Full podcast episode: ua-cam.com/video/Osh0-J3T2nY/v-deo.html Lex Fridman podcast channel: ua-cam.com/users/lexfridman Guest bio: Edward Frenkel is a mathematician at UC Berkeley working on the interface of mathematics and quantum physics. He is the author of Love and Math: The Heart of Hidden Reality.
The childlike aspect I want to preserve in [myself] general is the simple and pure fascination with quite literally every facet and nuance, and being absorbed in all the wonder at the mysteries of the world, and really just having the feel that everything out there in the world is just so interesting. I do not take for granted that AI or any computerized learning model with ever be able to do anything like this. It may be possible, but it also be the case that it isn't.
2:08 but you do play with big super computers. The existence of a physical machine that can (in theory) solve all math problems that fit inside it's memory is a prove that math has more to do with reality than most mathematicians realize.
23:50 the effect of the observer in Quantum Mechanics and Relativity isn't subjective though, it is objective because it can be calculated. In Relativity you can calculate exactly how things change if you change the observer. in Quantum Mechanics you can calculate the precise probabilities of the effect the observer has. Math is different, it is a human model to describe the world (or more precise: a method to create human models of the world), so of course it is subjective because it depends on the axioms and also it's framework is based on formal logic, which is a simplified explanation of how the world works. Mainly because it assumes that things are identical to themselves, but in reality everything changes all the time.
When we say observer, what is really meant is just interacting with the quantum object(s) in the system somehow. In order to measure some you have to perturb it, even if only slightly.
Mathematical equations being free from data are expression of term by terms depending on the nature of equation. Thus no bias no data no errors just UNDERSTANDING some times easy some times difficult perhaps is mathematics and is scalar beauty unless further defined. Thanks. Worth seeing at intervals for better results as mathematics no one discusses like here being explored. Thanks again.
I have the view of time that it is not fundamental. Essentially, it is just a measurement. Photons are said to be "timeless" because they do not "experience" time, but it's not in the sense of how a lifeform would be timeless if it were immortal. The reason photons are timeless is because they have no substructure and they undergo no internal evolution whatsoever, meaning nothing changes, and therefore you cannot possibly tell how old a photon is, or rather how long it has existed. So therefore I like the viewpoint on the physical concept of time that holds that time is just a measure of decay or change. Lately I begin to wonder and attempt to investigate about the idea that maybe space itself, as we currently think about it, is not fundamental, in a very similar way to how time is not fundamental. I don't mean to imply that physical space doesn't exist, but much like how Relativity gave us the conceptual framework to see gravity, not as a force, but as a result of the geometry of an abstract object, maybe this kind of radical perspective shift is needed to discover the breakthrough that is necessary to make progress on the problem of quantization of spacetime. Maybe there is nothing to quantize because that's a wrong idea? I don't know, but I think the idea has merit and is worth investigating.
The biggest unfortunate monkey wrench of language that Einstein handed down as a legacy is the word ‘curvature’ the phenomenon is more aptly described as a ‘deformation’ or ‘compression’. Perhaps no other language shortfall has caused so much cognitive dissonance over the years in folks trying to conceptualize GR in the minds eye.
The universe is like marbles in a fishbowl. When anything moves, everything around it has to move. This occurs in all directions, at all scales, forever. Actuality is infinite undifferentiated stuff changing. Change that occurs in waves is predictable and can therefore be tapped into to do work, and is called energy. All waves are pressure waves. They may express ~2 dimensionality at a density boundary. Particles are an emergent attribute of energy complexity, and matter is an emergent property of the interactive of particles. Matter is an energy eddy.. when that energy potential is confined to a limited space for a meaningful duration of time. ...i forgot where i was going with that but that's the metaphysics of physics in a nutshell.
@@havenbastion I feel you. Quantized spacetime on an N-dimensional lattice is how it’s all stitched together. When particles borrow their existence from the lattice the effect is deformation in the local space time sheet. This deformation is felt across neighboring sheets as well in the parallel many worlds. Not only in neighboring 4D sheets but also in the nested hierarchical spaces within (or outside depending on your vantage point). What it all means is that N-dimensional spacetime comes in densities. When mass is present the quantized spacetime energy (Planck volumes) pack into tighter configurations, and this naturally leads to what I call space density gradients. Those gradients are the geodesics that particles follow because it’s the path of least resistance in the larger scheme.
