No idea. Apparently it is a lost quote and nobody really knows who've truly said it. I did some quick research, and someone called Emerson M. Pugh has mentioned it "The Biological Origin of Human Values" I can't tell if he was the one who really said it, though. I heard this quote from somewhere else.
There's two different levels to this, and the statement you give is vague and oversimplified. There is the question of "can you understand the fundamental laws that something obeys?" For example, in the context of computer science you may ask "do you understand the different operations in your computer's instruction set, and what they all do?" There's then the question of "do you understand this system in its entirety, i.e., every interaction that the rules can result in?" Calling the difficulty of these kinds of systems unfathomably absurd is likely the largest understatement to ever have been made. If this is the kind of complexity you wish to understand, you don't have a chance of understanding the brain. But you don't have any chance of really understanding anything for that matter. In the context of computer science, this is like asking "do you understand the exact behavior of every possible program that this computer could ever possibly run?" You can pretty easily dig into the complexity and computability theory and show that this problem isn't just hard, but in the general case is mathematically impossible to solve, even if we reduce it to understanding just a single possible program. I think statements like this that "we can never truly understand the brain" are misleading, as they give people the idea that the brain must be some kind of truly magical device. It obscures the distinction between these two types of complexity, and gives people the idea that neither is possible. DNA is actually Turing-complete, and there's plenty of evidence that it works in a relatively similar way to a computer program (for example, gene transcription has a very similar behavior to function calls in software). Then we can observe that the genome is a digital encoding, thus having a fixed limit on the entropy and therefore complexity of its contents. What we find is that the entire human genome is about 750MB in size. Add to that the fact that it's believed that somewhere between 80-97% of your DNA is noncoding and nonfunctional, and we can cut this down to 22-150MB. Then we can look at individual genes. The human genome is believed to have somewhere on the order of about 13000 genes. In other words, there is no mathematically possible way that the human body as a whole can be more sophisticated than a computer program of a similar complexity, at least in terms of the first stated definition of complexity. There are many programs in this range of complexity that exist. The internet browser you're reading this on is likely an example of one. Then take into account the fact that many genes have duplicates and spares, and that it wouldn't make sense for our entire genome to consist purely of instructions on building a brain. Then there's more evidence from neuroscience. It's been known since the 70s that the cortex is structured as modular units, called cortical columns. Your brain isn't a bunch of specialized regions that are completely different; it's the same general-purpose circuit copied and pasted several million times. Of course, we can describe modern computers in a similar way. Memory chips can store trillions of bits of data, but are just the same circuit copied and pasted over and over. As we scale to larger and larger core counts, our processors are starting to have the same kind of regularity. The evidence points that the brain is actually relatively simple. Emphasis on relatively. It seems to encode data in a pretty simple way. The complexity doesn't come from the structure of the brain itself, but from all the possible states that structure can be in. If you're interested in understanding the brain more, check out Numenta's Hierarchical Temporal Memory. It's a computational model of the brain that's pretty detailed and has been answering a lot of unsolved questions in neuroscience. The alternatives approaches, from what I've seen, are all starting to converge on pretty similar concepts as well. TL;DR: There's the complexity of the rules that something follows, and the complexity of the scenarios that emerge from those rules. The evidence points to the brain being fairly simple in terms of the rules that it operates on. The complexity of the interactions between these simple parts is a different story. This isn't anything unique to the brain either. Not by far. Basic computability theory says that many systems have this property.
Potential Topics: 1) Map of Philosophy 2) Map of Engineering 3) Map of Communications (prose, poetry, rhetoric etc.) 4) Map of the Arts (Would that encompass communication?)
The connection of literature back to philosophy... Yes! I love it. People seem to conceive of science and humanities as "opposites", but they all come down to asking and answering questions and increasing human knowledge.
@@MotorStorm66 I'd argue that's just false, but to argue this, one would have to have a specific philosopher in mind and the specific idea which they think is common sense that the philosopher has made "fancy".
Kawaii There’s like at least like 30 philosophical thoughts/schools Examples of the famous ones platonicism Metaphysics Stoicism Abolitionism Transcendentalism Absurdism Structuralism Formalism Darwinism Social Gospel Eugenics Existentialism Ethics Human rights Materialism Marxism v Capitalism Hedonism Nihilism Etc.
Wasserrübenvergilbungsvirus It’s the belief that unfit people should die off for the betterment of society especially if the conditions is hereditary. There’s supremacy linked to it as well as discrimination against the disabled. If you become disabled there’s varying thoughts on that. Also against old people (served their use). There’s utilitarian philosophy involved. There’s a lot of literature out there. It’s definitely a philosophical experiment
Thank you very much for all of your map videos my friend! I can see the effort you put into the illustrations, animation and all of the knowledge aquired for each video. I love the way you present the information in a clear and organized way, it's really great. Well done and best wishes!
You phrased the problems we faced and still face in sociology today so incredibly well! In society, the natural sciences are often perceived as the 'real' sciences while the social sciences are constantly faced with the pressure to legitimate themselves as sciences in the first place. And at the same time, we question ourselves too, rethinking the concept of what makes science scientific, especially when there is no real way to ultimately prove your findings. It's so hard to explore human behavior when you can never be sure whether your conclusions are really 'true' or just false conceptions you made up in your mind. Thank you so much for not only recognizing that problem but also explaining it so well in this video (let alone being a natural scientist yourself), showing that it's not a problem of oneself or the social sciences, but instead origins in human behavior as it is! Really appreciate the effort going into this video, much love from a German sociologist! :)
With a slight addition of some fields (not that is mandatory because some fields not include in this donut of knowledge is included in other detailed maps), this donut and this video should be introduced to everyone and I mean everyone who wish to pursue a field. Where I come from (Vietnam), there can be such a seperation from the arts and science. I just love to acknowledge how everything is just intertwined with each other.
I LOVE, absolutely LOVE this «massive.cosmic 'doughnut' of knowledge» that is your «Map of Science». I especially LOVE your including the "Arts" in this "Map of Science"! Brilliant! Awesome! I've never seen or heard ANYONE "connect the dots" as beautifully and wonderfully as you do. If the people behind TED haven't contacted you yet to do a TEDTalk and/or publish ALL your wonderful "maps" in TED book form, I'd be very surprised. I believe your maps should required viewing for every student in the world. Thank you. Please, more, more, more "maps"!!! 😉👍😁 👏👍👏
Really glad I found this video. I've been a bit obsessed with this concept for a few years now, and just took a stab at making my own version the other day. There's so much ignorance in the world, and it's understandable to me because you don't know what you don't know. If there was a map of all human knowledge that people were familiar with, it would be so much easier to understand the limits of your knowledge.
Don't feel sad as who knows that what we device tomorrow, may be a way to become immortal. And what if that person came out to be you yourself because you want to eat that whole Donut.
Notice he put engineering in the complex section next to psychology... because engineering has a lot of empirical correlations (as well as the science and maths as much as it can).
¡Me encanta que tus vídeos tengan subtítulos! Eres grande, aporta demasiado a los jóvenes entusiastas que queremos cultivarnos en el mundo de la ciencia. Por cierto, si le pones subtítulos a todos tus vídeos, sería algo maravilloso. ❤
Your videos are so well-made and inspiring. Great job. One small note since many people who watch this video has a bit of passion to explore beyond a single discipline: the way you employ "complex" and "complicated" interchangeably is technically arguable. In the study of complex systems, a complicated system is made out of many many sub-systems, that we already have a full understanding of it from a full range of elementary parts to the whole system. On the other hand, a complex system is a whole that we are just able to understand its behavior without calling it "chaotic". For example, a shuttle is a complicated system and we have a full understanding of its engineering. But as you said a system of individual entities like people is complex. We can detect patterns of some macroscopic behaviors without fully understanding how each entity is contributing to the whole. This is a minor note only to contribute to what you are doing, which is great. You have my highest admiration and I'm jealous of all the time you enjoy by pilling off this giant onion of human perception of the world. Cheers buddy!
