Paul Davies - Can Mathematics Explain Evolution?

Поділитися
Вставка
  • Опубліковано 9 вер 2024

КОМЕНТАРІ • 96

  • @decorbeau
    @decorbeau 28 днів тому +5

    Titan is the largest moon of Saturn, not a Jupiter moon ... but Paul is a brilliant popular scientist.

    • @simonhibbs887
      @simonhibbs887 28 днів тому

      Came to say the same thing, but maybe he's a Judge Dredd fan? In the comics Titan is a moon of Jupiter, a 'mistake' they later explained by saying that future technology was used to move the moon from one planet to the other.

  • @thesoundsmith
    @thesoundsmith 29 днів тому +5

    Mandelbrot Fractals exactly illustrate how evolution is not only possible, but built-in to the life process.

    • @golagaz
      @golagaz 28 днів тому +1

      Yes indeed, fractal sets shows us how simple dynamics generates complexity. Good intuition.

    • @richardatkinson4710
      @richardatkinson4710 27 днів тому +1

      No. Sounds clever, but…Fractals are similar on all scales. Evolution is by definition different from generation to generation.

    • @richardatkinson4710
      @richardatkinson4710 26 днів тому

      @@MS-od7je No. What “emerges” (I distrust that word) in a developing fractal is just more of the same.

  • @user-gl6ii4bq2g
    @user-gl6ii4bq2g 24 дні тому +1

    As a mathematician I would say that with enough assumptions you could model these things, but I don't know how useful the models would be, given the difficulty of finding valid assumptions.

  • @jelleludolf
    @jelleludolf 28 днів тому +1

    Paul Davies talks the most sense consistently. It would be wise to take notice of his views.

  • @seanpierce9386
    @seanpierce9386 29 днів тому +3

    Life is very poorly defined to begin with, so it’s unlikely that we could quantify the “lifeness” of something. I suspect that what is needed is self-replication combined with self-contained Turing-Completeness, in which case the transition may be quite sudden. Of course, that’s just one definition.

  • @gsmith207
    @gsmith207 28 днів тому +1

    I love this discussion! And channel! plus all the comments are so thought invoking. Our brains are working overtime and that’s what it’s about. Cheers!

  • @kallianpublico7517
    @kallianpublico7517 29 днів тому +2

    Math is fundamentally rules. From geometry to algebra to Boolean algebra to linear algebra to statistics and probability, to calculus, to Fourier analysis all are exemplified by different rules controlling the answers presupposed by differing questions.
    Is evolution a set of rules? A set of rules "governing the process" of physiological "survival"? Notice I write physiological survival not just physiological change.
    Math is good at logic, but not at all good at meaning. The examples of games is instructive. Tic-tac-toe is a simple game. How do we program a computer to "win" at tic tac toe? Does a computer "win" at tic-tac-toe, at checkers, chess, go? Do the rules specifying the process of playing games specifically define "winning"? Do the rules give any choice about winning?
    I submit that "winning" is supplied by the programmer. Winning has no meaning to an algorithm: a process. No set of rules, of themselves, provide meaning.
    In language the "Liar's Paradox" supposedly shows that "written" language, of itself, contains no meaning. Language, as an exponent of conscious humans, contains meaning. Only as an exponent of beings conscious of Nature is meaning present. Not at all in the rules, only in the rule maker.
    The question must, therefore, be answered as to how "survival" is embedded into physiological evolution apriori - without meaning? Without a meaning maker/interpreter?
    Without the survival Urge, mathematics is equally good at losing as well as winning. The rules would serve no purpose.

  • @Andre-Linoge
    @Andre-Linoge 28 днів тому +2

    We are all the same under the skin!>< A tiny difference makes all the difference!

  • @EdwardHinton-qs4ry
    @EdwardHinton-qs4ry 29 днів тому +2

    A Paul Davies and Martin Reece discussion would be a good listen.

