Видео

Bender is a mathematician, he is not a physicist He thinks in term of a physical particle He thinks the world is continuous Both are wrong Ask him only questions like imaginary number, but not physics questions

I can't think of a universe that ISN'T described mathematically. It would of necessity be a world of indescribable chaos.

I don't understand what the big mystery is. The physical world is very coherent and follows very precisely its own rules with no exceptions. The language of mathematics is the language of coherence and rules following therefore it is a very good predictor of the physical world. Makes perfect sense. In a Universe where outcomes were purely random or variable and where there would be no rules, the language of mathematics would be useless. I really don't see in what way it is a miracle. If mathematics weren't a good predictor it would suggest that nature follows no rules and is incoherent. You could even say that any universe which is coherent and has rule based outcomes has to be mathematics friendly. Once you accept that complex numbers are very natural, it is not such a surprise that they are relevant to the real world. Complex numbers are not the end of the story either. Quaternions and octonions are also a natural extension of the numbers and some physicists also see applications in the real world. And then there are other number systems that can be relevant....modular forms, sur-real numbers...endless fun to be had. There also is the Max Tegmark interpretation where mathematics IS the fundamental reality and the real worlds are just manifestations of it. Thank you for a great video.

new friend here, came here because of Lex Fridman ,looking for more ..#mrvince

Had to pause Dr. Bender there to have a look at your other videos... seemingly thumbs up and subscribed it seems... how have you not got a million subscribers?

He should talk to Terrence Howard, the most intelligent person on earth right now who discovered that 1x1=2 😂😂😂

Does math exist to measure geometry. Or does geometry exist to illustrate math.

How can you make such a statement when you do not know what the "real world" is? At best math is an approximation that seems to work with projectiles and baseball bats. You have no idea what a black hole is, even if you know it is... in the here "reality". What is an atom of plutonium doing for thousands of years until it decides to decompose?

Learndd Arabic xnd Hebrew starting in my 20s. Can confirm his words about the root system and the verb forms. It is so cool and makes learning easier.

3 color problem was great-I didn’t think 🤔 of the solution in terms of triangle until I saw it, I paused the video and I thought at first in terms of concentric circles RBG,RBG… to get to the same color I have to step over in units of 2. Therefore in units of 1 I will not land on the same color. I have to also draw on paper to see if my way of thinking is also correct or not. Perhaps just the sequence of RBGRBG… is sufficient. 🤷‍♂️

He said he was going to get around to defining what a number is but he didn't.

Mathematics is a science that creates and "empirically" validates rigorous logical structures (theories) . Similar as how natural sciences create and empirically validate its theories. The validation in the case of natural sciences is against the empirical data from experiments/observations involving the objects and phenomena of the specific field of the natural science in question. In the case of mathematics, the "empirical" validation of a theory (rigorous logical structure) consists in verifying that other "experts" (mathematicians) agree in the correctness of the logical structure (theory). It is a "discovery" of humanity that we possess the capacity of thinking in a way that we call logically rigorous that is such that we can (using that way of of thinking) construct pretty complex structures and still agree (practically 100%) and independently reach the same conclusions (among people trained in this way of thinking). It is another "discovery" of humanity that using the logical structures created by mathematics we can create powerful, valid physical theories of reality, (and also, if we "violate" the logical structure of our mathematical theories, the resulting physical theory will be invalid). Here I would like to point that validity in physical theories is not ABSOLUTE, the validity is a question of degree within determinate precision, and within determinate limits of the "realm" of applicability of the theory. So, why our rigorous logic is so powerful to construct empirically validated theories of the reality (physic theories) ? I think the reason is evolution. We evolved logical thinking as a way to create mental models of our environment, that is, as a tool of knowledge. So our logic, in a way, corresponds to structures of OUR ENVIRONMENT, that is: of the "realm" of reality more immediate to us. If we go beyond our environment, our rigorous (more basic) logic is not guaranteed to continue to be a useful tool to model reality. We do not know how much can be expanded the "realm" of reality for which we can create an approximate/useful mental model. But we have to try, we cannot change (intentionally) our most basic logic.

"... there's no obvious reason why nature should follow ..." "... and I don't have an idea why ..." This is similar to the argument that the universe is finely tuned for life. Both are putting the cart before the horse. Mathematics describes nature specifically because we observe nature and then we create the mathematics to try to model it. Nature DOESN'T follow mathematics. Mathematics was derived from nature. We tease out the definition of nature by modeling it with our mathematics.