Thanks that my comment to Domain of Science led into the making of this video. This is also the core of all of Domain of Science's sub video topics related to Math, Physics, and Chemistry
I love your channel because you do not arrogantly dismiss art and philosophy's power and importance compared to science, unlike other people who enjoy the sciences
Your knowledge of these topics is really great. I've been studying these topics for over a decade and you're spot on. Your points on reduction were perfect.
Hey thanks for the spell checking!! I updated the posters on Redbubble, patreon and flickr, so they are spelled correctly on those at least. Can't change the video unfortunately :/ Let me know if you spot any others.
Man, I disagree with a lot of what you said on this video. I'll try to explain where my view differs from your. Just to be clear, i really appreciate your work, I would never dislike the video or anything, I'm just trying to show my different view on the subject. First, you say that math and computer science are not sciences, because they do not study the natural world. This is complicated, it depends on the definition of science you are using (and as far as I got on studding science philosophy, it is way trickier than it looks, and it seams that there is no good answer, even to pin down what is the scientific method). Well, apart from the problems on defining science, I've seen math described by some authors as a deductive science, in which you set axioms and deductive implications to generate theories. And well, computer science would be the study of algorithms, so applied math, kinda. In addition, i would not necessarily add empiricism tied to the scientific method, since you remove all the theoretical science fields from the game. Second, I find it problematic to say that the scientific method "breaks apart" when you get to the social sciences, and it is less science for that reason. It is simply that it is harder to get results as robust as in the hard sciences. But all (edit: or most, if you consider math, idk uhahuahu) sciences have theories and proposals that get knocked down with the progress of the works on the field, and they are not less scientific for being disproved later. In fact, science only works for the continuous abandoning of old ideas. And note that I'm not trying to defend pseudosciences that are developed on these areas. And the point that I have the greatest problem with: I don't get why economics would be less scientific for the fact that we can't predict the future of most economic systems. These systems are usually more complex than most of usual physics systems, but complexity is found on almost everywhere, it is only more present on this field. In fact, weather science suffers from the same problem of complex systems making predictions hard, and it is still considered a hard science. But there are way many theories that can, in fact, predict economic systems future, as for example, what the excessive printing of money does to economy (inflation), the difference of taxing everyday items and luxury items (deadweight), and so on. Not being able to predict world economy does not make economic studies less scientific, that's the same of saying that not understanding the three-body problem made newton's law less scientific. And then, the subjectivity. It is on all sciences. When you set an experiment, for example, studding conductivity on a wire, you define that the parameters studied: the length of the wire it's cross area, temperature, and so on. So you make them constant, and vary the rest. Well, the position of you're wire to the moon is changing, but you don't bother with it. Why is that? Do you have a reason to believe that it doesn't matter, or it's a subjective choice not taking them into account? Well, you may think that this example kinda stupid, but shows that the hard sciences, at their core, can't be totally objective. Thanks for the attention, sorry for the my bad English, and i hope that I could get my ideas clear enough =D
Eduardo, by reading your comment I would guess that you have a solid background in science, but not in the humanities. Your reductionist bent doesn't allow you to concieve holistic views of the world. In this bagel of knowledge there is hole, and this hole is real... You can't solve the problem of the difference between hard sciences and human sciences by simply pushing the analytical approach even further. This hole comes from an essential dichotomy in the functining of the human brain, and maybe even a dichotomy in the nature of the universe.
Yeah, but it's also true that no science is as hard as we would like it to be. Not even physics, if we think that the two main physical models in use (relativity and quantum mechanics) are incompatible with each other...
I think your first point is incoherent with your other points. In mathematics (and computer science too, I guess) theorems are proven for eternity. If you say: "all sciences have theories that get knocked down", this implies mathematics is not a science, hence disregarding the subtleties you pointed out earlier.
I think there's a lot that could be improved on this. Consider instead this scheme: A hexagonal grid, like a honeycomb, with seven sectors (the six around the outside, and the middle one); At the top is the most abstract of fields, dealing with pure language and communication unto itself. To its bottom left is mathematics, which deals with the structural content of such communication, with logic on the boundary between them. I would subdivide this roughly into four subsections: a core including the foundations of mathematics through arithmetic and elementary algebra; geometry and other mathematics concerning space; trigonometry, with its cyclic functions, or rather harmonics, and other mathematics concerning time; and calculus, or rather dynamics, all mathematics concerning space and time together. To its bottom right is the arts, which deal with the packaging and presentation of such communication, with rhetoric on the boundary between them; I would subdivide this into four subsections analogous to the four of mathematics: a core of practical communication and functional industrial design; descriptive writing and the visual arts, the arts of space; poetry and music, the arts of time; and narrative and performance arts like theater, the arts of space and time. Below those both, in the middle sector, is philosophy, which takes those tools from linguistics, mathematics, and the arts, like logic and rhetoric, and addresses the most fundamental issues that need to be tackled in order to begin more practical pursuits of both the true and the good in the actual sciences to follow. To the bottom left of that are the physical sciences, including physics, chemistry, biology, psychology, and alongside them astronomy and other space sciences, geology and other planetary sciences, ecology and other life sciences, and sociology and other social sciences. These fields are all trying to describe things. To the bottom right are fields that are currently underdeveloped: the ethical sciences, which try to prescribe things, rather than describe things. I would put some things quite like political science and economics in here, though those fields as we have them pretend they're trying to be descriptive sciences; as well as a more foundational field we're currently missing, something that's a bit of a cross between market research and the emic ethnography of anthropology. Really, the four-part breakdown here is something more like value theory (and that missing core I just described), decision theory (and microeconomics), game theory (and macroeconomics), and control theory (and political science). At the very bottom are the trades, which are completely missing from DoS' chart. These fit in between the physical and ethical sciences and are the ultimate application thereof. The physical sciences show us the general tools that nature gives us to work with; engineers refine those tools into new and more specific tools out of those general means; technologists administer those tools; and at the base, some tradespeople use those tools to do jobs. On the other side of things, the ethical sciences tell us what jobs there are to be done, what general needs there are to be fulfilled; entrepreneurs are (or should be) like the engineers of ethical sciences, building new and more specific jobs towards those general ends; businesspeople administer those jobs; and at the base, some tradespeople do those jobs, using some tools. I would broadly break down those kids of jobs into: agriculture and medicine at the base; soft wares (like clothing) and hard wares (like housing); energy and transportation; and information and communication.
I'm willing to make this into a real thing, if you respond to this post Though this was made a year ago I do like the idea of having a predictive scheme for the categories of endeavour themselves. In the video his scheme was rather just a loose ordering over predictive rigor/objectivity (which at a core starts somewhere in the middle of mathematics after one chooses axioms then reduces going in both directions)
@@MagicGonads I didn’t see your response until now. I do already have a graphical version of this I made, but if you wanted to make an animation of it or something that would be cool. www.geekofalltrades.org/codex/images/fields.png
As an MSc. student of economics, I can add that with economics, as you say, we are usually more or less wrong in predicting the future. But, in addition, we sometimes also deal with much more straightforward systems that are easier to predict. The ability to navigate causality and correlation in models of different complexity is part of what makes a good economist I believe.
dude, if you become a teacher, your student will be very pleased for your humble and easy to understand your explanation.. really apriciate your hardwork..