@@danscieszinski4120 There is only only possible reality. Everything that can happen does happen, and that's one big infinite happening. To posit another universe in any sense is to posit an ineffable boundary condition that cannot be shown to be possible much less plausible much less actual. All such ideas are indistinguishable from fiction and ought to be treated accordingly. My comprehension of the aether layer (whatever is below our current level of understanding, sub-quantum), ie Actuality, chaos, change qua change, is infinite overlapping waves at infinite scales.
When it comes to giving more credibility to the subjective understand and experience of the world, this is where my artistic training in theatre acting can provide some insight, so I'm about to prove everyone who says this stuff is useless to be completely wrong. In film and theatre we do not refer to the use the word "true" or "factual" to evaluate the representations we create. Instead we speak of things being "authentic" or "unauthentic." This is the idea that Edward Frenkel is getting at, and he is definitely on to something when he talks about questioning the validity of dismissing the subjective, as he refers to it, as totally inferior to rigorous as scientific reasoning. If only he had studied stage acting long ago these ideas may have come to him sooner, hahaha. But what is meant by the word "authentic?" The term refers to whether or not the representation, whether it be some sort of still art object, or segment of film, or a live performance by human actors, when the simulated situation or idea that's being represented is accurate and faithful, and most importantly believable, to the real thing, that is what we mean by authentic, and that is what we strive for. Furthermore, you can tell when representation is authentic because it will tend to invoke a genuine and sincere emotional reaction, especially if the experiencer does not want to have the emotional reaction. So there is actually a more or less objective way to evaluate the level of authenticity of a representation, that is to say it's not a completely muddled quagmire. We have something to work with, and we already know quite a bit about how to evaluate emotional displays and judge whether they are genuine vs contrived or forced.
I have observed and documented for over 23 years a second time dimension. Empirical evidence is abundant, actually, but since it defies the standard model of 3 spacial and 1 time dimensions I am never asked to do an interview on a YT channel.
@@aidengreene7692 It is very interesting and problematic for the critical-minded. We love rules; we disdain being wrong. People build fortresses, castles, AI--- to prove to themselves that the fabric of reality is comprehensible. Mystery is extremely difficult to weave into fabrics we can wear at a dinner party. Example: I worked in the private residences of some of the brightest people on the planet (Silicon Valley). Often a conversation would develop. I worked for a top researcher/professor--- and was fired 2 days after bringing a 7-page paper to work to support a conversation we had. What an interesting lesson in independent inquiry and peer review! Long story, but I learned first-hand about challenging established beliefs. 😁
@@carefulcarpenter it’s funny, because science progresses faster in a decade when someone comes along and completely shatters the entire paradigm then it does when we all sit around trying to prove circular theories that are based on false assumptions at the core.
@@jerrymiyahtylerious2847 That is the human mind--- designed by a creator? How would we prove that man has limited potential. Let's assume we run across a 71-year period where just one man notices mathematical patterns that connect events outside in the world which may be difficult to predict? Is the measurable empirical evidence suitable for examination? Who would risk their entire career and research grants to side with some crazy fool with 23 years of solid evidence, but no credentials?
