Numbers and Free Will (extra footage) - Numberphile
Вставка
- Опубліковано 31 сер 2015
- Extra footage from this main video: • Numbers and Free Will ...
More Numberphile videos with Prof Edward Frenkel: bit.ly/Frenkel_Playlist
Prof Frenkel is the author of Love & Math... amzn.to/1g6XP6j
Prof Frenkel's website: bit.ly/EdwardFrenkel
NUMBERPHILE
Website: www.numberphile.com/
Numberphile on Facebook: / numberphile
Numberphile tweets: / numberphile
Numberphile is supported by the Mathematical Sciences Research Institute (MSRI): bit.ly/MSRINumberphile
Videos by Brady Haran
Support us on Patreon: / numberphile
Brady's videos subreddit: / bradyharan
A run-down of Brady's channels: www.bradyharan.com
Sign up for (occasional) emails: eepurl.com/YdjL9
I love this guy a lot. He has a lot of the same beliefs as me, but the main thing I like about him, is that he is not trying to impose his thoughts on others, but tries to explain his views and hoping that it will make others think about the subject.
+Udit Guptaa no, making others think about a subject is definitely not imposing their beliefs on others :)
Marcel Hattingh imposing beliefs means that you make consequences for others based on your beliefs or forcing them to believe (when taught small children for example). not talking about your beliefs, that's just sharing what you believe in.
+ultimateredstone If I agree with you, you helped change my mind, you imposed on my beliefs. If I disagree with you, I still believe that it is impossible to not impose on someones belief, however small.
Marcel Hattingh imposing, by definition requires force, compulsion or authority. sure, it might be impossible to not change anothers' mind a bit but that doesn't fall under the category of imposing, at least I wouldn't think so. just a semantics issue really :P
+ultimateredstone Do you think I could change your mind on that? :P haha I completely agree its all just semantics, I'm just unsure where one would draw the line between forced action and 'choice', because I see no logical point of separation, in a discrete sense.
I’m always impressed by Brady’s questions. Really just a solid voice of common sense
my computer just said through its speakers "i'm not a computer! i'm human!"
i laughed so damned hard. its like the hard drive grew sentience because of a youtube video.
and he (the speaker) I even had a Russian accent!
funny :)
Omg 🤣🤣🤣🤣
"I am not a computer. I am human." Exactly what a computer would say if it wanted us to think it was human...
A computer doesn't "want" though.
Exactly what a computer would say if its prime directive was to hide the fact it is not human. Better?
Not really, he could say it, of course, but he wouldn't mean anything by it, while you as a human mean and feel what you say and that itself feeds into the feedback look to take further actions, already a non-computable property.
Vincent Killion Checkmate computers
SnakeEngine How can you know for sure if it isn't conscious?
The issue of "agreeing on a basis" is not nearly as simple as describing something within that basis. The fundamental issue is that while we may have influence over the data in the "basis" in which we exist, we do not choose our "basis", and all of scientific endeavor is just one modern way of attempting to understand, measure, and describe our "basis".
What he's pointing out, however, is that if you give a description and a full understanding of the basis, you could make a copy. But an identical copy is not the same vector, the original vector exists on that one piece of paper and you can make ANOTHER ONE just like it, through these algebraic means.
This, and the original video, is the greatest numberphile video of all time.
See a mathematician talking about the limitations of mathematics in human reality is really exciting. The faith in rationality and Goedel's formulation are very good points.
You all need to understand just how humble this guy is... Your reality is an abstraction made by your senses. Your reality is not absolute, no matter how well you test it.
The map is not the same as the territory. It all boils down to this. What we perceive as reality is not the same as what reality is. We may build models and theories, and use them with great success to predict or explain things, but reality can't be reduced to those models and theories. It is by essence beyond grasp and comprehension, and we may only access some projection of it that makes sense to us.
What a computer does is not just a representation of what a human does. The computer actually does the same types of things that a human does. It's not just a representation, like numbers for a vector.
You cannot guarantee that you are not a machine.
Marcello Morales You can't show that you have free will. Computers do things different from what they're supposed to do all the time. Every day computers do something that no one ever dreamed they could do. There are computers that learn how to make food.
You have no way to prove that you are not a machine.
+beauxq You can guarantee anything you want to, what does that even mean?
It seems to me that his argument is that the assumption that you can be represented by a deterministic entity is an irrational (non-deterministic) activity. His most cogent argument is the incompleteness theorem.
I do disagree with your argument that computers are not just mathematical entities or that they do the same types of things humans do. Since Turing forward, every computer system is just an abstraction of what we imagine humans do. The hardware and firmware are mathematical entities running a set of mathematical programs. Both are limited by the same issues that Goedel discussed.
