@@Xayuapu guys are so cruel, I know u know what’s he’s actually saying, taking a real thing in bianary, then just adding some mysterious personal experience and applying some n w value to it, using the observer principles and messing with them to show u how crazy and insane our direction has gone in modern socierty. But at 4:00 when he’s talking about jeaques vallee , trying to grasp actuall facts , how at some point u have to take a step back, and say, ok we need some order, but we need some randomness, now let’s not think constantly, and let’s not live instinctively, balance is a very important thing, empathy is a very important narrative , e also need control, em we also know too mucbasically, we know jack sht, but sometimes we need order, we are complex, we need security as human beings, we also needed adventure, those 2 things young and Yang, but if u ask me, think I have the answers for when u med those specifically, 🤔🤯 . We need balance , we need eachOther, and anyone hi Tess you they have all the Answers is so lost . Don’t ask for directions, or ts empowering to ignorant some of. The known, but don’t gets lost in the desert, I just got lost trying to mskebadamn analogy in a UA-cam comments section explaining life to a guy who won’t read it ever, 😂 if tree falls and no one hears it, did I eat breakfeast. 😂
Of course Joe is not dumb. Eric is horrible at explaining to large crowds. He is way too esoteric and just confuses the heck out of everyone. To be fair, he's not and never was a teacher.
@@oc7214 I got quantum fission anal cavities in my cerebral cortex in the first 15 milliseconds of grasping this with my 1 neuron thats floating around somewhere up there....jewry.
What a cool philosophy. We don't need the mysteries of supernatural stories because there's a lot of mystery in science to give our life meaning. I totally agree with this.
sybo59 - uhhh not sure what you mean by “philosophical insight?” Maybe just re-read the OP. He said it was a cool philosophy. He didn’t say anything about a “philosophical insight.”
Guests like Eric inspire minds that can change the future in ways we can't even think of right now. Joe shines when he brings minds on like Eric. Who doesn't like listening to good, honest, smart people that inspire?
Quaternions were a proposed solution for 3d algebra (perhaps electromagnetic vectors idk) but mathematicians who grappled with it basically called it evil, and soon developed easier ways to deal with vectors in 3d space. So quaternions were forgotten about [mostly] and I remember my gradeschool math teacher mentioning and dismissing them as basically useless -- no use could be found for them (but at least he mentioned them). It turns out they are an adept way of manipulating animations in 3d graphics engines -- no gimbal lock -- although it still takes a fair bit to come to terms with 'em ... 150 yrs after they were formulated. a practical use for Octonions? uh ......
I've used these numbers a little, so here's my best simple explanation. Regular or 'real' numbers like we're all familiar with are one dimensional, like how far something is or whatever, and they only have one part, like all good traditional numbers should. There are some rules, like square roots of negatives don't work because negative*negative is positive, they're commutative, meaning A*B always = B*A, and they're associative, meaning (A*B)*C always = A*(B*C). All just like you're probably used to. No drama so far. Complex numbers have two parts, a regular number and a second part that is some multiple of the square root of -1, called 'i' because really, we're just pretending it exists for convenience. Yeah, I know that doesn't sound convenient, but when you want a useful answer, the imaginary part gets cancelled out in the maths. Complex numbers represent an orientation in 2 dimensions, like which direction a clock hand is facing. Multiplying two complex numbers is like adding orientations together. Square roots of negative numbers are just normal in complex numbers. Complex numbers are still commutative (A*B = B*A), and this makes sense because it doesn't matter what order you add two orientations together in 2D, you still end up in the same place, right? They are also still associative (A*B)*C = A*(B*C). Quaternions have 4 parts (one real number and 3 imaginary numbers i, j and k). They represent an orientation in 3 dimensional space, like all the ways you could point a camera in a video game for example. Multiplying two Quaternions is like adding one orientation to another in 3D. Quaternions are not commutative (A*B does not = B*A). This makes a kind of sense that you can visualise. Imagine pointing your right index finger forward then rotate left 90 degrees, then down 90 degrees from there. It's not the same result as if you turned it down 90 degrees then left 90 degrees. Just try it with your finger. Quaternions are still associative (A*B)*C = A*(B*C). Strange fact though, Quaternions seem to have two representations for every orientation (just multiply each part by -1 for the other representation), but this too actually represents something real about 720 degree symmetry in 3D orientations that I demonstrated in a short video after one too many red wines here: ua-cam.com/video/kFckcJ9AsIY/v-deo.html . Electron spins are apparently also represent-able as Quaternions because they have the same 720 degree symmetry, though that's not really something I know much about at all. Octonions have 8 parts (one real number and 7 imaginary numbers i, j, k, l, m, n and o). They represent an orientation in 4 dimensional space, like nothing ordinary people ever visualise at all. I'm pretty sure that multiplying two Octonions is like adding one orientation to another in 4D. Just like Quaternions, Octonions are not commutative (A*B does not = B*A). Octonions are also not associative either (A*B)*C is not = A*(B*C) and I have no ideal at all what that means in the real world. Fun fact though, surfer dude and theoretical physicist Garret Lisi has been proposing a grand unified theory of physics involving something called the "E8 Lie Group", the maths of which is based on Octonions, which he explains in his Ted talk here: ua-cam.com/video/y-Gk_Ddhr0M/v-deo.html . Notice there was a doubling of the numbers each time 1, 2, 4 then 8 parts to form each successive type of number. There is no 16 part number though. Notice how each step up required the elimination of some fundamental maths axiom, first square roots of negatives, then commutativity, then associativity. After that, we have no more axioms to throw away, so this progression goes no further. That's the end of the line, but also maybe the answer to the grand unified theory of physics, so that could be nice hey?
@dim Yes, it was also the normed division algebras I was referring to also, but I was trying to provide a description that wasn't too laden with mathematical terminology for more approachable general UA-cam audience consumption. You wrote: "Because you only need as many variables as degrees of freedom to describe a system." This doesn't turn out to be entirely true in practice. Hamilton (the guy that invented Quaternions in the1800;'s) struggled for ages to come up with a 3 number representation for 3d orientations that you could do multiplication with, but eventually had an aha! moment and saw that he needed 4. I think it was ultimately the 'normed division' realisation that he had, but I doubt he realised that so generally at the time. More practically, 3-real representations of orientations in 3 dimensions have discontinuities. For example if you use the euler angles (yaw, pitch, roll), they can experience something akin to gimbal lock in gyroscopes where for example yaw and pitch align in some orientations and you just can't separate them any more (in the maths you get division by zero or gross precision errors as they align). Quaternions never have that problem, possibly because they're actually a representation of a spinor. That 720 degree symmetry problem is real. A similar representation issue appears in 2d orientations. Using the common y = mx + b representation has a discontinuity as the orientation becomes a vertical line. This can be solved with projective geometry, requiring a 3rd number. I've worked with Quaternions a lot, but never really with Octonions. I'm not really very sure how these spinor and/or orientation discontinuity problems apply in higher dimensions, but I don't expect they will just magically go away. You can probably guess I'm not really a mathematician - I just use/implement this stuff in software applications.
