"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." -- Philip K. Dick

@sujok-acupuncture9246

25 күн бұрын

Excellent....

@piehound

25 күн бұрын

Nice quote. Here's another one. *REALITY BITES.* - Anonymous

@attilaszekeres7435

24 күн бұрын

"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." - Albert Einstein

@alexcaledin4521

24 күн бұрын

Reality (scientific) is the observable events and the objective math organising them.

@billkotas9049

24 күн бұрын

@@attilaszekeres7435 "Reality" understood as such is also a pretty darn stubborn beast

I always thought that we Italians were the ones who gesture more when we speak, but after I saw Mr. Tegmark I changed my mind.

I really enjoy and appreciate Max Tegmark! Just listening to him and his explanations is worth listening! 😀💗

Makes me think of the old proverb "if a tree falls in the forest and nobody is there to hear it, does it make a sound?". Well, if it exists, and we all exist, and all matter exists, then indeed it would create sound waves when it falls...BUT...if no being with the ability to process sound waves into the sensory perception of 'sound' is in sensory range of the tree falling, then no, it does not make a 'sound', it only creates the waves that can be interpreted as sound but nobody is there to process it, so it isn't actually 'sound'

@enriquefau8974

22 күн бұрын

You're thinking of beings as separate entities from their surroundings. However we humans, for example, are made out of the same stuff as the rest of the things in the universe. You could say we *are* the universe, or rather, we are the way that the universe has of experiencing itself (Carl Sagan)

@JosBergervoet

21 күн бұрын

if tree leaves vibrate due to that sound isn't that a kind of "hearing" it? Anyway, you are just picking an overly restrictive definition of sound to begin with, by claiming that soundwaves that are not heard should suddenly not be called "sound". That is not a reasonable definition. After all, money that is not spent is still called money, water that nobody drinks is still called water.

@maximusolivia9982

16 күн бұрын

Love this thread .

Whenever Max Tegmark speaks. Its going to stirr us. I have to acknowledge that he is a greatttt scientific person...

Classic Max with Classic Answers!!!

Exactly my view. And I haven't taken it from Tegmark, but reached to it via my own contemplations, when I was about 16. Yet, Tegmark and Penrose are my favorite modern scientists.

Max is such a delight

I love listening to Max.

Can there be things that do not exist?

@DarkSkay

19 күн бұрын

As soon as you imagine something that does not exist, in a certain way it now exists in your imagination, thoughts, mind. The exact cake I will (or will not) bake tomorrow doesn't exist physically, just an approximate idea of it in my mind. Philosophical theories can explicitly define what they mean by "exist", e.g. if the discourse requires such a definition, and the author choses not to use a different word or symbol. TMK mathematics most frequently uses an intuitive notion of "exist" and "does not exist". Two examples formulated in order to match your question above: even prime numbers other than 2 do not exist; triangles with 7 edges do not exist. In the context of this video, it seems interesting to ask how an author sees computational irreducibility.

@austinamadasun5860

14 күн бұрын

This is deeper than people realise. Ipso Facto means what does not exist is not a thing, therefore any-thing and every-thing exists by definition

@carlhaldeman420

8 күн бұрын

I would say no.

@DarkSkay

8 күн бұрын

This KZread comment did not exist in the year 1800. Isn't above statement obviously true? KZread didn't exist 224 years ago. Neither did the internet. I didn't exist 224 years ago. The "things that do not exist" always infinitely outnumber the comparatively few things somebody can have knowledge of, interact with physically or mentally, can conciously experience as existing - don't you think? @@carlhaldeman420 @austinamadasun5860

I would like to see the equation that describes consciousness 😊

@erawanpencil

24 күн бұрын

Exactly. People like Max just can't turn off the dualistic division of reality into subjective and objective, they alway looks out, never in.... and so never see that it was a loop the whole time.

Here is the great Max answering but not the question asked. Sometimes the best approach is to say don't know.

@MrDogonjon

24 күн бұрын

Only the best and brightest minds have the ability to say "I don't know" The stupid believe that saying "I don't know" makes them dumb. Smart people know that inspite of intense research and study we still have fewer answers than questions and saying "I don't know" is the highest level of intellect.

what is relationship of time to mathematics in quantum wave function mechanics?

The thesis discussed at the end here, "if it isn't mathematical, it doesn't exist" is a fundamental, all-encompassing, and radical statement that deserves some further consideration IMO. If, as Tegmark believes, everything in the universe is mathematical (even abstract or conceptual "things" as was put forward in this discussion), then something that is not mathematical in nature does not exist (by that definition). Fair enough I guess. And it is commendable to make one's theory so open to being disproven. An additional consequence of the thesis is that any candidate law of nature, say, that is found not to have thorough mathematical underpinning, although possibly useful as an approximative tool, does not fully capture the truth. I am not saying that I agree with the thesis of the mathematical universe (I am not sufficiently knowledgeable to be the judge of that), but it has interesting logical implications if true.

When you zoom in enough, you notice that there is only emptiness, so materialism is an illusion like a rainbow

@squarehead6c1

19 күн бұрын

What appears to us on the macro scale as solid shapes might "disappear" as you zoom in, but surely there is a lot of structure and complexity there (e.g. in terms of energy with various properties).

Everything exist! - show me something that don't, you can't. This is an property of the subject existence.

@sacredskyridge

21 күн бұрын

Well, it's impossible to prove a negative. But to your point, subjectivity seems to exist, and may be the ground of existence, because in order to "measure something" you have to have the subjective experience of considering to do so and to consider it a worthwhile endeavor. And even behind subjectivity, there must have a been a Reality that brought subjective experience into existence, other than a mere emergence of the phenomenon of consciousness due to neuronal activity.

