the nature of reality, we are psychology which is derived from biology which is derived from chemistry which is derived from physics which is derived from mathematics and which is derived from LOGIC, it seems like logic is the absolute nature of reality and the source and essence of all things, you could even call it God.

[@TheMeaningCode]

Khalid Nezami Thr Logos

[@54eopifkg3ehfkj43]

No, logic is a subcategory of mathematics, actually.

[@Ramkumar-uj9fo]

Many people have trouble with understanding physics as it is not literal. I read that This is not a "crow" by Feynman. -- Yes, terms like "black holes" in physics are not taken literally but are names given to describe complex phenomena based on logical and mathematical observations. They help conceptualize abstract ideas in a more tangible way. ChatGPT ❤🎉

[@henrykderewenda9310]

40 000 km is the circumference of the earth not the diameter.... Max knows that. Max you are great!

[@flyboy330mps]

40:20 “I’m kinda a numbers guy” 😅👏

[@ninadesianti9587]

Thank you for sharing this great talk! Max Tegmark is awesome!

[@alexsmith2526]

one question i ponder -WHY does everything spin for forinstance o globule of liquid floating on the ISS starts to spin all the way down to the sub atomic world everything has spin -what causes it ????

[@Ramkumar-uj9fo]

So what they want to do in bare minimum physics is photograph or visualise it Yes, in the bare minimum, what physicists often aim to do is to photograph or visualize phenomena, like black holes, in order to provide concrete evidence of abstract theoretical concepts. This helps bridge the gap between complex mathematical models and observable reality, making the phenomena more understandable and accessible.

[@ruthlessadmin]

Perhaps, fundamentally, Existence and Non-Existence form a singularity that represents all possible combinations thereof, and within that infinite set, realities emerge. Some of which happen to give rise to universes/multiverses, physical laws, logic, and intelligent life.

[@samfenimore8868]

Max is Brilliant

[@AlphaFoxDelta]

Silly questions, but when we look at a star about one hundred light years from Earth, we are seeing what that star looked light one hundred years ago. However the star itself has traveled, or perhaps went supernova in that one hundred years, so my question is, while we see light from the star, its not telling us where it is now, but where it was one hundred years ago, it actually isn't there anymore, even the gravitational affects of the star would span out around it for one hundred years after it went supernova. Isn't there a constant "now" time shared across the entire universe? One that can't been viewed from within the universe because of the slow speed of light, which makes observing the real "now", that differentiates between seeing old light here on Earth and knowing the real object is one hundred years further in time, even if we can't see its light.

[@simsam133]

There is no universal "now" in the universe. This is what einstein discovered. Also gravity moves with the speed of light in form of waves in the space-time.

[@AlphaFoxDelta]

Yeah, I know that, but what differentiates between seeing old light like we do and the actual object that isn't even there anymore. If I had to try to answer my own question, I'd say that the star we see is fake and that right "now" it has actually already blown up. So despite seeing it twinkle like it was one hundred years ago, we know that "now" it's a neutron star or black hole. This itself makes it seem like there is a shared "now" and that old light tricks us into seeing old objects, and that the real object has moved or gone, but when we say "now" the fact that extreme mass warps space and time makes the passage of time speed up or slow down depending on the reference frame of the observer counting the time.

[@simsam133]

***** Yes but we can never be sure that the star has died as long as the light from the stars death hasn´t reached us. Therefore we can´t say that the stars is dead "now" since now the star is fully alive and sending out light and gravity from our point of view.

[@Louis13XIII]

@@simsam133 if the star is dead, it’s dead NOW regardless of what we can or cannot say about it.

[@heisenberg69]

Way to go, Max! And Bromma rules!

[@aarondanielrodriguezrodrig2442]

he did say at the beggining that the earths diameter was 40 thousad kms, that the perimeter at the equator, earth is 12 thousand kms diameter.

[@caioatila669]

Amazing mr.Tegmark!

[@abistonservices9249]

The physics scientists have already found the smallest particle, the Quark, and it may not be a particle, it is a probability wave which is Quantum Mechanics. Maths looks like it is far as we can go, everything else is maths like Mark Tegmark explains. Myself i believe this is so, but it is still controversial, but i think this will be finally the answer we were all looking for, not God but just Maths!

[@lordloneshadow7572]

no reason to believe that quark is the smallest particle.