Newton couldn’t go to school because of the shut down (for the plague not COVID) so, understandably, he got bored. He didn’t have PlayStation so he started constructing a series of tests using inclined planes etc. to see what he could learn about the motion of objects. It was his “irrepressible curiosity” that ushered in the modern world.
Newton also was one of the smartest people to ever live. Don’t give false confidence that you can start doing physics experiments as a Joe Shmoe and get anything out of it. You also have to take into context of people didn’t know back then so everyday observation actually meant something.
@Bobby Thomas a lot of his theory was disproven by Einstein and Einstein has his theories disproven by modern scientists. They were just smart compared to people back then, people nowadays have more potential but most don't usually live up to it.
@@thecrimsonfuckeralucardlor5087 I agree but you also have to look at context, it’s not necessarily that people have more potential (over a long period maybe) but they have way more resources at hand. Why newtons achievement is greater to me than einstiens (it’s picking and choosing) is newton didn’t have nearly the materials to test his theory’s with, he had to construct a bunch of things, not that Einstein didn’t but he was more of take what’s been done and think on it. Newton or Einstein also being disproven Shouldn’t hurt or alarm anyone, it’s meant to be that way, they were right using the materials they had at the time
@@bobbythomas6520 that's sort of my point in that people nowadays are smarter on average because we have more things available so we don't need super geniuses with specific genetics because we already have several Einsteins and newtons in our age.
@@thecrimsonfuckeralucardlor5087 yeah I get your point but realistically it makes us dumber then. Imagine newton thinking with our technology. And we have geniuses like Edward written or Brian Greene or Elon but something sticks out about past genius. Also we’re in an age where science is trying to hit its next breakthrough
Will IV It’s true. He’s a pompous Noémie who thinks he knows shit, despite having no coherent philosophy whatsoever. Name me a few things that make him brilliant. I’ll wait.
I never went past high school but i have read a lot of books in the 30 years since. Stuff like this makes my head spin. It's like looking at Mandelbrot patterns or Hubble photos of the visible universe and then going to look at fungi, flowers and insects through a macro zoom camera. It is all so subtly similar i some times get the feeling the answer is right in front of me and i just don't get it. That being said i think this fellows mind is working on a different level than the majority of humanity. Good on him for trying to peak peoples interest but i think this stuff is just not something most of us can relate to let alone get really excited about.
They can...they just needed to not stop at high school. Teaching yourself theoretical physics is probably a little harder than having a PHD teach it to you through an structured learning environment. "Conspiracy theories" are exciting to the uneducated because they can't be "solved" by doing any real investigation whereas actual advancement requires a scientific approach.
@@Deceptikhan Unfortunately there’s a near cult like influence within every college that forces students to take classes that falsely inform them on world history and “white man bad”. in my sacrifice of greater educational tools I retain my wealth and the reality of world events, but I also keep my ability to learn complex information without a structure that supports false information. If they are willing to lie why should you believe anything they teach? UA-cam and Google as well as classic literature can go a very long way if you have the time and common sense.
@@shaneculkin7124 believe it or not, if you polled 100 Americans, 85 wouldn’t know it doesn’t transmit actual Polaroids. 50/100 don’t know where the sun goes at night.
@@tropicalpnch4549 Very interesting. A manifold is a geometric space that locally looks flat. Like the Earth is a sphere, but locally around a single person it looks flat. Calabi Yau manifolds seem to be manifolds with some additional characteristics that makes them have very interesting shapes. Thanks for introducing me to them.
@@julius-horsthuis I watched "Fraktaal" and it was very good. Do you incorporate zoom ins in your 3D fractal videos? When we zoom in we get to see the infinite complexity of fractals, which is the part of fractals I like the most.
@@emailcharlesjosh The second thing. I took classes at my local community college during my high school's summer vacations. High school kids go to school out of habit, not to actively learn things. It is daycare. Americans tend to favor feels over reals, we like to rely on our gut. Math is hard, so most students take the minimum amount to pass. Think that might've been algebra 2 and that makes it up all the way to the complex numbers, not the quaternions.
It’s not that Americans live their life by feels. It’s that some people, like Eric Weinstein for example, live their life in their mind. They see a flower and they want to understand the flower. Most people are satisfied simply knowing it exists. They simply don’t care to understand. They’re not curious about the flower. They’re curiosity is reserved for other things. People, animals, buildings, history, etc.
@@emailcharlesjosh Looks like someone feels the need to look clever in front of people he doesn't know, perhaps to compensate for other, deep-seated, insecurities. .
@@AlexanderStone I’ve noticed so many people dismiss him for their own lack of comprehension. I’ve tried talking with some of them so I can maybe break some of the concepts down in a way that might be more effective. But they just seem to get emotional and tell me that I’m just fooled by his words because I’m stupid. It’s quite indicative of their level of abstract conceptual thinking. They will blame him for their own lack of understanding. They don’t understand language at a deep enough level to understand the artistry that has to go into compressing these ideas down. And Eric is actually quite good at this. But people expect him to be able to explain these to 5th graders. He actually is explaining concepts in quite a simple fashion, but they are out of people’s ball park.
@@joskojansa1235kids are not going to learn random subjects that don't have direct usefulness to them. This is the main problem with education or at least how we present it. Your suggestion just makes it worst.
"Hey Jamie, pull that up. Oh, but Jamie, make sure to not show it to the audience so they can't know what everyone's looking at." Now I'll never know what an Octonion looks like.
I understood very little but I like it when he said It's time to bring back a ton of meaning back into our lives. The guy is not afraid to say what lot of scientists are thinking.
So I did 3 years of math (bachelor). So what I think is that everybody can grasp everything, but someone is faster in learning than others. So it's important to focus on what you get. What blew me away was in complex analysis when we integrated a half circle around the sum from 1 to infinity of 1/n^2 over the complex numbers to find out the answer was converging to π^2/6. How we can understand lower grade problems by going up a grade, to complex numbers.
I think Eric is a bit wrong... Octonions produce Sedenion when dragged through Cayley-Dickson construction.. in fact, you can drag the numbers through Cayley-Dickson construction and keep getting 2power(n) numbers, basically getting to infinite spatial dimensions. I have no idea if these have any practical use pass Octonions, which is what Eric probably implied.
Did they take that part down??? I saw it and Eric "Einstein" Weinstein contradicted himself by saying something like "the facts can be harmful and ought to be hidden" and other politically correct drivel. I used to love Mr W but that part proved that he is not 100% for truth and honesty.
I often say, it is fruitless to pontificate about communicating with aliens, while most people do not know what their cat is saying. Until we master inter-species communication, we are just an isolated species among millions.
As bro-like as this podcast can be, Rogan introduces you to some cool ass shit. I could be scrolling through my IG looking at girls asses but instead I'm learning about theoretical physics and complex mathematics. My mornings are exponentially more productive thanks to this podcast. Thanks Joe!
2:50 The first smart thing Ive heard this guy say - there is PLENTY of mystery left, even to physicists and mathematicians, that will knock your socks off and fill you with wonder and awe and love of life.