Michael Terrazas The incompleteness theorem would apply the same to a computer or a human.
+Michael Terrazas What makes you think human minds aren't limited in a way analogous to formal systems? Formal systems are relatively simple systems, since they're made for humans to manipulate and use(often for practical purposes). Human minds are obviously complex. But the substrate on which the human mind runs, the "hardware", is a network of neurons interacting chemically and electrically. Presumably, that can be represented as a formal system. But the human mind could hardly be described directly as simple chemical and electrical interactions between a bunch of neurons. The same way any minimally complex programs cannot easily be explained as electrical interactions between a bunch of transistors. Because there's difference of levels of abstraction between the network of neurons and the mind, and between the transistors and the video game(for example). The more complex the program, the more levels of abstractions separate the program from the hardware, the less the mathematical limitations imposed by Godel's incompleteness theorems seem relevant. Same goes for the mind, I think.
+schok51 I make no such assumption. I'm just stating that what a computer does is merely a model of what our minds do. Not exactly the same.
"i know from my own experience, and i cannot fool myself" yeah.... about that....
+Mikko Finell He also mentioned, he is not persuading, giving evidence.. so complaining about the argument not being sofisticated enough is irrelevant. The point is, that coordinate systems and numberlines are constructs and not real objects, while in school, we begin with those and forget about the objects that they are trying to describe. Now the question is - are you an object or a construct acting on an object?
+Mikko Finell Agree.. "Free Will" seems to be just a catchphrase to get more viewers.. Which is sad, because the abstraction in mathematics is an interesting topic on its own.
+Mikko Finell I wonder if he doesn't mean that when we are thinking of ourselves as computers/ recipes/ algorithms we are making an assumption about ourselves (say that there is source code in our brains which it will be straightforward to download) that we have no basis for.
+Mikko Finell well, I think it's possible (when he's talking about choosing coordinates, etc.) that he's saying there is a lot we are assuming in "if I made an exact copy of your brain," although I don't think he (or Kurzweil) are talking about making copies so much as simulations. The idea that simulating a human brain is doable when we haven't (AFAIK) simulated any other brain , it seems premature.
I think if you made a physical copy of a person (not just the brain) they would be similar. Except one would have false memories of a life it never lived? (Yes, I agree, if you include the body)
+Mikko Finell The memories don't correspond to events that that the copy brain actually experienced. They correspond to events a different brain experienced, but the copy brain remembers experiencing them (even though it didn't exist yet) . That's why they're false.
Besides life support, a brain needs sensory input and motor output-if we are talking about a physical copy of the brain, it seems like the most straightforward way to do this is with a physical body.
Is this similar to the story about the girl who lived all her life wearing a pair of glasses that removes all the color from her view. Sort of like a grayscale filter. All her life she has never seen color. She has access to a computer and knows that color exists. She knows the light frequencies, the connotations people have with certain colors, that red/orange has a warm feeling and blue has a cold feeling. She knows EVERYTHING there is to know about colors down to the littlest of detail.
But still when she takes off those glasses and sees the clear blue sky for the first time she'll have learned something. Something that she could never have learned without seeing it herself. She will have learned what the colors look like.
Perhaps humans are like that. There is no adequate description that perfectly describes humans in such a way that they can ever be modeled precisely. There is something that we can't know about them unless we are that person or maybe even to see that person. That all the knowledge about who I am is divided over different people.
Perhaps this missing piece comes from the first hand experience of being that person. No one can ever describe me in full, because only I have that knowledge of certain aspects of myself and that knowledge cannot be described on paper it needs to be experienced.
And through that knowledge I see other people differently. So I know stuff about others that they don't know about themselves because they don't have that knowledge/experience of being me. So to each person everyone is just a projection onto their limited knowledge and it is impossible to ever fully comprehend a person unless you see them through the eyes of every possible human being. Impossible for us and thus that we might be able to be represented by machines, but we won't know for sure and every machine ever built, no matter how close the resemblances are won;t ever be a perfect representation of the person.
I like this idea. I'll stick with it for now. I like not being a math equation, but a human being instead :)
+Ritish Oemraw Great story. Ever wanted to know how it feels to be an another person, e.g. your friend? Well, for that you must be the same as that person, in which case you wouldn't be "you" and have that desire to know. So, there are things people will never know, and it's an ultimate barrier.
+Artem Borisovskiy Yes, you can't be same as that person and stay yourself. You can include him to yourself and you will not be same as before but you can keep your desire. Also every contradiction is solvable due to Godel theorems which you used to write the comment. Just a positive thinking.
+Artem Borisovskiy "there are things people will never know" Wrong. Always exist thing that people doesn't know yet but they could and always exist contradiction and it is solvable one by thing they doesn't know yet.
