Gossip Goat *flashes back to 1968.* *Is counting rounds for an AK-47* 1.... 2... skip a few... 99, 100. *Loads the AK and kicks a door down, shooting everywhere.*
The last bit blew my mind! I did the math to verify the claim, and it turns out the body of a neuron is a bit small to sit right in the middle between the planck length and the diameter of the obervable universe. What does however fall right into that sweetspot is the human egg cell. The diameter of an egg cell devided by the planck length being about 7.424E+30, and the diameter of the observable universe devided by that of the egg cell being 7.333E+30, if calculated with the values from wikipedia: for the egg cell of 0.12E-3, the planck length of 1.161255E-35 m and the observable universe 8.8E+26 m. The ratios balance out with an egg cell of 0,1192604041E-3 m. Thank you for intriguing me 😊
I come back to old videos of michael's because they're oddly comforting. the information he presents usually isn't comforting to think about, but something about his cadence, confidence, and dogmatic nature is so grounding. it's like he's telling you that yes, the world is big and terrifying, and we're so small and inconsequential compared, but he's right there with you. I don't know. it's nice.
It's crazy to think that there has never been a person who has lived to be four billion seconds old. Jeanne Calment (the oldest person to ever live) only lived to 3.85 billion seconds old. Even though we can live to be billions of seconds old, when you think of life in seconds you realize how short it really is.
I made it to almost 110 on my first try, whilst sitting at my computer, then 119 standing and doing a lean forward as taught in singing lessons. I have previously done vocal warm-ups, so might be a little better at it than average, but it is still an incredibly doable achievement. These single-breath counters are sitting down in some instances, proving that they aren't singers. A professional singer, in the correct stance, leaning forward as their lungs emptied until their foreheads are nearly touching the ground, could bust 400, opera singers in particular. Made up achievement. Edit: Did not notice I had already commented below this 7 years ago.
Am I the only one realizing how mind blowing this is? "The number of Plank lengths you could stretch across a brain cell is equivalent to the number of brain cells it would take to stretch across the observable universe".
@@h1suu fine. A plank length is the smallest distance ever. A brain cell is a cell from ur brain. The observable universe is the part of the universe that we can ''see'', any further is just nothing. The number of plank lengths it would take to stretch across a braincell (eg: a gap is 1km long. It would take 1000 of 1 metre bridge sections to stretch across. If you dont know metric idc) would be roughly the same as the number of brain cells it would take to stretch across the observable universe. (Its like the number of 1metre rope needed to strech across 10metre gap is the same as the number of 10metre rope needed in order to strech across a 100metre gap) I swear if u cant understand then good luck.
@@h1suu well if 10 brain cells kept beside each other is equal to the total length of the observable universe, 10 objects of the length equal to plank length kept beside each other would be equal to the total length of a brain cell. The only difference is that the number is way bigger than 10
"May explain why life seems to speed up as we get older" This is true, it felt like forever being a kid, and now everything seems to be playing at fast forward around me. Hard to believe it's been 6 years already since this video was made. Time does seem to fly when you get older.
@@Marieadams.little.love.handles some people are just disgustingly brain dead and they can't leave nice things because their eyes are so fucking blind that they never saw something nice in the first place
Vsauce: "What is between 1 and 9?" Me: "Easy, 4 1/2" Vsauce: "Most people would guess 5..." Me: "oh.. well im still right to others???" Vsauce: "others may reply with 3.." FML
5:24 when i was a lifeguard, i had to constantly count the number of people in the pool. instead of counting individually, i would group them into 3’s.
Counting to a million for three months, every day your awake? that is one heck of a mental game. May sound like a silly thing to do but you need some serious mental stamina to do something like that. PS Loved this video so much! The logarithmic counting explains so much thought and observations Ive had :-)
@@Delsin42 I only saw one video and it wasn't disturbing (kinda wierd though) but I'm not going back there, I still believe in the chance of finding something I didn't want to
@@lucassalviano6943 I'm sorry but I'm not good at imagining things lol but I would really appreticate if you tell me the name of the video cause I need a good spook
Complete masterpiece. Every single part stimulated me to new thoughts of my own. I’ll have to revisit this video to wrap my head around it fully. It can lead one to so many new currents of thought with its implications.
I feel like it makes sense to think in a linear way when counting smaller numbers, like: How many chicken nuggets did I just eat? But as soon as it comes to numbers too big or too smal to imagine or even understand, I switch to a logarithmic way of counting.
Lorenz Jahn actually the observable universe is the only part of the universe we can see, the rest of it, is accelerating away from us, faster than the speed of light; so we can never see that part of the universe, as the light from there will never reach it, because space over there is stretching faster than light can travel.
@@achuthanarun467 I wanted to allude to a physical theory, according to which subatomic space isn’t the basis of everything, but the soul or spirit is. If this theory is correct, the _to us visible universe_ and the _entire universe_ would be the same.
IULITM I knew that something doesn't match to the U.S, especially monuments that look more than 300 years old and graffiti on the walls, which hasn't been removed :)
"Imagine the smallest thing, a planck lenght. Now imagine the biggest thing, the observable universe" "What would be in the middle?" Me: my last braincell
Friend: what are you watching? Me: Vsauce Friend: what’s the name of the video? Me: oh it’s 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35...
Michale your videos always mess with my brain, but for some reason the fact that we exist on such a small scale, gives me motivation. Whatever the humans are, or what the universe is, you make it make scenes. You deserve the world, whatever "the world" is
So did I, but that's because we misunderstood the question. He wasn't asking what was _half_ of 9, but what number was _in between_ 1 and 9. 4.5 is half of 9, and is in between _zero_ and 9.
carte blanche i'm fairly certain this "sense of exceptionalism" is nothing more than cognitive bias. you can also create any number of different logarithmic scales and place certain correctly-sized objects along that number-line. [planck length] ~ [neuron] ~ [observable universe] ← this is using a log scale of 2. what if we used a log scale of 3? or 4? or 567? would that make other objects "special"? if we do away with cognitive bias, we see that attributing mystical qualities to such positions is nothing more than numerology or a misfiring of the ability to sense log scales.
Gregory Samuel Teo Actually, the log scale is invariant under different bases, since it measures relative size. Therefore we would be "in the middle" regardless of what base you used in the log scale. This is due to the fact that log(b, x) =log(b,e)log(e,x). Since log(b,e) is constant, you can switch from one base in another in the log scale by simply multiplying by the correct constant, which doesn't distort the relative distances between anything. You can see this from the fact that [planck length] / [neuron] = [neuron] /[observable universe]. This fact is independent of your system of measurement.
Keyboard Doge coincidence Gregory Samuel Teo cognitive bias.. Sultan Ijaz intelligent design.... it's one of the most interesting debates we have... I guess what it boils down to is I'm obsessed with the infinite and things of that nature. I struggle to comprehend an atom, or a galaxy for that matter.
I just realized that the fact we can tell how many of something there are at a glance if it’s lower than 4 or 5 is probably the reason why in Richard Adams’s Watership Down, the rabbits view any amount bigger than 5 as a huge, uncountable number. Rabbits can’t count and in the book their language is fairly limited, so obviously they can only perceive numbers as high as they can recognize at a glance, which is around the same amount we can probably because they’re anthropomorphized (to an extent). Or maybe it’s been proven or at least theorized somehow that other animals as well as humans can do that. Anyways, just thought that was cool. Watership down is really interesting because of how realistic it seems and how much effort Richard Adams put into making it seem realistic, like it’s actually possible rabbits could have societies and speak.