He didn't really explain the associative property, but it is that (x+y)+z = x+(y+z). That's a bunch of symbols that communicate what we generally all know about quantities. 2+3 = 5, and 5+4 = 9, so 2+3+4=9. With a 8-dimensional vector space, not necessarily so. Similarly, quaternions being non-commutative... we take for granted that 2*3 and 3*2 are the same, but in a 4-dimensional vector space, that isn't necessarily the case. Order can matter. The interesting thing about math is that so many scenarios are special cases which you don't learn about until you start getting into lower division college math, usually. The natural numbers(1,2,3,4...) are a special case of the real numbers. The real numbers(-infinity to infinity) are a special case of the higher dimensional systems with all the extra dimensionality zeroed out. The really fascinating thing is taking these patterns that are found in this math and seeing where they correspond and apply to things that occur in reality. Sometimes math from totally unrelated fields applies to other fields you'd never imagine. That's essentially what he's talking about. Weird stuff is happening in 8-dimensional math. How and where does it apply if at all? And if it doesn't, why not?
I didn't follow any of this. But I knew Joe Rogan and I were on the same level because we both let out a stupid giggle when he talked about putting on underwear after the pants.
@@mateusmachadofotografia8554 Not if you can't even understand quadratic functions. That's when I gave up and just made my math notebook my drawing notebook.
He is barely going through the surface on what he's talking about, he didn't go into any detail of whatever he said, i can't convince u with a single comment, but if u really wanna embrace any of the stuff he said, it would take some years i guess 5 years ago i was dealing with decimals and powers and arithmetic, now i am doing real analysis, linear algebra, topology and all kinds of shit, its worth it
This is a great idea for a magazine. Stuff that is extremely interesting, real, and you may not have heard of. Then, crowd source it. Find out what is important to everyone and throw some bucks and brains behind it.
People always complain about Eric being a pseudo scientist. Its ridiculous. He has tons of legitimate credentials. He just sucks at explaining things to people without the proper exposure. Since when did we start expecting mathematicians to also be great communicators.
I think the main thing we can do with this information that’s extremely difficult to grasp lol is to keep talking about it and make it more of a conversation amongst people, I’m dumb but I can tell that if we have a shot for shot look at an organisms brain that is basically a dumbed down version of ours that we need to push ourselves to understand this, it’s a cheat code to how to understand our own brains and possibly upgrade us so to speak, idk I’d love to see more people talking about this and sharing this because it is huuuuuuuuge information that can better our lives as a whole.
That's exactly what Weinstein was so excited about. Sadly we have thousands of the brighter minds in the world busy working out the next best weapon to kill another guy across the ocean.
This is a great snippet. Iv been struggling though the entire cast. Thanks. PS I studied some medicine and as an atheist, the more I got to know about bio the more I believe in higher design. I hate that.
Really this sensitive sack of pressurised fluid and bone complete with meandering fragile nerves; a system that uses the same plumbing for a leisure centre and for its sewerage; an optical system that only reveals a tiny fraction of the electro-magnetic spectrum to a pathetic distance and resolution; a system that requires you to be rendered immobile and unconscious for a third of the day; that can only survive in a temperature range of about 30 °C; a system that requires a near constant access to a source of clean fresh water in order to survive. With the body we are born with i.e. no clothes or shelter, we are only able to survive on about 2% of the planet Earths surface. That makes you lean towards design?
Marc Hill, okay, scratch that. Miracle. Well, rather than design, we might say congruence. But I also offer the use of quotation marks to ease the sting.
Biological body masses are a mess of genes mutated over millions of generations that have adapted to the environment they are in. If something was to be a higher designer they would no doubt make things perfect as is. Giraffes have an unnecessary long aorta that goes halfway up their neck because they evolved from something that didn't have the need for a long neck. Kakapo have massive wings stuck out 1-2 meters yet have lost the capacity to flap their wings with enough power to take flight. I could name you 100s more examples but you should know them seeing as you've "studied some medicine". There is no evidence for higher design, unless you would like to give evidence to the contrary.
Adam Eve I think the human body is incredible, but the evidence is clear that we are a result of millions of years of evolution by natural selection. If we were designed, then the designer is cruel or incompetent.
This is how we need mathematical teachers and professors to teach… there is a journey ahead in learning! There will be failure, set backs, etc but the results and potential are limitless
The way I understand higher systems of numbers is that mathematics in familiar numbers (before we get to i or other complex numbers) is a description of our environment. If we take away one of our fundamental assumptions (for instance, that 'a squared number cannot be negative'), we can add one complexity, but instead of stating the assumption as a question mark, in the place of that assumption we put a letter: i. With each increasing dimension and therefore "assumption" of mathematics that we have removed, we add another 'question mark' or letter (or series of letters, depending on how many orders of complexity we are increasing). But because we don't know the entirety of what we don't know, I don't think it's smart to state definitively that we would NEVER go beyond octonians. It will get more complex because our system will get more complex, and we will need more assumptions to continue describing our environment as we explore it (which assumptions can then be taken away to create a higher order of question marks).
Lovely discussion between two far domains of expertise 🙏🏿 For those curious, Eric is simplifying the limits of extending Octonions to the point of misdirection. There exist higher-order hypercomplex number systems beyond 8-ions called sedenion (16-ions). The formula is generalizable for dimensions of the power of 2 - exchanging properties of symmetry as you increase dimensionality. This is generalized to a system Caley-Dickson algebras that require at least a weak form of associativity between numbers in a product... The DEEPER mystery is why and by what system are these symmetries exchanged around as we increase dimensionality also what do non-integer or non-real dimensions generalize to (pi-ion number system or e^pi number system) ...basically what the fuck are numbers?
News flash: Eric talks about the things we should be taught in colleges, meanwhile colleges teach pure idiocy. I wonder if his knowledge would sound so smart if this subject matter was taught on a regular basis in the collegiate world....
@Brochacho III i figured that but most collegiate graduates i know never had to take calculus. Or any mathematics or science class above senior highschool levels... sooo yeah. Most of them dont know even the basics of these principles.
@GUNS & MAGIC Doesnt matter in my opinion. Just because you're not going to be an engineer doesn't mean you shouldn't be taught this material. It opens your mind and expands your view. Seems pretty mind deadening when over-specialization is making people more stupid towards reality.
@dim this is a common argument from the scholarly community. You wont need it so dont learn it. There's thousands of ideas and principles that you're taught while learning that you'll never come back to again. But the learning of these facts trains the mind and sharpens critical thinking. Just because you're not gonna major in a degree that wont use it doesnt mean you should let your ability to think be deadened. Specializing learning that will only work one side of your brain will result in nothing but negative results in the long term, period.
When people say college is useless, this is a lot of what they're missing out on. However it's not really practical for everyone which is really the issue. For most, it's a waste of time and money because it distracts and take energy from gaining money
and I'm not talking down on anyone here before you reply. I realized I didn't want to be a doctor and all the knowledge of bio/chem etc became almost completely useless
People who dismiss "conspiracies" but don't follow the WEF and in fact themselves the conspiracy theorists. The so called conspiracies are often just FACTS that the elites keep out of the mainstream awareness but are very much probable true
Conspiracy theories? Pretty sure this dude is talking about fringe physics. (Not the TV show.) einsteins theory of relativity breaks down if you go too deep into it. Guys like Mr weinsteen are just trying to find a new way to approach an existing problem. Personally I think theories built on theories built on theories is bound to create issues at one point... a situation where people have been using the system and everything else is built off the current iteration so no one wants to find a new way even though that's what is necessary.
