Hello, KZreadrs. The World Science Festival is looking for enthusiastic translation ambassadors for its KZread translation project. To get started, all you need is a Google account. Check out The Limits of Understanding to see how the process works: kzread.info_video?v=DfY-DRsE86s&ref=share To create your translation, just type along with the video and save when done. Check out the full list of programs that you can contribute to here: kzread.info_cs_panel?c=UCShHFwKyhcDo3g7hr4f1R8A&tab=2 The World Science Festival strives to cultivate a general public that's informed and awed by science. Thanks to your contributions, we can continue to share the wonder of scientific discoveries with the world.

@adriancatalin1229

6 жыл бұрын

World Science Festival

@gentbar7296

5 жыл бұрын

ok

@Triumvirate888

5 жыл бұрын

My favorite way to sum up Incompleteness is like this: 1st Incompleteness: "In systems with rules, some truths require a little faith, because truth is bigger than any rules we can conceive of to describe it." 2nd Incompleteness: "The logical consistency of a system cannot be proved from within that same system: you need to go outside the system itself to find proof of it."

@pauldarson3896

3 жыл бұрын

L

@rudykrutar3319

3 жыл бұрын

Who shaves the barber? Nobody shaves her1

It doesn't matter what documentary I fall asleep to on KZread, when I wake up, this is on.

@trevorrogers95

3 жыл бұрын

I can’t watch ScienceAsylum without the auto play invariably playing one of these discussions.

@valisteverga8015

3 жыл бұрын

fr

@getupandgetgoing

3 жыл бұрын

lol so true

@gregorywilson7955

3 жыл бұрын

I just woke up in this rabbit hole. Lol

@tienkebosherpelzmann6465

3 жыл бұрын

I can write the number 7 on a piece of paper and then rub it out, does it mean it stopped existing? The mapping of the Mandelbrot's mathematical equation fractal set proof of the eternal(infinite) mind of YHWH. Anything and everything have been created. We just have not discovered it yet... Yip mathematics is alive!!!

I’m not good at mathing, but I do know one thing.. that hum in the speakers is because the power amps and mic are plugged into the same circuit as the lights.

@zdcnewwavementoring6270

3 жыл бұрын

dont u love how science people understand collapsing dimensions but cant get a decent sound for the talks.

@hlaakaplee

3 жыл бұрын

I want it to stop but it’s also kinda fun hearing every time someone gets a text message

@angelinarobert622

3 жыл бұрын

There's a hum? i can't hear it. life with hearing loss.

@jsmrt6875

3 жыл бұрын

I can’t watch because of it, 8min in.... killing my ears. Wish I could have heard this discussion.

@tienkebosherpelzmann6465

3 жыл бұрын

priceless... hahaha!

FINALLY!! A moderator who let the scientists talk and the discussion evolve naturally. Brilliant discussion by some brilliant people. Thank you

This was a group of very intelligent, opinionated, and socially awkward individuals who nonetheless managed to have a stimulating and thought provoking conversation. Made me feel right at home.

@MrBendybruce

3 жыл бұрын

Maybe there is such a thing as supersymmetry after all :)

@zariawardrope1331

3 жыл бұрын

This was a group of very intelligent, opinionated, and socially awkward individuals who nonetheless managed to have a stimulating and thought provoking conversation. Made me feel right at home.

@darrylschultz6479

3 жыл бұрын

@@zariawardrope1331 Socially awkward? A teensy bit of friction at one point but that's not bad for a discussion amongst 5 people lasting over an hour. For 99% of the time they communicated in a relaxed and confident manner. I bet most people wish they were as socially skilled to be honest.

@otthoheldring

2 жыл бұрын

Socially awkward? Really?

@SireCs133

2 жыл бұрын

Why you describing them as socially awkward?

Too short. Every single of them deserves at least 2h just alone. Finally some actual discussion. Great. Enjoyed.

It's nice to see a humble presenter for a change. This is one of the few presenters in theese WSF panel discussions that doesn't interrupt the panelists while they're speaking and it makes for much more interesting discussions. I wonder when the other egomanic presenters will realise this.

@theresatyler4043

6 жыл бұрын

LOLOLOLLLOLOLLLLLOLOLOLOL....

@SimonFryPsifry

6 жыл бұрын

Hi yo

'The more I think about language, the more it amazes me that people ever understand each other at all.' - Kurt Gödel Ω The statement A ∧ B is true if A and B are both true; else it is false. ☑️ 101

@b.savage8953

2 жыл бұрын

What's even more amazing is that animals don't seem to be hindered by the boundaries of languages .

Mario is my favourite science illustrator. He is able to come to conclusion from multiple and divergent questions. Congratulations for this video.

To me, Gödels theorem essentially states that it is impossible to have an isolated system. Any system can only be complete and true within the context of another system. This theorem is fundamentally consistent with features of quantum mechanics and special relativity. In quantum mechanics, the mechanism of observation tells us what is true about an electron or photon and in special relativity the measurement of energy is always in the context of another system. These are core features of our reality. The best part about this theorem, for anything to exist there must be an endless chain of systems that describe (prove/validate) it. Ultimately, there is no end to the feast of knowledge.

@omega82718

4 жыл бұрын

Gödel doesn't apply to computable mathematics like constructive mathematics under the realizability interpretation. Our universe is probably computable, a theory of everything is still possible.

@elgatoconbolas

3 жыл бұрын

AFAIK, you can have complete systems inside other system, but it doesn't relieve you of contradictions.

@StephenPaulKing

3 жыл бұрын

Well said!!!!

