I’z having a moody night, was channel surfing, saw this program, was meh (quite familiar with this topic), saw your comment & thought: “Yeah, I need a smile”… .. throughly enjoyed the program & Max (with whom I concur concerning this question), smile in tow, played a significant part.. thx J A. 💙 Group Hug 🤗
Brian... your humility and grace here truly warms my heart... you are certainly and awesome human being... I have bought your books and enjoyed them immensely, may the universe smile on you!
I don’t think there could be hours of this. I mean you’re not just going to say feeling through an evening of science company. I don’t know. But surely not
I go to sleep to them...love this stuff even though I don't understand any of it. There is so much insipid stupidity in today's world, and all this anti science stuff trumpers are pushing, that I just like to hear INTELLIGENT people talking.
Why you are thankfull to this people sons of Cain ? They are destroying humans and all creations . With there crispr tech is dangerous to humans and everything that live on this planet .
I loved the show two weeks ago, and I was thrilled to see Max and you, Brian, in an hour-long conversation about math and reality. Thank you very much!
He is a fantastic presenter of science. That is his niche. I don't think he does that much research anymore because he is like a mini celebrity in physics. He is one of the best known names, but they don't hand out Nobel prizes for noteriety. What he does, bringing theoretical physics to the masses, is an extremely important endeavor however
I think he deserves a Nobel prize in litterature : it is a real incredible litterary accomplishment to do what he does : offer the possibility to understand very complicated physics with words. Very few scientists could do this (Gamov, Abbott, …) and this deserves recognition !
You two are great! Watching those wheels chug and churn is (awesome). Brian, you are amazingly objective. You seem to have this ability to resist comfortable ownership of an idea, at least to a point that your willingness to ask questions and continue learning is obvious. Max, you are great too, from a layman, your love of difficult questions definitely has not gone away. You smile with absolute excitement when you hear ideas. What a blessing you are for us. Both you and Brian, I want to make so clear, are appreciated so much for your abilities to Utilize Math to Discover, at the same time bring it down to Earth for us to enjoy.
Max Tegmark: Can't you see? It's all mathematics, bro! Brian Greene: When you're a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. And mathematics is just a really awesome hammer, my dude.
I wonder if we could replace Max's use of the word "Math" with the word "Framework". Everything exists within a framework and that framework is defined with a "Logic".
Thank you Brian and Max for a wonderful conversation and letting us ride along! Love all that you do and share. My title suggestion for next show: “Language - evolutions expression of thought”
I'm in love with the Science Festival because it exposes the magic of science. It exposes the garden where the incubation of theory takes shape. A passerby would call the roots of all of these conversations boil down philosophy but, it is a laboratory of the the mind that relentlessly pushes the confines of the human condition in the pursuit of persective. It is a beautiful contorsion for the purpose of a establishing a measurable quantity. To me it is what defines science itself and I am grateful for having my eyes opened and stretched beyond my passing by.
Programs like this are so important, I don't think Brian understand show important. When I was younger, I was fascinated by higher mathematics, but also intimidated by it. By "higher" mathematics I just mean anything more intense than general math- algebra, trig., calc., etc.- So when I got old enough to actually take it and found out I was actually very good at it- I was so proud of that fact. Neither of my parents had ever studied anything more than general math so- it was like Greek to them and the rest of my family- who were all farmers and blue collar laborers- which made me feel special. But I hated the fact that I was just memorizing steps and didn't really understand how to apply any of the math I was learning. Then along comes physics- and man I fell in love immediately. It was math in motion- I could see it, touch it- it was real. And now some of the "rules" I had memorized starting making sense to me- but it was just a taste of the real thing. We didn't have a teacher who could teach anything past the bare, bare minimum of Newtonian physics. Looking back I feel so sorry for the teachers I did have because they knew that I was hungry for it, they knew that if I had someone to teach me- to inspire me- that this could be just the beginning. But what could they do- they simply weren't qualified, and the school felt there weren't enough of us kids who progressed far enough past general math to justify having a course like this. In other words- the school sold their kids short. And this wasn't back in the 60s or something- I graduated in 1991. But I went to school in North Alabama- a very small, rural place- with a history of blue collar working ppl who didn't go to college or value education much. Anyway- had there been programs like this back then- I honestly think my life would've gone a whole different direction. I did go to college- but I didn't graduate. Don't want to get into why because this would be far too long of a post then- already is. But you guys have to keep going- if you inspire even one kid like me to go on and try- go for it, that they can do it- it's so worth it. It's very hard when you come from such small, humble beginnings to see yourself as being capable of contributing to such huge questions.
Additionally, I've always considered mathematics as a language, very special and distinct from other languages in that it can and does completely quantify things. As a formal logic, we see that mathematics is as real as logic itself.
I can never get tired of watching these discussions and documentaries about the nature of reality, universe etc. To be honest I have a bit of envy for people who are the greatest minds of our time with such intelligence allowing them to be the pioneers of contemporary science. Greene and Tedmark are for sure two of these people. Thanks for this wonderful talk. As for the title of the next topic (language) I would suggest "The thought that gave us language".
You are being unfair to yourself! Reading you shows that you are very intelligent. These dudes are highly educated and focused. I like them too but I sincerely do not find them more intelligent than you, others reading this and me. Humbleness can be unscientific. Arrogance is never acceptable.
Extremely interesting! Many thanks. We as human beings, but also complex animals, have to integrate thousands of signals (besides basic stimuli like vision, sound, smell ....) permanently almost instantaneously and our brain HAS to make a kind of summary with a specific outcome of all of that information in order to allow a being to position itselfs in this new context. Of coarse we have to perceive this integrated message otherwise it all would make no sense and we would simply not be aware that we "are". To be conscious is thus, according to me, an absolute must to be able to survive and it becomes gradually more complex when you clime up in the tree of animal hierarchie. Intelligence is something completely different. Often one says that being extremely logic is a kind of measure for intelligence; but there are other forms of intelligence in which for example making a useful connection between very distant topics helps to quickly solve a problem. Solving the mystery of consciousness is of great importance, but intelligence is so relative since soooo may intelligent people are stupid.
Two people fundamentally disagreeing on their viewpoint but still coming together to understand the other point of view, and at times admire the insight the other side offers. This is what the world needs more of! One of the best discussions I've seen lately!
You guys are so brilliant. Much love. Totally on the edge of my seat for both sides of the argument, absolutely subtle and nuanced undertaking of this incredible topic with genuine care taken to understanding eachothers positions. Classy, and intellectually adventurous. Edit: Also im pretty sure Brian Greene is a closeted Platonist
Excellent and an interview and discussion I've been waiting for. What jumped out at me especially was the repeated talk about humility. That word kept popping up. I think that in our negative culture, it is not PC to be non-humble. There are people who should rightly be humble: they are not exceptional or outstanding in anything. Then there are those who are not just good but great, at what they do or invent. I find it dishonest for such people to be so humble. In other words, humility is often overrated as always applicable to everyone. It's about the same as people who do something outstanding, and when complimented say "Oh, that's just a little thing" or similar. They feel they have to downplay what is a genuine accomplishment and worthy of being especially good or unique. It's dishonest to not admit it when something is such, and instead say "Thank you for the compliment." Those of us old enough to remember Mohamed Ali, the boxer, remember him saying after winning "I am the greatest!" And he was. An honest fact. As Dizzy Dean said, "If you've really done it, it's not bragging." Well, for myself, I like people who brag; I find it honest, as long as they aren't your typical blowhard talking fantasy, but based in fact.
I think neither of them is referring to the humility (or the hubris) of an individual, but rather the humility (or the hubris) of the entire human species ... and of science, etc. ... and even the humility (or the hubris) of a viewpoint.
-Numerical linguistics -Speaking in digits -math and language, one and the same -the united universe (or world) of mathematics -understanding universality of the nature of mathematics -math and the human experience (or condition) -math in all and everything -math and beyond our dimension -everything as math -The language of our mathematical universe By: German Escalante
I remember starting my first year studies while reading your books to relax and now I see you both bouncing ideas back and forth on my screen, and I think to myself what a wonderful world :)
I was amazed at how math can proof out the way the world works when I took up to two years of chemistry and up to multi variable calculus in college. It work and flowed so well, kinda unreal.
Wrote my undergrad capstone for Philosophy in universal language. I noted more than once that science is the great epitome of human communication. It is more common than any other language. Glad to see Physics and Philosophy being emphasized again. It ebbs and flows throughout history. Love Greene and his books. Really helped me understand more about Physics.
I'm thankful to have listened to this stream.I'm a huge fan of Brian and Max yet they don't know that I exist so either they don't take my mathematics into equation or I don't exist!