Favorite part 9:32: Joe says, “For the folks listening at home, not watching… Jamie, can you explain WTF we’re looking at.” Everyone watching, “Yeah, WTF are we looking at?”
Maybe you are not the audience he's trying to reach out to. He's just talking about complex numbers and quaternions (i, j and k) - rudimentary stuff taught in high school
@@emailcharlesjosh First of all, I went to high school and we were never taught that. Secondly, it's the biggest podcast in the world. Going into it not wanting to be understood doesn't make sense.
It's like our parents hid the keys to the car in the house somewhere, but our immature minds are so focused on getting into town and pizza and beer, that we're repeatedly searching in the wrong places?
So, for anyone a little more familiar with this stuff or a little quicker at picking it up: is he saying quaternions are non-commutative (I know he's saying octonions are non-associative)? And if so, that refers to the fact that the order of multiplication, unlike real numbers, changes the product? As in, _ij = k_ but _ji = -k?_ Is that also why _jk = i_ rather than _k/j = i?_ Or, am I way off base? I'd like to have a remote idea of what he's talking about without going down a rabbit hole of dense mathematics.
dude. taoists have been studying octonian system for long time. it's called the bagua map. these guys have a very difficult and cumbersome way of explaining it. I think the taoists got good tools to study it in ways we can use. it is a more accurate map of our universe as experienced by our consciousness.
"So what is an Octonian number?"
"You wouldn't know it. It goes to a different school."
Seriously underrated comment.
It’s like a quaternion but with eight dimensions instead of four.
Kevin!
theyr not quite dimensions
as in they have not linear independence.
@@Xayuapu guys are so cruel, I know u know what’s he’s actually saying, taking a real thing in bianary, then just adding some mysterious personal experience and applying some n w value to it, using the observer principles and messing with them to show u how crazy and insane our direction has gone in modern socierty. But at 4:00 when he’s talking about jeaques vallee , trying to grasp actuall facts , how at some point u have to take a step back, and say, ok we need some order, but we need some randomness, now let’s not think constantly, and let’s not live instinctively, balance is a very important thing, empathy is a very important narrative , e also need control, em we also know too mucbasically, we know jack sht, but sometimes we need order, we are complex, we need security as human beings, we also needed adventure, those 2 things young and Yang, but if u ask me, think I have the answers for when u med those specifically, 🤔🤯 . We need balance , we need eachOther, and anyone hi Tess you they have all the Answers is so lost . Don’t ask for directions, or ts empowering to ignorant some of. The known, but don’t gets lost in the desert, I just got lost trying to mskebadamn analogy in a UA-cam comments section explaining life to a guy who won’t read it ever, 😂 if tree falls and no one hears it, did I eat breakfeast. 😂
How many podcasts until Joe mentions the octonians to the guest? I say 2 max.
Ever smoke DMT?
I read about the Octonians in The Onion, which is changing its name to The Octonian.
4
My call is 7, 7th show after this one.
I say it’s one DMT trip till he meets them
- Everyone confused AF
- Makes joke about undies
- Cut to Joe giggling
@@jwm6314 he may claim that, but I think he's a lot brighter than he lets on.
@@AlecMuller He's curious at the very least. I don't think he's dumb by the way.
Of course Joe is not dumb. Eric is horrible at explaining to large crowds. He is way too esoteric and just confuses the heck out of everyone. To be fair, he's not and never was a teacher.
He forgot robots
I have no clue what this is guy is talking about but I love it
It's ok wilfred
Dude, same.
And it's that FOOKIN CAT AGAIN! HEY MA! MAAAA!! THE GAWDDAMN CAT IS BACK
I just posted something saying the exact same thing
@@oc7214 I got quantum fission anal cavities in my cerebral cortex in the first 15 milliseconds of grasping this with my 1 neuron thats floating around somewhere up there....jewry.
Neither does he...
I once worked out the area of a triangle after only getting the wrong answer three times, so I think I got this.
Andrew Baumann I just spit my joke😂
Love it! I didn't know anyone else used my mathematics.
WHAT THE FUUUUUUUK! I WAS LOOKING FOR THE GATEWAY TO THE ALT RIGHT...NOW I AM ON PLANET OCTONIO!!!
Numbers are raaayyyycist!!!!!
I'm naming my son Octonio now 😉
What a cool philosophy. We don't need the mysteries of supernatural stories because there's a lot of mystery in science to give our life meaning. I totally agree with this.
Fucking idiotic.
sybo59 - cool, well though out response man.
Will IV What philosophical insight does Eric offer?
sybo59 - uhhh not sure what you mean by “philosophical insight?” Maybe just re-read the OP. He said it was a cool philosophy. He didn’t say anything about a “philosophical insight.”
Will IV Let me rephrase: his philosophy is incoherent, nowhere near cool.
Guests like Eric inspire minds that can change the future in ways we can't even think of right now. Joe shines when he brings minds on like Eric. Who doesn't like listening to good, honest, smart people that inspire?
I think the word you're looking for is inspiration
His very last word is “inspire”..
That’s why I listen to Alex Jones.
drz One of the greatest inspirations of the generation. He is an entertaining, hard working man
@@stza16 Nazis inspire you? SAD.
Joe "I saw Octonians while using DMT" Rogan
Me: that’s a random scramble of lines
Eric Weinstein: that’s a call to adventure
Caleb Warren never before have I wanted to become a mathematician lol
@@sethgard2021 To what address do we send your reward, sir?
He took that line from Jordan
They should have asked Jamie to explain the octonions, it's easy to understand for him thanks to his A in physics!
Sn00ze You’re the same person aren’t you...
If you think Jamie is brilliant its no wonder people want California to submerge.
This ain't physics though, it's maths
@@kilianlang3316 you cant understand physics without understanding math.
@@emuccino No, octonions literally aren't physics, they're math.
I love this. Quaternions were first used in describing electromagnetism. But no one understood it. Octonions are from an alien world.
Oliver Heaviside understood it, at least.
Quaternions were a proposed solution for 3d algebra (perhaps electromagnetic vectors idk) but mathematicians who grappled with it basically called it evil, and soon developed easier ways to deal with vectors in 3d space. So quaternions were forgotten about [mostly] and I remember my gradeschool math teacher mentioning and dismissing them as basically useless -- no use could be found for them (but at least he mentioned them). It turns out they are an adept way of manipulating animations in 3d graphics engines -- no gimbal lock -- although it still takes a fair bit to come to terms with 'em ... 150 yrs after they were formulated.
a practical use for Octonions? uh ......
I think i have had a stroke
He is speaking English
Iam i to put my undies on before my shirt
I need to lay down
Get well soon
What is an octonian? Nobody knows it’s provocative. Gets the people going 😂
I've used these numbers a little, so here's my best simple explanation.
