If math came first, then why can't it deal with infinity? What you have is a man made tool that scales in the various directions and therefore does a reasonably competent job of mapping our surroundings. You're enamored by the potential of simplicity to represent something in the context of its complexity in totality.
I keep coming back to this channel. This although the opinions are oftentimes evasive/allusive, it never the less provides a more intelligent respite in seemingly chaotic times.
Beauty is the union of opposites symbolized by the Yin- Yang of the Tao. Subject - Object, Simplicity - Complexity, Order- Disorder, Symmetry - Asymmetry, Microcosm - Macrocosm, Male - Female.
I find it disconcerting that, of all people you're asking the question about beauty and truth in mathematics, _none of them is a professional mathematician!_ Plenty of theoretical physicists, who are notoriously sloppy with their math, and philosophers. But _zero_ mathematicians. Why??
I think arguing *Mathematics* can be 'beautiful" is a category error. Mathematics is a benign data processing activity that's void of any value judgments or aesthetics. Mathematics is either accurate or it's not. However, *Beauty* is subject to *value judgments* which were never available until the emergence of self-aware humans who are able to assign different levels of value to everything we observe. True, mathematics can be used to establish a specific degree of value to something that's either "beautiful" or "ugly," ... but there's nothing _beautiful_ or _ugly_ about mathematics.
To describe mathematics as merely a data processing activity is simplistic in the extreme. It's like saying that music is just the creation of sound waves by causing certain objects to vibrate in air! Mathematics has many aspects, and pure mathematics often has hardly any use for "data". It deals with its internal logic and concepts. Sure, not everyone can appreciate it. But for those who can, the word "beautiful" is an apt description.
@@Zerpentsa6598 *"To describe mathematics as merely a data processing activity is simplistic in the extreme."* ... Especially since mathematics demonstrates no aesthetics whatsoever. E=MC2 is not _beautiful;_ it's simply _accurate._ 12:00 PM is not beautiful; it's just a specific time of a day. An inch or a foot is not beautiful; it's merely a specific measurement of length. *"It's like saying that music is just the creation of sound waves by causing certain objects to vibrate in air! "* ... No, "sound waves" can be pleasing, annoying, or ambient depending on the nature of the wave. "Music" is a specific value judgment assigned to sound waves that meet musical criteria. *Example:* A circular saw cutting through sheet metal is neither musical nor is it deemed aesthetically beautiful. ... However, Beethoven's 9th Symphony is considered beautiful. *"and pure mathematics often has hardly any use for "data". It deals with its internal logic and concepts."* ... All data owe their origin to mathematics. The simplest act of "counting things" involves mathematics. *"Sure, not everyone can appreciate it. But for those who can, the word "beautiful" is an apt description."* ... Claiming mathematics is beautiful is a non sequitur. It's like asking, _"What is the color of jealousy?"_
In a layman's terms, the kind of thing we are talking about is like this: 1 = 1³ 3 + 5 = 2³ 7 + 9 + 11 = 3³ 13 + 15 + 17 + 19 = 4³ 21 + 23 + 25 + 27 + 29 = 5³ And so on... Is this self-evident, or is it not? Is it elegant, or is it not? Is self-evidence truth, or is it not? Is elegance beauty, or is it not?
Excellent show, profound... thought provoking. I would like to see an exploration of the implications of indeterminism. A look back at the Bohr vs Einstein debate.
Mathematics is originally derived from observation. Elegance is merely a measure of how easy it is for us to understand. There is no objective need for anything to be elegant.
I love the thumbnail for this video. I like how it suggests that Kuhn is thoughtful rather than a dogmatic, tired old font of academic fantasies. Kind of like The Cat in the Hat Goes to Harvard.
Beauty is emergent. It requires a conscious creature capable of perceiving beauty in order to exist, but there are certain regularities in what features of reality are perceived to be beautiful.
Personally, I have always considered beauty as subjective as it can be greatly affected by experience and bias. For example, a landscape considered "beautiful" by a the majority becomes somewhat mundane if viewed every day for 10 years. If you are an artist, I think you are more inclined to consider a wide palate of colors beautiful while an architect may consider simple clean lines as such. On the flip side, the same baby, statement or landscape would not be considered beautiful by all observers.
so kinda like the same word beautiful is despite instrinsic in its usage and feeling and description, it is dependent on the subject described, a flower is not beautiful in the same way an equation is beautiful?
Mathematics is a very effective tool used by the mind in analysing the structures and functionings of the physical world. Beyond that, mathematics melts away. We have many examples to prove that mathematics is not intrinsic in everything. The construction of a sentence is never mathematical but the power contained within a sentence cannot be over emphasised. Emotions are never accounted for in mathematics, however the power of emotion is indisputably obvious. As is mentioned in this episode, consciousness is inquantifiable. Since the mind conveniently creates mathematics as a working tool, anything beyond mathematics becomes inseparably fused like a very tin dissipating sheet and therefore incomprehensible. At some point the mind tries to assign numerical values to these but they always fail to encapsulate the whole. As mentioned above, language, emotion, and consciousness fall into that category. Space and time form a kind of boundary between the two.
Which came first mathematics or consciousness? Which is more fundamental to reality free will or numbers? The ability to assign bits with time bound goals is free will.
This is another one of those arguments, considered to be profound, that make no sense to me- beauty is subjective, "in the eye of the beholder" - it's not objective or intrinsic. Michio says beauty is symmetry- but I can point out countless works of art that are asymmetric in nature and still considered beautiful. I can think of many truths that aren't beautiful- at least not to me, which gets back to my whole point- it's subjective. So is "elegance" - so this whole argument just seems silly imo.
@@sammmmmwilliams No- actually I think it says more about human psychology than it does about the universe. So- I think it's an interesting question or way of thinking for psychologists and anthropologists and so forth- but not really for astro physics or cosmology. In fact- I think it has led ppl like Michio down roads that will most likely turn out to be unproductive- i.e string theory and the multiverse. I think a lot of ppl are starting to feel the same way- I give string theory maybe another 3 years, at most- if they can't come up with something verifiable, something that's real science, not more conjecture- they're done. The multiverse theory may hold- it's not just a part of string theory- but the rest I think will fall.
We could use the eight points of a cube to plot an anomalous object in a 3d figure. We use symmetry to coordinate existence. Perhaps it's not that the object is irregular that fools us. The connection of everything is the symmetry.
one can find the beauty also embedded in the journey toward the ultimate truth... what would be the point of having the journey if we already new all there was to know :) math is somehow related to shapes/forms/structures that lack imperfections... i.e. if a circle had a slightly straight perimeter then it would not equate to the perfect shape that is expected...