  • @holgerjrgensen2166
    @holgerjrgensen2166 29 днів тому +2

    NO, Language cant explain Language
    Only Living Beings can explain. (Evolution)

  • @F1ct10n17
    @F1ct10n17 28 днів тому +2

    Evolution Only explain mixing up things but lets give it a chance to keep pretending one have the ultimate answer to the reality. Math, science, philosophy, religion, politics and all kind ideas that come from word.

  • @jamesruscheinski8602
    @jamesruscheinski8602 29 днів тому +3

    is there a way to quantify possible effects of an environment on inorganic, organic and living matter?

    • @seanpierce9386
      @seanpierce9386 29 днів тому

      He assumes that we can distill these biological and environmental processes into a single number. If we are to believe Stephen Wolfram, there are certain processes that cannot be computationally reduced in this way. Or if we tried, it would tell us precisely nothing.

  • @simonhibbs887
    @simonhibbs887 27 днів тому

    Interesting talk. For comparison, how do we define a vehicle? Space rockets, cars, planes and horse drawn wagons are vehicles, but is a skateboard or a pair of roller-skates a vehicle? How about one roller-skate? If a child sits on a rug and I pull the rug along the ground, is the rug a vehicle? What percentage of a vehicles is a pair of shoes?

  • @NicholasWilliams-uk9xu
    @NicholasWilliams-uk9xu 29 днів тому +1

    These are great points, you can definitely get those answers, even if those chemical processes are slow and cold.

  • @rossw1365
    @rossw1365 29 днів тому +2

    evolution depends on the environment, including other organisms
    so predicting the evolution of any one organism depends on predicting the evolutions of other organisms - and predicting the evolution of the environment
    so deep climate and geology, incl even the evolution of tectonic plates!
    and astronomy, since small changes in earth's orbit and angle of rotation affects climate
    you see these effects in the evolutionary record, where new organisms didn't emerge at a steady rate, as you might imagine from "molecular clocks"
    rather, there were periods of explosive emergence of new species (eg, the cambrian explosion)
    as well as periods of implosive extinction of species (eg, dinosaurs)
    so it's not as simple as davies might make it sound

  • @abduazirhi2678
    @abduazirhi2678 28 днів тому

    Paul David is an amazing scientist to listen to. ..... Life is mysterious...more mysterious is the transition from non-life to life !!! Maths cannot explain the mystery of life’s origin ...

  • @ameralbadry6825
    @ameralbadry6825 27 днів тому

    Thanks!

  • @MarkPatmos
    @MarkPatmos 28 днів тому +1

    Interesting that he talks about what evolution is trying to do

    • @simonhibbs887
      @simonhibbs887 27 днів тому +1

      When someone says a gas under pressure 'wants to expand' nobody bats an eye. We all know exactly what they mean, and it's obvious to everyone that nitpicking them would be mean and irrelevant. When it comes to evolution though...

    • @MarkPatmos
      @MarkPatmos 27 днів тому

      @@simonhibbs887 I don’t talk about gas wanting to expand. Haven’t heard anyone else say that either but maybe from a different country.

  • @jamesthelemonademaker
    @jamesthelemonademaker 28 днів тому +2

    Saturn 🪐

  • @sujok-acupuncture9246
    @sujok-acupuncture9246 29 днів тому +2

    May be we can continue with Paul Davies . Great detailed description. Wish to hear more from him. But the first thing I want to know from him is what does "evolution" mean.

  • @NicholasWilliams-uk9xu
    @NicholasWilliams-uk9xu 29 днів тому +5

    There is definitely no randomness, it's definitely a bunch of local bisector reflections and local averaging in a superfluid, I don't see randomness any where in this toroidal generator machine. There is so much beautiful things to explore though. A bunch of problems too, like little children dying, and starving. Where the large states and economic systems that occupy opposite sides of the world could work together, create sustainable technology, and become the heroes of this story (So many smart people on both sides, they could do great things together, unimaginable from our current stand point).

