This promises to be *utterly fascinating*. The (ostensible) universality of mathematics -in the exobiological sense- is something I've given many long hours of thought, and I've never once encountered any extended public discussion of the topic. This is what the internet is for. Congrats for posting this SETI, I love you guys.
I think "Alien Math" would be the same as hours, but "Alien-Math-Notation" might be different. e.g. Even us Greeks say "συνημiτoνo" instead of "cosine" (maybe aliens do all the Math in their head!) Also, for fun, I bought your Springer Undergrad textbook on "Naive Lie Theory!!" I'm currently only in Calculus III but I get it!!! & I love it!!
If embodied theories of cognition have it right (Johnson, Lakoff, Nunez, et al.) it would be dictated by anatomy (embodiment) and whatever counts as primitive environmental affordances for the aliens.
The questioner who asked about non-Euclidean space took the thoughts out of my head. Near a black hole, ab=ba might not be so obvious. OTOH, the aliens themselves would still see their space as "flat" or Euclidean. In addition, Relativity is still based on Mathematics, which includes the commutative theorem. So, I tend to think Relativity and Mathematical Platonism can be reconciled. Still, I admit that it *IS* a good question!!!!!
Not to say that this is obviously a talk for non mathematicians. It is quite incorrect to say that commutativity has many different origins. Commutativity is a concept that is transversal to many theories which has many different expressions some of which we probably do not even dream yet. In its own way, like duality and dimension it is a very abstract and universal concept. The theory of categories is one of the first steps we have made towards unifying these concepts.
Mathematics is just a language we use to describe the world around us, and any sufficiently advanced civilization will have such a language. Even if it bears no resemblance to our own, given enough time and interaction any language can be translated into another, no matter how roughly.
The 'simplest' concepts are the hardest. So great talk & good that John stuck to these. As a non mathematician & non scientist this makes me want to ask something which probably sounds like the dumbest of questions - how many similar properties are there between the speed of light (kms/sec, empirically derived, seemingly irreducibly true) & 1=1 (a priori based, irreducibly true)? ... & a few more qs... but perhaps I have merely asked a nonsensical question, so one is enough! ……Hᴜɢʜ
1. Artefact yes, human no. 2. There are two, ethnohanced, brain structures: associative (familiar) which 'hunts' (hypothesizes) and autoreinforces 'hunt mode', And exponential that temporizes associative as a 'tool' while 'verticalizing' temporal cause-and-effect. 3. The larger 'true' differences in mathematics are found in comparing physics and math. 4. From 3×5 = 5×3 rectangularly is obvious also = 4×4-1; generally n×(n+2) =...= (n+1)²-1. 5. The Greek coin means only that if two unequal squares touch, then the differences in rectangularizing their total, are not squares themselves and furthermore define their two dimensions, vertical and horizontal. 6. Did he mean 0≡∅, or 0⇔∅, and thence 1≡{∅}, or 1⇔{∅}, as the process of commutativity becomes objectified: cf 3 boxes of 5 apples each vs. 5 apples -of- [in] 3 boxes each, 'that does not commute'; Also {∅,{∅}}≡{{∅},∅}; (In alternate notations this is {{},{{}}}≡{{{}},{}} or simpler {,{}}≡{{},}); But now we have the contradiction: {{∅}} has no meaning-and yet it is the (implicit) successor-by-induction on {∅}...! This is where popular 'algebra' goes a little crazy...Neumann redefined, midstream, to two, different, successors: that are not equal. Grade F. And finally, Space aliens have a lot of time to think of community....
@Icix1 I concure. The way the humanity discretize things is profoundly related to our senses and our physiology. It is related to the symmetries in our world, which is itself related to the great stability of our solar system. Breack the symmetries, instill a little bit more fluctuations and there is no reason why a civilization would find reals or hyper-reals a more adapted tool for their numbering. They would find out about integers, eventually, but it might be unatural for them.
hhmm, i always thought multiplication was just itterated addition, so you know what that means about subtraction, that means there is only adding and subtracting, everything else is an algorithm of addition and subtraction, prove me wrong please? id love to know
While I like this in idea, this is all still within the human context. Even the most basic concepts seem to require our specific evolutionary upbringing. We have no idea how an intelligent alien race would think, and even if they would think in a way that we could remotely comprehend.