38:00 I once saw a bubble entertainer blow 6 bubbles all connected to each other and what happened in the centre was that a cube was formed. Thus a cube exists right. Surely the same thing could apply with the dodecahedron. Or was Prof Greene only talking about naturally occuring forms?
this dialogue had more tension and suspense than the new Top Gun film. That being said, Dr Green's perspective on the existence of something made more sense to me. A thing exists if it has a physical feature that allows you to experiment it, or would allow you to experiment it if you could somehow bent space and time or travel through dimensions. I feel Max is referring to ideas being real, or "in existence", but ideas themselves are a description of what ultimately we call reality
I’ve recently heard a theory from my prof. about life being akin to little eddies/whirlpools in the entropic river of time. Wasn’t sure if this was fringe or something that more well-known physicists subscribe to? And if there’s any mathematics that supports the notion?
Sounds like the "vortex" hypotheses that I think were popular in the 1800s and then had a resurgence in pop-sci in the 1970s. Fringe for sure. It's a cute metaphor, but doesn't get you far.
@@NoActuallyGo-KCUF-Yourself you probably mean that you fail to see how that would get *you* far, rather than using this _borderline_ condescending affirmation, about a topic even great people such as Brian and Max disagree but overall, stay humble and open-minded...
I sit around and think about this stuff all the time. So satisfying to listen to this discussion between two amazing scientists. Thank you. If I found myself at dinner sitting next to Witten, I can’t imaging being able to say anything meaningful after asking him to please pass the salt.
I wonder if we could replace Max's use of the word "Math" with the word "Framework". Everything exists within a framework and that framework is defined with a "Logic".
Hello Mr.Greene, thank you for all these beauiful programs that all of you at WSF are giving to us. Here is my suggestion for the title of the next program: "What came first, Language or Thought?" Anyway, apart from the title, I'm sure the next talk will be very interesting. Once again, thank you because in these times a larger amount of people need this kind of brain nourishment.
That being said, I wish my brain could process math better. You two are among the best people on earth. Your physics / AI stances and conversations enthrall me. Things a simple man like me has no business putting thought into. So thank both of you very much.
"The consciousness of the spoken thoughts" - A suggestion for the Title of next discussion with Noam Chomsky. And thanks for making these discussions happen!
This is like the epitome of human evolution. Listening to Brian Green & Max Tegmark and how even they kept and open mind even changed their own perspectives is gold...It's as if keeping and open mind drives evolution forward.
That was a great conversation. I watched "Does math reveal reality" too. And now I am looking forward to next one. I thought mathematics and beauty, or aesthetics could be a nice topic too. Thank you very much. .
This is a great discussion. My father and I had similar discussions starting with "where's up ?" The question of existence and is math real is the same question one can ask about computers. Does the hardware exist? Of course. Does the software exist ? It is not physical certainly but with the right hardware the existence of software is clear. Mathematics is akin to the software. It is not physical per se but the concepts are physically expressed on paper, in computing machines etc.
Good analogy, I had the same thought. In order for the software to work it needs to run inside the hardware. The reason physics is struggling to push to the next frontier is they're trying to discover the mathematical equations to also describe the hardware i.e. what creates space-time (hardware) what exactly is time and why do feel it going from one moment to moment (hardware and software?) what is consciousness (this is most likely extremely sophisticated software that we haven't been able to grasp yet) very thought provoking and extremely incredible to ponder on
Thanks for your content. It improves life for so many of us. Title suggestions: Thus Spoke Mankind. How does language fit into the equation? Was language invented or discovered?
I know I already commented but it's my birthday and I was given your book as a gift! I'm super excited to look into your mind a little bit and have already read the first chapter. I can relate so much to this and have even asked myself some of the exact same questions. I cannot wait to read more!
I'm wondering if Brian Greene thinks that string theory is correct, I know it's his work and he's the expert. But being it's not a proven thing, I wonder if he thinks it's correct or still trying to find out?
@@Llerrah508 UA-cam and any of the big search engine’s, I’ve watched him on lots of podcasts and interviews, there’s some on the world science festival too.
Every mathematical object is conscious(panpsychism). It's not that there are functions on our bodies that are not conscious, but they are packets of consciousness that are not connected and therefore not aware of one another. This is demonstrated with the "corpus callosum cut" experiment.
@@2CSST2 math exist in the universe, they are not same thing, is like saying language or ideas are the universe, is just pure game words. i just create one, of course you can always define a function that maps one element of a space to any building element of the universe, that would make a 1:1 onto function of the universe, but is just words.
@@ivanleon6164 but you're just affirming that, you have no evidence yourself. It could very well be that the universe itself is a mathematical structure, it would provide the best explanation for why it exists at all which is a sort of evidence for it, the universe exists because it couldn't possibly be otherwise and that's what math is: the freedom from contradiction. Do you have any other explanation for the existence of the universe that's as powerful? Also math is definitely not like any other language or idea, the symbols used yes, but the patterns they describe themselves like the dodecahedron are beyond language and symbols. That's the mathematical structure, different from a mathematical language used to describe it. Last point, you say you could 'just define' a function that maps 1:1 but that's easier said than done. Now it's really just words, give me the function that maps 1:1 with the behavior of the sun, meaning every state of every single particle. If you went ahead, you would actually hit a wall due to the randomness of quantum mechanics. The best you could do then is say: 'at this point the behavior is purely random'. And that leads to the next point: the fact that pure randomness only arises at a very fundamental level. Instead, randomness could happen at every hierarchical level. Then you actually couldn't describe anything to any significant level with a function. The fact that it isn't like that is another evidence that the universe is a mathematical structure. And what's more, the randomness at the quantum level itself disappears if the Many Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is true, which would mean reality would be purely non random, definitely making it clear that it could itself the ensemble of all possible mathematical structure.
@@2CSST2 i agree, i cant define it myself. Yes the universe is rigged by laws that can be described by math, I agree. But I don't agree on the randomness, to be random there must be some source for that randomness, then how is decided, even that should follow rules, the randomness we describe is only to the incapacity to predict or to know that source rules.
Well, the assignment at the end of the s to know the math for time travel. Obviously you got it right, and at the end you’ll loop back again. Now you’re stuck forever.
“In Cosmology we are off by a factor of 10 to the 120… This is the largest mismatch between theory and experiment in the history of science.” - Dr Michio Kaku.
As someone who very much agrees with the whole of Max's view, it was interesting to hear some of Brian's pushback arguments on it, but I believe there some refutations possible to them. 1) One big point he made was that you can't interact with a dodecahedron in a way that you can with an atom for example, but I think we actually can and do, just not directly. I always like to bring it back to the simplest example, the fact that 1+1 =2 . Can we shine light on that and see what's reflected? No, we can't physically directly interact with it, but the existence of this fact is deeply ingrained in the world and shapes it. An indirect way with which we interact with this abstract fact is that if you have 1 book and buy another one, you inevitably now have 2. And the same would apply with all natural number theorems, if you had a prime number of books, etc. If you take a dodecahedron, I believe you could find some matrix form or algebraic representation to it which we could find elsewhere in the world, for example in describing possible social networks. The geometrical shape is just one angle to this part of a mathematical structure. 2) One other big point he made, and I think a lot of the whole issue revolves around this for me, is that an electron has an additional property to its mathematical description which is that it exists. But for me affirming this is like affirming his own view before beginning the reflection, so there's no refutation possible from that point on. If existing is an additional property, that implies the mathematical description doesn't have existence, so inevitably you end on the conclusion that math doesn't really exist truly. But you've got to take in all that's proposed or none of it, In the worldview that all of reality is a mathematical structure, the electron is just a part of the wavefunction of the whole universe, or whatever more exact math we find for it. But whatever it is, the whole structure exists, hence we exists, hence we have a subjective experience of the electron by whatever measure process we use. No where in there does the electron have an additional existence property to the whole structure. It's just one part of the structure having a subjective experience of another part. The reason why I said a lot revolves around this is because that's often a pattern I see in that debate: The existence that's ascribed to certain objects according to a certain worldview is taken as an isolated point, which is then used as evidence for the worldview itself, it's a circling reference. If we want to get to the bottom of the question, we have to let go of our instinctual idea of what exists and doesn't (or more specifically what form existence has) and really go from there. I think the idea that reality is a mathematical structure is a particularly elegant solution to this process because the brute facts we have to acknowledge are easier than in any other worldview (talking about concrete explanation rather than 'I don't know). For example the explanation from god: god by definition has always existed and he created the universe. Here, the brute fact we have to grant is that god has always existed, not impossible but doesn't feel convincing in the slightest to me as the explanatory power is nill. But in Tegmark's view, all you have to grant is that whatever is free from contradiction exists, that's what math is. That actually feels as explanatory, sensical, logical, and convincing as it could get to me. Why is existence as it is? Because it couldn't possibly be otherwise! It's the only way it could ever possibly be. As Brian says it's a philosophical move, but it's indeed a very powerful one, there's nothing else closely as powerful to it when it comes to this question so it should take precedence. 3) A smaller point was that he thought the dodecahedron is invented in the sense that it was found by a process of deduction. I couldn't see where he was coming from with this though. Deductions are all around in the measurements we make in science and yet we never infer that what's deduced was invented. For example we may deduce the mass of the electron from how much it's deflected in a magnetic field, that doesn't mean we invented its mass. What it comes down to is this: if A implies B and B implies C, and I use this fact combined with the knowledge of A being true to deduce that C is true, we would say I 'invented' that C is true? Doesn't make any sense to me. Well anyways I've probably wrote too long of a comment already that no one will be interested in reading. But whatever, I write it more as an exercise for myself, because writing a thought down tests whether that thought really is as coherent as how you felt it did in your head, and if not sometimes you discover something new. As the same time, maybe someone WILL read this too, it's a win-win!
