Roger Penrose: Mathematics & What Exists | Episode 2210 | Closer To Truth
Вставка
- Опубліковано 27 вер 2024
- Roger Penrose-mathematician, physicist, philosopher-was awarded the 2020 Nobel Prize in Physics. We speak with Roger about our favorite, fundamental questions. What things exist? What is math and why does it work? What’s fundamental in the cosmos?
▶ All episodes of Season 22 are available now on our website: bit.ly/3QwMzIA
▶ For subscriber-only exclusives, register for free today: closertotruth....
Closer To Truth host Robert Lawrence Kuhn takes viewers on an intriguing global journey into cutting-edge labs, magnificent libraries, hidden gardens, and revered sanctuaries in order to discover state-of-the-art ideas and make them real and relevant.
▶ Free access to Closer To Truth's library of 5,000+ videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
Closer To Truth, hosted by Robert Lawrence Kuhn and directed by Peter Getzels, presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.
Roger is national treasure, I hope he has many more years with us!
Sounds like The Blessed Trinity
God the Father, The Son, and the Holy Spirit
1. Platonic Mathematical World
2. Physical World
3. Mental World
It's not Nature vs Nurture.
It's not Mind vs Matter.
It's not spirit vs body.
.
The fact is more like
Nature and Nurture
Mind and Matter.
We exist as Both Mind and Body.
Yes !
We Brits are so very proud of Uncle Roger !
@@dongshengdi773 What utter rubbish.
As much as everybody loves Roger, he's pushing over 90, I think...
I could listen to Roger all day. What a brilliant guy.
Wow, full interview of Roger Penrose, good way to start 2024!
From 10 years ago? A lot has changed in 10 years.
@@jonathancunningham4159It's not Nature vs Nurture.
It's not Mind vs Matter.
It's not spirit vs body.
.
The fact is more like
Nature and Nurture
Mind and Matter.
We exist as Both Mind and Body.
I love to listen to Roger Penrose, not pretentious, love his explanations.
Thanks!
Always remain in awe when listing to Roger Penrose.. Thank you Robert.
How can he be so sharp at 90+ years old. Wow
Nothing that anyone can say will ever really make questions such the real meaning of mathematics less disturbing. It is a maddening itch that cannot be scratched. Thank you for trying, Mr. Penrose.
RL Kuhn is the Groucho emeritus of vaudevillean
truth. His amusement is
palpable..his impatience
sublime..
He's a string puppet that became sentient.
A good example of longevity being helped by an ever active brain. A life well lived, say I
This type of stuff is way better than church! Fascinating!
Amazing, absolutely love Roger Penrose
This is one of my favorite interviews of all your interviews
Brilliant and always a pleasure to watch! Thank you!
❤ these mind boggling trips. Thank you CTT. ❤ Roger Penrose 🙏
Roger Penrose is the modern Newton.
There is no other channel or Podcaster worthy. Ty
Sir Roger Penrose, I see your mind clearly. I like everything about it. Movement is inevitable - an acausal product you cant do without, if you really want answers.
I admire Roger Penrose's creativity and agree that the three worlds he describes are interconnected, fall within a unified whole. However, what is often overlooked, both by laypeople and scientists, is that our understanding of the Big Bang is based on extrapolating within a linear time framework towards a specific beginning or start. This approach, I believe, may limit our perspective. To put it metaphorically, it's like standing on the wrong leg for support.
Yes the new exploration into GR headlined as ‘singularities don’t exist’ by the media is testament to your point. I wonder then if you fathomed that notion before or after the news
@@anywallsocket I have a whole complete reality&universe model. worked 41 years on it. This year i finally saw an explanation how reality can be self explaining and keeping it self in to existense. so how it is she can be, can exist. I began 41 years ago just with the foundation of reality it self after making progress there I started also about the universe and saw the bridge between both. Information, then quantumstate was in reach for linkage right away and I understood GR is in error if we want to explain all with it. spacetime is not at all the foundation of reality. I am now writing it my work down as finally it is a whole. It will get the title 'A conceptual perspective on the nature of reality'. But it gives some paradigma shift about some perspectives we see now as true. So some things about GR it does not shows as wrong, no, but as not right interpretated. To lineair interpretated. It tells some things about black holes, about the universe, about time, about a lot of things. It is really an authentic work as a whole.
So i have a unique description of what reality is at its foundation, and then i moved up to what we label as the Universe.
@@blijebij so what do you make of the aforementioned news then in relation to your conception?
@@anywallsocket That for example GR works with curving of spacetime as the cause of gravity, for example my model states, from within spacetime and from spacetime devices this looks tot true, yet it is not. Gravity is entropic and linked to information, for a big part it has an overlap with Erik's Verlinde's entropic gravity, but on some points I shares more. It states Oppenheim is right, information is the bridge and mass is not constant. I can not say more as that simply would give away my authenticity here. My model ends infinities for ever, not within math for calculation for example limits etc, but for it to really exist and takes it place within reality. Information gives all scale. I was some time free playing with mach's principle curious if i could add creativity, then a theoreticus (physicist) asked try solving inertia. I tried and succeeded (its fair to say in my opinion ofc) but I never showed it as the same paradigma shift came out that signatures the whole model I use. I can not share more sadly. One thing I can say freely, my model states the universe always was and it has a clean entropy solution. Also it states black holes have a quantum field just outside of its horizon that is entangled with its inside and solves the information paradox. Those 2 things are not super special, but the rest i can not share.
Having said that, i am an autodidact passionate philosopher and say my work is unique in several key aspects. I still am not a mathematician or a phycisist. so my work could be , a work in the rough. See? It is possible such scientist could get a lot more out of its conceptual perception.
Excellent.... thanks 🙏❤
Great show, thanks!
Dear sir, I love your channel and respect your intelligence and adore how humble you have been over the years. . Thank you for stating the date of the recording of the interview with your honorable self and Sir Arthur Penrose. Sometimes a video will appear and there will be no info regarding the date in which it was recorded and you hide your age or never age at all it seems so I always wonder when these were recorded and so thank you for mentioning that in this video. Hopefully, if possible, in future videos.
