Is Math the Language of the Universe?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 21 ส.ค. 2024
- There is a very common debate over the nature of math. Is it something that exists as part of the universe that we slowly "discover" or is it something we make up to try and explain our crazy world? After a lot of careful thought, this video is my answer.
________________________________
VIDEO ANNOTATIONS
Lives of Stars:
• Basics of Hertzsprung-...
Why Do Things Float?:
• Why Do Things Float?
________________________________
HUGE THANK YOU TO THESE PATRONS:
** Nikko Lai **
________________________________
SCIENCE ASYLUM STUFF
Support us on Patreon:
/ scienceasylum
Advanced Theoretical Physics (eBook):
gumroad.com/l/...
Merchandise:
shop.spreadshir...
More videos at:
/ thescienceasylum
Facebook: / scienceasylum
Twitter: @nicklucid / nicklucid
Instagram: @nicklucid / nicklucid
Google+: www.google.com/...
Main Site: www.scienceasyl...
Vlog: / thenicklucid
________________________________
EXTRA INFO LINKS
Idea Channel on Math:
• Is Math a Feature of t...
MinutePhysics on Math:
• Is the Universe Entire...
Mathematics:
en.wikipedia.o...
en.wikipedia.o...
en.wikipedia.o...
en.wikipedia.o...
Reddit Discussion on Math:
/ what_is_the_purpose_of...
Google Translate:
translate.goog...
Definitions:
www.merriam-we...
www.merriam-we...
www.merriam-we...
World Language Info:
www.linguistics...
________________________________
COMMENT RESPONSES
Benbedra Abdssamad - Stellar Information:
• Basics of Hertzsprung-...
Ira Sanborn - Green Stars:
• Basics of Hertzsprung-...
Miss Physics - Studied more astrophysics:
• Basics of Hertzsprung-...
Graeme Wilson - Black Holes:
• Basics of Hertzsprung-...
Jim Groth - How we know what we know:
• Basics of Hertzsprung-...
Keadin Mode - Wolf 359:
• Basics of Hertzsprung-...
________________________________
IMAGE CREDITS
Logo designed by: Ben Sharef
Stock Photos and Clipart
- Wikimedia Commons commons.wikimed...
- Openclipart openclipart.org/
- or I made them myself...
Duck:
commons.wikime...
Egyptian Heiroglyphs:
commons.wikime...
Cuneiform Tablet:
commons.wikime...
Cat GIF:
funnycats.com.a...
As I was listening to this video at 7:55 my wife walks through the kitchen and hears, "No number will ever answer those deep philosophical questions." "Forty-two," she says on her way by without skipping a beat. Nick immediately answers, as if he heard her, "Not even 42." Makes my day. :)
HAHAHA Excellent!
OK, what is the significance of 42? I say this all the time too, but I have no idea where it comes from.
Never mind I researched it and got as far as WIKI, before my mind totally blew.
Its a referance to Hitchhicker's guide to the galaxy
Wow, you have an awesome wife. Going to the kitchen AND knowing the answer to life, the universe and the rest. That is impressive.
Your videos are a gift to society-
Now this is one gift people should resend instead of keeping for themselves :)
Amen to that! I'm struggling with a math subject related to this and this helped me understand this darn topic better.
Check this one universeandhuman.wordpress.com/2018/11/08/is-language-created-by-human-and-understand-by-just-human-only/
Or are they?
@@nanigopalsaha2408 They are.
this also raises the question, "is math invented or discovered?"
In my view, its more close to invented (convenience). in the past centuries all scientists tend to justify aspects of universe through maths. Its a little crazy to understand simple physics without using Maths
Akshay Patil One question you can pose for this idea is if humanity was wipped out and all knowledge was lost and millions of years later a new intellectual species evolved the two societies would differ in terms of language, faith and culture. Math however would likely remain at its core the same giving evidence to point to that it is discovered. The letters and symbols between the post wipe and pre wipe would most certainly differ however so it would need to be translated but it may be similar to a codex for English in which every letter is replaced by the one two down, but if a codex was found or created than one would likely easily be able to transition between the two. Think Fahrenheit and Celsius, they both messure the same thing - temperature - but you need a simple equation to transition between the two.
Here's the way I see it. Math seems to me to be an inherent property of the universe. It's underlying mechanics were discovered, but the actual language we use to communicate those underlying mechanics had to be invented.
I cuncur CJ G
agreed
Great upload! I've heard that phrase so many times and it's never really been explained. I love how you went into so much detail about defining everything. Awesome!
Thanks! I spent a lot of time preparing for this one. It's one of those videos that's taken me months to write.
@@ScienceAsylum(even as a math and physics lover I can't take it in a easy way,but it's the truth but still u can't tell math is not a universal language just for density or even numbers) I agree that our math can't quite explain everything in a Meaningful way now.if somebody can change it mean like how Newton did by inventing calculus,math can discribe any phenomenon with clear and in meaningful way.THEN AFTER THAT IT WILL BECOME THE LANGUAGE THAT WE USE TO UNIVERSE.
Language is the application of meaning to a pattern.
Color is the language the brain uses to understand wavelengths of light. Odor and flavor are the languages the brain uses to understand chemical reactions in the nose and tongue. Texture, sensation, and sound are the languages that the brain uses to understand pressure differentials.
This is why things like synesthesia, illusions, hallucinations, dreams, and ghost limb syndrome exists. This is why plugging an audio cord into a video port creates crazy colors and shapes and why plugging a video cord into an audio port creates screeching sounds.
This is why an idea in your mind has to be translated into words in the Broca’s Area and then translated into the patterns of muscle activations in your lips, mouth, throat, and diaphragm to produce the proper pattern of sounds which creates a sympathetic vibration in another’s ears which is sent to the Wernicke’s area to be translated back into words and then translated into an idea.
ANY one of those processes can corrupt the intended idea being transmitted and defeat communications.
