This guy clearly states: "I'm a senior math major at MIT".. he's 22 .. he's an undergrad .. he's visibly a young whippersnapper .. yet, comments take him to task for his flaws and shortcomings .. can any of you math geniuses step back and see the obvious .. he's presenting a fully complete set of lectures on a profoundly important and influential and pulitzer prize winning work - and he's doing a pretty damn good job of it .. what's the matter with y'all .. shame ..

@ar-ux7kv

4 жыл бұрын

it's similar to people that call out grammar and spelling errors.... they miss the point / focus on the wrong thing ... basically it is beyond their ability to comprehend lbs

@nickshelbourne4426

3 жыл бұрын

I don't think he's an undergraduate, he said he taught the course two years ago.

@inasuma8180

3 жыл бұрын

@@nickshelbourne4426 probably in his masters or PhD track.

@stevennewman5442

3 жыл бұрын

@@nickshelbourne4426 He says very clearly in the first 30 seconds that he is a senior in mathematics at MIT.

@Ihavegivenup825

3 жыл бұрын

''y'all''

'I got through it in seven years'; Good to know it's not just me.

@diallobanksmusic

4 жыл бұрын

Hahahaha I started reading GEB my sophomore year of high school and finally bought my own copy my senior year. I’ve been taking notes and stuff. Ins honestly a monster of a book.

@luizcastellar

4 жыл бұрын

I'm trying hard too

@valentinochristian936

4 жыл бұрын

@Reed Morris I speed read through War and Peace in 1 week too... It's about Russia.

@DUNCZI

3 жыл бұрын

I got through it in 18 years. And today slowly its analogical knowledge becomes absorbing to the universities.

@clintgolub1751

2 жыл бұрын

😂

Lecture Notes 1/2: ***Tool for thinking (from non-self to self) 1) Isomorphism - means equal in this course but means something more specific in abstract algebra - [[8:40]] - [[11:02]] e.g. skateboard vs. car, each structure can be mapped onto the other (inverse). But this example is homomorphism since skateboard is missing parts. 2) Recursion - repetitive process that includes self. - [[11:10]] - [[17:14]] - e.g. mixing egg or Fibonacci sequence or fractal [[13:42]] - [[17:14]] - which is the number of dimensions in a doubling process 2^d = N. 3) Paradox a) Veridical (eventually true) b) falsidical c) antinomy - [[17:20]] - [[26:30]] e.g. Birthday paradox a) Veridical (eventually true) e.g. Zeno's paradox & atom movement; b) falsidical e.g. 1+1-1+1-1=0 or 1? illegal moves c) antinomy e.g. the liar in Russell's paradox "This sentence is not true." & barber's paradox cannot shaves his own beard [Omega = {all set that doesn't contain themselves as a member}, so is Omega contains itself?] 4) Infinity integers vs. real numbers[][](kzread.info/dash/bejne/o3uNprOQnZefp7g.html) - [[26:34]] 5) Formal systems - how do things gain meaning and exit the system [[38:35]] which is metathinking - [[27:37]] - [[37:58]] e.g. MIU puzzle from MI to MU -> algebra system with axiom, string, rules, and theorem. ***About the system - [[39:20]] The lecturer's favourite quote on metathinking by Hofstadter (p24 in lecture notes, p37 in book): "Of course, there are cases where only a rare individual will have the vision to perceive a system which governs many people’ lives, a system which had never before even been recognized as a system; then such people often devote their lives to convincing other people that the system really is there, and that it ought to be exited from!" e.g. Karl Marx and communism exiting bourgeois' system; the media / the government / the church / the school (contrary by Montessori Education). 3 modes of interacting with the system - [[42:33]] 1) mechanical - follow 2) intellegent 3) unmode / zen

@stephclements6226

Жыл бұрын

c is a key,phonetics discus has no abstract sanity too write of too to?!..feefiefoeSpyWiserQueen

@davidtriplett8105

Жыл бұрын

🏆✊🏿👏🏿👍🏿

@SergioPerez-cp7wr

10 ай бұрын

Thank you!!

@user-hp1tt1el9d

5 ай бұрын

Thank you!

Classic...right as he begins to describe what the class is about a student immediately raises his hand and asks "what is the class about." And all the poor guy can do is say "okay, so that's what I'm going to go through right now" as if it wasn't obvious he is trying to begin to describe what the class is about. lol...even at MIT undergrads are undergrads.

@Baraa.K.Mohammad

2 жыл бұрын

@I unless they are stupid...

@gabriellucero3540

Жыл бұрын

He said he would talk about zen. He challenged him to give a short reply. It looked like he thought about it

@joansola02

Жыл бұрын

Hahaha so true

@turbostar101

Жыл бұрын

I also noticed this. He handled it well. That student is now immortalized as owner of Bill Engvall's "Here's your sign!"