It would need to talk about Austrian economics versus Keynesian economics, the latter being a pathetic excuse for increasing government corruption. The "printing" of money to excess leading to hyper-inflation and a lot of economic poverty and needless suffering. Most people seem to lean to Keynesian, rather than admit that their governments are terribly corrupt.
It's so good! You should have Millions of fans! Unfortunately my science-field, biochemistry, is missing :/ (By the way - your posters inspired me to head towards quantum biology) Hereby you're gonna be the first person that I'm supporting on Patreon. If tuned a bit, this poster should hang in every school, uni, ect.! And when you correct the misspelling (E.g. neUroscience, meteOrology) I will buy it as a poster!
I love your channel so much. Math and science were my favorite subjects in school. Keep up the good work. P.S. Please make a part 2 of you explaining movie science.
Finally, I have seen a great illustration of The Donut of Knowledge covering some of the highlights of Human Endeavor. And this end is just a beginning. ♾️
Love your work! I love to see things visually. Seeing it in your mind is one things but to physically represent it is a great resource for further study. I’m with some of the other in that I’d love to see a map of philosophy but I understand you’re physics major so maybe not really your speciality. Thanks.
Why information science is near pshyholgy and sociology, when in reality it is math (conected with computer science)? In particular cryptography is very mathematical concept.
Hey thanks for the spell checking!! I updated the posters on Redbubble, patreon and flickr, so they are spelled correctly on those at least. Can't change the video unfortunately :/ Let me know if you spot any others.
Every single lesson you have put out, have been nothing less than top notch. Thank you so much, Dominic. Helping make humans Smarter, nothing more important...............
Modern Science arose out of the discipline in philosophy called: philosophy of nature. Science is nothing but the application of philosophical principles and methods onto the natural world. In the modern sense of science, philosophy is not a science for it investigates the first principles of science itself and every knowledge claim. Science is grounded on philosophy its mother-discipline which in turn is essentially held together by the most abstract and foundational discipline human thought can come accross: metaphysics, which investigates the most foundational first principles and causes of everthing and upon which the form and method of any science and discipline is determined. For no science can define itself without circular reasoning. We learn this in a metaphysics course and history of philosophy course. Science is not the most fundamental, metaphysics is. For any science makes metaphysical assumptions before proceeding which science cannot demonstrate but requires to work. Thus, philosophy is not a science.
4:45 Is it not true that ALL of these fields, even the most sciencey, require interpretations by a subjective human brain? Side note, if this is intended to be a map of all human endeavor, I think religion would be the major omission. Brilliant work, thanks.
Have you think about a map of scientific method? Your description of it is pretty positivist but that might be just a way to go over it. Cheers man, great videos
Architecture should be closer to politics, economics and philosophy. It alters how we structure our entire lives and family structure, how we treat our citizens, how we interact with our society, how we treat our prisons and ultimately how we value yourself or the values that we have in society.
I absolutely love how you rounded it into itself. Gives it a cozy feel. Great point there about situations when people mistake subjective for objective - i.e. whenever _purpose_ or psychological effect are involved even slightly - and apply all of their reptilian defensiveness to feel vindicated and right. Also, one thing science in all of her incarnations could do with is more expressiveness about "weird coincidences," like the one with mathematics being so good at explaining the physical world, or just plain surprising and hard to understand things. I guess it's up to popularizers like Dawkins, Krauss and Tyson, but more people in all of their respective domains should join in, 'cause otherwise the field of science may seem like a solid wall to outsiders, that is the majority.
Wow. Gender Studies make the list and Theology doesn’t? I’m sure Isaac Newton, Pascal, Galileo, Charles Darwin, Francis Bacon, Marie Curie, Ramanujan, Francis Collins just to name a few would be surprised! My goodness. Couldn’t bring yourself to even mention it... (head shaking back and forth). The bedrock of Western Civilization is based on Judeo Christian tradition. Nothing. But GENDER STUDIES does??? Your proclivity is thinly veiled.
Fausto Levantesi perhaps, but even if so, there should have been at least a puzzle piece. It was COMPLETELY omitted! On a positive note, I’ve thoroughly enjoyed prior videos. Thank you for the effort it takes to make them! :)
Great video! A huge problem as I see it with science to day is that many do not distinguish objectivity with subjectivity, or they do not disengage emotion whereby they express their opinions or wishes as facts. It leads to falsifying data or simply misinterpreting correlation as causation.
Which is the bane my area of expertise, economics. Specially because there's an enormous amount of veiled interest around it, which will always make things more difficult. Not to say that there aren't great economists
First of all, *Great video!* 1:22 Well, personally, I firmly believe that Mathematics is a human construct only; it works so well because it's meant to deconstruct the universe in *a way that we can understand it,* otherwise, concepts such as "0/0" or "x/0" would make sense in the real world. Also, our math is also limited by our measurements (which are deeply flawed), we will never be able to measure something in a way that it encompasses the entirety of an object, that is, using our man-made units, other than that, there is a way: Counting an object as one of itself; and so Earth's volume is exactly one of itself, and so is its mass, and the same can be said about the universe... But that's not useful when trying to *compare different individual pieces,* which is exactly what we try to do when studying the universe through reductionism (2:00). In fact, that's where the whole Heisenberg's uncertainty principle comes from, Is *the way we try to measure particles* what does not let us know its position or velocity in space, is not that something *can't possibly be* at 0K, is that, if we *try* to measure and analyze said properties of some particles, through our equipment, we'll be supplying energy to the system.
Mathematics is seen as a universal concept because we assume every intelligent lifeform can count. If you can count, you can do basic arithmetics, if you can do basic arithmetics, you can do all of mathematics. The base and how certain thereoms are described may change from species to species, but it's a language every single intelligent creature can understand, and it's even how we choose to say 'hello' when we send signals and relics into outer space. Languages like English are human constructed, and our measurements are constructed by Humans, but that's their point. We use both of these things to help explain the universe, which at its core, is just alot of values that we can count. Take the KG for example. Ok, the KG is quite subjective. We chose an arbitary object and said 'this is a KG if it has this exact volume'. This doesn't mean we're wrong in our calculations when we use KG. The way we present it is subjective, but it can be translated into *any* unit, even extraterrestial ones if we ever found alien life, which is horribly unlikely but that's off topic. There is a definite way to convert between an unknown unit and our own units. We just need to figure out what that unit represents at the smallest scale possible. The planck length is a universal measurement, and the Planck time is a universal measurement. Using these two, we have a basis to convert between every single unit imaginable, but the math never changes. It all represents a certain number of these things, just in a different way. Mathematics is a concept that *every* creature that gains intelligence uses to understand the universe. Every single number system will have a 0, and every number system will have its own Pi, and every number system will have Primes. You can't remove these fundamental aspects of this language. With English, we don't know if other creatures can understand verbs, nouns, etc. We just know that *we do*, because they are wired into our brains. But with maths, any creature should be able to do it if its intelligent. Counting is essential for any creature to even begin any sort of management process, let alone a society. You can't reasonably feed 57 monkeys if you don't know how much monkeys even need to be fed, since you can't count. Language is Human Made, Units are Human Made, but Maths and the universal constants in physics, aren't. They are simply discovered by Humans, and expressed in a way we can understand. I'm sure you're saying that this is what you meant, but anything could theoretically discover that a^2 + b^2 = c^2, it's just that they would say something different, but it would always be the same equation. Just written in a different way.