How does Tegmark treat the _assumptions_ in math frameworks? Does an assumption's "existence" depend on whether it's true in our physical universe?

@genghisthegreat2034

25 күн бұрын

I think of an axiom, and axioms, as working assumptions of what are true, and upon which the rules of logic are then used to erect " scaffolding " of consequent truths. But the more I think of successive equations, the more they feel like tautologies of convenience for my bite-sized comprehension. They're steps, but in a " truth space " defined by, and inescapable alongside, the axioms. If they lead to a contradiction, after the rules of logic are applied, there's something rotten in the coherence of the axioms.

@brothermine2292

25 күн бұрын

>genghisthegreat2034 : The "truth space" you mentioned sounds like an abstract type of existence, not physical existence. Tegmark doesn't distinguish between the two types of existence, and that muddles his thinking. Neptune was discovered. An assumption or equation that's true of our universe is both invented and discovered to be true. An assumption or equation that's not true of our universe is invented but can't be discovered. Tegmark's denial of invention is a denial of human creativity.

@genghisthegreat2034

25 күн бұрын

@@brothermine2292 thanks for your comment. I wonder if our physical universe is the right " lab " to be testing mathematical truth. Math specialists are able to work in geometries of many dimensions, but we don't know (I think ) how many of these dimensions are at play at tiny scales in our universe. The math might be right, if we got the dimensions involved right, but what can we make of math that might be " apparently wrong " in a universe of unknown number of dimensions ? I think the math might have to stay in our mental space, and we use it to the extent it works, in our physical world.

(6:55) *MT: **_"If it ain't mathematical, it doesn't exist."_* ... Big fan of Tegmark, but I don't believe mathematics is the ultimate bellwether for "Existence." Instead, *logical conceivability* is what separates that which _can_ exist from that which _cannot_ exist. For anything to exist it must first be deemed logically conceivable. ... This is the basis for the 1st Law of Existence. After logical conceivability has been established, then mathematics can chime in to describe it (or facilitate it). In other words, mathematics serves more as an after-the-fact assembly language for "logically conceivable things." For those of you that doubt my words, simply name something that exists that's not logically conceivable and you'll be golden.

@danstoica2824

24 күн бұрын

Everything starts from logic and from our innate and gifted intelligence. It seems to me that our way of understanding logic and intelligence is not very advanced. For example, you can realistically compare two objects from the same category that perform similar functions under similar conditions. When we do intelligence tests, even if they are indicative, the conditions are not taken into consideration. There is another problem related to the interpretation of thinking, that is, how we arrive at the respective results, because I have the feeling that there is a link between weak and disastrous logic, or the absence of a complete logic that gives a favorable answer. There is a big difference between a complete strong logic and an incomplete one. But how does incomplete logic draw the winning lot? Well, there is the ability of quick memory and recognition of patterns linked to emotional sensations that confirm different results from previous experiences. In this sense, by taking shortcuts, quality is lost, and conversely, by taking the long way, the brain can be exhausted and it is difficult to reach a result and it can be more easily jammed by the surrounding environment and sensations through slower memory. To be very advanced in intelligence, you still have to follow the harder and longer path. If you are endowed with a strong, very fast memory, it is an advantage to quickly accumulate and quickly reproduce information, but not to create scenarios to solve complex problems through strong imagination. That is, it is more difficult for you to train your imagination or to be inspired, to imagine. That is, you will achieve with the correct speed, only within the very parameters established by the knowledge accumulated through a discipline that will not make you feel comfortable except within certain limits of an organization. Chaos is "comfortable" for geniuses, while order is specific to those well trained to respond quickly and efficiently. Obviously, even geniuses need order, but they are "scattered-minded" in several directions. Intelligence tests in my opinion are not very relevant and I don't know if I understand correctly or not, but they are bizarre and I don't think they correctly describe true intelligence even if you have a high score. You can be a "genius" or you can't be, although the environment also matters in enhancing you, that is, rather, you have the potential of a genius. Usually I heard that only as an exaggeration because there are few who get a high score, but for me, as I suspect, I don't really believe in high scores that easily. Even if at the beginning the first problems are easy and you have more time for the next ones and you are efficient, I don't think you can really be that efficient, because in the world I have not seen such efficiency in any scientific activity. I find people interesting but not very impressive, even those who know a lot and are very intelligent, that is, they have a high IQ. I think that if it had a similar EQ then it would be justified much more visible. The positive emotional intelligence is confused with the negative one and most of the time there are misunderstandings, i.e. it is the same intelligence but used for different purposes, i.e. it has two different specializations but it starts from a basic science. I have seen people who praised negative intelligence thinking that it is positive, and positive intelligence can be discovered in depth if people would try harder. There is a subtle and conscious connection that characterizes emotional intelligence and is also related to intellectual intelligence. It is often believed that the emotional part of our brain is irrational, and the one responsible for thinking and logic is rational, but I don't think that is correctly interpreted. If in the end the result of thinking is irrational, this does not mean that the part with which the person decides is the emotional part, because if this part is important for the development of emotional intelligence, and if the emotions and feelings are positive or negative, then I believe that through emotional experiences, through these experiences in the end the actions are dictated by the part responsible for thinking. This part selects wrongly among the emotions of the part that generates them. This means emotional incapacity, lack of correct interpretation, but I think it is possible that the part responsible for thinking wants to stabilize the disturbing phenomenon and finally draw a conclusion. It also happens when a person is wrongly and ineffectively taught, but also when he is emotionally in conflict with himself or those around him, whether it is his fault, that of others or anyone else. For example. we have a situation where one person is bad and does it instinctively, and another does it both instinctively and through active planning, through more awareness. It is the same with intelligence regardless of its kind. I can very easily demonstrate the one related to emotions and feelings and I think that many people who work in different fields know what I'm talking about. But the one related to the intellect can be more difficult to demonstrate if it is not properly tested through awareness and sincerity. Through emotions we can reach sincerity no matter what and then we really see, or understand in depth what kind of intelligence people really have. That is, those with very high and very powerful intelligence are the very honest ones. But honesty can make you appear weak and often many people do not resort to it, regardless of whether they are apparently weak or strong. That is, if we only use our experiences quickly reproduced with precision, we are not as great as we think. The reality is that we must wander in order to be capable through strong imagination, but to wander intelligently, that is, with sincerity. Strong precision eliminates the mixture of sensations and represents an obstacle in solving complex problems. Sometimes it can be an advantage to remember harder and to mix sensations, because you are prepared for the disturbing factors of the multiple experiences from the sensations that you can be inspired by. But the reality is that in a controlled environment the power belongs to those who are precise, and in an unpredictable environment the power ultimately belongs to those who have more of an understood or less understood emotional capacity.