Hi Brian, Thanks once more! On the subject of the title of the new series on language, i suggest one word “Logos”, in Greek this means language but also is the root for the word Logic. The ancients believed that these two are very much connected. I am curious to follow this series as i have a stern believe that the language we use greatly affects our thought capacity and patterns. I have felt this as an expat in various countries. All the best Kostis
Years ago I saw a documentary that explored this very question, asking; did we discover maths or did we invent it. I think we discovered it. Maths is an inherent fact of reality and we simply adapted it to our natural way of understanding and communication. Taking the most basic example of maths; regardless of whether there's one of something or five, it doesn't matter whether anyone is around to describe this, its simply a fact that there are five, for example. If one disappears, moves away, there are now four. What I've often wondered is how far can maths go in describing reality. Maths is essentially easy and natural as evident from there being extremely clever people, albeit few and far between compared to the general population, but its well within the capability of the human brain. I wonder how large a percentage of understanding reality this can take us. My favourite analogy is that we're like an insect on a seat of a airplane. We've done wonders in understand our immediate environment, but we haven't seen the cockpit, and the notion of actually flying the aircraft is way beyond our capability. As for understanding the mechanics of the engine... no chance!
One of the other areas I work with has to do with the mathematical motivations of shell structures in atomic electronic and nuclear systems. Viewed from the perspective of a pure harmonic oscillator and ignoring other complexifying effect, in the spherical atomic nucleus all shell sizes are successive doubled triangular numbers from the Pascal Triangle. No exceptions. So 1s=2, 1p=6, 1d2s=12, 1f2p=20, 1g2d3s=30, 1h2f3p=42, 1i2g3d4s=56, and 1j2h3f4p=72. This is also why their running sums give the 'magic numbers' marking shell completions as doubled tetrahedral numbers from the Pascal Triangle. The numbers are all doubled because we are counting spin-opposed PAIRS of nucleons, because unlike in the electron system, nucleons of the same type (protons and neutrons in their own different shells) pair up immediately when another becomes available. In the electronic system orbital lobes all fill singly BEFORE allowing pairing (which is why we talk about half-filled versus completely filled orbitals). Anyway, there are all sorts of consequences from what I wrote above. For example if one computes the total energies of these spherical quantum harmonic nuclear shells (that is total nucleon occupancy times their energy level), the differences between the energy levels are all 3x square numbers. From no shell to 1s, with 2 nucleons at 1.5 h-bar omega, we have zero energy to 3h-bar omega, which is 3x1, 1 being its own square. Then 1p with 6 nucleons at 2.5 h-bar omega, we get 15 h-bar omega total, and 15-3=12, and 12 is 3x4, where 4 is the square of 2. 1d2s has 12 nucleons at 3.5, giving a total of 42 h-bar omega. 42-15=27, which is 3x9, where 9 is the square of 3. And so on, without exception in this simple model. It also turns out that one can extend this model to include ellipsoidally deformed nuclei, both prolate and oblate. The so-called oscillator number, which in the western world consists of the numerator, detailing the relative extent of the matter wave in the polar direction of the ellipsoid, versus the denominator, detailing the relative extent of the matter wave in the equatorial direction, actually defines the way doubled triangular shell components come together to make new shells for the deformed harmonic oscillator nuclei. The sphere has an oscillator ratio of 1:1 (since the sphere is the same in all directions), so each doubled triangular component is used only ONCE to make a shell (numerator). And there is one magic number for every one new doubled triangular number increment. With a deformed nucleus with an oscillator ratio (OR) of 2:1 (twice as long as wide), each doubled triangular component occurs TWICE in sequence to create a new shell, so 2, 2, 6, 6, 12, 12, 20, 20, 30, 30 etc. And with an oscillator ratio of 3:1 (hyperdeformed), each component occurs TRICE in sequence to generate new shells, so 2, 2, 2, 6, 6, 6, 12, 12, 12, etc. The oblate shells are a bit more complicated. For an oblate shell with an OR of 1:2, there is a doubled triangular number difference between every SECOND shell, and with an OR of 1:3 between every THIRD and so on, EXCEPT at the very start of the shell-filling sequence. Until there are as many magic numbers as the size of the denominator of the oscillator ratio, every shell size is doubled triangular, without exception when the OR is 1/N. With complex OR's, where neither the numerator nor denominator are unity, then ALL THREE of these rules come into play. With this the entire quantum harmonic oscillator system can be worked out with nothing but paper and pen (or pencil), you don't even need a calculator. Interestingly, the Pascal Triangle involvement here is no accident. In fact the quantum harmonic oscillator equation ALWAYS delivers number of stable states (our 'shell sizes') that are terms (here doubled) in Pascal Triangle diagonals. Every new dimension in the oscillator system pushes you one diagonal deeper into the Pascal Triangle. Then with the more realistic models of the nucleus which include corrections for spin-orbit coupling, it turns out that the sizes of the so-called 'intruder levels' that drop down from the next higher into the next lower shell are sized exactly so as to increase the size of the latter to the very next larger doubled triangular number. That is 1g9/2 (10 nucleons) adds to 1f2p (20) to yield 30. 1h11/2 (12 nucleons) adds to 1g2d3s (30) to give 42. And so on. The only exception happens at the end of the protonic shell sequence, where when one expects a drop of 12 moves into the preceding shell (from 126 to 114), one instead sees a drop of 20 (to 106). 20 is still a doubled triangular number, this 'anticipation' may point to an alternative sequence of insertions we might take advantage of in the future. Also interestingly, in all case but this one exception, the insertions of intruder levels all take place EXACTLY after three orbital partials have been completed in the previous shell. Until there ARE three orbital partials, there aren't any intruders inserted. Plenty more- all math. And the 'best' depiction of the electronic periodic system is a tetrahedron of close-packed spheres, one per element. In the 'left-step' periodic table depiction of the then elderly French polymath Charles Janet from the late 1920's, the s-block elements compose the RIGHT edge of the table, rather than the left as per usual. This depiction follows the physical introduction (ideally) of new orbital types rather than chemical behavior. And every other period in this table ends with an element that has an atomic number that is also a tetrahedral number (4, 20, 56, *120). The intermediate numbers are, following Doebereiner's triads (the atomic number version), are all the arithmetic means of the flanking tetrahedrals. This is because the lengths of all these periods is half/double square (ambivalently) so two dual periods of same length give you a square number of elements, and the running sums of squares give you tetrahedrals. It turns out that although there are numerous ways to arrange the spheres (representing elements) in a tetrahedron, there are a handful that allow you to keep Mendeleev's line intact (that is, no line breaks in the sequence of atomic numbers) that are also geometrically regular, and interestingly here as well, you can draw a straight line from one sphere to another through the tetrahedron that marks the beginnings and ends of new Janet Left-Step periods. Oh, and one more thing- if you take Fibonacci numbers as atomic numbers, then every such pairing up through 89 marks the first member of a half-orbital, without exception, The ODD Fib atomic numbers are in the left half-orbital (where there is only one electron per lobe) and the EVEN Fib atomic numbers are in the right half-orbital (where you start to see paring of spin-opposed electrions). 89 (the last Fib atomic number of a real, known element) is also the last element where this trend works. There is a mirror image trend for related LUCAS atomic numbers- up to 18, all these mark the LAST members of half-orbitals, with the same even/odd mapping to left and right half orbitals. After 18 this gets off-track (though with behavioral 'fixes'). 29 and 47 (coinage metals copper and silver respectively) are in the same column/group, and both have so-called 'anomalous' electronic configurations with full d-orbitals, despite being positionally one move to the left of where the mapping trend should put them. Then osmium, atomic number 76, though a d6 element, behaves in the monatomic gaseous state as if it were a noble gas with a p6 configuration.