Regular or 'real' numbers like we're all familiar with are one dimensional, like how far something is or whatever, and they only have one part, like all good traditional numbers should. There are some rules, like square roots of negatives don't work because negative*negative is positive, they're commutative, meaning A*B always = B*A, and they're associative, meaning (A*B)*C always = A*(B*C). All just like you're probably used to. No drama so far.
Complex numbers have two parts, a regular number and a second part that is some multiple of the square root of -1, called 'i' because really, we're just pretending it exists for convenience. Yeah, I know that doesn't sound convenient, but when you want a useful answer, the imaginary part gets cancelled out in the maths. Complex numbers represent an orientation in 2 dimensions, like which direction a clock hand is facing. Multiplying two complex numbers is like adding orientations together. Square roots of negative numbers are just normal in complex numbers. Complex numbers are still commutative (A*B = B*A), and this makes sense because it doesn't matter what order you add two orientations together in 2D, you still end up in the same place, right?
They are also still associative (A*B)*C = A*(B*C).
Quaternions have 4 parts (one real number and 3 imaginary numbers i, j and k). They represent an orientation in 3 dimensional space, like all the ways you could point a camera in a video game for example. Multiplying two Quaternions is like adding one orientation to another in 3D. Quaternions are not commutative (A*B does not = B*A). This makes a kind of sense that you can visualise. Imagine pointing your right index finger forward then rotate left 90 degrees, then down 90 degrees from there. It's not the same result as if you turned it down 90 degrees then left 90 degrees. Just try it with your finger. Quaternions are still associative (A*B)*C = A*(B*C). Strange fact though, Quaternions seem to have two representations for every orientation (just multiply each part by -1 for the other representation), but this too actually represents something real about 720 degree symmetry in 3D orientations that I demonstrated in a short video after one too many red wines here: ua-cam.com/video/kFckcJ9AsIY/v-deo.html . Electron spins are apparently also represent-able as Quaternions because they have the same 720 degree symmetry, though that's not really something I know much about at all.
Octonions have 8 parts (one real number and 7 imaginary numbers i, j, k, l, m, n and o). They represent an orientation in 4 dimensional space, like nothing ordinary people ever visualise at all. I'm pretty sure that multiplying two Octonions is like adding one orientation to another in 4D. Just like Quaternions, Octonions are not commutative (A*B does not = B*A). Octonions are also not associative either (A*B)*C is not = A*(B*C) and I have no ideal at all what that means in the real world. Fun fact though, surfer dude and theoretical physicist Garret Lisi has been proposing a grand unified theory of physics involving something called the "E8 Lie Group", the maths of which is based on Octonions, which he explains in his Ted talk here: ua-cam.com/video/y-Gk_Ddhr0M/v-deo.html .
Notice there was a doubling of the numbers each time 1, 2, 4 then 8 parts to form each successive type of number. There is no 16 part number though. Notice how each step up required the elimination of some fundamental maths axiom, first square roots of negatives, then commutativity, then associativity. After that, we have no more axioms to throw away, so this progression goes no further. That's the end of the line, but also maybe the answer to the grand unified theory of physics, so that could be nice hey?
@dim Yes, it was also the normed division algebras I was referring to also, but I was trying to provide a description that wasn't too laden with mathematical terminology for more approachable general UA-cam audience consumption.
You wrote: "Because you only need as many variables as degrees of freedom to describe a system."
This doesn't turn out to be entirely true in practice. Hamilton (the guy that invented Quaternions in the1800;'s) struggled for ages to come up with a 3 number representation for 3d orientations that you could do multiplication with, but eventually had an aha! moment and saw that he needed 4. I think it was ultimately the 'normed division' realisation that he had, but I doubt he realised that so generally at the time.
More practically, 3-real representations of orientations in 3 dimensions have discontinuities. For example if you use the euler angles (yaw, pitch, roll), they can experience something akin to gimbal lock in gyroscopes where for example yaw and pitch align in some orientations and you just can't separate them any more (in the maths you get division by zero or gross precision errors as they align). Quaternions never have that problem, possibly because they're actually a representation of a spinor. That 720 degree symmetry problem is real.
A similar representation issue appears in 2d orientations. Using the common y = mx + b representation has a discontinuity as the orientation becomes a vertical line. This can be solved with projective geometry, requiring a 3rd number.
I've worked with Quaternions a lot, but never really with Octonions. I'm not really very sure how these spinor and/or orientation discontinuity problems apply in higher dimensions, but I don't expect they will just magically go away. You can probably guess I'm not really a mathematician - I just use/implement this stuff in software applications.
Thank you for the detailed explanation. Very helpful and interesting
Eric: pull this thing up Jamie .5 seconds later Eric gives look to Jamie like damn this guy is good
Newton couldn’t go to school because of the shut down (for the plague not COVID) so, understandably, he got bored. He didn’t have PlayStation so he started constructing a series of tests using inclined planes etc. to see what he could learn about the motion of objects. It was his “irrepressible curiosity” that ushered in the modern world.
Newton also was one of the smartest people to ever live. Don’t give false confidence that you can start doing physics experiments as a Joe Shmoe and get anything out of it. You also have to take into context of people didn’t know back then so everyday observation actually meant something.
@Bobby Thomas a lot of his theory was disproven by Einstein and Einstein has his theories disproven by modern scientists. They were just smart compared to people back then, people nowadays have more potential but most don't usually live up to it.
@@thecrimsonfuckeralucardlor5087 I agree but you also have to look at context, it’s not necessarily that people have more potential (over a long period maybe) but they have way more resources at hand. Why newtons achievement is greater to me than einstiens (it’s picking and choosing) is newton didn’t have nearly the materials to test his theory’s with, he had to construct a bunch of things, not that Einstein didn’t but he was more of take what’s been done and think on it. Newton or Einstein also being disproven Shouldn’t hurt or alarm anyone, it’s meant to be that way, they were right using the materials they had at the time
@@bobbythomas6520 that's sort of my point in that people nowadays are smarter on average because we have more things available so we don't need super geniuses with specific genetics because we already have several Einsteins and newtons in our age.
@@thecrimsonfuckeralucardlor5087 yeah I get your point but realistically it makes us dumber then. Imagine newton thinking with our technology. And we have geniuses like Edward written or Brian Greene or Elon but something sticks out about past genius. Also we’re in an age where science is trying to hit its next breakthrough
This egg to worm map blew my mind, and triggered some tears in my eyes. Absolutely amazing!
Every time I listen to Eric he sents me on a trip, even when I’m not high
Same! I've said that listening to Eric feels like using LSD
He’s an idiot. He said nothing. Are big words really enough to dupe you?
sybo59 - bahahahaha!
Will IV It’s true. He’s a pompous Noémie who thinks he knows shit, despite having no coherent philosophy whatsoever. Name me a few things that make him brilliant. I’ll wait.