@nasibars4575

3 жыл бұрын

Not a theory from within the system.....an out of the box

@joannthomases9304

3 жыл бұрын

Our purpose to life is to try to find God, in everything. So, there is your eternity. ...Additionally, i could talk to these thinkers all day. Thought it was all about "communication", therefore i began ciphering words....Now noone will talk to me..haha..We, made our language to control but it began controlling us. We memorize in patterns. It seems like everything is magnetism on various forms of matter. Now, how do i know all scientists care? Cause they're always asking ........"What's' the matter ?" Lol. Here's my problem..you guys are light years ahead of me, sooo did i really just see you ? Haha.. You have us thinking.

At 22:40: "80 years later we still don't know what the hell Gödel proved."Thank you so much. I thought I was the only idiot. Makes me feel so much better.

@DinoDiniProductions

2 жыл бұрын

What he proved depends on your assumptions. Which is the point of the proof ultimately.

Great discussion. I love how Minski is the only panel member who gets applause, despite the fact that he has repeatedly, confidently, and so consistently shot down the work and direction of other scientists for decades and repeatedly turned-out to be wrong. It’s fine to be wrong, especially while pushing boundaries, but his hubris has cost us decades of important research across thousands of great scientists. Worse yet, he still argued for his disproven approaches, and against validated and verified science such as the perceptron/neural networking; denying basic reality along the way in favor of his disproven beliefs.

One of best discussion on any science topic that I ever saw. it was relevant and also entertaining. kudos to all the panelists and big thumbs up

@tamaralanzrath5399

3 жыл бұрын

E

@Dempseylemon

3 жыл бұрын

It was fantastic. They describe mathematics as a sort of tool we use in a dualistic world to help us progress our goals. Physics is another. But what tool we use will depend on our concepts and our goals. We use physical tools to build houses and we use our mental tools to add concepts to it by calling it 'house' as if it would finalized the product.

@Broomful

2 жыл бұрын

Fascinating Indeed

The wonderful thing about these brilliant people is their senses of humor. I can't imagine a greater group to have a drink with.

@shotatoriumi6533

3 жыл бұрын

The wonderful thing about these brilliant people is their senses of humor. I can't imagine a greater group to have a drink with.

@geode8556

3 жыл бұрын

Yes! I love this panel! Intelligence is so absent in today's conversations!

@AbnRangerJoe

3 жыл бұрын

Geo De Boy, isn’t the truth. Instead, we have to talk about Angry Housewives or the Bachelor. I think I might enjoy the company of people more if we could talk about meaningful things rather than how my day is going.

@Sammy_82

3 жыл бұрын

I agree. But I also think the storytelling of science was great.

@Neighborhoodcarpetcleaners

3 жыл бұрын

I don't think the drink

Livio is so good in this, impressive how he brought everyone together

@MrAlanfalk73

3 жыл бұрын

The best IMO

@jasonballsack4826

3 жыл бұрын

Hmmm yes his presentation was superb 🧐🖕🏾

@ladyfame1430

3 жыл бұрын

Your thumbnail is gorgeous

@AbnRangerJoe

3 жыл бұрын

I agree. He is a humble, natural leader and team builder. You can hear that in the way he includes others in his thoughts.

@darrylschultz6479

3 жыл бұрын

@@ladyfame1430 Should see the nail on his big toe!😝

Every mathematician was once a child. Piaget went on to study children to arrive at the "what is knowledge" question. I believe that is very important and has been forgotten in this discussion.

@Yarblocosifilitico

6 жыл бұрын

Paulo Abelha not sure what you mean, could you elaborate?

@thisgame2

2 жыл бұрын

Knowledge is awareness of understanding. Understanding is comprehension. Comprehension is realization. Which I believe is something you realize by questioning something,that is wonder. It starts to breakdown to simple question words. What how when where why. Next could be logical realities yet to be discovered outside of our minds conscious ability

Now that we've agreed on consciousness, what about free will? Excellent presentation. Funny, informative, insightful. We need more of these conversations.

The advantage of not being smart is that I'm always living in awe of such people. It's a world of wonder! How can people be so gifted?! How do they come up with such elegant ideas?!!!

@texasgonzo67

2 жыл бұрын

Scares me at times that I'm capable of wrapping my head around most any subject almost instantly. From anything mechanical to quantum entanglement... carpentry to cooking, tattooing to astrophysics, etc. I get it all, along with serious headaches on occasion, usually while making yet another failed attempt to understand stupid. That is the one thing I just can't comprehend. Ignorance is natural and fully curable, but stupid seems to be forever! Never forget folks, there are 10 types of people in the world... those who get binary, and those who never will. 😆

@falsehoodbasher7240

2 жыл бұрын

You *got* to be kidding

@Gacha_Ava64

2 жыл бұрын

2+2=5

Hello, congratulations to the moderator, Paul Nurse, for actually letting the speakers talk :-) ✔

@mickelodiansurname9578

7 жыл бұрын

Sajjad Mehal Agree...The best moderators are the ones that interject only when speakers start to repeat themselves or the question is now done...and only interject with a new subject... Often times you get tired of moderators that are either media whores or comedians... I do anyway.

@brotherman8635

4 жыл бұрын

Seconded.

@jrsiv1957

4 жыл бұрын

Amen! This is why I'm so done with Neil deGrasse Tyson.

@ameetdmello2525

3 жыл бұрын

ha ha ha ha .. this cracked me up..

@TonyKlein

3 жыл бұрын

@@jrsiv1957 the

What I love most is that after 1 hours and 20 minutes and 35 seconds we are no closer to answering the fundamental questions of why are we here and where are we from. Keep going guys.

