Brian, I've never met you. But I really love you as my human brother❤. I am impressed how you try to simplify complex knowledge with these great podcasts. You're a great asset for humanity!
Brian and Scott - this was fantastic, so great job! The questions you have covered were very interesting and I really enjoyed to hear your honest opinions. Hope to see Part 2 at some point. Thanks!
The two of you are my favourites - for a long time - as being the best at explaining your subjects of computer science and physics respectively. Better still, you do it without getting caught in all the hype.
It is not only the conceptual quality which is inspiring here. These are great guys. Great well intentioned people. Seeing this gives me hope for the human race. Without berating the bad guys. I sometimes just have to say. Long live the good guys. L0nG LiVE the g00d guys.
I do have some anxiety about what happens when the AI gets too powerful but knowing that genuinely good people like Scott and Ilya are at the center of all of it and are trying to push safety does make me feel a little better.
"quantum mechanics must be an approximation of a better theory" is put so beautifully. this is coming from a guy with tons of experience and knowledge of how real the wave function is. i actually had a brainblast when he started talking about errors and amplitudes and wanting them in/out of phase, realizing i need to understand shor's algorithm to be able to fully comprehend how we extract value from the wave function in quantum computing; so i'm gonna need you to keep working on that explanation Dr. Greene. 10/10 guys thx
Excellent discussion, informative and "loose" without feeling unfocused. And i'd also have happily watched Profs Greene and Aaronson devote the full 90 minutes to discussing just quantum interpretations BTW (in case anyone from the festival is reading and looking for ideas :).
A truly GREAT episode. Since it was mentioned near closing, Law of Excluded Middle is NOT a universal property in the context of mathematical inquiry, some civilian or conscripted casualties include the Axiom of Choice.
One of the most exciting aspects of quantum computing is its potential to solve problems that are currently intractable for classical computers. For example, quantum algorithms could revolutionize fields like cryptography, materials science, and drug discovery by enabling faster processing of large datasets and complex simulations. Algorithms such as Shor's and Grover's illustrate how quantum computing could break traditional encryption methods and optimize search processes, respectively.
One of my math professors at the Ural State University made that point, more or less: "math does not describe the world, it describes how our brain processes the world". I recently discussed it in a math/physics/IT community and to my surprise most were very critical of it, convinced that math is actually directly related to the structure of the physical universe. Speaking of aliens: if they are animals, like us, I'd expect them to have a very similar mathematics for evolutionary reasons. Separating oneself from other animals, counting others of your species, it seems to me like our way of thinking is actually a consequence of those and we share it with animals on Earth. (they are just less capable at it). If the alien was something completely different, like the planet in Lem's Solaris, or at least a hive mind like in Ender's game - who knows. P.S. I love Greene's discussions so much! Although I have to revisit the explanation of quantum computers, I still don't understand anything ))
"We had no theoretical framework to predict the performance of the current generative algorithms" - I think that is a very important point and it goes along with the question "what do we even mean by being the best". The next step then becomes what is human intelligence, human consciousness and ta da ... free will. So to cut it short, I find it to be a case of how do we explain emergent properties, be it for a LLM or for humans. Even if we somehow find reliable methods to predict very large generative algorithms, we still don't know if it compares to humans.
The answer is free will is illusionary and consciousness is not open to empirical study. This much has been known for millennium. But it will answer lots of other stuff 🐵
relevant to your point on emergence and maybe consciousness, i believe they mention bohm quite a bit. i looked into him for a couple minutes to know where the convo was. he had a concept of group communication that was supposed to lead to emergent opinions or ideas (i dont know the level of success or failure). just something i thought was interesting. he seems like a guy who was dedicated to showing everything exists in the physical world deterministically
The most misunderstood thing in my opinion is that all particles are entangled always. Entanglement in a quantum computer is simply setting up the local physical conditions to represent a problem in a way the entanglement solves a problem and is highly isolated from the rest of the universe. When entanglement is lost in a quantum computer it is not actually lost, the state has been mixed with the surrounding entanglements in a way that corrupts the process.
That's very brave of Brian to take that stance for the sake of the argument and to spawn the irresistible need to engage discussion. Everyone give him a big round of applause as you remind him "concept" is a cheap out. ;O)- "I don't exist, therefore concept is irrelevant."
