The Fundamental Patterns that Explain the Universe - with Brian Clegg

From the cosmic microwave background to Feynman diagrams - what are the underlying rules that work to create patterns of action, force and consequence that make up our universe?
Brian's new book "Ten Patterns That Explain the Universe" is available now: geni.us/clegg
Watch the Q&A: • Q&A: The Fundamental P...
Brian Clegg will explore the phenomena that make up the very fabric of our world by examining ten essential sequenced systems. From diagrams that show the deep relationships between space and time to the quantum behaviours that rule the way that matter and light interact, Brian will show how these patterns provide a unique view of the physical world and its fundamental workings.
Brian Clegg was born in Rochdale, Lancashire, UK, and attended the Manchester Grammar School, then read Natural Sciences (specialising in experimental physics) at Cambridge University. After graduating, he spent a year at Lancaster University where he gained a second MA in Operational Research, a discipline developed during the Second World War to apply mathematics and probability to warfare and since widely applied to business problem solving. Brian now concentrates on writing popular science books, with topics ranging from infinity to 'how to build a time machine.' He has also written regular columns, features and reviews for numerous magazines and newspapers, including Nature, BBC Focus, BBC History, Good Housekeeping, The Times, The Observer, Playboy, The Wall Street Journal and Physics World.
This talk was recorded on 28 September 2021.
---
A very special thank you to our Patreon supporters who help make these videos happen, especially:
Supalak Foong, efkinel lo, Abdelkhalek Ayad, Martin Paull, Ben Wynne-Simmons, Ivo Danihelka, Hamza, Paulina Barren, Kevin Winoto, Jonathan Killin, János Fekete, Mehdi Razavi, Mark Barden, Taylor Hornby, Rasiel Suarez, Stephan Giersche, William 'Billy' Robillard, Scott Edwardsen, Jeffrey Schweitzer, Gou Ranon, Christina Baum, Frances Dunne, jonas.app, Tim Karr, Adam Leos, Michelle J. Zamarron, Fairleigh McGill, Alan Latteri, David Crowner, Matt Townsend, Anonymous, Robert Reinecke, Paul Brown, Lasse T. Stendan, David Schick, Joe Godenzi, Dave Ostler, Osian Gwyn Williams, David Lindo, Roger Baker, Greg Nagel, and Rebecca Pan.
---
Subscribe for regular science videos: bit.ly/RiSubscRibe
The Ri is on Patreon: / theroyalinstitution
and Twitter: / ri_science
and Facebook: / royalinstitution
and Tumblr: / ri-science
Our editorial policy: www.rigb.org/home/editorial-po...
Subscribe for the latest science videos: bit.ly/RiNewsletter
Product links on this page may be affiliate links which means it won't cost you any extra but we may earn a small commission if you decide to purchase through the link.

[@mozzerianmisanthrope406]

I have every one of Clegg's publications and follow his book reviews on goodreads because he reads some fascinating science books and his exposition is clear and concise. Excited for this; thanks for uploading and here's to expanding the information we all know over the next year! Merry Christmas, everyone! ✌️

[@isaidmeow8265]

P

[@arthurwieczorek4894]

A thing is a pattern in space. A process is a pattern in time.

[@MichaelMonterey]

Of course, according to your definition, things are abstractions in a conceptualized perceptual illusion enabled & reified (thingified) by limited consciousness & self-limiting beliefs. Likewise, your "processes" are also abstractions in a conceptualized perceptual illusion enabled & reified (thingified) by limited consciousness & self-limiting beliefs. In other words, you believe that you and your self/world construct are figments of the personal mental fiction you think of as actual reality. Right?

[@arthurwieczorek4894]

@@MichaelMonterey Yes, dead on.

[@arthurwieczorek4894]

@@MichaelMonterey A conceptualization is a tool when it works and an illusion when it doesn't.

[@itzybitzyspyder]

A thing moving in time is a process.

[@Sulayman.786]

So is a thing in space that is not a pattern not a thing?

[@robertfletcher3421]

Thank you, RI for coming back live and Brian Clegg was so interesting to have behind that famous desk.

[@alwadud9243]

Beautiful! Thank you. When people really understand 'What is science' and then elegantly demonstrate its application on such awesome universal trends, it's a thing of beauty!