[@tensevo]

Some really nice insights here - thank you

[@josegegas]

Not sure about this, but his argument is confusing mathematical properties with physical properties no? I mean, in mathematics numbers are at the center, but once you want to use mathematics to describe the universe you need units. The three dimensions are not "just three", they are three units of length, and length is more a physical concept than a pure mathematical thing. The same holds for the properties of the particles, they are not just numbers, but also dimensions, mass, electric charge, etc. Remove the units from any mathematical model describing the universe. It may keep it's mathematical properties, but is no longer useful to describe the universe. For me this kind of breaks the argument of a "purely mathematical universe", since pure mathematics are made of numbers and abstract rules, but physics is made of numbers, similar abstract rules, and units. I believe the question should be more like: why is that the mathematical rules adapt well to the behavior of some parts of the universe, so that we can use these rules to make some accurate predictions? The answer may be, I believe, related to how the human mind work. I think we've made the mathematical rules out of our minds, which are shaped by the same universe, which we observe. When what we think does not match what we observe, we tend to adapt what we think, to the point where the models can be used, in some cases, to make predictions. Although he should probably mention the many times when mathematics didn't and actually does not work at making predictions. If we consider chaotic systems the universe seems to be less mathematical.

[@austinunterbrink9805]

This human is awesome

[@rocksonasiamah9048]

GOOD INFORMATION GOOD TEACHING

[@alangarland8571]

i have always wondered about the wavelength of hydrogen being 21 cm (more or l;ess) It's a very nice accessible scale for humans. I tried making objects in which 21cm was a feature. Nothing interesting happened though.

[@Ni999]

Of course you know that wavelength is going to be what it is whether you find it interesting and accessible or not. And strictly speaking, it's not the wavelength of hydrogen, it's a wavelength from hydrogen undergoing change that's useful to radio astronomers.

[@Louis13XIII]

a CoInCiDeNcE? I dOn’T tHiNk So, It MuSt Be GoD

[@thejdgoodwin]

0:37 Professor Tegmark is channeling Christopher Walken

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

Very good info!!! Could the potential for human mathematics and physics be formed by the dynamic geometry of the Universe? This is an invitation to see a theory on 'time' with an emergent uncertain future that gives us a new understanding of quantum mechanics.

[@richarddeese1991]

Thanks for a great talk! I *_do_* believe that it's math (at least, so far...) which best describes our universe as best we can perceive it. I strongly suspect that this is the right picture; I don't think there's likely to be something higher, or more general, or more fundamental, that would describe it better. *_But_***, I'm not yet fully ready to embrace the mathematical universe idea as expressed by Prof. Tegmark; namely that the universe is ***_only_* built out of mathematics. The one thing that's stopping me here is that it sounds a bit too much like a version of the simulation hypothesis - which I *_don't_* like. This causes me something of a conundrum; I'm still working on it. Thank you again for a very interesting talk. ℝ𝕚𝕜𝕜𝕚 𝕋𝕚𝕜𝕜𝕚.

[@skwirl3014]

Id just like to say Ive been reading about pilot wave theory and it seems so promising. The particles create waves that effect the particles. It only takes two points of calculation. A two part cycle if you will. I hope Max and other physicists have at least tested its validity.

[@mattlm64]

In his book he favours the many worlds interpretation and doesn't talk about pilot wave theory. Though I'd like to hear his thoughts on pilot wave theory as it's deterministic and fits in with his mathematical universe hypothesis.

[@salahamedy4766]

The most important that we want to be actual is to live so we will try to be able to do what make all happy.

[@GHTorell]

Great teacher indeed. Wonderful lecture. I don't know how big our chances are to expand our civilisation into the universe though. The closest star (excepting the sun of course) is four lightyears away, and I don't think there are any exoplanets around that star anyway, also I thought it was Kepler who calculated that the planets moved in elipses around the sun, not Newton, never mind, I liked the lecture a lot.

[@samshado1744]

Amazing 👍🌷

[@jamesdolan4042]

What about the ancient civilisations mega structures, that required a great mathamatical sense. Then there is the Axial Age of Buddha, the Partriachs, Plato, Zorasthra, Confucius, etc. So in one sense the ancient mega structures might attributed to vast macro world, and the Axial, the age of conscious. So Homo sapiens always have the minds, but clearly not the resources.

[@modusponens1094]

The claim that everything being fundamentally mathematical means we can figure it all out seems to ignore questions of incompleteness (like Gödel) and computability (like in chaos theory and computability). Maybe that's in the book.

[@WhirledPublishing]

You're right and this fact exposes the fraud, the hoax, the scam, the sham, the intentional disinfo, the epic psy-op known as theoretical physics, advanced math, and "science" in general - with all it's idiotic theories.

[@JBSCORNERL8]

Incompleteness doesn’t mean we cant figure it all out. It’s just means our universe doesn’t have infinite probabilities. Meaning there are things that this universe is capable of but will never do.

[@thanasisgiannakopoulos2315]

Excellent lecture

[@jamesnordblom855]

If all that exists is mathematics, then what precisely is a quantum computer? And...what is our very personal existence within that construct? Could the simulation theories be correct? Am I a Sim? and should I be giving thanks to a Quantum Computer? When does mathematics become philosophy and philosophy become definable by equation?