Every layer of neurons creates patterns for each successive layer to constantly condense information so that all the data received from the each retina can be understood in each respective hemisphere of the brain which is then processed using the corpus callosum to achieve depth perception through comparison of information rather than rejection of a complete data set to avoid cognitive dissonance.
Whenever two sets of data do not coincide at one level of dimensionality, it creates dissonance, by increasing the number of dimensions used to analyze, you are able to achieve a better understanding. This is true in depth perception, politics, relationships, and even M-Theory in String Theory.
Math describes ALL of those languages.
@@ScienceAsylum Just the fact that we employ digital communications to transmit information in any form of language through another always ends up applying meaning to a pattern of physical phenomena: light pulses, radio wave features, optical pits, magnetized particles, quantum states, and even tree rings.
Everything comes down to “exists” or “does not exist” and the pattern of “existence” and “non-existence” gives rise to the ability to apply meaning to it all.
Applying meaning to a pattern is called “encoding.”
The process of extracting meaning from a pattern, using the same language, is called “decoding.”
Wow, this guy sure hates average density.
Are you dense?
@@zarion1181 yes
IronLotus r/selfroast
and thats y calculus came into being
5:42 "if math really is the language of the universe, then everything we calculate should have meaning"
Totally desagress with this. English is the language of the Harry Potter books, but not every sentence in english has a meaning in the books, and every meaning of the books can be written in english. So not everything in math should have a meaning in the universe, but all in the universe should be able to be written using math. Gravity, speed of light, all celestial bodies, everything is described using math, and what isn't is probably because we still didn't figured how to do it. So in my opinion math is the language of the universe.
About the deep philosophical questions, they aren't about the universe, they are about us, and the universe can exist without us in it, so these questions shouldn't be used to disprove math as the language of the universe.
I agree with you too. Have you ever had a chance to look at The E8 Lattice theory of the universe by Garret Lisi? It looks so amazing and promising.
I kinda agree with you, but then again if you think about it, is there any mathematical statement that cannot be translated to a regular language? The answer is no, it's just that it would be really inefficient for some math statements. It follows then, that every language is the language of the universe. Which kind of makes sense, I mean, that's why languages evolved right, to be able to communicate ideas.
I think u hate math
A strong point there!
@@hnnagarathna7286 Did you read anything he said
Math is a language we made up. A small portion of the mathematical language has been created and expanded precicely because it described some bits of the universe.
Physics is our attempt to describe the universe at its fundamental levels, and physics used to be done in a spoken language, such Aristotelian logic. But that didn't get us anywhere. So people started using math, and the results were so overwhelmingly good that we just kept on using math, and making up new math when needed.
I don’t think we can take credit for math, we may have stumbled onto it when looking at the cosmos, everything is created mathematically down to its very atomic structure. Math is something the universe taught us.
Yeah maths is just a tool to rely on the laws that were observed recently, but when scientists found out about black matter, or black holes not even maths or science could explain these phenomenons
@@user-fr8ri4ie9s and the very small, quantum mechanics, other dimensions, the stuff we can not see or measure.
Butt it is still the math that tells us something is missing…. If you go back and look at the actual reason why we are looking for that.
@@user-fr8ri4ie9s the “question” is what science is all about, if we run out of questions, than we run out of science. We must have something to investigate, measure, observe. Numbers, need to be accompanied by letters, they explain the measurement, or formulas or what the numbers represent.
@@anthonysandoval9275 Science is not for the thrill of it, its created to satisfy the curiousity of us humans. If science was all about the questions then science wouldnt be used in the first place.
You: "No number will ever answer those deep philosophical questions"
Me: "well except 42"
You, zoomig in: " *NOT EVEN 42* "
@5:11 It totally has a translation in Propositional Logic and in Predicate Logic which are both branches of Mathematics. Check it.
I⇔(K⇔(B≤C)) = It’s okay to be a little crazy = Eίναι εντάξει να είσαι λίγο τρελός.
(Math) (English) (Greek, just to go the extra mile)
(I didn't use Google for any of this, didn't need to; I'm fluent in Greek, and I'm a Math/Logic Undergrad)
Notation Legend (Math/Logic)
----------------------------------------------------
I = It’s
K = okay
B = to be
C = crazy
⇔ equivalent, (logically equivalent)
⊆ a subset, ⊆C is a set contained in C
≤ less than or equal to
∃ = Existential quantifier, it reads: "there exists..."
: such that
It means the same thing as this: I=(K=(B≤C)) (Each term is just represented with a variable.)
You might also see Logician write this in Set Theory: I⇔(K⇔(B⊆C)
or in Predicate Logic = ∃K: K(B,C)
This states that: "There exists K, such that K describes the relationship between B, C."
or to be more specific: "There exists "Okay" such that "Okay" describes the relationship "Being" is having with "Crazy."
Notation Greek to English
----------------------------------------
Eίναι εντάξει να είσαι λίγο τρελός =
It’s okay to be a-little crazy
Eίναι = It’s
εντάξει = okay
να = to
είσαι = be
λίγο = little *(see asterik at bottom of page for details)
τρελός = crazy
Notation: Math to English to Greek
-----------------------------------------------------
I = It’s = Eίναι
K = okay = εντάξει
B = to be = να είσαι
C = crazy = τρελός
⇔ equivalent, (logically equivalent)
⊆ a subset, ⊆C is a set contained in C
≤ less than or equal to
∃ = Existential quantifier, it reads: "there exists..."
: such that
I⇔(K⇔(B≤C)) = Eίναι εντάξει να είσαι λίγο τρελός.
*(There is no “a” because “little” itself does not have singularity or plurality in Greek unless more than one entity is slightly crazy. Here, only one thing is little: the size, or measurement of “crazy.“)
The literal, "word-for-word," translation from Greek→English would be: “It’s okay to be little crazy.” Which is exactly what you hear from many people with European accents, like some of my Uncles lol.