[@benjonnyshirley4203]

No one really understands 'what is science'.....in general the smart people know how little they know and keep quiet, whereas the invested, the charlatans and the needy are the noisy ones who we hear from most. I have a friend who is a publishing astro-physisist who estimates modern mainstrem 'Science' knows or understands only 25% of what is out there....and that is probably a generous estimate.

[@marthareal8398]

I appreciate the nuts and bolts of these science language. Your words and the understanding of your words makes a difference in good communication. Thank you for your valuable time and expertise. Patience is also detected. 😊

[@poeticframe]

thank you so much! great lecture!

[@karlamay_]

Thank you so much for this Christmas present!

[@MH3GL]

"Science is to be believed because it can be openly criticized." - John Ziman Cannot think of a more relevant statement in today's current events...

[@arthurwieczorek4894]

Dogma cannot be openly criticized.

[@Seekthetruth3000]

How about climate change, can it be freely criticized?

[@MH3GL]

Let's add some clarity to the quote, since it's seems to be ruffling some feathers... To put it another way: "If it can't be openly criticized, then it's not science." Hopefully, that will dispell any confusion.

[@derfunkhaus]

@@Seekthetruth3000 Yes it can be, obviously. Why would you ask that?

[@warrenny]

People openly criticize religion all the time. That doesn't make it science. And I am not religious at all; religion is laughable. Point is, criticizing something doesn't mean anything. When governments or institutions ban criticism of something, it means that something is very wrong.

[@richardearnshaw2719]

So indebted to this encapsulation of all of my childhood " ..but why? "s. It occurs to me that most if not all were preceded by an observation of a pattern - say, water running along the edges of a leaf and only falling off at the tip (I hadn't yet noticed that the tip was always at the lowest point when that happened) - or, a 'once of' experience like, why did that man ruffle my hair? (when he had well passed me and unlikely to return). The second was a pattern of things observed when I'd lived sufficiently long to discern. The first I could hope for a concise explanation if I wasn't being dragged from pillar to post and having my cheek or chin dabbed by a wetted handkerchief. This presentation is not only fantastically informative it us also a magical balm of sweet understanding that cools my brain, clears my mind, transports me to my innocent youth where the abstract and the real touched and the child who saw this was hooked! When I first heard 'science' I immediately thought 'signs', lol The signs say... The patterns say.. Perhaps that man ruffled many a child's hair or perhaps it was a one off - he is gone but not forgotten. The memory forms a pattern of never knowables but what a wonderful abstraction to follow and what wonderful realities become known. Thank you, for all the wonder you have unwrapped with such tidy economy and digestible parts. These are the acts of generosity of which only a few are capable. Very well done indeed!

[@loge10]

I was taken early on with Clegg's example of the lightswitch and how much of our energy would be spent if we can to consider every light switch individually in order to use it. I actually feel our culture has headed in that direction with the multiplicity of apps and virtual conferencing platforms so that just functioning on any given day, one has to use mental energy just to function on what used to be basic tasks. That spent energy could be directed more meaningfully in other life experiences which is why I believe that the experience of life has diminished significantly in the digital age - or as least in how we have designed the digital age. Even buying something in person in a store requires more energy as no two stores having purchasing processes that are alike. For me, I have to use conscious effort to do what had been in the past automatic.

[@anatomyofeverything2406]

Amazing lecture

[@dennisestenson7820]

43:33, Ideally, the periodic table would be in the shape of concentric circles, or concentric spheres, but that would be pretty hard to represent on paper.

[@KalebPeters99]

Time for the AR/VR education revolution!

[@PlanetXMysteries-pj9nm]

Thanks for another great video, look forward to many more!

[@j.d.4697]

I don't think people realize how important and influential this topic is to everything in human life.

[@anatomyofeverything2406]

Brian Clegg thank you for your research

[@Runeforged]

Woooot RI is back. My mind was getting dull time to sharpen it up.

[@zigatretjak75]

This is quite comprehensive!

[@brendawilliams8062]

Nice idea to have a measured stick of one. Thankyou

[@Fibonaccinxthreesixnine]

I have asd and see patterns everywhere I have found the most beautiful pattern and can give many examples of geometric symbiotic relationships. The only problem is that I am lonely and cannot Converse to the people around me .

[@HugoHabicht12]

Thx, Brian 👏

[@CGMaat]

Great lecture- thank you

[@kugelblitz-zx9un]

Great lecrure- thank you

[@CesarClouds]

Marvelous and enthralling writer.

