The most important thing is that we keep planting trees. Many trees will whither and die before they produce shade and many young people will be buried before they see their tree grow fruit, but as long as you're planting trees you are on my side. So plant whichever tree gets you in the garden.
I was recently thinking about this. Given that every life ends in death and that our lifespan is rather short, the one thing we can do to live a meaningful life is to intentionally make an effort to leave the world a better place for the people alive after you die. Since we are all mostly ordinary people who won't achieve greatness, this can simply mean to raise your kid to be a conscious, respectful person who understands this.
You can really tell that Grant strives to not merely entertain (like a lot of popular science youtubers) ... but also to *educate.* And you gotta respect that
18 years ago I retired early and invested in a home studio. I stocked it with all my dream gadgets, gizmos, gems and the occasional gremlin, then sat down to write my epic creation- a culmination of decades of being a working musician. Nothing happened- total brain freeze. After voicing my frustrations to a friend, she told me exactly what Mr. Sanderson spelled out so simply. Start with something you can finish and build upon. And with that, the ice dam thawed and the change in workflow was instant and dramatic.
This discussion is seriously an eye opener. I would spend months after months watching PBS videos coz lets admit they're fascinating. You love watching them. But these videos are not even scrapping the surface even a little bit. It's beyond our understanding the kind of mathematics and physics that go into this theory. Yes they might fascinate a child and get them interested into hard sciences. But to really understand a thing as adults, what grant says is true. Take up a topic that's deep but is accessible to you. You might hate him for this but the guy's got a point!
What he says might sound discouraging but he is saying the truth . Never did Einstein think of something bigger without the base needed . He knew enough math to start thinking of his idea which lead him to one of the biggest breakthroughs.He even learnt knew ones for solving the equations of general relativity . So if you learn the fundamentals better, then may be you may have a chance of developing your idea .
It's a bit strange to say (and I'm paraphrasing here) 'try to understand the things we currently don't understand with the tools and theories we currently use but suspect are incomplete or just wrong,' as those theories are the reason we don't currently understand these things. If Wolfram or whoever can offer a decent 'intuitive' explanation then perhaps this is the best way to understand what is currently un-understandable...
Public fawning over theories of everything mainly breeds misconceptions. This is also funny because for the longest time I confused Eric Weinstein with Eric Weissenstein... the encyclopedist for Wolfram.
“Spend your brain cycles on problems that you will see resolved.” Really didn’t expect such a discouraging statement from Grant. How is anyone supposed to know what problems they will or won’t see resolved without diving into them? How can an educator like Grant take such a utilitarian perspective on learning?
I think what he is saying is to take it one step at a time. If you don't know how to integrate you probably shouldn't try to solve hard integration problems, but rather start with simple u-sub problems until you get good at that. Then learn more techniques until you can solve the hard integration problems. When you know enough math that you are at the forefront of mathematics you develop intuition on which problems you can solve, and some that are impossible right now. Here is Terence Tao (one of the best living mathematicians) talking about the Riemann hypothesis being too hard so he spends his brain cycles on the twin prime conjecture ua-cam.com/video/yUvP8RT6tcQ/v-deo.html starts at 2:28
I just wanted a visualization like the one with the curving space for Einstein... Like, no ships into bottles, no squiggly lines in void with unlabeld axes. Just "here's what doesn't work now, and here's how I fixed it". I don't understand general relativity, but the gist is accessible.
I prefer Sabine who tries to ask “the questions of everything”, like how does a particle in a superposition of two different locations bend space-time with it’s mass?
@@tripp8833 if you are going to ridicule someone, you should at least know that a sailsman is for a sailing a boat, and a salesman is for selling a product.
@@DerpMuse youre laughing now but wait until you join us in the 23th century where everyone lives on the seas and uses ships propelled by snake oil to sail around
Like arguing if particular words or the alphabet and sounds are more important to language ... Most people learn the general alphabet before they learn all the specific words, but some words always come before the entire alphabet ... especially since each letter is also a word for itself...
She didn't destroy them...her rebuttals could be summized as follow the appropriate channels, we don't need a grand unifying theory & that she is not interested in asking some of the fundamental why questions that Weinstein is asking by saying she is an instrumentalist..that is not exactly destroying ...is it...Weinstein might have some bad socio-political takes but that doesn't discredit his ideas in physics and mathematics..not at all.
if you're referring to her video ~1 month ago, then no, she only proved her shortsightedness, she reminds me of 100 Autoren gegen Einstein. i have no understanding what weinstein or wolfram are really talking about, but saying that we dont need an understanding about how QED and GR work together is quite foolish.
