He tried to promote creationism with his wrong interpretation regarding the cosmological constant. Likely, the cosmological constant is relative to the matter density. Extra space can come inside matter areas slowly because of the limited speed of light and the low space density between galaxies. So it wouldn't happen very faster without letting stars form.
Never expected the direction that went in. Glad I stayed with it. Every time the local priest in my village tries to get me and the wife to church I always talk about the universe being some sort of digital creation. He tells me it can be what ever I like it too be as long as I attend on a Sunday morning. I might have to go now, just so I can espouse Holographic universe to him. Lol. Many thanks. Enjoyed that.
I'd love to see Matt Parker (StandUpMaths) do a review of this. There's so much to take in that I'd like a second opinion, and I say that as someone with a physics degree 🙂
Yes Matt Parker, thank you. He lost me on Trump is silly. I believe that is an opinion and I can't get it into the number study. I will need to look further at numbers before I understand if and how personal opinion affects them.
I enjoyed the first part of this, learning about googol, googolplex, Knuth's arrows, Graham's number. But it got disjointed in the last 15 minutes when he tried to relate massive numbers to entropy, doppelgangers, and speculation about a holographic universe. It seemed overly simplistic to consider doppelgangers a logical outcome of the number of cubic meters of space in the universe exceeding the number of possible quantum states of those cubic meters, as though every state has a roughly equal likelihood of existing. I felt he glossed over that point by acknowledging that empty space would have many more redundant cubic meter quantum states than those other, fussier cubic meters, like ourselves. At least 15 billion years of countless events went into the creation of each of us. Mr. Padilla gave no indication that the creative process and its all but infinite variables and feedback loops has any bearing on the idea of doppelgangers. To make it a numbers game, scientists need to know all the variables, and their odds, and clearly they don't, as Mr. Padilla readily admitted when noting that the energy level of a cubic meter of the vacuum in space is wildly smaller than the current cosmological theories expect.
I think what he's saying is that there are only a finite way of arranging all the particles (and their quantum states) together, meaning that you would run out of the possible combinations of such as you travel further and further out into the universe, so it wouldn't matter if some of those combinations are less likely than the others, repetitions would be inevitable. Also the amount of information needed to account for the energy states of all particles and virtual particles (from the vacuum) would be so huge that only a black hole could provide that level of data compression, therefore the 3d universe is projected from a 2d inner surface of a black hole.
@@skylark8828 Yes, a finite way of arranging particles, and yes, some repetitions inevitable. But there is no logical way to then make the leap to saying that ALL arrangements are inevitably repeated, especially when one makes no attempt to calculate the odds of a repeated combination of particles in the form of you or me. Not all arrangements are equally likely. Without factoring in the relative likelihood of a given arrangement, the notion of doppelgangers is unconvincing in the extreme.
The concept behind his idea is called "Boltzmann Brain". You don't need an evolutionary process to create a thinking brain, in the end it is way more probable that quantum fluctuations create a brain with consciousness instantly out of the blue. Thinking about this concept sends you deep down the rabbithole.
@@geoffsherwood7918 - "Not all arrangements are equally likely." - If we admit that, then surely the ones that we _know_ exist are more likely than (or _at least_ as likely as) the ones never encountered. In other words, a non-uniform distribution of arrangements plus data about known arrangements point towards an even _higher_ likelihood of doppelgangers than if the distribution was perfectly uniform.
Ever since being exposed to the terrorizing concept of the heat death of the universe in early 1970s college physics, I have always considered increasing entropy to be a more ordered state since the entire universe is approaching energy equilibrium, i.e. zero.
It is truly appreciated by this individual that time was taken to explain the concept of numbers in relation to the universe and specifically black holes. Clearly identified with the black hole in the “back yard” the one that just does not go away. Comical but truthful all in one. Gracias!
45:00 what does the two dimensionality in a model universe has to do with our three dimensional universe? What problem does the Holographic principle solve and why should we even think it is relevant to reality?
Two things I never understood is, if information is missing (A) How can you be sure it's missing, and (B) If it's missing, how can you know how much is missing?? Using the coins example - what if the information about the number of coins was missing? Maybe none were and the belief that any coins were tossed is in error. How can you be sure that the information about how many times they were tossed isn't also missing?
I think it's flawed on the account that information is _in formation,_ i.e. arranged in such a way it can be made sense of. I think it more likely this 'information' merely becomes 'data', subtle difference. e.g. kind of like if you broke down a lego model into lego pieces, the model is gone, and the pieces themselves contain no clues as to how the model was constructed.
As far as I understand it, that is no problem when gravity as a phenomenon is present and working as "usual" in its encoded 2D form. When there's no contradiction, this is just another representation of the same reality.
I am a fan of the anthropic principle: If things weren't the way they are, we wouldn't be here to question why they are the way they are. Now, I respect Neil deGrasse's opinion that this is anti-science because it answers no questions and discourages seeking answers, but I cannot deny the truth of the statement.
Isn’t it assuming the cubes probabilities are independent? I think the neighboring regions affect the sample of combinations we can draw from. How does that influence the doppelgänger calculation?
When someone mentions a googol, I have to say it is 10,000 trillion trillion trillion trillion, trillion trillion trillion trillion, and I can't stop until I do. crazy
As it takes forever for a black hole to swallow the 'elephant' or 'triceratops' which ever was tossed in will still be there just outside the Schawartzshild radius. Therefore, you can tell which one is being swallowed. You won't be around for the black hole to swallow either and indeed the black hole being 'small' way well evaporate before anything is swallowed.
This is actually a massive problem. Isn't it? He said one digit contains 3-4 bits of information. Bits as in BInary digiTs bits. Now, why on Earth would one choose to logically encode any number mathematically bit by bit? This isn't the way numbers really are, this is a way we communicate numbers, and this particular view (using bits) is some electronic restriction stemming from transistor technology, i.e. unrelated to the numbers themselves (i.e. a model of me would have limitations which would not imply that the real me would have those same limitations). There's no logical reason for a 'mahoosive' number to take up any more 'space' than any other number, outside of the encoding limitations we create for ourselves. If we chose to electronically represent numbers using wave frequencies, all numbers would all be the same 'length' (although people would come up with thought exercises around zero hertz having an infinite wavelength).
@@lk-music - Bits have nothing to do with "electronic limitations", it's just the simplest way to quantise information (two symbols). Most circuits used to represent and / or transmit bits electronically are analogue, and can represent or transmit an infinite number of intermediate values (but there's no such thing as infinite precision, so you'd inevitably run into limitations of the medium - again, using digits allows you to quantise that precision, and decouple it from the medium used to represent it). Also, it's not really about how "massive" a number is, it's about how many _different_ numbers you need to be able to represent. If you only need to work with two numbers (say, Graham's number and a googolplex), you can represent them using a single bit. But generally, if you're creating a general-purpose system, it has to be able to represent any and every number (or any and every number up to a certain limit). And you cannot have "a wave with a frequency of a googolplex hertz", it's simply not something that can exist in this universe.
@@RFC-3514 Numbers do not exist in the universe. Numbers exist within a conceptual plane. Arithmetic is performed either within the imagination, or a calculating machine. The constraints you describe are a representational constraints, even using our main general purpose system, we cannot represent every number, only approximate them, for example pi.
@@lk-music - I can represent pi just fine: π. And the "constraints" to measurement and precision are very much part of the physical world. Digital representation can attain levels of precision far beyond any physical medium, because it's not bound by limits such as the speed of light, absolute zero, or the Planck length. The big leap from analogue to digital is the decoupling of precision from physical limits and noise.
@@RFC-3514 The pi symbol is not part of the 'general-purpose system' it is a symbol separate from the general purpose notation reserved as convention for a specific value. A digital representation of pi would not be so trivial. We have no idea whether the parameters of the universe are what we think they are, or if they are merely the limitations of the methods we're using to measure them.
