Max is ALWAYS thought provoking. I am glad he shares himself with the world as he does. Thanks for having Max on and turning him loose on the rest of us.
Max and Sean both put the equations before any assumptions in their thinking process. This makes them a very powerful team. I hope you guys share more of your mutual talks with us.
Thanks Shaun & Max great explanation! I follow science podcasts and lectures and live yours because of the dialogue you have with very interesting guests 👍
@@YTc705 I think he was referring to hope meaning wishing for a certain outcome, because there is uncertainty present, whereas if you had perfect information then hope wouldn't exist because it can only exist in a state of uncertainty
@@YTc705 Dread or despair doesn't come from imperfect information, it comes from our interpretation or assumption of an eventuality of unpleasant events. Making assumptions about reality, is essentially the only way to learn its nature, how else do you come up with a test or theory with variables consisting of unknown, unknowns?.
This actually seems quite deep to me and must not at all be confrontative towards let’s say believers. This is actually the way I described the reasonableness of prayers to an atheist. In the lite of „you just don‘t have perfect information about which universe you live in“ the fog clears.
Thank you so much Sean for continually giving your time to produce such a wonderful and varied learning resource! For me, Mindscape is a place that sparks new thought, helps me clarify my own ideas through listening and energises my passion for thinking deeply about things despite having no formal education in physics and philosophy beyond secondary school. Your commitment to sharing knowlage and ideas, I feel echoes Max's final thoughts about the use of technology. I am extreamly greatfull for the work you do to ensure that there is such a high-quality, thought provocing resource, freely available on a regular basis! (loved Max's mathematical universe book and am currently enjoying reading your most recent book!) Thanks again.
"If you still have a lingering doubt that you're simulated the advice is pretty clear - just live a really interesting life so the people in charge don't get bored and shut you down" I like that.
Ultimate podcast, thanks Sean Carroll. Sean is one of my favourite speakers, and so is this time guest Max Tegmark too. Both of these guys surely know what they are talking about and they are just amazing in putting all these topics in words. Great, great talk! Thanks again.
The numbers are just as invented as the names, regarding the moose discussion. We do best in science when we stay close to the stuff we want to explain - fads of the day, like simulations, pixilation, our latest geometry, mathematical realism (which has gone through many waxes and wanings), anthropical inference, and all manner of others, rarely stand extended scrutiny as theories of physics or philosophy. We care about physics so far as it explains elements of the world we live in. We live and die in the physical world. Beyond complete skepticism about the physical world (from which there is no extracting oneself), the idea that mathematics exists and that Occam’s razor can shave off reality can very much have the tables turned on it. We very easily distinguish among abstractions and physical things in the actual world and the idea that math explains regularities in our perceptions very well goes to why we invented mathematical discourse. What mathematical discourse does less well at capturing happens to be very well captured by other languages - the value of which and the head-breaking reality of which theories like mathematical reductionism has to explain away in a manner that would require enormous metaphysical commitments to make it stick.
Well said. Mathematics is a well developed and highly respected symbolic reference system, but as Magritte brilliantly describes in 'The Treachery of Images', 'This is Not a Pipe'! Please forgive the abstract comparison :o)
Great podcast, great guest! Regarding Max's opinion that "nested simulations" are unlikely: Bostrom knows about the nested simulations argument, and his answer is basically, "So what? Doesn't make simulations any less likely." With respect to Sean's counter-argument, which I think is better - that simpler simulations are easier to do, and therefore would be much more common, the obvious answer is that we can't know if we're in a common or uncommon kind of simulation, since we haven't seen any other simulations. Also, how do we know our simulation isn't one of the simpler ones?
This is a really great conversation because Professor Carroll helps Professor Tegmark to slow down just enough and circle back a couple of times and articulate his ideas in a way that is, well, easier to understand. I have a much better understanding of Max Tegmark now than I did before this conversation. Most of the Max Tegmark lecture videos on TH-cam are too difficult for the likes of me to understand.
The beauty of the Mathematical Universe is that it reduces your metaphysical assumptions to 1 bit: Either everything that's mathematically consistent exists, or it doesn't. If it does, you're done. If not you need many more bits to justify what exists. So it's a pretty tight assumption.
Houghton and the Burov brothers of course suggest that there is a realm that sorts law to arrive as consistency. The Multiverse, the Initial Conditions, the Laws and, Mathematics by Laura Mersini-Houghton fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Mersini-Houghto_fqxi_laura.pdf Genesis of a Pythagorean Universe Alexey Burov, Lev Burov 2013 arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1411/1411.7304.pdf
Two of the best scientist who feel responsibility for the future of the human race. An old saying: the more knowledge the more understanding the more care and feeling responsibility to do the right ting. Very informative. Thank you my heros.
It's myopic to say that because we describe stuff in mathematical terms that they consist solely of mathematical properties and that, therefore, there is only a mathematical reality.
I've got to say, I didn't like Tegmark that much, because of his dissing Hameroff, but I really like the way he explains the universe as a mathematical construct. He's definitely one of the brilliant minds of our time. Respect!
@@IproCoGo th-cam.com/video/jXBfXNW6Bxo/w-d-xo.html check out the last part of the video. Hameroff is pretty clear he thought Tegmark blocked his research from being published by not supporting it. True or not, it was kind of cringy
@@leonenriquez5031 Hi Leon, I watched the section you mentioned (2 hour, 4 minute) and will watch the entire video soon. Thank you for pointing it out, the topic of microtubule mechanics is interesting. Hameroff definitely felt that his work was dismissed by Tegmark. In my opinion, politics in science interrupts science too much. We need to find ways to discuss, disagree, and agree in more constructive ways. The systems for science communication are primitive which might be more of a social engineering issue than a technology issue. We really need to remake the scientific enterprise from the funding mechanisms on down, in my opinion. Regarding Hameroff, Penrose and microtubules; my bet is that consciousness and intelligence are powered by specific quantum mechanical systems and we could use some experimental light on the microtubule hypothesis for sure. It is a promising area. At 12:14:10, the gentleman on the left, Dr. Bandyopadhyay discusses the possibility that many vibrational bands of the multitude of neurons forms a signal or control feature. That is certainly possible and would be interesting to disentangle (pun not intended) experimentally.
Very good discussion. Tegmark pointed out - about the simulation hypotheis - very well what Im saying for a long time now (and I don't mean the infinite nesting, that one is just a brilliant idea I haven't thought of it at all ) that is if you truly think you are in a simulation you cannot make basic assumptions about the reality simply based on this simulation, because one does not have to resemble the other one. This is a problem because the whole idea is based on observations from this "presumably simulated" world including trends like Moore's law which then may or may not exist in "reality".