Kudos to the World Science Festival for another outstanding & thought provoking show. I look forward to the future episodes outlined. Title for the language show "Speaking Your Mind in a Universe of Language". Also it would be great to see Max & David on together again. Thanks for continuing to inform & educate. Stay safe.
Basically what Max is saying is that any abstract notion we can invent physically exists! Looks like he is giving abstract thoughts some kind f trasnsedental existence. Sure, the pysical objects have Matematical properties at the basic level. Any physical object by the nature of its definition is obervable and any observable phenomenon is measurable and hence can be described by numbers such as length, mass, etc. To say that these numbers also exists out there is like saying the colour red is a physycal reality or beauty also exists, whereas beauty is an abstraction, and hence a mental construct, of objects we consider to be beuatiful. To say that nature can be described by Mathematics is another way to say that nature follows certain patterns that is regular and describable. However, the language of Mathe and the notion of numbers are just our invention and cannot be independent of things and cannot exists in their own right.
28:07 the problem with that is we are not deciding 2+2=4 it’s that “1,1,1,1” combined will always be “1,1,1,1” we decided names for the sets but we did not decide the properties.
(Expletive)!!!! This discussion/debate is nourishing to the soul. To hear such high level discourse with matching humility is refreshing beyond measure! It’s remarkable that something like this is available (free to the public) on the same platform that offers myriad TikTok challenges and other mind numbing content…
I am looking foreward to this discussion very much. For your request for a catchy title at timeline 06:10 I have two contenders:- 1. "Glad Lee my crosseyed bear". Is it the text that conveys the meaning or the sound when the text is spoken? or 2. "This statement is false". What happens in the brain when it encounters this statement?
I began my adult learning with Brian Greene and even though you can never say you finish learning; I will say I sort of finished with Max Tegmark. Somewhere between I read Hawking amongst others. I even read Robert Lanza and that wasn’t a waste of time. I watched a documentary with Brian Greene and that sparked my initial interest. Then I read Hawking who taught me about Conways Game of Life. It was then that I realized that automata exist in “mathematical cyberspace” a term I use to explain where math plays itself out. Then I asked myself this question…. Do we need a computer screen for automata to exist? Or is the computer just a tool for us to view this math? It was then that I realized that we don’t need a computer screen and we don’t need a programmer. I wondered if we were actually conscious automata in a different but similar Game of Life existing somewhere in “mathematical cyberspace”…. Then I remembered what Robert Lanza had actually thought that we take information from “out there” process it “in there” and we somehow animate the mathematics around us to look, feel, touch, taste, and smell like an animated, real universe. So then I googled is math all there is, and I found Max Tegmark. It’s a TOE and that’s why I say that I finished with Max Tegmark.
"Chomskers". Love this channel, certainly my favorite science source. We live in the greatest of times when the greatest of minds today speak of the greatest of minds then!
If everything is describable by math, does it means - everything is math!? Than, you don’t have to search cosmos, you just search math to discover laws and premises of cosmos and nature itself! Does it mean, if something could be existed by math, in the same time it could be existed in reality!? Great conversation, thank you guys!
The physics we do are approximations and abstractions. We couldn't work the actual math of the universe from inside the same universe. It would be a paradox. So we need empirism. We can explore simpler realities that are not ours with math though. And yes, if it exists in math then it's reality, not necessarily ours, but some reality.
I was a little puzzled by both Brian and Max's position on whether math is invented or discovered - and the specific positions they took on it. I am with Max on that one i.e. the mathematics is discovered. For example, the yet unnamed concept of 1 existed even before humans started thinking about 1 or for that matter even earth was formed. A nascent Hydrogen atom had 1 electron in its orbit. It always had and it will always have. The "1" part of "1 electron" is a concept and exists in a platonic sense of the word exist. The "electron" part of the "1 electron" exists in physical sense of the word exist. However I part company with Max when he says that all properties like electron have value -1, 0 or 1 and he says this is true all properties at the bottom and therefore universe itself is math at the bottom. The reason for parting company is that 1 without a unit is just the concept of 1. +1 spin i.e. the property of spin having +1 value is what makes it physical. A 1 by itself, without the additional information 1 of "what" is just a concept and not physical. I think Max is confusing between description of something with something. On the other hand I did not understand what Brian said that when a person thought about 1 or any other mathematical equation, that is the time when that equation was invented. Yes the "thought" was "invented" by that human. But not the number 1 itself. 1 as a concept without any units ,exists platonically - of course with the platonic sense of the word exist. I think string theory tries to but in my opinion has fails to demonstrate it's truth, to find what is everything made of i.e. strings. But I can understand that idea that physical universe is made out of physical strings. But then what are strings made of. We can always keep asking that question like a kid - but why? but why? It may simply be an issue of whether or not words like invention and discovery take into two different sense of the word - platonically exist and physically exist.
Thanks for all your efforts with the foundation in producing such quality content so often. Title suggestions for the language piece: Language: Nature or Nurture? From Cave Paintings to Emojis, LOL: The Evolution of Human Language Speaking Your Mind: Dissecting The Science and Art of Language
The nice thing about any conversation with Max is … he can’t go long without a smile.
I just came down to comment on Max's smile, and here is the top comment. Group hug 🤗
I’z having a moody night, was channel surfing, saw this program, was meh (quite familiar with this topic), saw your comment & thought: “Yeah, I need a smile”…
.. throughly enjoyed the program & Max (with whom I concur concerning this question), smile in tow, played a significant part.. thx J A. 💙
Group Hug 🤗
He’s great 😁
like dupers delight.
His voice is so cute
Brian... your humility and grace here truly warms my heart... you are certainly and awesome human being... I have bought your books and enjoyed them immensely, may the universe smile on you!
100% true
Yeah I really have to agree with you 100%
Agreed
He looks worried - this scares me.
Imagine being at a dinner party with these guys. I could have these discussions for hours.
Thank you for sharing with the world
✌️😎🇦🇺
I imagine you'd be quite quiet
I don’t think there could be hours of this. I mean you’re not just going to say feeling through an evening of science company. I don’t know. But surely not
I cant be the only one who falls asleep wakes up and something like this is playing....
I go to sleep to them...love this stuff even though I don't understand any of it. There is so much insipid stupidity in today's world, and all this anti science stuff trumpers are pushing, that I just like to hear INTELLIGENT people talking.
Me too
Me tooo ooooh ohh oh oh
yeppers, that would be I, somehow I like to think I'm getting subconsciously smarter but probably 'nahhhh'. ✨️
🙋🏾♂️
I'm so grateful that you offer these discussions to the world 💙 it's so interesting and thought provoking, thank you so much!
Why you are thankfull to this people sons of Cain ? They are destroying humans and all creations . With there crispr tech is dangerous to humans and everything that live on this planet .
Yes, we are so fortunate to live in a time when we can sit next to the great thinkers of our time and hear their thoughts.
Stop divided
Two brilliant people, such a pleasure to listen in on a great conversation.
I loved the show two weeks ago, and I was thrilled to see Max and you, Brian, in an hour-long conversation about math and reality. Thank you very much!
Professor Greene is a world treasure. I hope he comes up with the theory of everything, and wins a Nobel prize.
That would be awesome.
He is a fantastic presenter of science. That is his niche. I don't think he does that much research anymore because he is like a mini celebrity in physics. He is one of the best known names, but they don't hand out Nobel prizes for noteriety. What he does, bringing theoretical physics to the masses, is an extremely important endeavor however
@@rugbyelite1361 just look at him .... liar
I think he deserves a Nobel prize in litterature : it is a real incredible litterary accomplishment to do what he does : offer the possibility to understand very complicated physics with words. Very few scientists could do this (Gamov, Abbott, …) and this deserves recognition !
I came up with it already but I want to give him a chance. 🤣😉
I have such gratitude that these discussions are made available to us. Thank you for your considerable efforts.
You two are great! Watching those wheels chug and churn is (awesome). Brian, you are amazingly objective. You seem to have this ability to resist comfortable ownership of an idea, at least to a point that your willingness to ask questions and continue learning is obvious.
Max, you are great too, from a layman, your love of difficult questions definitely has not gone away. You smile with absolute excitement when you hear ideas. What a blessing you are for us. Both you and Brian, I want to make so clear, are appreciated so much for your abilities to Utilize Math to Discover, at the same time bring it down to Earth for us to enjoy.
I loved the talk a whole lot! Very thought-provoking. You both have brilliant minds, thank you 🙂 🌼
Max Tegmark: Can't you see? It's all mathematics, bro!
Brian Greene: When you're a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. And mathematics is just a really awesome hammer, my dude.