@bocelott

24 күн бұрын

I'd change the word "conceivability" out for logical "possibility". Your failure to conceive or claim that you can conceive (when you really just haven't thought things through, as is the case for "free will") does not decide whether or not a thing is actually possible.

@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC

24 күн бұрын

@@bocelott *"I'd change the word "conceivability" out for logical "possibility".* ... The catch-all term is "Conceivability". "Possibility" requires "Conceivability" and not the other way around. The only way you can deem something possible is if it can first be logically conceived. *"Your failure to conceive or claim that you can conceive (when you really just haven't thought things through, as is the case for "free will") does not decide whether or not a thing is actually possible."* ... Logical Conceivability is a *binary function* (like a toggle switch). Something is either logically conceivable or it is not. It's not based on one's "effort in thinking" as that is merely called "imagination." *Example:* A square-circle is not logically conceivable nor logically possible, but it must pass the litmus test of conceivability before you can establish possibility. Something impossible today might be possible tomorrow, but something inconceivable today will be inconceivable tomorrow, and will always remain inconceivable. You'd get far better traction without adding the personal jabs. Let your argument stand on its own.

@arthurwieczorek4894

24 күн бұрын

Both 'logically conceivable' and 'possible' ask the question Could it be? But 'logical conceivable' asks the question Is it self invalidating by faulty conception? while 'possible' asks the question Is it invalidated by factual circumstances?

@arthurwieczorek4894

24 күн бұрын

For anything to exist ontologically it must first be deemed logically conceivable. For anything to exist existentially it must be a real part of nature, that is, have a nature. By 'ontologically' there I meant Thought real in some mind.

Objectively and unambiguously define the word Exist and you'll get your answer to what exists. Exist- Object with location, something somewhere, physical presence. Object-That which has shape. Concept- A relation of 2 or more objects or nested concepts. Existence is not dependent on an observer. The Moon exists whether I can see it. If I can't see it, it doesn't disappear.

@simonhibbs887

24 күн бұрын

How about, something exists if it can have consequences in the world, which is to say that it is physically causal. That is, those things that exist are those that are, were, or will be causally contiguous with one another.

Exists vs Discovered? Many things exist that we have not discovered. Discovery changes our perspective and also explains. We often wait for the big discovery but its also things from the past that get revisited.

My view is that physics (physical reality) emerges from pure mathematics. Tegmark's view, if I understand him correctly, is that physics is a subset of mathematics. What I see as a difficulty with Tegmark's mathematical universe thesis (i.e., that physical reality is actually a mathematical structure) arises from a general consideration about algorithmic complexity. It is a lesson to be learned from algorithmic information theory that pure mathematics is infinitely more algorithmically complex than physics. An advocate of Tegmark's thesis who candidly claims that physical reality is a mathematical structure despite its much lower algorithmic complexity owes us an explanation.

@digitalfootballer9032

23 күн бұрын

Your mention of mathematics makes me think of an interesting concept when it comes to numbers. Does a number exist? You can't touch, smell, see, hear, or taste 5. You can hold 5 items in your hand. You can write a numeral that represents 5. You can use the representation of 5 in mathematical equations. But you can't touch 5, you can't possess 5, it is completely intangible. So does it exist being that it is only a concept and not a concrete piece of matter? Can ideas and concepts exist? Or only material objects.

@claudetaillefer1332

23 күн бұрын

@@digitalfootballer9032 Abstract objects such as sets or numbers are non-physical entities that exist independently of space and time: they are dimensionless. They are also independent of mind and language. Even though they cannot be perceived, we can still grasp them. Our civilization has a strong bias toward material objects. Yet we perceive only a tiny part of physical reality, which physicists tell us is mostly made up of empty space. Moreover, the general consensus among neuroscientists is that the senses are unreliable for the part we can actually perceive. Now try to experience the world, self-awareness, without grasping thoughts, without abstract objects. Just because we can't hear, see, taste, touch or smell something doesn't mean we should deny its existence. Abstract objects exist like any other kind of object: they just do so differently. They are accessible not through our senses, but through the mind. It seems to me that those who argue against abstract entities face serious objections. It is not my intent to pursue these objections here due to lack of time, but it should be noted that if all abstract entities were somehow discarded, then physics itself would become meaningless.