Just to clarify on the Birthday Problem mentioned at 17:30 : The lecture refers to the high probability of another person, from a group of 40, sharing your birthday. It should be the high probability of at least two people from the group sharing a birthday. If you constrain beforehand who one of the people will be (ie. yourself) then it becomes a lot less likely. The chance of a unique pair is extremely high, the chance of you being part of that pair is relatively low.

@l.w.paradis2108

2 жыл бұрын

Beat me to it, naturally. It was a minor lapsus; he knows, he just misspoke.

@taylorj6177

Жыл бұрын

So.. framed another way: "In a room of about 40 people, you should be able to find at least *one* you should be able to tolerate enough to date."

@pmorris1940

Жыл бұрын

@@taylorj6177 That probability becomes > 1/2 when you reach 23 people in the room.

@dus10dnd

4 ай бұрын

Good call out. The way he stated it is the way I always hear it discussed where "you" is stated. But those are indeed very different probabilities.

i raised my hand for 24 min and he didnt even look at me.

@johannsebastianbach3411

8 жыл бұрын

+The Devil (Satan) If you examine his behaviour in early minutes of the class, you can see that he was out of breath and had a weird tone to his voice. He was probably too excited and nervous at the time. Happens to anyone.

@Ihateradiohead

8 жыл бұрын

+Johann Sebastian Bach word

@DavidLima-le8no

7 жыл бұрын

that was fynny

@aaaab384

6 жыл бұрын

He was too busy saying "like" in every freaking sentence.

@alejandrorivera3068

6 жыл бұрын

I raised it for 25. :(

After I knew him Kurt Gödel by the book written by Rebecca Goldstein, I met this book by chance in the local bookstore year ago. And now, I even hesitate to open it because i cannot imagine from what he says while reading. I just know it is profound work but, It makes me terrible if i can't reach his thought so that i think i should stop reading and need to read something else that help my depth of thought be deep+my English speaking. I didn't imagine these kind of lecture talking about such a book and get impression of people and you professor. Thank you for offering these video. Now these are my guider to understand it with deep depth.

By the time I got to college, my copy of GEB was dogeared. It was my bible. How I would have dreamed to have a class such as this on offer at my university. Finally, in the 90's I had a chance to attend a lecture by Hofstadter himself. The lecture was about computer music and alluding to the Turing test.

@chaidle

5 жыл бұрын

sir. would you please tell me how I can approach to its understanding

@pipildek1200

5 жыл бұрын

?

@dalef9441

4 жыл бұрын

That’s awesome. I’m unable to locate my copy, an 80s softcover. I’m just thrilled with these videos. His mention of Fibonacci sequence at 12 minute mark is telling😉

@dalef9441

4 жыл бұрын

vos je do you have training in algebra? If so, the book can be supplemented with companion text that explains in depth exactly what Hofstadter means. The similarities between the drains in your sink, the shape of hurricanes, and the structure of some galaxies (like our own) are so intimately tied to mathematics that we will eventually be able to create something congruent with human consciousness out of math. Or something.

@suzyhiphop

4 жыл бұрын

@@dalef9441 A copy can be bought on ebay for $5.00 Yes, I was shocked myself!

17:22: The birthday paradox is stated incorrectly. If you are in a room with 40 people, the probability that someone shares your birthday is actually low. However, the probability that there are two people in the room with the same birthday is very high. It is this that is called the birthday paradox.

@torquemada6956

7 жыл бұрын

thank you. that was useful and much relevant.

@mliuzzolino

7 жыл бұрын

Good catch!

@aarongoldsmith9967

6 жыл бұрын

Also, pi can be in included in a correspondence with the natural numbers (27:00). It seems what he meant to say is that given any list, you can always find an irrational number which is not included in the list.

@sabetaytoros4123

6 жыл бұрын

He stated correctly. Leonard Blackburn you are completely wrong Before you write here it was enough to assert with Google. It is not so easy to be a lecturer on MIT. In a room of just 23 people there's a 50-50 chance of two people having the same birthday. In a room of 70 there's a 99.9% chance of two people matching.The birthday paradox is strange, counter-intuitive, and completely true. If you are in a room with 40 people, the probability that someone shares your birthday actually is not low but very high.The probability is % 89.1

@aarongoldsmith9967

6 жыл бұрын

+Sabetay Toros you need to go back to the statement made in the video. Your answer is correct, but the statement in the video is subtly incorrect.

I quickly read through the book after high school thinking it was a spiritual book on consciousness. 10 years later, I come to find it was a book on mathematics!

@dalef9441

4 жыл бұрын

Christopher Walsh it’s both.