I feel sorry for Wolfram, he's so accomplished and effective, and is actually working on something that seems to add value and be a reasonable area of pursuit even if it doesn't turn out to be a "theory of everything". Then he gets put on the same level as Weinstein somehow and it tarnishes his credibility. Sabine says what people need to hear, that physics needs to be pragmatic.
If you're not growing from something then in this context it means you're not learning anything. I think the point Grant was making was that theories of everything tend to be extremely abstract, high level and require an incredible amount of prior knowledge. Just tuning in as a layman, you will learn nothing useful. Grant alludes to the idea that if you pursue puzzles more close to home then you'll have more chance of being satisfied in life, and eventually that persuit may well lead you to those fundamental questions anyway. The whole history of science and mathematics is suffused with groundbreaking discoveries made by people hacking away at seemingly unrelated or even mundane problems.
I tend to agree. I'm not a fan of the 'don't bother your pretty little head about that stuff as it's too difficult for all but the cognoscenti' viewpoint. People are allowed to be curious and interested, allowed to decide for themselves whether they are wasting their time exploring certain ideas. Even if they are unlikely to make an active contribution to fundamental research, the desire to get the gist of concepts relating to the deepest questions we can ask about the universe should be encouraged.
@@Baconlessness I get your point. It just seems like a selfish reason to not dive into something abstract by saying "I'm not growing personally so this is a waste of time". I agree with both sides of the argument really.
@@thomasriding3194 the point was meant to be, to understand abstract theories, gain prerequisite knowledge first, especially when there is little in the way of accessibility towards those theories.
I get where he is coming from, but its a bit silly to exspect people to want to know about only simple stuff. its just hard to make content with any clarity for laymen. That said i dont think weinstein or wolfram has enough clarity themselves to actually explain it properly either.
I don't understand why people in the science community seem to have such massive egos. They are so judgmental about what their peers are studying and so worried that their peers are judging them.
3b1b: "You're not actually going to understand it." Me: "Double dog dare me." 3b1b: "You're really not actually going to understand it." Me: "Hold my beer..."
Most everything-ness is science of the gaps. Sabine got it. Science is experiment and replication. It really says nothing about descriptions. Hunan inference does.
At some point all scientists take leaps of faith on axioms of cosmology that are philosophical attitudes not the inputs or outputs of experiments The fact that so many scientists dismiss Platonism or at best are not honest about how their cosmological view shapes their conceptions keeps them confused about their own errors here. Also why they constantly run into dualistic contradictions in all their models of anything
I've a phone application that not only uses this in premise but would *prove* this theory correct. *If You're reading this Sir,please find me* & -- UNITY2020!
The idea that you should not waste your time on ideas that you won't solve is ridiculous and a defeatist mentality. I'm never going to build a car, but they're still super interesting to learn about. When I learn about engines I'm not required to be capable of explaining the optimization of engineering in them to appreciate them. Theories of everything are similar to this - people aren't interested because they think the content is 'their speed'... They're interested because the concept is itself interesting. I find the whole 'stay in your lane' attitude to be very immature. You also won't 'get' Crime and Punishment - does that mean don't read it? Grant might say yes... but he'd be wrong about that too.
I was so happy to see your comment come up! I’ve been trying to make the same point elsewhere in the comments section. That’s exactly it. The ‘stay in your lane’ notion is just not helpful and it’s unrealistic to expect human beings to not be curious about the big questions. What if Grant had been the librarian in charge when 10 year old Andrew Wiles visited the library and tried to take out that book on Fermat’s Last Theorem? What if Grant the librarian had persuaded Andrew to stay in lane and take out a book on long division because it contained the sort of questions he might actually be able to solve? An intense interest in the famous unsolved theorem might not have developed in him and he may not have gone on to become, after many years of study, the accomplished mathematician who eventually solved the theorem.
Dumb things smart people say: "i've matured past the point of needing a grand narrative". Psychology: "tell me more about this non-narrative-narrative". Our grand concepts permeate and influence our lives in so many ways. How can you expect societal change if we are still playing with Lego, the paradigm has to change and require so many things to happen, critical mass, intellectual acceptance, failure. There is so much wrong with what he's saying I have a hard time taking the good thing he is saying seriously: Don't get so lost in the grand ideas that you forget to learn the little steps it takes to build one. Why the hell cant we do both? No, you stay in your lane, plug!