I know I’m going to get attacked for saying this, but now I have to man up, these repetitive comments are really getting irritating and they’re just not funny anymore. The same goes with these types of comments Nobody: Not a single soul: or Plot twist: he’s a paid actor or Welcome to another episode of why is this in my recommendations or Kid: mom can we get “this thing” Mom: no we already have one at home at home: “this thing* and the list goes on and on... but seriously please make an end to these kind of comments because they already lost their taste of being humorous.
a mythical being • 8 years ago and everyone has there own opinion. I personally have no problem with it but I do know that they are everywhere so I get why you would not like them
@@lonestarr1490 that is just not true. Do you think the fastest runner in the world has to beat the last speed by 10% for it to count? No. What about the guy who counted with one breath, would it not count as a new record unless you beat it by 13 numbers?
@@ethanfields3853 It depends. The runner has to perform his new world record run at an official race. Then he doesn't have to be 10% better than the former one. But if you call the Guinness World Record guys and say "come over to my place, folks. I wanna show you some world record skills" they'll tell you that you'd have to be 10% better than the current record or else they won't even get up from their armchairs.
@@Hommiiee Lol sensitive triggered Indian, I see. The guy didn't say anything offensive to Indians, yet you felt the nationalistic need to defend your ethnicity/race/nationality with a stupid mom joke. Pathetic.
Infinity comes in many sizes. In 1873, the German mathematician Georg Cantor shook math to the core when he discovered that the “real” numbers that fill the number line - most with never-ending digits, like 3.14159… - outnumber “natural” numbers like 1, 2 and 3, even though there are infinitely many of both. Infinite sets of numbers mess with our intuition about size, so as a warmup, compare the natural numbers {1, 2, 3, …} with the odd numbers {1, 3, 5, …}. You might think the first set is bigger, since only half its elements appear in the second set. Cantor realized, though, that the elements of the two sets can be put in a one-to-one correspondence. You can pair off the first elements of each set (1 and 1), then pair off their second elements (2 and 3), then their third (3 and 5), and so on forever, covering all elements of both sets. In this sense, the two infinite sets have the same size, or what Cantor called “cardinality.” He designated their size with the cardinal number ℵ0 (“aleph-zero”). But Cantor discovered that natural numbers can’t be put into one-to-one correspondence with the continuum of real numbers. For instance, try to pair 1 with 1.00000… and 2 with 1.00001…, and you’ll have skipped over infinitely many real numbers (like 1.000000001…). You can’t possibly count them all; their cardinality is greater than that of the natural numbers.Sizes of infinity don’t stop there. Cantor discovered that any infinite set’s power set - the set of all subsets of its elements - has larger cardinality than it does. Every power set itself has a power set, so that cardinal numbers form an infinitely tall tower of infinities.In 1900, the mathematician David Hilbert put the continuum hypothesis first on his famous list of 23 math problems to solve in the 20th century. Hilbert was enthralled by the nascent mathematics of infinity - “Cantor’s paradise,” as he called it - and the continuum hypothesis seemed like its lowest-hanging fruit. To the contrary, shocking revelations last century turned Cantor’s question into a deep epistemological conundrum. The trouble arose in 1931, when the Austrian-born logician Kurt Gödel discovered that any set of axioms that you might posit as a foundation for mathematics will inevitably be incomplete. There will always be questions that your list of ground rules can’t settle, true mathematical facts that they can’t prove. As Gödel suspected right away, the continuum hypothesis is such a case: a problem that’s independent of the standard axioms of mathematics. These axioms, 10 in all, are known as ZFC (for “Zermelo-Fraenkel axioms with the axiom of choice”), and they undergird almost all of modern math. The axioms describe basic properties of collections of objects, or sets. Since virtually everything mathematical can be built out of sets (the empty set {} denotes 0, for instance; {{}} denotes 1; {{},{{}}} denotes 2, and so on), the rules of sets suffice for constructing proofs throughout math. In 1940, Gödel showed that you can’t use the ZFC axioms to disprove the continuum hypothesis. Then in 1963, the American mathematician Paul Cohen showed the opposite -you can’t use them to prove it, either. Cohen’s proof, together with Gödel’s, means the continuum hypothesis is independent of the ZFC axioms; they can have it either way.Cantor first posed the continuum hypothesis in this manuscript, dated July 11, 1877. The paper was published the following year. Courtesy Göttingen State and University Library. In addition to the continuum hypothesis, most other questions about infinite sets turn out to be independent of ZFC as well. This independence is sometimes interpreted to mean that these questions have no answer, but most set theorists see that as a profound misconception. They believe the continuum has a precise size; we just need new tools of logic to figure out what that is. These tools will come in the form of new axioms. “The axioms do not settle these problems,” said Magidor, so “we must extend them to a richer axiom system.” It’s ZFC as a means to mathematical truth that’s lacking - not truth itself. Ever since Cohen, set theorists have sought to shore up the foundations of infinite math by adding at least one new axiom to ZFC. This axiom should illuminate the structure of infinite sets, engender natural and beautiful theorems, avoid fatal contradictions, and, of course, settle Cantor’s question.
Christian Silva Fuck no from now on what he said is an official fact. Of course it's his opinion, why do you even say that? You don't need to write "IMO" to express your opinion.