I may have abused the "it's okay to be a little crazy" rule, and went to far, lol. (If anyone understands it then totally worth it!)
Nick, answer the man. Is he right?
Logic Λόγος Totally worth it!
Logic is not math.
@Logic Λόγος
You ARE a little crazy... but it's okay.
With sufficient knowledge, everything can be explained ..... even God!
Loved the video. Math might be our human language’s attempt to describe the universe, But the universe does not speak the language of math, the universe could probably care less about our math!
I wish I had a teacher like you in school - I would have become a Scientist for sure! :)
You can still be one. It's never too late. Don't give up. :)
@@feynstein1004 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww11q
@Gayatri Chitale Eh did you have a stroke or something? 😂
why not becoming one now?
@@gayatri555 - correct number is wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww11r
"Not even 42". I laughed out loud. Nice one.
Yaaa... i was talking to the Universe the other day and It only speaks Esperanto.
Great... you just gave me some new research to fit into my schedule. **Googles Esperanto**
Lol...
Sooo... Esperanto is the true Religion? :D
Whoever coined that phrase that "math is the language of the universe" probably meant it in the sense that math has a universal quality that other sentient beings would understand. Because of that, mathematical concepts as well as formulas could serve as a foundation for communication.
One plus one equals two is a universal fact (as far as we know), so building on that, it should be possible to trade with aliens. That example is simplistic but it illustrates the point I'm making.
I enjoy your videos, by the way. They're very informative.
The universe as we know it (except the dream state) is governed by a mathematical law, etc.
True, but we also use language to describe things as accurately as possible. We use math to describe the universe. So technically, math is a language, but more a sublanguage.
Not wanna be mean but you sooo underestimate the different fields of maths that humans have created (yes, created). Because even this simplistic example of 1+1=2 is not inherent but one of the consequenses of the rules that we made for this paticular arithmetics (for example Peano axioms). And we could easily change these rules to create completely new arithmetics. To put it simply, our pure maths could be much much more crazy than the universe, so there are many possible kinds of this craziness
...
Math meme:
Which ring are you talking in?
@@Predated2 You mix up a language we invented with the mathematical entities we try to descibe with the language we invented.
The entities exist, no matter wether our universe exists or not. They are universal, and do not require our universe to exist.
Math is a landscape, made up of mathematical structures.
Dealing with math is exploring these landscapes.
In order to describe these landscapes to others, of course you need a language.
This languages is not the landscapes though.
I understand, that physicists see math only as a tool - I took lectures in physics as well. What you learn in an average physics studium is not math at all, its algorithms molten into mathematic language at best.
Don't mix up these algorithms with math.
0:13 first time that i actually read all of them
2. No pants is best pants 😂😂
These videos are brilliant! I can't understand why there are only 40K subscribers! You deserve to have at least 20 times that amount! Keep up the good work Nick, this channel deserves to be huge!
I have a translation for "it's ok to be a little crazy" to math. It's simple:
1+2+3+4+5+...(infinity symbol here) = -1/12
That's not actually true though, the "proofs" of it are invalid. I'm not going to explain that here, but there are videos that do that on youtube.
That's been proven to be wrong.
it is not more crazy than 1+2=3. Both statements require certain axioms in order to be true and known, otherwise they are just random signs without meaning. The reasion why 1+2=3 seems a lot less crazy is that you are a lot more familiar with simple arithemitc than with analytical continuation
Crazies, the OP is just making a joke. Try not to take everything so seriously 😉.
For anyone who can't let it go, watch this video from Numberphile from 2014: th-cam.com/video/w-I6XTVZXww/w-d-xo.html
...then this much deeper dive from 3blue1brown in 2016: th-cam.com/video/sD0NjbwqlYw/w-d-xo.html
*TL;DR The sum might not be rigorously defined where the sum equals -1/12, but there's nothing rigorously disproving it either. The result is still compelling.*
"It's OK to be a little crazy" has no exact translation in maths...yet. But just as every language maths evolves too. If we found out a new way to express psychological stuff in maths we could express that too.
I like your way of thinking and it formed mine in some ways since I follow your channel. Your presentation style is top quality too. Keep up the good work Nick!
Great video. Have you seen the movie "Arrival" yet? It touches on some of this. You'd probably enjoy it.
I haven't yet, but I will.
The Science Asylum Watch it!!
Just another time Paradox movie, but more confusing because it had to attract the unfamiliar people who never saw a time paradox movie before. So, therefore, the movie adds unnecessary details to make the move even more confusing than necessary. I've been a time paradox nurd since Star Trek TOS. But after watching this movie, I fell asleep. Oh well.
imho even english is not the language of the universe.
the consensus make it so.
which mean it need agreement of each participant or community to use n engage it. nobody can say what is the language of the universe. only god know.
I love your python vids Corey! (:
Math can definitely describe our physical situation but our spiritual/ philosophical situation is another matter. I think you hit on this dichotomy brilliantly.
I learnt more about science on your channel than I've ever learnt in past 10 years in school
"Math would be just a small part of the best translation of the language of the universe." This expression only makes me see things in a totally different perspective. Thanks.
This is more important than we can imagine for a number of reasons. It’s also the reason (conjecture) why we can’t unify a continuum and a quantum reality using the form of math we call math.
I prefer comments at end of your videos. I'd only do comment video on its own if it's a question about you / your background / how you make videos etc...
Good to know. Thanks.
Agreed. It gives a feeling of two-way communication, which might seem trivial but is actually game-changing.
(Preface: I love the videos, I'm going through them one-by-one. Usually I'm uniquely unqualified to comment, but this video is perhaps an exception.)
To consider whether math is a lanugage, it's *really* helpful to go to the fields that study lanugage. There are many characteristics of human language, which you're not going to get by relying on dictionary definitions. One loses the interesting characteristics of both math and language by trying to equate them.