@sonnenhafen5499

4 жыл бұрын

it is? because it's more than that. congrats on reading it quickly, i don't manage this, for better or for worse :D

This is brilliant!! thank you for posting this!!! i love lecture videos

Very instructive, Jason, Thank you for posting. I'll follow on with your four other posts.

Thank god. I’ve been reading this book forever lol

this valuable lesson refreshes my sight on how to observe the mathematical world. Great thanks!

What a fascinating and fun lecture!

And people say its difficult to learn/educational opportunities are limited. We live in a time when one can get GEB pdf online and take the MIT companion course for free. Instead people decide to put their time into FB and twatting (or is it tweeting?).

@ikbuhguhphonk

9 жыл бұрын

Or people decide to talk gossip about others on you tube. Plus, not quite sure it is worth to download the pdf.

@AyoRhymer

9 жыл бұрын

Arash Karimi /r/iamverysmart

@ikbuhguhphonk

9 жыл бұрын

Yo, Arash Karimi , please do instruct me where I could get a degree online, would you?

@Metagross923

9 жыл бұрын

Arash Karimi the knowledge is useless without a certificate

@TorAlstad

9 жыл бұрын

Metagross923 Funny, I was thinking the exact opposite.

Thank you, Dr. Justin Curry, for this wonderful lecture.

Jason, thanks so much for posting this video! I am on the last chapter of GEB and thought it would be fun to watch these videos to help me digest the book a little better. It's the most creative book I have ever read, but I never would have tackled it had my software engineering son not encouraged me to (dared me?). These videos are a great summary. Thanks again!

@ToriKo_

2 жыл бұрын

Any books they are a close second? I’d love to know!

I've read GEB 3 times and I recommend it to people all the time. It was very influential on a book I wrote on Forensic Science.

Excellent, excellent lecture, thank you.

He goes from logical elements without value and works it to selfawarness. Isolated the most pertinent parts of the text. Read the book for 7 years. I got to know the book from the outside, but never read it myself. It is a book you treat with reverence, it looks like a good book. Godel, Escher, Bach.

EXCELLENT, IS WONDERFUL. THANKS

Thank You. This is going to be so much fun. You saved me at 27:51. Skipping the first 3 chapters. Ive been stuck in that part of the book.....also you are a very good teacher. I can tell already. This whole course is going to be so fun. ♒♒✨✨✨✨

37:51 Great lecture series... I really liked the idea suggested here about the importance of stepping out of a formal system to see the larger truth about it. Justin generalized this idea to breakthroughs happening in human society. He quoted the example of how Carl Marx. For good or for evil, these people stepped out of the cultural formal system and introduced new ones.

@stephclements6226

Жыл бұрын

human-socie 'cluster'!..overview'nodes'zit..

@prem4302

Жыл бұрын

@Abhishek jha You should go to websites like math stack exchange if you have specific questions. The people there will guide you well. You should also try reaching out to seniors, teachers and professors of your school/college.

I have just read David Foster Wallace History of Infinity, finishing Rebecca Goldstine about Godel, and have read few chapters in GEB by Hofstadter. Thank you for this lecture. It is like a candy for the mind :)

Gravitation can be used to model a physical system that exhibits Godel incompleteness. This gravitational system is the three body problem.

I feel a lot better now, knowing that the 4 years it took me to finish I'm A Strange Loop is not out of the ordinary

This is why we say .. copyrights sucks ! Lets all hope for a free world.

@clintgolub1751

8 жыл бұрын

Have you heard of sci-hub.io? It literally unlocks any research paper that would otherwise cost money. The founder is this Russian women that believes exactly as you do and says cost-barriers are prohibiting advancement of science and higher qualities of life, super cool, check it out

@shadowgallery97

8 жыл бұрын

Deus Ex Machina! Finally I can read a very critical piece i needed

@chaidle

5 жыл бұрын

@@clintgolub1751 it is locked in this point. can you tell me another one?

@literatureandideasdotcom9907

4 жыл бұрын

I think the extract would have been allowed under "fair use", but the law isn't entirely clear, which makes people err on the side of caution.

Great lecture/lesson 👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽

Solved the MU puzzle in

I started thinking on such a high level that I can't see the ground any more.

@MrMathHead

3 жыл бұрын

This is a great video

@jedjedjedjedjedjed

3 жыл бұрын

I just found this book at the bookstore and couldn't figure what the fuck it was, bought it, brought it home, am now here

He pushed through the S-triangle example too fast, which is a great shame. A few more minutes would've made the argument clear. The issue is that the S-triangle upon doubling gives an empty triangle in the middle and three triangles that are exactly identical due to a property of fractiles called self-similarity. This is why you have three *identical* S-triangles left after the doubling process. If we had a normal solid triangle, it would have had four copies of the original triangle, yielding a dimension of 2 (log_2(4) = 2). Similarly, if we were looking at the triangle's two dimensional perimeter, it would have twice the number of each edge, for a dimension of log_2(2)=1.