The beauty of a photograph, is it intrinsic or imposed? The photographer may impose a frame and a certain perspective on the picture, but its beauty reflects the reality which exists outside and extends far beyond the photographer's art.
What is the narrative of math? Logic or Reason? Where the coherency of reason has its foundations in consciousness and the faculties of mind such as memory, the coherency of logic has no direct, foundation in consciousness nor any memory except the principle of non-contradiction. Where the coherency of reason relies on the narrative of memory, the coherency of logic relies on non-contradiction. Where reason can narrate a completely irrational and illogical time travel story, logic can not narrate anything of the sort. However between the conscious mind that is engaged in an interaction with Nature, and the self-conscious mind that is engaged with "meaning" it derives from Nature there is a dichotomy. This dichotomy is embodied in the difference between machines and man. Humans cannot see colors beyond certain wavelengths of light, certain animals it is reasoned can. Machines that humans create, it is reasoned, can as well. While no normal human can verify and corroborate the apprehension of infrared or ultraviolet frequencies of color, we trust that our machines can. This trust is based on what? Not on the human senses and sentience but on reason and memory. Humans cannot tell their own weight or the exact temperature, but we trust scales and thermometers to tell us a 5 pound difference in weight or a 2 degree difference in temperature. We trust calculators to give us the right answer, reliably and repeatedly. Machines can do some things faster, more reliably and more precisely than humans can. It is the precision of machines over and above the precision of human sentience that makes them "trustworthy". This precision has its origin in human reason but its "instrument" in math. Where the human will must contend with factors beyond its control, machine operation tries to deal only with limited factors within its control. That some faculties of sentience have given us "meanings" that allow for this precise control is a Testament to the power of reason. That "science" has further refined those "meanings" into "measurements" is also a testament to reason. That those "measurements" lend themselves to precise control is a testament to math. Where mathematical precision becomes statistical, measurement either requires additional meaning or meaning itself may be at fault. Math is a tool 🔧 of reason. Do not be fooled by its success to mistake its results for something outside sentience. Ask yourself if the LHC or LIGO gives us more control of Nature or less control. What then is the good of the math behind their operation? Math must conform to Nature not man's idea of Nature for it to be useful. How good is statistics at predicting the roll of dice? Does statistics affirm free will?
Thanks for another great video. If we go back to basics, we can see beauty as constructed by the mind in its intrinsic desire for efficiency. Beauty results in lower energy processing costs for the same output. ''A'' has more beauty than ''B'' if ''A'' requires less energy to process to achieve a goal. If one ultimate goal is species reproduction, then beauty reduces our effort to continue our species.
@@JagadguruSvamiVegananda hahaha my cellphone had a problem and send my comment to another video.😂 I was watching a video of a talented girl dacing ballet and I posted: you are awesome. But my cellphone send this comment to this video. Because this video was the next on my list. And now thanks to your comment I know that my comment never arrived to the ballerina video😢 I need another cellphone.😢
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC Is easy, hahaha. I like ballet and also like Science. There are many videos explaining the relationship betwen ballet and maths. It is really awesome and beautiful. Ted Ed have some ones. So I was watching this beautiful ballerina dancing when my I remember that this video will be avaliable today. My cellphone is damage so it got confused and sent my comment to this video instead of the Ballerina one.😅 It Is funny because before the Ballerina video I was watching Tom Scott video about languages. So maybe in the Ballerina video there is my comment saying: Your videos are awesome Tom Scot, Good job as always say. 😂
Neither or. Math is describing patterns our brains perceive outside of ourselves, but the symbols and terminology is imposed by humans as a way for us to be able to communicate about what we are seeing. If there are no humans on Earth to do Mathematics, there would be no numbers. We have constructed a language that is describing reality and beauty, but it isn't reality or beauty itself.
Mathematics is imposed the coincidence is simply confirmation bias. First we hypothesize that in a certain set of circumstances we will have x result. Then we wait until those circumstances arise naturally or are capable of inducing them artificially and we record the result if it matches our prediction we cite that as a win and if it doesn’t we explain a new theory of why the result was something else. Math is mostly used as a way of explaining observed phenomena and then using the knowledge of that to sometimes predict something that has not been observed or explained. We have not experienced or observed even a measurable amount of the universe and yet we believe we can explain and create conditions based on writing some funny symbols on a piece of paper. Sounds like magic to me. Math is a tool like a hammer or ruler, but it was created by us to solve a problem. It is a tool to help us observe and explain like a hammer is a tool that allows us to hit things, both can be used for creation or destruction.
Life is Eternal, 'Rainbow is our Consciousness', a Circuit from Low to High, Instinct, Gravity, Feeling, Intelligence, Intuition, Memory, Red, Orange, Yellow, Green, Blue, Indigo. In addition to the Basic-Abilities, is a set of Creator- Principles. Perspective-Princip and Contrast-Princip make Feeling, into Sensing. Intelligence, means Logic and Order, Perspective-Princip, means, all Relations Relationship. Intelligence + Perspective-Princip = Mathematic. So, this is the Eternal Perspective, of Mathematics simple Nature. the Circuit also show a Developing-Circuir, Plants, is Instinct-Beings, Animals is Gravity-Beings, and further. Every New Developing-Circuit, is beginning of a whole New Consciousness and Language, and here come mathematic in, all ready from the very beginning of simple languages. So Mathematic is Eternal, and endless reinvented, Both.
What is that which allows for this notion of distinguishing truth & beauty being either intrinsic or imposed? Matter. Does gross matter have truth and beauty intriniscally? Not really sure what matter even is. We know of things from their attributes. What attributes does matter have? Does matter shape itself, give life to itself, existence to itself..does matter birth the qualities such as hotness, coldness.. is it right to think of mere matter as deity or entity? Usually, to have something, one must be more powerful than that thing so possessing it. Is truth & beauty imposed onto or into matter? High energized light, there arises hydrogen, and then atoms and then gross matter. Does truth & beauty being imposed onto metter happen at a latter time; only after matter arises, and then the Divine impresses itself onto this matter in time or does this impression occur simultaneously and transcendent time & space? How can it be said that the Divine just is and matter is too, except matter is in another place outside of the Divine? Because the Divine is transcendent & immanent. Only if the Divine is seperate from gross matter can you argue that such impression or truth & beauty becomes imposed onto this matter. Which it cannot be. Nothing is outside of the Divine. The seal and wax analogy is good for conveinence sake, only as a mimic to try and penetrate this difficulty. The seal and wax metaphor implies seperation and time & space. The Divine is transcendent and immanent. The Logos is intrinsic to the Nous; and Nous intrinsic to the ONE. What can be said to be intrinsic to gross matter? If Truth and Beauty is intrinsic, to some thing, what else or other could it be intrinsic to? Emanation is worth considering.