"All this is one self-consistent poem, epic in intention and meaning, if not strictly so in form." ~ Alfred Lord Tennyson
the universe as a language using math as it's grammar while Roger Penrose translates, neat.
On this date I think I finally have begun to understand a little bit of Penrose's triad. Very interesting indeed.
This series rules. I feel like I've met Robert Lawrence Kuhn, but I know for a fact I have not. Science grandpa.
Mathematics can be thought of as every possible, conceivable and inconceivable pattern or algorithm. All of our thoughts everything about us is constrained by our physical structure and definable by algorithms. So surely conscious (mental world) mathematics is bounded and represents only a subset of mathematics. All of our thoughts, everything about us is definable by algorithms. So maybe the mathematical thinking that we (or any bounded entities) are capable of, is the entirety of the mental world. Mental existence could be considered a subset of physical existence, in which case mental existence allows physical existence to encompass more of mathematics than it otherwise could. Does that comprise all of mathematics?
The mathematical world exists irrespective of the other worlds and encompasses all the others. I love this.
Thank you! Priceless
Nice, Roger Penrose makes me proud of belonging to the same species.
Although all our efforts to gain truth are simply us showing God that we desire truth and are willing to work for it. We ultimately obtain any truth we receive as a free gift from him in every instance (I believe), but of course, we have to show him we want it.
Roger is the difference between a genius and conman .
Love Robert
Love Roger
Top intellectual giants.
Class Act.
The more I listen to these guys the more I’m convinced that the real problem may lay in that this may not be reality. It feels more like a procedurally generated inner verse built to sequester intelligence that is self imposed for many practical reasons.
The answer to reality may be a lot simpler and mostly a distraction from what is necessary to deal with and defeat time itself .
Whatever it is is probably far stranger than we’ve imagined.
Something from nothing and life from something with intelligence from life that then creates consciousness from intelligence, that culminates in math and data collection from consciousness, is the strangest paradox string ever. The can always gets kicked down the road.
Something from nothing when nothing doesn’t even appear to be possible due to so much stuff that is something when most of something is empty space that is still full of something.
It’s enough to make your brain explode if it weren’t for apathy.
I've always been here in this moment. If there was a time before life existed in this universe, I must've existed in another universe. Subject-object is eternal.
I love Penrose and I enjoyed these interviews. But I wish you had pressed him on how the physical world is supposed to emerge from mere mathematics. His collaborator Hawking once impressively wrote, "What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?". Though Hawking didn't have courage to follow that thought, it's THE question to ask of these mathematical physicists. How do time and the world of change emerge from equations that sit impassively on their own in eternity?
I am convinced, math is discovered
Penrose is one of my favorite modern scientists, along with Max Tegmark and Stephen Wolfram.
Some ideas borrowed from Complexity could help: The main question is whether the laws followed by entities, assemblies and functionalities that emerge from a substrate are the same when emerging from a different substrate. If they are not equal but similar, it could help to admit that behaviors in the algebraic world are similar to behaviors in the physical world. Mind assemblies that reproduce behaviors could have been selected by evolution and learning. Regarding reality, another idea borrowed from computing could help: It should be taken into account that we don’t perceive the physical world directly but through the emergent world created the Human Being Operating System. The state of this world is adjusted continuously according to the environment and its structure and dynamics come from genetics and experience. Mysteries are the same. The only change is in the language.
Excellent. Thank you. There is no way to incorporate divine world if that's what yr intimating at the end. The unknowable unknows are pointless to speculate on.
What if there is no 'gravty'; only momentum and topology - does that help Roger?
Penrose is great but...why these questions about WHAT EXISTS? The answer is, EVERYTHING EXISTS !!! Why am I the only one who sees this clearly???
👍🏻 makes sense to be. It’s too blatantly obvious, it confuses those who overthink everything.
Everything exists, and nothing does not exist.
There are something’s and nothing. If nothing were something, it wouldn’t be nothing; but more something!
On a deeper level, it could be argued that “everything “ Is arbitrary…Everything could consist of one thing or infinite things, and your statement would still hold true.
Brilliant scientist and thinker. That being said, if you want to watch a hardcore materialist physicist turn into an idealist dualist before your very eyes, ask them about mathematics. I think Roger’s stance toward mathematics shows how alluring, beautiful, exciting and even seductive math is for those who are really good at it. It doesn’t mean, however, that there’s a math heaven, just because mathematicians think math is “heavenly”. Humankind has also invented other logically abstract beautiful things, the game of Chess, for example. But just because some grandmaster chess games are historically well known for their logical abstract beauty, does not mean that human beings therefore discovered chess instead of inventing it. Part of the problem, I think, is that when mathematicians start philosophizing about mathematics, they ignore or are unaware of all the real philosophizing already done before hand about mathematics by actual philosophers, most of who pretty clearly show math to be a human invention (e.g., Russell, Whitehead, Frege, Gödel, Wittgenstein and others). A lot of this philosophical work was done in the early part of the last century
I liked your comment, but have some issues with it. Your chess example doesn't work, since all board configurations can be indexed into a logical 'encoding space' if you will.
Think of something as trivial as a CD... in that 750MB, just by counting in binary, from 0000... to 1111... all possible albums real and imaginary, every conceivable audio is there in that 'space'. Obviously, this can be extrapolated to any data structures, and their associated encoding spaces, and granted that the majority of it would be random noise, but this differs from the 'monkeys and typewriters' concept, in that the randomness of generation, is replaced by mere counting. Surely you can't deny the reality of this premise.
@@David.C.Velasquez👍🏻 I don’t understand what you said but I think it sounds right!
Great post. 👍🏻
@@dr_shrinker I hope you aren't just forgetting the '/s' at the end of your comment, lol. Seriously though, I've used the CD analogy to demonstrate how any information structure exists mathematically, in the 'platonic realm' but it seems as I get older, the less people can visualize a CD as a simple linear binary string. It should be easy to understand, to be an effective thought experiment.