However... our postulated nature of this division that we may have discovered leads to contradictions surely shouldn't be a count against mathematical absolutism. You assumes '/' makes sense in all cases. It clearly doesn't. Similar to how it isn't the case 1=0 in the real world. The limit of our 'measurements' also shouldn't count against against the metaphysical idea of absolute mathematical truth, and the materialistic one of scientific truth in some interpretations of science: with purely the scientific method, yes. But adding some of the 'assumptions' of science, the idea that the universe exists with given laws. That is, the assumption that also, science is 'absolute truth' and not invented to understand the universe. Then, to the Heisenberg principle: it has nothing to do with the way we measure particles. It is inherent in the standard deviation of the wave function in quantum mechanics. That is, it isn't that the way we measure is fundamentally off: but that the particle FUNDAMENTALLY is a wave, and to which the position wave spread is bigger when the momentum wave spread is smaller and vice versa. (it ISN'T velocity or position, it is momentum and position, though I do suppose in the case mass is constant, you could find that) It has NOTHING to do with equipment. The 'observer' effect, which you seem to be hinting at it related, but not the same. So, the reason something can't be at 0K, even in principle, is due to the third law of thermodynamics(or Nernst postulate), though Heisenberg does provide one microscopic explanation. Of course, this is applying an untestable explanation to a principle idea, because indeed, we can't extract any information on their velocities without inducing some energy. but then again, asking 'why something can't reach 0K' is also assuming that of a principle idea, 0K. Thermodynamics, looks at things in the macroscopic case, into which it derives macroscopic results, in a way, from 'approximations' of microscopic configurations.
It all makes sense when you complete the circle. Move forward (anticlockwise) to see how X is used, and move backwards (clockwise) to see why X is so. Wherever you start, you can always go back or forward
Is it offensive to be offended by Gender Studies being on the map of Science? Exuse me, if this question is too offensive, I'm a little offended by this microaggression myself. Also, where is the next safe space from here?
Good video. I think you left some sciences, but you're the best. I think everyone has to see your videos and buy your posters and pick it up on their room's wall. :D
@@qclod Because you study the male, female, and other rare sexes in biology/anatomny. You dont need a totally seperate social science for it. Unless you are talking about the fake 120 genders.
Ballard Mayes gender studies is about the link between sex and the society, so yes you can have a different field that is build with biology, psychology and sociology
all of the arts have an equivalent mathematics. you're probably thinking of the cyclic functions that underlie harmonics. but think also about how relevant geometry is to the visual arts. and understanding dynamics is essential to realistic animation; that's why video games, which are basically interactive animation, have extremely math-heavy physics engines in them.
Math is always underneath any and all art, good or bad. Specifically, math underlying physics and biological sensors. Music, for example, is composed of sequences of vibration patterns in air that elicits response from human receivers. You can study the characteristic of these sounds. You can study the patterns that get the most attention. You can study patterns made by individuals or groups over time like an artist or a band's discography. You can study populations by geography or by genre, and many more things. Visual arts require understanding of visual patterns that are appealing. This includes geometric relationships, anatomy, physics of light, physics of movement (in the case of animation), and so on. You don't need to know all of the intricacies of these fields of knowledge to be an artist but good artists exploit these patterns and our sensibilities even if just by intuition.
"If the human brain were so simple that we could understand it, we would be so simple that we couldn’t."
Cool! Who said that?
No idea. Apparently it is a lost quote and nobody really knows who've truly said it. I did some quick research, and someone called Emerson M. Pugh has mentioned it "The Biological Origin of Human Values"
I can't tell if he was the one who really said it, though. I heard this quote from somewhere else.
on the other hand this means we increase the complexity of our brain by unterstanding it
There's two different levels to this, and the statement you give is vague and oversimplified.
There is the question of "can you understand the fundamental laws that something obeys?" For example, in the context of computer science you may ask "do you understand the different operations in your computer's instruction set, and what they all do?"
There's then the question of "do you understand this system in its entirety, i.e., every interaction that the rules can result in?" Calling the difficulty of these kinds of systems unfathomably absurd is likely the largest understatement to ever have been made. If this is the kind of complexity you wish to understand, you don't have a chance of understanding the brain. But you don't have any chance of really understanding anything for that matter. In the context of computer science, this is like asking "do you understand the exact behavior of every possible program that this computer could ever possibly run?" You can pretty easily dig into the complexity and computability theory and show that this problem isn't just hard, but in the general case is mathematically impossible to solve, even if we reduce it to understanding just a single possible program.
I think statements like this that "we can never truly understand the brain" are misleading, as they give people the idea that the brain must be some kind of truly magical device. It obscures the distinction between these two types of complexity, and gives people the idea that neither is possible.
DNA is actually Turing-complete, and there's plenty of evidence that it works in a relatively similar way to a computer program (for example, gene transcription has a very similar behavior to function calls in software). Then we can observe that the genome is a digital encoding, thus having a fixed limit on the entropy and therefore complexity of its contents. What we find is that the entire human genome is about 750MB in size.
Add to that the fact that it's believed that somewhere between 80-97% of your DNA is noncoding and nonfunctional, and we can cut this down to 22-150MB. Then we can look at individual genes. The human genome is believed to have somewhere on the order of about 13000 genes. In other words, there is no mathematically possible way that the human body as a whole can be more sophisticated than a computer program of a similar complexity, at least in terms of the first stated definition of complexity. There are many programs in this range of complexity that exist. The internet browser you're reading this on is likely an example of one.
Then take into account the fact that many genes have duplicates and spares, and that it wouldn't make sense for our entire genome to consist purely of instructions on building a brain.
Then there's more evidence from neuroscience. It's been known since the 70s that the cortex is structured as modular units, called cortical columns. Your brain isn't a bunch of specialized regions that are completely different; it's the same general-purpose circuit copied and pasted several million times.
Of course, we can describe modern computers in a similar way. Memory chips can store trillions of bits of data, but are just the same circuit copied and pasted over and over. As we scale to larger and larger core counts, our processors are starting to have the same kind of regularity.
The evidence points that the brain is actually relatively simple. Emphasis on relatively. It seems to encode data in a pretty simple way. The complexity doesn't come from the structure of the brain itself, but from all the possible states that structure can be in.
If you're interested in understanding the brain more, check out Numenta's Hierarchical Temporal Memory. It's a computational model of the brain that's pretty detailed and has been answering a lot of unsolved questions in neuroscience. The alternatives approaches, from what I've seen, are all starting to converge on pretty similar concepts as well.
TL;DR: There's the complexity of the rules that something follows, and the complexity of the scenarios that emerge from those rules. The evidence points to the brain being fairly simple in terms of the rules that it operates on. The complexity of the interactions between these simple parts is a different story. This isn't anything unique to the brain either. Not by far. Basic computability theory says that many systems have this property.
The greatness of the brain is that it can name everything around, even itself.
Potential Topics:
1) Map of Philosophy
2) Map of Engineering
3) Map of Communications (prose, poetry, rhetoric etc.)
4) Map of the Arts (Would that encompass communication?)
Map of Engineering
@@RayhanulSumon Yes please
Map of systems science
YES PLEASE
I NEED A VIDEO FOR A MAP OF PHILOSOPHY & ENGINEERING
Map of cognitive science
The connection of literature back to philosophy... Yes! I love it.
People seem to conceive of science and humanities as "opposites", but they all come down to asking and answering questions and increasing human knowledge.
Boom
I hate philosophy so I love it being low-key called literature in a derogative sense.
@@mbsb1376 Why do you hate philosophy?
@@TheRandomBiscuit well, some say that a lot of philosophy is just using fancy words to describe common sense ideas
@@MotorStorm66 I'd argue that's just false, but to argue this, one would have to have a specific philosopher in mind and the specific idea which they think is common sense that the philosopher has made "fancy".