The universe is full of possibilities to another possibilities, unknowns to in unknowns. When science is discovering possibilities and unknowns by some ways like mathematic…we may call it is beautiful. Unfortunately the universe is so huge for us to understand all the possibilities and human may use other faith to explain it like religion. This may be a reason for a relationship between science and religion in my opinion.
_Mathematics is the “modern” substitute for the the _*_philosopher's stone_*_ which was the central symbol of the mystical terminology of _*_alchemy_*_ , _*_symbolizing perfection at its finest, enlightenment, and heavenly bliss_* . _”Lay not this flattering unction to your soul!”_ - _Hamlet Act I_ _Footnote: Sir Isaac Newton was much more an _*_alchemist_*_ than a _*_physicist_* _His “modern” acolytes as well_ .
_Closer To Truth is a unique TV series created, written and hosted by Dr Robert Lawrence Kuhn and co-created, produced and directed by Peter Getzels._ _Robert Lawrence Kuhn was awarded the China Reform Friendship Medal by the Communist Party of China (CPC) General Secretary and paramount leader Xi Jinping and Chinese leaders at the celebration of the 40th anniversary of China's reform._ _His work about China has received significant criticism outside of China and has been labeled as a _*_"fawning work of hagiography"_*_ , or _*_pro-China propaganda_* .
@@CloserToTruthTV It's a shame you and Braude did not actually explore specific details of specific cases regarding afterlife inquiry. The conversations were still wonderful.
_The Big Bang was invented by a Roman Catholic Priest named Georges Lemaître, in 1932, with a MatheMagical precision of 13.8 Billion years. THIRTEEN point EIGHT BILLION YEARS ago. Recently that Michio Kaku guy came up with the following: “The James Webb space tin can launched by NASA, discovered 5 new galaxies containing suns _*_TEN BILLION_*_ times bigger than our tiny little sun._ _Really Mr. Kaku? Come on!_
Mathematics is just about numbers. Doesn't science just invent new maths or symbols to explain a new paradigm or point of view that can not be explained otherwise?
🐟 03. CONCEPTS Vs THE TRUTH: The term “TRUTH” is a grossly misused word. Anything which has ever been written or spoken, by even the greatest sage or Avatar (incarnation of Divinity), including every single postulation within this Holy Scripture, is merely a CONCEPT and not “The Truth”, as defined further down. A concept is either accurate or inaccurate. Virtually all concepts are inaccurate to a degree. However, some concepts are far more accurate than others. A belief is an unhealthy and somewhat problematic relationship one has with a certain concept, due to misapprehension of life as it is, objectively-speaking. Attachment to beliefs, particularly in the presumption of individual free-will, is the cause of psychological suffering. For example, the personal conception of the Ultimate Reality (God or The Goddess) is inaccurate to a large extent (see Chapter 07). The concept of Ultimate Reality being singular (“All is One”) is far more accurate. The transcendence of BOTH the above concepts (non-duality) is excruciatingly accurate. However, none of these concepts is “The Truth” as such, since all ideas are relative, whilst The Truth is absolute. It is VITALLY important to distinguish between relative truth and Absolute Truth. Relative truth is temporal, mutable, subjective, dependent, immanent, differentiated, conditioned, finite, complex, reducible, imperfect, and contingent, whilst Absolute Truth is eternal, immutable, objective, independent, transcendent, undifferentiated, unconditional, infinite, non-dual (i.e. simple), irreducible, perfect, and non-contingent. Absolute Truth is the ground of all being (“Brahman”, in Sanskrit), and is prior to any mind, matter, name, form, intent, thought, word, or deed. Good and bad are RELATIVE - what may be good or bad can vary according to temporal circumstances and according to personal preferences. For example, there is absolutely no doubt that citrus fruits are a good source of nutrients for human beings. However, it may be bad to consume such beneficial foods when one is experiencing certain illnesses, such as chronic dysentery. 'One man's food is another man's poison.' Because of the relative nature of goodness, anything which is considered to be good must also be bad to a certain degree, since the extent of goodness is determined by the purpose of the object in question. As demonstrated, citrus fruits can be either good or bad, depending on its use. Is drinking arsenic good or bad? Well, if one wishes to remain alive, it is obviously bad, but for one who wishes to die, it is obviously good. However, beyond the dichotomy of good and bad, is the Eternal Truth, which transcends mundane relativism. Therefore, the goal of life is to rise above the subjective “good” and “bad”, and abide in the transcendental sphere. A qualified spiritual preceptor is able to guide one in the intricacies of such transcendence. Such a person, who has transcended mundane relative truth, is said to be an ENLIGHTENED soul. When making moral judgments, it is more appropriate to use the terms “holy/evil” or “righteous/unrighteous”, rather than “good/bad” or “right/wrong”. As the Bard of Avon so rightly declared in the script for one of his plays, there is nothing which is intrinsically either good or bad but “thinking makes it so”. At the time of writing (early twenty-first century), especially in the Anglosphere, most persons seem to use the dichotomy of “good/evil” rather than “good/bad” and “holy/evil”, most probably because they consider that “holiness” is exclusively a religious term. However, the terms “holy” and “righteous” are fundamentally synonymous, for they refer to a person or an act which is fully in accordance with pure, holy, and righteous principles (“dharma”, in Sanskrit). So a holy person is one who obeys the law of “non-harm” (“ahiṃsā”, in Sanskrit), and as the ancient Sanskrit axiom states: “ahiṃsa paramo dharma” (non-violence is the highest moral virtue or law). The ONLY real (Absolute) Truth in the phenomenal manifestation is the impersonal sense of “I am” (“ahaṃ”, in Sanskrit). Everything else is merely transient and unreal (“unreal” for that very reason - because it is ever-mutating, lacking permanence and stability). This sense of quiddity is otherwise called “Infinite Awareness”, “Spirit”, “God”, “The Ground of Being”, “Necessary Existence“, “The Higher Self”, as well as various other epithets, for it is the very essence of one's being. Chapters 06 and 10 deal more fully with this subject matter. Of course, for one who is fully self-realized and enlightened, the subject-object duality has collapsed. Therefore, a fully-awakened individual does not perceive any REAL difference between himself and the external world, and so, sees everything in himself, and himself in everything. If it is true that there are none so blind as those who don’t WANT to see, and none so deaf as those who don’t WANT to hear, then surely, there are none so ignorant as those who don’t WANT to learn the truth. OBVIOUSLY, in the previous paragraph, and in most other references to the word “truth” within this booklet, it is meant “the most accurate concept possible”, or at least “an extremely accurate fact”. For example, as clearly demonstrated in Chapters 21 and 22, it is undoubtedly “true” that a divinely-instituted monarchy is the most beneficial form of national governance, but that is not the Absolute Truth, which is the impersonal, never-changing ground of all being. So, to put it succinctly, all “truths” are relative concepts (even if they are very accurate) but the Universal Self alone is REAL (Absolute) Truth. “In the absence of both the belief 'I am the body' and in the absence of the belief that 'I am not the body', what is left is what we really are. We don't need to define what we really are. We don't need to create a thought to tell us what we are. What we are is what TRUTH is." ************* “God is not something 'out-there', 'looking-in', but God (or Source) has BECOME all of This. So, God is the Underlying Principle of all of this - the Energy or the Consciousness. The (psycho-physical) manifestation has arisen within Consciousness as an imagination in the mind of Source.” Roger Castillo, Australian Spiritual Teacher, 15/07/2015. “I am the TRUTH...” “...and the TRUTH shall set you free”. Lord Jesus Christ, John 14:16 and 8:32.