I would consider math to be a special subset of language, used in a specific domain. It's unusual because it has its own strict grammar, very different from human languages. The meanings of mathematical statements are of a different kind. It would be related to programming languages and the rules of logic.
Math doesn't deal with emotional states, nor could any community function using only math as a language. "I love you." "Let's go to the seashore." "I think there's something funny about that guy." How would you say these in Math-Speak? Human language has to deal with all the crazy states of mind, actions, and imaginings of a featherless biped.
I'm guessing that math originated in the jargon used by ancient surveyers and accountants. Originally it described the crafts and processes of specialists: figuring out areas, counting jugs of olive oil. Then it gradually became general and abstract, e.g. with the Greeks.
Conclusion - mathematics is A universal language but is not THE only language one needs to describe all things in the universe - you see I need to use a verbal language like English to better describe the conclusion! Example: I could use maths to talk to an alien from another planet about mathematical physics but not to express my feelings
You are lovely. You make learning fun. I'm healing my 'math trauma' of the past by teaching myself math. This was great
Should be the introductory video to any math class 01 . Math as tool and language .
That's exactly my introduction to mathematics: first High School lesson. They look at me as an alien.
This was possibly your best video! Math definitely IS the language of the universe. It's the only language that remains as a constant on our planet. (2 + 2 = 4) is the same in English as it is in French, Swedish or German. Logic states that if math remains a constant throughout all of humanity, then it most likely would be the same on another planet with intelligent life. If math is able to accurately predict cosmic events in our universe with pinpoint precision,... then yes, "Math" is clearly the language of the universe.
I love how it's "Question everything?" even questioning that, XD
Mathematics is often considered a formal language, akin to mathematical logic. With formal languages, it's improper to ascribe natural-language elements like nouns, verbs, etc. to formal languages as formal languages are strictly meaningless.
There are many ways to interpret this, but consider a model-theoretic view: formal languages are sentences which can be manipulated according to some set of rules to preserve their meaning i.e. their truth-tables. By themselves, they mean nothing. They're intended to model the way sentences in natural-languages preserve truth (hence model-theory). If mathematics is to be a (albeit pretty complicated) formal language (or maybe a set or group of formal languages, viz. axiom relativity), then the meanings of the terms become null, nullifying those arguments which appeal to this property (we often offer a blueprint in translating back formally by stating something to the effect of "Let be ", etc." where "something" is in the metalanguage, and "phi" is a metavariable in the object language).
What's curious is that the ontological status of mathematics is actually completely underdetermined. There's an infinite number of incommensurate ways to represent basic mathematical entities in set theory alone (see Benacerraf's identification problem for more), let alone the (what you might call the "mathematical constants" as it were, or) operations can be expressed in second or first-order predicate logic (with a bit of redundancy), or as a series of merelogical relations. There really isn't a way to tell, and this question is far from having the ghost of a consensus about it, but I am actually quite partial to a natural-language interpretation of mathematics, kinda like what you did. Only this kind of question about some natural-language entity would kick up as much fuss as it has. (Incidentally, this aporoximates the sort of appeal fictionalists, of all people, tend to make in their arguments).
Hello Crazy, great channel. I am a Sociology Major with a lot of studies and practical knowledge in communications, language, philosophy statistics and computer science. I STRONGLY recommend you to inmerse into the first and second Witgenstein. It's a good seed for a mind like yours.
Amazing channel, you deserve more subs!
That's an interesting take on the "Language of the Universe" statement. I always took it to mean that the universe was mathematical in nature, so we were just working out what was already there, trying to understand it, not literally a "language". For me, I don't see math as being intrinsic to the universe, so it can't be discovered. Math is a human invention the seems to be endlessly useful, but comes from us and is overlaid on to the universe. In terms of being an actual "Language of the Universe", of course not. The universe is not sentient (unless you mean us), so it doesn't communicate in any way, so it can't have a "language".
Mark my words your channel will be HUGE if you keep this up!!!
In my opinion:
Science is about the explanation of the world.
Philosophy is about the meaning of the world.
Mathematics as a brilliant human brain invention is deeply inline with the nature of the world.
You're really intelligent don't stop making videos
Great vid, very well explained. My big problem with the idea of math and science being intrinsic to the universe and something we discover is the simple fact that all the units of measurements measurements we use, the fundamental properties of both math and science are arbitrary, made up values. They are useful yes, and help us describe the universe so that we can understand it, but it is something we have made up and do not exist as an objective reality. The fact that we are constantly changing these units of measurements is a testament to the fact that they are something we have created. Math and science are both a means to manipulate these measurements in order for use to assign meaning to the universe. Does a photon calculate its trajectory using Einstein's equations through curved space before moving from point A to B? Of course not; it is simply following a path of least resistance through space. The universe simply happens around us and it does so outside of the realm of both math and science.
Yet math and science have been quite useful in describing and predicting, what has and will happen in the universe, and this is what puzzles people. It isn't much of a puzzle though; math and science have been designed to do just that, i.e., describe the universe. You design a glove to fit a hand and it may take a few tries before you get all the cloth to go in the right direction to fit all the fingers, but after trial and error, some experimentation and thinking about it, eventually you get a pattern that works. It may work for quite a while, but then you come across a hand that just won't fit in the glove. In this case, the universal glove doesn't turn out to be all that universal and you start the process all over again.
This is exactly what we do in math and science. We change the rules when we need to, when we come across an observation that doesn't fit with our existing description of the universe. We can do that, because we have created the system in the first place. We have created the units of measurements and the rules that govern those measurements, so we can change them as we need. This is what makes math and science so powerful. We are not locked into a rigid system defined by some impersonal universe that doesn't care about whether we understand or not. We have created the rules of the game, and we can change the rules as we need. We need a new unit of measurement? We simply make it, and then create the rules that govern those measurements and tweak those rules until it makes the observations we have. Do we need a new form of math to describe something? We simply create it, just as we did with Calculus and imaginary numbers.