+Artem Borisovskiy and when/ if you do ever get to see the world through their eyes you would understand them completely and their reasoning, their judgements and everything. You would love them or hate them like they themselves love/hate themselves. And in that moment.... You destroy them! But only if you're name is Ender ;P
+Ritish Oemraw +Artem Borisovskiy Yeah, you will be like my browser. It ate all RAM on my computer and still hungry. =)
Those are some very very good and challenging questions Brady. I thoroughly enjoyed this video.
I'm positively salivating at the prospect of a video about Gödel with Prof. Frenkel.
absolutely love Ed, best guest on numberphile
This is one of the most profound videos I've watched. Great content, great line of thinking
I would love to have a conversation with this man, damn those arguments, the wisdow that he employs, such beauty...
I think he makes complete sense with the mathematical things, that we may be too complex to only exist in zeros and ones and more information to give context to the numbers in different ways may be needed, but I'm not really with him on the part about love and believing or not that you're a machine... we evolved to this point with the sole purpose of surviving, love and all that makes perfect sense within evolution. Then, disregarding quantum mechanics because it's not relevant in this issue, every state of every particle and all the energy in you can be put into numbers or more generally, maths. I agree with you that it seems religious to regard ourselves as something special in the universe or even earth. We know exactly where we came from and that the universe basically spat us out, no matter how beautiful we are (from our perspective) and it seems like the prof is implying we are something more, which, as he acknowledges, is based on absolutely nothing but personal "experience" or maybe even the want to believe. He wants to try and nudge people in the right direction, but to me it seems as if that direction leads nowhere. Anyways, loved his points about the importance of context and required added value in numbers/maths!
+ultimateredstone Love, or more specifically agape, does not make sense from an evolutionary point of view. Why would sacrifice evolve spontaneously? Any beings inclined to sacrifice themselves for others would die off, and not procreate over time. From an objective evolutionary standpoint, true, selfless, unconditional love is a disadvantage, and thus according to Darwin would fade away in a species.
+Icepick L You are correct that love can be a disadvantage, however many traits that creatures have can provide an advantage that overcomes their disadvantages such as bipedalism in humans. Love, I think, helps prolong humanity more so than it kills it.
+ultimateredstone 1s and 0s are just one way of encoding information. It happens to be efficient for the current technology of computers based on binary state transistors. But theoretically, there isn't any limit to the amount of information that can be encoded in binary. In practice, that limit is the maximal capacity of whatever information storage media we're using. If the human mind can be encoded in a mathematical way at all, then it can be encoded into binary. Complexity is irrelevant. That only means more memory's needed. I mean, the complexity might mean it will be difficult to encode efficiently or practically, but it doesn't mean it is impossible.
schok51 if you're talking about just describing the human body from the outside, yeah, but if you take the human body as numbers themselves, everything actually working together with only numbers... I think then you need something similar to the vector example, the body understanding different things in different ways
***** exactly and thank you. :)
So his ultimate point is just because we can put numbers (which we invented) to something doesn't mean it itself is a number.
Very interesting idea, because it implies just because we can witness something and put numbers to it doesn't mean they are what we are trying to describe. Because the numbers are just like calling Blue Blue, we could very much call Blue Pancakes and that doesn't mean either is right. Our observations and calculations are just how we describe reality, thus the reality isn't really those calculations or observations.
Thus a human which we can describe, through what we know, as numbers isn't really numbers or algorithms because there is more to what we can see and measure. And by that I mean what we see and measure is not by what it truly is, but what we label it thus it's all speculative in some way. Like intelligence, we have no idea what it is but we can measure what we think it may be, but we don't really know so how can we put a numerical value on it when it in itself isn't a number, IE it's all relative. And to put blind faith in the fact our numbering system, which we created, can describe things we didn't is illogical and at the same time disproving that numbers can describe everything by that very belief being unmeasurable.
Lots of food for thought in this video.
+goemon4 Most of the time, when we try and represent things in reality with numbers, we simplify reality a bit so as to capture just the information we actually need about the object we're trying to represent. That's true. At some point, adding more details about an object into our mathematical representation of it doesn't make our representation more useful for our purpose. Well, if our purpose is to represent an intelligent system, then that should also be true. At some point, our model of intelligence is complex enough for our purposes(which might be pattern recognition, logical reasoning in specific domains, various other problem solving tasks). Why shouldn't it be the same about consciousness? At some point, when your model of a conscious entity does everything you would expect a conscious human to do, then does it matter that it is just an imprecise representation of a mind? And really, the term "imprecise" is not appropriate, because precision is relative to what we're trying to achieve. If we are trying to replicate every single detail of a human brain down to the quantum level, then we will probably always be "imprecise". But is a mind dependent on the quantum level? Is it dependent on the atomic level? The molecular level? The neuron level? Does the firing of a single neuron affect a mind, at all? Well, neurons dies every day, so I hope not. I think the mind exists at some level of abstraction over the network of neurons that is our brain. If that's the case, then we don't need a representation that goes to the quantum level. We just need a representation is precise to that level of abstraction. Whatever's under it doesn't matter.