Hey, Vsauce. Michael here. Let's take a moment to recognize the heroes who count. Canadian Mike Smith holds the world record for the largest number counted to in one breath - 125. But the world record for the largest number ever counted to belongs to Jeremy Harper from Birmingham, Alabama. In order to set the record, Harper never left his apartment. He got regular sleep, but from the moment he woke up in the morning until the moment he went to bed at night, Harper did nothing but count. He streamed the entire process over the Internet and raised money for charity while doing it, but after three months of counting all day, every day, he finally reached the world record - 1 million. Now, a million might not sound like a lot, but think of this way. One thousand seconds is about 17 minutes, but a million seconds is more than 11 days. And a billion seconds, well, that's more than 31 years. There's no full video online of Harper counting all the way to a million, but you can watch John Harchick count all the way to 100,000, if you have 74 hours to spare. John also has some other channels. One involves more than 300 videos of himself eating carrots. Another, more than 3,000 videos of himself drinking water. Many of John's videos literally have no views. They are as lonely as a video on UA-cam can get. A great way to find such videos is a website made by Jon van der Kruisen. This website auto-plays videos on UA-cam that no one has yet watched. John and Jeremy, as well as Mike, the one breath counter counted like this. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and so on. But that's not the only way to count. And it doesn't seem to be the one we're born with. Additive counting is the one we're all familiar with, where each next step is just one added to the last. But what if we multiply it by a number instead? Well, that kind of counting is logarithmic, from "arithmos" meaning number and "logos" meaning ratio, proportion. On this scale, similar distances are similar proportions. One is a third of three and three is a third of nine. Four is a third of 12 and so on. Our brains perceive the world around us on a logarithmic scale. It's believed that almost all of our senses are multiplicative, not additive. For example, how loud we perceive a sound to be. Two boomboxes playing at the same volume don't sound twice as loud as one. In order to make a sound that is perceived as being about twice as loud as one boombox, you actually need ten times as many, so 10. And to double that loudness, you would need a hundred. And to double that loudness, you would need a thousand. Having an intuitive sense of logarithmic scales built into your brain is probably an advantage when it comes to natural selection and survival, because often proportion matters more than absolute value. For example, "is there one lion hiding over there in the shadows or two?" is a very different question than "are there ninety six lions about to attack us or ninety seven?" Sure, in both cases I'm just talking about one extra lion, but adding one lion to one lion, doubles the threat. Adding one lion to 96, well, that's basically nothing. Logarithmic thinking and feeling may explain why life seems to speed-up as we get older. It seems like I was a child for ever. And in college, in my early 20's, just whizzed by. And logarithmically, that makes sense, because each new year that I live is the smaller fraction of all the other years I've already lived. When you turn 2 years old, the last year of your life is half your life. But when you turn 81, that last year that you've lived, well, that's just a tiny part of the other 80 that you know. Logarithmic thinking isn't always helpful, especially in scenarios where proportion doesn't logically matter but we, nonetheless, act like it does. One of my favorite examples is the psychophysics of price paradox. This is something almost all of us do. Researchers found consistently that people are willing to put a lot of effort into saving 5 dollars of a 10 dollar purchase, but they won't put much effort into saving 5 five dollars of a 2,000 dollar purchase. It's 5 dollars saved either way, but our natural obsession with proportion leads us astray. Take a look at these pictures. Can you tell how many objects are in each of them? You probably can. It's like really easy. You can tell if there are zero, one, two, three or four objects in a photo without even needing to count. How are you doing that? Is it some sort of sixth sense? No. Psychologists call it "subitizing." We can, intuitively, at a glance, determine whether there are about four or fewer objects in a photo. This has been part of human culture for a very long time and it may be the reason so many tally systems from all over the world all through history wind up having to do something different when counting the number five. When estimating or comparing amounts above 4, the brain uses what's known as an approximate number system. It's a psychological ability we have. It's about 15 percent accurate. It two amounts are at least 15 percent different, we can tell. So, for example, 100 objects and 115 or a thousand and 1,150 or 1,200. If you wanna test the accuracy of your approximate number system Panamath has a pretty good test. We often take linear additive counting for granted, but it's not granted to us. We aren't born with it. We are, however, born with the ability to subitize and use an approximate number system. Children younger than the age of three can tell, without counting, that this line of 4 coins contains fewer coins than this line of 6, even if you spread the 4 coins out into a line that is physically bigger, longer than this line of 6. However, mysteriously, around the age of 3.5, children lose this ability and begin saying that this line of 6 coins contains fewer coins than this long line of just 4 coins, possibly because around this age the physical world of objects, physical sizes, is more salient in their minds. But then, when they begin to learn linear counting, they reverse back and begin again correctly saying that this line of 6 contains more coins than this line of 4, around the age of 4. The smallest physical thing science could ever hope to observe is the Planck length. In order to look at anything smaller, you'd need to have so much energy concentrated in such a small area a black hole would form and you would lose whatever you were looking at. Okay, with that in mind, here's a question. What number is halfway in-between 1 and 9. 5 seems like the obvious answer. There are four numbers on either side of 5, it's halfway between, right? Well, if you ask this question of a young child or a member of a culture that doesn't teach a linear additive number line, their answer will be 3. You see, they are exhibiting the human mind's natural logarithmic tendency, because 3 in that sense makes sense. Three is three times larger than 1, and 9 is three times larger than 3. Three is in the middle, proportionately. But what if we took that logarithmic number line and change the one to be the smallest thing we can observe, the Planck length, and the nine to be the largest thing we can observe, the observable universe. What would go in the middle? Well, as it turns out, we would. The number of Planck lengths you could stretch across a brain cell is equal to the number of your brain cells it would take to stretch all the way across the observable universe. sold So, welcome to the middle. And as always, thanks for watching.
I believe the logarithmic time explanation for why time seems to go by faster as you get older has been disproven, or at least shown that it can at most account for a small amount of the effect
1:07 so you’re telling me I haven’t been around for 1 billion seconds yet?
owned
Kirisuna Yay :( me too
Who said yet?
Bro same
@@thebadarsenalplayer7960 oh my god. You madlad
"Adding 1 lion to 96, well that's basically nothing"
97th Lion: *:'(*
97th Lion gang
97th lion-am i a joke to you
We're proud of the 97th lion. Cuz it demolished 96 which demolished 69nin the 1st place😁
What a life So simple screw you
97th lion: :'3
1, 2 skip a few 99, 100
KyynggsGaming thanks for the flashbacks
KyynggsGaming same
Big Smoke *VIETNAM FLASHBACKS*
Gossip Goat *flashes back to 1968.*
*Is counting rounds for an AK-47* 1.... 2... skip a few... 99, 100. *Loads the AK and kicks a door down, shooting everywhere.*
Good times!
The last bit blew my mind! I did the math to verify the claim, and it turns out the body of a neuron is a bit small to sit right in the middle between the planck length and the diameter of the obervable universe.
What does however fall right into that sweetspot is the human egg cell. The diameter of an egg cell devided by the planck length being about 7.424E+30, and the diameter of the observable universe devided by that of the egg cell being 7.333E+30, if calculated with the values from wikipedia: for the egg cell of 0.12E-3, the planck length of 1.161255E-35 m and the observable universe 8.8E+26 m.
The ratios balance out with an egg cell of 0,1192604041E-3 m.
Thank you for intriguing me 😊
yep i thought so
I don’t understand anything he just said
6:45 I like how you pointed with your shadow.
i didnt realize and was so confused when he pointed at the wrong lines lol
KidtheBilly me too. I thought the angle got messed up or something
bruh i do that all the time
why does this comment deserve 400 likes?
Etienne Irion Why doesn't it?
My friend: whats your favorite vsauce video
Me: *starts counting*
Underrated
Erik 77 lol relatable 🤯🤣🤣🤣😂😂😂😂
Your friend was/is probably really confused xD
haha
And then I remember that I have no friends
"Yo Michael what time is it?"
Michael: "but what *is* time"
Michael please...
@@jononpaper Michael: But what is the meaning of please?
@@Hmmm777 why are there names?
@@cheesuschrists what are names?
But nobody ask how time is😔
I come back to old videos of michael's because they're oddly comforting. the information he presents usually isn't comforting to think about, but something about his cadence, confidence, and dogmatic nature is so grounding. it's like he's telling you that yes, the world is big and terrifying, and we're so small and inconsequential compared, but he's right there with you.
I don't know. it's nice.
He was more normal in his old videos
We’re not small; we’re exactly in the middle between the Planck length and the observable universe.
@@artugertand the observable universe is nothing compared to all of the universe. So we are small, sorry.
@@artugertObservable universe expands at a slower rate then actual universe. So yea, u small as heck lil boi.