Math and science do describe the world around us, not perfectly, but to a high degree of precision, where precision is defined as the standard we have set for ourselves, based on the units of measurements that we have created to facilitate that description of the universe. It does so, not because math and science are inherent properties of the universe, but because we have created both math and science to describe the universe in terms that we can understand. That is why math and science are always changing, always evolving and will continue to do so. math and science are both very similar to languages; they are all tools we have created to understand what is going on around us.
I agree with this statement 100%: "Does a photon calculate its trajectory using Einstein's equations through curved space before moving from point A to B? Of course not."
As far as the units of measure go though, most theoretical work is done outside of any unit choices. Equations tend to be re-written so they would work with any units you wanted to apply. Some scientists think that these equations describe real relationships between real measurements that actually exist in the universe. I'm not so convinced.
Rick clark is a crazy too!!!!!! And congrats on making the response in the newest video just uploaded! :) I knew Rick before he was famous!
Nova did a great show on this called "The Great Math Mystery" but it's true that the question of whether we made it up or it already existed in the universe still remains. For kids, a hard to find but incredible video was done by Disney on math called Donald in Mathmagic Land.
Donald in Mathmagic Land was HUGE for me when I was a kid.
For me Donald in Mathmagic Land is more like a meme.
Clicked the video by accident and didn't expect it to be interesting . . . Now here I am writing a comment . .. Thanks Nick!
Nick, Nic here. You do a nice job brother.
Math was invented by humans as way of interpreting the properties and inner workings of the universe :D
The fact you mentioned piglatin, but said it in piglatin makes me reminisce back in the day when me and my buddy would always speak to each other in piglatin at school and stuff
Probably my favorite video! It's actually helped me approach math in a different way! Keep it up even though this video is from 2016! Also I love rule #7... xD
Not even 42? :O
You've shattered my world view. lol
U r crazy and awesome and please don't stop making this types of videos
Man, you can make the comment response videos interesting by explaining random topics you find in them. Kind of like a short answer (or maybe question). I am sure that it can be pulled of with your charisma.
That was a really lucid analysis of math as a language. That's why I keep geeking out on your videos.
Very Lucid, indeed.
Existence is the only language of the universe. It's a little complicated unless you look at it taxonometrically. If you do then it's quite simple. But the key word in your quest is the word "of." Mathematics is our language which partially describes the universe, and as we learn more about the universe, the more math we use to describe the physics that we use to describe the universe. When you use the word "of" you are ascribing a directionality or quality of emanation. I don't think anyone sees the number "three" floating out in space (although I suppose that if you could see the Horsehead nebula or Orion's Belt, you could see the shape of the number three someplace) with the intention of it defining the set of three things or being part of its own superset, or that if we multiply it (the mere shape) by 2 we will somehow get 6.
I love your work but I think you need to get further into the directionality of your definitions.
Just another loudmouth opinion from the cheap seats.
Keep up your great work!
its okay to be a little crazy = shrodinger's equation haha
Mathematics is a useful tool to make consistent interpretations about reality.
Great video. I'm enjoying the channel it a lot.
"Math is the Language that we use to give detailed explanations of our understanding of the human mind's perceptions of the Universe" ... might be closer.
I loved your explanation.
I was watching a group of scientist talking and
Neil DeGrasse Tyson (Astrophysict) said "Math is the language of the universe"
Then Brian Green (Mathematacian and theoretical physicst) "Said how did you know its the language of the universe?"
And then the debate starts
I think this videos solved it all
Thanks again 👍.
I feel that making a dedicated comment response video would be more efficient since you could answer more at once
Hey fellow cuber
Great video! Math is just a tool we invented to describe the universe and make predictions. We always need to make adjustments or invent some new concepts when the old ones doesn't get the right results. So I really like your explanation that math is what we create to try to translate the language of the universe.
Reading some of the comments reminds me of an arguments about probability a few years ago. In the comment section of a video about the Monty Hall problem, somebody disagree with the result and said something like "I don't think that's how the universe calculates probability"
So I explained to him that probability is not something naturally exist in the universe, it's just a tool that we created to predict the possible outcomes, and that's why it can change when we get new information. Even with perfect calculation, lack of information can get you different probability than others with more information, and none of you are wrong here, you just have different prediction on the same problem.
Then he replied something like "Oh, look at the nonsense this guy just said! He said probability doesn't exist in the universe!"
Although he made it like I was drunk talking, I was telling the truth! I didn't know what to say.
I felt like I was telling a kid that white light does not exist in natural. No single wave length of electromagnetic wave corresponds to the color white, it's what our brains made up, and that kid just yelled "This guy just said white does not exist, was he drunk?"
Some ideas get so ingrained in our heads that it's hard to let them go.
There is a movie called “Pi, the order of chaos” that says this a lot. It is a good movie though. Of course a fiction movie. About your video I agree in everything.
Two opposite words such as "chaos" and "order" into something like "order of chaos" (or "chaos of order") make more meanings than one individual word.
How does solar energy work? And how would a Dsyon sphere work/wont work (and built with the materials from Earth or the whole solar system)
Your Master Look up Dyson swarms. They seem a lot more practical to be.
Dyson sphere... Dyson swarm... either way, that's a lot of material.
***** The advantage of a swarm is that it can be started already, and improved over millenia.
+Jim Groth
Swarms also don't need active support or the discovery of unobtanium to be stable.
I think you might benefit from Issac Arthur's channel
Ich schließe mich meinem Vorredner an, sehr schönes Video. Genauso wie du finde ich auch dass Mathematik nicht die Sprache des Universums ist, aber man kann mit ihrer Hilfe das Universum sehr gut beschreiben, wenn man noch die normale Sprache dazu nimmt. Schönes Video! Mach weiter so. Grüße aus Deutschland.