I wonder if we could replace Max's use of the word "Math" with the word "Framework". Everything exists within a framework and that framework is defined with a "Logic".
@@danielm5161 Don't really see how you can get the Standard Model with a framework
@@2CSST2 The parameters of the standard model (weight of electron, spin counts etc.) is what I am calling the framework.
,and a Turbine is nothing more than the Hash for a spatial change.
All is math. A lot of y’all are pushing back because it’s a scary thing to think about.
Thank you Brian and Max for a wonderful conversation and letting us ride along! Love all that you do and share.
My title suggestion for next show: “Language - evolutions expression of thought”
I'm in love with the Science Festival because it exposes the magic of science. It exposes the garden where the incubation of theory takes shape. A passerby would call the roots of all of these conversations boil down
philosophy but, it is a laboratory of the the mind that relentlessly pushes the confines of the human condition in the pursuit of persective. It is a beautiful contorsion for the purpose of a establishing a measurable quantity. To me it is what defines science itself and I am grateful for having my eyes opened and stretched beyond my passing by.
Thank you Brian and Max for sharing your thoughts on this topic. Looking forward for your next topic "Language painting thoughts"
Programs like this are so important, I don't think Brian understand show important. When I was younger, I was fascinated by higher mathematics, but also intimidated by it. By "higher" mathematics I just mean anything more intense than general math- algebra, trig., calc., etc.- So when I got old enough to actually take it and found out I was actually very good at it- I was so proud of that fact. Neither of my parents had ever studied anything more than general math so- it was like Greek to them and the rest of my family- who were all farmers and blue collar laborers- which made me feel special. But I hated the fact that I was just memorizing steps and didn't really understand how to apply any of the math I was learning. Then along comes physics- and man I fell in love immediately. It was math in motion- I could see it, touch it- it was real. And now some of the "rules" I had memorized starting making sense to me- but it was just a taste of the real thing. We didn't have a teacher who could teach anything past the bare, bare minimum of Newtonian physics. Looking back I feel so sorry for the teachers I did have because they knew that I was hungry for it, they knew that if I had someone to teach me- to inspire me- that this could be just the beginning. But what could they do- they simply weren't qualified, and the school felt there weren't enough of us kids who progressed far enough past general math to justify having a course like this. In other words- the school sold their kids short. And this wasn't back in the 60s or something- I graduated in 1991. But I went to school in North Alabama- a very small, rural place- with a history of blue collar working ppl who didn't go to college or value education much. Anyway- had there been programs like this back then- I honestly think my life would've gone a whole different direction. I did go to college- but I didn't graduate. Don't want to get into why because this would be far too long of a post then- already is. But you guys have to keep going- if you inspire even one kid like me to go on and try- go for it, that they can do it- it's so worth it. It's very hard when you come from such small, humble beginnings to see yourself as being capable of contributing to such huge questions.
Additionally, I've always considered mathematics as a language, very special and distinct from other languages in that it can and does completely quantify things. As a formal logic, we see that mathematics is as real as logic itself.
Brian your voice is so reassuring to me and I fall asleep feeling like everything is okay❤
This is the most exciting conversation I've watched for years..I love you guys & have followed you both for ages now . Great stuff 👏👍👌🙌😀
I can never get tired of watching these discussions and documentaries about the nature of reality, universe etc. To be honest I have a bit of envy for people who are the greatest minds of our time with such intelligence allowing them to be the pioneers of contemporary science. Greene and Tedmark are for sure two of these people. Thanks for this wonderful talk. As for the title of the next topic (language) I would suggest "The thought that gave us language".
You are being unfair to yourself! Reading you shows that you are very intelligent. These dudes are highly educated and focused. I like them too but I sincerely do not find them more intelligent than you, others reading this and me. Humbleness can be unscientific. Arrogance is never acceptable.
Extremely interesting! Many thanks.
We as human beings, but also complex animals, have to integrate thousands of signals (besides basic stimuli like vision, sound, smell ....) permanently almost instantaneously and our brain HAS to make a kind of summary with a specific outcome of all of that information in order to allow a being to position itselfs in this new context. Of coarse we have to perceive this integrated message otherwise it all would make no sense and we would simply not be aware that we "are". To be conscious is thus, according to me, an absolute must to be able to survive and it becomes gradually more complex when you clime up in the tree of animal hierarchie. Intelligence is something completely different. Often one says that being extremely logic is a kind of measure for intelligence; but there are other forms of intelligence in which for example making a useful connection between very distant topics helps to quickly solve a problem. Solving the mystery of consciousness is of great importance, but intelligence is so relative since soooo may intelligent people are stupid.
Why would that integration that you speak of require self-awareness? You say "absolute must" when I see no necessity at all.
The Spoken Mind. Dear Brian, I've read all your books. The Elegant Universe blew my mind. And the more recent were just wonderful. Thank you.
2 of my favorite people to listen to, and when put together... such a lovely conversation
Two people fundamentally disagreeing on their viewpoint but still coming together to understand the other point of view, and at times admire the insight the other side offers. This is what the world needs more of! One of the best discussions I've seen lately!
I love it that you, Brian, and Max smile! Math is always a topic to smile about.
You guys are so brilliant. Much love. Totally on the edge of my seat for both sides of the argument, absolutely subtle and nuanced undertaking of this incredible topic with genuine care taken to understanding eachothers positions. Classy, and intellectually adventurous.
Edit: Also im pretty sure Brian Greene is a closeted Platonist
Excellent and an interview and discussion I've been waiting for. What jumped out at me especially was the repeated talk about humility. That word kept popping up. I think that in our negative culture, it is not PC to be non-humble. There are people who should rightly be humble: they are not exceptional or outstanding in anything. Then there are those who are not just good but great, at what they do or invent. I find it dishonest for such people to be so humble. In other words, humility is often overrated as always applicable to everyone. It's about the same as people who do something outstanding, and when complimented say "Oh, that's just a little thing" or similar. They feel they have to downplay what is a genuine accomplishment and worthy of being especially good or unique. It's dishonest to not admit it when something is such, and instead say "Thank you for the compliment." Those of us old enough to remember Mohamed Ali, the boxer, remember him saying after winning "I am the greatest!" And he was. An honest fact. As Dizzy Dean said, "If you've really done it, it's not bragging." Well, for myself, I like people who brag; I find it honest, as long as they aren't your typical blowhard talking fantasy, but based in fact.
I think neither of them is referring to the humility (or the hubris) of an individual, but rather the humility (or the hubris) of the entire human species ... and of science, etc. ... and even the humility (or the hubris) of a viewpoint.
-Numerical linguistics
-Speaking in digits
-math and language, one and the same
-the united universe (or world) of mathematics
-understanding universality of the nature of mathematics
-math and the human experience (or condition)
-math in all and everything
-math and beyond our dimension
-everything as math
-The language of our mathematical universe
By: German Escalante
I remember starting my first year studies while reading your books to relax and now I see you both bouncing ideas back and forth on my screen, and I think to myself what a wonderful world :)
I was amazed at how math can proof out the way the world works when I took up to two years of chemistry and up to multi variable calculus in college. It work and flowed so well, kinda unreal.
Wrote my undergrad capstone for Philosophy in universal language. I noted more than once that science is the great epitome of human communication. It is more common than any other language. Glad to see Physics and Philosophy being emphasized again. It ebbs and flows throughout history. Love Greene and his books. Really helped me understand more about Physics.
I'm thankful to have listened to this stream.I'm a huge fan of Brian and Max yet they don't know that I exist so either they don't take my mathematics into equation or I don't exist!
But ... I'm sure that in at least one of the parallel universe of one of the level of multiverse Max mentions in his book you 3 are best friends!!! 🤭😜
The best reply
My two absolute favorite physicists, so awesome!
🔥❤️🔥
38:00 I once saw a bubble entertainer blow 6 bubbles all connected to each other and what happened in the centre was that a cube was formed. Thus a cube exists right. Surely the same thing could apply with the dodecahedron. Or was Prof Greene only talking about naturally occuring forms?
Brian and Max, my two favorite physicists. Bright, beautiful, charming and brilliant.......
2 of my favorite nerds..💗💗💗💗💗
this dialogue had more tension and suspense than the new Top Gun film. That being said, Dr Green's perspective on the existence of something made more sense to me. A thing exists if it has a physical feature that allows you to experiment it, or would allow you to experiment it if you could somehow bent space and time or travel through dimensions. I feel Max is referring to ideas being real, or "in existence", but ideas themselves are a description of what ultimately we call reality
I’ve recently heard a theory from my prof. about life being akin to little eddies/whirlpools in the entropic river of time.
Wasn’t sure if this was fringe or something that more well-known physicists subscribe to? And if there’s any mathematics that supports the notion?