The absolute truth is, your comment section contains a lot of words. From scanning I would say I disagree with your beliefs on "self" and "free-will"... free-will is fundamental to this grand experiment. Also, not sure of your final proposed conclusions on this, but from both individual and collective perspectives there are absolute good/bad.. holy/evil is just semantics. As far as where 'truly enlightened' people lay on the spectrum, enlightenment without causal action towards continous improvement of self and others actual 'lived' conditions is just flatulence self-declared as the smell of roses. The more you know, the less you know. Does the Universe laugh at declarative statements by humans? Peace Out.
In my opinion, mathematical objects are real and intrinsic to physical reality. If a number, for example, were not the real property of physical objects, chemistry would be just an invention, not real science, because the chemical properties of the elements depend on the NUMBER of protons in the atom of the element. Thus, mathematics is not just an invention; mathematics is real. The realm of pure ideas, where mathematical truth resides among other ideas, is immanent in physical reality, not transcendent.
Since curses & blessings lead to standardized weights and measures along with prayer logic and the alphabetical exodus the Greeks adopted and unlocked well established philosophy Its clearly inspired and imposed. Its a paradoxical decaying universe as Micchiakaka pointed out. Standardized by mankind and imposed as a tool of approximation. It is only beautiful and amazing because of this symmetry itseld
Maths never created gravity or spacetime. If the reality is mathematical then everything must compute within itself. Either being aware of it or not. It doesn't matter if the true nature of reality is mathematical. I see Maths just a language to describe something not everything in universe. You can't describe why you care about yourself mathematically.
Sometimes knowledge is obtained through a series of perceived illogical steps at the times of observations. If we do nothing or say nothing we don't contribute at all. True understanding is hard and not an easy task.
Now the number line has been dredged and may face full decoding to algorithm. Only semantics fanning the air here over addition-multiplication duality.
1 plus 1 equal 2. I have 2 identical small piles of laundry. I put one line on top of another and get one big stack of laundry. one stack. yes, from a mathematical point of view, one large pile contains 2 small ones, but in reality there is ONE large pile in front of me.
_Ask those pseudo scientific bamboozlers what the term _*_beautiful_*_ means exactly. Ask your friends, relatives, etc… and you will see that each individual has a unique and personal meaning for _*_beautiful_* .
Our maths are believed to be fantastic and therefore perfect in every aspect. How did we ever get to such a mindset. Sorry to burst your bubbles, flaws are always inherent in anything hueman
Robert please stop talking over your female guests. They don't need you to finish their sentences or cut them off completely ... Will be unsubscribing asap ... do you even watch your interviews? You should.
@@staculette1919 If we consider chocolate pudding and the factorization of 210 equally mathematical, then what we have here is failure to communicate. I subscribe more or less to Penrose's ontology of three independent domaims: the physical, the mental and the mathematical.
Maths is not beauty,,,,,Humans ability to think is beauty..This old man search for unnecessary stuff is really illogical.....I think this man is on wrong path
@@jpined14 For what? People need to ask right questions otherwise they need to seek all his lifetime for wrong answer......No one can answer these type of illogical questions. Wasting of time.
If math came first, then why can't it deal with infinity? What you have is a man made tool that scales in the various directions and therefore does a reasonably competent job of mapping our surroundings. You're enamored by the potential of simplicity to represent something in the context of its complexity in totality.
I keep coming back to this channel. This although the opinions are oftentimes evasive/allusive, it never the less provides a more intelligent respite in seemingly chaotic times.
well said
Thanks, Merci, Gracias. Saludos desde Ovalle, Chile.
What seems like chaos is simply a symmetry that has yet to be discovered.
I believe in it too.
Makes sense
Humans self-awareness means that we find truth and beauty even in maths. Such attributes are not inherent to maths.
Excellent episode, and a bonus for me, recognizing the outdoor plaza of the Brooklyn Army Terminal, with the troop passenger car.
Beauty is the union of opposites symbolized by the Yin- Yang of the Tao. Subject - Object, Simplicity - Complexity, Order- Disorder, Symmetry - Asymmetry, Microcosm - Macrocosm, Male - Female.
Korzybski: "The map is not the territory".
I find it disconcerting that, of all people you're asking the question about beauty and truth in mathematics, _none of them is a professional mathematician!_
Plenty of theoretical physicists, who are notoriously sloppy with their math, and philosophers. But _zero_ mathematicians. Why??
I know. It just doesn't add up!
I think arguing *Mathematics* can be 'beautiful" is a category error. Mathematics is a benign data processing activity that's void of any value judgments or aesthetics. Mathematics is either accurate or it's not. However, *Beauty* is subject to *value judgments* which were never available until the emergence of self-aware humans who are able to assign different levels of value to everything we observe.
True, mathematics can be used to establish a specific degree of value to something that's either "beautiful" or "ugly," ... but there's nothing _beautiful_ or _ugly_ about mathematics.
To describe mathematics as merely a data processing activity is simplistic in the extreme. It's like saying that music is just the creation of sound waves by causing certain objects to vibrate in air! Mathematics has many aspects, and pure mathematics often has hardly any use for "data". It deals with its internal logic and concepts. Sure, not everyone can appreciate it. But for those who can, the word "beautiful" is an apt description.
@@Zerpentsa6598 *"To describe mathematics as merely a data processing activity is simplistic in the extreme."*
... Especially since mathematics demonstrates no aesthetics whatsoever.