What makes so many think alien civilizations, even if scientifically advanced, do not also struggle with class warfare, social Darwinism, etc? A corollary of the Fermi paradox is that perhaps all advanced civilizations have to overcome some sort of temptation toward self destruction. Indeed, given how difficult it was for life to develop from single cell to sentient beings here, primarily within the context simply of struggle for survival, under what presuppositions could one suppose alien civilizations do not similarly develop along such lines ?
Not that John doesn't mention set theory, but, he could have mentioned that humanity used numbers for tens of thousands of years before they defined numbers by set theory. Set theory is simpler mathematics; to bad the Greeks hadn't hit on set theory; maybe they would have thought to deduce numbers and algebra from there instead of geometry(the Greeks did geometric algebra because they couldn't handle irrational numbers very well . . . at first).
ET math will never be much different then ours for two very simple reasons: classification and invariance. More precisely, their applied mathematic, their engineering might be very different then ours but pure mathematics, i.e the reason why everything sticks together and is coherent as a whole is something totally independant of our normal perception. Take the simple example of the concept of duality: this is a tool transversal to all mathematics.
Is it possible that a different system of value might result in different mathematical axioms? Haven’t human mathematicians disagreed on what constitutes the axioms of mathematics? Might differing axioms result in some more basic disagreements as to what does and does not constitute “correct math” at some level?
@@corsaircaruso471 : they might have a different choice of axioms than ours, but theirs will necessarly be equivalent to ours. Humans do NOT disagree to what should be the axioms of mathematics. There are different choices possible : some people advocate for one set of axioms, others will add or eliminate others axioms. But as long as the theory produced is not contradictory, it does not really matter. For example some people want to discard the axiom of choice and others keep it. The "only" consequence is that some (very important) theorems will not be valid anymore, in all their generality. There are many different equivalent ways to look at any problem. The language may differ, the type of question asked too... but results will always be essentially the same (up to equivalence). One can of course imagine that an alien point of view will build a much more efficient and complete mathematics. But that is all. The cardinality of a set will always be the cardinality of a set, no matter how you call it. But you can very easily imagine a mathematics where there are NO sets, only relations between objects. They may not even have algebra or geometry...
John also could have been better served to bring up alternative logics(logics with more than two values), and then E.T.'s could have developed mathematics and science and technology radically different from there.
@CentralConundrum Of course it is :P and by the way uniformity is also a transversal concept, equicontinuity much less. Also, most of the time, when a proof is technical or boring what it really means is that the result associated to it is still not well understood: that there is still lots of margin for improvement. Or, that there is a much cleaner proof in a higher theoretical setting. But please do not get me started on this subject.
Alien creatures would use math to obtain: fusion energy, anti-gravity, atom-sized microchips, cloning, type-2 (solar system) civilizations, type-3 (galaxy) civilizations, type-4 (dark matter) civilizations and more. We, here on Earth, use math so the upper class can steal all the money from the middle and lower class.
Spartaculus Jones From all the commentaries that are made about other possible inteligent lifeforms, there is something that bugs me: Why do people assume that other lifeforms have none of our problems? Why do people assume that they are devoid of corruption and devoid of the enslavement of their own people? It's also possible (and it's actually more probable) that they're just as fucked up as we are.
AB = BA so Alien Brothers = Brothers Alienated? When the commonality of our universal principle, (relative time rates, ie expansion/contraction probability calculation arranged harmonically across an infinite spectrum of information into the number properties of the universe), is acknowledged, then no "other" is purely alien unless it's a personal choice based on culture. Culturally, if mathematics is most used for solids/dense harmonics, then that's an explanation of our history, but if hydraulics and gasses predominate then that's when Quantum Fields begin to become more examined and much the same path would be followed by any culture according to environments. (?)
Kepler Statistical Analysis Suggests Earthlike Planets Extremely Rare Google that should take you to at least a spacedaily news item on the latest from Kepler. Note, the Kepler data is still being collected; they're reporting the 16 month data; they hope to report a 24 month data . . . and they hope for an extended Kepler mission by years. The Kepler news reported that I've found suggests that the number of gas giants in our rocky planet orbits is high(based on only . . . more
Aliens will have the same algorithm with the same set of axioms for all sub-systems, and a mathematics with infinite axioms for a theory of everything !!!