Sounds like the "vortex" hypotheses that I think were popular in the 1800s and then had a resurgence in pop-sci in the 1970s.
Fringe for sure. It's a cute metaphor, but doesn't get you far.
@@NoActuallyGo-KCUF-Yourself you probably mean that you fail to see how that would get *you* far, rather than using this _borderline_ condescending affirmation, about a topic even great people such as Brian and Max disagree but overall, stay humble and open-minded...
Yes, I just read the whirlpools represent the parallel universes, that on someone's comments on the Philip k dick Metz, France speech video
I sit around and think about this stuff all the time. So satisfying to listen to this discussion between two amazing scientists. Thank you.
If I found myself at dinner sitting next to Witten, I can’t imaging being able to say anything meaningful after asking him to please pass the salt.
Great talk, I like these two as they represent different poles of thought on many theories at the forefront of physics.
I wonder if we could replace Max's use of the word "Math" with the word "Framework". Everything exists within a framework and that framework is defined with a "Logic".
@@danielm5161 kind of like that 'framework' is a tapestry of space-time and fields which use 'logic'(maths) to describe it.
Great conversation! It was a pleasure to listen to. Thank you!
Hello Mr.Greene, thank you for all these beauiful programs that all of you at WSF are giving to us.
Here is my suggestion for the title of the next program: "What came first, Language or Thought?"
Anyway, apart from the title, I'm sure the next talk will be very interesting.
Once again, thank you because in these times a larger amount of people need this kind of brain nourishment.
That being said, I wish my brain could process math better. You two are among the best people on earth. Your physics / AI stances and conversations enthrall me. Things a simple man like me has no business putting thought into. So thank both of you very much.
"The consciousness of the spoken thoughts" - A suggestion for the Title of next discussion with Noam Chomsky. And thanks for making these discussions happen!
This is like the epitome of human evolution. Listening to Brian Green & Max Tegmark and how even they kept and open mind even changed their own perspectives is gold...It's as if keeping and open mind drives evolution forward.
I always enjoy the way Max manages to seem like he might just be taking the piss.
Haha his father would be giggling if he wasn't busy being born again and continuing the task
Evolution is relentless because entropy is relentless.
MAX! This is a pleasure, thank you all!
That was a great conversation. I watched "Does math reveal reality" too. And now I am looking forward to next one. I thought mathematics and beauty, or aesthetics could be a nice topic too. Thank you very much. .
Thanks for this thought provoking conversation. Special thanks to Dr. Tegmark for completely blowing off his faculty meeting.
1:34 ish Start time. :) Thank you for these videos, Brian! We love you, WSF.
Love it... It's in many ways a retelling of the Plato-Aristotle debate and the two-world problem. Always a pleasure to listen to Brian and Max.
YOU DONT HAVE TO BE A ROCKET SURGEON TO KNOW THE EARTH IS FLAT !!! ....NASA LIES !! N A S A STANDS FOR NOT ALWAYS TELLING TRUTHS !!
This is a great discussion. My father and I had similar discussions starting with "where's up ?" The question of existence and is math real is the same question one can ask about computers. Does the hardware exist? Of course. Does the software exist ? It is not physical certainly but with the right hardware the existence of software is clear. Mathematics is akin to the software. It is not physical per se but the concepts are physically expressed on paper, in computing machines etc.
Good analogy, I had the same thought. In order for the software to work it needs to run inside the hardware. The reason physics is struggling to push to the next frontier is they're trying to discover the mathematical equations to also describe the hardware i.e. what creates space-time (hardware) what exactly is time and why do feel it going from one moment to moment (hardware and software?) what is consciousness (this is most likely extremely sophisticated software that we haven't been able to grasp yet) very thought provoking and extremely incredible to ponder on
Thank you soo much to brian and tracy for these!!!
Thanks for your content. It improves life for so many of us.
Title suggestions:
Thus Spoke Mankind.
How does language fit into the equation?
Was language invented or discovered?
I know I already commented but it's my birthday and I was given your book as a gift! I'm super excited to look into your mind a little bit and have already read the first chapter. I can relate so much to this and have even asked myself some of the exact same questions. I cannot wait to read more!
I'm wondering if Brian Greene thinks that string theory is correct, I know it's his work and he's the expert. But being it's not a proven thing, I wonder if he thinks it's correct or still trying to find out?
I think he said at about 58:00 he didn't know if it was "right".
"Speaking of Speaking and Thinking of Thinking" for the Language program. I can't wait!
I like Max’s explanation of consciousness and I can imagine it’s more then likely true.
If love to hear his thoughts! Where can I look?
Substrate independent
@@Llerrah508 UA-cam and any of the big search engine’s, I’ve watched him on lots of podcasts and interviews, there’s some on the world science festival too.
Every mathematical object is conscious(panpsychism). It's not that there are functions on our bodies that are not conscious, but they are packets of consciousness that are not connected and therefore not aware of one another. This is demonstrated with the "corpus callosum cut" experiment.
Thank you both for sharing and enjoying
Everything is math. Math is everything.
there is a relation 1 to 1 and onto between anything and math, sounds like true, they are the same thing, sounds like a big NO.
@@ivanleon6164 Where is your argument for that?
@@2CSST2 math exist in the universe, they are not same thing, is like saying language or ideas are the universe, is just pure game words. i just create one, of course you can always define a function that maps one element of a space to any building element of the universe, that would make a 1:1 onto function of the universe, but is just words.
@@ivanleon6164 but you're just affirming that, you have no evidence yourself. It could very well be that the universe itself is a mathematical structure, it would provide the best explanation for why it exists at all which is a sort of evidence for it, the universe exists because it couldn't possibly be otherwise and that's what math is: the freedom from contradiction. Do you have any other explanation for the existence of the universe that's as powerful?
Also math is definitely not like any other language or idea, the symbols used yes, but the patterns they describe themselves like the dodecahedron are beyond language and symbols. That's the mathematical structure, different from a mathematical language used to describe it.
Last point, you say you could 'just define' a function that maps 1:1 but that's easier said than done. Now it's really just words, give me the function that maps 1:1 with the behavior of the sun, meaning every state of every single particle. If you went ahead, you would actually hit a wall due to the randomness of quantum mechanics. The best you could do then is say: 'at this point the behavior is purely random'.
And that leads to the next point: the fact that pure randomness only arises at a very fundamental level. Instead, randomness could happen at every hierarchical level. Then you actually couldn't describe anything to any significant level with a function. The fact that it isn't like that is another evidence that the universe is a mathematical structure. And what's more, the randomness at the quantum level itself disappears if the Many Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is true, which would mean reality would be purely non random, definitely making it clear that it could itself the ensemble of all possible mathematical structure.
@@2CSST2 i agree, i cant define it myself. Yes the universe is rigged by laws that can be described by math, I agree.
But I don't agree on the randomness, to be random there must be some source for that randomness, then how is decided, even that should follow rules, the randomness we describe is only to the incapacity to predict or to know that source rules.
Thank you for sharing these brilliant discussions with the entirety of humanity for free
Streamed 2 days ago??? I just saw this live 5 min ago. Did I go back in time to watch this live then jump to now??? I don't know.
It streamed (began) 104 minutes ago, and finished just a few minutes ago.
Well, the assignment at the end of the s to know the math for time travel. Obviously you got it right, and at the end you’ll loop back again. Now you’re stuck forever.
Lol
Max Tegmark, so scientifically imaginative! I learned a few things. Thanks Brian for bringing Max on to your show.
“In Cosmology we are off by a factor of 10 to the 120… This is the largest mismatch between theory and experiment in the history of science.” - Dr Michio Kaku.
What a wonderful conversion. Thankyou.
Yes, but neither of them *converted* the other to see things their way. :o)
@@stevennovakovich2525 I wasn't expecting them too. These chats reveal to me how these fine minds work.
If AI develops consciouness: What is love?
Or God?
As someone who very much agrees with the whole of Max's view, it was interesting to hear some of Brian's pushback arguments on it, but I believe there some refutations possible to them.
1) One big point he made was that you can't interact with a dodecahedron in a way that you can with an atom for example, but I think we actually can and do, just not directly. I always like to bring it back to the simplest example, the fact that 1+1 =2 . Can we shine light on that and see what's reflected? No, we can't physically directly interact with it, but the existence of this fact is deeply ingrained in the world and shapes it. An indirect way with which we interact with this abstract fact is that if you have 1 book and buy another one, you inevitably now have 2. And the same would apply with all natural number theorems, if you had a prime number of books, etc. If you take a dodecahedron, I believe you could find some matrix form or algebraic representation to it which we could find elsewhere in the world, for example in describing possible social networks. The geometrical shape is just one angle to this part of a mathematical structure.