@SighrisSargon

10 жыл бұрын

Thanks, I was wondering why it was 3 and not 4... I was guessing (correctly) the whole in the center was the cause; but I didn't fully understand until I read your explanation.

@MatthewDuPuy

9 жыл бұрын

Right, he is changing the function on the set (number of dimensions). He defines the line as 1 dimensional and then bisects it in one dimension to get 2. He defines the square as two dimensional and then bisects it in two dimensions to get 4 squares. He defines the cube as 3 dimensions and bisects it on each dimension to get 8 cubes. Then he changes the function; the triangle is set in two dimensions but he no longer bisects it, he trisects it. He is no longer operating on the same premise he originally defined. If you change the function, of course the results are different. This is not a partial dimension or "A really cool concept".

9 жыл бұрын

Matthew Du Puy Evan Siegel i think the explanation is not really clear in this video, but the concept of fractal dimension is about how the area is increased when the figure is scaled using a 2x factor. In the case of the S-triangle is the area is increased 3 times when triangle is scaled using 2x factor instead been increased 4 times as you expect for any 2d figure. I think it would be clearer if the area was shaded and you can see the inverted triangle in the middle is not part of the area.

@evansiegel1732

9 жыл бұрын

Yes, I know that. Just wish he'd done a better job of it from his video. Thanks.

The Birthday Paradox concerns the probability of find two people in a room with the same birthday. The probability of a particular person finding another with the same birthday is a different thing and much smaller.

Acabo de comprar el libro, estoy emocionado por empezarlo 😌

Just started reading the book; really looking forward to these lectures!

@evedotcom

3 жыл бұрын

How did you go?

@pharofx5884

3 жыл бұрын

7 years later he should be close to finishing

@adamstricoff9708

3 жыл бұрын

I got the book in two divisions. Animals and then Foods. AI though.

@tototrapsilo

2 жыл бұрын

it has been 7 years, what do you think?

@phillaysheo8

Жыл бұрын

He never finished it 🤣

This content is great! Thanks!

That's smart lecture notes numbered for the use of the refto book

I started reading this about 6 years ago, got about 1/3 in and stopped for no particular reason. I have been thinking about it again recently...

"Finally, there is the concept of infinity. I can't really talk too much about it..." XD (and note "finally" ;)

4 жыл бұрын

XD you caught me off guard there but I did get it at the end after reading your comment twice

“When I taught this course two Springs ago…” as a Sophomore. I didn’t get up in front of a class and formally teach a subject until my Senior year, and that was about once every 2-3 class days, since all of us MathEd-majors had to take turns.

Thank you!! Love this lecture. And the work of Hofstadter. Currently reading 'I am a strange loop'. I always enjoyed thinking about that kind of issues. ♥️🧠🤯

@bendavis2234

3 жыл бұрын

I’m stuck between starting that book or GEB... which one should be started first? Are they essentially about the same subject?

@dylanesguerra3492

2 жыл бұрын

@@bendavis2234 GEB I have never read strange loop but I have heard some people are turned off by it because it is too preachy compared to the example filled GEB

@bendavis2234

2 жыл бұрын

@@dylanesguerra3492 I've actually started Strange Loop since my last comment and I didn't like it that much. I'm about half way through but have given up unfortunately. I was listening to the audio book and the reader was driving me nuts! I'll have to order the printed GEB and see if it's any better.

@dylanesguerra3492

2 жыл бұрын

@@bendavis2234 I think you will like it more. I’m halfway done with it and started about a month ago. No matter what you will find certain parts very interesting whether or not you believe in the grand message of the book.

@bendavis2234

2 жыл бұрын

@@dylanesguerra3492 yup I think you’ll be right. The subject matter is extremely interesting so you can’t go wrong. I think it was just his writing style that turned me off in Strange Loop for some reason. From what I’ve heard GEB is unanimously liked more so it’s worth giving a shot despite my opinion of his other book. Also it would be nice to finish this lecture series while I’m at it. Completely forgot about this until you commented!

This was posted ten years ago. It’s 2023 and ai brought me here to gain more insight self. We are in the future

Thanks for sharing ! Very helpful !

Does this lecture go into any analysis and further development of the book and subject or does it simply explain it and expand on the concepts that go into it to make it understandable for people who otherwise wouldn't get it?

I read the first hundred pages of Godel Escher Bach and struggled a bit. Watching your lecture after really helped.

asking students to solve a problem in class, and not giving them time to try it, is more cruel than giving them an unsolvable problem.

@stephclements6226

Жыл бұрын

nueero'students'immer?...