Everything in a particular coherence-cohesion abstract objective is all that is available through our senses, so the ultimate Everything is a creative Principle "only".
I'm glad people are trying to solve some of the really hard questions. That is one of Eric Weinstein' points, that people should try and do the hard stuff. Grant' head is to small. Does he not understand Eric' theory because he thinks it doesn't make any sense? or because he doesn't understand Eric and or the math?
Grant doesn't understand the math or doesn't want to spend the time learning it. Plus he says maybe more physicists should try thinking about this stuff, but he thinks it's pretty useless for the general pop because the general pop would only get a superficial explanation which he thinks isn't good. I would also say that I wouldn't care about Eric or Wolfram's "theories of everything" until other prominent physicist start taking it seriously.
Reminds me of this quote: "A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in."
The most important thing is that we keep planting trees. Many trees will whither and die before they produce shade and many young people will be buried before they see their tree grow fruit, but as long as you're planting trees you are on my side. So plant whichever tree gets you in the garden.
I was recently thinking about this. Given that every life ends in death and that our lifespan is rather short, the one thing we can do to live a meaningful life is to intentionally make an effort to leave the world a better place for the people alive after you die. Since we are all mostly ordinary people who won't achieve greatness, this can simply mean to raise your kid to be a conscious, respectful person who understands this.
You can really tell that Grant strives to not merely entertain (like a lot of popular science youtubers) ... but also to *educate.* And you gotta respect that
In short: "you should spend your brain cycles on problems that you will see resolved" - Grant Sanderson 4:40
I find that pretty demotivating. Did not except such a quote from him.
18 years ago I retired early and invested in a home studio. I stocked it with all my dream gadgets, gizmos, gems and the occasional gremlin, then sat down to write my epic creation- a culmination of decades of being a working musician.
Nothing happened- total brain freeze. After voicing my frustrations to a friend, she told me exactly what Mr. Sanderson spelled out so simply.
Start with something you can finish and build upon.
And with that, the ice dam thawed and the change in workflow was instant and dramatic.
I think Grant just solved my biggest problem as a wannabe amateur mathematician...
@@mannysmandatories5595 yeah
This discussion is seriously an eye opener. I would spend months after months watching PBS videos coz lets admit they're fascinating. You love watching them. But these videos are not even scrapping the surface even a little bit. It's beyond our understanding the kind of mathematics and physics that go into this theory.
Yes they might fascinate a child and get them interested into hard sciences. But to really understand a thing as adults, what grant says is true. Take up a topic that's deep but is accessible to you. You might hate him for this but the guy's got a point!
What he says might sound discouraging but he is saying the truth . Never did Einstein think of something bigger without the base needed . He knew enough math to start thinking of his idea which lead him to one of the biggest breakthroughs.He even learnt knew ones for solving the equations of general relativity . So if you learn the fundamentals better, then may be you may have a chance of developing your idea .
It's a bit strange to say (and I'm paraphrasing here) 'try to understand the things we currently don't understand with the tools and theories we currently use but suspect are incomplete or just wrong,' as those theories are the reason we don't currently understand these things. If Wolfram or whoever can offer a decent 'intuitive' explanation then perhaps this is the best way to understand what is currently un-understandable...
Public fawning over theories of everything mainly breeds misconceptions.
This is also funny because for the longest time I confused Eric Weinstein with Eric Weissenstein... the encyclopedist for Wolfram.
Glad I'm not alone in this confusion.
0:23 I like the way Grant Sanderson looks to lex like: what kind of shit are you talking about man?
“Spend your brain cycles on problems that you will see resolved.” Really didn’t expect such a discouraging statement from Grant. How is anyone supposed to know what problems they will or won’t see resolved without diving into them? How can an educator like Grant take such a utilitarian perspective on learning?