I don't believe we invented the discreet sizes. Only the numerals are human's.
I don't believe we invented the discreet sizes. Only the numerals are human's.
goemon4 Humans didn’t invent math. It is discovered like science.
There are two outcomes. Either: A) A human being, mind, brain and all can be represented/simulated by mathematical systems and/or a hypothetical computer. Even if it cannot be built, it's still possible. Or:
B) Belief in the supernatural. Belief in the soul.
The reason is: all of the processes within a human and within the mind are simply the interactions of particles; these particles can be simulated with mathematical laws. Even the probabilistic subatomic (quantum) interactions can be simulated with the right statistical approach.
By saying that we are not machines this means you're saying there's some process special to humans which is beyond the realm of science and inquiry. Obviously simple things (like mice or even single-celled organisms or a virus) can be simulated. Is he suggesting that there was a specific point in history when humans gained souls? Consciousness is an illusion.. a simulated consciousness (or a computer that convincingly pretends to be conscious) is identical to consciousness, hence consciousness is nothing more than an extension lead plugged into itself.
+Torgo very well put comment! ^^ and yeah you're right, quantum interactions can actually be kind of calculated statistically, forgot about that (not that I would make any connection between love and quantum mechanics anyways, just because qm is not literally predictable). was kind of surprised when he started talking about humans like that
+ultimateredstone Many people (even esteemed professors) have religious beliefs or belief in supernatural phenomena.. humans are complicated; they can (and often do) hold two conflicting beliefs within their mind. Some people choose to believe things even when they know it's not necessarily rational.
Often (example: this video) people will support their claim by saying "I just know" or "I just have a feeling about it." Such an argument cannot and should not be refuted. Nevertheless, even people holding this argument realise that having a "feeling" that god/souls are real reveals more about their own mind and philosophical outlook than actual truths about the external world.
I mentioned the quantum thing because laymen often say "no, people cannot be computerised. at a subatomic level everything is unpredictable and cannot be simulated". Which is a very common misconception regarding quantum physics.
Torgo I completely agree with everything except that such irrational arguments should not be refuted. I think that the truth is always the most important thing and people should learn to love reality, because it is more than beautiful enough without any god or pseudophysics. And even if reality was hideous I would rather live in it than a distorted world. By arguing against irrational beliefs you're not forcing them to stop believing but at least trying to make them realise that they are deluding themselves. Some people realise they only believe because they like it and want to believe, and if they still believe in their god (or whatever it is) knowing this, there is nothing anyone can do, no. But people arguing that there is a real basis for their beliefs, that should be refuted because it's simply not true and these people might try to convince others (their kids for example) to also delude themselves to the point that they don't realise they are deluding themselves, and that we really don't want.
+ultimateredstone I guess it's a matter of opinion but yeah, I'm certain every single christian on the internet gets approached by roaming packs of atheists 100 times a week trying to convince them to renounce their faith. And I'm certain that none of them have ever succeeded; it's a waste of breath. I don't really see in the point in it; besides it's a fool's errand to make such an argument: irrational people cannot be convinced regardless of how sound the argument is.
Also I don't see any harm in irrational/religious/supernatural beliefs. Generally these thought forms provide a lot of comfort, joy and engagement for 85% of the world's population. There are some exceptions where people use these things for evil but generally it's all pretty harmless.
Most people wouldn't be able to mentally cope with the horror of the human experience without their imaginary blanket.
Edward Frenkel I think his point is that they are predictable in the sense that is relevant to the human body. The unpredictable nature of quantum mechanics doesn't matter in the scale of our bodies and everything above that magnitude is perfectly predictable anyways
This video led me to re-read my notes from undergraduate philosophy, which reminded me why I love philosophy so much. Thanks, Numberphile!
waiting eagerly to see next numberphile vid with this guy about Godel's incompleteness theorem...never wrapped my head around that one when i tried...'coz itz really interesting....
thanks for uploading this Brady.
I am impressed with how relevant your questioning was, being how vague his topic is.
The white board in the background is a fantastic addition to the show. Some of the finest aspects of known reality in quantum mechanics demonstrate this lack of certainty that we notice in the uncertainty principle in the way very small things represent themselves to our methods of perceiving them. The universe is full of uncertainty and mathematics is not able to escape that fact. This brings to mind the debate whether mathematics is created in the human mind or discovered by it. The most true answer that I have found is that both are true simultaneously.