Why do galaxies and black holes rotate on 2D planes while they move in the 3D universe? If matter increases its entropy over one directional time, and dark matter decreases its entropy over the opposite directional time. If matter has gravity, and dark matter has antigravity. If black holes are the visible images of dark energy. If light radiates, and dark contracts. Every number i has imaginary number -i. Each person has 2 eyes; the left eye is entangled with the right eye. The back side of the heart is entangled with the front side of the heart. Different things have different mirror planes at the point of their creations. Different things bombard each other and get entangled with new things and create new structures. The loss of old information makes new information.
The largest practically useful number: the number of cubes, with each side one Planck-length long (the smallest distance known to physics), that will fit into the entirety of the observable universe?
Kind of confused about the definition of entropy being exclusively quantitative. I've imagined it having quantitative and qualitative elements. Is it just one word that has two different meanings in two different realms of scientific inquiry? One is measured in bits of data, but entropy in terms of "orderliness" is subjective like with the messy room example. If my wife comes and cleans our room and puts all the stuff away or throws some out, the room may look nice, but I might not be able to find stuff since it's not where I left it.
The number would still be the same. And if you're talking about the _length,_ (i.e., the physical dimension of something, and not the actual number) then I guess its "smallness" would depend on what that thing was. A 1-metre long ant wouldn't generally be described as "small".
Wait! Maybe I missed something, but ... did we ever get to Graham's number? Why is it interesting, apart from being hugely huge? Every number bigger than it as that property. Still; interesting presentation! Thanks
No, David, you shouldn't have backed off. He didn't get around to Graham's number, perhaps because he thought his job was to fill the room with the sound of his own voice. And it wasn't an interesting presentation. It was a boring succession of pointless repetitions and excursions.
He mentioned that it arose in a solution to a proof or something. The meaning of that number wasn't the point of the talk. But its a ridiculously huge number that has an actual name.
So he actually says how Hologram works correctly. It recreates a 3D image, but it does not recreate the 3D object. Duality replaces one dimension with something else but all the same amount of 'information' is still there and all the effects can be calculated either way. It may be easier to use one case or the other. Duality are much more impressive than a mere hologram (which is only a 3D image not a mapping of a full 3D world to 2D).
4 หลายเดือนก่อน
A black hole the size of the observable universe could not only not contain G64, it could not even contain 3↑↑↑3 and especially not G1=3↑↑↑↑3, which is unfathomably much larger.
I am still waiting on some answers, and while I do that, I will give it a go, not here though to start with, I will do so with Sabine, as she deserves more of the credit . After that I will just copy and paste it here for a royal stamp.
Now, try replacing the cubes with spheres using the same model... not sure what the math would look like, but I feel like it might be worthwhile to consider
For the particular problem he was working on, he was able to determine that the answer would be smaller than that. Hence why it appears in the Guinness Book as "the biggest number used in an actual mathematical proof", or something like that.
27:20 Tony Padilla discovers cheeky little Maxwell's demons? Or, are those a little different, worthy of their own name, let's say Parker's demons? For a slightly failed thermodynamics experiment.
If physical reality is holographic and gravity is an illusion, what does that tell us about dark matter? This ghostly stuff we only infer to exist because of gravity?
So, the first black was created by a cat trying to count to Grahams number, and thats where we get the saying, curiosity killed the cat. I had always wondered where it came from - Thanks Tony. P.S. Was it Schrodingers cat?
@@lk-music We imagine we understand. I don't understand enough to solve second order differential equations. But I know my address and I know where to buy food. Enough.
@@lk-music Actually breaking things down, metaphorically, is one of our good ideas. Complaining (praying) to the manufacturer (God) may be emotionally satisfying, But it doesn't help me find a plumber on Sunday morning.
@@tedgrant2 Indeed, understanding is imaginary and when our understanding appears to be accurate we assume that must mean our understanding is correct.
At 17:30 the Professor explains 3⬆️⬆️⬆️3 = 3⬆️⬆️(3⬆️⬆️3). I believe there is one arrow too many. It should be 3⬆️(3⬆️⬆️3). It's a matter of exponential calculus. Thoughts?
Fun fact: that's actually how the most popular general-purpose non-lossy compression algorithms (ex., ZIP) work. They save a dictionary plus a list of numbers describing the order in which you should read the words to get the intended file(s).
Great talk 👍🤘 I see the universe more topologically... The cardioid the perfect fourth to express any minimum maximum range. And Shirley's Surface Surface(cos(u/2)cos(v/2),cos(u/2)sin (v/2),sin(u)/2) 0>u>4π 0>v>2π. A single sided closed surface, as our manifold
Oh how dare a presenter make a mention of current affairs that’s been injected into our life’s unwillingly one way or other for years. Just how dare he!
human numbers do not explain the universe, they only describe human observations of the universe. Physics cannot even be described without invented numbers.
Still and all ... any specific integer (say google to the power google to the ... to any finite number of google powers), is tiny compared to that number, to its own power, which is tiny compared to ... but you get the picture!
Ok I waited enough, here is the comment I posted with Sabine. Please send me a grant for my many scientific projects. Sabine.... I want to share my theory of the universe with you here and now because I believe some credit belongs to you for attempting to explain "things", then I will copy and past at the royal institute for a royal decree and stamp. A part of the universe, the one everybody is on currently, works possibly in such a manner.........! If we take the √2 and make a square (a irregular not a perfect square), and through such shape increase its coordinates infinitely in all possible directions, while simultaneously decrease its coordinates in all possible directions (without having a start), we would get a impossible to senses topological construction, by the very fact of the irrationality of the √2, the atrium properties of the geometric shape and polynomial characteristics of it all that could be measured by calculus for certain uses. If such a technique could be applied to any other shapes other than a square, which I believe it can, then dimensions to cover many and all possible problems already known in mathematics, physics, chemistry and biology with possible solutions are and would be available. Such a linguistics theory, (as I aspect anyone else to add the physics equations and the appropriate mathematics) would also cover the connection between the classical view of matter and the quantum view of matter, by the very fact of a irrational measure, with it's atrium properties as a geometrical shape, and it's total polynomial characteristics proceeding and being in all directions as infinitely big and infinitely small, with one slight immensely important difference.....! That of anyone or anything not being able to pinpoint a magnetic monopole in such a universe (as it is believed and stated to be by our very own selfs), not because there is no such a thing, but because we are one, everything in this part of the universe is in its totality a (concept) of a magnetic monopole, making the ability of classical matter and the quantum matter operate and interact in such ways that can be observed. This important difference, (that of everything being a magnetic monopole) is also the possible reason why to anyone or some, a beginning of sorts (an initial start) makes sense in some sort of a mathematical and physical sense, as a proven sense of direction in a expansive way or contractive way, has to be very active and observable for a magnetic monopole to exist in the first place, observable especially through light simultaneously. Making in some cases observable, and in other cases mathematically and in physics terms sound, the very fact of once a measure of very large/big is achieved mathematically, in physics terms and observable, seem and behave like a possible initial start, which in the same exact manner would seem and behave like a possible initial start, once a measure of very small is achieved also mathematically, in physics terms and observable. Which would make the possibility of all being a concept of a magnetic monopole in all directions, through the consciousness of the other sides of a magnetic field. But only as a full magnetic field itself through the simultaneous movement of infinitely big and infinitely small in all possible directions and conditions, which is exactly as braking a magnet or a particle. Making consciousness have various combinations of degrees with humans possessing a very diverse combination off. The everything being a concept of a magnetic monopole, achives in excluding the start, any starting point which would fit with topology in a completely different way as a geometric shape, and to which I suspect Dirac got a serious sniff at. Together with the quantum effect in relation to classical physics once a contact through sensing has been made as usually, similar to braking a magnet possibly keeping everything here and there simultaneously in a quantum physical state and a classical physical state. (It has to be noted, that in a state of being, any state of being, if and when looking, observing, or even thinking in physics and mathematical terms, towards what is infinitely small, anyone can only do so through looking, observing or even thinking in physics and mathematical terms, in a increase form and structure of infinitely big (( meaning in a reverse manner)), which is exactly the same if and when looking, observing, or even thinking in a physics and mathematical terms towards what is infinitely big, anyone can only do so through a decrease form and structure of infinitely small....! Otherwise anyone cannot see, observe, or even think in physics and mathematical terms about more or less anything, statistically nothing at all.) It also has to be noted that the existence of what is understood as black holes, at certain locations such as the centre of galaxies or in some completely random places could be a possible lead to the concept of everything being as a magnetic monopole concept, and the initiation, developing and the duration of a black hole, relates to the concept of braking a magnet, keeping the magnetic monopole always constant in these directions of the universe, yet never reaching a other side directions or being a sort of limit, edge or a centre of these sides of the universe. Gravity should be around somewhere, here, there and everywhere as a magnetic monopole constant, hence why nothing falls. It is not fully worked yet as a theory, but as a start will do, one that began long long ago, one that could be seen in the very architecture of many houses for a very long period in the form of a skylight, probably still in existence in many places as I write this. (Note: the irregular square made out of the coordinates of √2 can be used as the basis of the sixty base measures used to make what everyone knows as time (well it has been used thousands of periods ago), with some tweaking here and there as the root and any shape out of it is irrational, and most certainly never precise in repeating loop in order to explain what is understood by past, present and future. Where as a simultaneous increase and decrease to infinitely big and infinitely small, of any shape in all possible dimensions hence directions, fit's perfectly with some of the concepts of entropy, together with past, present and future in relation to all possible combinations and forms of contact.)