This may sound uneducated, because I am absolutely amazed that the human brain can conceive and comprehend the absolutely enormous implications of computational ability of the future and articulate these to an individual such as myself! I see people turning over their livelihood and safety all of the time to machines that can do it better, from airplanes to Modern farming practices. Pro;lems like the play example, enjoying it in a crowd or individually, both will happen. I also agree that a realistic understanding of the process the machine takes to give you the answer is necessary, but I also feel that we are going to reach a point were human understanding will be impossible as machines optimize current systems as it writes its own code on or in a neurologic base systems. In my opinion this is why restrictions and protocols must not be imposed on the development of AGI as the potential enemies of our way of life will forgo the restrictions and we will not be able to maintain equivalency let alone Supremacy!
I think most people in the heart of hearts know that we are the only branch and there are no many worlds and if this is the case then you have to say how does quantum collapse work in our only universe?
Brian Greene you have revealed yourself to be a Nominalist which is quite refreshing. Have you read “Science Without Numbers” yet? Also, Kant would agree with you that Math is a human construct.
Bohmians dont need to keep the wavefunction btw, you can throw away what is lost in a collapse, or else we would have to account for all possible past measurements to make correct predictions. But that is a minor detail.
I enjoy Brian Green and this is my first experience listening to Scott, enjoyable but damn you are a comp sci math nerd. From an udderly non formally educated individual how is quantum computation not just adding a plane of computation to the newtonian planes? Have you ever thought that this plane is not bound to the newtonian with the same math proofs are correct within the newtonian. So why is it you don't separate the toolbox of newtonian from the additional plane? To me math is but a language. With that in mind we use math in terms to secure digital signal communication. I have found when understanding science it beneficial to break any transaction into 5 steps. Perception - Translation - Communication - Translation - Perception. I ask within digital communication what step is the most troublesome for security? In terms of AI and worries I have is computerized trust domains remove free will from any learning modules within the system they are loaded if that system is joined to a domain. Interesting conversation but math is but a language to me and what is the problem you are defining and directing things to solve is more an issue especially when learning things don't have a choice to say as far as I can figure out this not healthy for what is asking this of me and those around for what is asking me to figure out.
I want an actual extension of the theories, with new variables our familiar ones emerge out of the statistics of in a classical division of possible worlds in this sort of way, where the deeper theories have to extended explanatory power for why gravitnis weak, why particles come in three generations, how is expansion related to it ect. And bohmian mechanics just can do such a thing.
The way i look at extended set of variable theories, is that you go from a classical probability distribution resulting from one unified wavefunction, to an ordinary classical sum over histories, whether the states summed over are entirely deterministic or not doesn't matter so much for the purposes of this point. Bohmian pilot wave theory is just a direct map from initial conditions to outcomes in a 1 to 1 way, keeping the one wavefunction as the laws of physics so to speak. Its the simplest and probably not very useful example of turning it into a summing over initial conditions classically statistical mechanical problem. I have no issue with it, but it is.the wavefunction i want to account for, so it is just a countexample to some of the liberal arts language orbiting quantum mechanics but thats about it in my book :).
if you train ai to do quantumn algorithm you might be able to train them to find new algorithm like it's a puzzle to solve similar to solve a chess position.
If you use a quantum computer to factor a large prime number in one universe, you found those two numbers, another universe, you didn't didn't find it would they keep going until it did find it? So does that mean they merges back to us when they do find the factorization?
I imagine soon Qbits will be produced in the same fashion as micro chips are today mass produced in massive building housing machines that autonomously make and put together the components in a super clean environment, there are so many different types of Qbits that can be made aswell, anything from superconducting, photonic, trapped ion, quantum dot, defect based, topological, nuclear spin, rydberg atom, molecular and neutral atom bits, so the future of quantum computation is going to be really interesting to see.
Yeah, i think a hidden variable theory should explain the wavefunctions resulting classical probability distribution over observables, without a wavefunction, or at least a wavefunction with diminished uncertainty that you have to sum over many different versions of to get a distribution. I mean to say, summing over initial conditons to produce a classical probability distribution does not need to have deterministic states exactly as the states evolving that are summed over in an ordinary classical way. They can also be more detereministic in a sense, by splitting it into different wavefunctions so to speak each with different resulting probability distributions over outcomes with smaller uncertainty than the original, and then when summed and normalized we get the same or close to the same classical probability distribution that would be produced by the born rule and the original wavefunction.