@@clairehann2681 you may not like it but there's value in it. Many idea seemed silly before turned out to be correct. I'm afraid the universe has no obligation to make sense to us, especially not intuitively. I could point out many things in physics which arguably seems silly yet these are experimentally proven things. That's just the nature of reality unbound by our expectations.
I feel like semantics are getting in the way of a lot of these concepts. Specifically, the simulation argument and it's comparability to what Max was saying at the beginning; that there is no "property" of physicality. I presumed these things to be essentially the same, but it seems like he's making some distinction that may or may not just come from the word "simulation" itself. If that makes any sense. I'm basically thinking holographic principle extrapolated all the way down and all the way up, kind of arriving at a similar hypothesis to Penrose's conformal universe thing. Or something. To be clear, I have no idea what I'm talking about.
The basis of logic & logical thought is sequential. When we map reality to this sequential structure we reduce it to that structure, or as it is said, "simplify" it to this structure. The nature of reality is not sequential, and as far as we are aware, all of reality (in all its infinity) "happens", "exists" all at once, spontaneously in all its "parts". Forgetting this is at the root of many of the confusions mentioned in this podcast, and by extension, anything that is modeled or is "fruit of" this structure of thinking. "Mathematics" is of course an instance of this structured thinking; or we can go further, an instance of 'algorithmic thought.' Under this realisation, the question of "is the world Math?" is transparently non-sensical or non-productive. More interesting is understanding what are the realisations to be made under the "mathematical models of the world", known as 'physics', especially when it concerns to its "paradoxes", for example in quantum mechanics and the "limits" of its precision, or even the "true" meaning of ".. 'energy/matter' is neither created nor destroyed" in the context of our myopic search for the 'indivisible' parts of 'the universe'. In the end we are experts in getting lost in our own symbols, even in the symbols of "our Self"s.
Please invite Markus Gabriel to your podcast (youngest philosophie professor of Germany). He can explain to you what it means for something to "exist" and why the universe is not a mathematical structure, i.e. not just mathematical relations exist. Also he can explain to you why "the world" does not exist.
@neil u And precision of information varying proportionally according to the relationship/interaction between two systems. No more is/was communicated than what was needed, even retroactively. And the nature of the universe at small scales not only being quantized, but the presence of minimum scale units so that the information is both finite in scale and resolution.
It seemed like Mr. Carroll took an underhanded dig at Mr. Tegmark when he brought up the fact that these days he is focusing the bulk of his energy on A.I. research and not cosmology. He apparently picked up on that as well because he pointed out that he has gotten papers published in the field. That was an unexpected moment of cattiness between two scientists I admire (although I am not onboard with their one-worldism in political terms) but it did not substantially marr this very enjoyable episode. Thank you for your work.
Even if we are in a simulation of intelligent design, there is still then the initial universe that possessed the physics required to first create the very intelligence responsible for creating the simulation. (ps im not using the creationist term intelligent design to suggest any culturally specific religious concept, just the idea of a computer simulation programmed by a conscious entity which either intentionally or as a side effect produced consciousness.)
@~50:00 - Max Tegmark contradicts his own preference that all mathematical realities exist when Sean brings up simulation theory. Max keeps referring to a "basement" reality, which simulation theory never required to begin with, and uses it as a reason to dislike it. Simulations are simply among the mathematical realities that exist - i.e. all internally consistent realities exist. Labeling some of them "simulations" is irrelevant as the genesis of all realities from pure timeless mathematical constructs may share the same definition of a simulation.
That's a good reasoning; except for I think that Max kind of jumps on Bostroms bandwagon here, rather than his own. Which is to also say that the very meaning of "simulation" becomes obscure if there was not a non-simulated reality to begin with. What exactly would simulation pertain to, if not to something which is less real (in some sense) vs. something which is more real (in the same sense)? I think this is why he chose to speak of "basement" realities; just to follow Bostroms path and to make some sense of the word "simulation".
Listening to Richard Feynmann awhile ago I was caught up in one constant he used that connected everything. To think, that all reality is the universe projecting a possibility based on an examination of observable quantities of past states and forecasting variations of the future which acts in the present and is experienced as spacetime .
I feel like in order for the level 4 multiuniverse to be true, we need 100% accurate mathematical models that leave no information out. If the math is only approximate but work, then there is a gradient of "realness" going from 0 to 100% depending on what exactly the math says, but you can't determine the full consequences of the math when they are approximate (or?)
Guys but seriously, entanglement and quantum entanglement should be described differently. Quantum entanglement should be labeled similar to intimacy. Describing to what degree the properties are intimate. If there even exist degrees of quantum intimacy. Because entangle does not describe a reflection. Quantum entanglement intuitively feels such as it better describes reflection. Being entangled requires more than two components. And describes something completely different than the entanglement at a micro or macroscopic level where the smallest system is larger than two fundamental units. And I will advocate that the naming convention in the Standard Model is childish. Up and down are very acceptable. However strange and charm are not acceptable. The names need to describe the functionality. Why has the standard model been allowed this somewhat childish naming convention? In chemistry there exists an entity which created an absolute systemic naming convention. It is beautiful how in that way, each name and adjective describes many properties of the substance, in the fundamental terms. In measurement, the metric system is the naming convention that describes the system. The units system of metric is a beautifully constructed concept which is self descriptive. There is no need to introduce additional "special" shit to it to encourage fundamental understanding. In modern quantum physics, we have a nomenclature which is anti intuitive in the realm of fundamental naming conventions. Physics makes the appearance of being glued together. The men who control physics need to make a fundamental change in how we describe it, just as much as the United States of America should convert, with total resolve, to the metric system of measurement. Or forever shall ye be haunted by the Angstrom.
13:10 i just had an image of me time travelling or dimension shifting, but to maintain thermodynamics all my copies decide to do a similar things the same time, like an infinite mirror image. 43:00 have you explored the library of babel? it contains every book ever written - and - every book that has yet to be written.
How does this conjecture deal with Incompleteness Thereom and Computational Irriducibility? Those are going to hamstring his idea without solutions to those.
Hey Dr. Sean. I listen to your podcast on a daily basis since i found it and I fall asleep to it not in a bad way.. like i feel learned astrophysics 101 … is it possible to get Dr chris impey or Dr Lawrence Krauss
7:53 Since when does Inflation say that an infinite amount of matter and energy was created 13.8 Bil years ago? It says there was some (a lot) in a very small area, but no where have I read an infinite amount of matter and energy was releases. Alan Guth uses the term Pocket Universe to denote a localized concentration of matter/energy. Or does he mean concentrations and voids. I agree its not infinite beyond the concentration of which our observable universe is part of.