    • @d.r.tweedstweeddale9038
      @d.r.tweedstweeddale9038 29 днів тому

      Gobble-dee-gook & very poor grammar. I bet you think this sounds "smart". It isn't.

  • @genghisthegreat2034
    @genghisthegreat2034 28 днів тому

    If Entropy generally increases, why does life tend to build local peaks within the gene combinations space ?
    Why, and how, does it escape " white noise " , permanently wandering the floor of that space ?

    • @simonhibbs887
      @simonhibbs887 28 днів тому +1

      The second law of thermodynamics only applies to enclosed systems. Entropy can 'flow' between different regions of space, so the entropy of one region can decrease through some physical process, while that process causes entropy in another region to increase. The net entropy always increases though. Many physical system such as engines and organisms are 'entry pumps' in this way that expel entropy, usually in for form of heat, in order to do work. Cars for example, or computers, or people.

    • @genghisthegreat2034
      @genghisthegreat2034 28 днів тому

      @@simonhibbs887 thank you for that, it makes sense to me. Is it correct to say that locally negative entropy is correlated with life, and machines produced by life ?

    • @simonhibbs887
      @simonhibbs887 28 днів тому +1

      @@genghisthegreat2034 Not necessarily, for example water cools down as it evaporates. That’s a process that expels entropy in the form of evaporating particles. What life and some machines do is consume energy sources and expel entropy. That’s more sophisticated. However some natural chemical cycles can do this too, particularly catalytic processes. But then, life is basically a highly structured catalytic process.

    • @genghisthegreat2034
      @genghisthegreat2034 27 днів тому +1

      @@simonhibbs887 thanks Simon, that makes sense to me too.

  • @dondattaford5593
    @dondattaford5593 29 днів тому +1

    Is this camera on me that's stupid

  • @hjvjccc
    @hjvjccc 29 днів тому +1

    "..Non-life to life..."
    "Simple life..
    ...UP TO...intelligence "
    They are so FAR from the truth.

    • @chrisgarret3285
      @chrisgarret3285 29 днів тому +1

      I'm gonna assume you're closer. What vast knowledge are you keeping from us, oh enlightened one?

    • @hjvjccc
      @hjvjccc 29 днів тому +1

      @@chrisgarret3285 it's very simple. do you think only humans are intelligent? Or asked differently.. if humans are assumed to be the most intelligent.. at what point does life become "unintelligent" ?

    • @haryadidris9511
      @haryadidris9511 27 днів тому

      It's all a matter of STUDYING nature and science, BUT believing in intelligent design and stationary biology is a matter of BELIEVE

    • @hjvjccc
      @hjvjccc 27 днів тому

      @@haryadidris9511 scient is the biggest fraud going. Look at the absolute destruction of our planet in the last 150 years. All in the name of science and progress.

  • @mohdnorzaihar2632
    @mohdnorzaihar2632 28 днів тому

    All "billions" of people today must be started from the "first ever human couple"

    • @simonhibbs887
      @simonhibbs887 27 днів тому

      Maybe. I tend to think that species isn't a clearly definable concept. Every definition Ive come across would say that an offspring is the same species as the parents.
      A good example that highlights the complexities of this are ring species. Take black winged gulls. The communities of gulls in northern Europe can interbreed with the gulls in Siberia, which can interbreed with the gulls in Alaska, which can interbreed with the gulls in Canada. So they're all the same species right? Except the gulls in Canada cannot interbreed with the gulls in Northern Europe. Are they the same species? If not, where is the dividing line? That's a continuum in space, but there must be similar continua in time done generations.

  • @mickeybrumfield764
    @mickeybrumfield764 29 днів тому +2

    It seems ironic that given humans great capacity for narcism that we tend to underevaluate our phenominial progress, which leads to underevalueating our great potential for the future.