So if you handed an alien a rubik's cube, the alien wouldn't solve it by applying an algorithm? I'm sure that's pretty much all you can do. You can not touch it, and not solve it, or you can pick it up, and start solving it by applying algorithms. What else could the alien do? I wouldn't be surprised if the alien could solve any puzzle very quickly, and optimally. To say that the alien could solve the puzzle without applying the algorithm/understanding and applying mathematics the way we do is ridiculous. Sure, to them solving a professors' cube is probably like adding 1 to 1. Their understanding of mathematics would simply be more advanced. At the end of the day, we are simply understanding the same thing. That which is in the realm of mind.
would alien math contain numbers? well yes, unless youd rather call thier numbers farts and sunshine, in which case alien mathematics ineed contains farts and sunshine
Please ,Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. But John is not in touch by repeating what is already given for reasoning and living in the class room. he even admits here speaking for a third person and as an ignorant to Greek Mathemathics.
. . . a little over a hundred thousand stars. I admit, I'd like to see at least a billion stars(much less a hundred billion stars to maybe the 6 to 7 hundred billion stars in our galaxy). I myself should reread Isaac Asimov's "Extraterrestrial Civilization" - the first Rare Earth hypotheses book! But, 1) 51% of stars are binary, 2) the latest Kepler results indicate most stars have gas giants in the terrestrial planet orbits and not further out like our Jupiter.
Australian Nativ Aboriginals do have only 4 numbers: 1, 2, 3 and Many 1+2=3 1+3=Many 2+3=Many Many + Many = Many Etc... Many is somehow replacement for infinity! Aliens could have similar infinity #
@sbergman27 I think that integers, and our entire way of thinking about math is due to the environment we evolved in. Perhaps other intelligent beings would have a completely different way of thinking about things that we cannot comprehend, due to the way our brains work.
But, all this is mute imo perhaps. Binary star systems make earths, or intelligence habitable planets, kind of hard; since most stars are binary, then the large numbers arguement for intelligences everywhere goes poof right there; that's just one problem; our double planet Earth/Moon system, the placement of Jovian planet, and many more problems. Bottom line, I think there's far fewer E.T.'s out there anyway.
Well, I'd like to say for now that I've found that the statistics right now is like 51% of the stars are binary. Sorry I havn't gotten back here till now; believe it or not, I've been argueing and explaining other things with other people. I'll certainly get to that lecture now; and hopefully I can reply to sbergman27 above as well soon enough.
but im pretty sure if the aliens posessed the same organic machinery that we use here on earth, then they would hvae common designs, quadrepeds, homanids, birds and even dinosaurs and fish, theres only a few designs that will work in a set of environmental physics of an ecosystem, be it water, land air or microscopic, they would have to be carnivors and engage in war to take control of the plannet they evolved on, they would have all the same materials we have here on earth and run through a simular technological paths, discovering things one at a time until the knowledge builds up and acceleration begins as new information arises from the collection of the old information, they will build quantum computers and send engineers out into comos in search of mathematical answers, which for them would probalby be a few stages beyond our stirng theory and quantum physics, which can be combined into one beautiful but not exactly human rational theory, they would be just as dangerous to surounding ecosystems as we are, we know we're destroying the earths ecosystem but no one will stop because they need their rich enjoyable life, just animals
Mathematics plus class warfare equals five thousand years of technological advance so slow that it took five millenia to get to the first industrial revolution. Some alien civilization that has abandoned class warfare could easily get a million years ahead of us in only a few thousand years.
+Spartaculus Jones ...the logic of ur statement are literally impossible. if the time scale of technical development holds then the the exponential extrapolation that follows would not even be possible . even if we no longer had the false (designed) dichotomy of social distinction. like wise, a social framework with no social distinctions misses the essential nature of social development. there is no way to skip around at will up and down jakob's ladder. i suspect that there is a tendency built into minded existence that states something like; u have to take the steps that allow u to step up the energy states and uses and make the predictable mistakes and come to their solutions before a natural or socially motivated disaster knock u down to a lower order of biological organization. social (animal) events happen on time scales which are like a blink of the eye from the perspective of cosmic events. mentality can't play willy nilly with these facts without getting ahead of itself and making more problems than can reasonably be solved in time to step up its technical ability and understanding.
This professor seems to be able to tell simplistic things in a rather clunky, difficult-to-understand way. Otherwise I am interested in this subject matter as well. I think maths is universal to a very large extent. Maybe some other Universes, theoretically, could have maths that differ from our Universe. (Such that 1 + 1 = 3.)