Fun fact. On the Anthony Padilla podcast. He literally said that this was exactly what he wanted people to feel!
i come back to this video's title everytime i forget how to count
HASEUL
Haseul cult
Haseul
haseul
Sadly lots of band and bass people have a hard time counting
"what's the number between 1 and 9?"
me: 4.5
him: 5!
me: oh
i did the same thing lol
Same, I'm stupid
Same
Same
Same lol
2:11
u know its about to get serious when Vsauce music starts playing
This video is 8 years old and has still taught me so much about ourselves in just 9 minutes, this is why we love you Vsauce.
🤢🤢
Fact: 2+2=4
Vsauce: or is it?
2+2=two 2
What is "two" and how we define it?
Is "equal" is really equal to what we mean?
Is "fact" really factual?
@@fadedcolors or is it?
(Vsauce music plays)
"2" + "2" = "22"
1+1=10
Change my mind
"Adding one lion to 96--that's basically nothing."
The ninety-seventh lion: *cries*
hey im yours 69th like, nice
get this post to 97 likes
Adding one human to seven billions... That's basically nothing...
I added 97th like. Am I nothing? :(
@@Mustang_99 no, you are everything for me
Vsauce > Math Class
Khendra Ghane Vsauce > EVERY GOD DAMN CLASS
Bryan Martinez You're an idiot.
Vsauce > Life
TRUTH
He makes learning fun and interesting..... Something schools have never thought about
i just love how this video is 7 years old and if it was uploaded today it would still be popular. Cant find that many other places
It's crazy to think that there has never been a person who has lived to be four billion seconds old. Jeanne Calment (the oldest person to ever live) only lived to 3.85 billion seconds old.
Even though we can live to be billions of seconds old, when you think of life in seconds you realize how short it really is.
Interenting.
Actually that makes me think it's longer due to the larger numbers compared to years.
Yes very interenting...
DayzleTV
I have faith in you!
Bonus fact: The oldest individual tree to ever live lived upwards to 159 billion seconds. Now if you can beat that.. ;)
Think Fact It seems short because nobody can understand the number "1 000 000 000"... as explained in the video :D
Man counted to 1 000 000
MrBeast : *hold my money*
Apple tree fuck sake
Last to keep counting wins however much money they stoppes counting on
Apple tree r/wooosh
Daniel Cardenas what joke did he miss?
Unoriginal Joke That MrBeast has the ability to count to 1,000,000. And also, fortnite sucks dick.
How to count past 1,000,000
*Count till the next Vsauce video*
15 subscribers without a video Plz
the shade is real
(P.S. Subscribed!)
I see you everywhere...
Minetendo 0000 Really?!?! Like in WHAT videos???
LuckyStarLuna thanks!
@@subscribetomebecauseiwants7906 idk anymore but I think I saw you like 2 - 3 times today lol xD
I made it to almost 110 on my first try, whilst sitting at my computer, then 119 standing and doing a lean forward as taught in singing lessons. I have previously done vocal warm-ups, so might be a little better at it than average, but it is still an incredibly doable achievement. These single-breath counters are sitting down in some instances, proving that they aren't singers. A professional singer, in the correct stance, leaning forward as their lungs emptied until their foreheads are nearly touching the ground, could bust 400, opera singers in particular.
Made up achievement.
Edit: Did not notice I had already commented below this 7 years ago.
depends on language 130 first try in german, but 102 in english ;)
mine's 504
Am I the only one realizing how mind blowing this is?
"The number of Plank lengths you could stretch across a brain cell is equivalent to the number of brain cells it would take to stretch across the observable universe".
i'm so dumb can anyone pls explain
:
I'm about to explode
@@h1suu fine.
A plank length is the smallest distance ever. A brain cell is a cell from ur brain. The observable universe is the part of the universe that we can ''see'', any further is just nothing.
The number of plank lengths it would take to stretch across a braincell (eg: a gap is 1km long. It would take 1000 of 1 metre bridge sections to stretch across. If you dont know metric idc) would be roughly the same as the number of brain cells it would take to stretch across the observable universe. (Its like the number of 1metre rope needed to strech across 10metre gap is the same as the number of 10metre rope needed in order to strech across a 100metre gap)
I swear if u cant understand then good luck.
@@h1suu well if 10 brain cells kept beside each other is equal to the total length of the observable universe, 10 objects of the length equal to plank length kept beside each other would be equal to the total length of a brain cell.
The only difference is that the number is way bigger than 10
thank you guys for explaining... i'm here to learn. and i only started learning english a year ago i'm sorry
"May explain why life seems to speed up as we get older"
This is true, it felt like forever being a kid, and now everything seems to be playing at fast forward around me. Hard to believe it's been 6 years already since this video was made. Time does seem to fly when you get older.
Man i see you everywhere
2nd reply
Pls like for no reason if you want
Wow
who, I got 4th place
@@F1reBeat congrats
I haven’t even been alive 1 Billion seconds. Damn.
ikr i don’t feel special
AHH your comment is at 69 likes. No one else like it.
@@Marieadams.little.love.handles 😐
@@Marieadams.little.love.handles some people are just disgustingly brain dead and they can't leave nice things because their eyes are so fucking blind that they never saw something nice in the first place
This has 123 likes then 4 comments 1234
This clip was filmed in Romania-Bucharest, when were you here, how could i missed you :(( ?
Always learning things from you Michael!!! It's been amazing collaborating with you!
Field Day Thanks! And thanks for the opportunity to visit and document Whittier!!!
Vsauce This explains why a lot of people don't vote.
Vsauce how much time do you contribute to coming up with all this? Its genius
Macey
beedham💛💙💜💚💩
I guess you can say you were having...
a field day.
I like how he points with his shadow instead of his actual hand.
Welcome to Vsauce
Where???
@@TigaToonsELTiagor 6:27
the shadow can’t move wherever you look from
666 likes
2:07
everytime that song comes up there's some shady shit comin up
Yep
Wtf is your name
A boi in a blue cap lookin like a gangsta
Yeh
@@armandocortez8400 wtf is that supposed to mean
2:37-Our Brains Sees world as logarithmic
3:58-
4:36-
5:20-Subsitizing
7:14-Plank Length
When counting, his lips would not have touched until he reached one million
Oh my god.
WOAH
Okay dis is intersting
this guy is a genius
Oh my god
Vsauce: "What is between 1 and 9?"
Me: "Easy, 4 1/2"
Vsauce: "Most people would guess 5..."
Me: "oh.. well im still right to others???"
Vsauce: "others may reply with 3.."
FML
Eder Rocha me too
That's exactly what I though too lmao
4,5 is in between 0 and 9. And 5 is in between 1 and 9.
@@cocacolaman963 Well... Actually... Any number from 1 to 9 is a number between 1 and 9. 5 is just on the middle between. Logic.
@@TheExiledMeriler you got what I was saying. Or should I have said "exactly in between"?
Turning up the volume: Broke
Buying 9 more boomboxes: Woke
Screaming with the music : Choke
Persoke
Bringing them to school: revoked
@@ILuvSunshinezDuqz 🤔
When it's time to feel better fast: Toke
5:24 when i was a lifeguard, i had to constantly count the number of people in the pool. instead of counting individually, i would group them into 3’s.
What's half of nine?
Me: 4.5
"Five makes sense."
Me: oh...
Me: 3.