@salamjihad3449

3 жыл бұрын

god says different !

I found Mr Livio most inspiring,just like a fresh new air entering in my head.He has many interesting views which is simple to understand and very compelling.And although he's not native English speaker,I found he's accent most easy to listen clearly:).

@brynbstn

3 жыл бұрын

He’s a very clear thinker / speaker ; also has a diplomatic spirit

@Scathingly

2 жыл бұрын

I agree whole heartedly besides which he has a great sense of humour unlike the mathematician, Gregory Chaitin, who needs to loosen up a bit. At some point in the discussion I thought he was about to box our affable physicist in the nose. *😁

@FlockOfHawks

2 жыл бұрын

exact copy of a korean's comment 6 years earlier , brilliant (?)

I didn't care much for the tension around 1h into the video, but I really enjoyed the talk, thank you, I watch one of these every night

@martinconnell7939

5 жыл бұрын

bsdpowa I’m also watching as many of these as possible since discovering the series last month. It’s totally intriguing 👍

Incredibly interesting discussion. Thank you for making this content available.

Five years ago we reached out limit of understanding and entered an era of willful misunderstanding.

@Zenga01

3 жыл бұрын

That deserves a pouse for thought. You may be right.

@pamelawinson3192

3 жыл бұрын

Some people on this chat are from years ago.

@pamelawinson3192

3 жыл бұрын

@@Zenga01 some people on chat are from.yeses ago..

@user-xv1gr1of8t

3 жыл бұрын

We have entered the age of Aquarius (or age of information). But with lots of information comes distraction, due to false Information 'sometimes' being blended into the truth

@TheHelvetican

3 жыл бұрын

@@user-xv1gr1of8t The water is truly being poured upon us.

Mario Livio is such a treat. very intellectual, very funny too

@chunglee7531

2 жыл бұрын

One of the more intelligent one

Minksy's smugness and dismissal of consciousness reminds me of an aged professor quite pleased with himself; we can find all the answers we need regarding consciousness in chapter 6 of his book (which he constantly plugged). Obviously his consciousness has dissected the rest of the world's consciousnesses into 26 'simple problems.' With this and the professorial wave of his hand he can dismiss the problem of consciousness even with its implications at the quantum level. Ridiculous. Perhaps his age and position have moved him to mediocrity with a big ego. One would have thought that Minsky, at the very least, would address language being the central problem. Language is measurement of the natural world; it is not the natural world. The word is not the thing. That is the basic limitation of all language. Mathematics is a superior language when it comes to measuring things in the natural world. But even math is finite and limited at describing the unlimited nature of the world, quantum reality, the universe, and beyond.

lol @ the few of us in the world who would watch a video like this by choice.

@virvisquevir3320

5 жыл бұрын

Neuromancer - LOL. Aren't we lucky?

@Sound_man73_Electronics

4 жыл бұрын

@@virvisquevir3320 Yes, we are lucky :)

@Sash248

4 жыл бұрын

meanwhile friends of mine watch PewDiePie and Ksi and make strange faces when i tell them about 3hr long intense debates like these

@karlkoch9324

4 жыл бұрын

600k views...

@suzannemenuet947

3 жыл бұрын

I know this is 3yrs late, but nerds rule. 😁

Thanks a lot! It was a very interesting speech. I really appreciated Dr. Mario Livio's critique about "concepts" and how their creation shapes and changes the degree and development of knowledge. I also appreciated Dr. Marvin Minsky's critique about "defining consciousness" as an act that in fact hide our lack of understanding of what consciousness really is, that is to say: consciousness is what it is. We can know what consciousness is through consciousness itself by the act of observing itself, that is through meditation. Every word and argument are within consciousness, inner to it, they cannot define it, just as a puppet cannot define its puppeteer or a product its producer. Any consciousness definition is consciousness itself product so that it can't be realistic, authentic, true. A vase cannot define its potter but only give clues and hints about. There's no word to know what consciousness is, but it is possible by direct perception trough a self-observing process, trough meditation. However things may be deeper than that.

This was, as always, another extraordinary exhibition from our friends at world science festival. I would like to offer an idea. The last question presented was if there was another civilization reaching out, what would we say or talk with them about? While inevitably good ideas for responses were given, might I add that a discussion of love could prove valuable. Love, kindness, strength, honor, dedication, selflessness, passion, courage: these are all things that you and me and all of us share as humans/earthlings, these are things that bring us to our discoveries, these are the things that let intelligent discussions like the one we shared in here happen, these are the things that separate us from savages, these are the things that I believe would be of great importance to our fellow travelers of the stars. For without these altruistic values perhaps all of our other pursuits and intellectual exploits would present us as a threat rather than an ally. Sometimes the best example of the proverbial olive branch comes in the form of a slice of our world famous humble pie. Here have a bite..... Mmmmmm how delicious.

Marvin Minsky was a real legend.

Awesome video,the humor is thrown in too made it that much better

@AbnRangerJoe

3 жыл бұрын

Professor DraffBot “Well, Pluto is not a planet anymore, so now this is not a problem anymore either.”

The limit of understanding is when we could no longer tolerate the cruelty of others. Understanding is forgiving that if we cannot anymore forgive, understanding had reach its limit. Understanding is one of the intrinsic element that makes up the human mind that without it, Man cannot absorb knowledge. The power of understanding is the power of light.