[@balijukka9963]

I can't help it, but all the time watching this, I expect Eric to pick up his guitar and start singing.

[@rienkhoek4169]

Can't be unseen...

[@SolidSiren]

The way to tell that tile A and tile B are in fact the exact same shade of gray is to move a bit away from your phone or screen and squint your eyes. Focus only on those 2 tiles. It breaks the illusion. This technique works with quite a few optical illusions I've noticed.

[@jan-martinulvag1953]

A and B are not the same

[@KalebPeters99]

@@jan-martinulvag1953 how so? This is a classic, well tested illusion.

[@jan-martinulvag1953]

@@KalebPeters99 see my video

[@dconov]

@@jan-martinulvag1953 So where is your video? I did a search of your name on YT and found some teenagers channel with the same name. But I kind of agree with you. The adjacent grey squares for B are in the same shadow and look like A so it would seem B would be identical to them. Unless he means something else by "shade". I would like to see other example of this experiment if it is so famous.

[@viseerrdentsawl8494]

Lightswitches 3:40. Up is on, down is off. Unless you’re in the UK, in which case it’s reversed?

[@EducationEasy4All]

Very nice explanation

[@bryandraughn9830]

I know it sounds crazy, and I definitely don't have anything even approaching a theory, but I suspect that somehow it's the sequence of electrochemical activities in the brain that becomes "aware". Sort of a "program" that monitors multiple patterns simultaneously. Excellent lecture!

[@zedsmelee]

Your only as conscious as the pattern your mind forms.

[@tresajessygeorge210]

THANK YOU...!!!

[@sherkodylanful]

must admit that he is one of the great science populisers

[@manikroy7768]

Fourty thousand people have listened a long discourse of scientific lecture. That is really a great thing.

[@SoirEkim]

The chess board illusion: I paused the video, zoomed in on the “A”/“B” tiles, turned the image sideways. Then adjusted my eyes so that my left eye looks at the “A” while my right eye looks at the “B” and instead of seeing two colors flipping back and forth as each eye compete for dominance I see one shade of grey while the letters flip back and forth in the dominance… yeah. That’s a pretty interesting illusion.

[@alex79suited]

As we can't do the same experiment from a none EMF perspective as everything is in fact in a bubbles of an EMFS. We really need to get out into the vacuum. Can we see the voids in the CMB. What do they appear as do we have that information. Im just curious as it looks like when i look at the CMB is all matter is connected and the addition by subtraction is whats actually occurring. Its a great picture in any event. Great video by the way.

[@alex79suited]

All it really shows to myself is, it points out the need to separate space from matter. It actually shows that the matter verse and the vacuum are 2 different properties. And it also says to myself if we dont through science separate and study both as separate entities. Then we will always be unsure why we cant figure either one out. Its the separation of these 2 properties that in the end will allow us to have the real TOE from atleast our perspective as a part of the matter verse.

[@F8LDragon2]

Existence is pattern, and what you call yourself in the flow of thinking is THE thing doing it

[@isitover9010]

6:54 so they are the exact same shade of grey. Have you ever peaked through a white hot/ black hot military night vision scope? Quite interesting on how the world rapidly changes around our understanding of things and how our preconceptions change rapidly. I was looking for the badies hoping I wasn’t one so seeing this optical illusion is really quite fascinating thank you!

[@ronaldjorgensen6839]

thank you

[@anmlkvp]

Fricken Luv symmetry. Like when a song lyric matches up with whatever action is taking place on TV. *Listening to the TV with the stereo on is standard operating procedure for individuals who party **pattern recognition software updated

[@Sheikh_Kurosaki]

Interesting how was i just wondering and then a video drops in my notification and it's not even from Facebook !

[@eqe2e23e]

i never even thought about the correct orientation of an on/off switch. to me, if you would like a different result (e.g. light to be on instead of off), just toggle it to the only possible different state.

[@NathanOkun]

There are sight-versus-hearing illusions, too. If you see a "talking head" on a video screen mouth one sound, but the speakers put out another sound, your brain says that eyes are more reliable than ears and will change what you seem to hear in many cases. And you cannot stop this from happening, no matter what you do, unless you look away from the talking head and then you can hear the actual sounds being produced. These illusions can be quite elaborate and even scary as to the results you hear when looking at the talking head when the sounds made differ from what the silent mouth seems to be saying.