Thank you. Love it. Upvote.

I could sit down and read this in a day, it wouldn't be hard to read it. Absorbing it will take a long time.

Great lecture

I haven’t finished the video but does he finish the MIU theorem proof using the axioms?

at 8:09, someone walked out. This brings me back to my university days. Whilst the lecture is talking, some students gobble up his dictation verbatim. Some listen to his spew, and actually have original thoughts of themselves for themselves . This is a brilliant lecture 😊👌

@blahblahblahblahblahblahblahbl

Жыл бұрын

/r/IAmVerySmart

@carlosmbaziira4137

Жыл бұрын

@@blahblahblahblahblahblahblahbl WTF????

@TheOneAndOnlyZeno1889

Жыл бұрын

@@carlosmbaziira4137 r/WTF????

The term "fractal" refers to the fact that the set presents many details at many scales (fractionated in the sense of broken set) not to the fact the dimension is not integral. In fact fractals can have integral dimension and when the dimension is not integral it is usually irrational and hence not a fraction.

@stephclements6226

Жыл бұрын

any info has 0moored explain,2unes allieds!?..

Beautiful - thanks for posting this! I partially read GEB two decades ago as a young undergrad, and it was a profound influence. I've taken it up again now that I find myself with lots of spare time (hope I'll read it all this time!...) and it's interesting to see other people's takes on it. Thanks again!

@coolkidcrypto386

3 жыл бұрын

Whats the book called thanks ?

@b00i00d

3 жыл бұрын

@@coolkidcrypto386 I'm not sure whether you're asking me the obvious, in which case the clue is in the title and my initials (Godel Escher Bach)

@coolkidcrypto386

3 жыл бұрын

@@b00i00d yes ! Im asking the obvious question, what's the book name.

@coolkidcrypto386

3 жыл бұрын

@@b00i00d thanks for the smart ass reply

@b00i00d

3 жыл бұрын

@@coolkidcrypto386 Anytime... Ever heard of Google search?

This gets SO much more interesting as it goes on. Even though this guy needs to work on his public speaking skills, he is clearly well-versed on some seriously deep sh*t. More power to ya, boooyyy. I'm watching all these vids. Quantum physics is getting boring. I'm interested in the limits of logic, and how it applies to philosophy and the mind of [the creator of the universe]. Logic, symbols, and how they fit together and break down might define human reality. (Although I think there is much more, somehow.)

@thenowchurch6419

6 жыл бұрын

HappyLobsterShow. You should be into Wittgenstein . Have you checked him out yet ?

@alexroitburt323

6 жыл бұрын

c c

In Zen and the art of Motorcycle maintenance, Persig talks about dynamic quality ans stratified levels of static order. it is a vision of complexity.

@stephclements6226

Жыл бұрын

desCeasERdoltSPApar0tER

With the way he describes zeno's paradox.... Would a base 0-9 real number axiom be necessary for "infinitely infinite"recursion and imaginary numbers of half steps?

🛹 and 🚗 - no steering wheel, but you can abstract the function of steering and still map since both systems do have steering - lots of ways to cut and sort

2m32s -- "You may remember Dick Clark's famous statement, 'I think therefore I am.' " I don't think Dick Clark said that. I think he said, "I rock therefore I am." Fred

If that guy that asked the question @1:48; "What's this class about?" wasn't wearing a tanktop I'd be really surprised.

@goosew3266

5 жыл бұрын

He's in a tanktop and at MIT, you're not in a tanktop and not at MIT

@Sam-um9nu

5 жыл бұрын

Gray Wagner dude relax

@goosew3266

5 жыл бұрын

@@Sam-um9nu k

@Sam-um9nu

5 жыл бұрын

@@goosew3266 thanks

When you have a high school education in math but still find this absolutely fascinating.. I wish I could go back in time. lol

Read the book independently while taking "Computability and Formal Languages" at Barnard/Columbia back in the 80s.

It basicly states that I was a bad maths student because I was always metathinking

please turn on community-contributions for a subtitle to let people add subtitles...

Ever since I read Godel Escher Bach, I have maintained that "isomorphism" is the most important word of our age for properly understanding the universe. Also, I suspect the answer to whether the universe is deterministic or not may be "both".

@stephclements6226

Жыл бұрын

synchro blots

please turn on community-contributions for a subtitle to let people add subtitles...

I read 90% of the book at age 18 in the eighties and followed up with "The Mind's I" by Hofstädter and Dennett which was similar but different in its form of presentation. Both books deeply influenced me (I called them my personal bible) and when internet came out in the late nineties one on my first e-mails went to Hofstädter asking him about how he could cope with his overwhelming knowledge? He kindly responded that it was no problem for him. I was clearly struggling to find meaning in life and not become a nihilist back then. I'm still around and I'm still fascinated by GEB that uses a twist that AFAIK no one ever mentioned anywhere: SPOILER ALERT!!! The book itself is self-reflecting and it ends where it starts - like an eternal golden braid. Am I the only one who noticed that genius move by Hofstädter?