I've listened to thousands of hours of these videos on KZread, this is perhaps the most interesting, comical, and mind blowing panels I've seen. The moderator is clearly positing questions from a point of ignorance so that anyone can follow along. The panel is the most diverse set of minds I've seen debate these questions. It doesn't feel rushed, and I came away not with a set of facts but a new perspective. Laughed a lot , cringed a lot too. Bravo.

@darrylschultz6479

3 жыл бұрын

You must like cringing-everyone was relaxed, expressive, and there were some funny lighthearted moments. While there was a moment or two of combativeness, that's only as should be expected because in a long discussion between individuals there are inevitably going to be a variety of ways of seeing things. This tiny amount of friction is a good thing, as it creates a more comprehensive and wide-ranging discussion-much more interesting than everything going along perfectly harmoniously the entire talk, because everyone has much the same point of view.

Consciousness is not a thing, consciousness is a stream. I am having the experience that I am now having. Even if it's a dream while I'm asleep.

@jivanbansi9640

3 жыл бұрын

Yes, consciousness is no-thing-ness. Now all you have to do is drop the "I" idea.

@ramsaysnow6819

3 жыл бұрын

Consciousness is very easy to understand, even if the neurological links that facilitate it are not.

@tienkebosherpelzmann6465

3 жыл бұрын

I can write the number 7 on a piece of paper and then rub it out, does it mean it stopped existing? The mapping of the Mandelbrot's mathematical equation fractal set proof of the eternal(infinite) mind of YHWH. Anything and everything have been created. We just have not discovered it yet... Yip mathematics is alive!!!

Best panel I have listened to. Thank you so much of the opportunity to learn.

Where have they been hiding this gem of a talk??? Fabidabbidabulous! Mind-blowing and highly entertaining and enlightening. Just bought three more books! thank you all for you fine living work. May I please be your fly on your wall?

A limit of understanding is that we don't have a formal technique of discovering the key question. It is the gift of serendipitous genius.

i was going to sleep but M.C. Escher "hands drawing" on the thumbnail got me

@MarkSeibold

3 жыл бұрын

As Nuit said, she was about ready to fall asleep and then saw MC Escher's hands in the thumbnail opening photo of the video. This is the same thing that got my attention moments ago, as my artwork has been featured in NASA websites over the years, and I later spoke about it on National Public Radio's Talk of the Nation many times, [which I will plug here now that you can go back to these discussions as they're all archived at NPR, and I list the over dozen and a have times that I called in to speak to Neal Conan and his guests, each address is listed in my Facebook album - Mark Seibold speaks many times on NPR's Talk of the Nation.] I used to place my hands in the technical astronomy art as producing my art. I too I'm also left-handed as Escsher was.

@charlessebastian4663

3 жыл бұрын

@nuit marry me?

Gilbert Ryle: knowledge-how trumps knowledge-that. Agency is primary. Understanding (knowledge-that), is relevant to the extent that it feeds back into agency.

I love this one. The participants are so fun and funny-and brilliant, on topics I find highly important. Thank you, Sir Paul, for letting them run with it. I watch it again and again!

At 57:50: "by consciousness you don't mean a single thing" Early in our language acquisition process we first learn words that refer to concrete objects and only later words that refer to abstract concepts. This biases us to have the sense that even abstract nouns refer to actual somethings. Thus when something like 'process' is referred to, many have the sense that the word is referring to an actual something and not to the mere product of a mental synthesis, what an abstraction is. Now, a little pondering reveals that consciousness is obviously a process and therefore an abstract entity. Every thought is a process, every thought abstract, encouraging to know there is a perfect correspondence between neural processes and thoughts. Consciousness is the name of the process in which the self concept is modulated by the thoughts that impinge upon it. I believe that is the central thesis in Professor Antonio Damasio's oeuvre. I think he's got it.

I love this stuff. This is KZread at it's best!

I like Minsky's discussion about "conscienceness" being a wastebasket for 26 different meanings. It would be meaningful to have discussions use different words for each distinct meaning. Unfortunately, it might be difficult to have such discussions as it would mean that we would have to carry along a dictionary to each such discussion. Having a common word for 26 meanings means that once you understand one of them, then you might infer the other ones. I think that because of the difficulty that exists when translating conversations from one language to another. Worse, most translators focus on translating meanings of expressions, rather than trying too hard to preserve the wording of the translation.

This conversation is opening up the borders of my thinking...I am very satisfied with that...

The only thing for me to do in this life or in any other life it to stay by myself totally isolated from everyone appart from going to the shop and buy foods. Also i have to not listen to anyone, not even myself. Its odd that the universe is made so to lead a perfect life for me i have to be like this, but i love it, im very adoptable. (MY OWN TRUTH ABOUT ME AND MY LIFE) I will remain alone for eternity, i will never have a wife, never have kids, and never have friends. You might find it sad, but it is MY truth, and i will keep it. If i remember this life, i will continue stay alone. If god makes me not remember that i wanna stay alone he cant be a good god for me. I live the most perfect life for myself, i enjoy everyday as max as i can. I feel blessed by myself, and i keep blessing myself. And hope for a world that isnt evil. God doesnt accept that i stay alone rest of eternity if i have to. I hear him and his angel everyday of my life now since 2 years ago. And he is mean to me.

