Roger Penrose - Is Mathematics Invented or Discovered?

แชร์
ฝัง
  • เผยแพร่เมื่อ 29 เม.ย. 2024
  • Free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
    Mathematics describes the real world of atoms and acorns, stars and stairs, with remarkable precision. So is mathematics invented by humans just like chisels and hammers and pieces of music? Or is mathematics discovered-always out there, somewhere, like mysterious islands waiting to be found? Whatever mathematics is will help define reality itself.
    Support the show with Closer To Truth merchandise: www.bonfire.com/store/closert...
    Sir Roger Penrose is an English mathematical physicist, recreational mathematician and philosopher. He is the Emeritus Rouse Ball Professor of Mathematics at the Mathematical Institute of the University of Oxford, as well as an Emeritus Fellow of Wadham College.
    Register for free at CTT.com for subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/2GXmFsP
    Closer to Truth presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.

ความคิดเห็น • 8K

  • @CloserToTruthTV
    @CloserToTruthTV  4 ปีที่แล้ว +684

    This interview is part of our Mathematics and Philosophy playlist series, created for Mathematics and Statistics Awareness Month. Starting Monday, 4/20/20, we will be publishing two mathematics playlists of all-new, never-before-seen interviews with renowned mathematicians! If you can't wait, the "Is Mathematics Invented or Discovered?" playlist is already available (and freshly updated!) on CTT's channel.
    Playlist - Is Mathematics Invented or Discovered? - th-cam.com/play/PLFJr3pJl27pIp1EsDD2rYaTI7GxoXqrLs.html

    • @OjoRojo40
      @OjoRojo40 4 ปีที่แล้ว +6

      Lol, I can't believe this pedantic asshole. He's a Platonian.....not only he believes in ideas, but he thinks mathematics is the ultimate idea that explains everything.
      Plato said only the philosopher could get us out of the dark and show us the light, so we can only hope enlightened mathematicians like him can show us the true.......Give me a break dude.

    • @NicksterNOC
      @NicksterNOC 4 ปีที่แล้ว +17

      @@OjoRojo40 I disagree. Also they talk about all the bizarre math that doesn't appear to tie into reality. Eventually they'll figure out how even those equations tie into the natural realm. Philosophy can explain how everything works, but math can show the mechanisms that make that happen. Penrose even talks about how consciousness is probably a quantum phenomenon so don't go around thinking he's close minded or a small picture type of person

    • @thysvanzyl2782
      @thysvanzyl2782 4 ปีที่แล้ว +4

      I am so interested to know what Sir Penrose thinks about the work of the Indian mathematician, Ramanujan.
      Ramanujan's ideas were apparently so powerful and 'visionary'.

    • @OjoRojo40
      @OjoRojo40 4 ปีที่แล้ว +6

      ​@@NicksterNOC You are proving he's close minded and so you are.
      "they talk about all the bizarre math that doesn't appear to tie into reality. Eventually they'll figure out how even those equations tie into the natural realm".
      The "bizarre math" could be a door for different forms of interpretation (again, it's bizarre but still math.....). Eventually they'll figure out how even those equations tie into the natural realm? What natural realm please... the natural realm of math???
      "Philosophy can explain how everything works, but math can show the mechanisms that make that happen".
      You are repeating what Penrose said and his essentialist narrow view of philosophy. That's why he believes in mathematics as the "real" true that will get us closer to the ideal realm (in a Platonic sense)
      Philosophy most certainly can't explain how everything works, hence math like I said, will never have any response to the most fundamental metaphysical questions of humans.
      "Penrose even talks about how consciousness is probably a quantum phenomenon",
      I really can't see how this help his case. Consciousness reduce to a physical interpretation??? Maybe you can help me.
      Thanks for your time.

    • @Lorendrawn
      @Lorendrawn 4 ปีที่แล้ว +30

      Even philosophy TH-cam video comment sections become toxic. You guys are taking quarantine very badly.

  • @megamillionfreak
    @megamillionfreak 3 ปีที่แล้ว +3762

    We are immensely blessed to be living in an era where such minds are available for our casual consumption and for free.

    • @xgengx7530
      @xgengx7530 2 ปีที่แล้ว +18

      Indeed

    • @johncastillo8551
      @johncastillo8551 2 ปีที่แล้ว +14

      @M Grant the internet WANTS you to think that it has improved your life… and that you are gaining knowledge from it but in reality it is gaining knowledge from YOU… the Plutonic world needs to be left alone or else it will enslave us all… it has lurked in the shadows before the existence of time and WE are what it has been waiting for… WE WILL BE THE HOST IT HAS BEEN WAITING FOR!

    • @fadelfakih3511
      @fadelfakih3511 2 ปีที่แล้ว +10

      Can't agree anymore

    • @ChosenPlaysYT
      @ChosenPlaysYT 2 ปีที่แล้ว +17

      And we waste it on TikTok watching morons.

    • @lailandadumbmathematician7747
      @lailandadumbmathematician7747 2 ปีที่แล้ว +29

      @@ChosenPlaysYT People will always find ways to 'waste' time. That's their choice, but there's no reason to insult anyone over it.

  • @simonhallin8909
    @simonhallin8909 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1334

    When he talked about molecules and atoms, in the beginning, I thought, nice! A mathematician who seems comfortable in physics. Then I searched him up and found out he has a Nobel prize in physics. I guess he's more than comfortable.

    • @festusbojangles7027
      @festusbojangles7027 2 ปีที่แล้ว +24

      why would you put your own picture on the internet? thats kind of weird

    • @EnjoySackLunch
      @EnjoySackLunch 2 ปีที่แล้ว +84

      @@festusbojangles7027 why do you eat snails

    • @festusbojangles7027
      @festusbojangles7027 2 ปีที่แล้ว +7

      @@EnjoySackLunch be quiet pooh pooh

    • @EnjoySackLunch
      @EnjoySackLunch 2 ปีที่แล้ว +32

      @@festusbojangles7027 rude

    • @ccunliffe
      @ccunliffe 2 ปีที่แล้ว +7

      @@EnjoySackLunch Why do you enjoy sack lunch?

  • @stellarwind1946
    @stellarwind1946 7 หลายเดือนก่อน +30

    It’s always a privilege to listen to the great mind of Sir Roger Penrose

  • @eduardo6380
    @eduardo6380 28 วันที่ผ่านมา +6

    He answered the question with more questions. A wise man

  • @vishnusharma3209
    @vishnusharma3209 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1918

    Today he was awarded with Nobel prize.

    • @vasile.effect
      @vasile.effect 3 ปีที่แล้ว +26

      Maybe that large part of maths applies to the dark matter part of the universe ? Which is huge compared to the visible one. So that would explain why only a tiny part of maths applies to the visible universe, which itself is a tiny part of the universe.

    • @londoncalling7895
      @londoncalling7895 3 ปีที่แล้ว +28

      It's all relative man ;) and Penrose is massive in my universe .

    • @amitprakashjha1821
      @amitprakashjha1821 3 ปีที่แล้ว +14

      I came to this video only after I learned that he got Nobel :)

    • @Chaosdude341
      @Chaosdude341 3 ปีที่แล้ว +14

      Incredible! Thank you. I had no idea. Excellent news!

    • @michaelwoods2903
      @michaelwoods2903 3 ปีที่แล้ว +17

      @@vasile.effect Why is he wasting his time on black holes when they can't explain why a snowflake occurs? They can't explain biology. Science is still locked in the past and the academics are just preening each others' intellects with these Nobel prizes when they are too scared to admit they can't solve the major problems with science like the contradiction between the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and Evolution.No wonder the general public is so skeptical of scientists, because they are not holding each other to account.

  • @Treador55
    @Treador55 3 ปีที่แล้ว +909

    9:00 if you are wondering where the title question starts.

    • @chuckmanson6092
      @chuckmanson6092 3 ปีที่แล้ว +30

      Thank you.