@@dr_shrinker Ah yes, I've also pondered such.
"/s" at the end of a statement, signifies sarcasm. It has been widely adopted, as a convention to lessen the ambiguity inherent in text based interaction.
The beginning reminded me of a Dutch joke: "I fit in my coat, my coat fits in my bag, so I fit in my bag."
Is mathematics the only way to describe reality? Could there be another language? And I'm not talking about human languages (English, Spanish,etc...)
Logic, perhaps. And I think it’s an interesting question if understanding reality will eventually require some kinds of abstract analytical tools other than mathematics we’ve yet to develop or discover.
@@longcastle4863I’ve often wondered what would happen to math of we removed a number, or added a number, to the decimal system. Like the hexadecimal or octal system, but instead of converting it to decimal system, math operates on odd numbers and only uses 9, instead of 10. Would the formulas still work without converting to decimal?
Mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, philosophy, economics, and, sociology... religion (Bibles, Korans ...) you name it, any and all human learnings and capabilities are part of the tools trying to describe or understand or engineer the reality, and, none of them are or is absolutely exact, and of a certain degree of deviation from the trueth, if any or yes, the true face/essence of reality.
And each of them is of a certain degree of deviation from...
@@dr_shrinker All number systems, whether base 2, base 3, base 12, or whatever arrive at equivalent formulations. How do think it is that we can use computers, which operate in base 2, to do all our calculations for us? If we used base 9, the number we call 9 would be written 10. It would still be an odd number, but you could no longer distinguish odd numbers from even numbers just by looking at the last digit. That's one reason we choose to use the base 10. It's just more convenient that some other bases. But nothing about the choice of bases changes anything about fundamental number theory or any other aspect of mathematics. I was taught how translate between different bases in 8th grade. Where were you-- in juvenile detention?
Mathematics led science down a rabbit hole. It hasn't stopped falling yet 😂
If quarks have not been isolated and gluons have not been isolated, how do we know they are not parts of the same thing? The tentacles of an octopus and the body of an octopus are parts of the same creature.
Is there an alternative interpretation of "Asymptotic Freedom"? What if Quarks are actually made up of twisted tubes which become physically entangled with two other twisted tubes to produce a proton? Instead of the Strong Force being mediated by the constant exchange of gluons, it would be mediated by the physical entanglement of these twisted tubes. When only two twisted tubules are entangled, a meson is produced which is unstable and rapidly unwinds (decays) into something else. A proton would be analogous to three twisted rubber bands becoming entangled and the "Quarks" would be the places where the tubes are tangled together. The behavior would be the same as rubber balls (representing the Quarks) connected with twisted rubber bands being separated from each other or placed closer together producing the exact same phenomenon as "Asymptotic Freedom" in protons and neutrons. The force would become greater as the balls are separated, but the force would become less if the balls were placed closer together. Therefore, the gluon is a synthetic particle (zero mass, zero charge) invented to explain the Strong Force. An artificial Christmas tree can hold the ornaments in place, but it is not a real tree.
String Theory was not a waste of time, because Geometry is the key to Math and Physics. However, can we describe Standard Model interactions using only one extra spatial dimension? What did some of the old clockmakers use to store the energy to power the clock? Was it a string or was it a spring?
What if we describe subatomic particles as spatial curvature, instead of trying to describe General Relativity as being mediated by particles? Fixing the Standard Model with more particles is like trying to mend a torn fishing net with small rubber balls, instead of a piece of twisted twine.
Quantum Entangled Twisted Tubules:
“We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question which divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct.” Neils Bohr
(lecture on a theory of elementary particles given by Wolfgang Pauli in New York, c. 1957-8, in Scientific American vol. 199, no. 3, 1958)
The following is meant to be a generalized framework for an extension of Kaluza-Klein Theory. Does it agree with some aspects of the “Twistor Theory” of Roger Penrose, and the work of Eric Weinstein on “Geometric Unity”, and the work of Dr. Lisa Randall on the possibility of one extra spatial dimension? During the early history of mankind, the twisting of fibers was used to produce thread, and this thread was used to produce fabrics. The twist of the thread is locked up within these fabrics. Is matter made up of twisted 3D-4D structures which store spatial curvature that we describe as “particles"? Are the twist cycles the "quanta" of Quantum Mechanics?
When we draw a sine wave on a blackboard, we are representing spatial curvature. Does a photon transfer spatial curvature from one location to another? Wrap a piece of wire around a pencil and it can produce a 3D coil of wire, much like a spring. When viewed from the side it can look like a two-dimensional sine wave. You could coil the wire with either a right-hand twist, or with a left-hand twist. Could Planck's Constant be proportional to the twist cycles. A photon with a higher frequency has more energy. ( E=hf, More spatial curvature as the frequency increases = more Energy ). What if Quark/Gluons are actually made up of these twisted tubes which become entangled with other tubes to produce quarks where the tubes are entangled? (In the same way twisted electrical extension cords can become entangled.) Therefore, the gluons are a part of the quarks. Quarks cannot exist without gluons, and vice-versa. Mesons are made up of two entangled tubes (Quarks/Gluons), while protons and neutrons would be made up of three entangled tubes. (Quarks/Gluons) The "Color Charge" would be related to the XYZ coordinates (orientation) of entanglement. "Asymptotic Freedom", and "flux tubes" are logically based on this concept. The Dirac “belt trick” also reveals the concept of twist in the ½ spin of subatomic particles. If each twist cycle is proportional to h, we have identified the source of Quantum Mechanics as a consequence twist cycle geometry.
Modern physicists say the Strong Force is mediated by a constant exchange of Gluons. The diagrams produced by some modern physicists actually represent the Strong Force like a spring connecting the two quarks. Asymptotic Freedom acts like real springs. Their drawing is actually more correct than their theory and matches perfectly to what I am saying in this model. You cannot separate the Gluons from the Quarks because they are a part of the same thing. The Quarks are the places where the Gluons are entangled with each other.