Based on this panel, I would have to say the primary limit to understanding is dogmatic attitudes. Mario Livio seems to be the only one who maintains an open mind. The greatest scientific and philosophical breakthroughs have always been by individuals who were willing to challenge the existing dogmas of the time. Science likes to act like they are free of the mentality they criticize in traditional belief systems like theology, but they are anything but. I can understand how a scientist would be likely to question the existence of God, but when they adopt a firm atheist stance, they are doing the same thing theology does. They are adopting an unflinching belief and are refusing to entertain that they may be wrong. Nobody knows what, who, or how the universe came into existence. They cannot say what lies outside of the known universe. They only have theories, which are primitive, at best. A true scientist would never adopt an atheist stance, because they would know that there is not enough data to prove it either way. The only reasonable stance a scientist could take in regard to the existence of God would be agnosticism, based on the available information. Can I prove that God exists? No. Can science prove God does not exist? No. Meanwhile, many theoretical physicists have suggested that the universe may be a simulation and there is no way to prove otherwise. Well, that would surely imply somebody, be it God or some higher intelligence outside of our realm, did some form of creation. I'm not implying that is true or that it's false. I don't have enough data to make a conclusion. All I have is my own experience and perceptions to make a conclusion, and as noted in the discussion, perception is not only limited, but flawed an many ways. And science likes to act like it's a lot farther ahead than what it really is. It is in it's infancy. Hence, the limits of understanding. So to jump to a conclusion about what resides on the other side of the theoretical big bang or assuming consciousness is a product of random evolution is adopting a belief system, and that's the same as adopting a belief system of theology. Just because you believe something doesn't mean it's true. And science has a long history of proclaimed truths that turned out to be false. True science has no use for belief, yet look how many modern scientists force grand ideas about existence on the public, insisting that they believe them, in spite of the fact that they can't prove these ideas. Just my two cents and some change. ;) Anyway, this was a great panel. An hour and a half was just a tease. I could listen to these four debate for hours. Thanks for sharing. Cheers! :)

@extragarb

7 жыл бұрын

I agree with most of the sentiment of your argument. That said, you might ruffle more feathers than intended if you don't specify that you're discussing Explicit Positive Atheism (the belief that there is definitely no god(s)) rather than Implicit Negative Atheism (the lack of a belief in god(s)). But that's just a semantic nitpick. I totally agree that an overpowering worldview impedes the process of scientific discovery.

@mickelodiansurname9578

7 жыл бұрын

strangersound Maybe its explained best thusly... philosophers discuss ideas until it is possible for science to test the ideas and present empirical evidence one way or the other....as soon as the methodology of science is applied however...and there now is a demonstrable answer...well at that point the idea is no longer one of philisophical debate. So the reason scientists are more sure? Its because they don't discuss the idea...they test it until all debate on the matter is gone. In the case of gods and theology no such methods if testing have ever been suggested. That might be of course because of the non religious personal position of philosophers who are a hell of a lot more atheistic than the science community in general. Pretty startled to be honest at your comment. Have you not read any modern philosophy? Philosophy obviously now not fringe weirdos with crazy ideas. Not everyone that says a thing or asks a question is a philosopher.

@virvisquevir3320

5 жыл бұрын

strangersound - The question is not "is it true or not?"; thr question is "does it work?", "how far does it work!", "under what circumstances does it work?", "towards what goals does it work?", "what is the price of it working?". In other words, we are not geared for truth, we are geared for survival, success, expansion. We will never get to any final, exclusive, complete truth. All mathematics and science can do is create models. All models are provisional, a tool we use until a better model comes along.

this is one of the best and most entertaining discussions from WSF I"ve seen

@christopherhamilton3621

3 жыл бұрын

Totally agree! Quite sublime, educational & enjoyable all at once...

Marvin Minsky Explains Everything 34:11~ 40:53 , 44:24~46:28 , 53:30~ 1:03:40 , 1:18:55~1:20:00 , 1:29:45~1:31:11

54:38 - I don't disagree with Minsky here, but when I think about consciousness, as a problem of physics, I'm thinking about the obvious thing: the fact that I am "aware" of my own existence. I am "here" - I have an inner subjective experience. Computers do not, and I don't think they ever will. You can't just wave that away as "irrelevant" because it can't be demonstrated to a third party (i.e., I can't "prove" to you I'm not just a really fancy robot). This is a real phenomenon that exists, and I am more directly cognizant of my own self-awareness than I am of any information that comes to me through my senses.

Wonderful discussion.

'The more I think about language, the more it amazes me that people ever understand each other at all.'- Kurt Gödel They don’t.

@peterdevalk7929

3 жыл бұрын

Language stands in the way of understanding. - Me, myself and I

Great show ! LEO is complete confused in all directions in any time ! I never noticed a problem with autofocus, you have always been sharp !

Wonderful. I am a fan of Mr. Chaitin, and his modesty. I have a question, which seems to me like a rather mysterious "paradox". How does one reconcile the fact that "most finite length binary sequences are incompressible" with the fact that, "for any fixed finite length binary sequence, if one considers the collection of all binary sequences of length n ( also, or, of length n or less ), the fraction of those sequences which will contain the given sequence, will tend to 1 as n tends to infinity". Since some binary sequences, e.g., a string of a hundred consecutive 1's, are evidently highly compressible, shouldn't it be possible to devise a compression scheme based on the idea of sequentially gluing a bunch of "files" together, where some files are highly compressed (descriptions of how to "unfold", decompress, or generate the actual sequence, e.g. are short algorithms for generating the sequence), with a short premable indicating such, while others are "uncompressed chunks" (possibly with a short preamble to indicate they are such) ? Certainly it seems intuitively probable that, the larger the file, the more likely it is that it will contain highly compressible subsequences, or sub-fragments. It seems to me, that, in practice, most files (that we actually encounter) over 2 megabytes in size, say, will turn out to be compressible, while, in theory, this should not be the case. Is seems to me that (perhaps?) the "most files are incompressible" argument somehow breaks down, because it rests on supposing we have one fixed algorithm with which we should consider the task of compressing all finite strings, of length n (or, n or less), for some n, while in practice, we will never actually encounter the problem of "finding the parking lot jammed", simply because we will only ever require the compression of a tiny fraction of the possible strings. ???

moderator: “if you were a jellyfish” theoretical astrophysicist: “sometimes i think i am...”