  • @seesnap
    @seesnap 29 днів тому +1

    Did u hear about the constipated mathematician ? He worked it out with a pencil

  • @noelwass4738
    @noelwass4738 29 днів тому +2

    I do not think these questions can be answered by Mathematics alone. Where Mathematics is applied and not just a theoretical tool it becomes useful as a tool for describing the world, not for saying why or why not some feature of the physical world should be there. Mathematics would not go far without a physical world that we can observe and attempt to describe. Mathematics can describe the world, but it does not explain why the physical world is there in the first place. A much deeper understanding (of Evolution) is needed, and maybe that goal is impossible to realize. We have a sample of one habitat for life (life on Earth) and are attempting to extrapolate that without a deep understanding.

    • @ssehe2007
      @ssehe2007 29 днів тому

      YES! More of ☝🏾

  • @davidcasagrande267
    @davidcasagrande267 29 днів тому +2

    No matter how many atoms you smash , or formulas you come up with , or new galaxies you see , or new theories you come up with , it still will NEVER NEVER NEVER answer the big question . Did this happen by accident or is their a great creator !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You are just SPINNING YOUR WHEELS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    • @user-gk9lg5sp4y
      @user-gk9lg5sp4y 29 днів тому +2

      That's a bold statement. You have no idea whether we will or not.

    • @netez5252
      @netez5252 29 днів тому

      Yeah, because lying to yourself and believing that you already have the answers for everything is much, much better. Just admit that the truth doesn't matter to you at all. You believe what you believe out of fear of death and it's as simple as that.

    • @zenith_journey
      @zenith_journey 29 днів тому

      @@netez5252 This reminds me that one’s philosophy about life really is subjective; is a good life a life where one finds and embraces “truths” or a life where you just get through it feeling as good as you can.

    • @thesoundsmith
      @thesoundsmith 29 днів тому

      And YOU WANT there to be a Creator, so you have someone to BLAME. Sorry, sport - it's on US.

    • @simonhibbs887
      @simonhibbs887 28 днів тому

      I think you mistakenly seem to believe that people studying evolution, or science in general, care about that. By and large, they just don't. They study evolution in order to understand the development and function of organisms. They study quantum mechanics to make better technology, including a handful of technologies you are using right now. They study cosmology to better understand how the universe works and how that bears on our existence and our lives. All of that has plenty of value. Suppose we discovered the actual absolute truth of how the universe came to be, guaranteed to be true. How would that change anything about the value of scientific discoveries and research?

  • @Atheist66644
    @Atheist66644 29 днів тому +1

    how many lies does it take to sell a lie

  • @ALavin-en1kr
    @ALavin-en1kr 29 днів тому +1

    Of course Darwin is brought up. According to the understanding in a higher age there were fourteen versions of the human to a uniquely human prototype, not from an entirely different prototype, in one universal cycle. Of course there are similarities in nature; in biology but the absence of a prototype; randomness, however long it took, and the time is constantly extended, randomness is still bogus.
    Religion posits in this order Consciousness (fundamental) Mind (elemental emerging with quantum events) (elements are elemental both macro or micro emerging with quantum events.
    We are in a Material Age and many can only comprehend one dimension the material or elemental. In a higher age those who understood matter only were employed in sweeping the streets.
    In this material age it is much different. As we move from our atomic age to a quantum age all this will change. Thankfully. There will be some who won’t get it but the streets always need sweeping.

    • @sanatkumarghosh5123
      @sanatkumarghosh5123 29 днів тому +1

      What's evolution? Definitely it trends to discard all chances and miracles, where as it strick to the point that it is automatic and continuous process.The wonder of Life science is far the less wonderful than life itself which is a sum total of form and expressions.Since there is no uniformity of life,so,there is hardly an essay written on man.In fine, human evolution itself is a acquired and cultivated spirit,for the same reason,even today cannible are present in some islands.

    • @user-gk9lg5sp4y
      @user-gk9lg5sp4y 29 днів тому +1

      That's a quite a big salad you've made there. Can I have some dressing with that?