[@bipolarbear9917]

You're talking about the McGurk Effect. The McGurk effect is a perceptual phenomenon that demonstrates an interaction between hearing and vision in speech perception. The illusion occurs when the auditory component of one sound is paired with the visual component of another sound, leading to the perception of a third sound. Ba Ba Ba Fa Fa Fa Da Da Da

[@ramonalejano671]

is the cmb diagram showing the view inside the universe? from earth? would it still be the same if viewed from another galaxy? or at an edge of the this universe? would it still be this "uniform"?

[@yencabanas1548]

I think its been already thought upon, and was taken into account in their results.

[@venkataponnaganti]

A great presentation, Dr. Brian Clegg

[@tadeth]

The most beautiful thing about symmetry is it’s mental attraction.

[@timelsen2236]

PLEASE make a post on the relation between DIV GRAD at finite density charge sources and the relation of this to gravitational curvature for finite density mass distributions. For zero charge density DIV GRAD X=0, while for mass the mass on a rubber sheet model suggests negative (Gaussian) curvature in the surrounding vacuum, suggesting DIV g

[@jamesgrover2005]

Yay!

[@habtamumanaseb4497]

(6×10)×60(quantum effect); (0.6daysas space x10)×60wks(quantum effects) ; (6×10) × 60(quantum effects): respectively represent hour, months and year. The parrern includes second minutes and hour. Or spaces, time and light

[@shenidan2023]

Thanks for posting this, extremely interesting and informative. Amazing to hear how Emmy Noether work is accepted as fundamentals. It's fascinating.

[@theultimatereductionist7592]

1:00:56 You misspoke. You said "a whole 120 degrees". You meant "a whole 180 degrees" for rotational symmetry of a rectangle.

[@artsmith1347]

5:43 -- It might be more accurate to say "the face on Mars" has been damaged than to say it is not there. A smooth surface (over what appears to be a granular substrate) on the the right side of the "face" has been damaged. Why was there a smooth surface over a granular substrate? The transitions in elevation from the flat surface of the planet to the sloping sides of the "face" seem to be distinct. Why are there distinct transitions between smooth surfaces at different slopes?

[@Helenthecat]

What was the date this talk was presented?

[@TheRoyalInstitution]

Oh, we missed it out of the description, sorry! It was recorded on 28 September 2021.

[@neamashenavar1828]

The unlucky 13 number superstition originates from ancient Persia (Persepolis 550BC) and the Nowruz celebration of the spring equinox, roughly March 21st. On the 13th day after Nowruz (New day), there's a traditional event called Siz Dah Bedah (translated as 3, 10, throw away) i.e. throw away the 13 because this number 13 was/and still associated with bad luck and all the bad luck of the previous year, and that people pray for a better, new year by discarding the 13 including the knotted grass grown during Nowruz. Why exactly this 13 is unlucky in of itself, though, is a mystery. They say house prices reduce if you're property is 13! I think this is off topic though from the lecture on patterns studied by science, just thought i'd point out a little trivia about 13 as Brain Clegg did mention 13 at the beginning of his presentation...

[@physicstheoryofmetinaridasir]

I SUGGEST HAVING A LOOK AT THE FIRST PART OF MY THEORY AND MY FIRST FORMULA WHICH DETERMINES A LINEAR VELOCITY OF...6.3 TIMES GREATER THAN THE SPEED OF LIGHT, ETC. AND I TOLD WHERE OUR MEASURED CONSTANTS ARE ROOTED IN. We need to change the concept of matter that makes us imprisoned by all kinds of impressions and especially by accepting the vacuum illusion which it has been sitting comfortably in it

[@abcde_fz]

~58:00 Don't get TOO technical. In 'common thinking', mirrors DO 'swap' left/right. Would you like to see a mirror that 'swaps' top and bottom? Simply tilt your head 90 degrees to either side, so that one eye is 'above' the other. Now, the mirror is 'swapping' top and bottom. If evolution had given us depth perception by placing one eye above the other, aligned vertically instead of horizontally, then, in 'common thinking', mirrors would 'swap' top and bottom instead of left and right. (These ramblings are basically my opinion, arrived at years ago when I was first learning about photography, and the lenses and sometimes mirrors inside cameras that made them work.) It's not hard science, just something I figured out one day when I tilted my head 90 degrees to one side and looked in a mirror and noticed that instead of swapping left and right, my brain told me the mirror was swapping top and bottom. The whole 'left/right' thing happens simply because our stereoscopic vision is achieved with two eyes that are aligned horizontally. We could have just as easily evolved with two eyes aligned vertically. The brain would have given us depth perception just as effectively that way. It only requires two different POV's to create depth perception. HOW the two POV's are actually aligned makes no difference. Your depth perception doesn't disappear simply because you tilt your head 90 degrees to one side. But mirrors look funny for just a second when you look at them that way! 🙂🙂🙂

[@TheMemesofDestruction]

3:45 - Mind blown.