@@mariostar13 no
@@fluffydestroyer5482 3 : 1 = 9 : 3
@@mariostar13 That wouldn't make any sense as 3 goes into 9 3 times.
@@horizion50 simplifying the ratio 9:3 is done by dividing by 3 on both sides so after that's done 9:3 does in fact equal 3:1
Imagine vsauce as a teacher
Man teachers today suck
i can tell
They sucked even more before.
alexis miller yeah
my school used to have a teacher like him but then he got a better job and the most boring physics teacher took his place
AvoH that sucks
I just clicked to see how long the title can count
Lol same!
pls lmao same
Same
Same
Exactly
i tapped on this video to see how far the title actually went but then i stayed for the whole thing😂
Same case ✋🏼
Me too😂
You're not alone 🫡
Same
Me: “counting to a million! Bruh waste of time”. Also me:*sits in the dark watching sauce videos from 4 years ago
We got a m-m-m-m-mood!
a shipper lmao
Sauce
FroggiGirl not in England my dude
@@user-yl8tm3bh4u either you dont know how to spell or you spell it from where your from so where you from
This is the weirdest and the most interesting thing i’ve ever seen.
fridif F welcome to Vsauce
0Hikingft
ft. oppo.9.0.9..0
p
..omoomo9mollo.ll.
Yes.
Snowleopard 0 was just about to comment that lmao
🔫 *always has been*
Counting to a million for three months, every day your awake? that is one heck of a mental game. May sound like a silly thing to do but you need some serious mental stamina to do something like that. PS Loved this video so much! The logarithmic counting explains so much thought and observations Ive had :-)
The question is, how did he eat?
xisumavoid Xisuma! Didnt expect to see you. I wonder if our innate logarithmic sense of counting is also why we start counting at 1 instead of 0.
xisumavoid more like a mental illness instead of stamina...
Xisuma!
Xisuma watches vsauce? Well. That should surprise me. Everyone should.
bro you cant just say "Welcome to the middle." and expect me to leave this video satisfied 😭
the idea of "petittube" realy scared me. Imagine how many weird and wrong vídeos were posted on UA-cam that nobody reported cause nobody saw it
Dude now I'm not gonna sleep tonight.
Please go further into detail about petittube
@@Delsin42 I only saw one video and it wasn't disturbing (kinda wierd though) but I'm not going back there, I still believe in the chance of finding something I didn't want to
@@Delsin42 Just remeber that I'm talking deep web shit
@@lucassalviano6943 I'm sorry but I'm not good at imagining things lol but I would really appreticate if you tell me the name of the video cause I need a good spook
That guy: counts to 1 million
MrBeast: are you challenging me?
For every number
You get on Dollar
DustSans If Jeremy Harper takes the challenge once again, he will be a millionare.
Aiden really ?
Logemtorw
me:counts to infinite in 2 minutes
How many of y'all tried to break that boy's record of 125 numbers in one breath as soon as he said it?
BENJAMIN HADDIX yeah
😂 u caught me
I got to 42 lol
71 😞
I reached 90 and it was breathtaking
Complete masterpiece. Every single part stimulated me to new thoughts of my own. I’ll have to revisit this video to wrap my head around it fully. It can lead one to so many new currents of thought with its implications.
2:07
When that sound plays...
Stuffs about to go down
Well you ain't wrong
Well you ain't wrong
Well you ain't wrong
Well wrong ain't you
Well you aint wrong
I'm happy we can survive 97 lions.
Lmaoooo
But not 96
If you take a tank you probably are going to survive
@@albiinooranki4789 I don't know, I cant fit 97 lions in a tank.
@@pierfrancescopeperoni well how big is the tank
0:17 *shooting stars song plays in the background*
mats severe crippling depression lel good meme
mats severe crippling depression that's an actual meme
mats severe crippling depression w
mats severe crippling depression already a video if you werent aware
mats severe crippling depression oo
absolutely mind-blowing! this kind of video should be showing at schools,. You are really one of a kind Michael.
5:06 Im the only one who though he would say something like: *there are actually 86 hidden elephants in each ball*
Umm probably?
Yeet Meat He would do that.
8:10 literally the biggest bruh moment
Why? I don't get it...
BRUHHHH
Bruh what? Lol
🅱️RUH
I don't get it
Vsauce: explaining the universe
Me: struggling to count the red dots
XD _yes_
I feel like it makes sense to think in a linear way when counting smaller numbers, like: How many chicken nuggets did I just eat?
But as soon as it comes to numbers too big or too smal to imagine or even understand, I switch to a logarithmic way of counting.
My mind was blown when he said that we are right in the middle of the sizes of everything in the universe.
Observable universe*
@@aitotem It's the same. :)
Lorenz Jahn actually the observable universe is the only part of the universe we can see, the rest of it, is accelerating away from us, faster than the speed of light; so we can never see that part of the universe, as the light from there will never reach it, because space over there is stretching faster than light can travel.
@@achuthanarun467 I wanted to allude to a physical theory, according to which subatomic space isn’t the basis of everything, but the soul or spirit is. If this theory is correct, the _to us visible universe_ and the _entire universe_ would be the same.
blown and spread across the observable universe, yeah
Vsauce: Linear counting
Me, an intellectual: 1, 2, skip a few, one million
y e s
Me: *_forgets and says "one, two, skip a few, ninety nine, one million...wait-"_*
1 2 7 3 down to- wait no wrong thing...
1 2 skip a few
*SYNTAX ERROR*
100, 200, skip a few, 999,999, 1,000,000
"How many circles are here?" -counts them 1 by 1
"What goes between 1 and 9?" I guessed 4.5
I am not a normal person? .-.
R4V3-0N yeap you suck
+R4V3-0N Yeah, you just got confused there.
yep.Taxtro
+R4V3-0N i did the exact thing!
*****
yay
Micheal’s videos are the only videos you would click on with a title and thumbnail like this and enjoy and learn from it.
That's not true.
Hmmmm I think I just found a great way of making money. Trading lines of coins with 3 1/2 year olds.
+cryoboy lol
But what if one of them is really smart and realizes you scammed him/her?
+Free Man What's it gonna do, it's 3 1/2 years old. I'm sure I can outrun it.
+cryoboy tell its mom?
+Jeffry Maiato or maybe he does, actually?
Thank you Vsauce, when I lose all my brain cells from all the memes, I go to this channel to get them all back.
Dior HE You cant subtract a number from 0
Foxxy oh damn for a moment i thought subtracting a number from 0 is possible, is that why negative numbers exist *h a h a h a h a h a*
*w. h. a. t*
Same
Oh, really!!!!!! I can't believe this.. This video was shot in beautiful Bucharest, Romania :)
Official Springtrap This is Patrick.
***** Is this the Krusty Krab?
No THIS IS PATRICK!
IULITM I knew that something doesn't match to the U.S, especially monuments that look more than 300 years old and graffiti on the walls, which hasn't been removed :)
IULITM He attended DreamHack convention, in Bucharest and since he got there, he filmed a clip too.
I knew opening youtube at 0:00 am wasnt a good idea, literaly the first recomendation, yet still I'm 100% gonna watch
THERE IS NO EGG HERE
lmao
Yeah ik how to basic
So i'm not the only one😂
Haha
I knew he was lying dammit
I clicked on this video not knowing what to expect. I stayed for the whole thing. Anyone else?