. EVERY TIME I HEAR ABOUT AN INFINITE UNIVERSE having an infinite number of copies of ME in it, I ask: CAN YOU SHOW ME THE MATHEMATICAL PROOF? I have yet to see a single reply...
Maybe if you USED LESS CAPS people would be more INCLINED to REPLY. And the "proof" is basically statistical. In an infinite non-biased universe, every possible configuration of particles will exist an infinite number of times.
@@RFC-3514 "Maybe if you USED LESS CAPS people would be more INCLINED to REPLY", says the person replying to my comment. Hilarious. What's "RFC"? "Request for Comment"? What about in a biased universe? Is "non-biased universe" a defined mathematical concept? Don't bother, that entire response is not a mathematical proof, any more than my saying "In an infinite universe, every possible instance of me is just as likely to exist as not exist" would be a mathematical proof. Anyhoo, having been a netizen since the late 1970's, I find CAPS, _italics_ and *Bold* typing styles to work about as well as they always have. Stick to the classics, remember your hot keys, and you'll never lose sleep over frozen screens, low-bandwidth bottlenecks, and unresponsive audiences.
That's because physics is a natural science, unlike maths which is a formal science, and so doesn't use rigorous proofs like in maths but considers theories that attempt to describe natural phenomena which are never proven to be 'true' but get accepted as more and more evidence of theory is obtained and gets disregarded when there's evidence that goes against it. The existence of infinite copies of you in an infinite universe is a prediction based on theories of quantum physics and thermodynamics (which both have a large amount of evidence in support of) and the idea that there are a finite number of quantum states that can describe a certain area of space, and so given an infinite universe it's statistically inevitable that there will be an infinite copies of you (and me and everyone else!). We don't currently know if the universe is infinite, and if it was we wouldn't be able to measure if there were an infinite number of copies of you. But if we don't find evidence that would suggest this wouldn't happen (perhaps there would be some mechanism that would prevents this) and our theories of quantum physics and thermodynamics are correct (which we think they are) then there's not much reason to believe why this wouldn't happen (at least there's not a reason I can think of and I'm by no means an expert in this topic). So it's not a mathematically rigorous statement and is kind of going beyond what we currently know about the universe, but it's still interesting to think about!
I saw this and was excited to watch. Then I realized it was Tony Padilla. If you’ve ever seen some of the stuff he puts on Twitter, it will disgust you.
Yes Hu Go - did you also spot his confusing explanation about multiplication that 3 x 3 is 3 added to itself 3 times'. It's not, It's 3 added to itself 2 times. What a confusing explanation for children. And then he reinforced it with 3 x 4 is 3 added to itself 4 times FFS.
I have a few serious questions I would like to ask and in some method or another I would not mind to be lead or nudged to a possible answer, (I will accept a theory of everything, in fact a theory of everything will do just fine) at least to me the question's are serious. I know that many know of the observable universe being only four or five percent observable...! Leaving ninety five/ninety six percent not able in being observable, could even be said impossible. Now.....! Out of the four or five percent of the observable universe that I know that many know, it is observable....! How much of that is there an observable evidence for!?!? What percentage based on observable evidence, makes that as a total percentage known of the only four or five percent of the observable universe!?!? After that....! I would not mind in knowing, even as a statistical total percentage....! What and (how much) of the universe does anyone, I mean anyone know about the universe!?!?! I know all of this (in relation to the universe), I know that many know more of what I don't know (in relation to the universe), but I don't understand what I know, and I definitely don't understand what I know that many know about the universe. If anyone, and I mean anyone (understands) what I know about the (universe), and most importantly what I know that they know about the (universe), which at minimum would make them very sure as a percentage of the only possible four or five percent of the observable universe ((in understanding))), of what they know about the universe.....!?!? Then please tell me.... Because at minimum I would not mind in knowing, as for understanding....! Anyone understands that anyone knows nothing about the universe, or at minimum anyone should have a (theory of everything) in understanding that anyone knows nothing about the universe, (even as a statistical percentage). Which makes a situation where anyone understands nothing about what anyone knows, and anyone knows nothing about what anyone understands. As a mathematical statistics percentage always.... (I ask because I round it up to twelve thousand and forty five human days ago, Hubble telescope was launched, and there are about seven thousand mechanical satellites orbiting earth.) And finally a thought experiment : Take any circle and start measuring within the circle, with each measure closer and closer together, more and more precise. Then begin to observe what happens, starting from the centre of the circle. Once having seen that with anyone's own eyes, ask yourself....! Where and how did the universe start again, if it did so from a (spark)!?!? Apply the thought to a sphere, and ask yourself, on which side/part of the sphere anyone is on, and where is the edge of the sphere!?!?
What a silly remark to make at 19:45 . Who cares what you think of any politician? Please keep MAGA or anti-MAGA out of science class or we will ask you for numbers to back up what you meant.
Boiling head from storing bits is absurd. One would run out of memory before that happen. He is some how assuming that memory is being added. That does not happen in a brain. You can had memory to a computer, but it cost money and there not enough available for Graham's number. Silly!
Owning a googol pounds would cause such unprecedented inflation that someone owning a googolplex pounds would basically be equally rich, or poor if you like.
I am blown away that it appears to be impossible to avoid people whose psyches have been totally taken over by Trump. Even in RI presentations, it's Trump Trump Trump. Get a freaking grip on yourself, dude.
It's called Trump Derangement Syndrome. Conspiracy theories say that Pfizer invented a vaccine but Bill Gates and George Soros have bought the patent to take it from the market.
Describing a system by definition leaves out intrinsic information that is not observable by an outsider of that system. Observing something in a different way does not change the nature of the "life" that the described system has. In other words just observing a fly does not mean you have all the information about the fly. For example: do you know what it thinks? Do you know what it will do next? The fly "knows", the observer does not! Also even if you know the past of the fly, you don't know what made it choose to land at a certain point or why it chose the flight pattern. I personally don't buy that a 2 dimensional universe without gravity can describe a 3 dimensional universe with gravity - flawed logic / inference / conjecture was used to this conclusion. You will never know/describe everything about that fly unless you somehow transform into that fly from birth to its death, and observe its life without somehow interfering.