@balancedout6501

3 жыл бұрын

The only sane guy among them

@UriahGiles

3 жыл бұрын

@@balancedout6501 And "sane", in the context of your use of the word meaning exactly what?

@olive2ree29

3 жыл бұрын

This comment made my night: )

@au1317

3 жыл бұрын

My friend in highschool was on probation for 6 months and I was there when he smoked a few bowls for the first time in 7 months. He was waiving his arms around, running around with this big dopey smile on his face saying "I'm a jellyfish" over and over like it was the most profound thought he'd ever had.

@dru4670

3 жыл бұрын

@@au1317 it's the ability to go out of your own way that can help you truly understand the fundamental nature of stuff. Our Ego(self-identification) with our own ideas can sometimes be limiting.

This was a fun panel.

As the reader-commenter, Nuit said posted a few comments below here at nearly the same time I discovered this post today, she was about ready to fall asleep and then saw MC Escher's hands in the thumbnail opening photo of the video. This is the same thing that got my attention moments ago, as my artwork has been featured in NASA websites over the years, and I later spoke about it on National Public Radio's Talk of the Nation many times, [which I will plug here now that you can go back to these discussions as they're all archived at NPR, and I list the over dozen and a have times that I called in to speak to Neal Conan and his guests, as each dated discussion title and address is listed in my Facebook album - Mark Seibold speaks many times on NPR's Talk of the Nation.] I used to place my hands in the technical astronomy art as producing my art. I too I'm also left-handed as Escsher was. Finally I'd like to thank the people responsible for presenting this video as it's quite well done. some may find it a little heavy in the mathematics discussions for the first half hour but finally when the physicist Marvin Minsky begins to speak at about 34 minutes, the collaborative discussions with the others becomes more involved and quite humorous at times as it draws roaring laughter from the audience as they begin to discuss our existence and Minsky points out that after Isaac Newton we took a complete leap of faith in modern quantum mechanics which helped us to better understand why evolution actually exists. So give this at least the first 34 minutes which I found interesting on mathematics alone but stay with it as it becomes much more entertaining after the first half hour.

I loved every second. what a wonderful debate.

The title "The Limits of Understanding" postulates that 1) there exists something which we have not yet understood and 2) that in our efforts to understand that there are limitations. I find that both the above postulates inherent in the title are untenable for the following reasons. 1) To think that something exists in absolute terms is irrational, because our very perception of the existence of that something is questionable, analogous to the now familiar perception of the world by a fish swimming in a bowl of water. 2) The second part of the postulate that there are limitations to our understanding could, at best, be an extrapolation in time of the "fact" that we have not yet understood what exists out there. The statement inherent in this part of the postulate is that we will never fully understand what is out there to understand. If what is out therre to understand is only a mathematical construct (which is mot likely), the veracity of which has not yet been verified through other means of peception, then that can be called a limitation. But, a mere mathematical construct could be understood fully through mathematical tools, because it is those very tools which created the construct, and what was constructed with one set of tools can be unravelled with perhaps the same set of tools.

The conclusion of this discussion is unknowable.

I am very impressed by the intellectual panel. I am a common man. I have a fascination for the enter workings of all sciences and how they work together. Any one of those sciences i know i could never learn entirely. Those sciences were developed to understand what reality is. The languages Of what we believe reality is are many and more being developed. I think the nature of reality is infinite and there is no language to describe it in its entirety. Plus the the universe is always changing and what the building blocks of reality are also changing. Reality isnt reality until its agreed upon by the masses regardless of any matter of science. There you have a laymans view of the sciences and how they never will be complete.

i really appreciated that they explained the concept of a simulation universe, filled with subjective concepts and experiences. great lecture.

Interesting discussion. When they start digging in to the topic of consciousness you can observe what would be considered egoic reaction. Particularly, two of the individuals appear to be experiencing noticeable emotional duress at the presented opposition to their present mental position. -peace

@darrylschultz6479

3 жыл бұрын

Minor, brief and commonplace.

1:03:10 Schopenhauer's quote is "Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills." The late Marvin Minsky seemed a little too pleased with himself for my taste.

@karlkoch9324

4 жыл бұрын

Came here to say this (-schopenhauer) - especially on the consciousness part he seems far too confident about a topic outside of his core research, personally insulting even

@KipIngram

3 жыл бұрын

Yes, very much so. Minsky just hid behind objectivism.

@ikkeheltvanlig

3 жыл бұрын

Just saw this. For the sake of moving the discussion along, I'm really glad Mario Livio was sitting next to him to intermediate

@meyerrosen2398

3 жыл бұрын

Hello, congratulations to the moderator, Paul Nurse, for actually letting the speakers talk :-) ✔

Listening to her speak put on n words concepts I've been struggling with for years. Right on. Seriously right on.

To have my universe to make sense, i have this equation for myself. Isolation+no own family+ no friends+no learning new knownledge+go and buy stuff when i need it to survive. OR Live out in nature, make my own foods, and never eat animals, just fruits vegetables beans and such. And never bother anybody else, preferably never speak with anyone because its allways missunderstanding or impossible to find truths that matches all people.