I think what he is saying is to take it one step at a time. If you don't know how to integrate you probably shouldn't try to solve hard integration problems, but rather start with simple u-sub problems until you get good at that. Then learn more techniques until you can solve the hard integration problems. When you know enough math that you are at the forefront of mathematics you develop intuition on which problems you can solve, and some that are impossible right now. Here is Terence Tao (one of the best living mathematicians) talking about the Riemann hypothesis being too hard so he spends his brain cycles on the twin prime conjecture ua-cam.com/video/yUvP8RT6tcQ/v-deo.html starts at 2:28
I just wanted a visualization like the one with the curving space for Einstein... Like, no ships into bottles, no squiggly lines in void with unlabeld axes. Just "here's what doesn't work now, and here's how I fixed it". I don't understand general relativity, but the gist is accessible.
“When eating an elephant, take one bite at a time.” - Creighton Abrams
Like the cat ate the candle...bit by bit!
I prefer Sabine who tries to ask “the questions of everything”, like how does a particle in a superposition of two different locations bend space-time with it’s mass?
Sabine is actually a physicist not a snake oil sailsman like Eric
@@tripp8833 if you are going to ridicule someone, you should at least know that a sailsman is for a sailing a boat, and a salesman is for selling a product.
@@DerpMuse youre laughing now but wait until you join us in the 23th century where everyone lives on the seas and uses ships propelled by snake oil to sail around
tripp It’s true, but please correct your spelling
TranscendentPhoenix
No
Like arguing if particular words or the alphabet and sounds are more important to language ...
Most people learn the general alphabet before they learn all the specific words, but some words always come before the entire alphabet ... especially since each letter is also a word for itself...
Sabine hosselfelder destroys them all
She didn't destroy them...her rebuttals could be summized as follow the appropriate channels, we don't need a grand unifying theory & that she is not interested in asking some of the fundamental why questions that Weinstein is asking by saying she is an instrumentalist..that is not exactly destroying ...is it...Weinstein might have some bad socio-political takes but that doesn't discredit his ideas in physics and mathematics..not at all.
if you're referring to her video ~1 month ago, then no, she only proved her shortsightedness, she reminds me of 100 Autoren gegen Einstein.
i have no understanding what weinstein or wolfram are really talking about, but saying that we dont need an understanding about how QED and GR work together is quite foolish.
I feel sorry for Wolfram, he's so accomplished and effective, and is actually working on something that seems to add value and be a reasonable area of pursuit even if it doesn't turn out to be a "theory of everything". Then he gets put on the same level as Weinstein somehow and it tarnishes his credibility. Sabine says what people need to hear, that physics needs to be pragmatic.
lazos you just haven’t looked into what instrumentalism entails
But it is such a cool name! "Theory of everything"
Not being able to grow personally is a lame reason to not chase after Weinstein's or Wolfram's ideas. Seems like a selfish way to look at it?
If you're not growing from something then in this context it means you're not learning anything. I think the point Grant was making was that theories of everything tend to be extremely abstract, high level and require an incredible amount of prior knowledge. Just tuning in as a layman, you will learn nothing useful.
Grant alludes to the idea that if you pursue puzzles more close to home then you'll have more chance of being satisfied in life, and eventually that persuit may well lead you to those fundamental questions anyway. The whole history of science and mathematics is suffused with groundbreaking discoveries made by people hacking away at seemingly unrelated or even mundane problems.
I tend to agree. I'm not a fan of the 'don't bother your pretty little head about that stuff as it's too difficult for all but the cognoscenti' viewpoint. People are allowed to be curious and interested, allowed to decide for themselves whether they are wasting their time exploring certain ideas. Even if they are unlikely to make an active contribution to fundamental research, the desire to get the gist of concepts relating to the deepest questions we can ask about the universe should be encouraged.
@@fluffurbia3501 Preach!
@@Baconlessness I get your point. It just seems like a selfish reason to not dive into something abstract by saying "I'm not growing personally so this is a waste of time". I agree with both sides of the argument really.
@@thomasriding3194 the point was meant to be, to understand abstract theories, gain prerequisite knowledge first, especially when there is little in the way of accessibility towards those theories.
Was hoping he'd actually address Weinstein's theories.
He did - by saying he doesn't understand it.
@@lemoniada91 By saying you too should not be interested in them... oh the wild and crazy youth.
That’s a mathematicians perspective of physics for you… don’t worry about what it means, just make it add up.
Such great grounded advice! That’s a good thing to learn as one matures in a technical/scientific field!
Lex never looks the guest in the eye.
Studies have shown that most people have trouble focusing and talking while looking at other people straight in the eyes.