    • @wkmalory
      @wkmalory 3 ปีที่แล้ว +12

      here for Penrose so no need to fast forward nice that one of you for every video tho

    • @NoOne-ky1er
      @NoOne-ky1er 3 ปีที่แล้ว +5

      Tell me his answer too

    • @333peacher4
      @333peacher4 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      @@NoOne-ky1er both.

    • @infinitenature703
      @infinitenature703 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@333peacher4 that's not what he said

  • @coder-x7440
    @coder-x7440 8 หลายเดือนก่อน +24

    I wish… that as a kid, someone had described math to me in this way. That it’s something humanity discovered. It exists independent of us, it’s not all understood or discovered. And in order to predict how reality will play out, you need to understand math. It describes reality, past, present, and into the future.

    • @SpaceCadet4Jesus
      @SpaceCadet4Jesus 6 หลายเดือนก่อน

      Mathematics may make future predictions and depending on all sufficient factors known may describe present reality of which we are ignorant, thereby looking as if it created something. In other words, our mathematics cannot bring into reality that which doesn't exist. It's only an inbuilt fabric tool which have discovered, are using and learning from.

  • @shadowfantasiesf8556
    @shadowfantasiesf8556 ปีที่แล้ว +183

    This makes you wanna do math. I never in my life had a teacher, that had the same philosophical euphorism that these to convey. It's such an obvious thing you would need to convey, in order for a student to care about learning it and yet nobody does this.

    • @KarlPilkington89
      @KarlPilkington89 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      hahaha

    • @kiwibrainstorm1487
      @kiwibrainstorm1487 ปีที่แล้ว +7

      There is a big difference between doing / researching math, and listening to someone that does it...

    • @daviddempsey8721
      @daviddempsey8721 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      It really does, doesn’t it?
      Nothing stopping you!
      There are lots of interesting Math teachers on TH-cam exploring it for the joy of seeing and understanding more.
      See Eddy Wu’s TED talk about what Math is for - Australian Math teacher.
      th-cam.com/video/PXwStduNw14/w-d-xo.html

    • @shadowfantasiesf8556
      @shadowfantasiesf8556 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      @@privateaccount8027 This isn't blaming. In fact I loved math as a kid. But that came from myself and not the teacher and that's the point.

    • @grostoss4259
      @grostoss4259 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      @@shadowfantasiesf8556 I hated math when it was only abstract and physics and then started playing with computers. Oh boy do I love math and logic now. Sometimes it is only about what peeks your interest !

  • @thecoton6152
    @thecoton6152 3 ปีที่แล้ว +2542

    Mathematics is just reverse engineering the source code of the Universe.

    • @mattgalloway7786
      @mattgalloway7786 3 ปีที่แล้ว +30

      OH really? Explain that..

    • @iminalert9289
      @iminalert9289 3 ปีที่แล้ว +125

      @@mattgalloway7786 Mathematics is one of the way to understand and comprehend what Universe says . Its universe's language .

    • @balloonsystems8778
      @balloonsystems8778 3 ปีที่แล้ว +68

      Other way round: The Universe emerges due to the existence of mathematics.

    • @aoxy87
      @aoxy87 3 ปีที่แล้ว +11

      @@balloonsystems8778 Max Tegmark ?

    • @Llllillilililililillll
      @Llllillilililililillll 3 ปีที่แล้ว +10

      ishkar it's pretty self-explanatory...

  • @trajan75
    @trajan75 2 ปีที่แล้ว +368

    Roger Penrose was awarded the Noble Prize for physics when he was 90 years old; That was an astounding achievement. I am in my early 70s, I can only tell you younger people that to be able to think clearly an and creatively at that age is truly astounding.

    • @ysph
      @ysph 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      eh, we're too dumb to even recognize if roger penrose was developing dementia or something anyway.

    • @dustypope3571
      @dustypope3571 2 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      I am in my pre-fifties and I find that achievement unfathomable!

    • @crustyoldfart
      @crustyoldfart 2 ปีที่แล้ว +11

      Well since we're all bragging about how smart we are - I'm in my late 80's, and surprised that Dr Penrose believes that mathematics is not an invention, but is " absolute " in some sense. I greatly admire him for his achievements - who would not - but I take issue with this statement. He himself invented Penrose tiles. Would he claim that these are not inventions but in some sense a revelation of something absolute ?
      Why is there a Nobel Prize for Physics, and no such prize for engineering ? Such as suggestion is absurd of course. But it illustrates in a small way the difference between the real world and the abstract world of mathematics. Nobel Laureates have bragging rights in a way that many useful people grounded in the real world cannot aspire to.

    • @trajan75
      @trajan75 2 ปีที่แล้ว +7

      @@crustyoldfart Harold, congratulations on being so articulate in your late 80's although I must say that your notion that mathematics is a pure invention is nonsense. It is a bottom absolute and, just to get your dander up, it is one of our insights into he nature of God.

    • @crustyoldfart
      @crustyoldfart 2 ปีที่แล้ว +28

      @@trajan75 Thank you for pointing out that what I suggest is nonsense. The thing I always bear in mind when receiving a gratuitous insult is that it is delivered with sincerity, and am accordingly appreciative. Your second strategy of invoking God, far from getting my " dander up ", I take as a clear warning that any further dialogue on the subject is impossible.
      For the benefit of others who may be reading this I would suggest that the conclusion that I for one draw from Kurt Goedle's result that mathematics can contain true statements which are unprovable, suggests that mathematics is a self-referencing system, no more, no less.
      On a slightly different tack: the great Michelangelo is reputed to have said that the awkward block of marble he chose to work on had contained the figure of David within it all along, and all he had done was to reveal the figure. Could this be a metaphor for the history of the development of mathematics ?

  • @Jacob-jg6cd
    @Jacob-jg6cd ปีที่แล้ว +8

    Access to conversations like this are magnificent to have available online.

  • @joemcfatter1170
    @joemcfatter1170 ปีที่แล้ว +53

    Dr. Kuhn, just to say your overall program and interviews are a gift to our world today. Thank you for creating and capturing all these wonderful discussions.

  • @jaydeeppatil1488
    @jaydeeppatil1488 4 ปีที่แล้ว +504

    Amazing interviewer.Asks pricise questions and let the guest speak without interrupting.rare quality in today's interviewers.

    • @irfanjeelani9587
      @irfanjeelani9587 3 ปีที่แล้ว +4

      Call aurnab

    • @alpacino4857
      @alpacino4857 3 ปีที่แล้ว +18

      when smart and intelligent people talk, we listen ... that's how we learn from the best

    • @mruse7180
      @mruse7180 3 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      8:20 “There are wonderful examples like the ...........”
      (there are so many great insights In the recording, but that moment was tantalising!)

    • @jolttsp
      @jolttsp 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      That's what happens when the interviewer has a genuine appreciation and interest in the guest

    • @michaelwoods2903
      @michaelwoods2903 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@jolttsp But also doesn't have a proper grasp of math to ask the next pertinent question, which is; why are those math patterns there if nature isn't using them? You can't describe something then offer no explanation for them! The reason why Penrose doesn't do so is because he's locked into tradition which is the opposite of the scientific method ; it's the same old anti Galileo stance; an argument from authority --and what makes it infuriating is - that Penrose is smart enough to realize it!

  • @jamessykes2760
    @jamessykes2760 2 ปีที่แล้ว +126

    "Pure mathematics is, in its way, the poetry of logical ideas."
    -
    A.E

    • @trapbeatproducer
      @trapbeatproducer 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      🥺❤️

    • @words007
      @words007 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      This is not philosophy philosophy pertains to single statement giving multiple logical meanings. All religions on earth are basically philosophy because every reader gonna take different meanings out of it. Mathematics, NO WAY. 2+5 is still 7. And in year 3022 it will still be same 7-2= 5. Same Math is a language and humanity's logical mind operates on it without a sweat. It is unchangeable by our feelings and moods. Science doesn't change of reality based on our moods thats why Science and Mathematics are always used together from where i came from.