When you have one quanta, and there is another quanta, then there are two quanta. Any universe that differs must also lack the conservation of energy. Lacking conservation of energy implies that the principle of relativity is false. Such a universe is so alien to our understanding that it is literally impossible for our minds to come up with a self-consistent theory on how it works. This differs from many multiverse theories, which only theorise alternate universes with different fundamental constants (like the strength of the weak force, or the speed of light in a vacuum), if that (some posit alternate universes that appear when any quantum randomness happens, and has the exact same physical laws).
None of his mumble jumbo seems real or credible to have post as speaker at those schools he speaks. I listen to him on several occasions and most of his material is either plagiarized or worthless to listen.
became boring around 22 minutes. Anyway, who can prove this? until we find some real aliens. It could be our luck that they flunked their Math test in high-alien-school.
umm, what is there to prove? he shows that even if you take a trivial idea such as the natural numbers there are several valid representations for these object through which you can arrive at the same conclusions (his example is that multiplication is commutative). in other words, superficially things that are very different can actually be the same (FSVO "the same"). these things that he showed are all proven in the mathematical sense, but I guess that's not what you meant... the title is a bit of a misnomer, really this talk is about representations in math and to what extent they are the result of culture or biology, and the conclusion is that even if we think math is universal and aliens might arrive at the same axioms and proofs, they might go about representing it in ways that are very hard for us to relate to, so even if they would be talking about the same thing we might be able to tell.
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 87 วันนี้!! คู่เอก "ก้องชัย vs โชคปรีชา"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YN6e7HVnekw/mqdefault.jpg)
First we have to clear the real groundlaying basics: Like "is it 'Math' or 'Maths'?"
'Mathematics' ... next question!
This promises to be *utterly fascinating*. The (ostensible) universality of mathematics -in the exobiological sense- is something I've given many long hours of thought, and I've never once encountered any extended public discussion of the topic.
This
is what the internet is for.
Congrats for posting this SETI, I love you guys.
I think "Alien Math" would be the same as hours, but "Alien-Math-Notation" might be different.
e.g. Even us Greeks say "συνημiτoνo" instead of "cosine"
(maybe aliens do all the Math in their head!)
Also, for fun, I bought your Springer Undergrad textbook on "Naive Lie Theory!!"
I'm currently only in Calculus III but I get it!!! & I love it!!
If embodied theories of cognition have it right (Johnson, Lakoff, Nunez, et al.) it would be dictated by anatomy (embodiment) and whatever counts as primitive environmental affordances for the aliens.
The questioner who asked about non-Euclidean space took the thoughts out of my head. Near a black hole, ab=ba might not be so obvious. OTOH, the aliens themselves would still see their space as "flat" or Euclidean. In addition, Relativity is still based on Mathematics, which includes the commutative theorem. So, I tend to think Relativity and Mathematical Platonism can be reconciled. Still, I admit that it *IS* a good question!!!!!
Not to say that this is obviously a talk for non mathematicians. It is quite incorrect to say that commutativity has many different origins. Commutativity is a concept that is transversal to many theories which has many different expressions some of which we probably do not even dream yet. In its own way, like duality and dimension it is a very abstract and universal concept. The theory of categories is one of the first steps we have made towards unifying these concepts.
Mathematics is just a language we use to describe the world around us, and any sufficiently advanced civilization will have such a language. Even if it bears no resemblance to our own, given enough time and interaction any language can be translated into another, no matter how roughly.
I've already seen some ET math. It's called 'Common Core'.
Hi Hugh, not sure we follow the question - can you restate it please?
The 'simplest' concepts are the hardest. So great talk & good that John stuck to these.
As a non mathematician & non scientist this makes me want to ask something which probably sounds like the dumbest of questions - how many similar properties are there between the speed of light (kms/sec, empirically derived, seemingly irreducibly true) & 1=1 (a priori based, irreducibly true)? ... & a few more qs... but perhaps I have merely asked a nonsensical question, so one is enough!