Neutrinos would be made up of a twisted torus (like a twisted donut) within this model. The twist in the torus can either be Right-Hand or Left-Hand. Some twisted donuts can be larger than others, which can produce three different types of neutrinos. If a twisted tube winds up on one end and unwinds on the other end as it moves through space, this would help explain the “spin” of normal particles, and perhaps also the “Higgs Field”. However, if the end of the twisted tube joins to the other end of the twisted tube forming a twisted torus (neutrino), would this help explain “Parity Symmetry” violation in Beta Decay? Could the conversion of twist cycles to writhe cycles through the process of supercoiling help explain “neutrino oscillations”? Spatial curvature (mass) would be conserved, but the structure could change.
=====================
Gravity is a result of a very small curvature imbalance within atoms. (This is why the force of gravity is so small.) Instead of attempting to explain matter as "particles", this concept attempts to explain matter more in the manner of our current understanding of the space-time curvature of gravity. If an electron has qualities of both a particle and a wave, it cannot be either one. It must be something else. Therefore, a "particle" is actually a structure which stores spatial curvature. Can an electron-positron pair (which are made up of opposite directions of twist) annihilate each other by unwinding into each other producing Gamma Ray photons?
Does an electron travel through space like a threaded nut traveling down a threaded rod, with each twist cycle proportional to Planck’s Constant? Does it wind up on one end, while unwinding on the other end? Is this related to the Higgs field? Does this help explain the strange ½ spin of many subatomic particles? Does the 720 degree rotation of a 1/2 spin particle require at least one extra dimension?
Alpha decay occurs when the two protons and two neutrons (which are bound together by entangled tubes), become un-entangled from the rest of the nucleons
. Beta decay occurs when the tube of a down quark/gluon in a neutron becomes overtwisted and breaks producing a twisted torus (neutrino) and an up quark, and the ejected electron. The production of the torus may help explain the “Symmetry Violation” in Beta Decay, because one end of the broken tube section is connected to the other end of the tube produced, like a snake eating its tail. The phenomenon of Supercoiling involving twist and writhe cycles may reveal how overtwisted quarks can produce these new particles. The conversion of twists into writhes, and vice-versa, is an interesting process, which is also found in DNA molecules. Could the production of multiple writhe cycles help explain the three generations of quarks and neutrinos? If the twist cycles increase, the writhe cycles would also have a tendency to increase.
Gamma photons are produced when a tube unwinds producing electromagnetic waves. ( Mass=1/Length )
The “Electric Charge” of electrons or positrons would be the result of one twist cycle being displayed at the 3D-4D surface interface of the particle. The physical entanglement of twisted tubes in quarks within protons and neutrons and mesons displays an overall external surface charge of an integer number. Because the neutrinos do not have open tube ends, (They are a twisted torus.) they have no overall electric charge.
Within this model a black hole could represent a quantum of gravity, because it is one cycle of spatial gravitational curvature. Therefore, instead of a graviton being a subatomic particle it could be considered to be a black hole. The overall gravitational attraction would be caused by a very tiny curvature imbalance within atoms.
In this model Alpha equals the compactification ratio within the twistor cone, which is approximately 1/137.
1= Hypertubule diameter at 4D interface
137= Cone’s larger end diameter at 3D interface where the photons are absorbed or emitted.
The 4D twisted Hypertubule gets longer or shorter as twisting or untwisting occurs. (720 degrees per twist cycle.)
How many neutrinos are left over from the Big Bang? They have a small mass, but they could be very large in number. Could this help explain Dark Matter?
Why did Paul Dirac use the twist in a belt to help explain particle spin? Is Dirac’s belt trick related to this model? Is the “Quantum” unit based on twist cycles?
I started out imagining a subatomic Einstein-Rosen Bridge whose internal surface is twisted with either a Right-Hand twist, or a Left-Hand twist producing a twisted 3D/4D membrane. This topological Soliton model grew out of that simple idea.
The bridge between the maths and physic🎉al is orchestrated by Schrodinger eq. "time negation" -- as memory on single-cell motile animalia that solve mazes by retrieving harvested sensory input the retracing which is arguably 'conscious,' the objective reduction bing thePrima Obsever
Is there a world where wisdom and intelligence live outside the human brain? so there is also mathematics.
Can anyone transcribe the letters (I think Greek) that appear at 26:49? Thank you.
Thanks Dr Penrose
We need to develop an epistemological model of ‘truth’, where something can be, without necessarily existing or not existing in a testable sense - quantum objects suggest this. That way, we’re not tied up by the ontological duality.
the generation of mathemathcs from infinitesimal (zero time) to infinity (eternal time) might produce and develop energy?
Mathematics fits the physical world so well because we invented it to describe what goes on in our physical world. For example, the Sun has always been the Sun as a physical entity before the earth even formed let alone life spawning us who invented the word Sun. Was the word Sun always there before us and we only discovered it! Even very intelligent men can be fundamentally wrong.
The world will be described more accurately than we currently describe it as we improve our ways of describing it. Our way of describing it is mathematics and when we can get what we have to describe what we see, we invent new ways of describing things; Newton and Calculus for example. If there are extra terrestrial beings, they may have their own way of describing things as accurately as we do in a language we would not recognise as mathematics as we know it. If they did describe things as we describe them, ie in human language, then we should have no concern about talking to extraterrestrials as they will speak the same languages as us as mathematics mimics human language.
Similar to Yogacara Buddhism’s Three Natures
Iguana 18:04
Well, we need the mathematicians and the physicists but we then must seek out the philosophers.
Penrose is now a philosopher and no longer a physicist. That he’s a fabulously talented philosopher is not surprising. As he says here, whether his theory turns out to be true remains to be seen and even devising a method to test his hypothesis is beyond me.
Dr. Penrose only has one job these days: being interviewed.
National Treasure!
Math was born with the first atoms 1 2 3 etc,we just discovered it
Proposed something got a Nobel
Proposing a prediction
Won a Nobel prize
Wut?