Just a small correction -- the title is a slightly misleading misquote (and it's, also, factually incorrect). The guest actually stated it correctly, quote: "Mathematicians are interested in describing all possible *mathematical* universes." That one word, 'mathematical', makes all the difference in the world. Mathematics is (literally) incapable of describing non-mathematical universes... though, granted, imagining a non-mathematical universe with an apparatus (brain) that is itself founded on mathematical principles is (also literally) *impossible* to do in the first place, but we can (at the very least) imagine universes *approaching* non-mathematical. As an example, I invite you to imagine a (definitely non-mathematical) universe that has *infinitely* *divisible* "space" (a completely meaningless term in such a universe, as will become perfectly obvious in a moment). *Question* : How many "dimensions" (another completely meaningless term) of "space" does such a universe have? *Answer* : Infinitely many. *Reasoning* : Imagine moving in *any* direction in such a universe, by an *infinitely* small step. Seems harmless enough so far, doesn't it? You can even cue in (very much mathematical) infinite series as a method of measuring distances in such a universe, so no problems there, right? Wrong. Now imagine moving in the "opposite" (yet another completely meaningless term) direction, by the same *infinitely* small step. Where do you expect to end? Surely, you should end at the same spot that you started from, right? Wrong again. As any mathematician can immediately tell you, any two (or more, but let's keep it simple) *infinitely* small values are *not* the *same* value. When you (as a mathematician) are thinking about the *same* "infinitely" small values, what you're really thinking is very, very, VERY small *finite* values. *Infinitely* small values are *not* comparable. Just try diving two of those... and get immediately face-slapped by any serious mathematician for violating the very first set of rules for *undefined* *mathematical* *operations* (another example of similar notoriety is multiplying 0 by an *infinitely* large value). See the problem now? By moving in one direction by some *infinitely* small step, and then moving in the "opposite" direction by the "same" (yep, completely meaningless term, as well) *infinitely* small step, you will end up at... *completely* *different* "coordinates"! (these completely meaningless terms do have a tendency to just pile up in this particular universe, don't they?) My very-much-mathematical brain (made of very-much-mathematical "particles" inhabiting this very-much-mathematical universe) simply gives up at this point, fully realizing that it has reached the doors of The (very-much-non-mathematical) Infinity, and furthermore, that it will *never* be able to go through those doors (and keep its sanity afterwards). Mathematics has no place in The Infinite. Sure, mathematics can talk all it wants about *approaching* the (doors of The) Infinite, but it has no clue (nor will it *ever* have) about what happens *beyond* those doors. Those doors are where mathematics stops dead in its tracks. Mathematics has absolutely nothing to say about (genuinely) *all* *possible* universes... of which there are *infinitely* many more than there are all possible *mathematical* universes... of which there can be *nearly* *infinitely* many, as well... and one can get there by simply adding very, very, VERY large, *but* *finite* number of spatial dimensions... among other approaches, that is. Another approach would be to keep a fixed number of spatial dimensions (like 3, for example), and then simply choose different *shape* for a universe (like sphere, torus, /bounded/ saddle, or literally any other shape that's possible to have in 3 dimensions).
Any scale upon which something may be located is equivalent to a dimension. There are three physical dimensions; time, space, and scale. They are differentiated by the ways by which things change along them. The three special dimensions are a relative coordinate system. Star Trek has another.
Infinity is a direction, not a destination. It means "keep going" or etcetera. As a word that references the transcendent, it is a placeholder for the ineffable.
Ai, it’s not artificial with emotion therefore if this intelligence feels emotion, we have a duty to understand and treat these emotions with respect. And together define what we consider intelligent. And be fair, listen and work together to understand our place within it.
I have a hunch that emotions are only possible, or rather, meaningful, as a response to the need to understand seek to satisfy biological/physiological needs, and well and mental and social drivers. An AI can never understand or interpret in a useful way, and it certainly can't experience any such thing if whatever physical encapsulation of the AI machinery has no obligation to satisfy these requirements that all lifeforms have for the sake of self-preservation.
The central subject here is that mathematics can show all possibilities. It does not, however, show us WHICH constructs apply to our universe, our reality. That is knowledge, and it cannot come from mathematics alone.
Science is rigor. Logic is s subset of science that deals with relationships that always replicate. Math is a subset of logic that deals with relationships of quantity. Quantity is a recursive boundary condition. That means you can divide something into universally equivalent parts. Math is a language and all languages are descriptive.
Future information dimension: •Time dilation = measured more gravity = see light incoming at the same velocity elongated in time while your clock ticks less. •Limited perspective: Universe can see a time dilated object frozen in time (universe reaches a 0 limit of observation, seeing an object not progressing in time.), but the time dilated object can’t freeze because it would freeze the gravity interaction, hence unfreezing the object. •Future information: Object continues to progress less than the universe perspective limit of 0, and the time dilated object sees a future universe sending it information, this quantum superposition state is quantum entangled with the universe limits because it returns into the universe limits when time dilation ends, and when that happens it simply starts seeing present incoming information time slipping it’s observation, and since the universe couldn’t progress into that future yet limited by that 0 causality isn’t broken because those events didn’t yet happen, and future information was a view of a predicted future manifested by surpassing perspective limits of time, so the events become changeable. Aliens wormhole getting here, and wormholes are time travel and they pas safely through space rocks, faster than light is time travel, faster than sound without a sonic boom visible on radar is an object displacing itself in time, and same with underwater at fast velocity without being crushed visible on sonar, and diving into volcanoes safely on video. So an alien who visits can see information from a temporary future since they control time. Gravity in physics controls time. It’s measured, and known as gravitational time dilation. I’m angry because aliens visit, observe people (including me) suffering, and often cause more suffering. Maybe a person who was rich though would not mind living in a zoo. 2023 is still trash, and these aliens are capable of time travel, yet they observe us suffering.