E=MC2 is not _beautiful;_ it's simply _accurate._ 12:00 PM is not beautiful; it's just a specific time of a day. An inch or a foot is not beautiful; it's merely a specific measurement of length.
*"It's like saying that music is just the creation of sound waves by causing certain objects to vibrate in air! "*
... No, "sound waves" can be pleasing, annoying, or ambient depending on the nature of the wave. "Music" is a specific value judgment assigned to sound waves that meet musical criteria. *Example:* A circular saw cutting through sheet metal is neither musical nor is it deemed aesthetically beautiful. ... However, Beethoven's 9th Symphony is considered beautiful.
*"and pure mathematics often has hardly any use for "data". It deals with its internal logic and concepts."*
... All data owe their origin to mathematics. The simplest act of "counting things" involves mathematics.
*"Sure, not everyone can appreciate it. But for those who can, the word "beautiful" is an apt description."*
... Claiming mathematics is beautiful is a non sequitur. It's like asking, _"What is the color of jealousy?"_
Beauty is a concept of symmetry and symmetry is a concept of mathematics and is a truth. So it's not a human construct and not subjective
In a layman's terms, the kind of thing we are talking about is like this:
1 = 1³
3 + 5 = 2³
7 + 9 + 11 = 3³
13 + 15 + 17 + 19 = 4³
21 + 23 + 25 + 27 + 29 = 5³
And so on...
Is this self-evident, or is it not?
Is it elegant, or is it not?
Is self-evidence truth, or is it not?
Is elegance beauty, or is it not?
Excellent show, profound... thought provoking. I would like to see an exploration of the implications of indeterminism. A look back at the Bohr vs Einstein debate.
yet somehow...kinda shallow and clueless at times. but they are trying.
Yes, the idea of non-determinism is very interesting.
Mathematics is originally derived from observation. Elegance is merely a measure of how easy it is for us to understand. There is no objective need for anything to be elegant.
I love the thumbnail for this video. I like how it suggests that Kuhn is thoughtful rather than a dogmatic, tired old font of academic fantasies. Kind of like The Cat in the Hat Goes to Harvard.
Beauty is emergent. It requires a conscious creature capable of perceiving beauty in order to exist, but there are certain regularities in what features of reality are perceived to be beautiful.
Beauty is God. And the true God. The Trinity Godhead, also the son Jesus and the holy sprit which protects us now is beauty emerging.
Our perspective is too constrained to really understand what and why beauty is.
I think that's a valid claim
True beauty is God's grace.
Personally, I have always considered beauty as subjective as it can be greatly affected by experience and bias. For example, a landscape considered "beautiful" by a the majority becomes somewhat mundane if viewed every day for 10 years. If you are an artist, I think you are more inclined to consider a wide palate of colors beautiful while an architect may consider simple clean lines as such. On the flip side, the same baby, statement or landscape would not be considered beautiful by all observers.
Yes.
so kinda like the same word beautiful is despite instrinsic in its usage and feeling and description, it is dependent on the subject described, a flower is not beautiful in the same way an equation is beautiful?
Those are merely the triggers for the experience of something transcendent
Mathematics is a very effective tool used by the mind in analysing the structures and functionings of the physical world. Beyond that, mathematics melts away. We have many examples to prove that mathematics is not intrinsic in everything. The construction of a sentence is never mathematical but the power contained within a sentence cannot be over emphasised. Emotions are never accounted for in mathematics, however the power of emotion is indisputably obvious. As is mentioned in this episode, consciousness is inquantifiable.
Since the mind conveniently creates mathematics as a working tool, anything beyond mathematics becomes inseparably fused like a very tin dissipating sheet and therefore incomprehensible. At some point the mind tries to assign numerical values to these but they always fail to encapsulate the whole. As mentioned above, language, emotion, and consciousness fall into that category. Space and time form a kind of boundary between the two.
Which came first mathematics or consciousness? Which is more fundamental to reality free will or numbers? The ability to assign bits with time bound goals is free will.
This is another one of those arguments, considered to be profound, that make no sense to me- beauty is subjective, "in the eye of the beholder" - it's not objective or intrinsic. Michio says beauty is symmetry- but I can point out countless works of art that are asymmetric in nature and still considered beautiful. I can think of many truths that aren't beautiful- at least not to me, which gets back to my whole point- it's subjective. So is "elegance" - so this whole argument just seems silly imo.
Do you think it (the question) is an interesting way of thinking about ideas and the universe?
@@sammmmmwilliams No- actually I think it says more about human psychology than it does about the universe. So- I think it's an interesting question or way of thinking for psychologists and anthropologists and so forth- but not really for astro physics or cosmology. In fact- I think it has led ppl like Michio down roads that will most likely turn out to be unproductive- i.e string theory and the multiverse. I think a lot of ppl are starting to feel the same way- I give string theory maybe another 3 years, at most- if they can't come up with something verifiable, something that's real science, not more conjecture- they're done. The multiverse theory may hold- it's not just a part of string theory- but the rest I think will fall.
Acknowledgement of beauty follows empathy and understanding.
We could use the eight points of a cube to plot an anomalous object in a 3d figure. We use symmetry to coordinate existence. Perhaps it's not that the object is irregular that fools us. The connection of everything is the symmetry.
one can find the beauty also embedded in the journey toward the ultimate truth... what would be the point of having the journey if we already new all there was to know :)
math is somehow related to shapes/forms/structures that lack imperfections... i.e. if a circle had a slightly straight perimeter then it would not equate to the perfect shape that is expected...
The beauty of a photograph, is it intrinsic or imposed? The photographer may impose a frame and a certain perspective on the picture, but its beauty reflects the reality which exists outside and extends far beyond the photographer's art.
What is the narrative of math? Logic or Reason? Where the coherency of reason has its foundations in consciousness and the faculties of mind such as memory, the coherency of logic has no direct, foundation in consciousness nor any memory except the principle of non-contradiction.
Where the coherency of reason relies on the narrative of memory, the coherency of logic relies on non-contradiction. Where reason can narrate a completely irrational and illogical time travel story, logic can not narrate anything of the sort.
However between the conscious mind that is engaged in an interaction with Nature, and the self-conscious mind that is engaged with "meaning" it derives from Nature there is a dichotomy. This dichotomy is embodied in the difference between machines and man.
Humans cannot see colors beyond certain wavelengths of light, certain animals it is reasoned can. Machines that humans create, it is reasoned, can as well. While no normal human can verify and corroborate the apprehension of infrared or ultraviolet frequencies of color, we trust that our machines can.