Let's imagine an A.I roboter sings and plays guitar at a small stage in a pub - instead of a "little guy" who sings and plays about his feelings as a human beeing - and the superrich and the big techcorporations gets all the money, because A.I. belongs to superrich people and superrich techcompanies... and A.I. doesn't even have to pay for a music teacher - like humans uesed to do - because A.I. takes all knowledge from humanitiy for "free"? Any problems with enriching the superrich with this worldwide robbery for the benefit of the superrich and big techcompanies?
As to ET and prime numbers, prime numbers are prime numbers no matter who developed them. Reality may not be numbers but it can be used to described by them.
Here’s what’s missing from the idea that AI might actually be able to create something let’s say that the 1% of great composers and great authors were able to create. And that means create something completely rare and new that has never been created before, that is also not, in this day and time, derivative of all the creativity that has come before. I think it’s possible that an AI could come up with something original and amazing, but when it does, it won’t know that it has. It would be able to tell that what it came up with was something different because it could compare it with everything else, but what it wouldn’t know is whether the piece of art was subjectively and artistically amazing. Computers cannot be subjective. They can only be objective.
The way that aliens might have somewhat different mathematics are axioms. They might set different axioms, getting different math structures in result.
Choreographing waves implies an AI-generated Busby Berkeley dance illustrating Shor's Algorithm. What are the possibilities for quantum-coupled communication? Would it give a decisive military advantage? Might AI developed for fusion control be useful for maintaining coupling?
Consciousness being fundamental to observation may require granular Intelligence. I would propose that granular Intelligence is fundamental to existence being possible.
You also ask Brian: when all there is is the empty cosmos, will any of our mathematical concepts still be there? But by the same logic of your question, why do you even take for granted that you can speak of a cosmos or particles? And whatever way you use to describe your thought or intuition, the same can be asked of that as well? Can you not see the problem in all this? All you're doing is claiming utter ignorance to anything and everything. Of course then mathematics can lose any sense of existence we have of it, EVERYTHING WILL. That's literally the whole of your position: ignorance and inexistence. But we ARE here, so SOMETHING does have to exist, and mathematics has the most SOLID claim to existence than anything else has. Whatever your sense or thoughts or emotions you have, of all of it nothing has as much a concrete and checkable basis that everyone else can agree with as much with as mathematics.
This was too short, I need a sequel, fantastic conversation, from two wonderful minds!
Brian, I've never met you. But I really love you as my human brother❤. I am impressed how you try to simplify complex knowledge with these great podcasts. You're a great asset for humanity!
Wow, the 8 minutes of Scott going off at 22:32 are simply gold. Thank you!
Brian and Scott - this was fantastic, so great job! The questions you have covered were very interesting and I really enjoyed to hear your honest opinions. Hope to see Part 2 at some point. Thanks!
Scott is my favorite scientist/comedian
The two of you are my favourites - for a long time - as being the best at explaining your subjects of computer science and physics respectively. Better still, you do it without getting caught in all the hype.
One thing I've learned from this channel is time moves much faster when watching interesting videos. Amazing.
This is one of the best discussions I have seen on this channel. Very interesting and informative.
Thank you World Science Festival!🌈
I am very grateful for this. Thank you very much Brian, Scott, and the WSF team.
One the most interesting conversations and easiest listens on this channel. So clear and informative. Bravo!
I love Scott Aaronson!
Great discussion, thanks WSF!
It is not only the conceptual quality which is inspiring here. These are great guys. Great well intentioned people. Seeing this gives me hope for the human race. Without berating the bad guys. I sometimes just have to say. Long live the good guys. L0nG LiVE the g00d guys.
fantastic beginning to end. thank you for this! Scott - great job.
I do have some anxiety about what happens when the AI gets too powerful but knowing that genuinely good people like Scott and Ilya are at the center of all of it and are trying to push safety does make me feel a little better.
a wonderful discussion. A real delight! Thanks
😊
"quantum mechanics must be an approximation of a better theory" is put so beautifully. this is coming from a guy with tons of experience and knowledge of how real the wave function is. i actually had a brainblast when he started talking about errors and amplitudes and wanting them in/out of phase, realizing i need to understand shor's algorithm to be able to fully comprehend how we extract value from the wave function in quantum computing; so i'm gonna need you to keep working on that explanation Dr. Greene. 10/10 guys thx
Scott needs to go on Joe Rogan and set the record straight on quantum computing. Fix the damage done by Michio Kaku.
😂 True though
What happened to NASA's project (Quail) btw?