Same
Too
Same here
That's Vsauce for you.
Shut up
3:50 AYY HE'S STANDING NEXT TO ONE OF THE UGLIEST SCULPTUTES IN ROMANIA! * *feeling so proud* * 🇷🇴🇷🇴🇷🇴
no offense but your spelling is ugly
Trojan and the she-wolf
@@HeadsetHatGuy man legit only made like 1 mistake
Ah, a son and his mom. So beautiful.
ZN X g
I always wondered at what level of scale we exist at but never knew how or where to ask it. And you just did! Amazing thanks.
"Imagine the smallest thing, a planck lenght. Now imagine the biggest thing, the observable universe"
"What would be in the middle?"
Me: my last braincell
And apparently you aren't wrong
@@jexikavindictive
Each of my braincells have over 100 IQ.
Let’s check:
*cursed minecraft images start to show*
@@Scullgaming962
XD
Yay we hit 2⁸ likes :D
2:47
No joke, this part helped me with the physics test I had to do this morning
I~A^2 bby
Friend: what are you watching?
Me: Vsauce
Friend: what’s the name of the video?
Me: oh it’s
1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35...
but did you say the comma between each number?
@FroulBuh a professional internet comedian. what's it to you?
Lmao i this an internet fight
@@davidpigan1578 let them proceed
@@TheBartholomewJinPing ok???
Michale your videos always mess with my brain, but for some reason the fact that we exist on such a small scale, gives me motivation. Whatever the humans are, or what the universe is, you make it make scenes. You deserve the world, whatever "the world" is
Small scale? We’re in the middle, actually .
I said 4.5 was halfway...
Me too
So did I, but that's because we misunderstood the question. He wasn't asking what was _half_ of 9, but what number was _in between_ 1 and 9.
4.5 is half of 9, and is in between _zero_ and 9.
Bet you still said 4 instantly in your head, then slightly hesitated and said 4.5. Trying to beat the trick you precieved was coming.
@@mith2946 No, i said 4.5. Not else
4.5 - 1 = 3.5
9 - 4.5 = 4.5
There you go, you're wrong.
97th lion: Exists
Vsauce: I’m bout to end this mans whole career
Aff The Rails - Podcast LMAO
LooooL epic comment
Lol
that planck length universe thing is amazing... I've often thought about being in the middle of two incomprehensibly scaled worlds.
carte blanche same!
carte blanche i'm fairly certain this "sense of exceptionalism" is nothing more than cognitive bias. you can also create any number of different logarithmic scales and place certain correctly-sized objects along that number-line.
[planck length] ~ [neuron] ~ [observable universe] ← this is using a log scale of 2. what if we used a log scale of 3? or 4? or 567? would that make other objects "special"?
if we do away with cognitive bias, we see that attributing mystical qualities to such positions is nothing more than numerology or a misfiring of the ability to sense log scales.
Gregory Samuel Teo Actually, the log scale is invariant under different bases, since it measures relative size. Therefore we would be "in the middle" regardless of what base you used in the log scale.
This is due to the fact that log(b, x) =log(b,e)log(e,x). Since log(b,e) is constant, you can switch from one base in another in the log scale by simply multiplying by the correct constant, which doesn't distort the relative distances between anything.
You can see this from the fact that [planck length] / [neuron] = [neuron] /[observable universe]. This fact is independent of your system of measurement.
carte blanche yep my minds been blown there's too much creepy coincidences like that in our universe
Keyboard Doge coincidence Gregory Samuel Teo cognitive bias.. Sultan Ijaz intelligent design.... it's one of the most interesting debates we have... I guess what it boils down to is I'm obsessed with the infinite and things of that nature. I struggle to comprehend an atom, or a galaxy for that matter.
I just realized that the fact we can tell how many of something there are at a glance if it’s lower than 4 or 5 is probably the reason why in Richard Adams’s Watership Down, the rabbits view any amount bigger than 5 as a huge, uncountable number. Rabbits can’t count and in the book their language is fairly limited, so obviously they can only perceive numbers as high as they can recognize at a glance, which is around the same amount we can probably because they’re anthropomorphized (to an extent). Or maybe it’s been proven or at least theorized somehow that other animals as well as humans can do that. Anyways, just thought that was cool. Watership down is really interesting because of how realistic it seems and how much effort Richard Adams put into making it seem realistic, like it’s actually possible rabbits could have societies and speak.
Hey, HowToBasic. Michael here.
ι ѕρєαк ιи fσит Oh
œyķa bļýæţ
I just watched that video wow
Špøįłër äłērt
wolfuu ii
Mr Beast:
*Hold my beer*
Hold my cash dollars
Mr Beast: *Counting To 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.*
@@abstractassassin8767 Hold my Beer And Poop Or Everything.
@@jamesg7397 Mr Beast: *Counting to 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000*
That is almost a Vigintillion + One Decillion! So basically the “30” of the “illions”
Guys, today is the day... He has finally done it...Jon Drinks Water Has Finally gotten to 10,000 Videos of him drinking water
YEAH!
Stay hydrated
@@vice012 better than paper straws
Any update after a year?
@@iMrUniverse unfortunately he isn't really doing it anymore, only done 6 more, but he did just go live a few hours ago so he is still here I guess
Bro this video was so good, I watched it on my home screen, without even clicking on it
UA-cam Home Page:
2015: ...
2016: ...
2017: ...
2018: ...
2019: ...
2020: hey you should watch this
Same
I know I’m going to get attacked for saying this, but now I have to man up, these repetitive comments are really getting irritating and they’re just not funny anymore.
The same goes with these types of comments
Nobody:
Not a single soul:
or
Plot twist: he’s a paid actor
or
Welcome to another episode of why is this in my recommendations
or
Kid: mom can we get “this thing”
Mom: no we already have one at home
at home: “this thing*
and the list goes on and on... but seriously please make an end to these kind of comments because they already lost their taste of being humorous.
a mythical being • 8 years ago and everyone has there own opinion. I personally have no problem with it but I do know that they are everywhere so I get why you would not like them
Holy cra-
Same
I count like this:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 20
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 30
Etc. etc.
Pori Lance same
Pori Lance same
Pori Lance i count like this:
1 10
1 20
1 30
1 40
1 50
1 60
1 70
1 80
1 90
1 100
1 200
1 300
1 400
1 500
1 600
1 700
1 800
1 900
1 1000
Pori Lance SAAAAAME
Pori Lance I do that too, its good when doing exercises
Now, all of Jon’s videos have over 1000 views. No longer lonely :)
The power of a shout-out
@Cay Tong pfft get on my level: Im his 201th.
Everyone started watching you because of Shazam. Chill out.
u mean all 8,000
This makes me smile for some unknown reasons
I always forget how high quality all the vsauce videos from 10 years ago actually are
0:49 "...finally reached the world record..." just reached, not broke. Jeremy Harper should have counted to 1,000,001.
In order to set up a new world record you have to beat the old world record by at least 10%. So he should have counted to 1'100'001.
Or 1000002
@@lonestarr1490 that is just not true. Do you think the fastest runner in the world has to beat the last speed by 10% for it to count? No. What about the guy who counted with one breath, would it not count as a new record unless you beat it by 13 numbers?