@claudetaillefer1332

23 күн бұрын

@@digitalfootballer9032 Abstract objects such as sets or numbers are non-physical entities that exist independently of space and time: they are dimensionless. They are also independent of mind and language. Even though they cannot be perceived, we can still grasp them. Our civilization has a strong bias toward material objects. Yet we perceive only a tiny part of physical reality, which physicists tell us is mostly made up of empty space. Moreover, the general consensus among neuroscientists is that the senses are unreliable for the part we can actually perceive. Now try to experience the world, self-awareness, without grasping thoughts, without abstract objects. Just because we can't hear, see, taste, touch or smell something doesn't mean we should deny its existence. Abstract objects exist like any other kind of object: they just do so differently. They are accessible not through our senses, but through the mind. It seems to me that those who argue against abstract entities face serious objections. It is not my intent to pursue these objections here due to lack of time, but it should be noted that if all abstract entities were somehow discarded, then physics itself would become meaningless.

Robert, it's unhelpful not to distinguish between the different kinds of "existence" of abstractions (such as math) and physical things (such as Neptune). This distinction also bears on whether to say that math is invented, or discovered like Neptune was.

With seekers like Max Tegmark you'll understand the true dynamic of the Universe in the year 50 000.

Everything exists. Some only in imagination but thoughts exist too and according to science no information can truly be lost even thoughts.

Donald Hoffman's "conscious realism" makes a compelling case that the concept of "physical reality" (the consensual reality that we experience through our senses and minds) is, in fact, a convenient illusion. It acts as an approximation or representation of the underlying reality. "The unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences" (Wigner) raises the possibility that mathematics offers a direct insight into what underpins this illusion. In a way, mathematics serves as our seventh sense. Seventh, because it is intuition that occupies the sixth spot. The myth that mathematics can be used independently of intuition is missconception propagated by Descartes et al. We mostly rely on our intuition, which is then formalized using mathematics. Without the guidance of intuition, math ends up creating low-probability pocket-universes such as happened with string theory in physics. Einstein famously said, "as far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." Perhaps he was onto something...

@fonsvandenhove

24 күн бұрын

I do not understand your point about intuition. Can you refer me to some source on this?

It's all quantitative forces that can be described or generalized with math.

3:31 everything, accessible to us, seems to be dependent on a set of rules similar to what we identify as mathematics...

Not everything can be described with Math (consciousness was mentioned but there are plenty) and you can describe things that do not exist (and likely never will) with math, like the Death Star from Star Wars. We created math as a tool to help us understand the universe, it does not "exist" (the word of the day!) beyond that, just as an inch doesn't actually exist (except as a measurement tool). A simple way you can look at is: If it's a part of the universe, it exists (regardless if you can describe it with Math or not) and I am patiently waiting on that mathematical equation for consciousness (don't worry- I won't hold my breath on it).

Information is the basic unit of reality and the universe was imagined into existence.

More importantly, what are the different kinds of existence, and how are they related?

I think that human brains have the ability to connect the abstract with the physical, a kind of bridge.

Exotic hidden forces were responsible for all creation. They were first on the scene and were able to concoct enigmatic ingredients to build visible gases, which in turn brought us visible matter.

What I understood: if something cannot be described mathematically, it doesn't exist. For example: people don't have conscience, because there is no mathematical formula(s) for it. Actually yes... this could be referred to some people...

to be present in space and time, and to have effects on other things.

how would mathematics develop laws for physical nature? can mathematics produce nature?

truth is just edging

What year is this from?

@snappycattimesten

24 күн бұрын

It doesn’t exist.

What is only known unto consciousness exists and nothing else,what is not known cannot exist.

And the debate goes on Discovery or Invention 🤔

"exists" : That which is an element of a specified set. The number 3 is an element of the set of integers, hence 3 exist (relative to the specified set), whereas Pi does not exist relative to this set. A rock exists (relative to the set of observables). An axiom exists (relative to the set of axioms). Does 'reality' exists? Just define an appropriate set for the word 'reality'.

@simonhibbs887

23 күн бұрын

The set of phenomena which are physically causally contiguous with one another, as defined by the processes of physical causation.

Just because you can explain X (objects) in terms of Y (mathematics) doesn't mean that X is in fact Y, mathematics is just a system that we have developed in order to interpret the world. mathematics is not the structure of an object, but a way of deducing it using our reason and logical principles, of which are structured within our mind. These human organizing principles were not structured mathematically, but organically, and can only be explained retrospectively using some kind of system... Math.. its not mathematics at its fundamental. Please tell me if i am missing something, because Max seems like he just loves math a little too much...

Even if your Hubble expanding world say data approximately accurate model is a surjective function - relating nearly any result to it's cause - , the probability of a predicted event srill depends either upon a forgone - world - actual state of nature represented event frequency geometric histogram, or effectively utopia, by some thing like the Normal Probability Density Function for instance, however this doesn't rule out novel interpretation.

One can never ascertain endless randomized numbers.

Where are we? When are we? How did it all begin? How will it all end? Why are we here? Where is here? If there were only one atom, then it would be just as perplexing for existing as an infinite number of atoms. Think back to your most happy moment in life and ask yourself if anyone else has ever perceived that exact moment of happiness. Each of our realities are unique to each of us. No one else has ever viewed the world from your viewpoint. My life experiences are special and unique to only I, just as yours are to only you. Something has always existed, without creation. Only way this can be is where time is not a factor. Without time you have no beginning, no middle, no end, no eternity. Time is created by each of us in our own minds from our own perceptions in life. Time is an exclusive human element that nothing else can measure whether it be an ant or an elephant. We humans created time based off changes we go through and witness, even on the grand scale of the universe. When asked why something exist instead of nothing, well, it really all boils down to perception. Each of us perceive the world differently. If we were not here to perceive it, or put a timestamp on everything, then who's reality would it be? In other words, if we were not here and all these galaxies were still spinning through the vastness of space, then what difference would it make without us. No human beings to put measurements on in either distance, time or speed. If the animal kingdom existed without humans, then still there'd be nothing to perceive any of this in a way that would bring about time and measurements, it would just be with no creatures to ever question it. The human brain along with its capacity for understanding is when something really existed and not a second before.