2) One other big point he made, and I think a lot of the whole issue revolves around this for me, is that an electron has an additional property to its mathematical description which is that it exists. But for me affirming this is like affirming his own view before beginning the reflection, so there's no refutation possible from that point on. If existing is an additional property, that implies the mathematical description doesn't have existence, so inevitably you end on the conclusion that math doesn't really exist truly. But you've got to take in all that's proposed or none of it, In the worldview that all of reality is a mathematical structure, the electron is just a part of the wavefunction of the whole universe, or whatever more exact math we find for it. But whatever it is, the whole structure exists, hence we exists, hence we have a subjective experience of the electron by whatever measure process we use. No where in there does the electron have an additional existence property to the whole structure. It's just one part of the structure having a subjective experience of another part.
The reason why I said a lot revolves around this is because that's often a pattern I see in that debate: The existence that's ascribed to certain objects according to a certain worldview is taken as an isolated point, which is then used as evidence for the worldview itself, it's a circling reference. If we want to get to the bottom of the question, we have to let go of our instinctual idea of what exists and doesn't (or more specifically what form existence has) and really go from there. I think the idea that reality is a mathematical structure is a particularly elegant solution to this process because the brute facts we have to acknowledge are easier than in any other worldview (talking about concrete explanation rather than 'I don't know). For example the explanation from god: god by definition has always existed and he created the universe. Here, the brute fact we have to grant is that god has always existed, not impossible but doesn't feel convincing in the slightest to me as the explanatory power is nill. But in Tegmark's view, all you have to grant is that whatever is free from contradiction exists, that's what math is. That actually feels as explanatory, sensical, logical, and convincing as it could get to me. Why is existence as it is? Because it couldn't possibly be otherwise! It's the only way it could ever possibly be. As Brian says it's a philosophical move, but it's indeed a very powerful one, there's nothing else closely as powerful to it when it comes to this question so it should take precedence.
3) A smaller point was that he thought the dodecahedron is invented in the sense that it was found by a process of deduction. I couldn't see where he was coming from with this though. Deductions are all around in the measurements we make in science and yet we never infer that what's deduced was invented. For example we may deduce the mass of the electron from how much it's deflected in a magnetic field, that doesn't mean we invented its mass. What it comes down to is this: if A implies B and B implies C, and I use this fact combined with the knowledge of A being true to deduce that C is true, we would say I 'invented' that C is true? Doesn't make any sense to me.
Well anyways I've probably wrote too long of a comment already that no one will be interested in reading. But whatever, I write it more as an exercise for myself, because writing a thought down tests whether that thought really is as coherent as how you felt it did in your head, and if not sometimes you discover something new. As the same time, maybe someone WILL read this too, it's a win-win!
Read Anil Seth's latest book "Being You" on neuroscience of consciousness.
I greatly appreciate it; thank you very much, concerning/regarding/for the opportunity that is 👍.
Hi Brian,
Thanks once more! On the subject of the title of the new series on language, i suggest one word “Logos”, in Greek this means language but also is the root for the word Logic. The ancients believed that these two are very much connected. I am curious to follow this series as i have a stern believe that the language we use greatly affects our thought capacity and patterns. I have felt this as an expat in various countries.
All the best
Kostis
So grateful, love two of you greatest mind
"The emergence of language" - as a title for your next episode
Years ago I saw a documentary that explored this very question, asking; did we discover maths or did we invent it. I think we discovered it. Maths is an inherent fact of reality and we simply adapted it to our natural way of understanding and communication. Taking the most basic example of maths; regardless of whether there's one of something or five, it doesn't matter whether anyone is around to describe this, its simply a fact that there are five, for example. If one disappears, moves away, there are now four.
What I've often wondered is how far can maths go in describing reality. Maths is essentially easy and natural as evident from there being extremely clever people, albeit few and far between compared to the general population, but its well within the capability of the human brain. I wonder how large a percentage of understanding reality this can take us. My favourite analogy is that we're like an insect on a seat of a airplane. We've done wonders in understand our immediate environment, but we haven't seen the cockpit, and the notion of actually flying the aircraft is way beyond our capability. As for understanding the mechanics of the engine... no chance!
“Language, the gatekeeper of our thoughts”
“Language, gatekeeper of thought”
“Language, gatekeeper to the soul”
One of the other areas I work with has to do with the mathematical motivations of shell structures in atomic electronic and nuclear systems. Viewed from the perspective of a pure harmonic oscillator and ignoring other complexifying effect, in the spherical atomic nucleus all shell sizes are successive doubled triangular numbers from the Pascal Triangle. No exceptions. So 1s=2, 1p=6, 1d2s=12, 1f2p=20, 1g2d3s=30, 1h2f3p=42, 1i2g3d4s=56, and 1j2h3f4p=72. This is also why their running sums give the 'magic numbers' marking shell completions as doubled tetrahedral numbers from the Pascal Triangle. The numbers are all doubled because we are counting spin-opposed PAIRS of nucleons, because unlike in the electron system, nucleons of the same type (protons and neutrons in their own different shells) pair up immediately when another becomes available. In the electronic system orbital lobes all fill singly BEFORE allowing pairing (which is why we talk about half-filled versus completely filled orbitals). Anyway, there are all sorts of consequences from what I wrote above. For example if one computes the total energies of these spherical quantum harmonic nuclear shells (that is total nucleon occupancy times their energy level), the differences between the energy levels are all 3x square numbers. From no shell to 1s, with 2 nucleons at 1.5 h-bar omega, we have zero energy to 3h-bar omega, which is 3x1, 1 being its own square. Then 1p with 6 nucleons at 2.5 h-bar omega, we get 15 h-bar omega total, and 15-3=12, and 12 is 3x4, where 4 is the square of 2. 1d2s has 12 nucleons at 3.5, giving a total of 42 h-bar omega. 42-15=27, which is 3x9, where 9 is the square of 3. And so on, without exception in this simple model. It also turns out that one can extend this model to include ellipsoidally deformed nuclei, both prolate and oblate. The so-called oscillator number, which in the western world consists of the numerator, detailing the relative extent of the matter wave in the polar direction of the ellipsoid, versus the denominator, detailing the relative extent of the matter wave in the equatorial direction, actually defines the way doubled triangular shell components come together to make new shells for the deformed harmonic oscillator nuclei. The sphere has an oscillator ratio of 1:1 (since the sphere is the same in all directions), so each doubled triangular component is used only ONCE to make a shell (numerator). And there is one magic number for every one new doubled triangular number increment. With a deformed nucleus with an oscillator ratio (OR) of 2:1 (twice as long as wide), each doubled triangular component occurs TWICE in sequence to create a new shell, so 2, 2, 6, 6, 12, 12, 20, 20, 30, 30 etc. And with an oscillator ratio of 3:1 (hyperdeformed), each component occurs TRICE in sequence to generate new shells, so 2, 2, 2, 6, 6, 6, 12, 12, 12, etc. The oblate shells are a bit more complicated. For an oblate shell with an OR of 1:2, there is a doubled triangular number difference between every SECOND shell, and with an OR of 1:3 between every THIRD and so on, EXCEPT at the very start of the shell-filling sequence. Until there are as many magic numbers as the size of the denominator of the oscillator ratio, every shell size is doubled triangular, without exception when the OR is 1/N. With complex OR's, where neither the numerator nor denominator are unity, then ALL THREE of these rules come into play. With this the entire quantum harmonic oscillator system can be worked out with nothing but paper and pen (or pencil), you don't even need a calculator. Interestingly, the Pascal Triangle involvement here is no accident. In fact the quantum harmonic oscillator equation ALWAYS delivers number of stable states (our 'shell sizes') that are terms (here doubled) in Pascal Triangle diagonals. Every new dimension in the oscillator system pushes you one diagonal deeper into the Pascal Triangle. Then with the more realistic models of the nucleus which include corrections for spin-orbit coupling, it turns out that the sizes of the so-called 'intruder levels' that drop down from the next higher into the next lower shell are sized exactly so as to increase the size of the latter to the very next larger doubled triangular number. That is 1g9/2 (10 nucleons) adds to 1f2p (20) to yield 30. 1h11/2 (12 nucleons) adds to 1g2d3s (30) to give 42. And so on. The only exception happens at the end of the protonic shell sequence, where when one expects a drop of 12 moves into the preceding shell (from 126 to 114), one instead sees a drop of 20 (to 106). 20 is still a doubled triangular number, this 'anticipation' may point to an alternative sequence of insertions we might take advantage of in the future. Also interestingly, in all case but this one exception, the insertions of intruder levels all take place EXACTLY after three orbital partials have been completed in the previous shell. Until there ARE three orbital partials, there aren't any intruders inserted. Plenty more- all math. And the 'best' depiction of the electronic periodic system is a tetrahedron of close-packed spheres, one per element. In the 'left-step' periodic table depiction of the then elderly French polymath Charles Janet from the late 1920's, the s-block elements compose the RIGHT edge of the table, rather than the left as per usual. This depiction follows the physical introduction (ideally) of new orbital types rather than chemical behavior. And every other period in this table ends with an element that has an atomic number that is also a tetrahedral number (4, 20, 56, *120). The intermediate numbers are, following Doebereiner's triads (the atomic number version), are all the arithmetic means of the flanking tetrahedrals. This is because the lengths of all these periods is half/double square (ambivalently) so two dual periods of same length give you a square number of elements, and the running sums of squares give you tetrahedrals. It turns out that although there are numerous ways to arrange the spheres (representing elements) in a tetrahedron, there are a handful that allow you to keep Mendeleev's line intact (that is, no line breaks in the sequence of atomic numbers) that are also geometrically regular, and interestingly here as well, you can draw a straight line from one sphere to another through the tetrahedron that marks the beginnings and ends of new Janet Left-Step periods. Oh, and one more thing- if you take Fibonacci numbers as atomic numbers, then every such pairing up through 89 marks the first member of a half-orbital, without exception, The ODD Fib atomic numbers are in the left half-orbital (where there is only one electron per lobe) and the EVEN Fib atomic numbers are in the right half-orbital (where you start to see paring of spin-opposed electrions). 89 (the last Fib atomic number of a real, known element) is also the last element where this trend works. There is a mirror image trend for related LUCAS atomic numbers- up to 18, all these mark the LAST members of half-orbitals, with the same even/odd mapping to left and right half orbitals. After 18 this gets off-track (though with behavioral 'fixes'). 29 and 47 (coinage metals copper and silver respectively) are in the same column/group, and both have so-called 'anomalous' electronic configurations with full d-orbitals, despite being positionally one move to the left of where the mapping trend should put them. Then osmium, atomic number 76, though a d6 element, behaves in the monatomic gaseous state as if it were a noble gas with a p6 configuration.