Personally, I don't think it is a mystery that mathematics is successful at describing the "real world". Mathematics functions as a language in physics, a language, however, that uses the same words as measuring gear produces: numbers. Measurements in experiments spit out numbers in the form of lengths, spatial distribution, angles, effects, impacts, temperatures, pressure, voltage, ampere and so on. All numbers. So when you formulate your physics theory in the language of mathematics, you can adjust your theory to the results of experiments. And that has been done repeatedly during the history of science to the point where the theories today are extremely precise. You can't do that if your theory and your measuring apparatuses do not speak the same language. However, one can question, I think, whether physics theories then can also describe the "real world". Kant and some of his followers like Natural philosophers Ørsted, Ritter, and others certainly disputed that. Mathematical theories of physics will not give us "das Ding an sich". Actually, mass, time, space, forces, and other concepts that are represented in physics equations are metaphysical of nature, cannot be empirically verified, and are most likely emergent from something deeper that we have not yet guessed the nature of.

Economics exists purely as a tool of perception management in the propaganda system created to protect the KLEPTOCRACY FROM DEMOCRACY!!

A realistic model would and should include the power and influence of money in politics!

What are they on? Corporate money? Economic theory is an ideology precept in the service of protecting the global KLEPTOCRACY from any form of direct democratic control!

Species adventure? Or species fantasy. Musk got all his money to develop space X all came from the public purse, the taxpayer!

Buildings in Australia are glorified tents compared to the rest of the world!

As much as I am convinced that colonising Mars is the stupidest idea anyone ever had, a colony on mars would have to be basically primitive communist, like most indigenous societies where and still are.

The reality of building out housing or dams, bridges etc is that without government regulation at every level it would be cheaper. Yet the downside is significant and not worth the pennies saved.

You're discussing the planning for a future that we don't have. Don't you have anything else to do?

One big threat from AI ironically is less a threat from AI and more a threat from people's lazyness to think for themselfs. One small example i run into is google maps and its routing. I have timed various routes to different place and i am keenly aware of why certan routes are faster despite googles maps (best) proposed route suggestion. There is certain person who rides with me insist because google routes is generated by a computer, it has to be better than me. Googke maps advises route 1. Its slightly shorter and has 3 stop lights, lets call them A B D. Cars are always forced to stop and wait at lights and wait B and D. compared to the second route that also has lights A and D but never forces one to wait at righ turn at the light B? and the timing of the lights is such that even if one takes route 2, and they sre sometimes forced to stop at light D, they will always be signaled to go before one arives at light D on route 1 after having to wait at light B. Googles route 1 is always slower in real life than my route 2. Despite my explnations to this other person, and that i havee timed it, the person refuses to belive my emperical experence and my explanation about the timing and wait at the lights, in her mind, the computer is better than humans, and i get an ear full every time i drive her using my routes. But the potential for this problems has worse implications with AI solutions to social issues. I'm afraid many people will put undue preference on what AI says, and try to force others into those norms, reguardless of the actual impact on socity. Like hunans, AI might not have all the info , or put more or less value than humans do on outcomes and what is traided for those outcomes. The problem comed from people unwilling to think for them selfs, and firce others to give up thinking for themselfs because of the perception that computer logic is always better than humans.

When discussing "why does mathmatics describe reality" the discussion would be incomplete if it did not also discuess Gödel's incompleteness theorems and their implications to reasoning all truths of our reality. That in any formal system sufficently advanced as to be able to add, there are truths that that system of axiums can not prove within that formal system. For many in math and science, Science is built on that only provable statements are acceptable as true if they are proven true. This is fine to seperate false statements from truth statements, but utterly fails to account for the fact that their are statements that are still true but unprovable within any given formal system of axioms advanced as to be able to add.

I understand Bryan's point on mass transit usually being slower than driving just due to the nature of individual vs collective forms of transportation and congestion pricing would help a lot in this regard. The main reason why mass transportation is supported is because of parking (which he addressed) and because it is insanely space efficient compared to individual cars. Mass transit is a million times more conducive for areas being walkable and not polluted by noise or just the danger of being around high speed traffic. Nobody wants to live near a highway or even arterial road (they're loud, dangerous, polluting and a horrible place to be around), there are a lot of people that would die to live next to a NYC subway line. The Shibuya train station in Japan is the most busy passenger train station with 3.5 million daily riders passing through each day. Assuming you put everyone in a car with 1.5 people per car and assuming a lane of traffic has a capacity of 2,000 vehicles per hour, you would need 50 lanes of highway moving 24 hours per day which is absurd and makes the place a living hell to be around whereas the Shibuya station today is a pleasant, walkable area where you can get off with many surrounding areas to conveniently go to by foot.

Such an underrated channel!

- We live in the same climate as it was 5 million years ago - I have an explanation regarding the cause of the climate change and global warming, it is the travel of the universe to the deep past since May 10, 2010. Each day starting May 10, 2010 takes us 1000 years to the past of the universe. Today June 10, 2024 the position of our universe is the same as it was 5 million and 145 thousand years ago. On october 13, 2026 the position of our universe will be at the point 6 million years in the past. On june 04, 2051 the position of our universe will be at the point 15 million years in the past. On june 28, 2092 the position of our universe will be at the point 30 million years in the past. On april 02, 2147 the position of our universe will be at the point 50 million years in the past. The result is that the universe is heading back to the point where it started and today we live in the same climate as it was 5 million years ago. Mohamed BOUHAMIDA, teacher of mathematics and a researcher in number theory. ruclips.net/video/ZFXRGfMENek/видео.html

Mathematics enables us to construct models of reality. But the model is not the reality. At small scales, we will probably need new models. I doubt mathematics will not rise to the occasion.