People don't go looking for the answers they think they already know. People think inquiry is all about answers; even thinking science is only about results. The answer is never the concern but the question that leads to an answer; sometimes, the answer is that of a two-fold nature or paradox. Scientific activity does deal with objective results; scientific enquiry is that of discourse, argumentation, debate, and refutation, tending at times to be of subject nature. Many get caught up and entangled by objective activity, unwittingly displacing the intellect and reason with their sense perception organs as criterion - these are called materialists. They should not be acknowledged, only the scientific data. Some of these persons have told me that they are, in fact, men of 'reason' - when clearly they are not, and this is known as 'two-fold ignorance. A wise man doesn't celebrate at the advent of results, but in the coherent and geometrically sound correspondences by Reason in enquiry. 'Objective negation leads to subjective synthesis'. Something along the way in inquiry is realized: Wisdom. This is not a static result. It's of no equation. It is by the questions that set our sights, in a sense conditioning the answers, but not really, rather focusing and concentrating toward that means, in what we don't quite know yet. What is the point of having all the puzzle pieces while having no way of, intention, or know-how, in assembling the puzzle together. And that, right here, is evident in persons today allegedly claiming to be men of intellect or science.

consciousness

Isn’t saying, all reality is mathematics, kind of like saying, gold is the hammer that knocks the gold out of the wall?

Existence exists.

🎉

Your comment exists to the degree to which you and I and others can agree that it exists. Even still, your comment is merely an emergent illusion with respect to more fundamental scales and domains. So, you and I can agree that as an emergent illusion, your comment is indeed “real” and “exists”.

I exist. Not sure about you, though.

Illusions exist: “Anecdotal evidence, which the skeptics so readily dismiss, is actually empirical observation and ought to be the beginning of investigation, not the end of it.” Tessa B Dick

@BigDaddyBlais

24 күн бұрын

❤

Man this interviewer makes me crazy. Let the man describe his ideas without constant interruption

Max Tegmark exists, his physical body is 1½ year 'old'. So, The Organism-Shifting-Principle Exists

Get down on it. - Kool and the Gang

It's all platonic turtles.

If we were not here to see it,would it still exist?

If you could be shrunk down to the size of an electron your reality would look like the night sky with points of light separated by enormous distances.

@simonhibbs887

24 күн бұрын

I'm not sure it would look like anything. You'd just exist without sensation until you occasionally got walloped into another state by a gluon or photon, or something. Apologies, I actually know what you mean.

@dr_shrinker

24 күн бұрын

I would think if you were the size of an electron, you’d be too small to see light because photon wavelengths are too big. The waves would skip over you. That’s why they invented the electron microscope.

You could argue that a unicorn is mathematically possible, but it doesn't exist. It can be interesting to ask some questions such as, are there other universes, but if there is no way to test or even be able to prove they exist, then you're wasting time.

Public : Take a hint and watch everything by max Tegmark. Greatest alive. Good I am not stalking this guy 😊 this Bertrand Principia and Godel and all.was not good. The universe is math is the right answer and not why math is effective etc. I liked that Wolphram that universe is cellular automata. I had same problem with fraction and infinite before Max solved it in curiosity retreat

Space and light exist.

Maths is a description of relationships. How can a description be the reality?! That’s like saying a description of a book is real but the book itself is not!

Of course What exists. What's on second. Who's on first. And Idon'tknow is on third.

My dreams, when I dream at night, do not exist.

@Hank254

24 күн бұрын

If your dreams don't exist then how can you even say you had one? Why was a word invented for something that doesn't exist?

If everything in the universe is atoms and molecules, does it make sense to say that only atoms and molecules truly exist, and everything else is a collection of atoms and molecules? What if a better theory comes along and it turns out everything is wavefunctions, or strings? To me the question of existentialism is too broad. It's a very low standard to say that something exists. Instead questions of observability and testability hit closer to the mark, and are generally more informative. Who am I to say what's real or what exists when it turns out all the greatest minds of the past were wrong in due time! I leave open the possibility that we're all perpetually stuck in Plato's cave, and the imaginary is inseparably in superposition with reality. From this Idealist perspective, Realism is simply an attempt to cement certain interpretations of reality. To me,Idealism seems like the more creative approach. It allows a theorist to challenge all theory. Leave no stone unturned! As for a mathematical basis of reality. It's probably the case that the universe is fundamentally deterministic. However, the proposal that there should be a machine that describes it perfectly mathematically seems far fetched. The thought experiment of a computer trying to describe the universe produces an unfortunate paradox when the computer is set the task of describing itself. Some part of the model must be non deterministic, then. Which is fortunate, because those are exactly the kinds of physical models that work best!

What is mathematical really? Just the ability ro have mathematical order projected onto it?

How does he prove math exists?

@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC

25 күн бұрын

*"How does he prove math exists?"* ... Mathematics is axiomatic. Since it's technically pure logic, you would be using logic to prove the existence of logic. Since there is no reliable, repeatable framework we can use other than logic, we must accept mathematics as axiomatic.

@darlenewaldron3621

24 күн бұрын

@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC While mathematics operates within a framework of logic, attempting to prove its existence using logic would constitute circular reasoning.