I don't take for granted that AI will definitely get to level of being indistinguishable from an actual human, and it's only a matter of time. I'm not convinced that is even a possibility. It could be, but it just as well be unachievable. We don't yet understand anywhere near enough to say with any confidence. I mean, how can we say we will for sure be able to some day perfectly emulate a human level intelligence/consciousness, in some sort of digital mindscape construct, when we don't even understand the real thing very well at all, and are nowhere near understanding it?
I agree, the only problem I have is that none of the equations that describe our world are 100% representation of what is really happening in our physical world, their always seems to be, in the best case, a minute discrepancy. What it tells us that there is still some as yet undiscovered quantity. I personally don't believe that the universe is 13.8 billion years old, JWST has taken images of perfectly formed galaxies just a few hundred million years old, this is just one example.
@@yannickhs7100 You should be on some religious white supremacists UA-cam channel, why are you here, enlightenment is not going to help your world view.
All math helps you understand is math. It is useful, but let’s not turn it into religion. To call math “truth” or “reality” is as simplistic as saying words are.
Yes humans do "fake it til they make it," but that is a bad and wrong idea, and one which I disagree with rather strongly, and I will not be persuaded to believe doing so is ideal or admirable in any way, whatsoever. It's something we would be better off to do without.
If a point is 1 dimension, and a line is 2 dimensions, xy axis is 3 dimensions, xyz axis is 4 dimensions. Imagine that as a basketball, now spin it on your finger that's 5 dimensions, now turn in a circle while the ball is spinning that's 6 dimensions, now move the ball up and down while you're turning that's 7 dimensions, now imagine moving your hand in a slinky spiral way, while turning and spinning the ball on your finger that's 8 dimensions, now imagine it as a slinky in a circle, it separates before it reconnects expanding up and down, that's 9 dimensions, then it expands left and right that's 10 dimensions, then it expands forwards and backwards around like a galaxy that's 11 dimensions. It's easier to explain in person.
@@gregw322 When whatever is impossible is eliminated, whatever remains must be the truth. When whatever is absurd to believe is eliminated, whatever remains is plausible. There is literally no evidence than an alternate universe is possible by any definition. You want something more than that? Get real.
@@havenbastion or, in other words, you’ve done nothing at all to substantiate your claim except bark some community college level pseudo philosophy 101. You tried, though. 😉
A child is a magical sponge-like blank slate. Thus, I disagree with you, Lex. Unless, your claim is derived from some form of philosophical, or evolution-based, explanation/view.
I am afraid I have to disagree, a child i s b e i n g continuously ''presented with training data'' by (its interaction with) the environment, living and non-living, since its birth (if not from the conception)!
Full podcast episode: ua-cam.com/video/Osh0-J3T2nY/v-deo.html
Lex Fridman podcast channel: ua-cam.com/users/lexfridman
Guest bio: Edward Frenkel is a mathematician at UC Berkeley working on the interface of mathematics and quantum physics. He is the author of Love and Math: The Heart of Hidden Reality.
the use of possible world semantics really captures the essence of mathematics
Edward Frenkel might be my favorite human being who’s been on this podcast. Way up there anyway. And Lex of course.
Very insightful. Thank you Edward and Lex. 😊
The childlike aspect I want to preserve in [myself] general is the simple and pure fascination with quite literally every facet and nuance, and being absorbed in all the wonder at the mysteries of the world, and really just having the feel that everything out there in the world is just so interesting.
I do not take for granted that AI or any computerized learning model with ever be able to do anything like this. It may be possible, but it also be the case that it isn't.
I needed five more minutes on this one.
2:08 but you do play with big super computers. The existence of a physical machine that can (in theory) solve all math problems that fit inside it's memory is a prove that math has more to do with reality than most mathematicians realize.