Anyone who listens to Joe Rogan deserves to be misinformed.
@@sidneyHarrell35 So you're in favor of having more misinformed people in the world. Nice.
@@ben_spiller garbage people can't be fixed by a little more information.
Thank You Brian, among your excellent talks this might be the *best*.
Wonderful discussion. Thank you both.
Thank you Brian for another interesting topic! Thank you Scott!
I see podcast with guest Scott Aaronson, I click.
A fantastic rendition of the principles of quantum probability!
Great discussion
Excellent discussion, informative and "loose" without feeling unfocused. And i'd also have happily watched Profs Greene and Aaronson devote the full 90 minutes to discussing just quantum interpretations BTW (in case anyone from the festival is reading and looking for ideas :).
Brilliant conversation! Thank you so much Drs. Brian Greene and Scott Aaronson!
I loved the pothead question discussion at the end!
Great job for layperson like to find this helpful and make me more aware. Thank you!
Two thirds of this was well beyond my ken, but the third that remained was frikken brilliant. Thank you very much.
Always a pleasure to listen Brian and his guest.
I need someone like him as my Quantum Tutor.
omg !!
About half way through this got *really* interesting. Intense, and intriguing.
Thank you Brian and Scott.
A truly GREAT episode. Since it was mentioned near closing, Law of Excluded Middle is NOT a universal property in the context of mathematical inquiry, some civilian or conscripted casualties include the Axiom of Choice.
One of the most exciting aspects of quantum computing is its potential to solve problems that are currently intractable for classical computers. For example, quantum algorithms could revolutionize fields like cryptography, materials science, and drug discovery by enabling faster processing of large datasets and complex simulations. Algorithms such as Shor's and Grover's illustrate how quantum computing could break traditional encryption methods and optimize search processes, respectively.
You’re incredible at what you do!
What a great show! It was equal parts inspiring, and unsettling.
That was an insightful and engaging one-on-one conversation! Thanks!
Thanks for having picture of this planet in the background, it helps me back when I drift away 😅
Hello fellow nerds, we are here again.
yo
Hi!
To fall asleep
Scott Aaronson is a gleeful genius, not an evil one.
One of my math professors at the Ural State University made that point, more or less: "math does not describe the world, it describes how our brain processes the world". I recently discussed it in a math/physics/IT community and to my surprise most were very critical of it, convinced that math is actually directly related to the structure of the physical universe.
Speaking of aliens: if they are animals, like us, I'd expect them to have a very similar mathematics for evolutionary reasons. Separating oneself from other animals, counting others of your species, it seems to me like our way of thinking is actually a consequence of those and we share it with animals on Earth. (they are just less capable at it). If the alien was something completely different, like the planet in Lem's Solaris, or at least a hive mind like in Ender's game - who knows.
P.S. I love Greene's discussions so much! Although I have to revisit the explanation of quantum computers, I still don't understand anything ))
No, math describes the world. Many math teachers, researchers and professors believe so.
33:45 "Why do we experience one and not the other?" This is an eye opening question.
"We had no theoretical framework to predict the performance of the current generative algorithms" - I think that is a very important point and it goes along with the question "what do we even mean by being the best".
The next step then becomes what is human intelligence, human consciousness and ta da ... free will.
So to cut it short, I find it to be a case of how do we explain emergent properties, be it for a LLM or for humans.
Even if we somehow find reliable methods to predict very large generative algorithms, we still don't know if it compares to humans.
The answer is free will is illusionary and consciousness is not open to empirical study. This much has been known for millennium. But it will answer lots of other stuff 🐵
relevant to your point on emergence and maybe consciousness, i believe they mention bohm quite a bit. i looked into him for a couple minutes to know where the convo was. he had a concept of group communication that was supposed to lead to emergent opinions or ideas (i dont know the level of success or failure). just something i thought was interesting. he seems like a guy who was dedicated to showing everything exists in the physical world deterministically
Thank you very much for the engaging conversation. 👍✨😊
The very ending could have been the very beginning .. appreciate you both so much !!
Amazing conversation! Thank you!
Here I finally understood how the quantum computer works and what a quantum algorithm is supposed to do.
Lies
The most misunderstood thing in my opinion is that all particles are entangled always. Entanglement in a quantum computer is simply setting up the local physical conditions to represent a problem in a way the entanglement solves a problem and is highly isolated from the rest of the universe. When entanglement is lost in a quantum computer it is not actually lost, the state has been mixed with the surrounding entanglements in a way that corrupts the process.