Thank you for introducing me to Kurt Godel :)

@menyasavut3959

3 жыл бұрын

ze name is "Gödel"

@darrylschultz6479

3 жыл бұрын

@@menyasavut3959 God'll do.

@menyasavut3959

3 жыл бұрын

​@@darrylschultz6479 not for me

@darrylschultz6479

3 жыл бұрын

@@menyasavut3959 "God'll" was intended as a joke, in that it's a play on the name "Godel". That is, it's pronounced the same, while appearing to say he was a God in the world of Science.

@darrylschultz6479

3 жыл бұрын

@@menyasavut3959 P.S. The 2 little dots over the 'o' makes it look like the 'o' has a pair of eyes-just concerned it might freak people out a bit having this letter staring back at them.😉

Wow, didn't think I would watch the whole thing, but I did. Interesting points.

1:17:09 It also is important to realize that the Earth and reality itself being divided into distinct objects with clear boundaries and unique identifying features fundamentally shaped our perception, and so is much more base than the derived perception. EDIT: At the end, their answers seemed to be alluding to what I hold to be the true limit: the ability to perceive or reason with that which has no bearing on our immediate survival, as Mario joked about when talking of mathematicians being proud of how their theories have no application ( 43:48 ). This is reflected in history as we see the civilizations that had individuals with excess time grew technologically much more rapidly than others, a function of their being able to ponder things outside of the next meal, stocking for winter, etc..

Bravo, the best program I have seen on WSF.

Man, Chaitin really has a chip on his shoulder, doesn't he? You can tell that he and Minsky are the "agreessive assertive" type.

The major limit to understanding is our insatiable desire for understanding.

@joaodanni

2 жыл бұрын

how does that impose a limit?

The edge of understanding is so contained in place and time to what we learn now....tomorrow stays untouchable as long as time keeps expanding...science may give a meaning on how things are working, but never breaks it infinite knowledge Holy Quran: “you have only been given a little bit of knowledge “

This is the kind of discussion that seldom reach any conclusion, and the few times this still happens, the conclusion is so simple that the discussion was needless anyway. But it is still interesting to follow the arguments in the discussion, even though they mostly dissolve in the mist.

Anyone else hear that buzzing sound, or is it just my headphones?

@jaymeegageflook3520

3 жыл бұрын

Ya h um

@nedimmrsic2173

3 жыл бұрын

Damn it! I didnt hear it till i saw this comment.. now its drilling my ears..

@PhillipsEventManagement

3 жыл бұрын

Yep. Likely a ground loop in the venue between main PA and the wireless mics.

@romanlegacy1537

3 жыл бұрын

florescent lights have a voice ,buzzz

@bryan__m

3 жыл бұрын

@@PhillipsEventManagement yep, definitely sounds like ground buzz.

There will always be more that we don’t know about the universe than what we know.

I think the most telling information is that they can barely follow each other half the time. Logic is pure. Mathematics uses Logic, not vice versa. Mathematics is nothing as a system, it is only language, no matter how complex it gets. We need a word for what 1 and 1 is etc. If you speak that language you can see more of the universe and your movement through it than one who cannot.

A great topicand a wonderful panel.Many questions and many different equations.I have watched this many times with great humor those different points of view.

"If a man talks, alone, in the middle of the forest. Is he still wrong?" LOL

@chakreshsingh

3 жыл бұрын

If he is married, yes.

@anantapadmanabhmyatagiri

3 жыл бұрын

@@chakreshsingh if he is dog then no

@godfreecharlie

3 жыл бұрын

Don't laugh, it may be the most profound statement ever made!

@luamfernandez6031

3 жыл бұрын

Yes!

@nasibars4575

3 жыл бұрын

Yes 😂.., but that there was the birth of What me worry?

Then I finally made peace with myself. I was right. Mathematics doesn’t often make sense. And I always had bitter discussions with my teachers at high school.

@karendusang3266

3 жыл бұрын

I'm still trying to figure how a circle can have no numerical value yet still have value. I'd negate that the circle simply was placed to provide a threshold. Maybe they should have used a z instead. It's two lateral arms do point in either direction.

I think there is a limit when I try to understand myself - I need to step out of myself. Most if not all paradoxes have self-reference embedded in it. The best thing is to enjoy what we do understand and wonder what we don't.

Also beatifull humour.great reunion. Sincères amitiés Philippe Martin 😎

Surely the changing of state of the barber from someone who does shave himself to someone who does not, and vice versa, takes one Planck unit of time since information propagation is limited to the speed of light. Given this the barber must oscillate very quickly between being someone who does and does not shave himself.

@edwinagnew6800

3 жыл бұрын

Interesting point (ignore this other guy). Maybe one problem is that in the moment the barber ceases to be a barber he would either cease to be himself which is discomforting or cease to be able to cut hair (since he's no longer a barber). The real paradox that the barber one is about is "Take the set of all sets that don't contain themselves. Does this set contain itself?" . I don't think there's a way to apply your analogy to this version, so the paradox still holds (this is a word salad but that's because language sucks not because of the ignorance of millennials btw)

A plausible response to Chaitin is that he might be looking at the problem in the wrong direction, from axioms to theorems, vs. theorems to axioms. The power of formal mathematics is that given a field of stuff to be explained, you can abstract away a lot and then reduce the remaining structure to a set of much more condensed axioms. In a s sense, the axioms distill the essence of all the complexity seen in the system being modeled (physical or mathematical). Viewed that way, there is little practical mystery associated with Godel's theorem -- it effectively refers to things you don't care about. If you did, those concerns would be in the system being modeled, you would have a richer set of axioms to capture those additional notions, and then Godel's theorem would refer to yet more distant things you do not care about. There is an ever-receding horizon of things any given set of axioms won't handle, but if the axioms were never chosen to handle those things, maybe that's nothing to lie awake worrying about. The implausible effectiveness of mathematics then boils down to noticing that the universe seems to be very parsimonious -- it doesn't use 445,944,222 rules when 3 (or 30) will suffice. It's not so much that mathematics can explain the patterns we see, but that such simple mathematics (maybe not to us, but simple in the grand scheme of things) can explain so much.