Thanks!
Your clock defines how great your mind is. Salute!
- College student from the Philippines.
and btw Happy new year 2017!
Happy new year to you too!
The Science Asylum Happy new year 2018!
04:46 - oh my god, why wasn’t It shown in my first grade, if math was taught as a language - that would make so much more sense
Umm, it was taught to you as a language as a starting point for numbers, things like basic addition were taught like 3+6=9 (if Jack has 3 apples and he buys 6 more apples, he now has 9 apples) and 9-5=4 (If Jack sold 5 apples while he had 9, he now has 4 left)
Ahnaf Abdullah well, in most Russian schools math is taught in a very “violent” way, everything is deeply detailed from the very beginning (which is a problem in any sphere) and no one has actually put it this way (that math is a means of communication to an outside world). Yeah, train A and train B, yeah - apples, and then all of a sudden you’re trying to find the length of a line inside a circle, that doesn’t go through the center and is perpendicular to another line which is in fact a hypotenuse of a triangle....... I mean, you also gotta have a very specific mindset to become a school math teacher
Well in your first days you learned "mama" but most probably you even pronounced it wrong like "baba" or something like that. Your mum was most probably proud of this your failure.
Then other words came, sentences, colors, more abstract things, math... And all of a sudden you are discussing if we are learning math too fast and with too many shortcuts.
I agree that everyone should go according to his/her phase but that is quite imposible if one teacher teaches a class of 30 kids from which one half does not even care, one quarter sleeps and one guy is bored because the phase is too slow.
It depends.
Because you were not in my class :-))))
ACCORDING TO ME, logical understanding put into symbols is math. Logics were already there. We just described them into math.
I only realized just now that I have that exact same math clock
Math may not be *the* language of the Universe but it is definitely *a* language of the Universe.
Agree, math is one aspect of describing the universe.
@@keentan2896 every languages is describing the universe, as all languages are purely descriptive, and all we can describe is the universe we live in.
@@keentan2896 Math is not a language, IMHO. What you refer to is I guess our formalisms we invented to describe maths. Math is far beyond that, just as if one claimed the 'lonely planet' travellers' guide for Cuba was Cuba - no, its not, its a way to describe Cuba.
Math are abstract landscapes, not tied to any particular language - we require one language in order to describe it, because differently as for Cuba, one cannot travel to those landscapes to observe them without description.
Im here because my professor gave an assignme t to make a 500 word essay if Math is a language of the universe lol
Can i see your essay pls? I have assignment about this
@@allyanacasicas224 Deleted it sorry bud
This video is gold
Mathematical translation of "It's okay to be a little crazy":
Let o be a boolean, more than 0 is yes, 0 or less is no.
o refers to if it is okay to be a little crazy.
c refers to the degree of craziness.
t refers to the tolerance of craziness.
L refers to "little".
Now,
o = t - c
So, if t > c, then it is okay to be c degrees crazy. Because surely L < t, it is okay to be a little crazy.
lol, this was more English than Maths, wouldn't call it a translation. I guess, I can aleast translate that in programming. C:
#define LITTLE
#define TOLERANCE
Maths is something we made up to describe how the universe works.
i thinl the comment response is good to keep in different video.. bcoz that will all make more views for the channel and bringing in new subs..
I agree. They bring alot of conversation in the comments as well.
Ok then.
Nice video. I have been just returning in the last pair of years or so to Math and Physics (now out of pure interest and not school pressure!) and, in my inmense ignorance and subjectivity, find myself very attracted to the idea of mathematical Platonism.
This was excellent! Made me think out of the box....
I love it when you call us CRAZY 😂
Is mathematics the language of the universe? Partly, I would say. It depends on what you want to ask or do or want to know. If, for example, you want to describe the motion of a planet round the sun, mathematics would be your thing. On the other hand, if you wanted to know why I have just risen from my chair and walked towards the fridge, it seems utterly impotent.
Math is a language that can be used to model/describe isolated systems within the universe. The model can be used to make predictions about the time evolution of the system modeled. The accuracy or correctness of these predictions will depend on the completeness of the model and how well the evolution of the model approximates the evolution of the system modeled. So, predictions are made, experiments are done and, if the predictions reasonably agree with experimental evidence, we gain trust in the model and continue to use it.
Therefore, Math is NOT the language of the universe, it is a language allowing science to model complex systems within the universe (or maybe even outside) and its behavior.
Well put.
I wish I had a teacher like you growing up.
I’m pretty sure it’s 42.
Mathematics allows the physics of the universe to be reality. In other words, without mathematics physics would be a fairy tale.
Your videos are a joy. Thanks!
"Adapt or atrophy" on that list. Neat. I still don't want sprint in halo
The definition of language (0:33) seems important. It is used for communication (and other things). But what is the purpose of communication? To convey concepts, which in turn might (or might not) trigger a desired response in the person(s) you are communicating with. Language uses symbols (such as words) to represent concept elements, and it uses a set of protocols for organising those concept elements to convey meaning. Meaning can be discovered or invented - although non-fiction concepts (including scientific and mathematical concepts) are only models that try to represent reality, so even a discovery is an interpretation of available information. Some concepts in a model appear to strongly correlate to evidence/measurements, but they are still reliant on assumptions and are subject to paradigm shifts. So, mathematics is a language/tool that people use to help understand and describe phenomena (e.g. the physical universe) - it is not a feature of the universe, it has developed/changed over time and can be expected to continue to do so.
I'd figure Math is more like a coding languages, the universe (or computer) isn't aware of it, but we use it to interpret and control events within it
PS., after thinking about it for quite some time, I believe 42 *is* actually the answer to "life the universe and everything". Douglas Adams snuck one by us there. He even said why it is the answer: "it appears you haven't thought about the question"... He was saying if you had the answer to such a complex question, the answer might appear meaningless. From Gauss we learned, the QUESTION, the PROCESS OF SOLUTION, and the ANSWER are all important.