@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC

24 күн бұрын

@@darlenewaldron3621 *"While mathematics operates within a framework of logic, attempting to prove its existence using logic would constitute circular reasoning."* ... Thus, the term "Axiomatic."

@darlenewaldron3621

24 күн бұрын

@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC But that's not a "proof" that it "exists", right??

@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC

24 күн бұрын

@@darlenewaldron3621 *"But that's not a "proof" that it "exists", right??"* ... Proofs are not axioms and axioms are not proofs. They are two completely different categories. Axioms require no proofs because they are self-evident. Hope this helps!

It seems everything exists. Perhaps a better, more enlightening question would be what doesn't exist. The one thing we can be absolutely sure of that doesn't exist would be nothingness. You can not have nothingness in our reality.

Is there not some conflation of mathematics with science here?

Conjecture...

If we can't answer the question of what doesn't exist then we can't answer what does... Everything is experiential

@wthomas5697

25 күн бұрын

This makes no sense.

Yah, I knew a Sunday School teacher who held Tegmark's view as well. She thought you could do all sorts of mumbo-jumbo as _theory,_ untestable and unverifiable, and still draw useful conclusions about reality. She had a "theory" about how snakes got around without legs before they were cursed to slithering on their belly. And she was a professional herpetologist. I also think Tegmark's argument is greatly supported with his grand arm gestures. I mean seriously, how can you argue with that?!

Does number 0 exists

@gettaasteroid4650

25 күн бұрын

Yes, there has to be a downward flow of temperature or else work would be impossible

@brothermine2292

25 күн бұрын

Numbers (and math in general) have an abstract type of existence, not a physical existence.

@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC

25 күн бұрын

*"Does number 0 exists"* ... This is my playground! Yes, the number "0" exists. We use it as a conceivable placeholder for what would otherwise remain inconceivable: "nonexistence." Zero provides conceivability via proxy.

@gettaasteroid4650

25 күн бұрын

@@brothermine2292 ...as having nothing, and yet possessing all things

@simonhibbs887

24 күн бұрын

Just to be super technical, it's not so much whether it exists as whether or not it's fundamental. I have to admit I'm a bit speculative about the following argument. I've been thinking along these lines for a few months and want to see how far it goes. The milk in my fridge exists, but once I've made enough cups of tea, it won't. I think the countable number 0 is a description of a state of affairs. As such it's not fundamental. The fact that there can be zero cartons of milk in my fridge is a fact about a state of affairs, and the countable number 0 can be used to describe that, but we can only have descriptions of states of affairs because there are states of affairs for us to describe. Therefore countable numbers are contingent and not fundamental. Max thinks mathematics is fundamental, and a lot of mathematicians do too. Maybe they're right, and maybe 0-by-1 is right on this. I just don't like simply accepting something as given without challenge, and I think that is a challengeable position.

Good, he didn't define existence. We're now even further away.

Before the ' Big Bang ',the Universe did not exist.But whatever it came from,the potential,existed.But where?considering the where had not been created yet.

@Hank254

24 күн бұрын

Is 'potential' really something that exists?

@dennisbailey6067

24 күн бұрын

Yes.If no potential,no future universe.​@@Hank254

Hello. Mathematics has its place, but not at the expense of Logic. The whole description of how thu universe began is wrong. We keep getting headlines of " the Big Bang is over ", only to have a complete video explaining how the universe began in a Big Bang, and everything that the JWST finds is so many years after the Big Bang. Why not do a video that looks at a logical alternative to the big bang and cosmic inflation, such as that which is being proposed by ' Tony Norman Marsh, called the ' Two Monopole Particle Universe ', which has been offered on previouse comments of your videos. It is the misconception that the universe is expanding that has led to many of the problems in cosmology. I contend that the universe is not expanding: It has no age because it has always existed much as it is now: It will exist forever much as it is now: There was no Big Bang or cosmic inflation: The CMBR is not the afterglow of the big bang, but a point where electromagnetic radiation reaches saturation, and Redshift is not due to the expansion of the universe, but is due to the loss of speed and energy of electromagnetic radiation over distance and time it has travelled. There has just been published an hypothesis called ' The Two Monopole Particle Universe ' by ' Tony Norman Marsh ', which fully explains all of this Logically. If you type in Tony Norman Marsh into Google, details will be shown. This hypothesis can also explain Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Antimatter, and two forces of gravity, amongst other things. If you can provide an email address, I can send you a copy of the manuscript. Kind regards, Tony Marsh.

That which can ponder existence, itself exists. Cogito, ergo sum.

@soapvar

25 күн бұрын

i think therefore i am

@dodatroda

24 күн бұрын

That's definitely not it.

Potatoes being chopped in half. Unfair people are potatoes.

Taxes.

Science has to ask where energy came from and how energy got ordered since energy can't make or order itself.

@genghisthegreat2034

25 күн бұрын

I read somewhere, that a gravitational field has negative energy. By moving things apart in it, you create positive energy , potential and kinetic, but all in a zero sum with the field.

@JungleJargon

25 күн бұрын

@@genghisthegreat2034 Moving things apart means there is less gravity and less force being exerted which also means there is less contraction of distance and less slowing down of time. It still requires energy to move things apart especially in a big bang scenario.

@JarodM

24 күн бұрын

@@JungleJargon I think the real energy was and is outside the big bang stretching the universe apart (hence it's still expanding). I also don't think energy is orderly, it is more consistent with entropy, when things become disorderly. Black holes and phenomena currently observed support this as well.