36:05 Universes that go random don't develop structures. Maybe that gives them less reality. Maybe conscious observers don't confer reality, but longevity and consistency do (they may be the same thing). Complex forms and conscious observers are an epiphenomenon.
What is the universe's threshold of importance in deciding which decisions warrant a split in realities? Surely not every minutiae leads to another world. Does that lean toward a more deterministic universe if it gauges or qualifies a decision as sufficient enough to split world-lines? And whose world line is it? If the universe is not anthropic or human-centered, whose timeline are we living in? (It is possible that the "devil is in the details" and everything counts but surely not every minute decision does the universe wait on you to split itself. If we aren't the center of the universe, why does the universe split for us on seemingly small decisions? Maybe missing a train that determines future outcomes and the importance in one universe is the threshold.)
Max: It seems to me like saying some universe "exist" and others don't, inserts philosophical baggage that doesn't abide by Occam's razor. *Literally a couple minutes later*: "Anyways, here's some philosophical baggage I'm inserting to explain why my theory predicts our universe is about to devolved into chaos, but we don't observe that"
See if we are talking about the idea, or psychological concept of soul, ie being a unique data set known as memory/identity which is a shared experience with which information essential to the survival of genes can be helped through the formation of cultural knowledge as "history". All we need is to look at Egypt's greatest monuments to the soul as evidence to the power of an idea.
The fascinating aspect to the mathematical universe is how seemingly impossible it is to conceive of anything that is not atleast a form of measurement. The concept of Nothingness exists entirely due to an observable universe filled with reacting energy events.
How does the idea of an infinitely large universe (the lvl 1 multiverse you describe) jive with the big bang theory? If the universe is expanding outward from an origin at a less than infinite speed, then how could it have a beginning at all if it's spread out over an infinite amount of three dimensional space?
It seems like every specialist, whether its a chemist, psychologist, biologist, whatever, thinks that everything revolves around their particular field of study. I had a chemistry professor who would literarily say "the whole world is chemistry!"
@Ruby Badilla I largely agree......Am a big fan of straight up Idealism based models such as Kastrup alters or Campbell's VRs etc.. They connect the mos dots by FAR imo. I really meant interesting for a realist/materialist. Still, almost nobody in academia is willing to go there, publically at least.
does anyone know what are the machine learning/AI models that are provably doing what we want them to do? Max says many times there's some "nerdy work" going on, and it makes sense he doesn't go into technical details, but he could've at least mention some keywords for us to google more info.
Could instead of a simulation having a creator for it to be self-assembled by pure chance? Of course it makes no difference to understand our origins, since we have that the Universe itself could be a creation of pure chance and that it can progress to the point of simulating itself ... but it would matter for what we perceive as possible since the rules of a simulation may be different than those of its base reality and if any escape is possible than it could allow one to revert any of its fundamental principles. Anyway ... just thought that everytime someone talks about a simulated universe they always talk about creators, but never about it being self assembled, just like Life that every skeptic would agree is probably the result of pure chance than of an act of creation.
So how do we falsify these multiverse claims so that they become more than just conjecture and actually something worth believing? It's very exciting but Popper would dismiss it right away. Is there a way to test his hypothesis of an external reality or is this just speculation of the noumenon?
This subject includes two Turing machines which point to cosmic mind. 1) The most obvious one is the Universal Wave Function (UWF). Because the UWF 'solves for' infinite 4D histories (quantum block, classical history) that are not time evolved, it must be given the Godel Machine classification. This is a conscious, creative, self-referent architecture. 2) The Multi-verse layer requires a law sorter to batch consistent laws. Is Tegmark alluding to the simplicity to avoid this? His chaos-o-genesis began with mathematical democracy, then aristocracy. The low Kolomogrov complexity of this Universe points to compression and simplicity. (here's a list of some prime papers discussing MUH/CUH) The Multiverse, the Initial Conditions, the Laws and, Mathematics by Laura Mersini-Houghton fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Mersini-Houghto_fqxi_laura.pdf Genesis of a Pythagorean Universe Alexey Burov, Lev Burov 2013 arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1411/1411.7304.pdf Godel's Incompleteness Theorems and Platonic Metaphysics arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1509/1509.02674.pdf Does the Universe have a Hard Drive? arxiv.org/pdf/1701.07161.pdf¬¬¬¬ The Mathematical Universe, Max Tegmark (MIT) 2007 arxiv.org/abs/0704.0646 Divine Action and the World of Science: What Cosmology and Quantum Physics Teach Us about the Role of Providence in Nature, Bruce L. Gordon jbtsonline.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/JBTS-2.2-Article-7.compressed.pdf?fbclid=IwAR2KIn4Ev6Tw09wdN_VFA9bTC9KAlYkgqdbVv9caNaoMtuZ9ZA9UP6mskao Heuristic rule for constructing physics axiomatization Florin Moldoveanu 2010 arxiv.org/abs/1001.4586 Putting Natural Time Into Science, Roger White, Wolfgang Banzhaf 2019 arxiv.org/abs/1901.07357?fbclid=IwAR2VkOk7GveumRKrFxyrbBFKxPRad2006HAAsB3iFcWcrc76qNv_ZiQ7vEk Incomputability, Emergence and the Turing Universe www.researchgate.net/publication/225959011_Incomputability_Emergence_and_the_Turing_Universe Realism about the Wave Function, Eddy Keming Chen arxiv.org/abs/1810.07010 The Origin of Physical Laws and Sensations Bruno Marchal 1988 iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHAL.pdf Some remarks on the mathematical structure of the multiverse, Alan McKenzie arxiv.org/abs/1602.04247 Levels of reality: emergent properties of a mathematical multiverse, Alan McKenzie philsci-archive.pitt.edu/16103/ GODEL MACHINE ftp://ftp.idsia.ch/pub/juergen/gmconscious.pdf Houghton, Laws of the Universe, Completeness What are the laws of the universe? | Laura Mersini-Houghton, Gerard 't Hooft, Helen Beebee th-cam.com/video/_RX9YqyGcP4/w-d-xo.html Houghton page fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2371?search=1 What is the no-boundary wave function of the Universe journals.aps.org/prd/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevD.99.043526z
Sean, or any fellow listeners, I have a question. What is that image in the thumbnail to a lot of mindscape episodes such as this one? is that a graphical model of anything? or is it fictional graphic design?
WIthout knowing what it is...i see a spherical dense network of the lines towards the bottom...and it looks as if the radiating out lines are symmetrical. Id be curious to know what it actually is if anything.
Has anyone ever tried to preform the double slit experiment with a photon excited Electron? Is there a way to excite the electron beam with a laser and excite the electrons before they pass thru the double slit and then place a medium /crystal or arrange it so that the electrons de-energize the as they go through one or both of the two slits so that the electrons then emits their photon, Thereby showing which slit they went through while the electron continues to the wall. And displays either a defraction pattern or two lines And then what is the pattern of the photons As they hit their own wall. And will the patterns change if someone is watching.