You gotta sell posters from(~more of) your map of videos
You beat me to it! YES! Posters will bring in cash while letting us display our geekness. I'll pay for mine upfront. #notificationsquad
Hey, yeah I already do! You can check them out on redbubble under Dominic Walliman, or click the link in the video descriptions.
He have already.
Yes! Yes! Yes!
Liam Colvin agree
up next: "Maps of Philosophy"
Kawaii
There’s like at least like 30 philosophical thoughts/schools
Examples of the famous ones
platonicism
Metaphysics
Stoicism
Abolitionism
Transcendentalism
Absurdism
Structuralism
Formalism
Darwinism
Social Gospel
Eugenics
Existentialism
Ethics
Human rights
Materialism
Marxism v Capitalism
Hedonism
Nihilism
Etc.
@@duckymomo7935 how is eugenics a school of philosophy?
Wasserrübenvergilbungsvirus
It’s the belief that unfit people should die off for the betterment of society especially if the conditions is hereditary. There’s supremacy linked to it as well as discrimination against the disabled. If you become disabled there’s varying thoughts on that. Also against old people (served their use). There’s utilitarian philosophy involved.
There’s a lot of literature out there. It’s definitely a philosophical experiment
Carneades made that already.
develcareer.blogspot.com/2020/03/fields-of-science.html
Thank you very much for all of your map videos my friend! I can see the effort you put into the illustrations, animation and all of the knowledge aquired for each video. I love the way you present the information in a clear and organized way, it's really great. Well done and best wishes!
Hey thanks so much my friend, I'm glad you are enjoying them and you are getting something out of them. Cheers!
You can tell how much work you put in this video... You are just awesome....
Thanks dude. Much appreciated. :)
You phrased the problems we faced and still face in sociology today so incredibly well! In society, the natural sciences are often perceived as the 'real' sciences while the social sciences are constantly faced with the pressure to legitimate themselves as sciences in the first place. And at the same time, we question ourselves too, rethinking the concept of what makes science scientific, especially when there is no real way to ultimately prove your findings. It's so hard to explore human behavior when you can never be sure whether your conclusions are really 'true' or just false conceptions you made up in your mind. Thank you so much for not only recognizing that problem but also explaining it so well in this video (let alone being a natural scientist yourself), showing that it's not a problem of oneself or the social sciences, but instead origins in human behavior as it is! Really appreciate the effort going into this video, much love from a German sociologist! :)
With a slight addition of some fields (not that is mandatory because some fields not include in this donut of knowledge is included in other detailed maps), this donut and this video should be introduced to everyone and I mean everyone who wish to pursue a field. Where I come from (Vietnam), there can be such a seperation from the arts and science. I just love to acknowledge how everything is just intertwined with each other.
Which fields would you add?
I'd ask the same @@mochiescalona
MAP OF ASTRONOMY PLZ IMMA HOLD MY BREATH TILL IT HAPPENS
You dead mate?
Haha i think it will never come
You can hold your breath for the rest of your life. It's true!
Corona nate you inna grave yet
how is it going bro?
I LOVE, absolutely LOVE this «massive.cosmic 'doughnut' of knowledge» that is your «Map of Science». I especially LOVE your including the "Arts" in this "Map of Science"! Brilliant! Awesome! I've never seen or heard ANYONE "connect the dots" as beautifully and wonderfully as you do. If the people behind TED haven't contacted you yet to do a TEDTalk and/or publish ALL your wonderful "maps" in TED book form, I'd be very surprised. I believe your maps should required viewing for every student in the world. Thank you. Please, more, more, more "maps"!!! 😉👍😁 👏👍👏
Really glad I found this video. I've been a bit obsessed with this concept for a few years now, and just took a stab at making my own version the other day. There's so much ignorance in the world, and it's understandable to me because you don't know what you don't know. If there was a map of all human knowledge that people were familiar with, it would be so much easier to understand the limits of your knowledge.
Better paint more than one map...
This video made me so sad. My life is too short i could never learn even the crumbs of this donut
You can still choose if the part you eat is bigger or smaller, use your time to study subjects you want. And start now.
Alhamdulillah for Jannah, ashraf... That's the true life
this is exactly what i thought; Life's too short :(
why would you want to know everything, that sounds boring
Don't feel sad as who knows that what we device tomorrow, may be a way to become immortal.
And what if that person came out to be you yourself because you want to eat that whole Donut.
Ugh this is so good. I love that you organizedit by system complexity/predictability, going into the arts.
WHERE IS THE MAP OF ENGINEERING?
Please we have run through every topic known to mankind apart from this now. Pls
Indeed. I do love your videos but where is engineering in all of this?
Notice he put engineering in the complex section next to psychology... because engineering has a lot of empirical correlations (as well as the science and maths as much as it can).
@@lyrimetacurl0 i did not notice! Thanks!
Yes!
i want too !!!!! awesome video ! i love them
Science + minor arpeggios on the synth = my favorite type of video
Jake we need more videos. From you.
It makes sense to find you here. You're great dude
¡Me encanta que tus vídeos tengan subtítulos! Eres grande, aporta demasiado a los jóvenes entusiastas que queremos cultivarnos en el mundo de la ciencia.
Por cierto, si le pones subtítulos a todos tus vídeos, sería algo maravilloso. ❤
Your videos are so well-made and inspiring. Great job. One small note since many people who watch this video has a bit of passion to explore beyond a single discipline: the way you employ "complex" and "complicated" interchangeably is technically arguable. In the study of complex systems, a complicated system is made out of many many sub-systems, that we already have a full understanding of it from a full range of elementary parts to the whole system. On the other hand, a complex system is a whole that we are just able to understand its behavior without calling it "chaotic". For example, a shuttle is a complicated system and we have a full understanding of its engineering. But as you said a system of individual entities like people is complex. We can detect patterns of some macroscopic behaviors without fully understanding how each entity is contributing to the whole. This is a minor note only to contribute to what you are doing, which is great. You have my highest admiration and I'm jealous of all the time you enjoy by pilling off this giant onion of human perception of the world. Cheers buddy!
Thanks for the feedback Farshad, that's a good point, I'll bear that in mind in the future. Cheers!
Just astonishing how you animate and sequence the pieces of your stories together. I am loving these videos :)
Thanks that my comment to Domain of Science led into the making of this video. This is also the core of all of Domain of Science's sub video topics related to Math, Physics, and Chemistry
Great work!
Rewatching this after a year
This might be my favourite video on UA-cam yet
I enjoy your "map of" videos so much. Thank you for sharing and please share more of those in more academics like philosophy :)
I didn't even know how much i needed your channel ! especially these maps ooh they are so amazing! Thank you!
Now you need to make a video about maps themselves, the map of maps may sound stupid but the word map can mean a lot of things
I love your channel because you do not arrogantly dismiss art and philosophy's power and importance compared to science, unlike other people who enjoy the sciences
map of the entire science, i guess
Really amazing work you're doing on this channel. These maps are both BEAUTIFUL and very informative. Thank You!!
Would you ever make a "Map of Geography"? Your science field maps are really awesome!
good one, lol! It's a map of maps of different places, but instead of putting them where they are on a globe, you put them on a donut
Man, where were you with this video 15 years ago, when I needed that as the best life advice)))
Map of Economics please!
I have to agree, people ask question "Ugh?" every day since the dawn of time...
develcareer.blogspot.com/2020/03/fields-of-science.html
Your knowledge of these topics is really great. I've been studying these topics for over a decade and you're spot on. Your points on reduction were perfect.