@JungleJargon

24 күн бұрын

@@JarodM You didn't answer the question of where infinite energy came from to make the universe.

@JarodM

24 күн бұрын

@@JungleJargon Yes, this is because I can't. I provided a theory of what became now from what is observable.

how the hell would clone know what exists?

What exists? You don't know, do you?

@christopherblanchard2099

24 күн бұрын

What does it mean to say something exist or not? According to Dan Dennett consciousness does not exist as it is an illusion, so he has disappeared in a puff of logic.

@simonhibbs887

24 күн бұрын

@@christopherblanchard2099 Dennett does not claim that consciousness doesn't exist, he is not an eliminativist. Rather he has a similar view to Susan Blackmore, that conscious experience is not what most of us think it to be and doesn't have a lot of the properties frequently attributed to it. He thinks it's an illusion, in that it is not what it naively appears to be but is rather a highly distributed, fragmentary, transient set of cognitive states (my words). I think his view is similar to the concept of Anatta, or no self, in Buddhism and the reports by meditationists that when they examine the internal experience of consciousness very deeply that they find no unitary essential self.

This comment exists

@rushsavla1986

25 күн бұрын

only to those who read/see it..

@mad636man

25 күн бұрын

If a comment is left on a video with no views, does it exist? This comment was meant to be satire.

@tcuisix

25 күн бұрын

It existed before i typed it

@WhoisTheOtherVindAzz

25 күн бұрын

​​​​@@mad636man yes even the question includes the assumption that it does (it presumes the existence of a video with zero views that has a comment; it asks us to imagine a world in which these two entites exists, and then answer the question "in this world do the objects whose existence was just stated exist?". Edit: The above was written while being undecided on whether the comment I responded to was satire. I decided that the answer to that question didn't really matter. Also, don't assume that I can't find something fun and yet still give an answer as the above. In fact, while my tone might come of as being serious, this is actually just me having some fun while I eat 😂

@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC

25 күн бұрын

@@rushsavla1986 *"only to those who read/see it.."* ... Tcuisix's comment exists whether or not anybody reads/sees it. It is *information* that until 17 minutes ago was completely nonexistent. Tcuisix is the original source of the information and must be included as an observer.

I'm currently writing a paper which proposes an answer to the fundamental nature of Existence and why there is Something rather than Nothing. I have confidence in the ideas, but the biggest challenge - not being a practising academic - is the breadth of reading required in order to properly contextualise them. I offer a summary here, in tribute to Closer To Truth and the efforts of Robert, all contributors, and the whole team. On the nature of Existence, my view is similar to Tegmark's - there is no difference between Abstract Existence (e.g. numbers) and 'Concrete' Existence. Consciousness aside, indications are that the physical world may be entirely composed of mathematical properties. If this world is a large Abstract mathematical structure, it would fundamentally exist outside of Space and Time, as do numbers - if we go with the view that mathematics is discovered rather than invented. However, patterns of consciousness interior to that Abstract structure (whatever consciousness is) would *perceive* a concrete world, by virtue of being part of the structure - i.e. being party to interactions comprising that structure, and certain properties of those interactions can be seen as embodying the *local* phenomenons of Space and Time. As a point of difference from Tegmark, I am sceptical that consciousness and qualia can be reduced to mathematics - I suspect this part of the puzzle may be more elusive, or may require another type of explanation altogether. I would also go further than Tegmark to say that not only Mathematical structures exist in this Platonic way, but all possible structures including logical statements. An advantage of an Abstract or 'theoretical' existence is that there is no limit to the number or complexity of constructions, since they do not require 'calculation' or 'storage'. On why there is Something rather than Nothing, an answer comes from first examining what each term means. 'Something' refers to our world, or more broadly, 'That Which Exists'. We tend to say that a thing exists concretely if we can point to it, touch it, detect it - but this means simply that it is part of our Universe. As Marvin Minsky said, if 'Exists' just means 'Part of our Universe' then the statement 'The Universe Exists' loses all meaning - except in the Abstract sense. This is consistent with the above interpretation of Existence and also suggests that Existence is a local phenomenon, a key feature in the ideas of Philosopher David Lewis. 'Nothing' is a challenging concept because in its fullest sense (i.e. a total 'Blank') it offers no purchase or premises with which to explain the arrival of 'Something'. This makes answering the question seem impossible, but I argue that this is mostly due to a few misconceptions we can overcome: 1) Misconceiving that causality is involved in the creation of our Universe. A number or a cube does not require causality in order to exist as an Abstract idea - and if we hold the above view that our Universe exists similarly, then neither should *it* require outside causation in order to exist in that sense. We would conclude that Something did not 'come from' Nothing. Causality is a way to characterise the interactions and patterns *within* this universal structure, but it does not come into the reason why Abstract structures themselves exist, outside of Space and Time. 2) Misconceiving that 'Nothing' could have existed. This problem seems caused by, and resolved by, interpretation of language. 'Nothing' cannot exist by definition - 'No-Thing' means there is No 'Thing' to fulfil the job of existing. There is nothing to 'be' - 'Nothing' by definition is not capable of 'be-ing'. Of course, this does not explain why something else should exist, but that is addressed above. 2) Misconceiving that the alternative to 'Something' is 'Nothing'. This may not be the case, and I believe this could be the most crucial point in answering the question. We are helped by the suggestion from Physics that information may be fundamental in our world, e.g. more fundamental than matter. Note that this notion is compatible with the idea of the Universe as Abstract. If information is the fundamental 'stuff' of reality, then I argue that 'Nothing' i.e. a 'definite absence' is not the alternative. If one had a confirmed state of nothingness, that confirmation itself would be information. Instead, the opposite to a state of there being *information* is a state of there being *no information*. We might call this 'Undefined' instead of 'Nothing'. In a fully 'Undefined' state, an absence of everything is not confirmed - nor is the existence of anything ruled out. We have no information one way or the other - It is simply not defined or 'resolved' (used as in the word 'resolution' - e.g. the ability of a camera lens to resolve detail). If one considers all of this together, viewing our world as one of infinitely many abstract or theoretical constructions - and then considering how we could characterise the totality, as viewed from the outside - we would lose the 'resolution' of which construction we were in, and be faced with an Infinite and infinitely varied set of constructions. Since we would be considering every possibility all at once, that set as a whole would offer no resolution or definition at all, in other words 'Undefined'. This may mean, incredibly enough, that at the grandest scale 'Everything' and 'Nothing' (the Undefined state) are in fact the same thing.