Maths doesn't explain reality cos we each create our own reality. Hence reality is an individual thing. Academics often times are only good at one thing and hopeless at everything else.......the holistic approach no longer exists so most academics are very ignorant and shits me no end

So does poetry!

Sorry, I didn’t watch the video, despite me liking the title description: it was too long for me. I wonder if the main points could be explained for an interested layman in some 10 minutes.

Pop Carl remember WHO said if Ye LOVE ME! Love you too!

Pop Carl thank you for attending unto our OWN and thy visitation to comfort the COMFORTER! Love you too! Without shame but with boldness!

Introducing unfamiliar ways of speaking unto many but yet is clear as water unto Whom BELONGS?

Who can turn over? If none exist in front? Shared "i" AM come forth!

Increadible man.

How else can ye see? But Humility stood up from HIS SEAT and took the lowest seat LASTS!

For this energy is not made by men's hands but of God of the Living! Ascending and descending upon all clay FEET MIXED WITH IRON resting upon all dry grounds. GROUNDED! Can ye see the SPIRIT OF THE LIVING GOD? For some Looking for signs!

Can ye see Electron? Beloved remember all thy shared clay FEET MIXED WITH IRON resting upon all dry grounds. GROUNDED! Obviously there's a True reason!

These same minds aborting millions of my little NEW Minds! Have the oddicity to commands and use my judgment and justice in front of the TRUE OWNER! Hypocrites! Keep watch!

Now before moving forward used these! Ask thy 1ST. Thy intent 2nd. Thy Base 3RD. Thy Foundation 4th. Where your Treasures is (my Hosts little New minds Sons and Daughters) there your hearts will be also! Likewise these are not possible without 1ST. Loving GOD OF THE LIVING 2ND. LOVING MY NEIGHBORS AS "i" AM have loved thee all 1ST! 3RD. Remember do not deny nor forbid these little ones to come forth unto Me! Why? HIS HOSTS will say, aren't ye all IN FRONT of HIM? As ye all see HIS HOSTS have not massacred, murdering, nor to abort thee all! Unlike many of this cowards massacring my most precious little TREASURES!

Contribute to thy neighbors given! Beloved thank you for Contributing to our Neighbors! Remember if take away my neighbors given. How else can ye all show off unto WHO?

I think it is a strange question: "Why does mathematics describe reality?". People find patterns in nature, and they use mathematics to describe those patterns.

Carl is a wonderful and pleasant person to both know and to work with. His unrelenting enthusiasm to see my setbacks as progress was amazing. His unwavering confidence in my ability to solve problems I did not believe I could solve was always a treat.

GDP is Grossly Distorted Propaganda What is NDP, Net Domestic Product? Where is the data on the annual depreciation of automobiles and other durable consumer goods since Sputnik? In his major work Karl Marx used the word 'depreciation' 35 times. But consumers did not buy automobiles and air conditioners when Marx and Smith wrote about economics. John Maynard Keynes never saw a television commercial for automobiles. Wealth requires land. Iron and copper had to be dug up somewhere. Crops have to be grown somewhere. But money does not give people brains though intellectual property can be bought or stolen. The NAZInomic Wargame is a continuation of the Military Wargame by other means.

The origins of math are the description of the real world. It has evolved to an extraordinary level in many directions. Given the infinite complexity of the universe, it will continue to do so.

What will happen to the labor theory of value when/if they develop AI to do most of the white and blue collared labor, which seems an ever more real possibility these days. Will they give us all UBI? Or will they simply quietly kill us off by ignoring pandemics and the like? I want to be optimistic, but I'm guessing in a world that values money, business and commerce more than human lives, it will be the latter. It seems to me that a government that has no ethical qualms financing the bombing of hospitals and aid workers and universities and refugee camps... probably also lacks any qualms about doing roughly the same to its own populace... should they turn out to be inconveniently expensive. I would love to hear from any people who understand the higher level workings of economics on how things could work out for everyone. IOW, please talk me out of my pessimism if possible. Thank you.

There is no mechanical connection between Maths and Reality. The infinite flexibility of maths enables it to model reality. But the model is not the thing.

What underlies in nature: 1) Regularity or things happen "in time" or time. When things dont appear to do so we dig deeper. 2) Fallacy is that time is not real but perceived at all levels until we get down to quantum where math does not work because math depends on time. 3) Time is Emergent--->Math is Emergent

I can understand if you say some math might not represent reality. Are you extrapolating it to mean all math cannot represent reality?