Mathematics can be subdivided into the study of quantity, structure, space, and change i.e. arithmetic, algebra, geometry and analysis.
form - topology
Form is a feature of space, isn't it?
not enough space
The study of elements that composes mathematics: Philosophy of mathematics.
please do a map of sociology and another of economics
Great video my man. Exactly what I was looking for. Thank you so much.
1:55 you spelled neuroscience incorrectly.
Yaa thats neroscience lol
What ya gonna do? Burn his shit down?
Hey thanks for the spell checking!! I updated the posters on Redbubble, patreon and flickr, so they are spelled correctly on those at least. Can't change the video unfortunately :/ Let me know if you spot any others.
Neroscience: From the greek for water; nero:- So its "Water Science". A field of huge importance suddenly.
meterology should be meteorology, I'd guess +Domain of Science
This video is very resonating, thank you for creating it. 4:08 was amusingly introspective.
I would be really interested in a map of neuroscience
You can explain these topics so good
Great vids and maps, you are a clever and good organized dude!
Man, I disagree with a lot of what you said on this video. I'll try to explain where my view differs from your. Just to be clear, i really appreciate your work, I would never dislike the video or anything, I'm just trying to show my different view on the subject.
First, you say that math and computer science are not sciences, because they do not study the natural world. This is complicated, it depends on the definition of science you are using (and as far as I got on studding science philosophy, it is way trickier than it looks, and it seams that there is no good answer, even to pin down what is the scientific method). Well, apart from the problems on defining science, I've seen math described by some authors as a deductive science, in which you set axioms and deductive implications to generate theories. And well, computer science would be the study of algorithms, so applied math, kinda. In addition, i would not necessarily add empiricism tied to the scientific method, since you remove all the theoretical science fields from the game.
Second, I find it problematic to say that the scientific method "breaks apart" when you get to the social sciences, and it is less science for that reason. It is simply that it is harder to get results as robust as in the hard sciences. But all (edit: or most, if you consider math, idk uhahuahu) sciences have theories and proposals that get knocked down with the progress of the works on the field, and they are not less scientific for being disproved later. In fact, science only works for the continuous abandoning of old ideas. And note that I'm not trying to defend pseudosciences that are developed on these areas.
And the point that I have the greatest problem with: I don't get why economics would be less scientific for the fact that we can't predict the future of most economic systems. These systems are usually more complex than most of usual physics systems, but complexity is found on almost everywhere, it is only more present on this field. In fact, weather science suffers from the same problem of complex systems making predictions hard, and it is still considered a hard science.
But there are way many theories that can, in fact, predict economic systems future, as for example, what the excessive printing of money does to economy (inflation), the difference of taxing everyday items and luxury items (deadweight), and so on. Not being able to predict world economy does not make economic studies less scientific, that's the same of saying that not understanding the three-body problem made newton's law less scientific.
And then, the subjectivity. It is on all sciences. When you set an experiment, for example, studding conductivity on a wire, you define that the parameters studied: the length of the wire it's cross area, temperature, and so on. So you make them constant, and vary the rest. Well, the position of you're wire to the moon is changing, but you don't bother with it. Why is that? Do you have a reason to believe that it doesn't matter, or it's a subjective choice not taking them into account? Well, you may think that this example kinda stupid, but shows that the hard sciences, at their core, can't be totally objective.
Thanks for the attention, sorry for the my bad English, and i hope that I could get my ideas clear enough =D
Hey thanks for your point of view Eduardo, it has given me a few things to think about. Good to hear some points of view other than mine.
Eduardo, by reading your comment I would guess that you have a solid background in science, but not in the humanities. Your reductionist bent doesn't allow you to concieve holistic views of the world.
In this bagel of knowledge there is hole, and this hole is real... You can't solve the problem of the difference between hard sciences and human sciences by simply pushing the analytical approach even further.
This hole comes from an essential dichotomy in the functining of the human brain, and maybe even a dichotomy in the nature of the universe.
Yeah, but it's also true that no science is as hard as we would like it to be.
Not even physics, if we think that the two main physical models in use (relativity and quantum mechanics) are incompatible with each other...
Sure, it couldn't be otherwise, it mirrors the world as a continuum, from stellar plasma to human societies...
I think your first point is incoherent with your other points. In mathematics (and computer science too, I guess) theorems are proven for eternity. If you say: "all sciences have theories that get knocked down", this implies mathematics is not a science, hence disregarding the subtleties you pointed out earlier.
The donut of knowlegde was amazing and totally unexpected hahaha awesome content as usual
I think there's a lot that could be improved on this. Consider instead this scheme:
A hexagonal grid, like a honeycomb, with seven sectors (the six around the outside, and the middle one);
At the top is the most abstract of fields, dealing with pure language and communication unto itself.
To its bottom left is mathematics, which deals with the structural content of such communication, with logic on the boundary between them. I would subdivide this roughly into four subsections: a core including the foundations of mathematics through arithmetic and elementary algebra; geometry and other mathematics concerning space; trigonometry, with its cyclic functions, or rather harmonics, and other mathematics concerning time; and calculus, or rather dynamics, all mathematics concerning space and time together.
To its bottom right is the arts, which deal with the packaging and presentation of such communication, with rhetoric on the boundary between them; I would subdivide this into four subsections analogous to the four of mathematics: a core of practical communication and functional industrial design; descriptive writing and the visual arts, the arts of space; poetry and music, the arts of time; and narrative and performance arts like theater, the arts of space and time.
Below those both, in the middle sector, is philosophy, which takes those tools from linguistics, mathematics, and the arts, like logic and rhetoric, and addresses the most fundamental issues that need to be tackled in order to begin more practical pursuits of both the true and the good in the actual sciences to follow.
To the bottom left of that are the physical sciences, including physics, chemistry, biology, psychology, and alongside them astronomy and other space sciences, geology and other planetary sciences, ecology and other life sciences, and sociology and other social sciences. These fields are all trying to describe things.
To the bottom right are fields that are currently underdeveloped: the ethical sciences, which try to prescribe things, rather than describe things. I would put some things quite like political science and economics in here, though those fields as we have them pretend they're trying to be descriptive sciences; as well as a more foundational field we're currently missing, something that's a bit of a cross between market research and the emic ethnography of anthropology. Really, the four-part breakdown here is something more like value theory (and that missing core I just described), decision theory (and microeconomics), game theory (and macroeconomics), and control theory (and political science).
At the very bottom are the trades, which are completely missing from DoS' chart. These fit in between the physical and ethical sciences and are the ultimate application thereof. The physical sciences show us the general tools that nature gives us to work with; engineers refine those tools into new and more specific tools out of those general means; technologists administer those tools; and at the base, some tradespeople use those tools to do jobs. On the other side of things, the ethical sciences tell us what jobs there are to be done, what general needs there are to be fulfilled; entrepreneurs are (or should be) like the engineers of ethical sciences, building new and more specific jobs towards those general ends; businesspeople administer those jobs; and at the base, some tradespeople do those jobs, using some tools. I would broadly break down those kids of jobs into: agriculture and medicine at the base; soft wares (like clothing) and hard wares (like housing); energy and transportation; and information and communication.
I'm willing to make this into a real thing, if you respond to this post
Though this was made a year ago I do like the idea of having a predictive scheme for the categories of endeavour themselves. In the video his scheme was rather just a loose ordering over predictive rigor/objectivity (which at a core starts somewhere in the middle of mathematics after one chooses axioms then reduces going in both directions)
.
@@MagicGonads I didn’t see your response until now. I do already have a graphical version of this I made, but if you wanted to make an animation of it or something that would be cool.
www.geekofalltrades.org/codex/images/fields.png
@@Pfhorrest damn nice job bro
@@donkeyslayer8370 thanks!