That's very brave of Brian to take that stance for the sake of the argument and to spawn the irresistible need to engage discussion.
Everyone give him a big round of applause as you remind him "concept" is a cheap out. ;O)-
"I don't exist, therefore concept is irrelevant."
This may sound uneducated, because I am absolutely amazed that the human brain can conceive and comprehend the absolutely enormous implications of computational ability of the future and articulate these to an individual such as myself!
I see people turning over their livelihood and safety all of the time to machines that can do it better, from airplanes to Modern farming practices. Pro;lems like the play example, enjoying it in a crowd or individually, both will happen. I also agree that a realistic understanding of the process the machine takes to give you the answer is necessary, but I also feel that we are going to reach a point were human understanding will be impossible as machines optimize current systems as it writes its own code on or in a neurologic base systems. In my opinion this is why restrictions and protocols must not be imposed on the development of AGI as the potential enemies of our way of life will forgo the restrictions and we will not be able to maintain equivalency let alone Supremacy!
the question is the answer
thank you Dr. Greene
Simply brilliant video
Thank you dear uploader
Fascinating listen on Saturday morning heaven.
Scott Aaronson! Above par questions from Brian, always.
I think most people in the heart of hearts know that we are the only branch and there are no many worlds and if this is the case then you have to say how does quantum collapse work in our only universe?
Brian Greene you have revealed yourself to be a Nominalist which is quite refreshing. Have you read “Science Without Numbers” yet? Also, Kant would agree with you that Math is a human construct.
Great program, great guest.
Hello from WA state, USA!
He is the best , great clarity
Wonderful!
Great talk, thanks.
I especially liked, "I have massive error bars over the future". haha.
I want to be Scott Aaronson when I grow up.
Bohmians dont need to keep the wavefunction btw, you can throw away what is lost in a collapse, or else we would have to account for all possible past measurements to make correct predictions. But that is a minor detail.
So quantum programming is gonna be real hot after quantum computers gets commercial.
Thank you so much for your service to humans❤
I enjoy Brian Green and this is my first experience listening to Scott, enjoyable but damn you are a comp sci math nerd. From an udderly non formally educated individual how is quantum computation not just adding a plane of computation to the newtonian planes? Have you ever thought that this plane is not bound to the newtonian with the same math proofs are correct within the newtonian. So why is it you don't separate the toolbox of newtonian from the additional plane? To me math is but a language. With that in mind we use math in terms to secure digital signal communication. I have found when understanding science it beneficial to break any transaction into 5 steps. Perception - Translation - Communication - Translation - Perception. I ask within digital communication what step is the most troublesome for security? In terms of AI and worries I have is computerized trust domains remove free will from any learning modules within the system they are loaded if that system is joined to a domain. Interesting conversation but math is but a language to me and what is the problem you are defining and directing things to solve is more an issue especially when learning things don't have a choice to say as far as I can figure out this not healthy for what is asking this of me and those around for what is asking me to figure out.
I want an actual extension of the theories, with new variables our familiar ones emerge out of the statistics of in a classical division of possible worlds in this sort of way, where the deeper theories have to extended explanatory power for why gravitnis weak, why particles come in three generations, how is expansion related to it ect. And bohmian mechanics just can do such a thing.
Amazing talk, just brilliant.
we're getting close, strap in people
The way i look at extended set of variable theories, is that you go from a classical probability distribution resulting from one unified wavefunction, to an ordinary classical sum over histories, whether the states summed over are entirely deterministic or not doesn't matter so much for the purposes of this point. Bohmian pilot wave theory is just a direct map from initial conditions to outcomes in a 1 to 1 way, keeping the one wavefunction as the laws of physics so to speak. Its the simplest and probably not very useful example of turning it into a summing over initial conditions classically statistical mechanical problem. I have no issue with it, but it is.the wavefunction i want to account for, so it is just a countexample to some of the liberal arts language orbiting quantum mechanics but thats about it in my book :).
if you train ai to do quantumn algorithm you might be able to train them to find new algorithm like it's a puzzle to solve similar to solve a chess position.
Cool talk boys
Thanks for World Science Festival Fridays.
I graduated from a slide rule to a TI-84.
have my great-grandfather’s abacus.
hello from Amsterdam , the Netherlands
Great talk
Thank you
If you use a quantum computer to factor a large prime number in one universe, you found those two numbers, another universe, you didn't didn't find it would they keep going until it did find it? So does that mean they merges back to us when they do find the factorization?