1 = 0 = infinity This seems like a good place for a slightly batty working joe like myself, to post his thoughts on reality, math and physics. Don't take this too seriously, I'm no scientist: Solving the Collatz Conjecture....3X + 1 Mathematics is circular. All numbers come back on themselves, in a loop. If you shoot a light into space, the space is curved, it will return to the same spot, because it never left. It's an illusion to think it left. Think of that light shot into space, as a number line. Numbers return to themselves in a causal loop. The answer to that equation can be found in understanding what numbers really are: As a layman, I have always intuitively thought that Quantum Entanglement makes sense if you assume that reality is more like a Mandelbrot set: all things are repeating patterns of basic reality, because the idea of separateness of physical objects, is an illusion. We have 'spooky action at a distance' because objects are the same thing. Literally. It's an illusion to think we can separate ourselves from other people, from the universe. No need to violate the speed of light, because not only is time universal, meaning time is the same everywhere. So is localism...everything is literally part of the same locality. No need to go anywhere, worry about the speed of light between objects because all objects are one thing. This means all information exists everywhere, equally. What is information? Numbers. This means numbers are all equal. Every number, in some way, is the same as every other number. My basic formula for reality: 1 = 0 = infinity Locality and separateness of objects is an illusion. All distances are the same, since distance is an illusion. All times are the same, since time is an illusion. How are times and distance measured? By numbers. This means all numbers are the same. This means: 14 = 0 = 6 = 3 = 1 trillion etc. Numbers return to themselves, get trapped in a causal loop, like a snake biting it's own tail. It's the same time, everywhere. There is no past or future. Only now. The tail is the mouth. Numbers are an illusion, that reality creates: Consciousness and life create an illusion of separateness. We are born, the miracle of life is convincing us we are separate from reality. We are not. Math arises out of physics. We got physics wrong. For example, the universe doesn't exist. Dr. Ben Miles has a recent video on that. Last Nobel Prize went to three physicists who proved the localism doesn't exist. Fits that pattern. Numbers arose out of our evolution. Even animals have primitive ideas of quantity. Why? It's useful for survival. Same in humans: Accuracy of throwing spears requires a well adjusted physical system, able to do calculations of speed and distance and force of spears. That's the same as math. Math originates in biology, as we had to deal with the problem of survival. We made calculations about physical matter and survival. So biology and math arises in evolution, from life and the laws of physics. Math is a reflection of evolution, like everything else. Evolution and math is rooted in physics. It's how consciousness survives. So key to getting math right, is getting physics right. Realizing how math arose, what that means. That means the closer we get to getting physics right, the closer we get to how math actually works. Life creates illusions we have to overcome, biology creates illusions about reality, because that's a successful pattern: self-deception about reality. See: Donald Hoffman, Reality is an illusion, How evolution hid the Truth Part of unpacking this problem of finding the truth of math, is unpacking how consciousness creates our perception of reality. Including how consciousness arises in the first place. Does the world exist, as we see it? No. Do things even appear, do physical things exist, without consciousness? Unlikely. The observer is required, to create reality. Then the observer must overcome the limits to his perception, that evolution wired into him. He must overcome the tricks of self-deception, of evolution, to speculate how physics actually works. My comment is just a guess, as to the nature of reality. It's an attempt at a new very small crack in the doorway, into how reality might actually be. Someone else might walk in the door and look around. I can't. It would take someone else to turn my idea into something useful. I can't do it. Or more likely, have a laugh, find a waste paper basket. 🗑
What evolved from what into what? I think this question summarizes most of those ponderings above. Try to look at topology, group theory, the great symmetries/invariances giving rise to conserved quantities ensuring the stability of that "illusion"... The symbols (aka digits) for numbers are just that: simplifying representations that help to organise them in our minds. Why would they go in loop? The most reduced attempt to describe the universe mathematically I know of: is Wolfram's computational model. Sadly math theories which can't (yet) make predictions are more tempting if they utilize the mystically tuned parts of the human brain. I don't know what kind of societies would/will lead to such evolutionary processes which make us able to fully accept the "human condition". ... The "trick" of reality is in the phenomenon of energy. Once it's revealed what is interacting with what, at the most fundamental level of physics, there will be no need to look further. Not because there's nothing beyond, but a mind based on temporality cannot really go beyond thinking requiring discernment. In some utterly limited manner a human can become one with "it". However, what can one say about that which is everything? That which cannot be compared since there is only nothing to relate to.... And in contrast to nothing each thing can look/feel like infinity if there is "no end in sight": (think about the infiniteness of the numberline). Deeply hidden we all carry the ultimate void: some believe that immersing their mind in that "horrible" emptiness ensures them access to ALL (aka God). Good for them
A Hologram does not reproduce a 3D egg but only the light pattern being reflected off it. When you view a hologram of an egg, it's only a picture that looks 3D, there is no actual egg there! You won't be able to eat it, scramble it, make eggnog or throw it a the RI lecturer. And 'trapped' in Hologram is silly t00. Even if there is a duality between the physics in some number of dimensions and a theory in a lower number, it's still the same physics and all that's changed his how you chose to describe it. You and your world are just a real in either case.
@@l.w.paradis2108 I saw a video within the last week that explained why zero wasn't a number. Made total sense, but I can't remember many details of it.
@@laurendoe168 Except that it is. Zero is the additive identity, and it is unique (i.e., let x be an additive identity; this implies x must equal zero). IOW, you can't do something as simple as adding and subtracting integers without it. I'd love to see what the video said.
If only I had a Euro for each time someone begins his talk at RI mentioning Faraday....
You would have a googol of euros…..😅
You'd still have to work
@@stephenspringett7057 Uhhh... good one!
This is a brilliant comment 😂
lol
I appreciate seeing Tony Padilla. He's a great numberphile contributor.
He tried to promote creationism with his wrong interpretation regarding the cosmological constant. Likely, the cosmological constant is relative to the matter density. Extra space can come inside matter areas slowly because of the limited speed of light and the low space density between galaxies. So it wouldn't happen very faster without letting stars form.
That might not have been the real him .......
No he isn't
I remember him explaining one time how you get -1/12th out of an infinite, non-converging series...
@@smlanka4u Not this guy. You either confuse him with someone else or have misunderstood him completely.
Never expected the direction that went in. Glad I stayed with it. Every time the local priest in my village tries to get me and the wife to church I always talk about the universe being some sort of digital creation. He tells me it can be what ever I like it too be as long as I attend on a Sunday morning. I might have to go now, just so I can espouse Holographic universe to him. Lol. Many thanks. Enjoyed that.
I'd love to see Matt Parker (StandUpMaths) do a review of this. There's so much to take in that I'd like a second opinion, and I say that as someone with a physics degree 🙂
Yes Matt Parker, thank you.
He lost me on Trump is silly. I believe that is an opinion and I can't get it into the number study. I will need to look further at numbers before I understand if and how personal opinion affects them.
watched 45 minutes. No sign yet of a secret of the Universe that has been unlocked thanks to the mysterious numbers.
I enjoyed the first part of this, learning about googol, googolplex, Knuth's arrows, Graham's number. But it got disjointed in the last 15 minutes when he tried to relate massive numbers to entropy, doppelgangers, and speculation about a holographic universe. It seemed overly simplistic to consider doppelgangers a logical outcome of the number of cubic meters of space in the universe exceeding the number of possible quantum states of those cubic meters, as though every state has a roughly equal likelihood of existing. I felt he glossed over that point by acknowledging that empty space would have many more redundant cubic meter quantum states than those other, fussier cubic meters, like ourselves. At least 15 billion years of countless events went into the creation of each of us. Mr. Padilla gave no indication that the creative process and its all but infinite variables and feedback loops has any bearing on the idea of doppelgangers. To make it a numbers game, scientists need to know all the variables, and their odds, and clearly they don't, as Mr. Padilla readily admitted when noting that the energy level of a cubic meter of the vacuum in space is wildly smaller than the current cosmological theories expect.
I think what he's saying is that there are only a finite way of arranging all the particles (and their quantum states) together, meaning that you would run out of the possible combinations of such as you travel further and further out into the universe, so it wouldn't matter if some of those combinations are less likely than the others, repetitions would be inevitable.
Also the amount of information needed to account for the energy states of all particles and virtual particles (from the vacuum) would be so huge that only a black hole could provide that level of data compression, therefore the 3d universe is projected from a 2d inner surface of a black hole.