"There is no basis in reality - no pun intended" had me in stitches 😂😂
Great, great videos.
Testimony of 'knowing' a truth can never be taken seriously as knowledge or truth when that is all that it has going for it.
+Hythloday71 The true is that you can't ever know anything for certain. (That doesn't mean that there aren't absolute truths. In fact there is nothing else but absolute truths in the universe.)
But how do you know what you say is true?
+MAMAjAMAj8 Frankly i don't but saying that would undermine my statement thus it's counterproductive to say.
Lol, the question at 2:40 was so savage. No interviewee is safe from Brady's combos
That last part about rationality.. I agree with it SO MUCH. I'm always thinking about these kind of things all the time, a lot of people think they're rational and they don't understand that that what makes them irrational.
+tggt00 well sure, if people think they are rational they are wrong, but there's a difference between humans not applying rationality and rationality itself being wrong.
I really enjoyed this video. I hope we can finish his complete argument on a later date.
I really liked this pair of videos, very uplifting subject matter. Of course I enjoy math, but I also believe there's more to the world than just it.
Brady. How would you describe the joy of seeing a child smile using numbers? You could take a picture of her smiling and express that picture as a bunch of pixels. But that's not the FEELING that you get when you earn that smile from her. Dr. Frenkel is beyond right on all of this. The extent to which we err in our modern culture about these things is practically pathological.
The concept of "free will" is somewhat strange.
I do believe that eg a person will always act the same way in a given situation if nothing is changed. The "free will" just indicates that everyone could act differently from each other. But they themselves would never "choose" a different option, since they can't.
A computer will also do the same, I don't see the difference there.
However, I also do believe that a human can never create some perfect machine, since as an imperfect being we can't know how to do that. In the same way, we can't know how to make a machine that creates a perfect machine. We can only have them do certain things better than us.
To the whole emotions thing I just say there are hormones and stuff, so of course it can be explained logically. You can even go that way and program influences of "emotional states" into a machine. Why would that be less real? At least for the machine it is, as much as yours is to you...
Boolean love = true; ;P
Thank you for uploading this. Charming.
3:00 Brady asks the perfect question and is totally right
+Michael Graham
brady touched on a big topic in analytic philosophy - as i understand it - concerning identity, which is difficult to grasp and discuss in a 10 minute youtube video and talking about that would cause even more confusion this video apparently already has among numberphile viewers... it's a funny question though.
there must be more of this. it is mind blowing and bloody fantastic
Oh...man, where is the promised video on incompleteness theorem with Edward? Just can't wait! I believe this is the only man who can show us how to interpret it so that no vague left!
the auto eng-sub at 3:11 though......
Best numberphile video by far, rivalled only by Frenkels other videos.
god damn brady we need more numberphile videos in our lives!!!!^^
It's the distinction between describing something, which we are constantly improving on, and experiencing something. He's making the claim that that vector experience (or existence) doesn't depend on its definition. It exists and we have agreed ways of perceiving it. A machine based on our system of logic is only as powerful as our ability to define and describe, and its processing isn't capable of incorporating an experience. So that is the quintessential privilege of being conscious and separates us from pure mathematics.
"I am not a number, I am a free man!"
The new No. 2: "Ahh aha ha ha ha..."
Thank you so much.
I must say that I do love you my friend. I've been contemplating on an existential model, that really bugs the hell out of me, and i knew when i saw the "naive" but still scary conclusions of the model, and actually the only thing that helped so far was gödels incompleteness theorem as a last backup not to let the curiosity take overhand. :P Its hard to describe but I've been waiting since february for an existential relief from it, and i cannot say that I have complete relief now but its way way better. :P The perspective is from an imagined "beyond life"Basically as a consciousness you cant really tell where life starts and ends, from the experience reference of time, if you will, we can say that we have a "story", a "life" and the only things that i could find was just myself, and everyone else, in an environment, in "time". Everything therefore has to happen "in time" wether its a conclusion, love, happiness, etcetera, tragedies, and so on. My thoughts, my language, my everything, my setting, my place where i live, the time that i live in. HAS in one sense or another to come from reality over time. Therefore, where, from that perspective, lies free will, really? If i view myself as a personality shaped by dna, upbringing, my reactions to events, is it then likely, that this exact universe has existed forever, and its just from experience point of view a loop? And this realization in itself would in that case be a nightmare of a life :P Then it boils down to a complete case of Sysifos. And the definition of "you live only once" has a completely different meaning,
I do NOT like that idea and would like to find it completely irrational, but at the same time the "possibility" of it beeing the case scares me to this day. I NEED HELP! :P
“their brain, or whatever they got” killed me
I like to be challenged, but I don't feel challenged only confused. If we're not a machine, what are we?