This trust is based on what? Not on the human senses and sentience but on reason and memory. Humans cannot tell their own weight or the exact temperature, but we trust scales and thermometers to tell us a 5 pound difference in weight or a 2 degree difference in temperature. We trust calculators to give us the right answer, reliably and repeatedly. Machines can do some things faster, more reliably and more precisely than humans can. It is the precision of machines over and above the precision of human sentience that makes them "trustworthy". This precision has its origin in human reason but its "instrument" in math. Where the human will must contend with factors beyond its control, machine operation tries to deal only with limited factors within its control.
That some faculties of sentience have given us "meanings" that allow for this precise control is a Testament to the power of reason. That "science" has further refined those "meanings" into "measurements" is also a testament to reason. That those "measurements" lend themselves to precise control is a testament to math.
Where mathematical precision becomes statistical, measurement either requires additional meaning or meaning itself may be at fault.
Math is a tool 🔧 of reason. Do not be fooled by its success to mistake its results for something outside sentience.
Ask yourself if the LHC or LIGO gives us more control of Nature or less control. What then is the good of the math behind their operation? Math must conform to Nature not man's idea of Nature for it to be useful. How good is statistics at predicting the roll of dice? Does statistics affirm free will?
Couldn't it be both intrinsic and imposed?
Kaku sounds like a large language model, just saying a bunch of words that seem to go together
Thanks for another great video.
If we go back to basics, we can see beauty as constructed by the mind in its intrinsic desire for efficiency. Beauty results in lower energy processing costs for the same output. ''A'' has more beauty than ''B'' if ''A'' requires less energy to process to achieve a goal. If one ultimate goal is species reproduction, then beauty reduces our effort to continue our species.
You are awesome🌍🌟
Because? 🤔
@@JagadguruSvamiVegananda hahaha my cellphone had a problem and send my comment to another video.😂
I was watching a video of a talented girl dacing ballet and I posted: you are awesome. But my cellphone send this comment to this video. Because this video was the next on my list. And now thanks to your comment I know that my comment never arrived to the ballerina video😢
I need another cellphone.😢
@@freddyjosereginomontalvo4667
Most of my phones are Infinix/TECNO. They are superb! 📱
@@freddyjosereginomontalvo4667 *"I was watching a video of a talented girl dacing ballet"*
... How does one segue from ballerinas to mathematics? 🤔
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC Is easy, hahaha. I like ballet and also like Science. There are many videos explaining the relationship betwen ballet and maths. It is really awesome and beautiful. Ted Ed have some ones.
So I was watching this beautiful ballerina dancing when my I remember that this video will be avaliable today. My cellphone is damage so it got confused and sent my comment to this video instead of the Ballerina one.😅
It Is funny because before the Ballerina video I was watching Tom Scott video about languages. So maybe in the Ballerina video there is my comment saying: Your videos are awesome Tom Scot, Good job as always say.
😂
Watch Richard Feynman about that point
Oh Robert! My guy never fumbles or smiles as much as he did while interviewing Dr. Lisia Verde! Robert you sly dog!
I noticed that on a couple other videos lol. He likes smart women which I can appreciate.
@@mrcoolguy819 Yea, its so relatable with me that I had to poke fun about it
Michio Kaku talks about big bang like it definitely happened.
Neither or. Math is describing patterns our brains perceive outside of ourselves, but the symbols and terminology is imposed by humans as a way for us to be able to communicate about what we are seeing. If there are no humans on Earth to do Mathematics, there would be no numbers. We have constructed a language that is describing reality and beauty, but it isn't reality or beauty itself.
Ask God to show you his geometry of creation. 🌼🕸️❄️🔥👀
Mathematics is imposed the coincidence is simply confirmation bias. First we hypothesize that in a certain set of circumstances we will have x result. Then we wait until those circumstances arise naturally or are capable of inducing them artificially and we record the result if it matches our prediction we cite that as a win and if it doesn’t we explain a new theory of why the result was something else. Math is mostly used as a way of explaining observed phenomena and then using the knowledge of that to sometimes predict something that has not been observed or explained. We have not experienced or observed even a measurable amount of the universe and yet we believe we can explain and create conditions based on writing some funny symbols on a piece of paper. Sounds like magic to me. Math is a tool like a hammer or ruler, but it was created by us to solve a problem. It is a tool to help us observe and explain like a hammer is a tool that allows us to hit things, both can be used for creation or destruction.
Life is beautiful and so are you. That’s the truth. 😎
oh...shut up!
Life is Eternal, 'Rainbow is our Consciousness',
a Circuit from Low to High,
Instinct, Gravity, Feeling, Intelligence, Intuition, Memory,
Red, Orange, Yellow, Green, Blue, Indigo.
In addition to the Basic-Abilities, is a set of Creator- Principles.
Perspective-Princip and Contrast-Princip make Feeling,
into Sensing.
Intelligence, means Logic and Order,
Perspective-Princip, means, all Relations Relationship.
Intelligence + Perspective-Princip = Mathematic.
So, this is the Eternal Perspective, of Mathematics simple Nature.
the Circuit also show a Developing-Circuir, Plants, is Instinct-Beings,
Animals is Gravity-Beings, and further.
Every New Developing-Circuit, is beginning of a whole New
Consciousness and Language, and here come mathematic in,
all ready from the very beginning of simple languages.
So Mathematic is Eternal, and endless reinvented, Both.
11:26 love this woman’s accent… 😍
What is that which allows for this notion of distinguishing truth & beauty being either intrinsic or imposed?
Matter.
Does gross matter have truth and beauty intriniscally?
Not really sure what matter even is.
We know of things from their attributes.
What attributes does matter have?
Does matter shape itself, give life to itself, existence to itself..does matter birth the qualities such as hotness, coldness.. is it right to think of mere matter as deity or entity?
Usually, to have something, one must be more powerful than that thing so possessing it.
Is truth & beauty imposed onto or into matter?
High energized light, there arises hydrogen, and then atoms and then gross matter.
Does truth & beauty being imposed onto metter happen at a latter time; only after matter arises, and then the Divine impresses itself onto this matter in time or does this impression occur simultaneously and transcendent time & space?
How can it be said that the Divine just is and matter is too, except matter is in another place outside of the Divine?
Because the Divine is transcendent & immanent.
Only if the Divine is seperate from gross matter can you argue that such impression or truth & beauty becomes imposed onto this matter. Which it cannot be. Nothing is outside of the Divine.
The seal and wax analogy is good for conveinence sake, only as a mimic to try and penetrate this difficulty. The seal and wax metaphor implies seperation and time & space. The Divine is transcendent and immanent.