This has to be best ever world science festival

Livio is great XD

I loved that 'if a man talks in the middle of a forest, and there is no woman around , is he still wrong ?' Woman shouts YES!!!

Wonder how many of you kept try to understand? I think most people don't dwell on what Gödel demonstrated because the implications are at odds with the current zeitgeist. However, I think this kind of conversation is about to flood the zeitgeist at every level. The modern contemporary monster is being de-monstrated by people like Gödel.

Great Panel. Great Ideas/ perspectives.. Enjoyable video

PLEASE MAKE SUBTITLES AVAILABLE

@pamelawinson3192

3 жыл бұрын

Yes hard to hear...

@Rob81k

3 жыл бұрын

I WRITE IN ALL CAPS CAUSE IM A MORON AND A DICK SO I SHOUT

@darrylschultz6479

3 жыл бұрын

@@Rob81k With an 'a' at the end of 'Brian', methinks probably not a dick.

Prof. Mario Livio (second from right) was quite on track when I observed all rest deviating.

@sabi423

5 жыл бұрын

absloutly waht a deep man

@jman8128

5 жыл бұрын

yes, he is the one who has logical mind.

@guitarj3570

4 жыл бұрын

He wrote one of my favorite books ever: “The Golden Ratio”. I’m not even a math person but I have read it several times. Brilliant man.

@nandanapalchowdhury4588

3 жыл бұрын

Haha

It’s interesting that the talk was mostly about the tangible aspect of understanding. The evolution or emergence of understanding didn’t start yesterday, it started with the Super Nova amongst the space we inhabit. We humans can only now conceptualize the processes to witch we have arrived at this point in our history. Can you imagine at that single moment in our earthly history when the quantized makeup of particles realized that decaying into something beyond what they are, is actual the continuation of what they truly are. I think that the simplicity of when and at what point in history of molecular understanding is the turning point, the moment when that first molecule decided that it was more gratifying to go up rather than down, or light was somehow more gratifying than darkness. It’s more gratifying to go beyond our understanding and thus in turn leaders us to belief. The belief that any and will be possible. Have a nice life.

1:13:13 That's a very important question by Rebecca and answer by Gregory

59:36. (And elsewhere) They are all making an assumption that there is a separate self. Better study Anatta. The principle of Non-self as used in Buddhism.

Evolution: "Random walks through software-space." Wow.

@justkidding3040

3 жыл бұрын

I love how you can get four extremely intelligent scientists all in the same forum to talk about math that the discussion invariably gets sucked into the black hole topic of consciousness. This was a very enjoyable discussion.

Hello, human brain restrictions (e.g. limit of parallel subjects/objects during thought processes ca. 5 - 7) also let us describe and therefore understand complicated/complex things in devided pieces (by time = sequential). The discussed theme "consciousness" vs. "there are 26 (or more) quality attributes" shows again another problem which comes from the fact how we (our brain) is used to concentrate on one (hopefully important) aspect after the other but this might lead to misunderstandings when their meaning and order are undefined. Thats why most good understandable (scientific) papers (and standardization and norms) put those definitions at first place to be able to refer to exact meanings when our brain will be required to concentrate on more complicated & complex things.

Good but I'd have enjoyed just hearing Goldstein and Livio, the two participants who behaved civilly, without the strident, rude, and often smug interruptions from their co-panelists. Was glad to see Paul Nurse as moderator -- a saving grace.

Kindly provide captions for this video, because my limit to understanding is disabled

@sawfish3206

3 жыл бұрын

"my limit to understanding is disabled" So if I understand correctly,you have no limits to understanding!

Scientists: Math is everywhere and yet not enough. God: Tru Dat

@spiralsun1

3 жыл бұрын

Exactly 😐

@peterdevalk7929

3 жыл бұрын

So, math is nothing!

@stacknsat

3 жыл бұрын

@@peterdevalk7929 uhhhh half a tank is not nothing!!!!

Rebecca Goldstein's statement concerning what mathematics applies to such things as consciousness NAILED IT! While some of the ideas from Quantum Mechanics may in some way be eventually applies to any "rules" for consciousness and related things, the rest of physics (which is designed to measure and predict how physical structures exist and how they interact) has no application whatsoever. Does consciousness have speed, mass, or any other such physics-applicable component to its functions? No. The fact that consciousness exists implies that our universe has "dimensions" (measurable things using some kind of rules and ways to show some applications of these rules) other than the physical structures that physics applies to. While some sort of math may eventually be useful here, what is being measured in regards to consciousness and how it evolves and interacts with the universe will require a new way of thinking about the universe and the things it contains. And there may be other things in our universe that physics does not apply to, also, that we haven't even found out about yet. Our universe seems to be built for such endless knowledge and how to find out about it...

This is an intersting discussion, but I think a large part of the problem IS our (in) abilitty to adequately describe phenomena we encounter. We use analogies that are locked in cultural, hegemonic, etc, shackles that bind words and meaning.

@christopherhamilton3621

3 жыл бұрын

Which was Wittgenstein’s point from the start & is the starting point of modern science.