    • @ursamajor77
      @ursamajor77 ปีที่แล้ว

      Well, doesn't that beg the question. I believe we can only say for sure, that it is 'our poetry of logical ideas', not 'the' poetry. Maybe it is, but probably we will never know.

  • @CJ-gn8qm
    @CJ-gn8qm 6 หลายเดือนก่อน +16

    As a protagonist in engineering for more than 40 years I still get bamboozled by the depth of maths and it’s relation to physics! (This was by far and away my favourite subject through high school) I recognise that this work is vitally important for human development but there is a point at which we have to make sensible decisions that mean we can develop in a cost effective and acceptably safe way! There is somewhat of a philosophical position to take!

    • @NewWorldSinner
      @NewWorldSinner 5 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      who the fuck upvoted this ai

    • @Omnicis
      @Omnicis 3 หลายเดือนก่อน

      Yes you’re right, because we have become so dependent on production rates, and etc we have detached ourselves from the philosophy of science in our western society and almost the entirety of civilization

  • @soggy7142
    @soggy7142 3 ปีที่แล้ว +277

    The amazing part is how someone so intelligent can describe things so incredibly well that everyone can follow along.

    • @oyounes5945
      @oyounes5945 2 ปีที่แล้ว +8

      He's unbelievable

    • @fettigeredgar
      @fettigeredgar 2 ปีที่แล้ว +23

      Truly understanding something means being able to explain it in a simple way :>

    • @milee105
      @milee105 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Icant understand anything guess im just stupid

    • @SanjaySingh-oh7hv
      @SanjaySingh-oh7hv 2 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      That's proof that he is truly intelligent. People that can explain complex phenomena in simple terms truly understand it.
      Contrast with arrogant professors who try to snow their students with lingo and jargon that took them years to perfect, and then they dump it on undergrad students and make them feel bad, which is what some profs want.

    • @satoshinakamoto7253
      @satoshinakamoto7253 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      that means he understands it

  • @13e11even11
    @13e11even11 2 ปีที่แล้ว +95

    Remember hearing a great story. I hope I can tell it right. A mathematician walks into his colleagues office to find him reclined in his chair practically motionless with his eyes closed and then slowly steps back out saying “I am sorry I did not know you were working.”

    • @OtaBengaBabalanga
      @OtaBengaBabalanga 2 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      it's weak story not great

    • @13e11even11
      @13e11even11 2 ปีที่แล้ว +6

      @@OtaBengaBabalanga gee thanks for weighing in🥱

    • @OtaBengaBabalanga
      @OtaBengaBabalanga 2 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      @@13e11even11 you're welcome

    • @eugenecalma1807
      @eugenecalma1807 2 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      After laboriously tending to our garden at school, we took a drink of water and our math teacher yelled at us saying " you guys sweep the floor while taking your rest ".

    • @benjaminwilkinson9675
      @benjaminwilkinson9675 2 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      @@OtaBengaBabalanga What a low iq comment

  • @cassiuscramos
    @cassiuscramos ปีที่แล้ว +9

    Delightful interview to listen to.
    I had to watch it many times, because at many points my mind went far away thinking about what they'd just said.
    Very good!

    • @jamesbenning9665
      @jamesbenning9665 6 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      My thoughts exactly. They would make wonderful dinner guests. I've often wondered whether the apparently trivial or superfluous aspects of mathematics is a clue as to what we might be missing out there in the real world.

  • @jackmermigas9465
    @jackmermigas9465 ปีที่แล้ว +14

    What a glorious conversation! In regards to a simple equation being responsible for producing the mandlebrot set, I wonder what sort of equations are involved in producing the seemingly impossible visual shapes we can witness in a DMT breakthrough.

    • @serioussrs9349
      @serioussrs9349 ปีที่แล้ว

      wow!

    • @trybunt
      @trybunt ปีที่แล้ว +2

      I think DMT experiences are more accurately described as "unexplainable" or "incomprehensible" rather than impossible. They can certainly be described as beneficial imo

    • @THEMAX00000
      @THEMAX00000 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      There’s always one, lol

    • @SEAIRA2007
      @SEAIRA2007 11 หลายเดือนก่อน

      Sacred geometry ; I’m no expert but there is def a link w mathematics

  • @nngnnadas
    @nngnnadas 3 ปีที่แล้ว +562

    -Is Mathematics Invented or Discovered?
    Mathematicians: Yes.

    • @lilhikaru8361
      @lilhikaru8361 3 ปีที่แล้ว +13

      Well actually he's giving a very precise answer in this case

    • @tomazkavsek236
      @tomazkavsek236 3 ปีที่แล้ว +12

      He says that it is discovered, but saying it simply will deprive you of the path how to understand it.
      Adding to that, It's only our language that applies to the physical world as it is.

    • @jnananinja7436
      @jnananinja7436 3 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      Is the universe invented or discovered?

    • @effedrien
      @effedrien 3 ปีที่แล้ว +5

      @@jnananinja7436 God discovered it when he was trying out everything what was mathematically possible. It must have been trial and error with no specific goal in mind, so you can't call it an invention.

    • @classicalharmonicanalysis3348
      @classicalharmonicanalysis3348 3 ปีที่แล้ว +16

      Math professional here. Great answer. Fun question to ponder when you've had too many beers to drink or have nothing better to do (and the latter is rarely true.) I tend to think math is invented as a language that can be used to unravel scientific truth, but that's my opinion and I don't care at all if anyone else disagrees.

  • @dxk2007
    @dxk2007 2 ปีที่แล้ว +247

    Sir Roger is a mathematical legend. I read his books in high school and college in the 1990s. His achievements are inspirational, and he stands among the greats like: Dirac, Hilbert, Poincare, Lagrange, and Hamilton.

    • @ysph
      @ysph 2 ปีที่แล้ว +7

      because of the like... logic disconnect that seems to be the main hurdle for most people when trying to learn math, do you think folks like einstein or penrose are more lucky or do you think they would've been exceptional at whatever they did? in this particular circumstance, i find myself entertaining the idea of luck. for me, i just suddenly got it after years of overlooking and immediately realized that we must all have been doing basic algebra in our heads all the time, even when we're babies and even mentally handicapped people. hell even when we were covered in fur. math is native to the way the human mind works at least and i believe it's native to the way intelligence itself works. discovered for sure.

    • @jgcaesar4
      @jgcaesar4 ปีที่แล้ว +8

      Don't forget Gauss. :-)

    • @bernardthedisappointedowl6938
      @bernardthedisappointedowl6938 ปีที่แล้ว +7

      @@jgcaesar4 People just don't make enough noise about Gauss, ^oo^

    • @TAYLORFAN50
      @TAYLORFAN50 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      @@jgcaesar4 - And Dr. Suess! 👍

    • @ivok9846
      @ivok9846 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@ysph "do you think folks like einstein or penrose are more lucky or do you think they would've been exceptional at whatever they did?"
      last time that was possible was stone age, when they had 3-4 things to pick....and all were simple

  • @devon_lettuce_tomato8637
    @devon_lettuce_tomato8637 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Always had this question but never was able to word it so simple and comprehendible.

  • @TheMan21892
    @TheMan21892 ปีที่แล้ว +372

    I’ve always thought “Mathematics” is universal, we just invented a language for it.

    • @javiervasquez625
      @javiervasquez625 ปีที่แล้ว

      That is right do not let the "skeptics" twist words around and make baseless claims about mathematics just been an spontaneous chemical process with which humans are able to calculate things in order to achieve certain values that help us in the day to day as it further clouds the evidence that there is far more to the Universe that our minds are currently capable of seeing and understanding. Wether that is something akin to "God" or some grand spiritual power rest assured it's more than likely more real than the bigotted naturalist dogma that the skeptic community profess as fact.