"I'm Robert Stack...join me for another episode of 'Unsolved Mysteries'." *dinga-dinga-duh-duh-dinga-dinga...*
The intelegence inheriant in nature is gods will
It's amazing how words describe exactly what we think and feel, like "love" or "cold" or "angry". I think words are the most fundamental part of the universe!
words can describe exactly what we think and feel ? Hmm?
I have never encountered a situation where words could describe Love .
everyone knows what it is via their own subjective experience but i've never met anyone that could transmit the experience of love through words . words cannot even adequately describe the taste of an avocado which is a physical object . only the taste can provide what the words were attempting to describe in words .
Try to define the word LIFE, and a bunch of biologists will tell you "but ..."
The word NOTHING, is it a thing?
@@siriosstar4789 I thought I was making an obvious joke, perhaps not so obvious..
Mathematics. Abreviated = Maths. So the s is essential to encompass the whole.
09:02 This is what the Hermetic philosophers/Hermetists know to be the truth.
First define what is Math:
Math is nothing but abbreviated symbols of mind created concepts that we decided to see in our external world. We arranged them in certain self created rules (algebra and calculus and differential equations). This complex patterned conceptual combinations is what we discovered by just looking at the external world that way. It doesn’t have to be that way. 😅😅😅
Agree. We built mathematics by observing the most fundamental properties of reality, starting with the recognition that things are themselves, formulating that as the law of identity; recognizing that things cannot be not themselves or something other than themselves, formulating that as the law of non-contradiction; and recognizing that things cannot be some mixture of themselves and not themselves, formulating that as the law of the excluded middle. All of natural mathematics is built from those principles. It is not surprising that sophisticated elaborations of mathematics mirror, or are predictive of, complex aspects of reality. Both domains are founded on equivalent primitive elements. So, it is important to realize that, while mathematics is predictive of some aspects of reality, it is not a real domain in itself. There are no platonic numbers or equations floating around the ether. Mathematics is our own abstract creation. It was built to model the most primitive characteristics of reality, and so its elaborations mirror the complex aspects of reality as well.
Do physicists know about this guy?
Also, life gives a reverse victory salute to entropy.
It tries to create and organise order out of the decay/chaos.
A counter force in fact.
The more advanced and intelligent that life becomes, the stronger a counter force it will become.
Life woke up and chose belligerance.
Math. is the overall term of all quantity of Nature and there mutual manipulations.
The attribute existence is linked to the duality inanimate nature + animate nature.
و اینجا فیزیک کوانتوم است و پدیده های مربوط به ان که میتواند شیمیه عالی و شیمیه کربن را به وجود میآورد که از ژن ها و دی ان آی ها و آنزیمها شروع میشود
ولی برای فیزیک عناصر معدنی این متفاوت است و اشکال انها از کوچکترین شکسته و زاویه دار هستند
به جز موارد خاصی مثل سیلیکون که همردیف و شرایط عنصر کربن رو دارد
ولی زنده نیست و فقط میتواند مدور باشد و
مسئله نرمی و سختی هم بخش بزرگیش به این مسئله برمیگرده
که اعضای بدن اجزای نرم هستند و سیلیکون هم مشابه ان
و سختیه بیشتر به جز تراکم و مسائل دیگر که جاش نیست اینجا بخش بزرگیش به نوع کوچکترین ساختار اتمی آن برمیگردد و شکل اتمها (چند اتمی بودن)و اتصال انها در مرحله بعد کوالانسی و یونی و هیدرژنی و غیره که فلز را سختتر و سنگ را سخت میکند
🙏🙏🙏🙏❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️
Existence only realy exists in the present
If mathematics existed before humanity, who wrote on the chalkboard?
Gravity is an alarm shouting man, walk towards entropy....make a new pact with life.
Are mathematics the same around the universe? 12 x12 = 144?
There is a gap between Nature and ourselves. What this gap consists of seems incapable of being understood, yet it may be that understanding is moot without it.
That we can "fill" this gap with conscious and mental inference is the mystery. The mystery because while these inferences seem reliable, repeatable and consistent they are also "incomplete". Incomplete because they must be constantly cognized - that their cognition is not constant.
Their "memory" is not constant. Indeed, the fact of memory is the ultimate DECIDER that this gap exists and that it is incomplete.
Ask yourself why 1 + 1 = 2? Why is 2, 2? 4 - 2 = 2 as well isn't it? So 2 isn't just 2 it is also the question that leads to 2. It is a unity within a plurality. In other words the same cognition can be realized in different ways. One's memory of 2 depends on one's context, but also on a single context. This "coherency" of 2 exists side by side with other coherencies, conscious as well as mental. Conscious coherencies like the sun 🌞, food and so on; and mental coherencies like language and math. Coherencies held in revolving suspense by memory, consciousness and thought.
While math provides answers, precise answers, life does not. Life relies on short term answers that are good enough for some and not good enough for other people.
While long term answers are sought after, no ultimate answer is ever provided for in life. The fact of death makes science and math mere holograms of eternity or infinity: completeness. Holograms of vanity.
Is the 2 of 1+ 1 the same as the 2 of 4 - 2? What about the 2 of 4 × 1/2? Are they all the same 2? How do you know? Are you sure? In the same way, am i the same person i was when i was a baby, a teenager, an adult? Can i be sure? Can you be more sure than i am?
Without an observer there is nought.
Wow
reality is virtuality and virtuality is reality.. somewhere in between lie the truth.
The universe is the Godheads consciousness and we are a part of it as is everything
The Buddha described the world as follows:
The world; the cause of the world; the cessation of the world; and the way to the cessation of the world have all been declared by the Tathāgata as appearing within the six-foot-long living body with perception and mind.
We cannot be in a 2nd aeon since then an infinite time would have had to pass, which could never happen.
Is your ability to encapsulate/model the true world, dependant upon your brain cavity, mental capacity and IQ ?
What is the difference between modelling the true world to a certain degree of precision and then demanding a model with greater precision ?
Does that greater precision mean the new model is correct or the old model is less correct, or neither model is correct and simpler a better approximation ?