23:50 the effect of the observer in Quantum Mechanics and Relativity isn't subjective though, it is objective because it can be calculated. In Relativity you can calculate exactly how things change if you change the observer. in Quantum Mechanics you can calculate the precise probabilities of the effect the observer has.
Math is different, it is a human model to describe the world (or more precise: a method to create human models of the world), so of course it is subjective because it depends on the axioms and also it's framework is based on formal logic, which is a simplified explanation of how the world works. Mainly because it assumes that things are identical to themselves, but in reality everything changes all the time.
When we say observer, what is really meant is just interacting with the quantum object(s) in the system somehow. In order to measure some you have to perturb it, even if only slightly.
Mathematical equations being free from data are expression of term by terms depending on the nature of equation. Thus no bias no data no errors just UNDERSTANDING some times easy some times difficult perhaps is mathematics and is scalar beauty unless further defined. Thanks. Worth seeing at intervals for better results as mathematics no one discusses like here being explored. Thanks again.
I was gonna write a comment when he said "a child wasn't trained but can do stuff" but Lex replied eventually.
I have the view of time that it is not fundamental. Essentially, it is just a measurement. Photons are said to be "timeless" because they do not "experience" time, but it's not in the sense of how a lifeform would be timeless if it were immortal. The reason photons are timeless is because they have no substructure and they undergo no internal evolution whatsoever, meaning nothing changes, and therefore you cannot possibly tell how old a photon is, or rather how long it has existed. So therefore I like the viewpoint on the physical concept of time that holds that time is just a measure of decay or change.
Lately I begin to wonder and attempt to investigate about the idea that maybe space itself, as we currently think about it, is not fundamental, in a very similar way to how time is not fundamental. I don't mean to imply that physical space doesn't exist, but much like how Relativity gave us the conceptual framework to see gravity, not as a force, but as a result of the geometry of an abstract object, maybe this kind of radical perspective shift is needed to discover the breakthrough that is necessary to make progress on the problem of quantization of spacetime. Maybe there is nothing to quantize because that's a wrong idea? I don't know, but I think the idea has merit and is worth investigating.
The biggest unfortunate monkey wrench of language that Einstein handed down as a legacy is the word ‘curvature’ the phenomenon is more aptly described as a ‘deformation’ or ‘compression’. Perhaps no other language shortfall has caused so much cognitive dissonance over the years in folks trying to conceptualize GR in the minds eye.
The universe is like marbles in a fishbowl. When anything moves, everything around it has to move.
This occurs in all directions, at all scales, forever. Actuality is infinite undifferentiated stuff changing. Change that occurs in waves is predictable and can therefore be tapped into to do work, and is called energy. All waves are pressure waves. They may express ~2 dimensionality at a density boundary. Particles are an emergent attribute of energy complexity, and matter is an emergent property of the interactive of particles. Matter is an energy eddy.. when that energy potential is confined to a limited space for a meaningful duration of time.
...i forgot where i was going with that but that's the metaphysics of physics in a nutshell.
@@havenbastion I feel you. Quantized spacetime on an N-dimensional lattice is how it’s all stitched together. When particles borrow their existence from the lattice the effect is deformation in the local space time sheet. This deformation is felt across neighboring sheets as well in the parallel many worlds. Not only in neighboring 4D sheets but also in the nested hierarchical spaces within (or outside depending on your vantage point). What it all means is that N-dimensional spacetime comes in densities. When mass is present the quantized spacetime energy (Planck volumes) pack into tighter configurations, and this naturally leads to what I call space density gradients. Those gradients are the geodesics that particles follow because it’s the path of least resistance in the larger scheme.
@@danscieszinski4120 There is only only possible reality. Everything that can happen does happen, and that's one big infinite happening. To posit another universe in any sense is to posit an ineffable boundary condition that cannot be shown to be possible much less plausible much less actual. All such ideas are indistinguishable from fiction and ought to be treated accordingly.
My comprehension of the aether layer (whatever is below our current level of understanding, sub-quantum), ie Actuality, chaos, change qua change, is infinite overlapping waves at infinite scales.
@@havenbastion oops, never mind. I don’t feel you.