Kudos to the World Science Festival for another outstanding & thought provoking show. I look forward to the future episodes outlined. Title for the language show "Speaking Your Mind in a Universe of Language". Also it would be great to see Max & David on together again. Thanks for continuing to inform & educate. Stay safe.
A discussion of physics between two or more very prominent Physicists like in this video is always extremely entertaining.
Watching again. Love this!
Thank you Brian Greene for your books and videos and everything!!!!!!!
Fantastic conversation, thank you.
Thank you for a very interesting discussion. Hope to hear many more to come
Basically what Max is saying is that any abstract notion we can invent physically exists! Looks like he is giving abstract thoughts some kind f trasnsedental existence. Sure, the pysical objects have Matematical properties at the basic level. Any physical object by the nature of its definition is obervable and any observable phenomenon is measurable and hence can be described by numbers such as length, mass, etc. To say that these numbers also exists out there is like saying the colour red is a physycal reality or beauty also exists, whereas beauty is an abstraction, and hence a mental construct, of objects we consider to be beuatiful. To say that nature can be described by Mathematics is another way to say that nature follows certain patterns that is regular and describable. However, the language of Mathe and the notion of numbers are just our invention and cannot be independent of things and cannot exists in their own right.
The t-shirt. I want copy of that t-shirt. Love how you stimulate my thinking and understanding.
28:07 the problem with that is we are not deciding 2+2=4 it’s that “1,1,1,1” combined will always be “1,1,1,1” we decided names for the sets but we did not decide the properties.
31:12 detectives that deduce assumptions that turn out true are in fact manufacturing evidence.
Kangaroo 🦘
Court ⚖️
Brilliant conversation and thank you for platter of interesting talks ahead.
My name suggestion for upcoming talk is' Let's Speak about SPEECH'.
(Expletive)!!!! This discussion/debate is nourishing to the soul. To hear such high level discourse with matching humility is refreshing beyond measure!
It’s remarkable that something like this is available (free to the public) on the same platform that offers myriad TikTok challenges and other mind numbing content…
I am looking foreward to this discussion very much.
For your request for a catchy title at timeline 06:10 I have two contenders:-
1. "Glad Lee my crosseyed bear". Is it the text that conveys the meaning or the sound when the text is spoken?
or
2. "This statement is false". What happens in the brain when it encounters this statement?
So many amazing people in our world and so little time to take it all in.... Bravo guys, Bravo.
I began my adult learning with Brian Greene and even though you can never say you finish learning; I will say I sort of finished with Max Tegmark. Somewhere between I read Hawking amongst others. I even read Robert Lanza and that wasn’t a waste of time. I watched a documentary with Brian Greene and that sparked my initial interest. Then I read Hawking who taught me about Conways Game of Life. It was then that I realized that automata exist in “mathematical cyberspace” a term I use to explain where math plays itself out. Then I asked myself this question…. Do we need a computer screen for automata to exist? Or is the computer just a tool for us to view this math? It was then that I realized that we don’t need a computer screen and we don’t need a programmer. I wondered if we were actually conscious automata in a different but similar Game of Life existing somewhere in “mathematical cyberspace”…. Then I remembered what Robert Lanza had actually thought that we take information from “out there” process it “in there” and we somehow animate the mathematics around us to look, feel, touch, taste, and smell like an animated, real universe. So then I googled is math all there is, and I found Max Tegmark. It’s a TOE and that’s why I say that I finished with Max Tegmark.
I will also say that the best description ever of Max Tegmark’s MUH was actually written by Brian Greene the Hidden Reality.
"Chomskers". Love this channel, certainly my favorite science source. We live in the greatest of times when the greatest of minds today speak of the greatest of minds then!
Thanks for a great follow up. Really enjoying it. Title suggestion Lost in Translation - uncertainty in communication
I’m reminded of Plato’s alogory of the Divided Line in the Republic. 🤔😁 1:36:57. Thank you both. ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️
If everything is describable by math, does it means - everything is math!? Than, you don’t have to search cosmos, you just search math to discover laws and premises of cosmos and nature itself! Does it mean, if something could be existed by math, in the same time it could be existed in reality!? Great conversation, thank you guys!
The physics we do are approximations and abstractions. We couldn't work the actual math of the universe from inside the same universe. It would be a paradox. So we need empirism. We can explore simpler realities that are not ours with math though. And yes, if it exists in math then it's reality, not necessarily ours, but some reality.
Awesome conversation guys, Thanks!
Incredible. Simply, outstanding gentlemen. I apllaud you and your massive brains.
Max Tegmark ... love this guy. Brian too. If only the world consisted of mostly people like them rather than almost no people like them.
Hi Brian and Max. Thank you so much for a brilliant discussion! I love all your work. Kind wishes. Joan Nagase, Manchester, England.
I was a little puzzled by both Brian and Max's position on whether math is invented or discovered - and the specific positions they took on it.
I am with Max on that one i.e. the mathematics is discovered. For example, the yet unnamed concept of 1 existed even before humans started thinking about 1 or for that matter even earth was formed. A nascent Hydrogen atom had 1 electron in its orbit. It always had and it will always have. The "1" part of "1 electron" is a concept and exists in a platonic sense of the word exist. The "electron" part of the "1 electron" exists in physical sense of the word exist. However I part company with Max when he says that all properties like electron have value -1, 0 or 1 and he says this is true all properties at the bottom and therefore universe itself is math at the bottom. The reason for parting company is that 1 without a unit is just the concept of 1. +1 spin i.e. the property of spin having +1 value is what makes it physical. A 1 by itself, without the additional information 1 of "what" is just a concept and not physical. I think Max is confusing between description of something with something.
On the other hand I did not understand what Brian said that when a person thought about 1 or any other mathematical equation, that is the time when that equation was invented. Yes the "thought" was "invented" by that human. But not the number 1 itself. 1 as a concept without any units ,exists platonically - of course with the platonic sense of the word exist.
I think string theory tries to but in my opinion has fails to demonstrate it's truth, to find what is everything made of i.e. strings. But I can understand that idea that physical universe is made out of physical strings. But then what are strings made of. We can always keep asking that question like a kid - but why? but why?
It may simply be an issue of whether or not words like invention and discovery take into two different sense of the word - platonically exist and physically exist.
Thanks for all your efforts with the foundation in producing such quality content so often.
Title suggestions for the language piece:
Language: Nature or Nurture?
From Cave Paintings to Emojis, LOL: The Evolution of Human Language
Speaking Your Mind: Dissecting The Science and Art of Language
Minds like Max's are invaluable to our generation. I always enjoy hearing informed perspective.
I could listen to Max speak everyday!