The Logos is intrinsic to the Nous; and Nous intrinsic to the ONE.
What can be said to be intrinsic to gross matter?
If Truth and Beauty is intrinsic, to some thing, what else or other could it be intrinsic to?
Emanation is worth considering.
Do you have velcro on your shoes? No way you could tie shoes with this lack of basic understanding.
Mathematics is a language period
The universe is full of possibilities to another possibilities, unknowns to in unknowns. When science is discovering possibilities and unknowns by some ways like mathematic…we may call it is beautiful. Unfortunately the universe is so huge for us to understand all the possibilities and human may use other faith to explain it like religion. This may be a reason for a relationship between science and religion in my opinion.
_Mathematics is the “modern” substitute for the the _*_philosopher's stone_*_ which was the central symbol of the mystical terminology of _*_alchemy_*_ , _*_symbolizing perfection at its finest, enlightenment, and heavenly bliss_* .
_”Lay not this flattering unction to your soul!”_ - _Hamlet Act I_
_Footnote: Sir Isaac Newton was much more an _*_alchemist_*_ than a _*_physicist_* _His “modern” acolytes as well_ .
_Closer To Truth is a unique TV series created, written and hosted by Dr Robert Lawrence Kuhn and co-created, produced and directed by Peter Getzels._
_Robert Lawrence Kuhn was awarded the China Reform Friendship Medal by the Communist Party of China (CPC) General Secretary and paramount leader Xi Jinping and Chinese leaders at the celebration of the 40th anniversary of China's reform._
_His work about China has received significant criticism outside of China and has been labeled as a _*_"fawning work of hagiography"_*_ , or _*_pro-China propaganda_* .
It's sad to see that Robert interviews the same people and asks them the same questions every time a new series is released.
He has new long form interviews though
@@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns And we have a new long-form interview airing this Friday!
@@CloserToTruthTV It's a shame you and Braude did not actually explore specific details of specific cases regarding afterlife inquiry. The conversations were still wonderful.
both
imposed by the higher spiritual dimensions obviously 5.4, with much assistance from 5.3.... next question....
16:26
_The Big Bang was invented by a Roman Catholic Priest named Georges Lemaître, in 1932, with a MatheMagical precision of 13.8 Billion years. THIRTEEN point EIGHT BILLION YEARS ago. Recently that Michio Kaku guy came up with the following: “The James Webb space tin can launched by NASA, discovered 5 new galaxies containing suns _*_TEN BILLION_*_ times bigger than our tiny little sun._ _Really Mr. Kaku? Come on!_
It’s both….designed and intrinsic. The all is One, The One is All
Mathematics is just about numbers. Doesn't science just invent new maths or symbols to explain a new paradigm or point of view that can not be explained otherwise?
🐟 03. CONCEPTS Vs THE TRUTH:
The term “TRUTH” is a grossly misused word.
Anything which has ever been written or spoken, by even the greatest sage or Avatar (incarnation of Divinity), including every single postulation within this Holy Scripture, is merely a CONCEPT and not “The Truth”, as defined further down.
A concept is either accurate or inaccurate. Virtually all concepts are inaccurate to a degree. However, some concepts are far more accurate than others. A belief is an unhealthy and somewhat problematic relationship one has with a certain concept, due to misapprehension of life as it is, objectively-speaking. Attachment to beliefs, particularly in the presumption of individual free-will, is the cause of psychological suffering.
For example, the personal conception of the Ultimate Reality (God or The Goddess) is inaccurate to a large extent (see Chapter 07). The concept of Ultimate Reality being singular (“All is One”) is far more accurate. The transcendence of BOTH the above concepts (non-duality) is excruciatingly accurate. However, none of these concepts is “The Truth” as such, since all ideas are relative, whilst The Truth is absolute.
It is VITALLY important to distinguish between relative truth and Absolute Truth. Relative truth is temporal, mutable, subjective, dependent, immanent, differentiated, conditioned, finite, complex, reducible, imperfect, and contingent, whilst Absolute Truth is eternal, immutable, objective, independent, transcendent, undifferentiated, unconditional, infinite, non-dual (i.e. simple), irreducible, perfect, and non-contingent.
Absolute Truth is the ground of all being (“Brahman”, in Sanskrit), and is prior to any mind, matter, name, form, intent, thought, word, or deed.
Good and bad are RELATIVE - what may be good or bad can vary according to temporal circumstances and according to personal preferences. For example, there is absolutely no doubt that citrus fruits are a good source of nutrients for human beings. However, it may be bad to consume such beneficial foods when one is experiencing certain illnesses, such as chronic dysentery. 'One man's food is another man's poison.'
Because of the relative nature of goodness, anything which is considered to be good must also be bad to a certain degree, since the extent of goodness is determined by the purpose of the object in question. As demonstrated, citrus fruits can be either good or bad, depending on its use. Is drinking arsenic good or bad? Well, if one wishes to remain alive, it is obviously bad, but for one who wishes to die, it is obviously good.
However, beyond the dichotomy of good and bad, is the Eternal Truth, which transcends mundane relativism. Therefore, the goal of life is to rise above the subjective “good” and “bad”, and abide in the transcendental sphere. A qualified spiritual preceptor is able to guide one in the intricacies of such transcendence. Such a person, who has transcended mundane relative truth, is said to be an ENLIGHTENED soul.
When making moral judgments, it is more appropriate to use the terms “holy/evil” or “righteous/unrighteous”, rather than “good/bad” or “right/wrong”. As the Bard of Avon so rightly declared in the script for one of his plays, there is nothing which is intrinsically either good or bad but “thinking makes it so”. At the time of writing (early twenty-first century), especially in the Anglosphere, most persons seem to use the dichotomy of “good/evil” rather than “good/bad” and “holy/evil”, most probably because they consider that “holiness” is exclusively a religious term. However, the terms “holy” and “righteous” are fundamentally synonymous, for they refer to a person or an act which is fully in accordance with pure, holy, and righteous principles (“dharma”, in Sanskrit). So a holy person is one who obeys the law of “non-harm” (“ahiṃsā”, in Sanskrit), and as the ancient Sanskrit axiom states: “ahiṃsa paramo dharma” (non-violence is the highest moral virtue or law).
The ONLY real (Absolute) Truth in the phenomenal manifestation is the impersonal sense of “I am” (“ahaṃ”, in Sanskrit).
Everything else is merely transient and unreal (“unreal” for that very reason - because it is ever-mutating, lacking permanence and stability).