[@TheMemesofDestruction]

39:23 Names give meaning.

[@mostly_obtuse]

... What's the pattern for disguising a sales pitch as a talk?

[@alwadud9243]

Science is survival = 'science is understanding patterns' + 'pattern recognition is survival'

[@F8LDragon2]

Science = converting perceptual patterns into conceptual patterns (Translating behavior into symbol)

[@muntee33]

No Penrose pattern or golden triangle?

[@avbhinaya]

Feels like listening to religious discourse, someone living in a tiny planet yet to explore many parts of earth forget solar system presents the "fundamental patterns" of the universe.

[@samlloyd8582]

Interesting subject matter, but I'm having problems with the definition of a 'pattern', or rather, Clegg's failure to define what a pattern is. Is the cosmic background radiation a 'pattern' in the same sense that light switches follow a pattern? Are Feynman diagrams 'patterns' in the same sense? Clegg seems to suggest, when he attempts to define a pattern at the beginning of the talk, that 'pattern' means that there is a predictable way in which members of a family of things will behave, or that one thing, over time, will follow predictable behaviours. We call these predictable behaviours, patterns; according to a dictionary, "A pattern is the repeated or regular way in which something happens or is done". But I don't see that we can say that the cosmic background radiation is, or follows, a pattern, unless there are other universes we can compare ours to. According to Clegg, Feynman diagrams record the various possible 'patterns' of particle interactions yet, as he says, the possibilities are endless so these seem to be an infinity of possibilities, with nothing following a 'pattern'. Can someone help me out?

[@anotherpointofview222]

Patterns of thought.

[@nathantaylor5096]

The umbrellas on the number line is because the number isn't infinite as it's 1, only that it's infinitely divided. :-)

[@jbyrd655]

How are there "many more natural numbers than squares (49:04)" when, in fact, there are actually the same amount; an infinity of both?

[@makmak412]

What is da ptern in 3x minus 1 if oneven and x2 if even..

[@scienceexplains302]

First optical illusion: you can also cover all of the screen except squares A and B and see that they are the sake color. Now imagine someone who just sees this and claims, “One is much darker. I saw it with my own eyes. I know.”

[@ashoknaganur8551]

Knew how we are convinced by the observation and experiment and then we interpret

[@peterg7120]

Patterns tell us certain things are related in nature, and scientific models help to explain why the pattern occur.

[@shmuliknemanov4009]

wrong. they seek more generalized patterns. The why question is outside of science.

[@anotherpointofview222]

Interesting thought. I could see helping to promote better pattern recognition and understand pattern relationships. How do you see it getting into explaining the why?

[@peterg7120]

@@anotherpointofview222 what, this lecture presented was a mixed bag. Take as examples, Minskowski diagrammes were to help to visualise Einstein special theory of relativity, particularly the relationship between time and space. The periodic table shows the similarities of different elements but atomic theory explains why each element behaves the way they do.

[@anotherpointofview222]

@@peterg7120 Check. I just finished watching and listening to it. You were right. Just as described. Not easy to take in. The voice and graphics didn't make it easy to take in. Not what I was expecting after his intro. Didn't have any specific expectations. What he proposed to talk about peeked my interest. I guess I was looking more for a theoretical physics/philosophical presentation on the observable patterns and relationships, and how we cognitively process them. He did somewhat. You hit it. It was a mixed bag.

[@sarcasmo57]

Question time?

[@montazmeahii6029]

That was funny when he said to flip the light switch down it would turn the light on. I said aloud, "Off. Huh?!" Then he said the bit about America (which is where I'm from).

[@Rico-Suave_]

Watched all of it 1:06:17

[@MrJailbreakdude]

please tell me the whistling stops

[@traruhsynred3475]

Your example of 'Quantum Reflection' is not quantum, It's classical electrodynamics. That the same thing would happen with electrons is quantum.