At what level of precision does an approximation become a true reflection and does 'infinite precision' become the 'true foundational model' of spacetime itself ?
How exactly do you physically measure to 'infinite precision' anyway ?
Even more of a pressing question when you consider the bit length of modern computer systems and the errors that the level of its precision introduces.
Especially if using AI to resolve such questions, it will always be bound within the limits of its hardwares precision and/or the time it takes to model the universe, which in itself depends upon the amount of information used to approximate the universe, using mathematical shorthand representations that we can actually conceive, being incapable of processing all of the information in the universe at once.
It is the nature of that shorthand representation, to evade the need to know everything at once, that I find fascinating in itself.
Its akin to simple fractal formulae revealing an infinite harmony.
Onto the information paradox of black holes & spacetime.
Rather than assume and confuse approaching the speed of light, rather consider approaching a domain where time comes to a standstill.
The inevitable conlusion being that it remains close to or very near to year 0 of the universe, relative to everywhere else.
In that context, not only do you have to consider the 3d to 2d translation of the holographic prinicple developed from quantum mechanics and desitter space on the surface and/or through the bulk,
but also consider the 4d to 2d translation of that same holographic principle when approaching year zero at an event horizon.
When you do consider that, the information paradox is presented with another problem.
How can an entity approach a time destination, located before it came into existance ?
Especially of you want to state that both 'time' and 'space' are in fact the same fabric called 'spacetime'.
The only way around the 4d-2d and 3d-2d paradox of the compound spacetime idea,
is to envision the event horizon as not merely storing current information,
but also being/containing a relativisitic history of the whole of creation.
That also throws up the notion of multiple black holes all having the same year 0 origin in time and/or locked to a specific time/epoch ID as a descendant.
Which necessitates 2d shells expanding whilst being filled internally and externally with 3d/4d spacetime.
The notion of precision is interesting. Carlo Rovelli theorises that space itself is quantised, and therefore can not be infinitely divided.
"Mathematics seems to have its own kind of existence." What are words? The answer might be that words are ape noises and signs correlated with thoughts and emotions. What is mathematics? The answer might be that mathematics is that part of human thinking which is logically precise, logically consistent, and intellectually important. Are human thoughts merely particular types of electromagnetic fields? Is mathematics merely a particular phenomenon of biology? According to Theodosius Dobzhansky, "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." Consider some conjectures: Nothing in the foundations of physics makes sense except in the light of string theory. The main problem with string theory is that the string theorists fail to realize the fact that Milgrom is the Kepler of contemporary cosmology. All of MOND's empirical successes are also empirical successes of string theory (in some form). Gravity Probe B's 4 ultra-precise gyroscopes worked correctly and confirmed the hypothesis dark-matter-compensation-constant = (3.9±.5) * 10^-5 and string theory with Fredkin's finite nature hypothesis. Are the preceding conjectures wrong? Consider en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Modified_Newtonian_dynamics . Google "riofrio sanejouand milgrom".
Much of mathematics has been invented to match the world.
Suppose you have a stone and another stone. Now you have double.
So expressed using symbols 1+1 = 2
7.83
I use to do it too. You like 10108
When it applies to concepts like number 1, the meaning of the word "exist" has to be understood in a nuanced way as opposed to a generic use of the word "exist" as it applies to physical objects, and therefore the notion of primacy of existence of the three physical, mental and platonic is really not a question, if one thinks of the qualitative difference in the meaning of the "existence" respectively. Having said that mental being separate from physical makes a huge assumption and begs the question.
الان در محضر اساتید بزرگ میشه با اجازه آنها کمی صحبت کرد واگر الان صحبت نکنم چه وقت باید صحبت کنم🙏🙏❤️❤️
استاد با دو سوال شروع میکنم با اجازه شما 🙏🙏
چرا تمام اجزای بدن تمام موجودات زنده از بزرگترین اجزا ماکروسکوپیک (جمجمه و ماهیچه ها) تا کوچکترین اجزای میکروسکوپیک (سلول ها تا ویروس ها )
همگی و همگی در هر اشلی
مدور و کروی و curve هستند ؟؟
چه با چشم مسلح و چه با چشم غیر مسلح و
حتی استخوانها که مرده ترین و غیر فعالترین اندام های بیولوژیک هستند ,از این اصل پیروی میکنند .
دوم
چرا تمام موجودات زنده فقط از موجودات زنده و یا محصول انها تغذیه میکنند ؟؟
که همه انها هم حتی عسل و تخم ها که محصول موجودات زنده هستند نیز شرایط سوال قبلی را دارند
فقط استثنا نمک است که کریستال میباشد و به همین دلیل قابل استفاده و خوردن توسط موجود زنده است ..
SR wrong due to reference frame mixing and bad math. As “c” is absolute- the same in any reference- SR/GR are rightly S Absolutism G Absolutism- not relativity. Galilean relative motion has the earth approaching- expanding at 16 feet per second per second constant acceleration- the released object (apple) contrary to the oft taught ‘model’; gravity. “The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy “, Mark McCutcheon for proper physics.
new ripples....
Roy Kerr posits that singularities do not exist, contradicting Penrose and Hawking. What is Roger's thought?
If you ponder the holographic information principle of 1 bit for 1 planck scale, there can absolutely be no singurality!
It is like this, old skool scientist lean fully on Einsteins relativity, in that case spacetime is the bottom of reality. Then singuralities should exist or could exist.
The modern new approach is, there are no singuralities as for example black holes are a Quantum State phenomena en dont fall under relativity. Spacetime is then an entangled construction folded out from the (underlaying) Quantum State.
@@marcv2648 That's total BS. Penrose has no pretentions that anything he says is not put forward as a speculative contingency. What you just said is a total falsification of Penrose's habitual attitude.
@@donnievance1942 Didn't realize I would strike such a nerve. I like Penrose and his ideas quite a bit. That said, he's fairly dismissive of any other competing theories out there.
Will he be proven brilliantly right or astoundingly wrong? You do the math! 🙃
There is the Mover, the Moveability and the Motion/Movement,
The Living Being, the Life-side and the Stuff-side.