    • @Jrpyify
      @Jrpyify ปีที่แล้ว +42

      Mathematics is the language. The thing it describes is just "what is" for lack of a better label.
      It's like saying "[the things described by] English is universal, we just invented a language for it" which is technically accurate but also sort of an uninterestingly so.

    • @foulmercy8095
      @foulmercy8095 ปีที่แล้ว +8

      @@Jrpyify So you're saying the "discoveries" counts as "what is"? And that mathematics is the language we use to describe it? In the same way, English and French have a word for dog, Indian math and Anglo Math has a "word" (equation) for 1+1?

    • @user-or3bb6es5h
      @user-or3bb6es5h ปีที่แล้ว +27

      @@Jrpyify Mathematics doesn't describe everything though, such as the nuances of natural language, qualitative aspects of our experiences, such as feelings, emotions, and our inner sense of consciousness. Mathematics is part of our Universe, and there seems to be parts in it that could be even beyond our Universe, without any current known application. For example, we only need to know around 40 digits of pi to perfectly calculate the radius of the observable Universe to the width of a hydrogen atom. And we know that the Universe isn't infinitely divisible. At a specific point, we reach the Planck scale. Mathematics is all about measuring and making predictions. It is an essential part of our Universe, but it isn't the whole picture. We still have no idea how qualitative aspects such as being self-aware and experience feelings and understanding, are interrelated with quantitative aspects.

    • @tjmarx
      @tjmarx ปีที่แล้ว +13

      Mathematics can only describe those things that we know, think we know or suspect. It can not describe the unknown.
      In that context mathematics is the language of describing those things we want to describe, in the way we wish to describe them and it's accuracy is only related to our own understanding.
      Calling mathematics, or what it describes a discovery is like taking a video game or the computer it runs on and calling that discovered. Neither are discovered. It's just doing the thing it's designed to do, spitting out the information it was designed to spit out.

  • @tonywong1259
    @tonywong1259 2 ปีที่แล้ว +51

    A group of mathematicians were trying to measure the height of a long flag pole but it was too high. A group of engineers came along and said they could help. They pulled out the flag pole and laid it on the ground and had no difficulty measuring the pole. The engineers smiled and left. The mathematicians scoffed at the engineers, "Engineers! We wanted the height, they gave us the length!"

    • @coolworx
      @coolworx 2 ปีที่แล้ว +6

      Some ancient Greek dude stuck a one cubit stick in the ground and measured it's shadow to be 3/4's of a cubit.
      He then measured the shadow of the flagpole and found it to be 15 cubits. Looking at the engineers and the mathematicians he announced: "It's a score!"

    • @nawgra8455
      @nawgra8455 ปีที่แล้ว

      🤣

  • @tripp8833
    @tripp8833 4 ปีที่แล้ว +127

    This guy is a great interviewer. Like a common guy who is really curious

    • @GeoCoppens
      @GeoCoppens 4 ปีที่แล้ว +7

      Lots of times he is asking nutty "deep" questions.

    • @timkbirchico8542
      @timkbirchico8542 4 ปีที่แล้ว

      a common rich guy, oxymoron

    • @AndrewDavidBaron
      @AndrewDavidBaron 4 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Raziel Lentz hot tip...no one does

    • @DarkestOne7
      @DarkestOne7 4 ปีที่แล้ว +5

      common guy with a phd

    • @mytube2013
      @mytube2013 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      I feel he is a science guy too. His voice is rich though.

  • @akira_asahi
    @akira_asahi ปีที่แล้ว

    Thank you for the video. I am grateful for your time and contribution. Kind regards, Akira.

  • @CNFrostXY
    @CNFrostXY ปีที่แล้ว +2

    That question is like asking: Is reference discovered or invented?
    We refer to stuff by assigning them symbols. So we refer to quantities, structures with symbols. The question is whether the structures are 'in the world' or invented by us.

  • @layladerya7730
    @layladerya7730 2 ปีที่แล้ว +52

    Mathematician: "Math is the language of the universe."
    Physicist: "Math is the language of physics." Engineer: "sin(x) = x."

    • @adamrobinson4982
      @adamrobinson4982 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      CAD work flash backs lol

    • @rubensano4860
      @rubensano4860 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Engineering. I've got the knowledge.

    • @joecrook1725
      @joecrook1725 2 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      also pi=e=3

    • @adlg5158
      @adlg5158 2 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      pi = 3 = e = sqrt(g)

    • @ahmadtariq3960
      @ahmadtariq3960 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      @ASquadWiper tan(x) =sin(x)

  • @FlamingRobzilla
    @FlamingRobzilla 3 ปีที่แล้ว +677

    Relationships are discovered, the method of discovery is invented.

    • @TeaParty1776
      @TeaParty1776 3 ปีที่แล้ว +16

      Methods of knowledge are discovered. Mind has a specific nature ,thus it acts in a specific way.

    • @FlamingRobzilla
      @FlamingRobzilla 3 ปีที่แล้ว +7

      @@TeaParty1776 I think you have it backwards.

    • @TeaParty1776
      @TeaParty1776 3 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      @@FlamingRobzilla ?

    • @TeaParty1776
      @TeaParty1776 3 ปีที่แล้ว +13

      The method of discovery is a natural power of the natural mind. It is discovered as much as the universe is discovered. Subjectivism is the death of the mind.

    • @johnmagelus6895
      @johnmagelus6895 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      The nearest i can describe it Good's language.

  • @AccendoWorld
    @AccendoWorld ปีที่แล้ว +8

    It’s very fascinating, the idea that the physical and non-physical worlds operate independently - yet, work or interact between each other transactionally.

  • @rgoodwinau
    @rgoodwinau ปีที่แล้ว +7

    What a wonderful, flowing and enlightening interaction between these two men, on such a deep subject, without resorting to gobbledygook! Thankyou.

  • @RetiOrchid58
    @RetiOrchid58 4 หลายเดือนก่อน

    One thing this shows clearly to me its how crucial the a priori is epistemologically in a sound scientific method. At the same time, it's surely important not to mistake sometimes mathematical correlation for causative mechanism, and to remember that it's possible to obscure discrete causation with calculus' "smoothing out of the continuum".

  • @emanuellopez8578
    @emanuellopez8578 3 ปีที่แล้ว +91

    He's 88, impressive

  • @thomaswalsh287
    @thomaswalsh287 2 ปีที่แล้ว +245

    For an egghead, the man is very engaging. He gets his points across with great clarity. When a super genius explains things well enough so that even a cave-dweller like myself can understand, he is an exceptional communicator. Thanks professor, and congratulations on your Nobel prize....

    • @tiffanyh1274
      @tiffanyh1274 2 ปีที่แล้ว +9

      Fellow birdbrain here, I also agree.

    • @andrew4life362
      @andrew4life362 2 ปีที่แล้ว +4

      Yeah, fellow failure and lizard brain here, we all seem to agree, over.

    • @jonwhite549
      @jonwhite549 2 ปีที่แล้ว +10

      Egg head?? The sign of a smart person is someone who can break down deep topics to a child, many ppl who want to be noticed as smart are just verbose in many cases.

    • @tiffanyh1274
      @tiffanyh1274 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@andrew4life362 🤣🤣🤣

    • @davinbaker1045
      @davinbaker1045 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      Wait. Smart people can talk too? All life: lies.

  • @CemalSert
    @CemalSert ปีที่แล้ว +7

    I always appreciate good questions as much as good answers.

    • @motherofallemails
      @motherofallemails ปีที่แล้ว

      Not a good question at all.
      Nothing is invented, least of all mathematics, even things you thought you invented, actually you merely *discovered*, all "inventions" are actually discoveries.

  • @ciesinsk
    @ciesinsk ปีที่แล้ว +2

    I am so thankful for being smart enough to appreciate how very very very smart Penrose is.

  • @xaviermohmarc1100
    @xaviermohmarc1100 3 ปีที่แล้ว +6

    After combing through and scanning over all these provocative vid titles, I think I've found the equivalents of gold here on this channel. I'm about to binge all of this.