+gasdive yeah I'm also not really sure where exactly he was going with that or what he meant. it seemed like he just wants to believe we are something more than "machines" and all those "cold" attributes associated with them
Mick Ohrberg "personal experience (i.e. revelation, if one wishes to make that connection) has exactly zero evidentiary value" and there has no value at all. The mind is a complex thing that is very capable of delusions but in this case, there isn't even a subconscious delusion there, just the want to believe in something.
+ultimateredstone Exactly. Just look at how easily the brain is fooled by illusions, or as Dr Tyson calls them - brain failures. Many see what they want to see, despite lack of evidence, or in some cases in spite of evidence to the contrary.
Mick Ohrberg yep. we can only trust rational reasoning, not feelings from our brain. and why trust rational reasoning? because it works xD
+ultimateredstone Except when rationality doesn't work. The most egregious way it fails is that it can fail to draw any conclusion if the representation, is insufficient. Here the professor's point that the representation is not the thing is very important. Further, it is not just a matter of getting a better representation as Gödel's incompleteness theorem proves that no representation will be complete. We can only hope for complete enough. This actually prevents us from modeling either the operation of a computer or a person to any degree of accuracy. We should expect them to never be the same.
absolutely brilliant!!
I love how he used Godel's theorem at the end. It made me happy and connected his argument for the rest of the piece.
AMAZING video
This is a really really neat view. Changed my mind!
3:10 That smile is the basis of *oops, he refuted my point royally*. Well done Brady Wittgenstein ;)
He mentioned what gave me the belief that not everything is computational, that being godel's first incompleteness theorem.
He goes beyond his scope and delivers the same argument that my old Religions teacher offered:
"I know there is more to life than numbers, I have experienced an unfathomable and indefinable feeling of such"...
Good for him, but if you can't describe it to a child then you yourself don't understand it. (bonus points for anyone who knows who I'm paraphrasing here!) Aside from this, I fully recognise his mathematical prowess and respect his position. I'm glad Brady challenged him on these points!
Skeptik Wasn't that Richard Feynman who said that?....
Joseph Meador Yup! although many believe it was picked up from Einstein somewhere prior.
Your intelligence is much deeper than Ray Kurzweil's. Thank you for sharing your insights with the public.
You caught him in a logic loop Brady. Brilliant, haha.
It's nice to hear that there are others which share a love for the logical and mechanical, but can still embrace the 'warm & fluffy' perspective of existence
Edward Frenkel, though not necessarily sharing my own views on this matter, is nothing short of unbridled genius.
Another argument for the case might be (and I don't know why mathematicians and computer scientists tend not to mention it) the stochastic nature of a biological system (such as a human being). While if you knew all the ingredients, and coordinates, and numbers and basically all the information needed to recreate a person, you could do it, but you would only get a recreation of one fixed point in a differential system. Also, that recreation, if allowed to continue working, will not mimic the 'parent' system, but "do it's own thing", because of the stochastic nature of elements within the system.
This topic is really exciting.
This video is very interesting. I couldn't help but notice the particle, wave, quantum mechanics equations on the whiteboard in the background. A very brief intersection of many things in this video: space, time, quantum mechanics, logic, determinism, mathematics, meta mathematics (godel), God, free will, logical paradoxes (rationality vs irrationality)... I'm glad to see others are pondering all of these things and how they fit together too. :)
“Our belief in rationality, if I may say so, is so Irrational”~ Edward Frenkel. Amazing quote
Good questions Brady!
Good job!!!
while listening to prof Frenkel's arguments few questions just occurred to me:
1- do elementary particles (electrons, quarks, etc) know (or know about) the equations quantum mechanics?
2- do these equations describe elementary particles fairly accurately?
3- what would an electron tell you if you accused it of following Dirac's equation when it's alone?
4- why would someone think that he/she is more real than an electron?
my personal answers are:
1- no
2- yes
3- WHO THE FUCK IS DIRAC
4- no clue
You aren't a machine because you have personal experience. What makes you think machines can't have personal experience?
I do enjoy Brady's questions.
I think Edward Frenkel has a very good way of putting things and an obvious enthusiasm for all things maths related, which is passed on to us watchers!
I would love to hear a debate between him and Max Tegmark who has suggested that a mathematical universe could be the answer. I realise they do not agree and that is what would make the debate so much fun to watch.