[@tmusic99]

Notation: dark matter is five times denser than ordinary matter, and, E = mc**2, implies dark matter has five times the energy content of ordinary matter. Or?

[@rienkhoek4169]

He meant that the total mass of all dark matter on the universe is five times that of ordinary matter. This however has nothing to do with the density. Density in ordinary matter depends on the material so it doesn't make sense to talk about the density of ordinary matter in general. It might even be possible to have different densities of dark matter.

[@etherdog]

The resolution of a pixel on the Planck satellite is 62,000 Light Years, which is the size of a galaxy. There is a limit to the resolution of stretched (red shifted) light beyond which nothing is discernible. The radius of the observable universe is about 92 billion light years, but the flatness of the observed universe is at least 500 billion light years. Don Lincoln on the Fermilab channel has a great video on this problem.

[@johndef5075]

I still dont understand red shifts. I always heard that light appeared the same speed same no matter the observer.

[@etherdog]

@@johndef5075 Light is comprised of two components, amplitude (how high the wave is) and wavelength (the distance between the waves of light). The speed of light in spacetime is constant, But a source from far away is going to appear at a longer wavelength because space is expanding. You can see this in the Frauenhofer and Lyman lines in the spectrum. It is akin to the Doppler effect.

[@abcde_fz]

~03:47 THAT is the weirdest thing I have ever heard. Light switches. Up = "ON". Down = "OFF" When I want to move, I stand UP and walk. When I wish to stay still, I sit DOWN and remain still. What's more natural than: Up = "ON". Down = "OFF" ??? Light switches are upside-down in BRITAIN, not the US, my friend. 🙂

[@maciej12345678]

12:55 so energy is just illusion of density of space -- so you can calculate when space to large when energy is 0 or

[@schmetterling4477]

Energy is the ability of a system to perform work on another system. You are welcome for this high school science refresher. :-)

[@Sharperthanu1]

All those pretty colors at the back of a DVD or CD is called Holographic Foil.

[@E_volve]

Twinkle twinkle little star focus & intent will take you far ✨😑✨

[@thewiseturtle]

What he calls science "finding the most convincing pattern of interpretation" is what I call politics. Science, to me, is the process of creating novel models/maps/patterns of reality. Not judging them based on some subjective criteria, but in simply generating novel ways of looking at reality. Politics is then the process of judging which models science creates to use for trying to solve specific problems. Then religion is the recording of the best patterns to share with new generations.

[@anotherpointofview222]

Thank you for not accepting the given pattern.

[@thewiseturtle]

@@anotherpointofview222 I accept everything that's real. All patterns are real. All perspectives are real. And each one is unique. Mine is naturally different from any other perspectives and patterns. And the more we share our unique patterns and perspectives, the more we learn about reality as a whole. Cool how that works, huh?

[@anotherpointofview222]

@@thewiseturtle More accurately I should have said, Thank you for not accepting another's pattern (of thought) as your reality, and by your response, I know you would not accept another's reality as Truth. I feel many do, and have adopted other people's "patterns" to construct their reality. Depriving us of the uniqueness I believe we can add to the collective pattern, for the collective good.

[@SaccoBelmonte]

...twice of the diameter of the solar system... mind blown. Also, DNA has error correction.

[@scoreprinceton]

If science is about patterns and its discovery in the physical and natural world, which is such a small part of the universe, then; isn't science missing the rest of the universe to learn from? When science, gets applied outside of the physical/natural, would it begin to see what is claimed to be "reality"?

[@earendilthebright5402]

The contention would be that the physical and natural world are not a small part of the universe, they are the whole universe. You cannot investigate that which there is no evidence for.

[@sleeplessdev7204]

​@@earendilthebright5402 Well said. As the speaker explained at the beginning of his talk, the patterns being referred to are not some small corner of the physical world, but rather the fact that the universe is in any way consistent at all. In other words, the entire universe can, at bottom, be described in terms of its patterns. Any endeavor which seeks to uncover objective truth must concern itself with the system in question's underlying patterns; for if a system cannot be observed and experimented upon in some consistent manner, what basis is their for study and explanation?

[@earendilthebright5402]

@@sleeplessdev7204 Thankyou for truly understanding my point. It's about burden of proof in some sense. If you tell me there is a fairy in your garden, it is not on me to disprove its existence, rather the onus of proof lies with you to show me it does exist via evidence to some acceptable degree of measurement error.