What's with these philosophers who look like the Fonz?

Why would i listen to Max Tegman when , patently , he does not exist ?

WHAT DOSEN'T EXSIST??

He doesn't even mention that nothing that happens can really be described mathematically because everything is quantum random. Tossing over that fact is just so unscientific.

@simonhibbs887

24 күн бұрын

Quantum mechanics is a formal mathematical model of physical systems and their processes over time. It is the most thoroughly verified theory in all of science. What it predicts is the stochastic distribution of the outcomes of measurements and it does that incredibly reliably.

@SkyDarmos

24 күн бұрын

@@simonhibbs887 Sure, it is a great theory, but it is quantum random, and paired with the butterfly effect it means that nothing that happens around you is predictable in any way. When it comes to movements of large objects, probably only planets are relatively predictable, but nothing else. In some cases not even planets are.

@dr_shrinker

24 күн бұрын

@@SkyDarmos give me all your money and I predict you’ll be broke.

@simonhibbs887

24 күн бұрын

@@SkyDarmos If that were true we would not be able to reliably construct technologies that rely on quantum effects, but we've been doing that for longer than my lifetime. Lasers, solar cells, semiconductor transistors, metal-on-metal diodes, quantum dot LED displays, atomic clocks, MRI and PET scanners, quantum computers, plus a whole ton more all rely on quantum behaviour in order to function, and were invented based on an understanding of that behaviour. Energy state transitions, quantum emission and absorption, energy barrier tunnelling, superposition, these are all behaviours we exploit technologically. This is why we say that QM is the most well proven scientific theory in all of science. Every state transition in every transistor in your computer is a little quantum mechanics experiment that has to work perfectly every time for your computer to function reliably.

@SkyDarmos

24 күн бұрын

@@dr_shrinker I didn't say we can't predict anything at all. I just said that our laws are merely probabilistic and therefore not strict. You could even do magic and it would still not violate any laws. You can't violate probabilistic laws.

One potential contradiction in Tegmark's Mathematical Universe Hypothesis arises from the assumption that all of reality can be described by mathematical structures. This assumption seems to imply that mathematical structures exist independently of human observers or consciousness. However, the act of conceiving and understanding mathematical structures requires a conscious observer, suggesting a paradox between the necessity of consciousness for mathematical comprehension and the assertion that mathematical structures exist independently of consciousness.

@simonhibbs887

24 күн бұрын

This comes down to the question of where our conscious experiences come from. We are constantly becoming conscious of a continuous stream of information, and observe that this information is consistent and persistent. It can't come from consciousness, because until it presents itself we're not conscious of it. If conscious awareness is all that exists, it would seem that becoming consciously aware of a new experience must be impossible, because there would be nowhere for such new experiences to come from.

@darlenewaldron3621

24 күн бұрын

@@simonhibbs887 So you think Tegmark is onto something or is completely off the mark??

@simonhibbs887

24 күн бұрын

@@darlenewaldron3621 I tend to think of mathematics as descriptive, not proscriptive or fundamental. Not all mathematical descriptions correspond to what we experience in our universe, so what is it that says a particular equation is physically predictive, and another one is not? Maybe whatever determines that is what's fundamental.

@darlenewaldron3621

23 күн бұрын

@@simonhibbs887 Yeah, imaginary numbers, infinite sets have no real counterpart.

Nothing material exists. Quantum theory proves this. Our Creator’s imagination has created the illusion of an extraordinarily immersive physical reality.

Hi, do you think the rise of accepting human destruction is real.

Zero exists.

Physical science is not the beginning of knowledge, it is an advanced form of knowledge that uses quantification and experiment to gather knowledge of physical properties beyond the perceptual level. Physical science can't prove or change the concept "exist", it can only rely on it. Understanding the concept "exist" is a philosophical issue. The identification that it is self-evident; that it can only be defined ostensively; that it underlies any claim to knowledge or proof and cannot itself be proved--these belong to the field of philosophy, which in the broader sense of "science" should be approached and considered as a science, with its own methodology and rigor. Not recognizing this division of labor results here in an attempt to start in the middle of knowledge and discuss fundamentals outside the context of their proper development. Such an approach must lead to failures to properly contextualize one's thinking, such as concepts "stolen" from their antecedents by contradicting them, or concepts simply divorced from a basis in reality and "floating" out of any sensible context.

And yet mathematics is purely abstract....

Max och Elon har samma sätt att uttrycka sig på.

Science and mathematics can explain everything - except for the mind that is using science and mathematics ~wil - don’t steal my quote! (April -15 2024)

First

Religions have their "heavens" and sciences have theirs "havens".

Max is very interesting, but he doesn't know as much philosophy as Kuhn.

You can't get the redness of red (qualia) out of math.