@@skylark8828 Yes, a finite way of arranging particles, and yes, some repetitions inevitable. But there is no logical way to then make the leap to saying that ALL arrangements are inevitably repeated, especially when one makes no attempt to calculate the odds of a repeated combination of particles in the form of you or me. Not all arrangements are equally likely. Without factoring in the relative likelihood of a given arrangement, the notion of doppelgangers is unconvincing in the extreme.
The concept behind his idea is called "Boltzmann Brain". You don't need an evolutionary process to create a thinking brain, in the end it is way more probable that quantum fluctuations create a brain with consciousness instantly out of the blue. Thinking about this concept sends you deep down the rabbithole.
@@geoffsherwood7918 - "Not all arrangements are equally likely." - If we admit that, then surely the ones that we _know_ exist are more likely than (or _at least_ as likely as) the ones never encountered. In other words, a non-uniform distribution of arrangements plus data about known arrangements point towards an even _higher_ likelihood of doppelgangers than if the distribution was perfectly uniform.
Ever since being exposed to the terrorizing concept of the heat death of the universe in early 1970s college physics, I have always considered increasing entropy to be a more ordered state since the entire universe is approaching energy equilibrium, i.e. zero.
It is truly appreciated by this individual that time was taken to explain the concept of numbers in relation to the universe and specifically black holes. Clearly identified with the black hole in the “back yard” the one that just does not go away. Comical but truthful all in one. Gracias!
Wish Brady would’ve brought you out the brown paper!
I love seeing him on Numberphile!
45:00 what does the two dimensionality in a model universe has to do with our three dimensional universe? What problem does the Holographic principle solve and why should we even think it is relevant to reality?
Delightful presentation
There's a lovely comedy moment at 24:58.
Absolutely Brilliant Tony
Thank you Antonio Padilla and all involved; and lets talk about that paradigm shift :D
Two things I never understood is, if information is missing (A) How can you be sure it's missing, and (B) If it's missing, how can you know how much is missing?? Using the coins example - what if the information about the number of coins was missing? Maybe none were and the belief that any coins were tossed is in error. How can you be sure that the information about how many times they were tossed isn't also missing?
I think it's flawed on the account that information is _in formation,_ i.e. arranged in such a way it can be made sense of. I think it more likely this 'information' merely becomes 'data', subtle difference. e.g. kind of like if you broke down a lego model into lego pieces, the model is gone, and the pieces themselves contain no clues as to how the model was constructed.
45:05 - The Holographic Truth
What about new information created only by the influence of gravity?
As far as I understand it, that is no problem when gravity as a phenomenon is present and working as "usual" in its encoded 2D form. When there's no contradiction, this is just another representation of the same reality.
I am a fan of the anthropic principle: If things weren't the way they are, we wouldn't be here to question why they are the way they are. Now, I respect Neil deGrasse's opinion that this is anti-science because it answers no questions and discourages seeking answers, but I cannot deny the truth of the statement.
16:47 Isn't that 7.6 trillion rather than billion? Is he using the long scale?
Isn’t it assuming the cubes probabilities are independent? I think the neighboring regions affect the sample of combinations we can draw from. How does that influence the doppelgänger calculation?
Thanks everyone :)
When someone mentions a googol, I have to say it is 10,000 trillion trillion trillion trillion, trillion trillion trillion trillion, and I can't stop until I do.
crazy
Finally .
The Days had come .
The begining of the end of the beginning.
As it takes forever for a black hole to swallow the 'elephant' or 'triceratops' which ever was tossed in will still be there just outside the Schawartzshild radius. Therefore, you can tell which one is being swallowed. You won't be around for the black hole to swallow either and indeed the black hole being 'small' way well evaporate before anything is swallowed.
The cosmological constant is relative to the matter density. Extra space is coming inside matter areas slowly because of the limited speed of light.
37:15 'Numbers have information' - that is one heck of a claim.
This is actually a massive problem. Isn't it? He said one digit contains 3-4 bits of information. Bits as in BInary digiTs bits. Now, why on Earth would one choose to logically encode any number mathematically bit by bit? This isn't the way numbers really are, this is a way we communicate numbers, and this particular view (using bits) is some electronic restriction stemming from transistor technology, i.e. unrelated to the numbers themselves (i.e. a model of me would have limitations which would not imply that the real me would have those same limitations). There's no logical reason for a 'mahoosive' number to take up any more 'space' than any other number, outside of the encoding limitations we create for ourselves. If we chose to electronically represent numbers using wave frequencies, all numbers would all be the same 'length' (although people would come up with thought exercises around zero hertz having an infinite wavelength).
@@lk-music - Bits have nothing to do with "electronic limitations", it's just the simplest way to quantise information (two symbols). Most circuits used to represent and / or transmit bits electronically are analogue, and can represent or transmit an infinite number of intermediate values (but there's no such thing as infinite precision, so you'd inevitably run into limitations of the medium - again, using digits allows you to quantise that precision, and decouple it from the medium used to represent it).
Also, it's not really about how "massive" a number is, it's about how many _different_ numbers you need to be able to represent. If you only need to work with two numbers (say, Graham's number and a googolplex), you can represent them using a single bit. But generally, if you're creating a general-purpose system, it has to be able to represent any and every number (or any and every number up to a certain limit). And you cannot have "a wave with a frequency of a googolplex hertz", it's simply not something that can exist in this universe.
@@RFC-3514 Numbers do not exist in the universe. Numbers exist within a conceptual plane. Arithmetic is performed either within the imagination, or a calculating machine. The constraints you describe are a representational constraints, even using our main general purpose system, we cannot represent every number, only approximate them, for example pi.
@@lk-music - I can represent pi just fine: π. And the "constraints" to measurement and precision are very much part of the physical world. Digital representation can attain levels of precision far beyond any physical medium, because it's not bound by limits such as the speed of light, absolute zero, or the Planck length. The big leap from analogue to digital is the decoupling of precision from physical limits and noise.
@@RFC-3514 The pi symbol is not part of the 'general-purpose system' it is a symbol separate from the general purpose notation reserved as convention for a specific value.
A digital representation of pi would not be so trivial.
We have no idea whether the parameters of the universe are what we think they are, or if they are merely the limitations of the methods we're using to measure them.
Love how the British aren't afraid to throw shade in public forums.
Great video good to see Tony again, a question for Tony, at what step (G2,3,…) Graham No surpasses Googolplex? Thanks
Guess 3///3 doing that already
@@NRRMPROS thanks for your response, my guess would have been G1 or 2
You underestimate the number, gp is just 10^10^10^10, when
3///3 is 27^27^27^27^3^3^3… and still about 7.6 billion of ^3
@@NRRMPROS fair point 🙏
Why do galaxies and black holes rotate on 2D planes while they move in the 3D universe? If matter increases its entropy over one directional time, and dark matter decreases its entropy over the opposite directional time. If matter has gravity, and dark matter has antigravity. If black holes are the visible images of dark energy. If light radiates, and dark contracts. Every number i has imaginary number -i. Each person has 2 eyes; the left eye is entangled with the right eye. The back side of the heart is entangled with the front side of the heart. Different things have different mirror planes at the point of their creations. Different things bombard each other and get entangled with new things and create new structures. The loss of old information makes new information.
Amazing content.
The largest practically useful number: the number of cubes, with each side one Planck-length long (the smallest distance known to physics), that will fit into the entirety of the observable universe?
Kind of confused about the definition of entropy being exclusively quantitative. I've imagined it having quantitative and qualitative elements. Is it just one word that has two different meanings in two different realms of scientific inquiry? One is measured in bits of data, but entropy in terms of "orderliness" is subjective like with the messy room example. If my wife comes and cleans our room and puts all the stuff away or throws some out, the room may look nice, but I might not be able to find stuff since it's not where I left it.
😀 “Clean the room yourself” - Jordan Peterson.
A googeplex is small if the unit associated with it is one googleplexth of a meter
That must be smaller than the Planck constant? The question is -- by how much? :)
The number would still be the same. And if you're talking about the _length,_ (i.e., the physical dimension of something, and not the actual number) then I guess its "smallness" would depend on what that thing was. A 1-metre long ant wouldn't generally be described as "small".
It’s small because we’re only able to glimpse a moment in what we would measure as space time coordinates, from our dimensional perspective.