……Hᴜɢʜ
1. Artefact yes, human no. 2. There are two, ethnohanced, brain structures: associative (familiar) which 'hunts' (hypothesizes) and autoreinforces 'hunt mode', And exponential that temporizes associative as a 'tool' while 'verticalizing' temporal cause-and-effect. 3. The larger 'true' differences in mathematics are found in comparing physics and math. 4. From 3×5 = 5×3 rectangularly is obvious also = 4×4-1; generally n×(n+2) =...= (n+1)²-1. 5. The Greek coin means only that if two unequal squares touch, then the differences in rectangularizing their total, are not squares themselves and furthermore define their two dimensions, vertical and horizontal. 6. Did he mean 0≡∅, or 0⇔∅, and thence 1≡{∅}, or 1⇔{∅}, as the process of commutativity becomes objectified: cf 3 boxes of 5 apples each vs. 5 apples -of- [in] 3 boxes each, 'that does not commute'; Also {∅,{∅}}≡{{∅},∅}; (In alternate notations this is {{},{{}}}≡{{{}},{}} or simpler {,{}}≡{{},}); But now we have the contradiction: {{∅}} has no meaning-and yet it is the (implicit) successor-by-induction on {∅}...! This is where popular 'algebra' goes a little crazy...Neumann redefined, midstream, to two, different, successors: that are not equal. Grade F. And finally, Space aliens have a lot of time to think of community....
@Icix1 I concure. The way the humanity discretize things is profoundly related to our senses and our physiology. It is related to the symmetries in our world, which is itself related to the great stability of our solar system. Breack the symmetries, instill a little bit more fluctuations and there is no reason why a civilization would find reals or hyper-reals a more adapted tool for their numbering. They would find out about integers, eventually, but it might be unatural for them.
hhmm, i always thought multiplication was just itterated addition, so you know what that means about subtraction, that means there is only adding and subtracting, everything else is an algorithm of addition and subtraction, prove me wrong please? id love to know
While I like this in idea, this is all still within the human context. Even the most basic concepts seem to require our specific evolutionary upbringing.
We have no idea how an intelligent alien race would think, and even if they would think in a way that we could remotely comprehend.
What makes so many think alien civilizations, even if scientifically advanced, do not also struggle with class warfare, social Darwinism, etc? A corollary of the Fermi paradox is that perhaps all advanced civilizations have to overcome some sort of temptation toward self destruction. Indeed, given how difficult it was for life to develop from single cell to sentient beings here, primarily within the context simply of struggle for survival, under what presuppositions could one suppose alien civilizations do not similarly develop along such lines ?
in my 34 years i never met a single sentient lifeform on this planet
Not that John doesn't mention set theory, but, he could have mentioned that humanity used numbers for tens of thousands of years before they defined numbers by set theory. Set theory is simpler mathematics; to bad the Greeks hadn't hit on set theory; maybe they would have thought to deduce numbers and algebra from there instead of geometry(the Greeks did geometric algebra because they couldn't handle irrational numbers very well . . . at first).
ET math will never be much different then ours for two very simple reasons: classification and invariance. More precisely, their applied mathematic, their engineering might be very different then ours but pure mathematics, i.e the reason why everything sticks together and is coherent as a whole is something totally independant of our normal perception. Take the simple example of the concept of duality: this is a tool transversal to all mathematics.
Is it possible that a different system of value might result in different mathematical axioms? Haven’t human mathematicians disagreed on what constitutes the axioms of mathematics? Might differing axioms result in some more basic disagreements as to what does and does not constitute “correct math” at some level?
@@corsaircaruso471 : they might have a different choice of axioms than ours, but theirs will necessarly be equivalent to ours. Humans do NOT disagree to what should be the axioms of mathematics. There are different choices possible : some people advocate for one set of axioms, others will add or eliminate others axioms. But as long as the theory produced is not contradictory, it does not really matter. For example some people want to discard the axiom of choice and others keep it. The "only" consequence is that some (very important) theorems will not be valid anymore, in all their generality.
There are many different equivalent ways to look at any problem. The language may differ, the type of question asked too... but results will always be essentially the same (up to equivalence). One can of course imagine that an alien point of view will build a much more efficient and complete mathematics. But that is all. The cardinality of a set will always be the cardinality of a set, no matter how you call it. But you can very easily imagine a mathematics where there are NO sets, only relations between objects. They may not even have algebra or geometry...
Ummm ... because they might want to count how many 3D interlocking shapes they have?
Could someone give me the correct spelling of the name of the mathematician mentioned at near the end, e.g. at 1:03:32?
Ramanujan (amazingly, correctly spelled by the CC closed captioning).
@@EugeneSeidel Thanks. 12 years later! Forgot that I watched this video at one point, and I've become familiar with Ramanujan since then.
John also could have been better served to bring up alternative logics(logics with more than two values), and then E.T.'s could have developed mathematics and science and technology radically different from there.