I get where he is coming from, but its a bit silly to exspect people to want to know about only simple stuff. its just hard to make content with any clarity for laymen. That said i dont think weinstein or wolfram has enough clarity themselves to actually explain it properly either.
those biceps tho
I don't understand why people in the science community seem to have such massive egos. They are so judgmental about what their peers are studying and so worried that their peers are judging them.
Because they're nerds and nerds think status games don't apply to them and they suck at handling them.
Sincerely, a nerd
3b1b: "You're not actually going to understand it."
Me: "Double dog dare me."
3b1b: "You're really not actually going to understand it."
Me: "Hold my beer..."
Most everything-ness is science of the gaps.
Sabine got it. Science is experiment and replication. It really says nothing about descriptions. Hunan inference does.
At some point all scientists take leaps of faith on axioms of cosmology that are philosophical attitudes not the inputs or outputs of experiments
The fact that so many scientists dismiss Platonism or at best are not honest about how their cosmological view shapes their conceptions keeps them confused about their own errors here.
Also why they constantly run into dualistic contradictions in all their models of anything
I've a phone application that not only uses this in premise but would *prove* this theory correct.
*If You're reading this Sir,please find me*
& -- UNITY2020!
Cincinnati Ohio.
The idea that you should not waste your time on ideas that you won't solve is ridiculous and a defeatist mentality. I'm never going to build a car, but they're still super interesting to learn about. When I learn about engines I'm not required to be capable of explaining the optimization of engineering in them to appreciate them. Theories of everything are similar to this - people aren't interested because they think the content is 'their speed'... They're interested because the concept is itself interesting. I find the whole 'stay in your lane' attitude to be very immature. You also won't 'get' Crime and Punishment - does that mean don't read it? Grant might say yes... but he'd be wrong about that too.
I was so happy to see your comment come up! I’ve been trying to make the same point elsewhere in the comments section. That’s exactly it. The ‘stay in your lane’ notion is just not helpful and it’s unrealistic to expect human beings to not be curious about the big questions.
What if Grant had been the librarian in charge when 10 year old Andrew Wiles visited the library and tried to take out that book on Fermat’s Last Theorem? What if Grant the librarian had persuaded Andrew to stay in lane and take out a book on long division because it contained the sort of questions he might actually be able to solve? An intense interest in the famous unsolved theorem might not have developed in him and he may not have gone on to become, after many years of study, the accomplished mathematician who eventually solved the theorem.
I look forward to the day where the barriers of understanding concepts are broken down by devices like Neuralink.
"I know kung fu"
base5(93)
I never imagined that Wolfram was that good looking
don't think negative please.
Dumb things smart people say: "i've matured past the point of needing a grand narrative". Psychology: "tell me more about this non-narrative-narrative".
Our grand concepts permeate and influence our lives in so many ways. How can you expect societal change if we are still playing with Lego, the paradigm has to change and require so many things to happen, critical mass, intellectual acceptance, failure. There is so much wrong with what he's saying I have a hard time taking the good thing he is saying seriously: Don't get so lost in the grand ideas that you forget to learn the little steps it takes to build one. Why the hell cant we do both? No, you stay in your lane, plug!
Eric Weinstein is one of the biggest Grifters out there.
What a weak response. It took my 6 months but I 100% have figured out Eric’s theory and it’s elegant. I feel sorry for this man.
Proof or it didn't happen
Everything in a particular coherence-cohesion abstract objective is all that is available through our senses, so the ultimate Everything is a creative Principle "only".
Yeah just stop trying to figure out the stuff your looking at you won't understand it even tho you do lol
Was a case just made to lower one's standards to get a participatory award?
@@timquigley986 Agreed, hence the current president
I'm glad people are trying to solve some of the really hard questions. That is one of Eric Weinstein' points, that people should try and do the hard stuff. Grant' head is to small. Does he not understand Eric' theory because he thinks it doesn't make any sense? or because he doesn't understand Eric and or the math?
Grant straight up admitted he doesn't know enough math or physics to understand what they're saying, what's wrong with that?
Grant doesn't understand the math or doesn't want to spend the time learning it. Plus he says maybe more physicists should try thinking about this stuff, but he thinks it's pretty useless for the general pop because the general pop would only get a superficial explanation which he thinks isn't good. I would also say that I wouldn't care about Eric or Wolfram's "theories of everything" until other prominent physicist start taking it seriously.