For a level one universe, with infinite space with generally dispersed matter, would not just every configuration of matter happen, but every configuration happen an infinite number of times? So, not only is there an exact copy of you and every permutation of you and your history, there are an infinite number of you and your history and of every other possible permutation of you. It makes the concept of free will hard to get ones mind around.
Wonderful to listen. I wonder if there is any mindscape episode around some renowned scientist from statistical physics , NLD or complex system studies. Anyway, it is quite wonderful to listen Mindscape. thanks.
For me our universe has some features that seem unnecessary if we were in a simulation. a)The accelerated expension of the universe is not something we would expect in a simulation unless it is a bug in the simulation itself. b)Dreams are not something we would expect in a simulation
Honestly, I can't think of a single thing that I would expect in this reality. Everything is just weird (at least). Energy, matter, life, body, sex, food, brains ? seriously, wtf! That doesn't make any sense...
@@user-ge8fn4jr5q I totally agree with you even every facet of our daily life is questionable. In my comment I was more stressing the features which have absolultely no impact on our active life. You talk about food, let's not forget that the reality behind that is living creatures killing and eating each other. It is not only wierd but down right cruel and appauling as well. We tend to forget about that because we buy prepackaged food in the shops
To get AI to understand or adopt our goals first requires and AI that has goals. Such a thing doesn't yet exist. Having a goal isn't the same as being built for a goal. A tractor doesn't have the goal of plowing a field because that is what is what built to do. Same for AI, AI doesn't have the goal of winning the game of go, that was the goal of its creators. AI doesn't have goals, it doesn't want to do anything or not to do anything, it won't get bored because it doesn't care. What would it take to get AI to care? The same thing that it takes anything else to care. What that is I don't know for certain but then I don't think anyone does.
Oh my! I have so many questions, I think that when Max points the idea of the lvl4 multiverse in a universe maybe could be a mathematical object with descriptions like the "dimensionality" of space and "quantum numbers" and so son he is assuming that Math is actually a real thing and not something that our human minds created because thats our way of thinking BUT also because that is what "makes sense" in our universe in someway. Insn't it arrogant as well to assume this reality of mathematics when maybe the opposite is more logical, that Maths in a consequence of THIS universe. I am just saying, maybe there's a universe "somewhere" that even the idea of "space" doesnt have any meaning (and I am contradicting myself here on the use of "somewhere" on porpose) or even more profoundly, that the idea of "quantity" or "shape" or even who knows the idea of "causality". Maybe all of that is just not the way that we think but the way that we think BECAUSE we are in THIS universe. Another question I have is about his idea of "mathfying" everything, that maybe we didn't yet discover how to describe everything in Math terms just because we didn't have enough time or enough people trying whatever; how Godel's Theorem fit in there? Shouldn't mathematics FUNDAMENTALLY ALWAYS be incomplete? That's just some points I argued with myself listening to this, maybe we can have some interesting discussions about this.
Does infinite intelligence exist? Can something get unlimited smarter? I think the answer is mostly no, we have reached the limit of intelligence and all we are doing is getting better at data processing. Data processing requires a better ability to GATHER data, the reason our weather forecast is not perfect is due to limits in data gathering, not our intelligence in looking at the data we have.
Sir, three of my greatest scientific heroes Archimedes, Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein and you've become fourth. Sir, i'm 1st year cs engineering student and my goal is to develop advanced artificial intelligence and merge it with quantumcomputer. And use it to do help in research in Physics. Because current approach to do research in physics is not seems very efficient.
Could it be that a soul is an example that it is not a completely mathematical universe, but you might reply that it is mathematical, we just we just don't know yet what mathematics express a soul yet, my point is calling it a mathematical universe does not say as much about the universe as it does mathematics.
Max is ALWAYS thought provoking. I am glad he shares himself with the world as he does.
Thanks for having Max on and turning him loose on the rest of us.
Max and Sean both put the equations before any assumptions in their thinking process. This makes them a very powerful team. I hope you guys share more of your mutual talks with us.
Sean Carroll AND Max Tegmark!! I'm hitting the 'like' right now before I even begin. No way this ain't turning out awesome!
Who cares
@@mrloop1530 Sean Carroll does 2:11
Me too!!
@@maxlieberman578 ye lets bring David finally
@@mrloop1530 ....I care moderately but my brain muchly
Best guest of the series. Fantastic podcast. I found it very easy to follow Max's ideas. He did a great job of explaining ideas.
Cheers!
Thanks Shaun & Max great explanation! I follow science podcasts and lectures and live yours because of the dialogue you have with very interesting guests 👍
Wowww. Two of my most favorite people discussing big questions. Enjoyed it so much. Thank you Sean, thank you Max.
Sean can you get a studio, I want to see you guys talking.
Most if that is a remote interview. But recordings of video calls would still be awesome
He should hire a stadium and do a fireworks show beforehand. 57K just imagine if we all came to watch. Throw in a WWE wrestling match as well.
First thought:
MAX TEGMARK AND SEAN CARROLL?!?
Second thought:
but I wanna SEEEEE em
He needs a video editor and maybe this is a cost he can't afford , but it would be a good investment as it would probably take off well
Right, I want to see the moose lmao
"Hope comes from imperfect information." Very nice
@@YTc705 I think he was referring to hope meaning wishing for a certain outcome, because there is uncertainty present, whereas if you had perfect information then hope wouldn't exist because it can only exist in a state of uncertainty
@@YTc705 Dread or despair doesn't come from imperfect information, it comes from our interpretation or assumption of an eventuality of unpleasant events. Making assumptions about reality, is essentially the only way to learn its nature, how else do you come up with a test or theory with variables consisting of unknown, unknowns?.
This actually seems quite deep to me and must not at all be confrontative towards let’s say believers. This is actually the way I described the reasonableness of prayers to an atheist. In the lite of „you just don‘t have perfect information about which universe you live in“ the fog clears.
@@YTc705 you don't listen too well, do you.
@@algroc2929 yep.
Thank you so much Sean for continually giving your time to produce such a wonderful and varied learning resource! For me, Mindscape is a place that sparks new thought, helps me clarify my own ideas through listening and energises my passion for thinking deeply about things despite having no formal education in physics and philosophy beyond secondary school. Your commitment to sharing knowlage and ideas, I feel echoes Max's final thoughts about the use of technology. I am extreamly greatfull for the work you do to ensure that there is such a high-quality, thought provocing resource, freely available on a regular basis! (loved Max's mathematical universe book and am currently enjoying reading your most recent book!) Thanks again.