@viezlimo

5 жыл бұрын

I think I read about this in an amazon review of the book... and I hate spoilers :)

@PianoGesang

5 жыл бұрын

@@viezlimo Sorry, I now updated my comment with "Spoiler Alert". However, I have never met anyone who realized the mentioned twist.

@stephclements6226

Жыл бұрын

fascist emotok

@talastra

Жыл бұрын

@@PianoGesang It is very circular all throughout the book: GEB and EGB throughout: eternal golden braid. My memory, from a thousand years ago, is that it's constantly reiterated. Plus, all the circular figures in the book, the crab canon (and the crab canon dialogue), self-referentiality in general (and in LISP), the looping images from Escher. Eternal Golden Braid. Eternal Golden Braid.

@talastra

Жыл бұрын

Also, James Joyce's Finnegans Wake is usually considered the first literally circular book; it wraps around from its last sentence to the first. But Samuel Delany's Dhalgren might be much better known, and it too wraps around. Both books were published before GEB. Speaking of which, and circles, GEB is the father of the Egyptian gods (so to speak) and the god of snakes, which in Egyptian iconography have at times very famously swallowed their own tail, i.e.,, they form a circle.

So did the lecture end or did they cut out some of the end?Why did it fade out while the teacher was still talking?

I remember reading in the book of a inferior computer which wood claim defeat in a programmed chess game sooner than a computer of more circuitry so to speak. I myself found a gray area of interest in that determination.

I want to translate this video into my language, can I find verbatim report of this lectyre somewere?

Enjoying this. Are the class notes lecturer refers to somewhere online? ( I have the book )

@stephclements6226

Жыл бұрын

k-means colostaaz!?..

Another ingenuous idea of Hofstadter related to Fibonacci numbers and recursion is to change a little bit the Fibonacci recurrence and to get another sequence with a really weird behaviour! ~This is explained here: kzread.info/dash/bejne/Z3WHxamzlpi1lpc.html

His assertion at ~17:30 about "finding someone else with your birthday in a room of 40 people" was misstated. He should have said "finding two people with the same birthday". The probability of the two statements are very different. The first one is not surprising, but the second one is.

excellent that is he doing in 2020 .

QM-TIME singularity is the context of particular quantitative resonant phase-states of "self-referential" existence, persons, in a content that combined, has the quality of "I", and because all these resonant phase-states are tuned-timing images of the singularity, the individual combinations represent some degree of focus of the whole. (That's a short description in current terms of a very old repeat discovery of a personal self in the context of a Universal self. It is what it is, elaboration doesn't enhance the principle.)

@stephclements6226

Жыл бұрын

CAr2neat charRevPol'key2goRuby'edge-semails?..

Awesome!

I love provocative topics

Yes. I figured that if I forgot your reward, I should at least conjure up an expression similar to regret.

Would someone explain the sierpinski gasket having ~1.5 dimensions? When you double it, it's true that it has 3 copies; however, it's 3 copies plus 1 original in the center (which equals 4, which equals 2^2...no surprises). Likewise, if you look at doubling the square, you have 3 copies plus 1 original. I can't help but feel there's either something I've missed or that there's a mathematical slight of hand that he just pulled.

@guilldea

8 жыл бұрын

I also had trouble understanding how fractals can live in fractional dimensions like 1.5 etc. What helped me most was this: Imagine the simplest fractal its a line that you divide in there slices and erase the one in the middle, you have now two smaller lines after the first iteration, in the second iteration of this process of dividing and erasimg you get 4 smaller lines but remember, a proper fractal doesn't have a finite number of iterations like 1 or 2, the process is done infinitelly many times. So the question now is what are you left with? You are left with infinitelly many lines that are infinitelly small, it is obvious that after every step you are ALWAYS going to be leaving some segments, no matter how small they are, you've done it infinite times so what you are left with is an object that's less than a line but more than a point, the line inhabits the first dimension and the point the 0 dimension your object lives in dimension 0.5, same with dimension 1.4789 it's an object that is less than a flat surface but more than a thin line, obviously it's physically impossible for us to create or observe such object since quantum mechanics tells is that space, energy and time is unsplitable (sorry I'm spanish) when we get small enough. I hope this was useful to you as much as it was to me :)

@shootdaj

7 жыл бұрын

Yes, the fractal is built by starting with the original big triangle and drawing an inner triangle. But the way the fractal is built is not part of the proof. The proof for non-integral dimensionality is that the middle part is actually not self-similar to the rest of the triangles. If you look up the Sierpinski Triangle, you will see that the inner triangle is always completely empty, so it's not actually copy from that sense. But yes, I agree there is something weird about it. In the sense that the proof of it comes from outside the system. But I suppose that is the entire premise of this book.

