Відео

@gabitheancient7664 Thank you for the excellent comment! My video puts a lot of load-bearing weight on that "pretty much" qualifier and the problem of gravity. QFT is, indeed, mostly local.

And the resolution you look at reality depends on what you're trying to do.

What I mean in that they cannot be separated is that you can't describe the state of the system with two separate independent state vectors.

When o write "Relativity", you mean special relativity or general relativity? QFT does indeed account for special relativity.

@@lsusr265 yea but you don't need GR to have this locality thing, everything you said is just special relativity

I'm confused. This isn't a video about politics or history. Did you mean to post this comment on a different video?

My name "lsusr" is derived from the Unix command "$ ls /usr".

Math's supremacy is a logical consequence of the upper-boundedness of everything else.

One of these examples isn't quite correct; the electromagnetic and weak nuclear forces have been unified too.

@@lsusr265 Sorry, how so? I would be interested to know.

@@JJEMTT The unified force is called "electroweak". Its unifiers were awarded the 1979 Noble Prize in Physics. Here's a link to the wikipedia page: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroweak_interaction

You make an excellent point.

Along similar lines: If math is wrong then logical factual knowledge doesn't work, because if you can prove a single untrue mathematical statement, then you can use that to prove any other untrue statement.

@@lsusr265 Principle of Explosion :)

@@sebij6811 Thanks! I didn't know the name for it.

Thank you so much for the kind words! Every bit of encouragement is especially helpful as I figure out how to do this UA-cam thing. I hop you get plenty of sleep.

@@neildutoit5177 I almost put "material reduction" in the title. Material reduction is related to the title because it lets you jump from simple rules to proving that something is impossible. Without material reduction you can't generalize from small scale constraints to large scale constraints. I left out Newtonian nonlocality because it's been superceded (falsified) by relativity. As for nonlocality, I'm currently halfway through making a video more focused on that topic. I'm not sure what you mean by "strong emergence".

@@lsusr265 Not qualified to give my own definition but here's wikipedia's "Strong emergence: This type of emergence involves properties that are fundamentally new and cannot be predicted or explained by the behavior of the lower-level components." The emergent properties we usually think of are not apparent from the constituent parts of the system but are nonetheless fully predictable if you know the full state of the component parts of the system. No additional information is needed. A strongly emergent property would require additional information to predict beyond mere knowledge of the constituent parts of the system. I happen to think it exists but I'm noone and my understanding is that most physicists disagree. I look forward to your next video on nonlocality then.

@@neildutoit5177 I see. There are two kinds of emergence: strong and weak. Weak emergence is just what happens when the results of a simple set of rules are too hard to predict. Biology is downstream of physics, but good luck predicting biology from physics. This kind of emergence is not predictive, which makes for bad science, but it's not necessarily wrong. Strong emergence is a contradiction of material reduction. Personally, I dismiss it as pseudoscience. So does the scientific consensus, insofar as there is one. If a counterexample is found then we'd almost have to throw out physics and start over. However, no such counterexample has been found (except quantum teleportation). If you're into emergence, I recommend this blog post: www.lesswrong.com/posts/8QzZKw9WHRxjR4948/the-futility-of-emergence

@@lsusr265 Haha always happy to read some Yudkowski bless

Update: the locality video is done ua-cam.com/video/Nnrs-5g1BRQ/v-deo.html

I'm so happy you enjoyed! I hope you enjoy the quantum entanglement video too.

@@1495978707 Ah, a wild Bayesian has entered the chat.

@@shoaibaalam8978 Thanks! This is encouraging to me.

@@michaelcogan270 Thanks! I'm trying to get better every video.

@@yeetogami2575 Thanks for the feedback. I'm still figuring out how to do audo right.

Not in quite the same way. Science uses priors, which serve a purpose similar to mathematical axioms, but aren't stated so precisely.

Yup. The phrase "not even wrong" comes to mind.

math ⊂ formal logic ⊂ philosophy

Does that sort of reasoning lead to everything is just linguistics because of the necessity to define the constructs of the language used to communicate all of these fields?

@stretch8390 The oldest recorded schools of philosophy were paid to teach rhetoric. So...yeah.

@@lsusr265 that's it. Summer project is to now work through an intro to linguistics syllabus.

As your circle gets increasingly large, or your measuring instruments smaller, your estimate of pi starts running into problems because of spacetime curvature or quantisation effects. The observable universe has a finite size, and finite quantisation, which puts a hard limit on the accuracy of any physics-based estimate of pi. Whereas mathematics lets us be arbitrarily precise.

Did I say "pi is infinite"? If that's the case then I was very much incorrect. Pi is finite, and can indeed be approximately measured via experiment. Thank you for the correction. Before digital computers, difficult calculations were sometimes performed analog via what we would now call a physics experiment. As an example, I present: the analog differential analyzer. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differential_analyser

@@Randomini I think you'd like this comic: www.smbc-comics.com/comic/pi

Really? My understanding is that Einstein's predictions were verified by calculating the orbit of Mercury.

⁠​⁠@@lsusr265actually the opposite; a correction was made to mercurys orbital precession using Einsteins theory of relativity. Furthermore, had your point been true, it would only have proven my; the orbit of mercury is calculated with the theoretical knowledge of maths and physics we have, not measured.