Wait! Maybe I missed something, but ... did we ever get to Graham's number? Why is it interesting, apart from being hugely huge? Every number bigger than it as that property. Still; interesting presentation! Thanks
No, David, you shouldn't have backed off. He didn't get around to Graham's number, perhaps because he thought his job was to fill the room with the sound of his own voice.
And it wasn't an interesting presentation. It was a boring succession of pointless repetitions and excursions.
He mentioned that it arose in a solution to a proof or something. The meaning of that number wasn't the point of the talk. But its a ridiculously huge number that has an actual name.
So he actually says how Hologram works correctly. It recreates a 3D image, but it does not recreate the 3D object.
Duality replaces one dimension with something else but all the same amount of 'information' is still there and all the effects can be calculated either way. It may be easier to use one case or the other. Duality are much more impressive than a mere hologram (which is only a 3D image not a mapping of a full 3D world to 2D).
A black hole the size of the observable universe could not only not contain G64, it could not even contain 3↑↑↑3 and especially not G1=3↑↑↑↑3, which is unfathomably much larger.
All numbers are fantastic. If there were non-fantastic numbers, there had to be a smallest one. Wouldn't that be fantastic?
He had me at the James Corden disses.
Very interesting. Thank you, Sir.
You will never walk alone
I am still waiting on some answers, and while I do that, I will give it a go, not here though to start with, I will do so with Sabine, as she deserves more of the credit . After that I will just copy and paste it here for a royal stamp.
Anyone else think of Jupiter Ascending when he talked about statistically certain doppelgangers? 😅
Now, try replacing the cubes with spheres using the same model... not sure what the math would look like, but I feel like it might be worthwhile to consider
That would become the spherical thinking of synergetics. There's a lot there to be found... I share some of what the spheres taught me on my channel
Anthony Padilla looks way different outside his podcast studio
Oh, look. Another one of Brady's friends. 😜
I watch these videos to be blown away by the various sciences and maths, not to be told how silly Trump is.
Boo hoo
Why stop at g64? Is there any significance of it?
For the particular problem he was working on, he was able to determine that the answer would be smaller than that. Hence why it appears in the Guinness Book as "the biggest number used in an actual mathematical proof", or something like that.
What's the point?
planck length
@@sanan_fataliyev That’s a small point .
27:20 Tony Padilla discovers cheeky little Maxwell's demons? Or, are those a little different, worthy of their own name, let's say Parker's demons? For a slightly failed thermodynamics experiment.
The large number i though up was a googolplex factorial
Ohh I remember this guy.. he is professor TREE(3).
If physical reality is holographic and gravity is an illusion, what does that tell us about dark matter? This ghostly stuff we only infer to exist because of gravity?
The biggest number is 9, in series, for scale reduced by the decimal point. Yeah?
Nice answer!
There is always a greater number than the greatest number anybody suggests you have only to add one.
38:00
Holograms as described here exist within our universe. How could the universe as a whole be a hologram?
A search for "universe as a hologram" (or "holographic principle") should provide you with plenty of descriptions / diagrams.
So, the first black was created by a cat trying to count to Grahams number, and thats where we get the saying, curiosity killed the cat. I had always wondered where it came from - Thanks Tony. P.S. Was it Schrodingers cat?
Graham's Number gives me vertigo
I love the intro to all your videos. Please don't change it until after I'm deceased. I don't like change!
The universe hasn't got any mathematics.
No numbers and no letters neither.
Yah, simply a lens. A way to break things down into pieces small enough for us to reason about and understand.
@@lk-music
We imagine we understand.
I don't understand enough to solve second order differential equations.
But I know my address and I know where to buy food. Enough.
@@lk-music
Actually breaking things down, metaphorically, is one of our good ideas.
Complaining (praying) to the manufacturer (God) may be emotionally satisfying,
But it doesn't help me find a plumber on Sunday morning.
@@tedgrant2 Indeed, understanding is imaginary and when our understanding appears to be accurate we assume that must mean our understanding is correct.
@@lk-music
I wonder why Jesus never explained how to make an electric car ?
All he had was a donkey and he stole that !
At 17:30 the Professor explains 3⬆️⬆️⬆️3 = 3⬆️⬆️(3⬆️⬆️3).
I believe there is one arrow too many.
It should be 3⬆️(3⬆️⬆️3).
It's a matter of exponential calculus.
Thoughts?
He used the correct notation. You can find info about Knuth's up-arrow notation on Wikipedia (and on a few maths websites as well).
Why are dictionaries great? They have all the other books, in them. Saves on reading time. Shortcut.
Fun fact: that's actually how the most popular general-purpose non-lossy compression algorithms (ex., ZIP) work. They save a dictionary plus a list of numbers describing the order in which you should read the words to get the intended file(s).
The video quality of this lecture isn't as good as most of the Ri lectures. Looks like some kind of nasty frame rate conversion has happened.
I was thinking about Graham's number and I fou
Great talk 👍🤘
I see the universe more topologically...
The cardioid the perfect fourth to express any minimum maximum range.
And Shirley's Surface
Surface(cos(u/2)cos(v/2),cos(u/2)sin (v/2),sin(u)/2) 0>u>4π 0>v>2π.
A single sided closed surface, as our manifold
19:45 Just stay with math, don't get into politics. There are other channels for that.
Oh how dare a presenter make a mention of current affairs that’s been injected into our life’s unwillingly one way or other for years. Just how dare he!
human numbers do not explain the universe, they only describe human observations of the universe. Physics cannot even be described without invented numbers.
Still and all ... any specific integer (say google to the power google to the ... to any finite number of google powers), is tiny compared to that number, to its own power, which is tiny compared to ... but you get the picture!
Google is a search engine.
Ok I waited enough, here is the comment I posted with Sabine. Please send me a grant for my many scientific projects.
Sabine.... I want to share my theory of the universe with you here and now because I believe some credit belongs to you for attempting to explain "things", then I will copy and past at the royal institute for a royal decree and stamp.
A part of the universe, the one everybody is on currently, works possibly in such a manner.........! If we take the √2 and make a square (a irregular not a perfect square), and through such shape increase its coordinates infinitely in all possible directions, while simultaneously decrease its coordinates in all possible directions (without having a start), we would get a impossible to senses topological construction, by the very fact of the irrationality of the √2, the atrium properties of the geometric shape and polynomial characteristics of it all that could be measured by calculus for certain uses. If such a technique could be applied to any other shapes other than a square, which I believe it can, then dimensions to cover many and all possible problems already known in mathematics, physics, chemistry and biology with possible solutions are and would be available. Such a linguistics theory, (as I aspect anyone else to add the physics equations and the appropriate mathematics) would also cover the connection between the classical view of matter and the quantum view of matter, by the very fact of a irrational measure, with it's atrium properties as a geometrical shape, and it's total polynomial characteristics proceeding and being in all directions as infinitely big and infinitely small, with one slight immensely important difference.....!
That of anyone or anything not being able to pinpoint a magnetic monopole in such a universe (as it is believed and stated to be by our very own selfs), not because there is no such a thing, but because we are one, everything in this part of the universe is in its totality a (concept) of a magnetic monopole, making the ability of classical matter and the quantum matter operate and interact in such ways that can be observed. This important difference, (that of everything being a magnetic monopole) is also the possible reason why to anyone or some, a beginning of sorts (an initial start) makes sense in some sort of a mathematical and physical sense, as a proven sense of direction in a expansive way or contractive way, has to be very active and observable for a magnetic monopole to exist in the first place, observable especially through light simultaneously. Making in some cases observable, and in other cases mathematically and in physics terms sound, the very fact of once a measure of very large/big is achieved mathematically, in physics terms and observable, seem and behave like a possible initial start, which in the same exact manner would seem and behave like a possible initial start, once a measure of very small is achieved also mathematically, in physics terms and observable. Which would make the possibility of all being a concept of a magnetic monopole in all directions, through the consciousness of the other sides of a magnetic field. But only as a full magnetic field itself through the simultaneous movement of infinitely big and infinitely small in all possible directions and conditions, which is exactly as braking a magnet or a particle. Making consciousness have various combinations of degrees with humans possessing a very diverse combination off.