I never went past high school but i have read a lot of books in the 30 years since. Stuff like this makes my head spin. It's like looking at Mandelbrot patterns or Hubble photos of the visible universe and then going to look at fungi, flowers and insects through a macro zoom camera. It is all so subtly similar i some times get the feeling the answer is right in front of me and i just don't get it. That being said i think this fellows mind is working on a different level than the majority of humanity. Good on him for trying to peak peoples interest but i think this stuff is just not something most of us can relate to let alone get really excited about.
They can...they just needed to not stop at high school. Teaching yourself theoretical physics is probably a little harder than having a PHD teach it to you through an structured learning environment. "Conspiracy theories" are exciting to the uneducated because they can't be "solved" by doing any real investigation whereas actual advancement requires a scientific approach.
Hubble photos? Hubble has never sent a photo to anyone. Telemetric data transformed by a graphic artist into a photo.
@@Deceptikhan Unfortunately there’s a near cult like influence within every college that forces students to take classes that falsely inform them on world history and “white man bad”. in my sacrifice of greater educational tools I retain my wealth and the reality of world events, but I also keep my ability to learn complex information without a structure that supports false information. If they are willing to lie why should you believe anything they teach? UA-cam and Google as well as classic literature can go a very long way if you have the time and common sense.
@@johnobrien1528 Yes, but you must know what he meant.
....... Though I personally appreciate your clarification sir.
@@shaneculkin7124 believe it or not, if you polled 100 Americans, 85 wouldn’t know it doesn’t transmit actual Polaroids. 50/100 don’t know where the sun goes at night.
Search images of "quaternion fractals" and "octonion fractals" for some really trippy fractals
Thank you! It reminds me of another math/science thing I barely comprehend: calabi yau manifolds
@@tropicalpnch4549 Very interesting. A manifold is a geometric space that locally looks flat. Like the Earth is a sphere, but locally around a single person it looks flat. Calabi Yau manifolds seem to be manifolds with some additional characteristics that makes them have very interesting shapes. Thanks for introducing me to them.
dID sOmeBOdy sAy tRippY FraCtaLs?
(checkout my channel :)
Holy frac
@@julius-horsthuis I watched "Fraktaal" and it was very good. Do you incorporate zoom ins in your 3D fractal videos? When we zoom in we get to see the infinite complexity of fractals, which is the part of fractals I like the most.
"Let me tell you about octonian numbers." Starts talking about letters.
Ok, thanks.
Variables in math are like the death of the author in literary theory. They just allow you to make shit up.
Looks like someone skipped math class. Or maybe your education system is shite. i, j and k are quaternions - something that is taught in high school
@@emailcharlesjosh The second thing. I took classes at my local community college during my high school's summer vacations. High school kids go to school out of habit, not to actively learn things. It is daycare. Americans tend to favor feels over reals, we like to rely on our gut. Math is hard, so most students take the minimum amount to pass. Think that might've been algebra 2 and that makes it up all the way to the complex numbers, not the quaternions.
It’s not that Americans live their life by feels. It’s that some people, like Eric Weinstein for example, live their life in their mind. They see a flower and they want to understand the flower. Most people are satisfied simply knowing it exists. They simply don’t care to understand. They’re not curious about the flower. They’re curiosity is reserved for other things. People, animals, buildings, history, etc.
@@emailcharlesjosh Looks like someone feels the need to look clever in front of people he doesn't know, perhaps to compensate for other, deep-seated, insecurities. .
Ive never been mindfooked like this before.
BeforeYou how so it was a bunch of bullshit. Nothing enlightening at all
@@crunch9876 You don't sound like the type whose conclusion anyone would trust. Sorry, Pal.
@@AlexanderStone I’ve noticed so many people dismiss him for their own lack of comprehension. I’ve tried talking with some of them so I can maybe break some of the concepts down in a way that might be more effective. But they just seem to get emotional and tell me that I’m just fooled by his words because I’m stupid. It’s quite indicative of their level of abstract conceptual thinking. They will blame him for their own lack of understanding. They don’t understand language at a deep enough level to understand the artistry that has to go into compressing these ideas down. And Eric is actually quite good at this. But people expect him to be able to explain these to 5th graders. He actually is explaining concepts in quite a simple fashion, but they are out of people’s ball park.
@@kkandola9072 I agree, stupid people will always think it's "stupid" because they are stupid. Stupid enough?
Joe, Jamie, or the intern reading this, I love all of you guys and keep up the good work!
Not joe: “It’s very hard to think about the square root of negative 1”
Joe: “right”
I snorted
The shirt-pants and pants-underwear explanation of associativity is really quite brilliant.
Eric: Learn hyper-complex math before you watch Ancient Aliens
Should be in eleme. School curicullum...
@@joskojansa1235kids are not going to learn random subjects that don't have direct usefulness to them. This is the main problem with education or at least how we present it. Your suggestion just makes it worst.
Instead let’s explore the biology of a worm
Y’all need to pay attention an stop reading the comments while listening to him talk
No you!
How did you know!?
This guy lost the battle of Phd vs. LSD
Hahahaha
Group Theory is my favorite area in mathematics.
"Hey Jamie, pull that up. Oh, but Jamie, make sure to not show it to the audience so they can't know what everyone's looking at."
Now I'll never know what an Octonion looks like.
Invitation to adventure 😊. I love the way Eric thinks. Would like to see a UA-cam channel that explores these invitations more fully.
I use this to go to sleep at night! This should be an app!
I understood very little but I like it when he said It's time to bring back a ton of meaning back into our lives.
The guy is not afraid to say what lot of scientists are thinking.
@ToastyShrimp you are right. I have no idea what "a lot of scientists" are thinking.
So I did 3 years of math (bachelor). So what I think is that everybody can grasp everything, but someone is faster in learning than others. So it's important to focus on what you get.
What blew me away was in complex analysis when we integrated a half circle around the sum from 1 to infinity of 1/n^2 over the complex numbers to find out the answer was converging to π^2/6.
How we can understand lower grade problems by going up a grade, to complex numbers.
I think Eric is a bit wrong... Octonions produce Sedenion when dragged through Cayley-Dickson construction.. in fact, you can drag the numbers through Cayley-Dickson construction and keep getting 2power(n) numbers, basically getting to infinite spatial dimensions. I have no idea if these have any practical use pass Octonions, which is what Eric probably implied.
lol Joe stops Eric to explain to listeners what they're looking at and instantly pawns it off on Jamie when he realizes he cant explain it lmao
Gregor gillespie is the only threat to khabib.
Do you know when his next fight is? That dude is a beast
Q Crew dont know, but im calling it: gregor, stylistically is the only threat to khabib after tony
agreed
Artem “ 🐐 “ lobov vs khabib
I have no idea what just happened, but I think I was invited to an adventure.
How come they took down the race/ IQ clip?
Did anyone catch it?
jay
Because it was complete nonsense.
That's what establishment-friendly pawns do...
Same reason you can get a professional job and then say “Fuck disabled Mexican midgets” on ur Twitter
Did they take that part down??? I saw it and Eric "Einstein" Weinstein contradicted himself by saying something like "the facts can be harmful and ought to be hidden" and other politically correct drivel. I used to love Mr W but that part proved that he is not 100% for truth and honesty.