Physics is maths except we don't know the correct axioms which govern the universe, we just guess some physics axioms and find contradictions in our experiments.

With a long enough lever I could move the Earth too. :)

which is why the channel should have just used something directly made by humans like proofwiki instead of assuming that gpt's tokenizer was well equipped to handle latex

Thank you for the correction. I can't correct this kind of mistake after the video has been posted, so instead I'm just pinning your comment.

I was gonna make a comment close to this but you beat me to it. Congrats and thank you.

Theologian: Hmm... where am I?

As a mathematician, no. There is philosophy in maths, sure. But maths is not applied philosophy, not even close.

@@souloftheworld9810 I think philosophy is on the other extreme end, left of sociology. But maybe it's a circle?

​@@souloftheworld9810 i mean, both philosophy and maths are about deduction. The way of finding the truth is literally identical (just that philosophy doesn't have axioms, or that everyone postulates their own axioms)

😵‍💫

@@Randomini Yeah, this is true. I was pretty handwavy about the details for how induction works.

'Things just happen for no reason' is an incredibly complex theory according to some views of complexity. Consider Kolmogorov complexity, where complexity is essentially negative compressibility (i.e., more complex -> less compressible). Theories that describe the world with natural laws compress information effectively. For instance, a deterministic world can be fully described by the starting conditions and laws of nature. A 'things happen for no reason' theory allows for no compression whatsoever and is thus very complex. I think this is a useful way of thinking about 'complexity.'

@@m_de_jg As a theory, "things happen for no reason" is the empty set - it's incompressible because it communicates no information whatsoever. As a predictive theory it gets you zero bits of predictive power. On the flipside you can encode it using zero bits too! But I agree that it doesn't help you compress the universe's representation, which I think is what you're getting at.

@@Randomini Frankly, that theory sounds like it is not a theory whatsoever. If your theory contains no information, it cannot be said to properly fit the data. Occam's razor supports the simplest theory among those that fit the data.

@@Randomini I wouldn't relate it to the empty set, just a policy that gives you a probability distribution that gives the same value to all the outcomes

Thanks!

Entirely possible. What facets of this topic are you most interested in?

That could be fun. The catch is these videos work best when my guests pick the topic, and none of my guests have shown interest in that topic so far. The trick I use when cutting through trans politics is I ask "Suppose a biologically-male adult claims to be a woman (or vice-versa). Is there any way to falsify that claim?" - If "yes", then womanhood is physically determined. - If "no" then women are not physically real.

@@lsusr265 please do it. i would love it

I'm glad you enjoyed! Nicky (the guy in the black hoodie) did all the research.

After the backyard fission reactor video.

Was supposed to be this video but I forgot my sharpie.

You make a good point. I hadn't thought about how the fact it's ephemeral and transgressive makes it better Art.

It's not a "getting made fun of" thing. All but the most intolerant cultures enjoy getting made fun of, as long as you do it in a friendly way. Jews are the biggest fans of Jewish jokes. Thank you for your feedback. I considered expanding on the Native American asterix in the video. Instead, here's a story. I was part of a secret society deeply integrated with the Pacific Northwest outdoors. Think "Freemasons" except a different organization. Nothing about this society would suggest it had anything to do with Native Americans. Like any good secret society, it had a multi-day indoctrination ritual ceremony. In the forest, at night, around the bonfire, Indians from the local Pacific Northwest tribes conducted a secret ritual that-for all I know-goes back to before Christopher Columbus. It. Was. Awesome. I like things that increase the total value to humanity. I think that copying a ritual like that, out of context, without reference for where it came from, would destroy what makes it so valuable, resulting in a net loss.

@@lsusr265 This makes sense, but I still don't get where 'Native Americans have a right to be intolerant of cultural appropriation comes from'. That society sounds sick!

idk could be the whole genocide thing. Maybe they don't enjoy the same people who stole their lands and criminalized their culture to profit off of a bastardized version of it generations later? 🤷‍♂

There's a scene in "The Devil Is a Part-Timer!" where immigrants to Japan from the fantasy demon kingdom are hanging out together. Sadao Maou (demon king) and Emi Yusa (hero sword lady) wear modern (read: Western) clothing. Suzuno Kamazuki spent lots of time studying "Japanese" culture in an attempt to blend in, and looks super out-of-place because she wears a kimono. For the most part, people around the world are wearing basically the same clothing. Humanity's diversity of sartorial traditions are dying. Including traditional Western clothing. Non-statesmen haven't worn white tie in generations.

乾杯！

Thanks for pointing out that and not, say, the autofocus. :P

One heuristic I use is that if a person asks for feedback, then I provide it honestly. The tricky cases are when they don't ask.

I appreciate the suggestion, but I'm not sure there's much to get out of that. I tell myself I'm supposed to do yoga, and then usually don't. I'll take a shower and then make breakfast. Today I bicycled to the market downtown and got some groceries. I'm a big fan of Samurai Matcha, but aren't as minimalist as he is. One thing I'm worried about is I recently moved, and so I'm still figuring out my routines. I don't want to give the impression that I'm more disciplined than I really am, either. That said, the idea sounds very feasible and I would learn a lot about producing videos.

We are trying to improve with each video. I hope I can make them even more incredible!