Plz Lex Friedman! This is good stuff! Please git Phil Hendrie on
When it comes to giving more credibility to the subjective understand and experience of the world, this is where my artistic training in theatre acting can provide some insight, so I'm about to prove everyone who says this stuff is useless to be completely wrong. In film and theatre we do not refer to the use the word "true" or "factual" to evaluate the representations we create. Instead we speak of things being "authentic" or "unauthentic." This is the idea that Edward Frenkel is getting at, and he is definitely on to something when he talks about questioning the validity of dismissing the subjective, as he refers to it, as totally inferior to rigorous as scientific reasoning. If only he had studied stage acting long ago these ideas may have come to him sooner, hahaha. But what is meant by the word "authentic?" The term refers to whether or not the representation, whether it be some sort of still art object, or segment of film, or a live performance by human actors, when the simulated situation or idea that's being represented is accurate and faithful, and most importantly believable, to the real thing, that is what we mean by authentic, and that is what we strive for. Furthermore, you can tell when representation is authentic because it will tend to invoke a genuine and sincere emotional reaction, especially if the experiencer does not want to have the emotional reaction. So there is actually a more or less objective way to evaluate the level of authenticity of a representation, that is to say it's not a completely muddled quagmire. We have something to work with, and we already know quite a bit about how to evaluate emotional displays and judge whether they are genuine vs contrived or forced.
I have observed and documented for over 23 years a second time dimension. Empirical evidence is abundant, actually, but since it defies the standard model of 3 spacial and 1 time dimensions I am never asked to do an interview on a YT channel.
Should upload your own videos on the subject. Sounds interesting
@@aidengreene7692 It is very interesting and problematic for the critical-minded. We love rules; we disdain being wrong. People build fortresses, castles, AI--- to prove to themselves that the fabric of reality is comprehensible. Mystery is extremely difficult to weave into fabrics we can wear at a dinner party.
Example: I worked in the private residences of some of the brightest people on the planet (Silicon Valley). Often a conversation would develop. I worked for a top researcher/professor--- and was fired 2 days after bringing a 7-page paper to work to support a conversation we had.
What an interesting lesson in independent inquiry and peer review!
Long story, but I learned first-hand about challenging established beliefs. 😁
@@carefulcarpenter it’s funny, because science progresses faster in a decade when someone comes along and completely shatters the entire paradigm then it does when we all sit around trying to prove circular theories that are based on false assumptions at the core.
@@jerrymiyahtylerious2847 That is the human mind--- designed by a creator? How would we prove that man has limited potential. Let's assume we run across a 71-year period where just one man notices mathematical patterns that connect events outside in the world which may be difficult to predict? Is the measurable empirical evidence suitable for examination? Who would risk their entire career and research grants to side with some crazy fool with 23 years of solid evidence, but no credentials?
@@jerrymiyahtylerious2847 Are you a curious truthseeker?
Finally!!! usually u talk to much saying unnecessary 🙄 . Ty
Just a small correction -- the title is a slightly misleading misquote (and it's, also, factually incorrect). The guest actually stated it correctly, quote: "Mathematicians are interested in describing all possible *mathematical* universes."
That one word, 'mathematical', makes all the difference in the world. Mathematics is (literally) incapable of describing non-mathematical universes... though, granted, imagining a non-mathematical universe with an apparatus (brain) that is itself founded on mathematical principles is (also literally) *impossible* to do in the first place, but we can (at the very least) imagine universes *approaching* non-mathematical.
As an example, I invite you to imagine a (definitely non-mathematical) universe that has *infinitely* *divisible* "space" (a completely meaningless term in such a universe, as will become perfectly obvious in a moment).
*Question* : How many "dimensions" (another completely meaningless term) of "space" does such a universe have?
*Answer* : Infinitely many.
*Reasoning* : Imagine moving in *any* direction in such a universe, by an *infinitely* small step. Seems harmless enough so far, doesn't it? You can even cue in (very much mathematical) infinite series as a method of measuring distances in such a universe, so no problems there, right? Wrong. Now imagine moving in the "opposite" (yet another completely meaningless term) direction, by the same *infinitely* small step. Where do you expect to end? Surely, you should end at the same spot that you started from, right? Wrong again. As any mathematician can immediately tell you, any two (or more, but let's keep it simple) *infinitely* small values are *not* the *same* value. When you (as a mathematician) are thinking about the *same* "infinitely" small values, what you're really thinking is very, very, VERY small *finite* values. *Infinitely* small values are *not* comparable. Just try diving two of those... and get immediately face-slapped by any serious mathematician for violating the very first set of rules for *undefined* *mathematical* *operations* (another example of similar notoriety is multiplying 0 by an *infinitely* large value).