[@tomrobbins6211]

HE IS RIGHT! And no our brain is not a Turning machine!!! It is much much more - ask Sir Roger Penrose! Man the hubris I hear here is scary.

[@tomrobbins6211]

***** Our brain is not a Turing machine, it is much much more - see Dr. Penrose, why are you trying to put us on the thrown of creation?

[@tomrobbins6211]

***** Maybe in your brain.. not mine - classically? The brain itself created the notion of classical responses - it will never be understood as so many firings of neurons, they have tried for decades and failed! this idea that we are warm ROBOTS is silly and has no traction, and fails to explain anything but what we observe - and that's all science ever does is have the privilege of seeing what is the effect of the laws, not the WHY their are these laws, have some humility with your science.. We never make progress by comparing ourselves to machines that our limited puny observations have made - WE MADE computers - computers don't make computers, more circular reasoning, when reason itself fails you. Respectfully..

[@Spoilers-Allowed]

***** Philosophy is essentially "thinking about thinking" -- mathematics will become philosophy when we figure out what thinking is, or figure out enough about thinking to make something that thinks (AI is math). Sounds impossible, but like most great things humanity has done, it's probably a breakthrough or a series of breakthroughs away. There is no reason to think this field is something breakthroughs cannot be made in.

[@3rdeye7thdimension]

Tom Robbins Let me know when you meet a dog that can fully comprehend being a dog. We will always be our own mystery, because all of us experience reality in our own biological set, and anything more advanced than us would be unable to explain us to ourselves using logic we could comprehend. If you don't believe me, try teaching your pet about itself. That would be novel.

[@mattschoolfield4776]

I had the thought that the universe is math as well but dont know where to go with that

[@schmetterling4477]

Neither does he. He just likes to hear himself talk. :-)

[@Philitron128]

​@@schmetterling4477lmao

[@rajarshirayphotography6964]

What is the name of the US news channel that always says...it is irresponsible to...?

[@mauriziosorelli9566]

So death does not exist. We have already lived our lives an infinite number of times, and shall live the same lives for ever.

[@Louis13XIII]

Porco dio

[@n1k32h]

Max Tegwart where are You?

[@pastorlarry1950]

20:30 Shapes and patterns. Very interesting.

[@tensevo]

It's only just occurred to me that if we could view the Earth from a large enough distance, we would see the history of the Earth unfold. All that information is still out there in terms of light data. If we could capture that data we could watch life evolve.

[@NowhereNear42]

If we could. But actually nobody can. Because we would have to travel faster than the speed of light to catch the light data sent out by the earth.

[@fungiuse]

Great lesson, even if it's 4 yrs old !!

[@Ramkumar-uj9fo]

Neo's rejection of the Matrix is a rejection of a programmed reality, which, as per Max Tegmark, is a world where everything is mathematically defined and functions deterministically.

[@LuigiSimoncini]

30:05 "space has no non mathematical property that we've been able to find". Well, if you start from a mathematical model of anything every property you'll find is going to be "mathematical" by definition, if you instead start from empirical observation you're going to "measure" some property and that's, again, going to be mathematical, maybe you'll even expand current mathematics to accomodate your newly measured data...

[@venkatbabu1722]

Everything is about how spin quantum dynamics work. Space mass time waves energy gravity electricity magnetism etc are all the show of spin quantum.

[@chrisryan6464]

by 'spin' I assume you really mean spin angular momentum, which is a property of particles with which this 'spin', or this angular momentum of the 'spin', contributes to the magnetic field of an atom. Although it's quite an important concept and can indeed be related to electricity and magnetism, I wouldn't say that 'everything' is about spin angular momentum. For example, the higgs boson has no spin, although it holds a value for weak isospin, something to do with quark content and the weak interaction.. but I'm not sure what this actually means in field theory, you could check online the properties of the higgs boson and the higgs field, which is what gives mass to fundamental particles. You could say everything is about perturbation theory if you really wanted to relate this 'everything' you are talking about to only one concept. But that statement and hence the concept, has its limitations as well. Some good physicists say it's all about perturbations, others say it's all a form of the tight binding model, including the standard model, you're free to think or work out or believe whatever seems more enticing to you, good luck!

[@venkatbabu1722]

Matter is spherical surface and energy is circular expansion like a ring. The amount of spin differentiate the two. Content of matter is energy in circular expansion.

[@venkatbabu1722]

Polarity of matter is stable egg shaped spherical links. Because differential spin.

[@chrisryan6464]

I don't know if you're using google translate or not but what you're saying makes no sense. If you really mean what you say then you're no closer to understanding basic physics than a chicken is. If it's just language that keeps you from conveying some idea here then you should use a better translator.