@@lonestarr1490 Yeah, now that I read that comment above me, that does sound messed up.
@@ethanfields3853 It depends. The runner has to perform his new world record run at an official race. Then he doesn't have to be 10% better than the former one.
But if you call the Guinness World Record guys and say "come over to my place, folks. I wanna show you some world record skills" they'll tell you that you'd have to be 10% better than the current record or else they won't even get up from their armchairs.
I checked out that website that shows videos with no views and I found a giant street fight in like India
Lol
@@Hommiiee lol 😂😂😂
@@Hommiiee
Lol sensitive triggered Indian, I see.
The guy didn't say anything offensive to Indians, yet you felt the nationalistic need to defend your ethnicity/race/nationality with a stupid mom joke.
Pathetic.
@@Rysussybaka *watches vsauce once*
Divyanshu:Breathes
Ryan Park:KNOW YOUR FLIPPING PLACE, TRASH
“If u have 72 hours to spare” He says this like he always has 72 hours to spare
@Dillon Taylor that’s crazy I was JUST about to comment the same thing
@@greenteagoddess5271 why would u
@@greenteagoddess5271 i dont like u
Why is everyone here noe
@@greenteagoddess5271 lol. U suck
Infinity comes in many sizes. In 1873, the German mathematician Georg Cantor shook math to the core when he discovered that the “real” numbers that fill the number line - most with never-ending digits, like 3.14159… - outnumber “natural” numbers like 1, 2 and 3, even though there are infinitely many of both. Infinite sets of numbers mess with our intuition about size, so as a warmup, compare the natural numbers {1, 2, 3, …} with the odd numbers {1, 3, 5, …}. You might think the first set is bigger, since only half its elements appear in the second set. Cantor realized, though, that the elements of the two sets can be put in a one-to-one correspondence. You can pair off the first elements of each set (1 and 1), then pair off their second elements (2 and 3), then their third (3 and 5), and so on forever, covering all elements of both sets. In this sense, the two infinite sets have the same size, or what Cantor called “cardinality.” He designated their size with the cardinal number ℵ0 (“aleph-zero”). But Cantor discovered that natural numbers can’t be put into one-to-one correspondence with the continuum of real numbers. For instance, try to pair 1 with 1.00000… and 2 with 1.00001…, and you’ll have skipped over infinitely many real numbers (like 1.000000001…). You can’t possibly count them all; their cardinality is greater than that of the natural numbers.Sizes of infinity don’t stop there. Cantor discovered that any infinite set’s power set - the set of all subsets of its elements - has larger cardinality than it does. Every power set itself has a power set, so that cardinal numbers form an infinitely tall tower of infinities.In 1900, the mathematician David Hilbert put the continuum hypothesis first on his famous list of 23 math problems to solve in the 20th century. Hilbert was enthralled by the nascent mathematics of infinity - “Cantor’s paradise,” as he called it - and the continuum hypothesis seemed like its lowest-hanging fruit. To the contrary, shocking revelations last century turned Cantor’s question into a deep epistemological conundrum. The trouble arose in 1931, when the Austrian-born logician Kurt Gödel discovered that any set of axioms that you might posit as a foundation for mathematics will inevitably be incomplete. There will always be questions that your list of ground rules can’t settle, true mathematical facts that they can’t prove. As Gödel suspected right away, the continuum hypothesis is such a case: a problem that’s independent of the standard axioms of mathematics. These axioms, 10 in all, are known as ZFC (for “Zermelo-Fraenkel axioms with the axiom of choice”), and they undergird almost all of modern math. The axioms describe basic properties of collections of objects, or sets. Since virtually everything mathematical can be built out of sets (the empty set {} denotes 0, for instance; {{}} denotes 1; {{},{{}}} denotes 2, and so on), the rules of sets suffice for constructing proofs throughout math. In 1940, Gödel showed that you can’t use the ZFC axioms to disprove the continuum hypothesis. Then in 1963, the American mathematician Paul Cohen showed the opposite -you can’t use them to prove it, either. Cohen’s proof, together with Gödel’s, means the continuum hypothesis is independent of the ZFC axioms; they can have it either way.Cantor first posed the continuum hypothesis in this manuscript, dated July 11, 1877. The paper was published the following year. Courtesy Göttingen State and University Library. In addition to the continuum hypothesis, most other questions about infinite sets turn out to be independent of ZFC as well. This independence is sometimes interpreted to mean that these questions have no answer, but most set theorists see that as a profound misconception. They believe the continuum has a precise size; we just need new tools of logic to figure out what that is. These tools will come in the form of new axioms. “The axioms do not settle these problems,” said Magidor, so “we must extend them to a richer axiom system.” It’s ZFC as a means to mathematical truth that’s lacking - not truth itself. Ever since Cohen, set theorists have sought to shore up the foundations of infinite math by adding at least one new axiom to ZFC. This axiom should illuminate the structure of infinite sets, engender natural and beautiful theorems, avoid fatal contradictions, and, of course, settle Cantor’s question.
love how he ended with a mindfuck
+Edmund A. ikr
yup!
CoolSkeleton95 hehehehe....yeah
Right??? Right???
+edmvnd All the time. :D
UA-cam: now?
Also UA-cam: *no*
*4 years later*
UA-cam: *y e s*
I think it's more fitting now bc the views are at 12 million, 345 thousand.... etc
Hahhahahahah so original
@@relosopi nice
Stfu
Lol
I used petit tube and got a 2 and a half hour video (not looped) of someone filming croissants
Is that a complaint
Bruh
LMAO, link?
Really? I saw a bunch of naked women and dicks.
ah. I spelt it wrong.
once again vsauce has not failed to blow my mind in ways i didnt even realize he was
Things that will never be explained:
1. Time Travel
2. Bermuda Triangle
3. UA-cam Recommendations
MK Documentary time travel has been explained alot
UA-cam recommendations are similar videos you watch
Please dont ok boomer me
The bermunda triangle has been explained as well
You forgot:
- why these types of comments still keep appearing even though they're unoriginal and are copied and pasted from other videos.
@@minechof824 Yes if he put it it would've been funnier
Vsauce is by far the best channel on UA-cam.
You have the right to be entitled by your own opinion.
Christian Silva Fuck no from now on what he said is an official fact. Of course it's his opinion, why do you even say that? You don't need to write "IMO" to express your opinion.
Hex iD I don't know, the channel that has the 10 hours of Darth Vader breathing video is pretty good.
Hasheem Gul As well as Epic Rap Battles and Jontron who are some of the only comedy channels who actually work hard to be entertaining.
waterblonk
5:17
Michael: "How are you doing that? is it some sort of 6th sense?"
Me: OMG yes YES!!!
Michael: "...no"
Me: Well fuck my life...
You do realize we have like 21 senses...
The whole 5 senses incorrect
+AlphaMineron so we have like 16 sixth senses?
A 'Normal' Shipper 21, your sense of balance, etc are real, I hope you realize that.
Human minds doesn’t function with 5 senses
AlphaMineron some of them are technically parts of other sensations
Poop 🐤
Ethan
I swear everytime i binge watch VSauce i have an existential crisis
last year dad: go read some science books
now dad: go watch some vsauce
ThatTrollyLet'sPlayer 300th like
TonyDaDerp next year: go play some skyrim
666 likes. Nobody ruin it I swear to god.