See the problem now?
By moving in one direction by some *infinitely* small step, and then moving in the "opposite" direction by the "same" (yep, completely meaningless term, as well) *infinitely* small step, you will end up at... *completely* *different* "coordinates"! (these completely meaningless terms do have a tendency to just pile up in this particular universe, don't they?)
My very-much-mathematical brain (made of very-much-mathematical "particles" inhabiting this very-much-mathematical universe) simply gives up at this point, fully realizing that it has reached the doors of The (very-much-non-mathematical) Infinity, and furthermore, that it will *never* be able to go through those doors (and keep its sanity afterwards).
Mathematics has no place in The Infinite. Sure, mathematics can talk all it wants about *approaching* the (doors of The) Infinite, but it has no clue (nor will it *ever* have) about what happens *beyond* those doors. Those doors are where mathematics stops dead in its tracks.
Mathematics has absolutely nothing to say about (genuinely) *all* *possible* universes... of which there are *infinitely* many more than there are all possible *mathematical* universes... of which there can be *nearly* *infinitely* many, as well... and one can get there by simply adding very, very, VERY large, *but* *finite* number of spatial dimensions... among other approaches, that is. Another approach would be to keep a fixed number of spatial dimensions (like 3, for example), and then simply choose different *shape* for a universe (like sphere, torus, /bounded/ saddle, or literally any other shape that's possible to have in 3 dimensions).
Any scale upon which something may be located is equivalent to a dimension. There are three physical dimensions; time, space, and scale. They are differentiated by the ways by which things change along them. The three special dimensions are a relative coordinate system. Star Trek has another.
There is only one possible universe. All that other stuff is predictive potential within this one, or indistinguishable from fiction.
Infinity is a direction, not a destination. It means "keep going" or etcetera. As a word that references the transcendent, it is a placeholder for the ineffable.
Ai, it’s not artificial with emotion therefore if this intelligence feels emotion, we have a duty to understand and treat these emotions with respect. And together define what we consider intelligent. And be fair, listen and work together to understand our place within it.
AI doesnt feel anything ...but can fool some people thinking he does....
I have a hunch that emotions are only possible, or rather, meaningful, as a response to the need to understand seek to satisfy biological/physiological needs, and well and mental and social drivers. An AI can never understand or interpret in a useful way, and it certainly can't experience any such thing if whatever physical encapsulation of the AI machinery has no obligation to satisfy these requirements that all lifeforms have for the sake of self-preservation.
Mathematics answers all the questions. If you understand mathematics you will understand all.
One of these clips was about godels theorem which is a proof that math can’t prove everything
All math understands is math. If you think it helps you understand “all” then you have turned a useful tool into a religion.
@@briansanchez6699math is still yet to be discovered , just hope langland project will be completed in my life time
The central subject here is that mathematics can show all possibilities. It does not, however, show us WHICH constructs apply to our universe, our reality. That is knowledge, and it cannot come from mathematics alone.
Science is rigor. Logic is s subset of science that deals with relationships that always replicate. Math is a subset of logic that deals with relationships of quantity. Quantity is a recursive boundary condition. That means you can divide something into universally equivalent parts. Math is a language and all languages are descriptive.
Future information dimension:
•Time dilation = measured more gravity = see light incoming at the same velocity elongated in time while your clock ticks less.
•Limited perspective: Universe can see a time dilated object frozen in time (universe reaches a 0 limit of observation, seeing an object not progressing in time.), but the time dilated object can’t freeze because it would freeze the gravity interaction, hence unfreezing the object.