Ie., what DA was saying is the answer to the universe is abstract without the rest of the process.
You can just say “floating or sinking is because of average density” in your why do things float/sink video. You don’t need weight or pressure
Really good, you're continuously surprising me!
Thank's for your videos and all those questions. I like most of your questions very much and I love your humor and the unpretentious way you convey these exciting topics.
Naturally, I certainly do not agree with all of your conclusions. But the topics and questions are good food for the brain. With me, at least they set off a lot of reflection and speculation 😀
*"Naturally, I certainly do not agree with all of your conclusions."*
Which is totally fine. My conclusions are a matter of opinion.
Thank you for helping me grow
2:52 "W porządku jest być trochę szalonym" would be the correct translation and this is the result we get from Google Translate nowadays.
Thanks for the correction
As a physicists working on the geometry of an expanding singularity, my opinion is that natural forces "like pressure" (which makes bee hives hexagonal) try to organize things (like particles in the vacuum matrix) into a crystalline (or Cartesian) gridwork which has 90 degree angles. At the same time expansion creates angles like spokes in a wheel which to nature is like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. This struggle causes oscillations which create energy, mass, and eventually us. The abstract ability for a conscious mind to "measure" things using mathematics is merely our perception of natures struggle, and our attempt to quantify it. "Is math a language?" "NO" , Its simply the attempt of a consciousness to quantify the interaction of natural forces
You can buy 15 walnuts and take 3/5 of those walnuts, that is 9 out of 15. But you're going to have a hard time finding an exact 3/5 walnut somewhere in the universe. While we can argua that the positive natural numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5... are somewhat part of reality and actuality... it is not clear whether the same can be said about any other number, including fractions. To many people, math is more closer to art because it thrives in our imagination.
great explanation and also the way it is presented in the video !!!!
Didnt really talk about the better ideas like, is mathematical description of universe really correct or its just an idealistic approach to an idealistic mathematical universe, which is just being enforced upon the universe we live in. Also, the "is math language of universe" question is an unnecessary question, maths is something totally different than a language, its a set of great logics(which again requires a language like to be conveyed).
OK, so I get that this video has been out for years, and there's like 99% chance you wont see this, but still, after autoplay put this up I feel compelled to respond.
I have to say, that while I understand what you're arguing, I also highly disagree. But part of that is probably because when I say "mathematics is the language of the universe", I mean something very different than what you've assumed here.
I take the viewpoint that the statement "mathematics is the language of the universe" is a shorthand of combining two very important ideas together:
First: "Mathematics as we know it, is the language (the complex tool which conveys meaning) of which we use to describe the way physical universe (as in physics physical, ergo science, so electromagnetism is still physical, not video game "physical" stat, which would say electrical attacks are not physical damage and my physical resistance does not help) acts and is"
And
Second: "Mathematics is universal in the sense that, while aliens can use what appear to be fundamentally alien and orthogonal forms of mathematics to us (given their fundamentally alien minds), they should agree as long as you properly translate the models/axioms/ideas."
So while on one level I can agree with what you are arguing, I really am upset by the slight issues and assumptions here.
For the most part, I agree with you up to 5:40. Sure, there are nuances that I don't completely align with, but that's par for the course for these things.
"If math really is the language of the universe, then anything we calculate should have meaning."
Why? What evidence or logic do you have to make this claim. It's a very large claim.
Even giving you the benefit of the doubt, ignoring the fact that you haven't meaningfully defined "the universe" for it to be communicated through language (which I can understand), and that assuming the latter phrase "anything we calculate should have meaning" in that sentence really means "Anything that can be calculated using mathematics which is true, so no contradictions or falsehoods (or other cheeky exceptions), must relate to the universe in such a way to convey [meaning]*" *(all of the philosophical discourse that is "what really is meaning anyways" goes here), we run into other problems.
First, can't mathematics have the ability to describe more than the universe? Just because we use it as the language of the universe doesn't mean that it is strictly mapped to that. A Square is a rectangle and a rhombus at the same time, while many rectangles are only rectangles. I'm still kind of confused why you consider mathematics limited like this.
Next, it implies that everything in the universe capable of being described is inherently meaningful, or that whatever language we use to describe the universe always must achieve meaningful results. Either of which are their own can of worms. I mean, yes I do agree with the first one, that anything capable of being described has some inherent meaning, but probably in a far broader sense than you are willing to take, especially considering your position on some things. The second I disagree greatly with. While it would be a useful trait, that is not required, and it may limit what is even capable of being described.
"We need to find a number that doesn't have any meaning"
Hmm, how strange of you to establish the incredibly abstract nature of "one, two, three" and all scalar (or however you want to term it, completely abstracted, perhaps) numbers are inherently meaningful before hand. I mean, if you want to argue against math in and of itself having meaning, all you have to do is say, "I have one.", "One of what?" "No, you don't get it, one. I have one. I got one, the number itself." "What the heck is that supposed to mean?"
Ahhh... its another rant against averages. Once again, I heartily disagree with you, my friend. Yes, averages don't have to reflect the aspect of a subject in a sample, or even any particular subject in the sample or population whatsoever, but it still holds information about the sample. Sure, the duck doesn't have true uniform density, but it does tell you the average density of the object, letting you know information on how its buoyancy. I mean, doesn't the fact that you admit that it can be used as a shortcut in a equation somewhere prove the point that it does have some amount of meaning?
On top of that, if we take the knowledge of the first part of the equation, it's mass and displacement, then: (the tautologies, sorry if it's pedantic. Formal symbolic logic class has trained me)
1. We know the object's mass weighed on a scale
2. We know the object's volume by using water
3. We know the object's average density
4. We don't actually know the object is a rubber ducky by the equations alone, unless you named a variable somewhere.
And so, we can use it to determine that it is less or more dense than other objects on average, and thus will float or sink?