The everything being a concept of a magnetic monopole, achives in excluding the start, any starting point which would fit with topology in a completely different way as a geometric shape, and to which I suspect Dirac got a serious sniff at. Together with the quantum effect in relation to classical physics once a contact through sensing has been made as usually, similar to braking a magnet possibly keeping everything here and there simultaneously in a quantum physical state and a classical physical state. (It has to be noted, that in a state of being, any state of being, if and when looking, observing, or even thinking in physics and mathematical terms, towards what is infinitely small, anyone can only do so through looking, observing or even thinking in physics and mathematical terms, in a increase form and structure of infinitely big (( meaning in a reverse manner)), which is exactly the same if and when looking, observing, or even thinking in a physics and mathematical terms towards what is infinitely big, anyone can only do so through a decrease form and structure of infinitely small....! Otherwise anyone cannot see, observe, or even think in physics and mathematical terms about more or less anything, statistically nothing at all.) It also has to be noted that the existence of what is understood as black holes, at certain locations such as the centre of galaxies or in some completely random places could be a possible lead to the concept of everything being as a magnetic monopole concept, and the initiation, developing and the duration of a black hole, relates to the concept of braking a magnet, keeping the magnetic monopole always constant in these directions of the universe, yet never reaching a other side directions or being a sort of limit, edge or a centre of these sides of the universe. Gravity should be around somewhere, here, there and everywhere as a magnetic monopole constant, hence why nothing falls.
It is not fully worked yet as a theory, but as a start will do, one that began long long ago, one that could be seen in the very architecture of many houses for a very long period in the form of a skylight, probably still in existence in many places as I write this.
(Note: the irregular square made out of the coordinates of √2 can be used as the basis of the sixty base measures used to make what everyone knows as time (well it has been used thousands of periods ago), with some tweaking here and there as the root and any shape out of it is irrational, and most certainly never precise in repeating loop in order to explain what is understood by past, present and future. Where as a simultaneous increase and decrease to infinitely big and infinitely small, of any shape in all possible dimensions hence directions, fit's perfectly with some of the concepts of entropy, together with past, present and future in relation to all possible combinations and forms of contact.)
. EVERY TIME I HEAR ABOUT AN INFINITE UNIVERSE
having an infinite number of copies of ME in it, I ask:
CAN YOU SHOW ME THE MATHEMATICAL PROOF?
I have yet to see a single reply...
Maybe if you USED LESS CAPS people would be more INCLINED to REPLY. And the "proof" is basically statistical. In an infinite non-biased universe, every possible configuration of particles will exist an infinite number of times.
@@RFC-3514 "Maybe if you USED LESS CAPS people would be more INCLINED to REPLY", says the person replying to my comment. Hilarious.
What's "RFC"? "Request for Comment"?
What about in a biased universe? Is "non-biased universe" a defined mathematical concept? Don't bother, that entire response is not a mathematical proof, any more than my saying "In an infinite universe, every possible instance of me is just as likely to exist as not exist" would be a mathematical proof.
Anyhoo, having been a netizen since the late 1970's, I find CAPS, _italics_ and *Bold* typing styles to work about as well as they always have.
Stick to the classics, remember your hot keys, and you'll never lose sleep over frozen screens, low-bandwidth bottlenecks, and unresponsive audiences.
@@abcde_fz - Don't worry, I *_WON'T_* bother.
That's because physics is a natural science, unlike maths which is a formal science, and so doesn't use rigorous proofs like in maths but considers theories that attempt to describe natural phenomena which are never proven to be 'true' but get accepted as more and more evidence of theory is obtained and gets disregarded when there's evidence that goes against it. The existence of infinite copies of you in an infinite universe is a prediction based on theories of quantum physics and thermodynamics (which both have a large amount of evidence in support of) and the idea that there are a finite number of quantum states that can describe a certain area of space, and so given an infinite universe it's statistically inevitable that there will be an infinite copies of you (and me and everyone else!).
We don't currently know if the universe is infinite, and if it was we wouldn't be able to measure if there were an infinite number of copies of you. But if we don't find evidence that would suggest this wouldn't happen (perhaps there would be some mechanism that would prevents this) and our theories of quantum physics and thermodynamics are correct (which we think they are) then there's not much reason to believe why this wouldn't happen (at least there's not a reason I can think of and I'm by no means an expert in this topic). So it's not a mathematically rigorous statement and is kind of going beyond what we currently know about the universe, but it's still interesting to think about!
I saw this and was excited to watch. Then I realized it was Tony Padilla. If you’ve ever seen some of the stuff he puts on Twitter, it will disgust you.
A N UMBER DIVUDED BY ZERO ???
I somehow missed the point in time when making science popular became making science childish.
This is 💩, I agree.
Yes Hu Go - did you also spot his confusing explanation about multiplication that 3 x 3 is 3 added to itself 3 times'. It's not, It's 3 added to itself 2 times. What a confusing explanation for children. And then he reinforced it with 3 x 4 is 3 added to itself 4 times FFS.
This man planned ahead to be self deprecating lol
I have a few serious questions I would like to ask and in some method or another I would not mind to be lead or nudged to a possible answer, (I will accept a theory of everything, in fact a theory of everything will do just fine) at least to me the question's are serious.
I know that many know of the observable universe being only four or five percent observable...! Leaving ninety five/ninety six percent not able in being observable, could even be said impossible. Now.....! Out of the four or five percent of the observable universe that I know that many know, it is observable....! How much of that is there an observable evidence for!?!? What percentage based on observable evidence, makes that as a total percentage known of the only four or five percent of the observable universe!?!? After that....! I would not mind in knowing, even as a statistical total percentage....! What and (how much) of the universe does anyone, I mean anyone know about the universe!?!?!
I know all of this (in relation to the universe), I know that many know more of what I don't know (in relation to the universe), but I don't understand what I know, and I definitely don't understand what I know that many know about the universe.
If anyone, and I mean anyone (understands) what I know about the (universe), and most importantly what I know that they know about the (universe), which at minimum would make them very sure as a percentage of the only possible four or five percent of the observable universe ((in understanding))), of what they know about the universe.....!?!?
Then please tell me.... Because at minimum I would not mind in knowing, as for understanding....! Anyone understands that anyone knows nothing about the universe, or at minimum anyone should have a (theory of everything) in understanding that anyone knows nothing about the universe, (even as a statistical percentage).
Which makes a situation where anyone understands nothing about what anyone knows, and anyone knows nothing about what anyone understands. As a mathematical statistics percentage always....
(I ask because I round it up to twelve thousand and forty five human days ago, Hubble telescope was launched, and there are about seven thousand mechanical satellites orbiting earth.)
And finally a thought experiment : Take any circle and start measuring within the circle, with each measure closer and closer together, more and more precise. Then begin to observe what happens, starting from the centre of the circle. Once having seen that with anyone's own eyes, ask yourself....! Where and how did the universe start again, if it did so from a (spark)!?!? Apply the thought to a sphere, and ask yourself, on which side/part of the sphere anyone is on, and where is the edge of the sphere!?!?
👍👍👍
the royal institution is coming across as a cbbc show.
What a silly remark to make at 19:45 . Who cares what you think of any politician? Please keep MAGA or anti-MAGA out of science class or we will ask you for numbers to back up what you meant.
Are you also disturbed by references to James Corden and Brad Pitt, or are those allowed into your safe space?
TRILLION, not billion
Boiling head from storing bits is absurd. One would run out of memory before that happen. He is some how assuming that memory is being added. That does not happen in a brain. You can had memory to a computer, but it cost money and there not enough available for Graham's number.
Silly!
This was terrible. It was boring, silly, and boring and I didn't finish it because there's no reason.
Owning a googol pounds would cause such unprecedented inflation that someone owning a googolplex pounds would basically be equally rich, or poor if you like.