I recall already mentioning that the data is still coming in(not to mention only a little more than a 100K stars surveyed), Thank you;
@CentralConundrum Of course it is :P and by the way uniformity is also a transversal concept, equicontinuity much less.
Also, most of the time, when a proof is technical or boring what it really means is that the result associated to it is still not well understood: that there is still lots of margin for improvement. Or, that there is a much cleaner proof in a higher theoretical setting. But please do not get me started on this subject.
Alien creatures would use math to obtain: fusion energy, anti-gravity, atom-sized microchips, cloning, type-2 (solar system) civilizations, type-3 (galaxy) civilizations, type-4 (dark matter) civilizations and more. We, here on Earth, use math so the upper class can steal all the money from the middle and lower class.
i really like how ur mind works. but this is not an absolute.
Spartaculus Jones From all the commentaries that are made about other possible inteligent lifeforms, there is something that bugs me: Why do people assume that other lifeforms have none of our problems? Why do people assume that they are devoid of corruption and devoid of the enslavement of their own people? It's also possible (and it's actually more probable) that they're just as fucked up as we are.
Vatsu Ananab Amen
AB = BA so Alien Brothers = Brothers Alienated?
When the commonality of our universal principle, (relative time rates, ie expansion/contraction probability calculation arranged harmonically across an infinite spectrum of information into the number properties of the universe), is acknowledged, then no "other" is purely alien unless it's a personal choice based on culture.
Culturally, if mathematics is most used for solids/dense harmonics, then that's an explanation of our history, but if hydraulics and gasses predominate then that's when Quantum Fields begin to become more examined and much the same path would be followed by any culture according to environments. (?)
+SETI Institute Having glanced at he comment section, it seems as though y'all are casting pearls before swine. Oink oink.
Kepler Statistical Analysis Suggests Earthlike Planets Extremely Rare
Google that should take you to at least a spacedaily news item on the latest from Kepler. Note, the Kepler data is still being collected; they're reporting the 16 month data; they hope to report a 24 month data . . . and they hope for an extended Kepler mission by years.
The Kepler news reported that I've found suggests that the number of gas giants in our rocky planet orbits is high(based on only . . . more
Eat an orange and contemplate alien Maths
I ended up watching the orange, instead of the lecture :-)
Aliens will have the same algorithm with the same set of axioms for all sub-systems, and a mathematics with infinite axioms for a theory of everything !!!
+Naimul Haq ..how can u be sure of this assertion?
the EQUATION Good question. I cannot imagine otherwise.
@oker59 Hi Oker, for a critique of the binary planet theory please see the talk by Jack Lissauer in this series.
good job
So if you handed an alien a rubik's cube, the alien wouldn't solve it by applying an algorithm? I'm sure that's pretty much all you can do. You can not touch it, and not solve it, or you can pick it up, and start solving it by applying algorithms. What else could the alien do? I wouldn't be surprised if the alien could solve any puzzle very quickly, and optimally. To say that the alien could solve the puzzle without applying the algorithm/understanding and applying mathematics the way we do is ridiculous. Sure, to them solving a professors' cube is probably like adding 1 to 1. Their understanding of mathematics would simply be more advanced. At the end of the day, we are simply understanding the same thing. That which is in the realm of mind.
would alien math contain numbers? well yes, unless youd rather call thier numbers farts and sunshine, in which case alien mathematics ineed contains farts and sunshine
In other words, people take Star Trek too seriously
Please ,Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language.
But John is not in touch by repeating what is already given for reasoning and living in the class room. he even admits here speaking for a third person and as an ignorant to Greek Mathemathics.
I wish you good luck intercepting messages carried at the rate of 10^40 Hz. Good luck, indeed.
. . . a little over a hundred thousand stars. I admit, I'd like to see at least a billion stars(much less a hundred billion stars to maybe the 6 to 7 hundred billion stars in our galaxy).
I myself should reread Isaac Asimov's "Extraterrestrial Civilization" - the first Rare Earth hypotheses book! But, 1) 51% of stars are binary, 2) the latest Kepler results indicate most stars have gas giants in the terrestrial planet orbits and not further out like our Jupiter.
Australian Nativ Aboriginals do have only 4 numbers: 1, 2, 3 and Many
1+2=3
1+3=Many
2+3=Many
Many + Many = Many
Etc...
Many is somehow replacement for infinity!
Aliens could have similar infinity #
@sbergman27
I think that integers, and our entire way of thinking about math is due to the environment we evolved in. Perhaps other intelligent beings would have a completely different way of thinking about things that we cannot comprehend, due to the way our brains work.