As an MSc. student of economics, I can add that with economics, as you say, we are usually more or less wrong in predicting the future. But, in addition, we sometimes also deal with much more straightforward systems that are easier to predict. The ability to navigate causality and correlation in models of different complexity is part of what makes a good economist I believe.
Can You do a map of geography please!!! Like a split between physical (core science) and human (social science)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geography
dude, if you become a teacher, your student will be very pleased for your humble and easy to understand your explanation..
really apriciate your hardwork..
An in depth map of economics would be much appreciated :)
It would need to talk about Austrian economics versus Keynesian economics, the latter being a pathetic excuse for increasing government corruption. The "printing" of money to excess leading to hyper-inflation and a lot of economic poverty and needless suffering. Most people seem to lean to Keynesian, rather than admit that their governments are terribly corrupt.
Donut of knowledge segment there had me in stitches xD
It's so good! You should have Millions of fans!
Unfortunately my science-field, biochemistry, is missing :/ (By the way - your posters inspired me to head towards quantum biology)
Hereby you're gonna be the first person that I'm supporting on Patreon.
If tuned a bit, this poster should hang in every school, uni, ect.! And when you correct the misspelling (E.g. neUroscience, meteOrology) I will buy it as a poster!
Hey thanks Marco!
That's is good idea!!
This Could be helpful for us students to see what interests us and what we want to do!~
🌟
Please do more of this series.
Me : I wanna be a scientist
Teacher : WHICH science do you want to study?
So many fields. So much to know. Imagine if we one day was able to know everything at once
They are also philosophical questions! Please do a Map of Philosophy!!
I love your channel so much. Math and science were my favorite subjects in school. Keep up the good work.
P.S. Please make a part 2 of you explaining movie science.
Could you also make maps about other subjects like Psychology or Political science etcetera? Your maps are very very helpful! :)
Finally, I have seen a great illustration of The Donut of Knowledge covering some of the highlights of Human Endeavor. And this end is just a beginning. ♾️
Great content. Could you do one of engineering as a separate domain? There are tons of engineers out there that might be craving that one! Cheers
Love your work! I love to see things visually. Seeing it in your mind is one things but to physically represent it is a great resource for further study. I’m with some of the other in that I’d love to see a map of philosophy but I understand you’re physics major so maybe not really your speciality. Thanks.
map of statistics and aplplied statistics please!
@zarzuelazen
hey do you have a mail id for further contact?
It would be awesome!
bro, you're a G! I give u that respect because I'm learning a lot from your videos...
Map of Philosophy??
i wonder how would that look like!
THE GIGANT COSMIC DONUT OF KNOWLEDGE - love it.
Why information science is near pshyholgy and sociology, when in reality it is math (conected with computer science)? In particular cryptography is very mathematical concept.
I came down here to see this. I was hoping someone would have mentioned something.
Because its complex he did explain that as we move up the complexity increases...
I love your videos man, keep it up, is very cool, I hope you can do more Maps and explanations
Reading some of these comments, I'm thankful most of these people are not in charge of defining science.
@Daniel Yehoshua I agree. Gender studies is nonsense that arose out of openly anti-natural science continental philosophy.
@daniel yehoshua Wow, It didn't take much to get a rise out of you, didn't it?
Reallynice Mapping explainations.... thanks for your efforts in making these!!
Looks more like a "Bagel of Science" to me... :-) BTW, you misspelled "Meteorology".
Also "Neuroscience"
Also, kind of "Doughnut", you're British, not American :p
Hey thanks for the spell checking!! I updated the posters on Redbubble, patreon and flickr, so they are spelled correctly on those at least. Can't change the video unfortunately :/ Let me know if you spot any others.
Hehe, yeah I know. I that spelling for a slightly silly reason: it takes up less space on the title.
Every single lesson you have put out, have been nothing less than top notch. Thank you so much, Dominic. Helping make humans Smarter, nothing more important...............
Modern Science arose out of the discipline in philosophy called: philosophy of nature. Science is nothing but the application of philosophical principles and methods onto the natural world. In the modern sense of science, philosophy is not a science for it investigates the first principles of science itself and every knowledge claim. Science is grounded on philosophy its mother-discipline which in turn is essentially held together by the most abstract and foundational discipline human thought can come accross: metaphysics, which investigates the most foundational first principles and causes of everthing and upon which the form and method of any science and discipline is determined. For no science can define itself without circular reasoning. We learn this in a metaphysics course and history of philosophy course. Science is not the most fundamental, metaphysics is. For any science makes metaphysical assumptions before proceeding which science cannot demonstrate but requires to work. Thus, philosophy is not a science.
Te ha quedado un video cojonudo. Awesome video!! Congrats!!
Im waiting for the engineering map since i was born
So aesome! Kudos on the doubled cat looking astonished at the donut of science!
4:45 Is it not true that ALL of these fields, even the most sciencey, require interpretations by a subjective human brain?
Side note, if this is intended to be a map of all human endeavor, I think religion would be the major omission. Brilliant work, thanks.
Have you think about a map of scientific method? Your description of it is pretty positivist but that might be just a way to go over it. Cheers man, great videos
Architecture should be closer to politics, economics and philosophy. It alters how we structure our entire lives and family structure, how we treat our citizens, how we interact with our society, how we treat our prisons and ultimately how we value yourself or the values that we have in society.
yeah it also has quite some math and psychology in it so I wouldn't consider it an Art I would put it in the middle of the donut somewhere
Not just a map, but a map with a very insightful tour guide. Thanks.
Psychology major here, when I saw the question mark for the psychology section I was triggered
Why? I think question mark means curiosity about the brain.
Well, I like this Donut of knowledge.
And
You you have increased my hunger for this donut.
MAP OF GEOSCIENCE/EARTH SCIENCE
I absolutely love how you rounded it into itself. Gives it a cozy feel.
Great point there about situations when people mistake subjective for objective - i.e. whenever _purpose_ or psychological effect are involved even slightly - and apply all of their reptilian defensiveness to feel vindicated and right. Also, one thing science in all of her incarnations could do with is more expressiveness about "weird coincidences," like the one with mathematics being so good at explaining the physical world, or just plain surprising and hard to understand things. I guess it's up to popularizers like Dawkins, Krauss and Tyson, but more people in all of their respective domains should join in, 'cause otherwise the field of science may seem like a solid wall to outsiders, that is the majority.
4:08 aww
the donut of Knowledge ,you killed me man! cant stop laughing
42?
I love your videos, you seem like someone who would be really cool to have a philosophical discussion with.
1:51 “Neroscience” :(
It's so crazy that each of these could have their own map, and each of the things in that thing's map could have their own map.
Odd how Theology was not mentioned. I wonder why? Seems to me a rather conspicuous omission.
does gender studies count as a form of theology?
Wow. Gender Studies make the list and Theology doesn’t?
I’m sure Isaac Newton, Pascal, Galileo, Charles Darwin, Francis Bacon, Marie Curie, Ramanujan, Francis Collins just to name a few would be surprised!
My goodness. Couldn’t bring yourself to even mention it... (head shaking back and forth).
The bedrock of Western Civilization is based on Judeo Christian tradition. Nothing.
But GENDER STUDIES does???
Your proclivity is thinly veiled.
Oh yeah, that's true. My bad.
Theology is considered a branch of philosophy and/or metaphysics.
Fausto Levantesi perhaps, but even if so, there should have been at least a puzzle piece. It was COMPLETELY omitted!