"So, while it might be a useful short-cut in a calculation somewhere, it doesn't actually tell you anything about the compactness of the ducky. It has no physical meaning, and that's another reason it can't be used to explain how things float".
First of all, I have yet to be convinced that it has no physical meaning.
The average density of the object is a measure of the average compactness of the various molecules, or deeper, atoms, of that object. This is tautologically true.
It does not reveal the true inner structure or true nature of the compactness of the ducky explicitly, true, but it does set limits.
It must encompass some volume using that amount of mass, and while the distribution of the mass is largely unknown, it must be within the limits of what objects are capable of while fulfilling the volume. So that means it can't be magically stable neutronium shell in a sphere of that volume. Not enough mass to create such a shell. Similarly, it cannot be a black hole, too much volume for too little mass. We can continue down the list of hyper-dense objects eliminating what the object is made of, but we can also go in reverse. It cannot be only air, too much mass for that volume, given we know it was measured using water.
Of course, like most languages, context is important. Were the measurements at STP or in Venus's atmosphere? Do we know that? IDK... But at this point I'm splitting hairs.
Look, yes, it may be a statistical value that measures a mean of the density of the object's mass, but if you're willing to ignore statistical values just because they represent the properties of amalgamations of individual subjects, rather than a property of a specific subject, you're going to run into issues.
I mean, once again your argument against averages and other statistical values is true in the strictest sense, but at that point, tons of other statistical values, including laws of physics start looking shaky.
You're basically saying that the second law of thermodynamics is completely and utterly meaningless because it only describes systems at large, over long periods of time. And while I do agree that it does get over-hyped, especially given it's statistical/emergent nature, and the fact that it can be actively worked against and ignored, (I mean, consider e=mc^2+...[*rest of the equation], no matter what you do or what tricks you use, it will be true, and if you find something that somehow it is wrong with, it's because our understanding is incomplete, not that it gets to be both an important fundamental rule of the universe but simultaneously we violate it all the time), it's still important.
TLDR:
In the end, I find these issues with your argument:
1. You did not actually define what it means for something to be the language of the universe (You did define what it meant to be a language, yes, but not "of the universe". Couldn't you argue that all languages are languages of the universe as they are a part of the universe?),
2. That you require the language of the universe to only and always describe something meaningful about the universe (which highly suggest that it would be fundamentally incapable of describing all of the universe due to not having any flexibility... like no attempting to guess or discover more meaningful things as it might not be meaningful and therefore not allowed.)
2.5 - As corollary to previous point, you didn't describe what it meant for something to be meaningful in this context at all (allowing you to make strange rules about how completely abstract numbers like 3 or 64 having inherent meaning, but more definite values like average density do not have any meaning for some reason). What if the universe has something that doesn't have a meaning, or is meaningless? Those might not be possible given what you mean by "something being meaningful", but that's the problem, I don't know because you didn't address it, at all!
3. Most importantly: You never even talked about why scientists or mathematicians say that mathematics is the language of the universe in the first place. It's not some strange form of vanity! The statement describes important properties of mathematics and how it is used in regards to science!
But to those bringing up the "Is math invented or discovered?" question, I will respond very quickly: Why does everyone seem to require it to be one or the other? Why can't it be a strange and wondrous amalgamation of both? Simplifying ALL of mathematics to one statement seems quite the fallacy, yes? Aren't there rule-sets you define that are invented? Aren't there interactions between things that you discover? As the meme goes: Por que no los dos?
You're unnecessarily arguing the last part of the definition of language. It doesn't matter what's the purpose of English or math. The fact is that all of those purposes you mentioned are still forms of communication. Every symbol, every argument, every axiom, every law, every equation is a form of communication. The fact that at least two people can understand the same idea in Mathematics already makes it communication, but you don't even need that. If you form a law, an equation, symbols or whatever else in order for you to better understand an idea, it's already a function of a language. Translating between languages is also completely unnecessary. There are multiple forms of communication and language, not necessarily verbal. If there is only one language in a particular form of communication, then it will be impossible to translate that language but it doesn't take away anything from its state of being a language, all it means is that there's only one language of its type.
That being said, mathematics cannot possibly be a language of the universe in the literal sense. That's because nothing can possibly be a language of the universe as that term doesn't make sense in itself. The universe does not communicate, it's not a sentient being, it has no language. Mathematics is a language of the universe **metaphorically.** That's why physicists and mathematicians often say it. What it really is, is a language used to explain the universe. This title makes sense as the universe is no longer the one communicating, but whatever (or whoever) uses it, which obviously implies humans. Language used to explain the universe, language of the universe. It's poetic wordplay.
Edit: Only exception to that would be is if the universe is only a creation and there is a creator, probably god. In that case... What the universe is depends entirely on the religion. It could definitely be so that God speaks in mathematics and he "programmed" the universe in mathematics, but he also created us humans 'in his image', so we possess the ability to learn mathematics. Then you could totally argue mathematics is the language of the universe.
Thanks to you, i finally understand what mathematics really is. It really made me jump higher in grades, I'm happy to discover your channel :D
The most satisfying set of words I've heard about this is that " Math isn't only a language but it's a language combined with logic. Maths is the language and logic is what allows us to jump from one idea to the other"........ putting the word "idea" in this messes it up alot though
Nice analysis.
Man you deserve way more views and subs
Math IS a tool. Math is not THE language of the Universe. Math is a tool used to logically convey expressions of relationships that exist IN the Universe. Mathematics (Greek for knowledge, studying, and learning) is a domain of knowledge consisting of discovering and proving (by pure reasoning) properties of abstract objects used to create axioms to prove or disprove theories of the physical laws that make up the Universe. (Ugh! Your brilliant and clever question tricked me into diving down another deep dark rabbit hole of learning and discovery! At least I enjoyed the challenge 🥰🙏😎
Thanks