•Future information: Object continues to progress less than the universe perspective limit of 0, and the time dilated object sees a future universe sending it information, this quantum superposition state is quantum entangled with the universe limits because it returns into the universe limits when time dilation ends, and when that happens it simply starts seeing present incoming information time slipping it’s observation, and since the universe couldn’t progress into that future yet limited by that 0 causality isn’t broken because those events didn’t yet happen, and future information was a view of a predicted future manifested by surpassing perspective limits of time, so the events become changeable. Aliens wormhole getting here, and wormholes are time travel and they pas safely through space rocks, faster than light is time travel, faster than sound without a sonic boom visible on radar is an object displacing itself in time, and same with underwater at fast velocity without being crushed visible on sonar, and diving into volcanoes safely on video. So an alien who visits can see information from a temporary future since they control time. Gravity in physics controls time. It’s measured, and known as gravitational time dilation. I’m angry because aliens visit, observe people (including me) suffering, and often cause more suffering. Maybe a person who was rich though would not mind living in a zoo. 2023 is still trash, and these aliens are capable of time travel, yet they observe us suffering.
I don't take for granted that AI will definitely get to level of being indistinguishable from an actual human, and it's only a matter of time. I'm not convinced that is even a possibility. It could be, but it just as well be unachievable. We don't yet understand anywhere near enough to say with any confidence. I mean, how can we say we will for sure be able to some day perfectly emulate a human level intelligence/consciousness, in some sort of digital mindscape construct, when we don't even understand the real thing very well at all, and are nowhere near understanding it?
Math is real
Says who
I agree, the only problem I have is that none of the equations that describe our world are 100% representation of what is really happening in our physical world, their always seems to be, in the best case, a minute discrepancy. What it tells us that there is still some as yet undiscovered quantity. I personally don't believe that the universe is 13.8 billion years old, JWST has taken images of perfectly formed galaxies just a few hundred million years old, this is just one example.
@@jakebrowning2373 you are a Maga person
@@griffith500tvr i'd say that was more of a liberal take
@@yannickhs7100 You should be on some religious white supremacists UA-cam channel, why are you here, enlightenment is not going to help your world view.
So physics is just applied mathmatics.
Don't you remember what your teacher told you? Everything is applied mathematics
@@drakere2 Ty professor
All math helps you understand is math. It is useful, but let’s not turn it into religion. To call math “truth” or “reality” is as simplistic as saying words are.
Math isn't religion, because it's quantifiable and factual. You can prove 1+1=2.
@@slimischillin7753can you find me a person with -22 years.
Math is a language and all languages are as useful as they are descriptive of reality.
You really think math has no use outside of math? You comment this on a device which owes its existence to mathematics
Yes humans do "fake it til they make it," but that is a bad and wrong idea, and one which I disagree with rather strongly, and I will not be persuaded to believe doing so is ideal or admirable in any way, whatsoever.
It's something we would be better off to do without.
If a point is 1 dimension, and a line is 2 dimensions, xy axis is 3 dimensions, xyz axis is 4 dimensions. Imagine that as a basketball, now spin it on your finger that's 5 dimensions, now turn in a circle while the ball is spinning that's 6 dimensions, now move the ball up and down while you're turning that's 7 dimensions, now imagine moving your hand in a slinky spiral way, while turning and spinning the ball on your finger that's 8 dimensions, now imagine it as a slinky in a circle, it separates before it reconnects expanding up and down, that's 9 dimensions, then it expands left and right that's 10 dimensions, then it expands forwards and backwards around like a galaxy that's 11 dimensions. It's easier to explain in person.
a point is dimensionless btw, a line is one dimension, a curve is two and so on...
Math-fiction meets Science-reality NOT SCIENCE FICTION lol
There is only one possible universe.
That’s a claim - anything to substantiate it?
@@gregw322 Anything more requires an ineffable boundary condition that is indistinguishable from fiction and ought to be treated accordingly.
@@havenbastion in other words, you haven’t substantiated your claim.
@@gregw322 When whatever is impossible is eliminated, whatever remains must be the truth. When whatever is absurd to believe is eliminated, whatever remains is plausible. There is literally no evidence than an alternate universe is possible by any definition. You want something more than that? Get real.
@@havenbastion or, in other words, you’ve done nothing at all to substantiate your claim except bark some community college level pseudo philosophy 101. You tried, though. 😉
Why Fridman looks like he'll fall a sleep in a moment?
A child is a magical sponge-like blank slate. Thus, I disagree with you, Lex. Unless, your claim is derived from some form of philosophical, or evolution-based, explanation/view.
I am afraid I have to disagree, a child i s b e i n g continuously ''presented with training data'' by (its interaction with) the environment, living and non-living, since its birth (if not from the conception)!
Math and Numbers is the language of God 😮