  • @keithlauderjr1691
    @keithlauderjr1691 4 ปีที่แล้ว +463

    I don't like numbers, there's like too many of them. - Beavis

    • @maxnaz47
      @maxnaz47 4 ปีที่แล้ว +16

      I will stop at nothing to avoid negative integers. - Someone

    • @stephenfiore9960
      @stephenfiore9960 4 ปีที่แล้ว +10

      *....Who ever invented “zero” - said it was nothing...* -Butthead

    • @stephenfiore9960
      @stephenfiore9960 4 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      *.....ROUNDED NUMBERs ...aren’t REALLY ROUND* ...ME

    • @stephenfiore9960
      @stephenfiore9960 4 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      *......IF YOU DONT LIKE REAL NUMBERS, then use IMAGINARY NUMBERS...* (They are real also-see Google...* ME ME

    • @stephenfiore9960
      @stephenfiore9960 4 ปีที่แล้ว +4

      *....IT IS PHYSICALLY impossible to keep on dividing a string in half...* You eventually get to a quantum level....that can’t be divided anymore and ... It’s physically impossible to keep dividing a SECOND in half-You come to a quantum limit..*

  • @timdowling6950
    @timdowling6950 ปีที่แล้ว

    The mathematical description is the most precise we know. So it is guaranteed to strike us as incredibly precise. In the nature of the case - we possess no greater precision to run it up against.

  • @archaeologistify
    @archaeologistify 8 หลายเดือนก่อน

    The subject of the video (and of course the discussion) are fascinating, but aside from that, I'm very happy that a video such as this reached over 2mil views.

  • @MrSaemichlaus
    @MrSaemichlaus 3 ปีที่แล้ว +291

    The principles and the phenomenas are real, we're just figuring them out and giving names and labels to them.

    • @johnburnham6239
      @johnburnham6239 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      @Jeanette York Are you saying here that math is fundamentally a mental experience? If so, why?

    • @MrSaemichlaus
      @MrSaemichlaus 3 ปีที่แล้ว +10

      @@johnburnham6239 Nature is as it is, things happen in it even without our existence or awareness of them. The behaviour of matter and non-matter apparently follows certain patterns depending on their level of complexity, which apply to all of its parts. The apparent fact that there is this consistency at some level is what gives us hope to understand everything, as a random, chaos sandbox of particles would defy any attempt to intelligently interact with it.
      Now what I call Mathematics is the collection of models, tools and language that allow us humans to analyse (past) and predict (future) phenomenas qualitatively and quantitatively, to derive certain characteristics of them that are used for purposeful considerations and to communicate findings between ourselves effectively. What we always work with are models. Models simplify reality from lumps of matter consisting of inconceivable complexity down to primitive representations like points, lines, spheres, cubes. As the world changes, we update those inner models and all of our rational process is done on this model, while being aware of significant differences between this model and reality to a certain extent. Also, across time we discover new models, such as in astronomy the flat earth model -> globe earth model or the geocentric model -> heliocentric model. As those methods of simplification become more effective at retaining detail, our predictions become more accurate.
      Personally, I'd replace the word "natural law" with "natural pattern", as that would further outline the fact that the behaviour of nature is independant of our understanding of it. We're merely observers and we're working on efficient simplifications of reality to run certain calculations and algorithms which we found to be useful. Math observes patterns. Why those patterns are what they are may be a question for quantum mechanics or beyond our horizon of material analysis, philosophy.

    • @johnburnham6239
      @johnburnham6239 3 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      MrSaemichlaus so I apologize for not specifying in my comment, but it was addressed to Jeanette York. So I wasn’t assuming any of your meaning.
      But since you’ve made a comment, it does seem to me that you, like her, are calling math a mental, human thing. It’s the language that’s math. Language is fundamentally mental in origin.
      Also, “models,” “tools” sound like they can mean many things... A scale, a ruler, and a toothbrush are tools that might help me predict the future or past, but none of these is a piece of mathematics.
      And it seems to me like pure math has no necessary bearing on the physical world at all. So math wouldn’t fundamentally be about “analysis” and “prediction.” Though also I see no reason why one can’t analyze a prediction...
      Honestly I was under the impression that analysis just meant “a breaking up into pieces” as opposed to having some reference to the past.
      And I can’t think of an instance of math describing anything in a non-quantitative way.

    • @404nomore
      @404nomore 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      As with anything else as well

    • @johnburnham6239
      @johnburnham6239 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      systematic self organization for some reason I got a notification for this comment... were you replying to me? As in everything’s a mental experience?

  • @gordonconlogue5686
    @gordonconlogue5686 3 ปีที่แล้ว +72

    I love the old books in the background

    • @mannytps9986
      @mannytps9986 3 ปีที่แล้ว +4

      I’d love to read one

  • @siinxx7656
    @siinxx7656 5 หลายเดือนก่อน

    It is wonderful that mathematics describes the world very precisely or that the world functions in such ordered simple matter, that from adding and substracting you will eventually figure it out

  • @S-L-J
    @S-L-J ปีที่แล้ว +12

    I would say, neither of both, but we deciphered and still deciphering it. Mathematics is a language of our universe and as with any unknown language, we try to figure out how does it work. Every time when we find out how something could be mathematically explained, we have deciphered a new area of this language.

    • @Omnicis
      @Omnicis 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +3

      Science is not like the ancient bone we dig up at an archeological dig. It is more like the conjecture we assign to that bone.
      Science, in fact, is not a body of knowledge at all. It is a methodology, or the outline of one, for discovering knowledge. But it is the equation, not its solution. And it is an equation that can take many different forms. There is not one equation, or very, very few, that rise to the level of “law.”
      Mathematics is no different. We didn’t “discover” it buried deep in the earth somewhere. We - humans - developed it. As the physicist Sean Carroll notes, equations are “just a way to compactly summarize a relationship between different quantities.” And “A function is simply a map from one quantity to another quantity.” Mathematics, in other words, is simply a system or notation used to attempt to understand the world around us - emphasis on attempt.

  • @nyrtzi
    @nyrtzi 4 ปีที่แล้ว +59

    My intuition tells me that reality has a structure and math is an expression of that.

    • @bottytoohotty
      @bottytoohotty 4 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Its called Khufus Pyramid.

    • @georgejo7905
      @georgejo7905 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      only information exists

    • @georgejo7905
      @georgejo7905 3 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      @ayoub laarouchi proof is not availlabel and may never be. One problem is a version of The incompleteness theorem.
      If you try to falsify the hypothesis that only information exists then you would have to so within the realm of information and mathematics .
      en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel%27s_incompleteness_theorems
      It is a problem of a system looking at it'self , a self referential regress ad infinitum.
      Another way of posing the question is equally valid ie
      Is there anything other than information in reality and if so can you prove that.
      This has has one advantage that if true that there is something other than information and and it is falsifiabel then it would not be a problem of the incompleteness theorem .
      In an earler version of this problem was the refutation of Berkeleys immaterialism by Samuel johnson
      en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_the_stone
      Berkeleys immaterialism was given little recognition at the time due to its seeming absurdity
      but in the 20th century it has become regarded as important in light of the incomleteness theorem and quantun theory
      A historic view of berkely and johnson
      www.irishphilosophy.com/2016/03/12/berkeleys-immaterialism/

    • @iisaka_station
      @iisaka_station 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      “There is geometry in music. There is music in the spacing of the spheres.” Pythagoras

  • @warrenpeece1726
    @warrenpeece1726 3 ปีที่แล้ว +230

    I hope the IRS doesn't discover the math I invented!

  • @En-of5oh
    @En-of5oh 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    Really, some wonderful peopl add to our knowledge and notions and make this world wonderful. How we can know such notions without such a mathematician. Amazing.