But, all this is mute imo perhaps. Binary star systems make earths, or intelligence habitable planets, kind of hard; since most stars are binary, then the large numbers arguement for intelligences everywhere goes poof right there; that's just one problem; our double planet Earth/Moon system, the placement of Jovian planet, and many more problems. Bottom line, I think there's far fewer E.T.'s out there anyway.
Well, I'd like to say for now that I've found that the statistics right now is like 51% of the stars are binary. Sorry I havn't gotten back here till now; believe it or not, I've been argueing and explaining other things with other people. I'll certainly get to that lecture now; and hopefully I can reply to sbergman27 above as well soon enough.
but im pretty sure if the aliens posessed the same organic machinery that we use here on earth, then they would hvae common designs, quadrepeds, homanids, birds and even dinosaurs and fish, theres only a few designs that will work in a set of environmental physics of an ecosystem, be it water, land air or microscopic, they would have to be carnivors and engage in war to take control of the plannet they evolved on, they would have all the same materials we have here on earth and run through a simular technological paths, discovering things one at a time until the knowledge builds up and acceleration begins as new information arises from the collection of the old information, they will build quantum computers and send engineers out into comos in search of mathematical answers, which for them would probalby be a few stages beyond our stirng theory and quantum physics, which can be combined into one beautiful but not exactly human rational theory, they would be just as dangerous to surounding ecosystems as we are, we know we're destroying the earths ecosystem but no one will stop because they need their rich enjoyable life, just animals
Mathematics plus class warfare equals five thousand years of technological advance so slow that it took five millenia to get to the first industrial revolution. Some alien civilization that has abandoned class warfare could easily get a million years ahead of us in only a few thousand years.
Fight the good fight brother
+Spartaculus Jones ...the logic of ur statement are literally impossible. if the time scale of technical development holds then the the exponential extrapolation that follows would not even be possible . even if we no longer had the false (designed) dichotomy of social distinction. like wise, a social framework with no social distinctions misses the essential nature of social development. there is no way to skip around at will up and down jakob's ladder. i suspect that there is a tendency built into minded existence that states something like; u have to take the steps that allow u to step up the energy states and uses and make the predictable mistakes and come to their solutions before a natural or socially motivated disaster knock u down to a lower order of biological organization. social (animal) events happen on time scales which are like a blink of the eye from the perspective of cosmic events. mentality can't play willy nilly with these facts without getting ahead of itself and making more problems than can reasonably be solved in time to step up its technical ability and understanding.
This professor seems to be able to tell simplistic things in a rather clunky, difficult-to-understand way. Otherwise I am interested in this subject matter as well. I think maths is universal to a very large extent. Maybe some other Universes, theoretically, could have maths that differ from our Universe. (Such that 1 + 1 = 3.)
When you have one quanta, and there is another quanta, then there are two quanta. Any universe that differs must also lack the conservation of energy. Lacking conservation of energy implies that the principle of relativity is false. Such a universe is so alien to our understanding that it is literally impossible for our minds to come up with a self-consistent theory on how it works. This differs from many multiverse theories, which only theorise alternate universes with different fundamental constants (like the strength of the weak force, or the speed of light in a vacuum), if that (some posit alternate universes that appear when any quantum randomness happens, and has the exact same physical laws).
seek help, or resume your medication as prescribed.
i wish i was smarter lol
20min in the set theory it isn't a fumction :S
None of his mumble jumbo seems real or credible to have post as speaker at those schools he speaks. I listen to him on several occasions and most of his material is either plagiarized or worthless to listen.
became boring around 22 minutes. Anyway, who can prove this? until we find some real aliens. It could be our luck that they flunked their Math test in high-alien-school.
umm, what is there to prove?
he shows that even if you take a trivial idea such as the natural numbers there are several valid representations for these object through which you can arrive at the same conclusions (his example is that multiplication is commutative). in other words, superficially things that are very different can actually be the same (FSVO "the same"). these things that he showed are all proven in the mathematical sense, but I guess that's not what you meant...
the title is a bit of a misnomer, really this talk is about representations in math and to what extent they are the result of culture or biology, and the conclusion is that even if we think math is universal and aliens might arrive at the same axioms and proofs, they might go about representing it in ways that are very hard for us to relate to, so even if they would be talking about the same thing we might be able to tell.