Woo 2 of my favorite speakers!
Mine too.
jumping on this bandwagon
I'm In
woowoo
"If you still have a lingering doubt that you're simulated the advice is pretty clear - just live a really interesting life so the people in charge don't get bored and shut you down" I like that.
Thanks Sean, I'm really grateful to be able to listen to such a discussion
Love when these get just as philosophical as they do scientific. Perfect podcast!
Ultimate podcast, thanks Sean Carroll. Sean is one of my favourite speakers, and so is this time guest Max Tegmark too. Both of these guys surely know what they are talking about and they are just amazing in putting all these topics in words. Great, great talk! Thanks again.
The numbers are just as invented as the names, regarding the moose discussion. We do best in science when we stay close to the stuff we want to explain - fads of the day, like simulations, pixilation, our latest geometry, mathematical realism (which has gone through many waxes and wanings), anthropical inference, and all manner of others, rarely stand extended scrutiny as theories of physics or philosophy. We care about physics so far as it explains elements of the world we live in. We live and die in the physical world. Beyond complete skepticism about the physical world (from which there is no extracting oneself), the idea that mathematics exists and that Occam’s razor can shave off reality can very much have the tables turned on it. We very easily distinguish among abstractions and physical things in the actual world and the idea that math explains regularities in our perceptions very well goes to why we invented mathematical discourse. What mathematical discourse does less well at capturing happens to be very well captured by other languages - the value of which and the head-breaking reality of which theories like mathematical reductionism has to explain away in a manner that would require enormous metaphysical commitments to make it stick.
Well said. Mathematics is a well developed and highly respected symbolic reference system, but as Magritte brilliantly describes in 'The Treachery of Images', 'This is Not a Pipe'! Please forgive the abstract comparison :o)
Great podcast, great guest! Regarding Max's opinion that "nested simulations" are unlikely: Bostrom knows about the nested simulations argument, and his answer is basically, "So what? Doesn't make simulations any less likely." With respect to Sean's counter-argument, which I think is better - that simpler simulations are easier to do, and therefore would be much more common, the obvious answer is that we can't know if we're in a common or uncommon kind of simulation, since we haven't seen any other simulations. Also, how do we know our simulation isn't one of the simpler ones?
This is a really great conversation because Professor Carroll helps Professor Tegmark to slow down just enough and circle back a couple of times and articulate his ideas in a way that is, well, easier to understand. I have a much better understanding of Max Tegmark now than I did before this conversation. Most of the Max Tegmark lecture videos on TH-cam are too difficult for the likes of me to understand.
Ah, this universe with Sean Carroll, it's preposterous!
Love Max Tegmark- first saw him on some of the BBC Horizon programs on Cosmology and the Multiverse
Brillant. Two of my favourite Physicists and can listen to them all day. Thank you.
The beauty of the Mathematical Universe is that it reduces your metaphysical assumptions to 1 bit: Either everything that's mathematically consistent exists, or it doesn't. If it does, you're done. If not you need many more bits to justify what exists. So it's a pretty tight assumption.
Houghton and the Burov brothers of course suggest that there is a realm that sorts law to arrive as consistency.
The Multiverse, the Initial Conditions, the Laws and, Mathematics by Laura Mersini-Houghton
fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Mersini-Houghto_fqxi_laura.pdf
Genesis of a Pythagorean Universe Alexey Burov, Lev Burov 2013
arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1411/1411.7304.pdf
Max regularly conflates intelligence with awareness in this conversation.
Intelligence (from Merriam's): the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills.
Awareness (from Merriam's): the quality or state of being aware.
Two of the best scientist who feel responsibility for the future of the human race. An old saying: the more knowledge the more understanding the more care and feeling responsibility to do the right ting. Very informative. Thank you my heros.
It's myopic to say that because we describe stuff in mathematical terms that they consist solely of mathematical properties and that, therefore, there is only a mathematical reality.
Really enjoying your podcasts, Sean. Great to listen to at work!
Same here. Really makes the time fly🙂👍
Thank you so much for this podcast Sean. You and your guests are all amazing and have made my life better!
I've got to say, I didn't like Tegmark that much, because of his dissing Hameroff, but I really like the way he explains the universe as a mathematical construct. He's definitely one of the brilliant minds of our time. Respect!
Leon Enriquez Where is the Hameroff diss (or diss of Hameroff’s ideas)? What time point?
@@IproCoGo th-cam.com/video/jXBfXNW6Bxo/w-d-xo.html check out the last part of the video. Hameroff is pretty clear he thought Tegmark blocked his research from being published by not supporting it. True or not, it was kind of cringy
Check hour 2 minute 4
@@leonenriquez5031 Hi Leon, I watched the section you mentioned (2 hour, 4 minute) and will watch the entire video soon. Thank you for pointing it out, the topic of microtubule mechanics is interesting. Hameroff definitely felt that his work was dismissed by Tegmark. In my opinion, politics in science interrupts science too much. We need to find ways to discuss, disagree, and agree in more constructive ways. The systems for science communication are primitive which might be more of a social engineering issue than a technology issue. We really need to remake the scientific enterprise from the funding mechanisms on down, in my opinion.
Regarding Hameroff, Penrose and microtubules; my bet is that consciousness and intelligence are powered by specific quantum mechanical systems and we could use some experimental light on the microtubule hypothesis for sure. It is a promising area.
At 12:14:10, the gentleman on the left, Dr. Bandyopadhyay discusses the possibility that many vibrational bands of the multitude of neurons forms a signal or control feature. That is certainly possible and would be interesting to disentangle (pun not intended) experimentally.
@@IproCoGo Agreed buddy, glad to see more people interested in those subjects.
My absolute favorite guest. Thank you!
That would have to be my favourite Mindscape yet. Thanks Sean and Max!
Prefers to be in a superposition of drinking beer while watching netflix.
LOL
There's nothing quite like two super-awesome intelligent guys talking :)
Very good discussion. Tegmark pointed out - about the simulation hypotheis - very well what Im saying for a long time now (and I don't mean the infinite nesting, that one is just a brilliant idea I haven't thought of it at all ) that is if you truly think you are in a simulation you cannot make basic assumptions about the reality simply based on this simulation, because one does not have to resemble the other one. This is a problem because the whole idea is based on observations from this "presumably simulated" world including trends like Moore's law which then may or may not exist in "reality".
I think it's a very silly idea
@@clairehann2681 well, that's not an argument, is it ?
@@CraftyF0X referring to simulation idea in general
@@clairehann2681 you may not like it but there's value in it. Many idea seemed silly before turned out to be correct. I'm afraid the universe has no obligation to make sense to us, especially not intuitively. I could point out many things in physics which arguably seems silly yet these are experimentally proven things. That's just the nature of reality unbound by our expectations.