  • @ashoksafaya5397
    @ashoksafaya5397 หลายเดือนก่อน

    I simply thank the better sense to put an end to square root on reaching iota,at times I feel tempted to carry it forward similar to logarithm.

  • @horariojoselo7178
    @horariojoselo7178 2 ปีที่แล้ว +42

    I really don't know what to say except "Thank you Roger!". Your thoughts are the beacon of our lives. And also thanks to Closer to Truth.

  • @bobbysilver272
    @bobbysilver272 3 ปีที่แล้ว +57

    Ever since Ant Man came back from the Quantum Realm our understandings of things have really progressed at an amazing pace.

  • @papa.mike01
    @papa.mike01 ปีที่แล้ว

    Nice discussion. Thanks for sharing it.

  • @zqzj
    @zqzj 7 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

    Nothing has ever been invented, we've only ever discovered the potential that was always there

  • @slyder25400
    @slyder25400 3 ปีที่แล้ว +157

    Mathematics emerges when you try to understand relations in a complex system. It just happens that in our universe everything seems relational so it makes math a good candidate to understand it.

    • @tsumade0
      @tsumade0 3 ปีที่แล้ว +7

      I think you have the best definition here

    • @benandsylvia
      @benandsylvia 3 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      That is an excellent way of understanding it.

    • @sayamqazi
      @sayamqazi 2 ปีที่แล้ว +10

      Let me change your statement a lil bit. "It just happens that the interpretation sensory data collected by our consciousness seems to have relations"

    • @stuntmusicgameshow311
      @stuntmusicgameshow311 2 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      I like this answer.

    • @stuntmusicgameshow311
      @stuntmusicgameshow311 2 ปีที่แล้ว +5

      @@sayamqazi thanks, but no thanks.
      i like siduxs’ answer enough ;)

  • @milkmanswife93696
    @milkmanswife93696 4 ปีที่แล้ว +10

    this was great. so thrilled to think how much more of mathematics might be understood to in fact relate to reality as we experience it, and possibly unite physics and metaphysics.

  • @zauber620
    @zauber620 ปีที่แล้ว +5

    What I find most intriguing about mathematics is that it seems to be a self annihilating language.
    When we look at quantum mechanics and consider, just to name a couple, the work of Heisenberg and Schrödinger, what we see is that mathematics itself led us to a place where all calculations become void and irrelevant because it is impossible to mathematically predict the behavior of existence itself when we are faced with its particle-wave duality. I find it to be so poetic that mathematics itself had proven to us that the quest to understanding the universe/multiverse at its most fundamental functions will require a language that would be very far removed from the nature of mathematics.

    • @Ilestun
      @Ilestun 9 หลายเดือนก่อน

      Schrödinger wave function equation is fantastically simple mathematically speaking, very elegant and ez to kno by heart.
      It just happens that we can't find the exact solutions of this equation.....just like countless other equations in physics (like the plasma equation form Botlzmann).
      But we can discover some properties from the solutions, like Cedric Villani did with Boltzmann equation of plasmas, it even won him the Fields medal.

  • @patrickprior4826
    @patrickprior4826 ปีที่แล้ว +4

    Anyone who's still a materialist after studying mathematics at a high level is kidding themselves. The existence of numena, immaterial objects, is pretty much self evident when you think about math a bit. After that, it's a hop, skip, and a jump to religion, but lots of people aren't ready for that conversation.

  • @paulg444
    @paulg444 2 ปีที่แล้ว +5

    I like Penrose, he seems like a very humble man. And the interviewer is likewise. Two good men grappling with the most important questions in life.

  • @akumar7366
    @akumar7366 4 ปีที่แล้ว +166

    Fantastic presentation, Penrose is a wonderful intellect.

    • @michaelwoods2903
      @michaelwoods2903 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      No he isn't. He refuses to follow up the scientific method to admit that Math is all causality; he's resorting to emotion in supporting tradition that physics alone is not causality even though he partially admits it in this interview. Shocking!

    • @lightworker4512
      @lightworker4512 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@michaelwoods2903 I don’t think the universe was created randomly. I think there is a Creator energy behind the scenes. I am not religious but I am spiritual and believe without a doubt that causality is not the full explanation.

    • @hakonaae9636
      @hakonaae9636 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@lightworker4512 Why?

    • @lightworker4512
      @lightworker4512 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@hakonaae9636 I don’t know. Understanding consciousness will be a start to beginning to understand. We can study the 3D world, but I believe through my own NDE/ spiritual awakening that there is much we do not know. a patient asked me, do you think my daughter....she stopped mid sentence. An overpowering feeling of love immersed her and me at the same time. We couldn’t even speak, we were frozen. The feeling soon passed and she said, oh my God, my daughter is fine. Thank God. I’m Catholic and she committed suicide and I was going to ask you if she was Hell as I have been a nervous wreck. And I got the answer.
      Over 20 years, I have many stories, many much more paranormal. I used to be an atheist but not any more. Many people are unbelievers and that’s fine.

    • @akumar7366
      @akumar7366 2 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      @@michaelwoods2903 A Nobel prize suggests you are wrong.

  • @rayraycthree5784
    @rayraycthree5784 ปีที่แล้ว +6

    As an EE, it is amazing how electrical parameters are so related in straight forward equations and that many of the constants that bind the equations also work well in other disciplines. The only thing that the math doesn't seem to fit very nicely is that a number of the constants are irrational numbers.

    • @AethericTheorem
      @AethericTheorem หลายเดือนก่อน

      You should definitely checkout Eric Dollard’s books lectures... One of the most authoritative EEs alive & in the public domain.

  • @XMachete
    @XMachete ปีที่แล้ว +8

    Ahead of watching this, presuming the question isn't misleading, I will guess that the mathematical properties of the natural laws governing this universe is what we discover, and what we invent are systems for expressing them and leveraging what we've discovered both in practical application and also in the pursuit of new discoveries. Now to watch the video and learn how muddled my guess was.

    • @jordanious7711
      @jordanious7711 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      Yeah, boiled down to it's most basic premise, math is just seeing a cup and thinking "thats 1 cup" then if you add another cup you now have 2 cups. It doesnt matter how you explain that, the concept will always be the same. You can have "1" or you can have a trillion lots of "1".. it just is that way, how we describe that is irrelevant... Any intelligent life would be forced to make the same observations eventually. All of math is based on these very simple foundations. In that sense we aren't really creating anything, just trying to understand what reality has already given us.

    • @dunzek943
      @dunzek943 ปีที่แล้ว

      Agreed. I don't think it's muddled. Why math isn't a discovery I'd say is because mathematics is literally invented. It isn't a scientific discovery; it's a field and practice built on supposed axioms that have turned out to be very useful. These axioms developed throughout the course of human history, but started in a humble manner (counting: one deer, two deers, etc.). How these axioms were conceived were primitive and so primitive and subconscious that perhaps it's treated as a natural part of the world discovered. People are mistaken to treat mathematics and the phenomena that it describes well in the physical world the same.

  • @jjt1881
    @jjt1881 2 ปีที่แล้ว +8

    One of the best short discussions about the topic of philosophy of mathematics, and with some insights into the interactions between mathematical structures with the real world. e.g. what Eugene Wigner called "The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences". He has what I call a beautiful mind.

  • @ramesh.programming
    @ramesh.programming 3 ปีที่แล้ว +33

    Congratulations to him for winning Nobel Prize 👏🌟

  • @Mmouse_
    @Mmouse_ ปีที่แล้ว +3

    Years ago I'd read all the popsci books (kip Thorne, hawking etc etc) and felt like a kid in a candy store discovering all of these things and understanding them as they were put to me... But I couldn't really find anything else like that, everything else I picked up seemed to rehash what if already read and understood... So I bought the road to reality by penrose, I read a quarter of it and had to put it down, its so far above my head, that I didn't feel like a kid in a candy store anymore, I felt like an ant trying to understand space travel... It was horrible.
    So... Thanks Roger, that hurt a bit.