It rests in it's own Eternal Nature, Order and Mathematic.
Intelligence = Logic and Order.
Perspectiv-Princip = all Relations Relationship.
Perspective-Princip + Intelligence = Mathematic.
I experience the detuned piano as slightly nauseating with headphones. I appreciate good atonal music but not this. A different music track in the future would be appreciated. Thanks.
If mathematics was a system that only consisted of things that only described our universe and to the infinite precision, then I would call "unreasonable" effectiveness of mathematics to be a thing. But mathematics is a generalized system, and a sliver of it describes our universe in a spherical cow kind of way - OK will admit - more precise than that. Therefore, to me, it is not to be made a big deal out of. Mathematics can describes systems with many more dimensions than our familiar 3 dimensions. Mathematics breaks down at singularity at the heart of black holes...and so on. So, different mathematics applies to different regimes in approximation. Aeronautical engineering assumes simple equations of laminar flow - which really is an approximation of what actually happens in the real world. So again mathematics is not 100% precise in all regimes of physical world. A circle is a mathematical object, but in reality a perfect circle does not exist. This is also why scientists say mathematics is not same as physics. So I for one do not consider it to be a "unreasonable" effectiveness of mathematics in describing our universe. I will admit though it sounds cool and has an appeal. And mathematics is in its own right is a awesome thing, which BTW do not understand why people think mathematics is invented.
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. For by it the elders obtained a good report. Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. (Hebrews 11:1-3)
The transcendental constants e, π and φ are important universal constants that defined our universe. Many of the fundamental laws of physics and other sciences rely over and over again on these critical mathematical constants. These numbers are encoded through Gematria that were introduced from approx 5th to 8th century BC, by which the letters of ancient alphabets had assigned a numerical value, and so every letter, word or phrase written in Hebrew or in Greek, the languages used to write, respectively, the Old and the New Testament of the Bible, have a numerical value associated to them. The numerical values of the Hebrew and Greek letters are no secret.And, they have been around for over 2000 years.
Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin.(Daniel 5:25). Meaning numbered, numbered, weighed, divided.
π is encoded in Genesis 1:1, the very first verse of the Bible and of the Old Testament (Torah/Tanak) written in Hebrew.
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth (Genesis 1:1)
בְּרֵאשִׁ֖ית בָּרָ֣א אֱלֹהִ֑ים אֵ֥ת הַשָּׁמַ֖יִם וְאֵ֥ת הָאָֽרֶץ׃ (Genesis 1:1)
From the Hebrew alphanumeric code introduced around the 8th century BCE, And formula (NUMLETT*PROLETT/NUMWORD*PROWORD) = (28 * 2.3887 x 10^27) / (7 * 3.0415 x 10^17) = 3.1415...X10^17. it matches the actual value of π until the 3.1415.
π is the number of the circle, of completion, of what is closed and self-contained; as such, it's a good mathematical reference to the concept of a God Creator of all things, and of a Creation that includes everything that was created by God; (John 1:3 Isaiah 40:22)
This was encoded in the bible with a level of precision that was 2000 years ahead of Indian astronomer Aryabhata who got π close to about five digits around the 5th century AD.
e is encoded in John 1:1, the first verse of the gospel (John) of the New Testament written in Greek.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.(John 1:1)
ἐν ἀρχηι ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος (John 1:1)
From the Greek alphanumeric code introduced around the 5th century BCE, And formula (NUMLETT*PROLETT/NUMWORD*PROWORD) = (52 * 8.4362 x 10^75)/ (17 * 9.4930 x 10^35) = 2.7183...X10^40. it matches the actual value of e until the 2.7183.
e is the number of the relationship between the big and the small, of the bridge between the infinitesimal and the infinite;
what number could be better associated with the Son, the One who was Sent by the Father, the One who is the only bridge for mankind to the infinite God who created the universe. (John 14:6) The Son who is the living word of God which was made flesh (John 1:14) Whose title is the Word of God (Revelation 19:13)
The Euler's number e was encoded some 1500 years before the human kind first discovered its existence and importance in 1683 by Jacob Bernoulli.
The fine structure constant (α) value can be also derived from the above two key verses by squaring the verse gematria values of Genesis 1:1 with John 1:1.
It is considered the greatest mysteries of physics. Without it, it would be impossible to form even simple structures like atoms, molecules, planets, or stars.
Given that Squaring is the best way to express the energy of a moving object in physics, Verse gematria = Sum of all letter values. (Genesis 1:1 = 2701 & John 1:1 = 3627)
you would get the fine structure constant (α) derived as 27013627^2 =0.00729736..e17. Given that the current approx α value recommended is currently 0.00729735.
In fact, it was only in 1916 that this magic number was first introduced by Arnold Sommerfeld.
Furthermore, there is a pattern in the verse Gematria of Genesis 1:1 to John 1:1 = 2701-3627 = |27|01-36|27|; There are exactly a total of 27 books in the New Testaments which reveal the Messiah/Word of God (Jesus Christ the Son).
John 1:14 states that Jesus Christ is the Word of God which was made flesh and the only begotten of the father. Whose title is the Word of God (Revelation 19:13)
Revelation 22:13 states that Jesus Christ is the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending.
Revelation 13:18 states that the number of the antichrist who will deceive the world in the end days is 666. And, the sum of integers from the beginning of 1 to 36 is exactly 666.
Hence, (27) (01-36) (27) = (Jesus-the Alpha) -> (From the beginning to the end of the anti-christ 666) -> (Jesus-the Omega).
In addition, The Golden Ratio Phi (φ) is encoded in Hebrew 8:5 when God spoke to Moses and reveal to him the pattern in which all things to be made in accordance to.
Hebrew 8:5 states: "Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount."