I feel like semantics are getting in the way of a lot of these concepts. Specifically, the simulation argument and it's comparability to what Max was saying at the beginning; that there is no "property" of physicality. I presumed these things to be essentially the same, but it seems like he's making some distinction that may or may not just come from the word "simulation" itself. If that makes any sense. I'm basically thinking holographic principle extrapolated all the way down and all the way up, kind of arriving at a similar hypothesis to Penrose's conformal universe thing. Or something. To be clear, I have no idea what I'm talking about.
Self-awareness *is* physicality
Now this is something that I can thoroughly sink my teeth into...thanks for all the flavors !!!
The basis of logic & logical thought is sequential. When we map reality to this sequential structure we reduce it to that structure,
or as it is said, "simplify" it to this structure. The nature of reality is not sequential, and as far as we are aware, all of reality (in all its infinity)
"happens", "exists" all at once, spontaneously in all its "parts". Forgetting this is at the root of many of the confusions mentioned in this podcast, and by extension, anything that is modeled or is "fruit of" this structure of thinking. "Mathematics" is of course an instance of
this structured thinking; or we can go further, an instance of 'algorithmic thought.'
Under this realisation, the question of "is the world Math?" is transparently non-sensical or non-productive.
More interesting is understanding what are the realisations to be made under the "mathematical models of the world", known as 'physics',
especially when it concerns to its "paradoxes", for example in quantum mechanics and the "limits" of its precision, or even the
"true" meaning of ".. 'energy/matter' is neither created nor destroyed" in the context of our myopic search for the 'indivisible' parts of 'the universe'. In the end we are experts in getting lost in our own symbols, even in the symbols of "our Self"s.
even though Mad Max is a really crazy scientist, at least he is not shying away from big questions.
Max is awesome ii fucking love this guy
Please invite Markus Gabriel to your podcast (youngest philosophie professor of Germany). He can explain to you what it means for something to "exist" and why the universe is not a mathematical structure, i.e. not just mathematical relations exist.
Also he can explain to you why "the world" does not exist.
Edward Fredkin would be a suitable guest about simulation hypothesis.
@neil u And precision of information varying proportionally according to the relationship/interaction between two systems. No more is/was communicated than what was needed, even retroactively. And the nature of the universe at small scales not only being quantized, but the presence of minimum scale units so that the information is both finite in scale and resolution.
8:38 "...a universe where you're interviewing Max Smegmark"
Please no
I've been there, i wormholed to this universe. Its pretty much the same, except that Smegmark says we live in a smathematical smobject.
I'm sorry Sean but there's one problem with this episode. It was too short :(((((
Another awesome episode Sean, maybe my new favourite. Thanks.
My favourite cosmologist together ♥️
I will will watch this tonight. I am VERY much looking forward to it!
It seemed like Mr. Carroll took an underhanded dig at Mr. Tegmark when he brought up the fact that these days he is focusing the bulk of his energy on A.I. research and not cosmology. He apparently picked up on that as well because he pointed out that he has gotten papers published in the field. That was an unexpected moment of cattiness between two scientists I admire (although I am not onboard with their one-worldism in political terms) but it did not substantially marr this very enjoyable episode. Thank you for your work.
Carroll + Tegmark = SCIENCERGASM
Even if we are in a simulation of intelligent design, there is still then the initial universe that possessed the physics required to first create the very intelligence responsible for creating the simulation. (ps im not using the creationist term intelligent design to suggest any culturally specific religious concept, just the idea of a computer simulation programmed by a conscious entity which either intentionally or as a side effect produced consciousness.)
Not intelligent design. Duck-billed platypus. I rest my case
i've been waiting for this moment for years
Sean your doing a great job this podcast is more in-depth than many others.
I love and respect Dr Carroll and Dr Tegmark
@~50:00 - Max Tegmark contradicts his own preference that all mathematical realities exist when Sean brings up simulation theory. Max keeps referring to a "basement" reality, which simulation theory never required to begin with, and uses it as a reason to dislike it. Simulations are simply among the mathematical realities that exist - i.e. all internally consistent realities exist. Labeling some of them "simulations" is irrelevant as the genesis of all realities from pure timeless mathematical constructs may share the same definition of a simulation.
That's a good reasoning; except for I think that Max kind of jumps on Bostroms bandwagon here, rather than his own. Which is to also say that the very meaning of "simulation" becomes obscure if there was not a non-simulated reality to begin with. What exactly would simulation pertain to, if not to something which is less real (in some sense) vs. something which is more real (in the same sense)? I think this is why he chose to speak of "basement" realities; just to follow Bostroms path and to make some sense of the word "simulation".
Listening to Richard Feynmann awhile ago I was caught up in one constant he used that connected everything. To think, that all reality is the universe projecting a possibility based on an examination of observable quantities of past states and forecasting variations of the future which acts in the present and is experienced as spacetime .
I feel like in order for the level 4 multiuniverse to be true, we need 100% accurate mathematical models that leave no information out. If the math is only approximate but work, then there is a gradient of "realness" going from 0 to 100% depending on what exactly the math says, but you can't determine the full consequences of the math when they are approximate (or?)
There is no approximate math although any approximation is expressed in math
Cool.. Been looking forward to this one....
Great interview Sean. When you got Max on microphone you just got to let him roll with it LOL
One property that differentiate physical mathematic structures from purely theoretical would be meassurabillity, the mother of all predictions.
Guys but seriously, entanglement and quantum entanglement should be described differently. Quantum entanglement should be labeled similar to intimacy. Describing to what degree the properties are intimate. If there even exist degrees of quantum intimacy. Because entangle does not describe a reflection. Quantum entanglement intuitively feels such as it better describes reflection. Being entangled requires more than two components. And describes something completely different than the entanglement at a micro or macroscopic level where the smallest system is larger than two fundamental units.
And I will advocate that the naming convention in the Standard Model is childish. Up and down are very acceptable. However strange and charm are not acceptable. The names need to describe the functionality. Why has the standard model been allowed this somewhat childish naming convention?
In chemistry there exists an entity which created an absolute systemic naming convention. It is beautiful how in that way, each name and adjective describes many properties of the substance, in the fundamental terms. In measurement, the metric system is the naming convention that describes the system. The units system of metric is a beautifully constructed concept which is self descriptive. There is no need to introduce additional "special" shit to it to encourage fundamental understanding. In modern quantum physics, we have a nomenclature which is anti intuitive in the realm of fundamental naming conventions.
Physics makes the appearance of being glued together. The men who control physics need to make a fundamental change in how we describe it, just as much as the United States of America should convert, with total resolve, to the metric system of measurement. Or forever shall ye be haunted by the Angstrom.