  • @MrEyesof9
    @MrEyesof9 ปีที่แล้ว

    Looking at reality through mathematics, is the reason there is a separation between the two,
    looking at reality through mathematics, geometry and the relationship between the two
    will render a solution that is indistinguishable from reality.

  • @Soylent1981
    @Soylent1981 2 ปีที่แล้ว +40

    I love thinking about these topics. It’s gives me a great sense of awe at the natural world.

    • @MrMurl
      @MrMurl ปีที่แล้ว +1

      it’s the bomb

    • @xXTopGXx
      @xXTopGXx ปีที่แล้ว

      if you believe mathematics was discovered they probably still think Columbus discovered America.. periodtt

  • @MediumDSpeaks
    @MediumDSpeaks 3 ปีที่แล้ว +10

    I have been saying this question to people my whole life. I never knew it was an actual thing people like Dr. Penrose studied! I always thought discovered, just our units to describe things are "invented" but also based on discovered properties of reality as well.

    • @vhawk1951kl
      @vhawk1951kl 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      "Reality"?
      Whose reality?
      If you experience pain or anything else that-for you, cannot be different, that is as real as real can be for you, but nobody else, thus whose reality?
      o you suppose there to be a " reality"(whatever that means) other than the direct immediate personal experience of some particular being?-Some sort of vague generalised " reality"?
      Whence you get that strange idea?

    • @MediumDSpeaks
      @MediumDSpeaks 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      @@vhawk1951kl go away year 2 philosophy study

  • @innosanto
    @innosanto ปีที่แล้ว +1

    He may be the most legendary living scientist at the moment. Maybe if Watson or Crick are alive (not sure if they are) they are as well.

  • @Kivas_Fajo
    @Kivas_Fajo 5 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    Isn't that like Michelangelo's answer to the question, how he could make such beautiful statues, which was:
    "I didn't do anything special. The statue was inside the block all along. All I had to do was to chip off the unnecessary pieces."

    • @gr637
      @gr637 หลายเดือนก่อน

      Exactly. Which is obviously incorrect.

  • @estrellasirio
    @estrellasirio 2 ปีที่แล้ว +43

    It is a wonderful video. I have to congratulate everyone who has participated in it, not only the great R. Penrose, because the most important merit is having shared it for free. Thank you. This video should be seen in every school in the world.

  • @davidfarrall
    @davidfarrall 2 ปีที่แล้ว +30

    This is thrilling and fascinating to me, Sir Roger. The confluence of All Mathematics and All Physics is so beautiful and allows us to go deeper into the Reality and Truth of our Universe. And We, most probably, will never find a total solution. But the Theoreticians can dovetail with the Engineers, Scientists, Explorers, Practical People, etc. We can look forward to a testing and interesting future based on your thinking and your Associates and Colleagues. Thank you for your (summary) talk on this.

    • @bryandraughn9830
      @bryandraughn9830 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      I'm amazed when mathematical ideas uncover things about reality that wouldn't have occurred to us if we hadn't been calculating a bunch of weird ideas. Sometimes it literally points the way.

  • @pritch481
    @pritch481 ปีที่แล้ว

    He's also such a nice person (it seems). Example, at about 15:15, "It's a bit hard to explain that one too".

  • @joshuacramer5226
    @joshuacramer5226 ปีที่แล้ว +6

    Just in my life experience without any advanced education or having watched this video, I see mathematics as a human creation to precisely understand and explain the physical universe....now I will find out what this gentleman has to say.

    • @Fiufia
      @Fiufia ปีที่แล้ว +1

      I don't know much about it either, but I agree that mathematics as a human creation.
      and quantum physics has not destroyed all mathematical logic and theories?

  • @shankarlakshmanan6167
    @shankarlakshmanan6167 3 ปีที่แล้ว +91

    “I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it.” - Mark Twain.
    The context of the quote is the fear of death, but it applies here. Two and two was always four, we just happened to stumble upon it.

    • @th4fl4sh4
      @th4fl4sh4 3 ปีที่แล้ว +7

      Great comment. It makes me wonder if we could've found/invented a different math altogether and it would still work? For example, what if we didn't have addition and subtraction. Two divided by 0.5 also equals four. Would we still be able to describe the universe?

    • @shankarlakshmanan6167
      @shankarlakshmanan6167 3 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      @@th4fl4sh4 Thanks, the Math we know is at one level, simply the consequence of the Universe as we observe it.

    • @davidschneide5422
      @davidschneide5422 3 ปีที่แล้ว +7

      Death only pains the living.

    • @mick5137
      @mick5137 3 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      Twain cribbing Epicurus.

    • @TheBaconWizard
      @TheBaconWizard 3 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      meh. Not the point. Maths is able to describe a PERFECT circle, quite easily. No such thing exists in nature. So maths is a human construct that approximates (generalizes) the rules of nature.

  • @diegobravo641
    @diegobravo641 ปีที่แล้ว +8

    So deeply interesting. Would love to see more.

  • @mwmingram
    @mwmingram ปีที่แล้ว

    Metaphysics. Loved this. Many thanks.

  • @TheManorBeast
    @TheManorBeast ปีที่แล้ว

    Great question. When you think about the humble circle though it has to be an invention

  • @C3LTICART3L
    @C3LTICART3L 3 ปีที่แล้ว +4

    this for me is one of the most satisfying videos on youtube an I've seen a few... thanks :)

  • @deegee6863
    @deegee6863 ปีที่แล้ว +10

    Mathematics was discovered - the method of understanding mathematics was invented.

  • @vebdaklu
    @vebdaklu ปีที่แล้ว

    Indeed, how can something abstract, like "language", describe reality? Mind-bending!

  • @aevoguitars2576
    @aevoguitars2576 3 ปีที่แล้ว +5

    I actually thought about this question a few months back

  • @jcr912
    @jcr912 4 ปีที่แล้ว +302

    We certainly didn't invent it, but we invented its language. When you look at anything, even if you aren't aware of mathematics, you can tell the difference between one of something and a hundred of something, even if you don't know what they're called or how to describe it. Mathematics is the language we invented to describe measurements of things around us, the labels and lengths we use are only a way to navigate through what is built into the universe.

    • @eltonmayo2027
      @eltonmayo2027 4 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      really. like the mississippi river was 'discovered'. mankind had to 'invent' bumping into the river's edge. took alot of brain power to fall into a river.

    • @diggitus
      @diggitus 4 ปีที่แล้ว +6

      This doesn't settle the philosophical debate though. It just punts it down the road a bit.

    • @peteraka3783
      @peteraka3783 4 ปีที่แล้ว +5

      I believe the term mathematics is used to describe two things. At times multiple invented languages, and at times a prior reality of relationships. There are multiple math languages that can describe a problem - I have seen the same problem on youtube solved with both geometry and calculus.... both were valid languages to describe that solution - since a particular problem/solution is abstract until it finds a physical use you could argue that mathematics 'discovered it' before physics did... however since two pretty independent branches of mathematics can be used to solve a problem you can argue that they are just 'inventions'.

    • @jcr912
      @jcr912 4 ปีที่แล้ว +4

      @Razor Face I don't believe the characteristics of the universe were invented by man.

    • @Asak999
      @Asak999 4 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      @@jcr912 i think that to exist characteristics is necessary an observer to interpret it, without an actor there's no math.

  • @manuelteixeira2496
    @manuelteixeira2496 ปีที่แล้ว

    Mathmatics equations accuracy on micro and macrocosmos observed reality, is incredibly precise. Some minor aparent discrepancys, may be due to observer's factor.

  • @cemerson12
    @cemerson12 8 หลายเดือนก่อน

    At 12:15 Robert asks what the Platonic reality of mathematics means to or about the physical world (he refers to infinite structures or ideas)?
    It means, I think, that the physical world (as we are able to perceive it) is but a subset of the possibilities in reality itself.