[@WhirledPublishing]

Since the study of Physics is the study of natural forces which include the power of megatsunami waves, volcanic eruptions, hurricanes, etc., since the public - including science majors - have been spoon-fed a pack of lies about the timeline for the cataclysms known as Nuuanu, Eltanin, the Siberian Traps, and the timeline for the forces that formed the Grand Canyon, the forces that broke and subducted the tectonic plates, the forces that formed the ocean trenches and archipelago islands and so on, almost no one on this Earth understands these basic forces of physics - the deception is intentional - but the public is so dumbed down, drugged up, poisoned and programmed with lies and lunacy, they fail to notice.

[@neobourgeoischristum5540]

I intuitively understand the mathematics of the universe, I know where to go and what to do to enhance my slices of space time in the past, present and future.

[@michealkelly9441]

My favorite astro-mathamatchian ever!

[@lonelycubicle]

Feynman seemed to have a different view of mathematics. It would be interesting to hear this speaker discuss both views: kzbin.info/www/bejne/pZOmm4J6mtR_jNk

[@danielturon5718]

I see his point at the end with the pixels showing our spenditure but at the same time the money spent on the us military could be viewed as money spent on saving humanity

[@WhirledPublishing]

You've just exposed the "scientific community" as a pack of insane sociopaths.

[@AlphaFoxDelta]

It's quite wild to think Our universe formed with little more than hydrogen gas. With gravity, that collapsed into the first stars, and with the physics of this particular universe, made larger atoms via that gravitational pressure and heat and then, upon iron, going supernova and spreading those atoms nearby. For those atoms to combine via complex chemistry into molecules and elements that, once again, due to gravity, combine into asteroids and planets. That those planets would have atmospheres and water and the right type and amount of molecules and overall conditions to create higher complex molecules like DNA. DNA, the miracle, genetic information that could create proteins and that could become and create organisms. Organisms that could move, and think, and write KZbin comments about it's conscious understanding of itself and the universe.

[@ethanthompson1773]

"I see a bunch of you who look 90 years old." Killed em

[@Sportliveonline]

cannot turn consciousness on itself to know itself

[@beastie4ever]

It went fine and very interesting till 35:38 where he claimed Terminator 2 is a 'bad movie'.

[@Louis13XIII]

He’s just saying it’s bad at describing the dangers of AI

[@asusedz]

Is it me or does Max, at times, sound like Christopher Walken🤣

[@damonkmitchell]

Christopher Walken with a little Bobcat Goldthwait. Brilliant man

[@atomhydrogen]

The study of Max Tegmark is completely based on analytical considerations, ideas and hypotheses, which are following from the studies of other researchers... However, he does not turn himself TO FEEL THE VOICE of the universe. In some sense the differences in two approaches are similar to the difference in approaches to the world by the semitic perception of the world (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) and the Vedic embranchment. How does the cosmos look like in the Vedic picture?.. We know a very remarkable book, which could be treated as an introduction to such an approach, namely: Raja Ram Mohan Roy, "Vedic Physics. Scientific Origin of Hinduism" (1999).

[@thepianist123]

I am curious about his English accent? From which area is it?

[@ximecreature]

might be because he's swedish (I think)

[@maurits3029]

Yes, he is swedish.

[@dfhfdgfgdfshdfhe8257]

Anyone familiar with his Tegmark ideas and Donald Hoffman ideas want to say something (especially those who are also familiar with the mathematics of it) ? I am just not sure how to make of it. Both of these seem plausible. Are they contradictory? I am not even sure about that.

[@WhirledPublishing]

The emperor has no clothes.

[@hanjarake_taro]

Oh no!!! Is this guy THE Max Tegmark??????????

[@schmetterling4477]

Yes... he is a gas bag. ;-)

[@Philitron128]

​@@schmetterling4477I don't know that I'd boil him down to that lol. He definitely speaks with a bit too much confidence on this topic, but I don't think he's full of hot air.

[@schmetterling4477]

@@Philitron128 Yes, he is. ;-)

[@Philitron128]

@@schmetterling4477 fair enough haha

[@mansyouwa3994]

最近のホログラフィック理論はどう思っているのか知りたい

[@AsratMengesha]

In the world of no change (no multiplication by unique Identity), If you slay one lump then you have slain all the lambs in the world because all of them are the same and one. And If you are the slayer then all the humans are slayers at the same time. You know what I mean? In that kind of world, there will be no multiplication at all just there might exist seven billion humans of the same age and have the same way of thinking, thinking the same thing at the same time, doing the same thing at the same time.....etc. What a bizarre impossible world do you wish to exist? Impossible; that is why microevolution is also impossible.

[@joonpark6237]

My hero. You are!

[@harrycallahan5674]

MIT? Did you know William Hunting? He was good math also

[@jeanetteyork2582]

I kept waiting for him to do some math. Why no math? Isn't that in the title?

[@bdbs5618]

He's mainly doing philosophy. And poorly at that.

[@kimsahl8555]

A definition on math. please - or we make some noise.