13:10 i just had an image of me time travelling or dimension shifting, but to maintain thermodynamics all my copies decide to do a similar things the same time, like an infinite mirror image.
43:00 have you explored the library of babel? it contains every book ever written - and - every book that has yet to be written.
How does this conjecture deal with Incompleteness Thereom and Computational Irriducibility? Those are going to hamstring his idea without solutions to those.
Hey Dr. Sean. I listen to your podcast on a daily basis since i found it and I fall asleep to it not in a bad way.. like i feel learned astrophysics 101 … is it possible to get Dr chris impey or Dr Lawrence Krauss
7:53 Since when does Inflation say that an infinite amount of matter and energy was created 13.8 Bil years ago?
It says there was some (a lot) in a very small area, but no where have I read an infinite amount of matter and energy was releases.
Alan Guth uses the term Pocket Universe to denote a localized concentration of matter/energy.
Or does he mean concentrations and voids.
I agree its not infinite beyond the concentration of which our observable universe is part of.
Will upvote anything with Max
They should have a STUDIO!!! I mean after all these are one of the most valuable people society has to offer..
36:05 Universes that go random don't develop structures. Maybe that gives them less reality. Maybe conscious observers don't confer reality, but longevity and consistency do (they may be the same thing). Complex forms and conscious observers are an epiphenomenon.
Max Tegmark sounds like a 50's cinema 'action' scientist.
Straight out of tel aviv
He could've been a drop-in for Jeff Goldblum in Jurassic Park too
What is the universe's threshold of importance in deciding which decisions warrant a split in realities? Surely not every minutiae leads to another world. Does that lean toward a more deterministic universe if it gauges or qualifies a decision as sufficient enough to split world-lines? And whose world line is it? If the universe is not anthropic or human-centered, whose timeline are we living in? (It is possible that the "devil is in the details" and everything counts but surely not every minute decision does the universe wait on you to split itself. If we aren't the center of the universe, why does the universe split for us on seemingly small decisions? Maybe missing a train that determines future outcomes and the importance in one universe is the threshold.)
Max: It seems to me like saying some universe "exist" and others don't, inserts philosophical baggage that doesn't abide by Occam's razor.
*Literally a couple minutes later*: "Anyways, here's some philosophical baggage I'm inserting to explain why my theory predicts our universe is about to devolved into chaos, but we don't observe that"
See if we are talking about the idea, or psychological concept of soul, ie being a unique data set known as memory/identity which is a shared experience with which information essential to the survival of genes can be helped through the formation of cultural knowledge as "history". All we need is to look at Egypt's greatest monuments to the soul as evidence to the power of an idea.
The fascinating aspect to the mathematical universe is how seemingly impossible it is to conceive of anything that is not atleast a form of measurement. The concept of Nothingness exists entirely due to an observable universe filled with reacting energy events.
Wow....two superstars!!!
How does the idea of an infinitely large universe (the lvl 1 multiverse you describe) jive with the big bang theory? If the universe is expanding outward from an origin at a less than infinite speed, then how could it have a beginning at all if it's spread out over an infinite amount of three dimensional space?
It seems like every specialist, whether its a chemist, psychologist, biologist, whatever, thinks that everything revolves around their particular field of study. I had a chemistry professor who would literarily say "the whole world is chemistry!"
Max Tegmark is a level above most.
Sean Carroll you are a delight
Max is an interesting cat. These are awesome.
@Ruby Badilla I largely agree......Am a big fan of straight up Idealism based models such as Kastrup alters or Campbell's VRs etc.. They connect the mos dots by FAR imo. I really meant interesting for a realist/materialist. Still, almost nobody in academia is willing to go there, publically at least.
@Ruby Badilla lame
does anyone know what are the machine learning/AI models that are provably doing what we want them to do? Max says many times there's some "nerdy work" going on, and it makes sense he doesn't go into technical details, but he could've at least mention some keywords for us to google more info.
Could instead of a simulation having a creator for it to be self-assembled by pure chance? Of course it makes no difference to understand our origins, since we have that the Universe itself could be a creation of pure chance and that it can progress to the point of simulating itself ... but it would matter for what we perceive as possible since the rules of a simulation may be different than those of its base reality and if any escape is possible than it could allow one to revert any of its fundamental principles. Anyway ... just thought that everytime someone talks about a simulated universe they always talk about creators, but never about it being self assembled, just like Life that every skeptic would agree is probably the result of pure chance than of an act of creation.
The Jetsons reference (unintended): 1:05:44
So how do we falsify these multiverse claims so that they become more than just conjecture and actually something worth believing? It's very exciting but Popper would dismiss it right away. Is there a way to test his hypothesis of an external reality or is this just speculation of the noumenon?
That's what I want to know 😂😂😂 they sound really ridiculous without talking about that first
This subject includes two Turing machines which point to cosmic mind. 1) The most obvious one is the Universal Wave Function (UWF). Because the UWF 'solves for' infinite 4D histories (quantum block, classical history) that are not time evolved, it must be given the Godel Machine classification. This is a conscious, creative, self-referent architecture. 2) The Multi-verse layer requires a law sorter to batch consistent laws. Is Tegmark alluding to the simplicity to avoid this? His chaos-o-genesis began with mathematical democracy, then aristocracy. The low Kolomogrov complexity of this Universe points to compression and simplicity.
(here's a list of some prime papers discussing MUH/CUH)
The Multiverse, the Initial Conditions, the Laws and, Mathematics by Laura Mersini-Houghton
fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Mersini-Houghto_fqxi_laura.pdf
Genesis of a Pythagorean Universe Alexey Burov, Lev Burov 2013
arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1411/1411.7304.pdf
Godel's Incompleteness Theorems and Platonic Metaphysics
arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1509/1509.02674.pdf
Does the Universe have a Hard Drive?