[@stephenmcconnel]

The number 13 is unlucky because it is the number of steps in a staircase, down which people can and do fall,

[@achatinaslak742]

A zoo has patterns too, groups of animals like...big cats, reptiles, fish, and so on. Just as the groups of elements in the Periodic Table

[@spiralsun1]

I appreciate this talk, but science is not about patterns and routines at all. It’s about distillation of universal principles behind diverse phenomena. The message behind the “words” of every day events that transcends those events in ways that connect them to other events. In this way we see that science is the progressive unification of the events such as lightning and the spark when you rub your feet on the carpet and touch metal. Epistemologically, it is important to make that clear. Because the way that works itself is a general principle behind things we only see through those things. Another important point that differentiates science is that we theorize to try to make our models conform to actual reality. When we do that, we can extend the successful theory into new areas and project what will be found such as missing “holes” in the logic of the periodic table. The logic of it allows prediction. We can never go into the sun and experimentally test it, but we can know what is on there by extending general universal principles and combining it with what we do know. Anyway, my background is in epistemology and if we do not think about the patterns of how information and symbols work in the universe, then we will miss a huge area of discovery, technology, and future inquiry which seems to me to be absolutely vital to our survival. That’s why I wrote my first book 20 years ago on exactly this topic and I am finishing another now. Once people can open their minds to the picture of the vastly larger universe picture I paint, then everyone will begin to see what I have been trying to tell them and show them in all my books, papers, experiments, etc. and they will understand quantum computers and what they can really do, and know without doubt what is beyond this universe and even know what is going on inside a black hole. I have actually seen evidence supported in many diverse ways of exactly what these things are and have to be by the way things work inside the known universe. I devised experimental methods to show it. But no one will listen to any of the evidence because it looks on the surface, before I can show them, impossible. People are absolutely stunningly good at maintaining ignorance of things that don’t fit their interwoven interpretations of how the world works. 😊❤ Anyway, thanks for the talk. It was very interesting 🤔 ❤

[@krenx]

The light and shadow example is a bad example. That's not pattern of light and shadow we are seeing. Our eyes are designed to relatively adjust the relationship of values in context. Or that phenomenon of seeing black spots in the cross section of lines. It is our eyes designed to perceive light and value in context. If it does not do that, we will not be able to "see".

[@gilesgoldsbro5816]

Tomonaga’s given name is actually “Shinichiro”, but he was using a strange transliteration system, which has now fallen out of favour.

[@bigcountry5520]

We don't put light switches upside down, you probably just found a 3-way switch that happened to be down when the light is on.

[@prometeled]

in math the infinite is not a problem but real one is the space from-1 to +1 where the zero is even more so !

[@buttpub]

so in case this was hard to follow just remember all prime numbers (greater than five) squared are one more than a multiple of 24........

[@ronaldjorgensen6839]

the pattern of persisting illusion is why i backed off of game theory to enter materialist void in math aware

[@Groink1]

His description of quantum reflection put me off massively. Most of his examples are (as far as I know) explainable with classical mechanics; and if they are not, I didn't understand at all his explanation.

[@whisperatnight5877]

Patterns mean it is there by design, DUDE!!

[@mikecolquhoun1674]

nope

[@bobwhite3647]

How does he pronounce patent? Brits commonly omit the trailing "t." I hear his "pattern" as patten because he is non-rhotic in his accent. Luckily I can see the viewgraphs, else I would have never understood what he was talking about.

[@prometeled]

here is a pattern; 1-2-4 objects small ones going around a big one like the moons of Jupiter and the planets around the sun, Other pattern equal numbers of small and big planets in our solar system !The mass of the planets approximately 1% of the sun, the mass of electrons in an atom aproximately 1% !!!!

[@austinbobbitt5662]

why are chores so much easier when listening to stuff like this

[@nevenajevtic2612]

Legend says, if you want to be a famous physicist you have to be named Brian

[@wulphstein]

Where are "expanding ripples?"

[@TheTikiMan]

1:06:25

[@trollking202]

The start is water inside a flask and microphone ☺️

[@dAvrilthebear]

01:00 "A criterion for belief is not authority, nor logical nessesity, but..." -- whatever comes next is spoken with authority and requirement to accept the logical nessesity of this argument. This of course makes the whole statement self-contradictory.

[@kagannasuhbeyoglu]

👍