  • @S3RAVA3LM
    @S3RAVA3LM 29 днів тому +2

    6:29 here's the core dogma of the entirety of the cult of materialism.
    Everything has to be quantifiable.
    And this dogma or their rule is actually not scientific at all. Oh, but do be assured that they most certainly will absolutely put forth that it were.
    Science isn't a class, way of life, course, group, or cult. It's simply Knowledge and a means of, utilizing various methods.

  • @r2c3
    @r2c3 29 днів тому +2

    mathematics, when used properly, usually provides precise descriptions about structure/order, function, and objective.. but, throughout history, only a handfull of people have been able to read and share the beauty of this universal language with the rest of us... great content, as usual ctt 👏

    • @codymarch164
      @codymarch164 29 днів тому +1

      Yep. The arithmetics of Pythagoras are one with the theology, fables, and metaphors of Plato and one with the rational metaphysics/philosophy of Plotinus.
      The slight be in the mode expressed.
      It's incredible.

    • @r2c3
      @r2c3 28 днів тому

      ​@@codymarch164yes indeed, the expression of forms/shapes/patterns that are discovered are then used as models to describe natural phenomenas that we encounter in our daily routines...

  • @bobcabot
    @bobcabot 29 днів тому +7

    ...Mathematics is Evolution.

    • @gsmith207
      @gsmith207 28 днів тому

      Was going to comment but I don’t need to now. Nailed it. Except our math still can’t figure out the pyramids lol…

  • @MIIIM-7
    @MIIIM-7 29 днів тому +1

    5:00 Titan, the moon of Jupiter
    Titan, the moon of Jupiter is full of mathematically measured proven evolution in accordance with the exponential week of creation(24^7)’s life timeline for the Dunning-Kruger effect graph’s first peak mecca AI resonance demands
    Amen

    • @user-gk9lg5sp4y
      @user-gk9lg5sp4y 29 днів тому +2

      I enjoy salads

    • @genghisthegreat2034
      @genghisthegreat2034 28 днів тому +1

      @@MIIIM-7 does that immense insight change at all if we move Titan out to Saturn ?

    • @MIIIM-7
      @MIIIM-7 28 днів тому

      @@genghisthegreat2034 i only speak of real things, and go moving moons like titan from planet to planet is absolutelly impossible

    • @MIIIM-7
      @MIIIM-7 28 днів тому

      @@user-gk9lg5sp4y enjoy your meal

    • @genghisthegreat2034
      @genghisthegreat2034 27 днів тому +1

      @@MIIIM-7 , what if Titan is already a moon of Saturn , and not Jupiter?

  • @chrisgarret3285
    @chrisgarret3285 29 днів тому

    This was a really good, and scientifically based, clip. More guests like him please.

  • @Bill..N
    @Bill..N 29 днів тому +1

    Spot-on.. My opinion is abiogenesis accomplished a rise in complexity , and it happened relatively soon after the earth cooled down.. So the process seems aggressively robust..On mathematics, which can be imagined as describing what we see in nature, was well intertwined with evolutionary pressures.. Simply one opinion..

  • @stephenzhao5809
    @stephenzhao5809 29 днів тому +2

    There are different starting points ( beginnings), and biblical starting point in Genesis 1.1 and John 1.1 may be interpreted differently. Accordingly, the beginning of John 1.1 may explain the origin of God LORD, One The Infinite & Evolved.

    • @user-gk9lg5sp4y
      @user-gk9lg5sp4y 29 днів тому

      😂😂😂

    • @jelleludolf
      @jelleludolf 28 днів тому

      Come on, this is not the time and place. Leave people in their worth, don't come barging in impolitely like that, imposing your view on people enjoying a video.

  • @Philippe-ij5uz
    @Philippe-ij5uz 28 днів тому

    Hi again, the past dont exist its now and future that exist, also the enzym watch so is an observer that you trought first into vacuum and find that observer in nature or create it , right think about send pulse to it .,