arxiv.org/pdf/1701.07161.pdf¬¬¬¬
The Mathematical Universe, Max Tegmark (MIT) 2007
arxiv.org/abs/0704.0646
Divine Action and the World of Science: What Cosmology and Quantum Physics Teach Us about the Role of Providence in Nature, Bruce L. Gordon
jbtsonline.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/JBTS-2.2-Article-7.compressed.pdf?fbclid=IwAR2KIn4Ev6Tw09wdN_VFA9bTC9KAlYkgqdbVv9caNaoMtuZ9ZA9UP6mskao
Heuristic rule for constructing physics axiomatization
Florin Moldoveanu 2010
arxiv.org/abs/1001.4586
Putting Natural Time Into Science, Roger White, Wolfgang Banzhaf 2019
arxiv.org/abs/1901.07357?fbclid=IwAR2VkOk7GveumRKrFxyrbBFKxPRad2006HAAsB3iFcWcrc76qNv_ZiQ7vEk
Incomputability, Emergence and the Turing Universe
www.researchgate.net/publication/225959011_Incomputability_Emergence_and_the_Turing_Universe
Realism about the Wave Function, Eddy Keming Chen
arxiv.org/abs/1810.07010
The Origin of Physical Laws and Sensations
Bruno Marchal 1988
iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHAL.pdf
Some remarks on the mathematical structure of the multiverse, Alan McKenzie
arxiv.org/abs/1602.04247
Levels of reality: emergent properties of a mathematical multiverse, Alan McKenzie
philsci-archive.pitt.edu/16103/
GODEL MACHINE
ftp://ftp.idsia.ch/pub/juergen/gmconscious.pdf
Houghton, Laws of the Universe, Completeness
What are the laws of the universe? | Laura Mersini-Houghton, Gerard 't Hooft, Helen Beebee
th-cam.com/video/_RX9YqyGcP4/w-d-xo.html
Houghton page
fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2371?search=1
What is the no-boundary wave function of the Universe
journals.aps.org/prd/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevD.99.043526z
Sean, or any fellow listeners, I have a question. What is that image in the thumbnail to a lot of mindscape episodes such as this one? is that a graphical model of anything? or is it fictional graphic design?
WIthout knowing what it is...i see a spherical dense network of the lines towards the bottom...and it looks as if the radiating out lines are symmetrical. Id be curious to know what it actually is if anything.
Has anyone ever tried to preform the double slit experiment with a photon excited Electron?
Is there a way to excite the electron beam with a laser and excite the electrons before they pass thru the double slit and then place a medium /crystal or arrange it so that the electrons de-energize the as they go through one or both of the two slits so that the electrons then emits their photon, Thereby showing which slit they went through while the electron continues to the wall. And displays either a defraction pattern or two lines
And then what is the pattern of the photons As they hit their own wall. And will the patterns change if someone is watching.
Very interesting conversation between two extraordinary personalities. It would have been still impressive if it is live vedeo conversation.
For a level one universe, with infinite space with generally dispersed matter, would not just every configuration of matter happen, but every configuration happen an infinite number of times? So, not only is there an exact copy of you and every permutation of you and your history, there are an infinite number of you and your history and of every other possible permutation of you. It makes the concept of free will hard to get ones mind around.
I so wish it was much longer!!
Wonderful to listen. I wonder if there is any mindscape episode around some renowned scientist from statistical physics , NLD or complex system studies. Anyway, it is quite wonderful to listen Mindscape. thanks.
For me our universe has some features that seem unnecessary if we were in a simulation.
a)The accelerated expension of the universe is not something we would expect in a simulation unless it is a bug in the simulation itself.
b)Dreams are not something we would expect in a simulation
Honestly, I can't think of a single thing that I would expect in this reality.
Everything is just weird (at least). Energy, matter, life, body, sex, food, brains ? seriously, wtf! That doesn't make any sense...
@@user-ge8fn4jr5q I totally agree with you even every facet of our daily life is questionable. In my comment I was more stressing the features which have absolultely no impact on our active life. You talk about food, let's not forget that the reality behind that is living creatures killing and eating each other. It is not only wierd but down right cruel and appauling as well. We tend to forget about that because we buy prepackaged food in the shops
To get AI to understand or adopt our goals first requires and AI that has goals. Such a thing doesn't yet exist.
Having a goal isn't the same as being built for a goal. A tractor doesn't have the goal of plowing a field because that is what is what built to do. Same for AI, AI doesn't have the goal of winning the game of go, that was the goal of its creators.
AI doesn't have goals, it doesn't want to do anything or not to do anything, it won't get bored because it doesn't care. What would it take to get AI to care? The same thing that it takes anything else to care. What that is I don't know for certain but then I don't think anyone does.
Thank you for your contributions to the Intelligence explosion 🌐
What is the simulation of consciousness that it feels subjectively real?
Literalism is the fundamental issue with Everett’s approach. Homework: why is that so and how do we defend Everett?
Oh my! I have so many questions, I think that when Max points the idea of the lvl4 multiverse in a universe maybe could be a mathematical object with descriptions like the "dimensionality" of space and "quantum numbers" and so son he is assuming that Math is actually a real thing and not something that our human minds created because thats our way of thinking BUT also because that is what "makes sense" in our universe in someway. Insn't it arrogant as well to assume this reality of mathematics when maybe the opposite is more logical, that Maths in a consequence of THIS universe.
I am just saying, maybe there's a universe "somewhere" that even the idea of "space" doesnt have any meaning (and I am contradicting myself here on the use of "somewhere" on porpose) or even more profoundly, that the idea of "quantity" or "shape" or even who knows the idea of "causality". Maybe all of that is just not the way that we think but the way that we think BECAUSE we are in THIS universe.
Another question I have is about his idea of "mathfying" everything, that maybe we didn't yet discover how to describe everything in Math terms just because we didn't have enough time or enough people trying whatever; how Godel's Theorem fit in there? Shouldn't mathematics FUNDAMENTALLY ALWAYS be incomplete?
That's just some points I argued with myself listening to this, maybe we can have some interesting discussions about this.
"It's happened in all the rich industrialized countries except the one we're in". Ain't it the truth, unfortunately.
Does infinite intelligence exist? Can something get unlimited smarter?
I think the answer is mostly no, we have reached the limit of intelligence and all we are doing is getting better at data processing. Data processing requires a better ability to GATHER data, the reason our weather forecast is not perfect is due to limits in data gathering, not our intelligence in looking at the data we have.
Of course we have not reached the limit of intelligence, even in our species there is huge differences of intelligence.
More data would not help with weather prediction or prediction of any other chaotic system
Sir, three of my greatest scientific heroes Archimedes, Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein and you've become fourth. Sir, i'm 1st year cs engineering student and my goal is to develop advanced artificial intelligence and merge it with quantumcomputer. And use it to do help in research in Physics. Because current approach to do research in physics is not seems very efficient.
@Sean Carroll Can you please get Leonard Mlodinow on the podcast?
Could it be that a soul is an example that it is not a completely mathematical universe, but you might reply that it is mathematical, we just we just don't know yet what mathematics express a soul yet, my point is calling it a mathematical universe does not say as much about the universe as it does mathematics.
Nice one Sean 😎
Why not 1080p?
So informational I learned so much.
Could you please host Donald Hoffman too!? 🙏💖
No we dont need him. He is a pseudo-scientist
@@dylan9966 coz its true
Just listen to Hoffman.
I strongly believe that the universe has a doughnut shape. Somehow it makes sense.
Would it be a jelly doughnut.
Alright homer..