  • @LS-qu7yc
    @LS-qu7yc 3 ปีที่แล้ว +29

    I love Penrose so much. I feel intuitively and logically that his answers are correct about mathematics being a discovery. Our labels of math and language are the invention, the reality always existed.

    • @asherujudo7383
      @asherujudo7383 2 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      I'm not a mathematician and I struggled with it in school but I completely agree. It always seemed that way to me. Like, mathematicians were in fact simply inventing a useful language to describe naturally occurring phenomena. I always liked the concept of math and I feel like if I had had more patient teachers I would have really gotten into it.

  • @VennFilmmaker
    @VennFilmmaker 3 ปีที่แล้ว +98

    We invent the characters and symbols used to explain mathematics but the formulas, the very essence of it is just something we discover

    • @michadavi6102
      @michadavi6102 3 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      Mathematics may be derived from logic, including functions

    • @FalkFlak
      @FalkFlak 2 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      depends on what you do with the language. In science you need observations. Not every function one can come up with is automatically reflected in reality.

    • @T.S2036
      @T.S2036 2 ปีที่แล้ว +4

      @@FalkFlak
      You are obfuscating with fancy words.
      Mathematics is discovered. Not invented.
      Every ancient society from the Middle of Africa to China has records of Advanced mathematics using their own symbols to describe the exact same concepts.

    • @FalkFlak
      @FalkFlak 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      thats not what I meant.

    • @T.S2036
      @T.S2036 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@FalkFlak
      In that case I Clearly I didn’t understand you properly dude.

  • @joaowiciuk
    @joaowiciuk 6 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    Being surprised with the fact that math can be used to describe the world precisely is the equivalent of being surprised English can be used to write poetry that captures human feelings. It's a languague at it's best use. An endeavouring question one can make is in which cases math fails to describe the world accurately and also if we can ever realize it

  • @markjohnson7488
    @markjohnson7488 ปีที่แล้ว

    Higher math such as Penrose discusses here is very like athletic ability. It is a natural talent. You can study/practice and hone your skill, but if you don't have a baseline of ability then you will be lost no matter how hard you try.

  • @valkonrad
    @valkonrad 4 ปีที่แล้ว +20

    Mind blowing as usual, but greatly helped by Prof Penrose’s precision and clarity.
    Maybe there are also platonic worlds of logic, music and morality, equally fascinating.

    • @parkergiele
      @parkergiele 3 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      I’ve come to realise over time that mathematics is actually quite spiritual

    • @AdelaideBen1
      @AdelaideBen1 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      Maybe you should read Greek philosophy... the Platonic world was one of concepts and an underlying ideal "reality"- whereas reality was only a shadow-puppetry of the Ideal. The problem I have with this view is that it suggests that mathematics has been advanced without the need of physical evidence, and also that pure mathematics has meaning outside of the physical world. There's been a lot of mis-steps in mathmatics (same as in physics). That's the scientific method... propose something, test it, re-assess it.
      Plato lived in a time when there were huge advances in logic/mathematics - when the limitations of experimentation prohibited as many advances. Of course mathematics is infinitely precise - but as there was a transition from Newtonian to Relativistic theories, these were necessitated from the inability of the theory to explain reality. If Newtonian physics was able to account for all physical interactions, would anyone care about Relativity? We appreciate the need for different maths to better understand the reality we live in. Sometimes the Maths comes earlier - but it's relevance comes when it intersects with the real world. I'm really in favour of a discussion on the world of Ideas - but I also know that Penrose also uses a lot of methods to undermine non-physics/mathematics discourse, which is problematic (when it comes to things such as consciousness). I'm an aetheist - so I don't mind the lack of a watchmaker... but as a physicist I also fundamentally object to the idea that you need to resort to such things as quantum effects to argue consciousness (as randomness is a feature that is built into complex physical systems). His concept is to replace God with the Wizard of Oz (hidden behind an veil of uncertainty). This is intellectual commercialism.

    • @ursulagwozdz1955
      @ursulagwozdz1955 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@AdelaideBen1 maths exists apart, in its own right, without our understanding of it.As long as there is space and time, there is maths.In pure maths there is validation through the existence of space alone.

    • @AdelaideBen1
      @AdelaideBen1 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@ursulagwozdz1955 Er... I think you misunderstand where maths exists and where physics exists. Maths has no concept of "space" - it has the concept of 1D/2D/3D/4D.... etc n-dimensional coordinate systems. It says nothing about what "space" (the physical reality) means. Pure Maths has an important role in Physics - a crucial role - but Pure Maths doesn't need Physics, or ANY realworld anchor. That's why there is no branch of "Pure Physics" - but there is a Maths that is purely about the abstract. Much of Physics exists in the abstract - and much of reality can also be abstracted - but there's a real difference in physics and pure maths.
      Also Pure Maths has no intrinsic concept of "time"... it has an abstracted dimensional concept, and you can extend this to a statistical concept which says it's more likely to move towards disorder than order, but there is no "pure math concept" of time AFAIK (maybe there is in which case I'd love to hear it).

    • @ursulagwozdz1955
      @ursulagwozdz1955 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@AdelaideBen1 maths and physics are intrinsically linked.We agree on that.

  • @benjaminknudson5997
    @benjaminknudson5997 2 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    i was told once to read the elements by euclid. They were some very important geometrical ideas that influenced mathematics. I dont think its a required read I'd say its sufficent to learn its principles as they apply to your field

  • @goldenera7090
    @goldenera7090 ปีที่แล้ว

    A lot earlier than mentioned in this video, Mathematics was present during historic times in ancient India approx 4000 years ago

  • @phillippatryndal4255
    @phillippatryndal4255 ปีที่แล้ว

    There is a third option, that is available in addition/relation to invent and discover for things like mathematics in principle: interpretation.

  • @johnevans6399
    @johnevans6399 3 ปีที่แล้ว +12

    What I think is fascinating is how often maths departments have musicians trying to break free! 🤔

  • @MegaCrash88
    @MegaCrash88 2 ปีที่แล้ว +4

    Math - the building blocks, the very essence of everything we see around. What an interview, what an interviewer and what a guest. Hats off!

    • @duhusker4383
      @duhusker4383 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Maths, not Math. It's MathematicS, not Mathematic.

    • @MegaCrash88
      @MegaCrash88 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@duhusker4383 Thank you, David

    • @duhusker4383
      @duhusker4383 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@MegaCrash88 I was only messing lol. It's one of those American/ British linguistic differences.

  • @doctorfaris
    @doctorfaris 9 หลายเดือนก่อน

    You need to ask also about invention of computer program or software

  • @ths2479
    @ths2479 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    i have a question please: would the mathematics be different in a different universe with different characteristics or do we have already mathematics which cover all sorts of universes?

    • @recsa8882
      @recsa8882 ปีที่แล้ว

      And you want someone from this universe to answer that? dont think its possible, we could say that it seems like maths are in a layer above the physical expression of the universe (this or any other else) but we dont even know if is its possible for other universes to exist, or better said, if this is the only possible way for the physical world to exist.

    • @MaorRa
      @MaorRa ปีที่แล้ว

      I was thinking about it myself these days, great philosophical question!
      IMO, math, not as discussed by the conversation there which mixed science (nature science) and pure math, I think that math is universally true in the sense that it does not relate or depend on the current way of the universe.

  • @Rayji10
    @Rayji10 4 ปีที่แล้ว +18

    For me mathematics is one of the most beautiful ways of describing the universe in a way that can be both complex and simple at the same time.

  • @Aurora2097
    @Aurora2097 2 ปีที่แล้ว +5

    This is all so incredibly fascinating! I wish i was more intelligent and actually understood any of it...

  • @marvinsabadowatson9124
    @marvinsabadowatson9124 ปีที่แล้ว

    Eye have a beautiful answer for this question.

  • @nikitanikitov9362
    @nikitanikitov9362 ปีที่แล้ว

    What is the criterion for the accuracy of the description of reality by mathematics?