Thanks for this video - perhaps I will ponder on who has the most rounded views about life the universe and everything :)
This mathematician is very insightful. Noam Chomsky has also explained on a video why the human mind will never be represented on a computer, a device which ultimately adds and subtracts 1s and 0s. The mind's properties, say consciousness, cannot even be defined or described so how could any one know whether a human mind will ever emerge from a super duper compatible no matter how powerful. What is love, as the good mathematician asks, what is anger or any emotion. The mind on a computer? So naïve.
"Im not a computer" thats just what a computer would say...
with an infinite amount of numbers you could do the vector justice by describing it in every possible base
+DarkAnimaYT But that is irrelevant. How would a computer contain an infinite set?
we are talking about it in principle and that has nothing to do with computers Phijkchu Satanic Salamence
Ok. ^^ Then yeah, I guess. You could do almost anything with infinities though.
+DarkAnimaYT No, because describing it in all possible bases would remove any distinction two different vectors would have. Let's say I designate a vector by in one base. For every other possible vector in 2D space, I can find a base in which the designation of that vector is . If we describe a vector in all possible bases, all vectors will be the same.
SolMasterzzz True, but IDK if that's what he is trying to say. I think he just meant it in the most abstract sense possible. I mean, it has no bearing on the question at hand anyway.
I really like the Gödel incompleteness theorem argument and I can see that this is a good explanation why we probably can never "upload our mind". But does it also show that our brain is not a Turing machine?
Very thought provoking.
I love this :)
You don't need a degree in philosophy or neuroscience to make an educated statement about the nature of the human experience, all the credibility you need is being a human who lives the human experience with an open mind, and this guy is that. Just listen to what he has to say, let it in, question it and your thoughts on it, and if it isn't reigning true for you then don't worry about it.
Doesn't mean it's less true for him, and we can still try to gain the wisdom he's found from trying to meld our perspective with his, even for a moment.
Don't let the businesses called universities, as wonderful as they've been for humanity throughout history, be what dictate what thoughts are 'worthwhile' and what thoughts should be ignored, they should all be listened to.
+TehKhronicler Thank you! Amen. :)
But you'd better be pretty smart, and have given it some unusually rigorous thought, or whatever you say is likely to be trite nonsense.
the last part was great!!!
Since physics is completely mathematically understood, is he secretly going metaphysical on our asses?
John Searle made a clear point about this issue of whether human minds are just sophisticated computers and whether in the end it all comes down to mathematical truths. I believe it's very similar to what Prof Frenkel is trying to say. We certainly can use all these mathematical models to describe the world and several physical phenomena but we must not forget that it's just a represantation of the world and not the world itself, just as the pair of numbers ( in the previous video ) stands as a represantation of the vector and isn't the vector itself. To say that anything is a computer requires a certain computational assignment. It's an observer relative phenomenon and not intrinsic in any object , whether it's a PC or a brain. That in a nutshell is the main point , you can check his lectures for more.
This guy seems so natural, that even if all humans were computers, he'd still be be human. Idk how to explain what I mean.
It's a very hard philosophical question. Suppose you create a computer program, that when asked a question, it will answer exactly as you would. In context of answering questions, is the program identical with you (just in different form)?
Another example. Suppose you are learning for a test and instead of learning the facts, you tattoo them onto your hand. In both cases you will have the knowledge available everywhere at every time (it fact the tattoo might even last longer than your memory). Can the tattoo be considered a memory (just in different form)?
Could a "perfect approximation" be considered identical with the original?
Please please please do a video or a series on the incompleteness theorem. Would love to see a series on formal logic. Maybe it could be a crossover series with computerphile and even the long dormant philosophyphile channel as well.
Brady is awesome !!
"I am not a computer"
That is exactly what computer would say.
The last video was great, that extra footage just doesn't make sense.
Science (and math) are just a way to describe the world based in human observation/thoughts. When people say "humans are machines", they are not saying we are like them in all ways, they are just saying that if you analyze a human fully, you could understand it and get to know in which base they make decisions and stuff... That's great.
Logic is in the domain of words and process. What cannot be doubted is awareness before all descriptions, which with concentration into subtle sensations can bring a freedom from logic, such that it only becomes a tool for process, rather than an identity. It seems this is what he's trying to address, people thinking they can describe themselves in terms of an arbitrary word system (like Wittgenstein says "language forms my world"). If the language turns into pure awareness, it's a liberating experience.
When he said "glory to mathematics" I really wanted to hear "glory to Arstotzka!
This guy is great!
In my opinion, his views upon the subject are very well balanced. Even thou mathematics has changed our view of the world and predicted and helped us invent many many life changing inventions, as well as giving us an amazingly better understanding of the universe, he understands the limits of mathematics and is relaxed talking about it.