I would have liked you, but you mentioned people unnecessarily and unrelated.
not the smosh guy, smh 😔😔
I lost interest when he mentioned Donald Trump, can’t academia present a talk without putting personal opinion of politics into it?
Test
Why stop now?? In the words of the late Ronald Reagan:
"STAY THE COURSE!"
Yeah! Even if it runs you into a ditch!
This guy doesn't even know 7 x 7 = 49, why is he up here lecturing on the fundamental truths of the universe?
Ah, just to sell copies of his book. Surprise.
I disliked this lecture enormously. It was dreadful to Graham's Number.
I am blown away that it appears to be impossible to avoid people whose psyches have been totally taken over by Trump. Even in RI presentations, it's Trump Trump Trump. Get a freaking grip on yourself, dude.
It's called Trump Derangement Syndrome. Conspiracy theories say that Pfizer invented a vaccine but Bill Gates and George Soros have bought the patent to take it from the market.
Besides that, he must be aware of some colleages rooting for Trump! And he does not respect them.
The United States four most notable presidents were; Washington, Lincoln, Regan & Trump.
@@savage22bolt32 hahahaha, you have a sense of humour for sure. Take your meds on time, dude
@@abundantlyhealthyforever1419 you are entitled to an opinion, even a crazy one.
Describing a system by definition leaves out intrinsic information that is not observable by an outsider of that system. Observing something in a different way does not change the nature of the "life" that the described system has. In other words just observing a fly does not mean you have all the information about the fly. For example: do you know what it thinks? Do you know what it will do next? The fly "knows", the observer does not! Also even if you know the past of the fly, you don't know what made it choose to land at a certain point or why it chose the flight pattern. I personally don't buy that a 2 dimensional universe without gravity can describe a 3 dimensional universe with gravity - flawed logic / inference / conjecture was used to this conclusion. You will never know/describe everything about that fly unless you somehow transform into that fly from birth to its death, and observe its life without somehow interfering.
Check out the Allies of Humanity Briefings. The most realistic alien disclosure.
1 = 0 = infinity
This seems like a good place for a slightly batty working joe like myself, to post his thoughts on reality, math and physics. Don't take this too seriously, I'm no scientist:
Solving the Collatz Conjecture....3X + 1
Mathematics is circular. All numbers come back on themselves, in a loop.
If you shoot a light into space, the space is curved, it will return to the same spot, because it never left. It's an illusion to think it left. Think of that light shot into space, as a number line. Numbers return to themselves in a causal loop. The answer to that equation can be found in understanding what numbers really are:
As a layman, I have always intuitively thought that Quantum Entanglement makes sense if you assume that reality is more like a Mandelbrot set: all things are repeating patterns of basic reality, because the idea of separateness of physical objects, is an illusion. We have 'spooky action at a distance' because objects are the same thing. Literally. It's an illusion to think we can separate ourselves from other people, from the universe.
No need to violate the speed of light, because not only is time universal, meaning time is the same everywhere. So is localism...everything is literally part of the same locality. No need to go anywhere, worry about the speed of light between objects because all objects are one thing. This means all information exists everywhere, equally. What is information? Numbers. This means numbers are all equal.
Every number, in some way, is the same as every other number. My basic formula for reality: 1 = 0 = infinity
Locality and separateness of objects is an illusion. All distances are the same, since distance is an illusion. All times are the same, since time is an illusion. How are times and distance measured? By numbers. This means all numbers are the same. This means: 14 = 0 = 6 = 3 = 1 trillion etc.
Numbers return to themselves, get trapped in a causal loop, like a snake biting it's own tail.
It's the same time, everywhere. There is no past or future. Only now. The tail is the mouth. Numbers are an illusion, that reality creates:
Consciousness and life create an illusion of separateness. We are born, the miracle of life is convincing us we are separate from reality. We are not.
Math arises out of physics. We got physics wrong. For example, the universe doesn't exist. Dr. Ben Miles has a recent video on that. Last Nobel Prize went to three physicists who proved the localism doesn't exist. Fits that pattern.
Numbers arose out of our evolution. Even animals have primitive ideas of quantity. Why? It's useful for survival. Same in humans: Accuracy of throwing spears requires a well adjusted physical system, able to do calculations of speed and distance and force of spears.
That's the same as math. Math originates in biology, as we had to deal with the problem of survival. We made calculations about physical matter and survival. So biology and math arises in evolution, from life and the laws of physics. Math is a reflection of evolution, like everything else. Evolution and math is rooted in physics. It's how consciousness survives.
So key to getting math right, is getting physics right. Realizing how math arose, what that means. That means the closer we get to getting physics right, the closer we get to how math actually works. Life creates illusions we have to overcome, biology creates illusions about reality, because that's a successful pattern: self-deception about reality.
See: Donald Hoffman, Reality is an illusion, How evolution hid the Truth
Part of unpacking this problem of finding the truth of math, is unpacking how consciousness creates our perception of reality. Including how consciousness arises in the first place. Does the world exist, as we see it? No. Do things even appear, do physical things exist, without consciousness? Unlikely. The observer is required, to create reality. Then the observer must overcome the limits to his perception, that evolution wired into him. He must overcome the tricks of self-deception, of evolution, to speculate how physics actually works.
My comment is just a guess, as to the nature of reality. It's an attempt at a new very small crack in the doorway, into how reality might actually be. Someone else might walk in the door and look around. I can't. It would take someone else to turn my idea into something useful. I can't do it. Or more likely, have a laugh, find a waste paper basket. 🗑
What evolved from what into what?
I think this question summarizes most of those ponderings above.
Try to look at topology, group theory, the great symmetries/invariances giving rise to conserved quantities ensuring the stability of that "illusion"...
The symbols (aka digits) for numbers are just that: simplifying representations that help to organise them in our minds.
Why would they go in loop?
The most reduced attempt to describe the universe mathematically I know of: is Wolfram's computational model.
Sadly math theories which can't (yet) make predictions are more tempting if they utilize the mystically tuned parts of the human brain.
I don't know what kind of societies would/will lead to such evolutionary processes which make us able to fully accept the "human condition". ...
The "trick" of reality is in the phenomenon of energy. Once it's revealed what is interacting with what, at the most fundamental level of physics, there will be no need to look further.
Not because there's nothing beyond, but a mind based on temporality cannot really go beyond thinking requiring discernment.
In some utterly limited manner a human can become one with "it".
However, what can one say about that which is everything? That which cannot be compared since there is only nothing to relate to....
And in contrast to nothing each thing can look/feel like infinity if there is "no end in sight": (think about the infiniteness of the numberline).
Deeply hidden we all carry the ultimate void: some believe that immersing their mind in that "horrible" emptiness ensures them access to ALL (aka God).
Good for them
@@Littleprinceleon Interesting comment. Thanks.
A Hologram does not reproduce a 3D egg but only the light pattern being reflected off it. When you view a hologram of an egg, it's only a picture that looks 3D, there is no actual egg there! You won't be able to eat it, scramble it, make eggnog or throw it a the RI lecturer.
And 'trapped' in Hologram is silly t00. Even if there is a duality between the physics in some number of dimensions and a theory in a lower number, it's still the same physics and all that's changed his how you chose to describe it. You and your world are just a real in either case.
I never get how mathematicians can spent their time and energy with absolutely useless stuff.
The smallest number I can think of is zero... except, zero isn't a number, it's the lack of numbers.
That would be the empty set, except that is a lack of everything.
@@l.w.paradis2108 I saw a video within the last week that explained why zero wasn't a number. Made total sense, but I can't remember many details of it.
@@laurendoe168 Except that it is. Zero is the additive identity, and it is unique (i.e., let x be an additive identity; this implies x must equal zero). IOW, you can't do something as simple as adding and subtracting integers without it.
I'd love to see what the video said.
@@l.w.paradis2108 If I come across it again, I'll see if I can put a link to it here.
Zero isn't a _quantity_ but, at least in computing anyway, it is definitely a number.
Ffs graham
to try and politically shame people that don't think like you is anti democratic
I can’t wait to vote for Trump again in 2024. Best president ever.
Truly a zero. Well done.