This sense of quiddity is otherwise called “Infinite Awareness”, “Spirit”, “God”, “The Ground of Being”, “Necessary Existence“, “The Higher Self”, as well as various other epithets, for it is the very essence of one's being. Chapters 06 and 10 deal more fully with this subject matter.
Of course, for one who is fully self-realized and enlightened, the subject-object duality has collapsed. Therefore, a fully-awakened individual does not perceive any REAL difference between himself and the external world, and so, sees everything in himself, and himself in everything.
If it is true that there are none so blind as those who don’t WANT to see, and none so deaf as those who don’t WANT to hear, then surely, there are none so ignorant as those who don’t WANT to learn the truth.
OBVIOUSLY, in the previous paragraph, and in most other references to the word “truth” within this booklet, it is meant “the most accurate concept possible”, or at least “an extremely accurate fact”.
For example, as clearly demonstrated in Chapters 21 and 22, it is undoubtedly “true” that a divinely-instituted monarchy is the most beneficial form of national governance, but that is not the Absolute Truth, which is the impersonal, never-changing ground of all being.
So, to put it succinctly, all “truths” are relative concepts (even if they are very accurate) but the Universal Self alone is REAL (Absolute) Truth.
“In the absence of both the belief 'I am the body' and in the absence of the belief that 'I am not the body', what is left is what we really are.
We don't need to define what we really are. We don't need to create a thought to tell us what we are. What we are is what TRUTH is."
*************
“God is not something 'out-there', 'looking-in', but God (or Source) has BECOME all of This.
So, God is the Underlying Principle of all of this - the Energy or the Consciousness.
The (psycho-physical) manifestation has arisen within Consciousness as an imagination in the mind of Source.”
Roger Castillo,
Australian Spiritual Teacher, 15/07/2015.
“I am the TRUTH...” “...and the TRUTH shall set you free”.
Lord Jesus Christ,
John 14:16 and 8:32.
The absolute truth is, your comment section contains a lot of words. From scanning I would say I disagree with your beliefs on "self" and "free-will"... free-will is fundamental to this grand experiment. Also, not sure of your final proposed conclusions on this, but from both individual and collective perspectives there are absolute good/bad.. holy/evil is just semantics. As far as where 'truly enlightened' people lay on the spectrum, enlightenment without causal action towards continous improvement of self and others actual 'lived' conditions is just flatulence self-declared as the smell of roses.
The more you know, the less you know.
Does the Universe laugh at declarative statements by humans?
Peace Out.
Are you ready to admit how much money you make off of scamming people yet?
In my opinion, mathematical objects are real and intrinsic to physical reality. If a number, for example, were not the real property of physical objects, chemistry would be just an invention, not real science, because the chemical properties of the elements depend on the NUMBER of protons in the atom of the element. Thus, mathematics is not just an invention; mathematics is real. The realm of pure ideas, where mathematical truth resides among other ideas, is immanent in physical reality, not transcendent.
What is the number 3? Can you answer that question?
Since curses & blessings lead to standardized weights and measures along with prayer logic and the alphabetical exodus the Greeks adopted and unlocked well established philosophy
Its clearly inspired and imposed.
Its a paradoxical decaying universe as Micchiakaka pointed out.
Standardized by mankind and imposed as a tool of approximation.
It is only beautiful and amazing because of this symmetry itseld
Maths never created gravity or spacetime. If the reality is mathematical then everything must compute within itself. Either being aware of it or not. It doesn't matter if the true nature of reality is mathematical. I see Maths just a language to describe something not everything in universe. You can't describe why you care about yourself mathematically.
Sometimes knowledge is obtained through a series of perceived illogical steps at the times of observations. If we do nothing or say nothing we don't contribute at all. True understanding is hard and not an easy task.
Mathematics models physical symmetry.
It implies it, but the LHC says no!
@@cameron1376 Reality at times can be uncooperative.
@@B.S... Yeah don't you hate it when it does that? :)
Now the number line has been dredged and may face full decoding to algorithm. Only semantics fanning the air here over addition-multiplication duality.
Kindly repeat that in ENGLISH, Miss.☝️
Incidentally, Slave, are you VEGAN? 🌱
@@JagadguruSvamiVegananda Invest in a dictionary. Also read about Incompleteness Theorem.
Big Bang = Singular.
Mathematics is objective and real.
Read Robert Knapp.
1 plus 1 equal 2. I have 2 identical small piles of laundry. I put one line on top of another and get one big stack of laundry. one stack. yes, from a mathematical point of view, one large pile contains 2 small ones, but in reality there is ONE large pile in front of me.
Intrinsic, all born out of the binary dichotomy between being and non-being
Intrinsic!
_Ask those pseudo scientific bamboozlers what the term _*_beautiful_*_ means exactly. Ask your friends, relatives, etc… and you will see that each individual has a unique and personal meaning for _*_beautiful_* .
Anything imposed is false and ugly.
Theos logos
Cursed rationalism
Blessed common sense inherentance of the universe 🙏 ✨ 🙌 ❤ 😮
Frivolous
Statistical mechanics
It is imposed
Our maths are believed to be fantastic and therefore perfect in every aspect. How did we ever get to such a mindset. Sorry to burst your bubbles, flaws are always inherent in anything hueman
Your “logic” is UNDERWHELMING, Sir. 🙄
Talking to my old wife, math. is ugly.
Mathematics is a branch of physics and not Vice versa
Robert please stop talking over your female guests. They don't need you to finish their sentences or cut them off completely ... Will be unsubscribing asap ... do you even watch your interviews? You should.
Your video description and intro set up a wildly false dichotomy. The world doesn't reduce to math. But math has an independent existence.
@ComommonlyCensored I know you are but what am I?
Can you give an example of an object that isn't mathematical in nature ?
@@staculette1919 If we consider chocolate pudding and the factorization of 210 equally mathematical, then what we have here is failure to communicate. I subscribe more or less to Penrose's ontology of three independent domaims: the physical, the mental and the mathematical.
All is one…
We are the same One (Big Bang = Singular).
Maths is not beauty,,,,,Humans ability to think is beauty..This old man search for unnecessary stuff is really illogical.....I think this man is on wrong path
You should start your own channel and teach us how it’s really done.
Don’t keep us waiting!
@@jpined14 For what? People need to ask right questions otherwise they need to seek all his lifetime for wrong answer......No one can answer these type of illogical questions. Wasting of time.
Humans discover math after 4.5 billion years.
Could you imagine that the ETs know math for a billion years?
Energy, Frequency, Vibration, Time ⏲️... 3, 6, 9 ,12
#physics #quantumphysics #QuantumCosmology #quantum #quantummechanics #quantumcoherennce #quantumtunneling #daylightsavings2023