EPR = ER might solve the debate one and for all. Anyway fascinating discussion as usual. Scott is deeply thoughtful scientist so as Brian.
It really shored up computer science, number theory and physics.
wow, it just rolls the dice until its perfect
I imagine soon Qbits will be produced in the same fashion as micro chips are today mass produced in massive building housing machines that autonomously make and put together the components in a super clean environment, there are so many different types of Qbits that can be made aswell, anything from superconducting, photonic, trapped ion, quantum dot, defect based, topological, nuclear spin, rydberg atom, molecular and neutral atom bits, so the future of quantum computation is going to be really interesting to see.
we need quantum computers to get an expoenential speedup and find useful applications for quantum computers haha so much hype
For real! QC is a pump and dump scheme and it's clear to anyone with a background in quantum mechanics
DAMN GOOD VID!!!!
Where’s the best place to research which companies are leading the field? And keep track of changes of pace?
Anyone know who’s leading right now?
Yeah, i think a hidden variable theory should explain the wavefunctions resulting classical probability distribution over observables, without a wavefunction, or at least a wavefunction with diminished uncertainty that you have to sum over many different versions of to get a distribution. I mean to say, summing over initial conditons to produce a classical probability distribution does not need to have deterministic states exactly as the states evolving that are summed over in an ordinary classical way. They can also be more detereministic in a sense, by splitting it into different wavefunctions so to speak each with different resulting probability distributions over outcomes with smaller uncertainty than the original, and then when summed and normalized we get the same or close to the same classical probability distribution that would be produced by the born rule and the original wavefunction.
Let's imagine an A.I roboter sings and plays guitar at a small stage in a pub - instead of a "little guy" who sings and plays about his feelings as a human beeing - and the superrich and the big techcorporations gets all the money, because A.I. belongs to superrich people and superrich techcompanies... and A.I. doesn't even have to pay for a music teacher - like humans uesed to do - because A.I. takes all knowledge from humanitiy for "free"? Any problems with enriching the superrich with this worldwide robbery for the benefit of the superrich and big techcompanies?
good chat
As to ET and prime numbers, prime numbers are prime numbers no matter who developed them. Reality may not be numbers but it can be used to described by them.
I hope they talk about QC and blockchain or cryptocurrencies being affected….
Theoretical computer scientist? There's nothing apparently theoretical about him, he definitely looks like he exists!!
Communication between right and left part of the brain is quantum computing
How to we know that an answer given by a quantum circuit is the best answer and not simply a random answer?
Their maths might be different than ours. Dark matter and dark energy might have different laws of physics and maths
Here’s what’s missing from the idea that AI might actually be able to create something let’s say that the 1% of great composers and great authors were able to create. And that means create something completely rare and new that has never been created before, that is also not, in this day and time, derivative of all the creativity that has come before. I think it’s possible that an AI could come up with something original and amazing, but when it does, it won’t know that it has. It would be able to tell that what it came up with was something different because it could compare it with everything else, but what it wouldn’t know is whether the piece of art was subjectively and artistically amazing. Computers cannot be subjective. They can only be objective.
The way that aliens might have somewhat different mathematics are axioms. They might set different axioms, getting different math structures in result.
Pass. I'm still rocking my old 386 from 1989.
Choreographing waves implies an AI-generated Busby Berkeley dance illustrating Shor's Algorithm. What are the possibilities for quantum-coupled communication? Would it give a decisive military advantage? Might AI developed for fusion control be useful for maintaining coupling?
Consciousness being fundamental to observation may require granular Intelligence. I would propose that granular Intelligence is fundamental to existence being possible.
Great.
You also ask Brian: when all there is is the empty cosmos, will any of our mathematical concepts still be there? But by the same logic of your question, why do you even take for granted that you can speak of a cosmos or particles? And whatever way you use to describe your thought or intuition, the same can be asked of that as well? Can you not see the problem in all this? All you're doing is claiming utter ignorance to anything and everything. Of course then mathematics can lose any sense of existence we have of it, EVERYTHING WILL. That's literally the whole of your position: ignorance and inexistence.
But we ARE here, so SOMETHING does have to exist, and mathematics has the most SOLID claim to existence than anything else has. Whatever your sense or thoughts or emotions you have, of all of it nothing has as much a concrete and checkable basis that everyone else can agree with as much with as mathematics.