οἵτινες ὑποδείγματι καὶ σκιᾷ λατρεύουσιν τῶν ἐπουρανίων, καθὼς κεχρημάτισται μωϊσῆς μέλλων ἐπιτελεῖν τὴν σκηνήν, ὅρα γάρ, φησίν, ποιήσεις πάντα κατὰ τὸν τύπον τὸν δειχθέντα σοι ἐν τῶ ὄρει· (Hebrew 8:5)
From the Greek alphanumeric code introduced around the 5th century BCE, And the same formula (NUMLETT*PROLETT/NUMWORD*PROWORD) = (156 * 2.2252 x 10^235)/ (28 * 7.6621 x 10^74) = 1.6180...X10^161. it matches the actual value of φ until the 1.6180.
The golden ratio (φ) is a pattern which is sometimes called the "divine proportion," because of its frequency in the natural world. For centuries, the golden ratio has fascinated all kinds of people, not just mathematicians. Physicists and biologists have studied it, architects and artists have used it, and worshippers have described it as a divine design. And through the centuries, the golden ratio has continued to amaze its diverse fans, frequently cropping up at unexpected places.
In fact, the golden ratio is the mathematical rule of love... do unto the next as was done unto the previous. All of nature is reflecting and expressing His character. God is Love (1 John 4:8)
Now, let's go to the simple common sense example: the smallest protein we know has 25 amino acids. The smaller and more simple proteins used as building blocks for the cell life and necessary to build DNA, from 50 to 100 amino acids as a minimum, and even thousands of amino acids in many cases. But let's consider a simple typical protein with some 50 amino acids. To think that this molecule could be the product of chance, of a coincidence, requires to accept that the 50 amino acids have been combined, in the right way and in the right order, by chance, by accident, by coincidence. At first glance it doesn't look impossible if we have millions of years to test combinations, right? This is the problem with big numbers, they easily dazzle those who think they have a common sense they lack. The probability of this event, if you computes it (And if you were to do a quick consultation to some biochemist to know the factors he'll have to take in account), even if all the atoms of carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen and others necessary available in the universe were only used to build amino acids, and even if all these amino acids in the universe would only be trying once and again a possible configuration of 50 steps, without repeating those who had been already checked, from the moment the universe started existing until today, and at a rhythm of one trial for every second for every 50 amino acids, even so, the chance that by coincidence that protein would be formed in the universe after 15 billion years of trial would be less than one in billions. And if we consider a more realistic case, a protein with some 100 amino acids, then the corresponding probability would require universes of universes, and ages of the universe of ages of the universe, purely devoted to try every possible combination, without repeating those already tested, to have less than one chance in a trillion to make this happen for this small molecule.
Origin: Probability of a Single Protein Forming by Chance
ua-cam.com/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/v-deo.html
let us then consider this perspective. There are 90,000 possible 5 digit numbers from 1.0000 to 9.9999 that could have occurred from a given equation. The chance that the digit sequence 3.1415 occurs by coincidence is therefore 1/90,000 in Genesis 1:1. The chance that Euler’s number (e) is calculated from the Gospel of John 1:1 by the same equation to 5 correct digits, is also 1/90,000.The probability that both occur by random chance in these textually related verses is thus 1/90,000 x 1/90,000 = 1/ 8,100,000,000. If we add in the probability that the golden ratio could have been calculated up to 5 correct digits in the textually related Hebrew 8:5 with the same equation, you would get the probability increase to more than 1 in 7 trillion chance that this is just a coincidence. Furthermore, we have not even include the probability of the fine structure constant α being derived from combining the verse gematria from the aforementioned Genesis 1:1 & John 1:1. And, that both key verses gematria pattern confirms the AC number in the book of revelation. And, the exact number of new testament books which give us Jesus Christ the Son, the living word of God which was made flesh (The only bridge for our salvation).
I am skeptical roger is all kowing. Closer to truth
Two protons have twice the mass of one. To an incrediblely high degree of precision.
Maths or logic?
Is it possible there is no maths. There is only logic
Envoking platonic reality is like some kind of religion.
As for consciousness. It is what it is. You are what you is & you is what you are as Frank zappa once said
I followed to about 2/3rds through and then got lost. Absence of gravity produces uniformity. Uniformity is high entropy. Now, high entropy is characteristic of both the end of the universe and of its beginning. But the final end is absolutely cold with only a stray photon or electron flitting around aimlessly in a geometrically expanding universe, whereas its beginning is a stupendously hot ionized plasma exploding from a singularity. How can one proceed from one to the other? It's something my mind cannot grasp.
Isn’t uniformity (like in crystalline structures) low entropy? If something is uniform it is „easy“ to describe and thus has a low amount of information complexity (statistical randomness as a starting point for chaotic and in some cases harmonious behavior in the system) and thus should be low entropy. But maybe we can be talking past each other.
To the second point: It seems as if mass/energy is „condensed/knotted“ space that is unknotting continuously over time following the natural laws. The finished product of this process would be something akin to smooth space. A vast emptiness without vacuum fluctuations due to not existing imbalances in space anymore.
Source: Ask your Dr. or pharmacist.
This attempt to connect the universe's end with a beginning is what is impossible for me to grasp. Entropy is supposed to be increasing (in the aggregate, that is.) That means a gradual loss of structure, organization, activity and its resultant heat, over the course of the existence of the universe. That's always been my understanding, but perhaps it's my failure to understand. High entropy means increasing information, yet, if the distant universe is shutting down, then it really should feature very little information because hardly anything is going on anymore. After all, if atoms are kind of primary forms of organization, you won't even have them anymore. What is there left to describe? But if the first second of the universe is supposed to be stupendously hot, what is creating this heat? Compression? To repeat, this attempt to connect the end with a beginning is what is impossible for me to grasp. @@mario97br heat, a
@@dorfmanjones I just deleted by accident a 20 min answer, I won't write it again, it was an honour almost conversing with you.
XD
Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth. Revelation 5:9-10
The idea is that in the far future there will be no particles of matter, they would have all decayed into photons. So we’d have a roughly uniform cold dark universe. But cold relative to what? The hot dense universe of our big bang could be the cold sparse universe of the end of the last Eon. It’s just a matter of perspective.
Moore Christopher Young Paul Garcia Kimberly