I often say, it is fruitless to pontificate about communicating with aliens, while most people do not know what their cat is saying. Until we master inter-species communication, we are just an isolated species among millions.
As bro-like as this podcast can be, Rogan introduces you to some cool ass shit. I could be scrolling through my IG looking at girls asses but instead I'm learning about theoretical physics and complex mathematics. My mornings are exponentially more productive thanks to this podcast. Thanks Joe!
2:50 The first smart thing Ive heard this guy say - there is PLENTY of mystery left, even to physicists and mathematicians, that will knock your socks off and fill you with wonder and awe and love of life.
Joe: "Pull that shit up, Jamie"
Eric: Could I please trouble you, if I may, to pull up..."
Jamie "I got an A in pysics but didn't think to throw the octonian they were looking at up for viewers" whateverhislastnamebe
He didn't really explain the associative property, but it is that (x+y)+z = x+(y+z). That's a bunch of symbols that communicate what we generally all know about quantities. 2+3 = 5, and 5+4 = 9, so 2+3+4=9. With a 8-dimensional vector space, not necessarily so. Similarly, quaternions being non-commutative... we take for granted that 2*3 and 3*2 are the same, but in a 4-dimensional vector space, that isn't necessarily the case. Order can matter. The interesting thing about math is that so many scenarios are special cases which you don't learn about until you start getting into lower division college math, usually. The natural numbers(1,2,3,4...) are a special case of the real numbers. The real numbers(-infinity to infinity) are a special case of the higher dimensional systems with all the extra dimensionality zeroed out. The really fascinating thing is taking these patterns that are found in this math and seeing where they correspond and apply to things that occur in reality. Sometimes math from totally unrelated fields applies to other fields you'd never imagine. That's essentially what he's talking about. Weird stuff is happening in 8-dimensional math. How and where does it apply if at all? And if it doesn't, why not?
I am a grandmother of four here in a America
And this man is amazing to listen to ....o really think alot of him....he has alot of great ideas...
I was waiting for "these numbers are crazy.. But have you ever done DMT?"
"I" is definitely a factor in this equation
My modern algebra class in college!
I didn't follow any of this. But I knew Joe Rogan and I were on the same level because we both let out a stupid giggle when he talked about putting on underwear after the pants.
Nah I bet you dont use words like interface
I broad stroke kinda get what he's saying,but even he was surprised at Jaime's speed "bringing that up".
I'm a neuroscience student and this just heavily inspired me
Now if he could just explain the Midi-chlorians to me.
Holy crap, I typed Octonion in MS Word and spell-check suggested "octomom". NO TWO THINGS could be further apart!
I thought I was good at math but I think I’m gonna have an aneurism from trying to understand this. Mind blown 🤯 btw happy 4th everyone
Yeah, fuck this Weinstein guy. I wanted to hate him, but he won me over with this video, and the Portal one.
In think The same way 10 years Ago. But If you learn piece by piece you can understand It
@@mateusmachadofotografia8554 Not if you can't even understand quadratic functions. That's when I gave up and just made my math notebook my drawing notebook.
I wasn’t good at math until we started doing math with the alphabet.
He is barely going through the surface on what he's talking about, he didn't go into any detail of whatever he said, i can't convince u with a single comment, but if u really wanna embrace any of the stuff he said, it would take some years i guess
5 years ago i was dealing with decimals and powers and arithmetic, now i am doing real analysis, linear algebra, topology and all kinds of shit, its worth it
This is a great idea for a magazine. Stuff that is extremely interesting, real, and you may not have heard of. Then, crowd source it. Find out what is important to everyone and throw some bucks and brains behind it.
They have dozens of magazines like that
What the fuck is a “magazine”?
Is it like a photo gallery and Column website that you print out?
It’s called Nature
@@sfaxdan1740 sounds like a waste of paper amiright
Imagine the cell lineage for humans,
or an equation that encompasses consciousness
bet its chock full of Octonians
JOE “JOE” ROGAN
People always complain about Eric being a pseudo scientist. Its ridiculous. He has tons of legitimate credentials. He just sucks at explaining things to people without the proper exposure. Since when did we start expecting mathematicians to also be great communicators.
Lol yeah he’s definitely not a pseudoscientist
I think the main thing we can do with this information that’s extremely difficult to grasp lol is to keep talking about it and make it more of a conversation amongst people, I’m dumb but I can tell that if we have a shot for shot look at an organisms brain that is basically a dumbed down version of ours that we need to push ourselves to understand this, it’s a cheat code to how to understand our own brains and possibly upgrade us so to speak, idk I’d love to see more people talking about this and sharing this because it is huuuuuuuuge information that can better our lives as a whole.
That's exactly what Weinstein was so excited about. Sadly we have thousands of the brighter minds in the world busy working out the next best weapon to kill another guy across the ocean.
This is EXACTLY why I watch JRE videos...I learn!
This is a great snippet. Iv been struggling though the entire cast. Thanks.
PS I studied some medicine and as an atheist, the more I got to know about bio the more I believe in higher design. I hate that.
Really this sensitive sack of pressurised fluid and bone complete with meandering fragile nerves; a system that uses the same plumbing for a leisure centre and for its sewerage; an optical system that only reveals a tiny fraction of the electro-magnetic spectrum to a pathetic distance and resolution; a system that requires you to be rendered immobile and unconscious for a third of the day; that can only survive in a temperature range of about 30 °C; a system that requires a near constant access to a source of clean fresh water in order to survive. With the body we are born with i.e. no clothes or shelter, we are only able to survive on about 2% of the planet Earths surface. That makes you lean towards design?
Marc Hill, okay, scratch that. Miracle.
Well, rather than design, we might say congruence.
But I also offer the use of quotation marks to ease the sting.
@@DarkDonnieMarco If you could only see how negative you sound.
Biological body masses are a mess of genes mutated over millions of generations that have adapted to the environment they are in. If something was to be a higher designer they would no doubt make things perfect as is. Giraffes have an unnecessary long aorta that goes halfway up their neck because they evolved from something that didn't have the need for a long neck. Kakapo have massive wings stuck out 1-2 meters yet have lost the capacity to flap their wings with enough power to take flight. I could name you 100s more examples but you should know them seeing as you've "studied some medicine". There is no evidence for higher design, unless you would like to give evidence to the contrary.
Adam Eve I think the human body is incredible, but the evidence is clear that we are a result of millions of years of evolution by natural selection. If we were designed, then the designer is cruel or incompetent.
Best convo in a while
I might have learned more in 12 min here than my 7 years in a 2 year college
This is how we need mathematical teachers and professors to teach… there is a journey ahead in learning! There will be failure, set backs, etc but the results and potential are limitless
Why is Eric So right . We need to follow him for a couple of weeks & see what he does behind closed doors.