On a positive note, I’ve thoroughly enjoyed prior videos. Thank you for the effort it takes to make them! :)
Great video! A huge problem as I see it with science to day is that many do not distinguish objectivity with subjectivity, or they do not disengage emotion whereby they express their opinions or wishes as facts. It leads to falsifying data or simply misinterpreting correlation as causation.
Which is the bane my area of expertise, economics. Specially because there's an enormous amount of veiled interest around it, which will always make things more difficult. Not to say that there aren't great economists
First of all, *Great video!*
1:22 Well, personally, I firmly believe that Mathematics is a human construct only; it works so well because it's meant to deconstruct the universe in *a way that we can understand it,* otherwise, concepts such as "0/0" or "x/0" would make sense in the real world.
Also, our math is also limited by our measurements (which are deeply flawed), we will never be able to measure something in a way that it encompasses the entirety of an object, that is, using our man-made units, other than that, there is a way: Counting an object as one of itself; and so Earth's volume is exactly one of itself, and so is its mass, and the same can be said about the universe... But that's not useful when trying to *compare different individual pieces,* which is exactly what we try to do when studying the universe through reductionism (2:00).
In fact, that's where the whole Heisenberg's uncertainty principle comes from, Is *the way we try to measure particles* what does not let us know its position or velocity in space, is not that something *can't possibly be* at 0K, is that, if we *try* to measure and analyze said properties of some particles, through our equipment, we'll be supplying energy to the system.
Mathematics is seen as a universal concept because we assume every intelligent lifeform can count. If you can count, you can do basic arithmetics, if you can do basic arithmetics, you can do all of mathematics. The base and how certain thereoms are described may change from species to species, but it's a language every single intelligent creature can understand, and it's even how we choose to say 'hello' when we send signals and relics into outer space. Languages like English are human constructed, and our measurements are constructed by Humans, but that's their point. We use both of these things to help explain the universe, which at its core, is just alot of values that we can count.
Take the KG for example. Ok, the KG is quite subjective. We chose an arbitary object and said 'this is a KG if it has this exact volume'. This doesn't mean we're wrong in our calculations when we use KG. The way we present it is subjective, but it can be translated into *any* unit, even extraterrestial ones if we ever found alien life, which is horribly unlikely but that's off topic.
There is a definite way to convert between an unknown unit and our own units. We just need to figure out what that unit represents at the smallest scale possible. The planck length is a universal measurement, and the Planck time is a universal measurement. Using these two, we have a basis to convert between every single unit imaginable, but the math never changes. It all represents a certain number of these things, just in a different way.
Mathematics is a concept that *every* creature that gains intelligence uses to understand the universe. Every single number system will have a 0, and every number system will have its own Pi, and every number system will have Primes. You can't remove these fundamental aspects of this language. With English, we don't know if other creatures can understand verbs, nouns, etc. We just know that *we do*, because they are wired into our brains. But with maths, any creature should be able to do it if its intelligent. Counting is essential for any creature to even begin any sort of management process, let alone a society. You can't reasonably feed 57 monkeys if you don't know how much monkeys even need to be fed, since you can't count.
Language is Human Made, Units are Human Made, but Maths and the universal constants in physics, aren't. They are simply discovered by Humans, and expressed in a way we can understand. I'm sure you're saying that this is what you meant, but anything could theoretically discover that a^2 + b^2 = c^2, it's just that they would say something different, but it would always be the same equation. Just written in a different way.
However... our postulated nature of this division that we may have discovered leads to contradictions surely shouldn't be a count against mathematical absolutism. You assumes '/' makes sense in all cases. It clearly doesn't. Similar to how it isn't the case 1=0 in the real world.
The limit of our 'measurements' also shouldn't count against against the metaphysical idea of absolute mathematical truth, and the materialistic one of scientific truth in some interpretations of science: with purely the scientific method, yes. But adding some of the 'assumptions' of science, the idea that the universe exists with given laws. That is, the assumption that also, science is 'absolute truth' and not invented to understand the universe.
Then, to the Heisenberg principle: it has nothing to do with the way we measure particles. It is inherent in the standard deviation of the wave function in quantum mechanics. That is, it isn't that the way we measure is fundamentally off: but that the particle FUNDAMENTALLY is a wave, and to which the position wave spread is bigger when the momentum wave spread is smaller and vice versa. (it ISN'T velocity or position, it is momentum and position, though I do suppose in the case mass is constant, you could find that)
It has NOTHING to do with equipment. The 'observer' effect, which you seem to be hinting at it related, but not the same.
So, the reason something can't be at 0K, even in principle, is due to the third law of thermodynamics(or Nernst postulate), though Heisenberg does provide one microscopic explanation. Of course, this is applying an untestable explanation to a principle idea, because indeed, we can't extract any information on their velocities without inducing some energy. but then again, asking 'why something can't reach 0K' is also assuming that of a principle idea, 0K. Thermodynamics, looks at things in the macroscopic case, into which it derives macroscopic results, in a way, from 'approximations' of microscopic configurations.
hello dear admin. I hope you're doing well. please say how you put all this together? using what?
Contrapoints and you within the same hour? What did I do to deserve this?
Did she make a map of all 5000 genders?
@@Wingedmagician she made a great video about that yesterday. Check it out.
It all makes sense when you complete the circle. Move forward (anticlockwise) to see how X is used, and move backwards (clockwise) to see why X is so. Wherever you start, you can always go back or forward
gender studies lol
And have you noticed that he put gender studies right next to theatre?
That explains it I guess
Fausto Levantesi genius
gender "studies" are on the very edge of what he calls science, he knows it's BS :P
Is it offensive to be offended by Gender Studies being on the map of Science? Exuse me, if this question is too offensive, I'm a little offended by this microaggression myself.
Also, where is the next safe space from here?
Good video. I think you left some sciences, but you're the best. I think everyone has to see your videos and buy your posters and pick it up on their room's wall. :D
"Gender studies"
Ha! good joke m8
Why can't you study gender?
@@qclod Because you study the male, female, and other rare sexes in biology/anatomny. You dont need a totally seperate social science for it. Unless you are talking about the fake 120 genders.
Ballard Mayes gender studies is about the link between sex and the society, so yes you can have a different field that is build with biology, psychology and sociology
develcareer.blogspot.com/2020/03/fields-of-science.html
"Gender studies" is an ideological term that promote a bad ideology and idea.
Sir your work must be more famous ❤
Music has alot of mathematics. It's an arithmetic art.
Can have but doesnt have to.
@@coolalgorithms it does. It's always there even if you try to ignore it
all of the arts have an equivalent mathematics. you're probably thinking of the cyclic functions that underlie harmonics. but think also about how relevant geometry is to the visual arts. and understanding dynamics is essential to realistic animation; that's why video games, which are basically interactive animation, have extremely math-heavy physics engines in them.
That's a pretty pretentious and reductionist thing to say.
Math is always underneath any and all art, good or bad. Specifically, math underlying physics and biological sensors. Music, for example, is composed of sequences of vibration patterns in air that elicits response from human receivers. You can study the characteristic of these sounds. You can study the patterns that get the most attention. You can study patterns made by individuals or groups over time like an artist or a band's discography. You can study populations by geography or by genre, and many more things. Visual arts require understanding of visual patterns that are appealing. This includes geometric relationships, anatomy, physics of light, physics of movement (in the case of animation), and so on. You don't need to know all of the intricacies of these fields of knowledge to be an artist but good artists exploit these patterns and our sensibilities even if just by intuition.
Amazing! Waited so long for it!
WTF is gender studies bigger than engineering?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineering
Thanks for placing History among the sciences!
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History