@bautibunge737

2 жыл бұрын

Its been 6 years, I know. But for someone that reads it today, remember that when you add the trangles, you must leave the center empty, so when you double the length of the side of the triangles, you have three times the original triangle, not 4

@stephclements6226

Жыл бұрын

@@bautibunge737 diamond pentiV too quad 'coyENteX!'caChaRi..

@bautibunge737

Жыл бұрын

@@stephclements6226 ??

Both. It is part of the search query and I did not understand the PQ system based solely on the usage in this video.

I bought GEB when it came out. Best non-fiction book I have ever read & I treasure it, even if it is only a paperback!

@HitomiAyumu

6 жыл бұрын

flamencoprof I recommend The Fabric of Reality by David Deutsch. Its equally as mind blowing!

@TerjeMathisen

3 жыл бұрын

You were too patient: I ordered the hardcover as soon as I heard about it. :-)

@kevinleeds979

Жыл бұрын

my paperback copy has really fallen apart

Just wow ...

This is amazing when you know music theory

@jamesmackay4529

4 жыл бұрын

explain? I know some theory

@HowTosandTips

3 жыл бұрын

How

@stephclements6226

Жыл бұрын

@@jamesmackay4529 alexinfowars in v ole outta metaver marxbros slapstickaz c!!...

@stephclements6226

Жыл бұрын

@@HowTosandTips pokohunters mott c keyloqWaltz0ranjs

I have been at it (on and off) for 30 years now and still have not got through it!

I believe you misspoke when you were explaining the "Birthday Paradox". You said that most people assume that you would need a large group of people in order to ensure that someone in the room has the same birthday as you, and you said that you would really only need about 40 people in the room for this result. There is no way that that could be true. Did you mean to say that, in a group of about 40 people, there will very likely be two people with the same birthday as each other?

@jonkiparsky7369

4 жыл бұрын

Not "very likely", but better odds than a toss of a fair coin.

@alexcai1320

2 жыл бұрын

Actually, he's right; you only need 23 people for a 50% chance that two people share the same birthday. You can read about it here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthday_problem

Next level MIT OCW.

Gödel, Escher, Bach: A Mental Space Odyssey - OCW-MIT, presented by Justin Curry and Curran Kelleher (2007). Very interesting view of Douglas Hofstadter's excellent book...

@stephclements6226

Жыл бұрын

kornFL8sWallRUzs!

I purchased this book 3 years ago. Still haven't read a page😂. I am attempting to now.

"Dialogue C cannot be spoken in this lecture series"

@stephclements6226

Жыл бұрын

sincs fia oft lornderngsz!!.. KOkeynays

Thank you professor Curry😊

26 in it reminds me of that inverse calculus in field theory kinda, and cantor

49:52 Couldn't 'q' just mean "there are as many '-' on either side of 'q', and 'p' is/are ignored". Then the axiom wouldn't be broken, correct? In other words, isn't it just a matter of framing the symbols to fit the axiom in different contexts?

@stephclements6226

Жыл бұрын

!!2&6?..[8/16/23|64!]..rot

I remember some of the book from when I read the book at age 15. There are these three contradictory ideas about what I thought it had in it: First, I don't remember clearly thinking that it was about trying to define a self. But, I found a paper I wrote for some philosophy class I took about the Mind-Body Problem - and the grader wrote on it "A book report on Godel, Escher, Bach is not a solution to the mind-body problem". And I guess it's funny now that when I think of the book, I don't think it had anything to do with the mind-body problem, because I don't remember that aspect of it. So here in lecture 1, I also don't understand how looking at math is going to answer anything about what it's like to have a mind. We're fundamentally physical bodies. The solution to the mind-body problem is that our brains are parts of our bodies and our bodies are part of the universe - so I think it's that everything is connected - I have read that the only consistent explanation for consciousness is that everything is conscious. And that is what actually makes sense to me.