When it comes to love, I would like to add something here, as I was discussing materialism and how it reduced our idea of ourselves to just maths and physics with some friends, they told me that some things that happened to them are impossible to be explained given these philosophies or "planes" alone. They both agreed that in many instances they would 'feel' the beloved one, and whether they were thinking about them, and even 'know' when they were about to call them (sometimes they would wake up randomly at the middle of the night or even at 4 am, and as they check the time off the phone, they would get a call, and this would be consistent in a way that rules out coincidence), suggesting some sort of a backdoor connection that exists in spiritual plane (if you consider this to be the primary plane). Given many other similar and more vivid stories that happen to highly spiritual people, I can see how the human can't be just information extracted from his physical being (which is immensely useful), and that it can't, alone, reconstruct him.
What this argument boils down to is the question: Are things greater than the sum of their parts? I would agree with Dr. Frenkel in his assessment.
It's so ironic that you say you're not a computer while clearly sitting inside my laptop screen
I think that what Ed failed to say- but certainly implied- is that any mathematical system that represents a thing (as with his vector example) still requires a set of coordinates to be imposed upon it.
Where can I get his shirt?
I'd LOVE to see the rest of the Numberphile (and Computerphile/Sixty Symbols) family weigh in on this...
I love edward frenkel make more videos with him
to describe something is different from to create something. You may be able to describe a human being in all it's details down to subatomar levels with even all dynamics involved - although I heavily doubt that will ever be possible - but does that enable you to create it?
Those who make idols shall be like unto them. (Ps. 115:8). Most contemporary physicists and mathematicians are perfectly comfortable with this transformation. It is rare to come across a "science type" person like Prof. Frenkel who has the wisdom and, dare I say, the humanity to resist.
+Brance Finger But why should anyone take that at all seriously? It is words in an old book. It needs to stand on it's own merits. It doesn't become rational or reasonable automatically. Or maybe you imagine it does. If so do you apply that same standard across the board, or simply for your own book/belief?
You seem, may I say emotionally invested in some kind of evidence free belief system.
But you are correct, it is rare for "science type" people to come out with irrational, baseless beliefs. But I certainly wouldn't call it wisdom. Unless wisdom means making things up without basis, and give no reasonable explanation for doing so.
You sound like a gestapo rather than a Christian. Why is it ok to be so unfairly cynical to modern intellectuals? What’s more, you are just projecting your own understanding onto the Bible, just as centuries ago the Catholic Church projected geocentrism onto totally irrelevant verses.
1. Irrationality is a concept.
2. Rationality is coherent use of concepts.
C1: Any argument for rationality relies on descriptions of irrationalty (contexts of proper use etc.), and that takes coherence.
C2: If C1 is true, then it follows that coherent talk about irrationality negates irrationality.
If we can form two or more abstract propositions (does not even have to be that clearly defined), then we can derive a wide range of axiomatic systems, which are almost consistent without humans, but yeah, consistent or infinite with humans (depending on the rules, as defined by humans). We may call this wild card 'irrational', but I think it just points to human nature, or the source of rationality. It is true though, that concepts do not have definite descriptions. Wittgenstein proved that concepts are not defined by their initial state, but by how we use them. They change and evolve with context and time, and in that sense AI seems almost hopeless. Like, how can one possibly simulate that? (chaos)
Side note: like prof Frenkel suggested, we should totally have an incompleteness theorem video. Between that, and Turing's computer science analog (of non computability), we have no math that has shocked the world of philosophy so hard.
Brilliant Brady, Brilliant!!! You are doing a great service to mankind in saving us from the fundamentalist and spreading the true Word. Love you Brady. Love you Professor.
As a philosopher, he's a great maths teacher. :)
3:07 extensionally, you could, intensionally, i don't know, and i don't know if we will ever know. though this isn't a mathematical but a philosophical question.
i believe that frenkels argument is that he has an awareness that is unique to him that no ersatz frenkel could have, therefore, intensionally, we cannot.
this can be derived from the philosophical premise that:
given an object and an object those objects are either identical or distinguishable
4:49 what if we said "almost everything is mathematics, the rest is philosophy"?
I would be very interested in seeing Prof Frenkel talking about maths role in quantum physics :)
Thank You! I am human too! And I have a soul and no one can convince me otherwise!
I like what Dr. Frenkel has to say, but one thing I will say is that he is thinking like a mathematician. A biologist or a neuroscientist will say that we can explain those sensations that we refer to as feelings as neurochemical responses to stimuli in our environment and how that neural network has been conditioned from development until that moment when the feeling takes place. That we cannot measure it yet, explain it completely, or experience exactly what someone else experiences is just an example of how we still have many more questions to ask and answer and not that there is something that cannot or will never be known.