666 likes 😈
WHO RUINED IT?!
I wish vsauce was my teacher
I would actually pay attention in class.
Ashly Simple same
Shaila Chowdhury ikr
A2Z well that's just a sign of autism so idk why the fuck you're happy
A2Z its a good thing you're on a Vsauce video. Fix that dumb brain of yours
Hey, Vsauce. Michael here. Let's take a moment to recognize the heroes who count. Canadian Mike Smith holds the world record for the largest number counted to in one breath - 125. But the world record for the largest number ever counted to belongs to Jeremy Harper from Birmingham, Alabama. In order to set the record, Harper never left his apartment. He got regular sleep, but from the moment he woke up in the morning until the moment he went to bed at night, Harper did nothing but count. He streamed the entire process over the Internet and raised money for charity while doing it, but after three months of counting all day, every day, he finally reached the world record - 1 million. Now, a million might not sound like a lot, but think of this way. One thousand seconds is about 17 minutes, but a million seconds is more than 11 days. And a billion seconds, well, that's more than 31 years. There's no full video online of Harper counting all the way to a million, but you can watch John Harchick count all the way to 100,000, if you have 74 hours to spare. John also has some other channels. One involves more than 300 videos of himself eating carrots. Another, more than 3,000 videos of himself drinking water. Many of John's videos literally have no views.
They are as lonely as a video on UA-cam can get. A great way to find such videos is a website made by Jon van der Kruisen. This website auto-plays videos on UA-cam that no one has yet watched. John and Jeremy, as well as Mike, the one breath counter counted like this. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and so on. But that's not the only way to count. And it doesn't seem to be the one we're born with.
Additive counting is the one we're all familiar with, where each next step is just one added to the last. But what if we multiply it by a number instead? Well, that kind of counting is logarithmic, from "arithmos" meaning number and "logos" meaning ratio, proportion. On this scale, similar distances are similar proportions. One is a third of three and three is a third of nine. Four is a third of 12 and so on. Our brains perceive the world around us on a logarithmic scale. It's believed that almost all of our senses are multiplicative, not additive.
For example, how loud we perceive a sound to be. Two boomboxes playing at the same volume don't sound twice as loud as one. In order to make a sound that is perceived as being about twice as loud as one boombox, you actually need ten times as many, so 10. And to double that loudness, you would need a hundred. And to double that loudness, you would need a thousand. Having an intuitive sense of logarithmic scales built into your brain is probably an advantage when it comes to natural selection and survival, because often proportion matters more than absolute value. For example, "is there one lion hiding over there in the shadows or two?" is a very different question than "are there ninety six lions about to attack us or ninety seven?" Sure, in both cases I'm just talking about one extra lion, but adding one lion to one lion, doubles the threat. Adding one lion to 96, well, that's basically nothing.
Logarithmic thinking and feeling may explain why life seems to speed-up as we get older. It seems like I was a child for ever. And in college, in my early 20's, just whizzed by. And logarithmically, that makes sense, because each new year that I live is the smaller fraction of all the other years I've already lived. When you turn 2 years old, the last year of your life is half your life. But when you turn 81, that last year that you've lived, well, that's just a tiny part of the other 80 that you know. Logarithmic thinking isn't always helpful, especially in scenarios where proportion doesn't logically matter but we, nonetheless, act like it does. One of my favorite examples is the psychophysics of price paradox. This is something almost all of us do.
Researchers found consistently that people are willing to put a lot of effort into saving 5 dollars of a 10 dollar purchase, but they won't put much effort into saving 5 five dollars of a 2,000 dollar purchase. It's 5 dollars saved either way, but our natural obsession with proportion leads us astray. Take a look at these pictures. Can you tell how many objects are in each of them? You probably can. It's like really easy. You can tell if there are zero, one, two, three or four objects in a photo without even needing to count. How are you doing that? Is it some sort of sixth sense? No.
Psychologists call it "subitizing." We can, intuitively, at a glance, determine whether there are about four or fewer objects in a photo. This has been part of human culture for a very long time and it may be the reason so many tally systems from all over the world all through history wind up having to do something different when counting the number five. When estimating or comparing amounts above 4, the brain uses what's known as an approximate number system. It's a psychological ability we have. It's about 15 percent accurate. It two amounts are at least 15 percent different, we can tell. So, for example, 100 objects and 115 or a thousand and 1,150 or 1,200.
If you wanna test the accuracy of your approximate number system Panamath has a pretty good test. We often take linear additive counting for granted, but it's not granted to us. We aren't born with it. We are, however, born with the ability to subitize and use an approximate number system. Children younger than the age of three can tell, without counting, that this line of 4 coins contains fewer coins than this line of 6, even if you spread the 4 coins out into a line that is physically bigger, longer than this line of 6. However, mysteriously, around the age of 3.5, children lose this ability and begin saying that this line of 6 coins contains fewer coins than this long line of just 4 coins, possibly because around this age the physical world of objects, physical sizes, is more salient in their minds. But then, when they begin to learn linear counting, they reverse back and begin again correctly saying that this line of 6 contains more coins than this line of 4, around the age of 4.
The smallest physical thing science could ever hope to observe is the Planck length. In order to look at anything smaller, you'd need to have so much energy concentrated in such a small area a black hole would form and you would lose whatever you were looking at. Okay, with that in mind, here's a question. What number is halfway in-between 1 and 9. 5 seems like the obvious answer. There are four numbers on either side of 5, it's halfway between, right? Well, if you ask this question of a young child or a member of a culture that doesn't teach a linear additive number line, their answer will be 3. You see, they are exhibiting the human mind's natural logarithmic tendency, because 3 in that sense makes sense. Three is three times larger than 1, and 9 is three times larger than 3. Three is in the middle, proportionately.
But what if we took that logarithmic number line and change the one to be the smallest thing we can observe, the Planck length, and the nine to be the largest thing we can observe, the observable universe. What would go in the middle? Well, as it turns out, we would. The number of Planck lengths you could stretch across a brain cell is equal to the number of your brain cells it would take to stretch all the way across the observable universe. sold So, welcome to the middle. And as always, thanks for watching.
Pietro Celano Jesus Christ
Pietro Celano get a life
Pietro Celano l
Pietro Celano jesus christ it's jason bourne
*claps*
This is (was) the best channel on UA-cam!
Who else clicked to see what number he got to in the title
Heh, peasants. I just hovered my pointer over the title...well, seems I clicked after that anyway
Yes'nt'nt'nt'nt'nt'nt'nt'nt
Me...
Virgo Pain u caught me 😂
Umm...... no not me..... (smoke screen appears in front of you) AUTISM TURTLE AWAY
he blew my mind with logarithmic life explanation.
Yea I actually had a headache because of how blown my mind was
I believe the logarithmic time explanation for why time seems to go by faster as you get older has been disproven, or at least shown that it can at most account for a small amount of the effect
SHUT UP STOP KEEPING ME UP I NEED TO GO TO BED
ikr
IKR XDDD
Omg yesss
I'm glad I found v sauce some time ago, if I discovered this channel today I know I would do the same
omg I was just watching this vid onn night