The way I understand higher systems of numbers is that mathematics in familiar numbers (before we get to i or other complex numbers) is a description of our environment. If we take away one of our fundamental assumptions (for instance, that 'a squared number cannot be negative'), we can add one complexity, but instead of stating the assumption as a question mark, in the place of that assumption we put a letter: i. With each increasing dimension and therefore "assumption" of mathematics that we have removed, we add another 'question mark' or letter (or series of letters, depending on how many orders of complexity we are increasing). But because we don't know the entirety of what we don't know, I don't think it's smart to state definitively that we would NEVER go beyond octonians. It will get more complex because our system will get more complex, and we will need more assumptions to continue describing our environment as we explore it (which assumptions can then be taken away to create a higher order of question marks).
Complex numbers are also great when dealing with Alternating Current
The key to resolve these mathematical mysteries, the key is to think about them in a different way:
Think in terms not of numbers, but of harmonics.
Get mathematician Cohl Furey on the show please. We need more number systems/standard model discussions.
I love listening to both Eric and his brother. Brilliant guys.
Listened to this twice. Loved it!
Joe had to remind Jamie who's boss after this one
Holy shit, stripping numbers of their properties. That concept would have never occurred to me without seeing this.
Lovely discussion between two far domains of expertise 🙏🏿
For those curious, Eric is simplifying the limits of extending Octonions to the point of misdirection.
There exist higher-order hypercomplex number systems beyond 8-ions called sedenion (16-ions).
The formula is generalizable for dimensions of the power of 2 - exchanging properties of symmetry as you increase dimensionality.
This is generalized to a system Caley-Dickson algebras that require at least a weak form of associativity between numbers in a product...
The DEEPER mystery is why and by what system are these symmetries exchanged around as we increase dimensionality
also what do non-integer or non-real dimensions generalize to (pi-ion number system or e^pi number system)
...basically what the fuck are numbers?
Quaternions, octonions, sedenions and higher systems in a nut shell: Matrix.
News flash: Eric talks about the things we should be taught in colleges, meanwhile colleges teach pure idiocy.
I wonder if his knowledge would sound so smart if this subject matter was taught on a regular basis in the collegiate world....
Reaper_ExD you learn about the quatonions in Calculus. He’s just using a little different language than most professors reference from textbooks.
@Brochacho III i figured that but most collegiate graduates i know never had to take calculus. Or any mathematics or science class above senior highschool levels... sooo yeah. Most of them dont know even the basics of these principles.
@@reaper_exd7498 Because they're not taking math related degrees. It's still taught in college, in the proper courses.
@GUNS & MAGIC Doesnt matter in my opinion. Just because you're not going to be an engineer doesn't mean you shouldn't be taught this material. It opens your mind and expands your view. Seems pretty mind deadening when over-specialization is making people more stupid towards reality.
@dim this is a common argument from the scholarly community. You wont need it so dont learn it. There's thousands of ideas and principles that you're taught while learning that you'll never come back to again. But the learning of these facts trains the mind and sharpens critical thinking. Just because you're not gonna major in a degree that wont use it doesnt mean you should let your ability to think be deadened. Specializing learning that will only work one side of your brain will result in nothing but negative results in the long term, period.
Cuttlefish -- proof of life from another plantet.
Cuttlefish are fully earth biology
THIS should be shown at high-schools actually, instead of... you know the rest
When people say college is useless, this is a lot of what they're missing out on. However it's not really practical for everyone which is really the issue. For most, it's a waste of time and money because it distracts and take energy from gaining money
and I'm not talking down on anyone here before you reply. I realized I didn't want to be a doctor and all the knowledge of bio/chem etc became almost completely useless
That quarternions, or whatever he called it, is just intro to Calc based physics.
Who looked octonians up on Wikipedia after this podcast and is even more confused about what they are?
Conspiracy theorists feign intellectualism and profundity by looking for the mysterious in all the wrong places. Reality is much more interesting
ua-cam.com/video/CPJcUns5Xec/v-deo.html
People who dismiss "conspiracies" but don't follow the WEF and in fact themselves the conspiracy theorists. The so called conspiracies are often just FACTS that the elites keep out of the mainstream awareness but are very much probable true
Conspiracy theories? Pretty sure this dude is talking about fringe physics. (Not the TV show.) einsteins theory of relativity breaks down if you go too deep into it. Guys like Mr weinsteen are just trying to find a new way to approach an existing problem. Personally I think theories built on theories built on theories is bound to create issues at one point... a situation where people have been using the system and everything else is built off the current iteration so no one wants to find a new way even though that's what is necessary.
@@ReignForever the guy you are responding to is too dumb to understand even after explanation.
he basically said scientific subjects are the most interesting thing in the world, and he's right it's crazy
awesome. Could listen to this for hours.
All I heard is onions I guess my IQ is below average dam modern schooling
School doesn't affect IQ. Intelligence is something you are born with.... or not
David Belcher see I didn’t even know that probably my school never explained it.
I hope Eric expands on this on his podcast
8, 16, 32 AND NOW 64 BIT PROCESSING IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE
Favorite part 9:32: Joe says, “For the folks listening at home, not watching… Jamie, can you explain WTF we’re looking at.” Everyone watching, “Yeah, WTF are we looking at?”
My gripe with Eric is his unapologetic way of refusing to dumb things down. That makes him very hard to understand.
Maybe you are not the audience he's trying to reach out to. He's just talking about complex numbers and quaternions (i, j and k) - rudimentary stuff taught in high school
@@emailcharlesjosh First of all, I went to high school and we were never taught that. Secondly, it's the biggest podcast in the world. Going into it not wanting to be understood doesn't make sense.
It's like our parents hid the keys to the car in the house somewhere, but our immature minds are so focused on getting into town and pizza and beer, that we're repeatedly searching in the wrong places?
Pfft. I just used octonion math to count the mosquitos in my yard. No big deal, really.
That's a really poor usage of the octonions, I think the natural numbers should work just fine :3
LMAO!
Joe, think about interviewing Eric with Dave Chappelle. I have a feeling Eric will inspire some of the best comedy we've heard.
I'm clicking on to these particular shows with this guy to see how many English words this guy says that I have to look up!
I don’t know what an onion with eight legs has to do with anything
This guy needs his own show , what a brainiac !
He has one on the *Eric Weinstein* channel. It is called _The Portal._
@@____uncompetative thanks 👍, I will check it out
He never answered the question. Theoretical mathematics is not physics.
You can't have one without the other. Kinda associative...
Numberphile has a great video about quaternians (sp?) and why the order in which you multiply matters when you get into higher dimensions.
So, for anyone a little more familiar with this stuff or a little quicker at picking it up: is he saying quaternions are non-commutative (I know he's saying octonions are non-associative)? And if so, that refers to the fact that the order of multiplication, unlike real numbers, changes the product? As in, _ij = k_ but _ji = -k?_ Is that also why _jk = i_ rather than _k/j = i?_
Or, am I way off base? I'd like to have a remote idea of what he's talking about without going down a rabbit hole of dense mathematics.
Scroll down to the diagrams in this article: www.quantamagazine.org/the-octonion-math-that-could-underpin-physics-20180720/
dude. taoists have been studying octonian system for long time.
it's called the bagua map.
these guys have a very difficult and cumbersome way of explaining it.
I think the taoists got good tools to study it in ways we can use.
it is a more accurate map of our universe as experienced by our consciousness.