@jroc2201

Жыл бұрын

I think you may be correct, I also think that everything may exist and may not exist

@kevinleeds979

Жыл бұрын

@@jroc2201 it's good to be open-minded. And some day philosophers with their careful definitions and carefully built structures of thoughts might really succeed in making the world comprehensible, if philosophers actually exist

@talastra

Жыл бұрын

Unless you realize that without a mind you don't have a brain, you will remain stuck in naïve realism forever. The turn to "embodied consciousness" relatively lately is the beginning of a genuine paradigm shift. The Nobel Prize in physics last year that the universe is not locally real is the first major acknowledgment of this. GEB is too "in the 70s" to be addressing the problem you describe; I think that is correct. It was still very mired in the very false idea that the brain analogizes to a computer (never mind that a mind doesn't). Recursion is the magic bullet in the book, and self-referentiality is indeed essential. But the real kick in the balls is Gödel. The idea that no "system" can fully self-describe itself from within the system is exactly what connects GEB to the recently Nobel Prize. Uncomfortable as it makes people, the color "red" is not a property of things but arises only in the Mind, and attempts to reify "something out there" that is not already subject to the paradigm of Consciousness is an article of bad faith. Read some of the cyberneticians if you want to get a flavor how it works, especially Maturana & Varela's "Tree of Knowledge." It was (first-order) cybernetics fault that first analogized brain and computer, but cybernetics also realized the error (in second-order cybernetics), but the world hasn't taken up that baton in a big way yet. The paradigm is approaching for doing so, however. It is not only possible, but desirable, to do physics with space and time (that, again, is the gist of the Novel Prize); just let that sink in, physics without space and time as an assumption. Donald Hoffman is going to try to mathematize "Consciousness" (and that will still be a mistake), but it's a less critical mistake than imagining "space" and "time" (and all properties ascribed to "reality" including "reality") are literal. Of course, dharmic epistemology has known this for 5000 years. In 1957, Ross Ashby already said: living systems are open to energy but closed to information and control. Although he was writing when first-order cybernetics was the main framework, it is already the axiom of second-order cynbernetics. As Maturana & Varela put it, "Everything said is said by someone" (every perception arises from a perceiving living system). So, what we perceive is not "reality" (no serious philosopher thinks this anymore), but a description of an observation of an experience. When we say, "The sun set," we are already two removes from anything like "reality." Again, the illusion of maya has been known for 5000 years elsewhere. We're still playing catch-up, and looming extinction due to climate change is one of the most clear demonstrations that "we" have it incorrect. Meanwhile, again, until you realize that Mind is logically prior to Brain, you'll be hopelessly stuck in a self-created impasse.

Logic as allegory...Thomas Mann ...Venice adventures....

Wow, why the hell did MIT take this course down?!? I really wanted to know which readings were covered in each lecture. Does anyone know if there's a syllabus that says what the readings are?

At 5:00 "refers to itself" and "has meaning" are used as if they are the same thing or at least truth-equivalent. Is there a proof for this later in the lecture or in the book? It would be a waste of time for me to read a book or watch a lecture based on assumptions that I don't hold.

Thanks for the upload sir

Does someone know how to get the course's notes the teacher gave to the students of these lectures? I really want to go into this fantastic book but I cannot find many information

@roibosh5190

9 жыл бұрын

MissTeresa ocw.mit.edu/high-school/humanities-and-social-sciences/godel-escher-bach/lecture-notes/

@stephclements6226

Жыл бұрын

liz10toUniVerse!..

Anyone starting this book now or planning to start anytime sooner ?

@nyb_ok

5 жыл бұрын

I am

The Monte-Hall 3-Doors Puzzle with only one door being a winner seems to fall under one of the types of apparent paradoxes where the answer seems arbitrary but is absolutely true. The puzzle: You choose one door (1/3 chance of winning), but then Monte opens up one of the remaining doors, which is a loser, and he gives you the chance to choose again between the remaining 2 doors (stand pat or switch to the last non-chosen door). What should you do? The answer is ABSOLUTELY to switch to the non-chosen door since the chance of winning goes way up then. Most people do not see the point, but it seems that the Universe is lazy and if you do nothing, your odds remain 1/3 but if you now choose the other door, the chance now goes up at least to 1/2. But you HAVE to make the switch to change to the new odds since otherwise, the old odds remain. The Lazy Universe Theorem?

@Oners82

4 жыл бұрын

Nathan Okun "if you do nothing, your odds remain 1/3 but if you now choose the other door, the chance now goes up at least to 1/2. But you HAVE to make the switch to change to the new odds" A bit misleading. The odds do not go up to "at least 1/2" if you switch, they go up to precisely 2/3. And it has got nothing to do with the universe being lazy, it is just simple math. There was always a 2/3 chance that the winner was not your door, and this remains the case when Monte removes one of the options because he knows that he is choosing a loser. There was a 2/3 chance it was one of the doors you did not choose, so when Monte opens one that he knows is a loser there is STILL a 2/3 chance it is behind the door that you did not choose.

anyone know of a link to download these lectures? i searched iTunes U, but no dice. thanks in advance.

@bigray712

9 жыл бұрын

Just google "download youtube videos" and you will find an abundant of websites that will allow you to download videos from youtube, in any format and available quality you want.