Q&A - The mathematical universe with Max Tegmark

preview_player
Показать описание
Was mathematics invented or discovered? Is everything mathematically predetermined? Is there no such thing as free will?

Following his talk at the Ri in January 2014, Max Tegmark invited questions from the audience. This Q&A delves into the deep conundrums of consciousness, free will and physicality, exploring the idea that our universe is an entirely mathematical structure.
Why is mathematics so spectacularly successful at describing the cosmos?

In his Ri talk from January 30 2014, MIT physics professor Max Tegmark proposed a radical idea: that our physical world is not only described by mathematics, but that it is mathematics. He showed how this theory may provide answers to the nature of reality itself.

This event was filmed at the Royal Institution on January 30 2014.

Рекомендации по теме
Комментарии
Автор

Interesting talk, but I'd also like to point out that the audience did a pretty good job of coming up with good questions based on what was said in the talk.

garanceadrosehn
Автор

Math is a discovery. We only invented the symbols to describe it. F=MA could have been T=MA but that would be tucked up.

RexNunc
Автор

Is the Universe mathematical?, or are we just using mathematics to map out and describe the Universe. How would you know either way?

tensevo
Автор

If the Universe is finite and expanding. Firstly, what is it expanding into, but more importantly, why has it not already fully expanded if time is simply a construct of our brain (ref Carlo Ravelli)?

tensevo
Автор

Tegmark is brilliant. One of his answers about how he made a u-turn from a feeling of insignificance relative to the vastness of cosmos, is almost Vedantic in its assertion. In Sanskrit there is a saying: "Yatha pinde, tatha Brahmande", meaning, "humans and universe are homologous." We are the sentient beings that perceive the universe. Universe has no meaning if there is no conscious life to perceive it. Universe is aware of itself through us. And, as Vedanta says, Atman = Brahman and our core is divine that is all-pervasive, universal consciousness. I hope Tegmark integrates his scientific brilliance with Vedantic wisdom.

praveenrai
Автор

For life to evolve on any given planet. It needs a single cell. The cell needs to somehow come out of the dead volcanic planet. Hard problem.

tensevo
Автор

2:30 But the Hard Problem is probably very solvable if considered from a computer's point of view. A computer has a processor made of small circuits that take in input, and throw out another input. They can pass, amplify, or block signals - much in the same way our brain cells do too.
But brain cells are far more complex: they dont just connect one end to another as a computer can - but they can connect to thousands of other cells at a time. Its not just electrical signals in the brain - also hormonal signals...
Add to that: its not a rigid system. The brain can cut connections, strengthen them, and rewire itself. Certain sections of the brain may even be repurposed for something else in certain cases; such as documented with blind / deaf people.

If you examine your conciousness and your senses, its very much like some modeling software.
Are you aware of the chair you sit on? Your clothes? The movement of your toes? A lot of information is filtered out from all your senses.
Have a look at any of the tv shows where they explain tricks of the mind. That face shape you see in the clouds, or that pattern you see when you look at something from a certain angle... The things you see are send through a sort of pattern recognision, allowing you to get a much better grip on whats going on.
If you get car sick - thats due to a difference of information in your balancing organs and your eye sight. But its the brain that gets confused, thinks you ate something poisonous and makes you throw up.

My point is: what we call conciousness is a model running in our brain that is able to manipulate the information received after all filters, originally from our senses, or as side effects of the filters.
That computer and coding, is all in the neural network of our brain. With such a complex system; how can you not accept consciousness rises from all those layers of complexity?
Matter to hardware, to software, to the model within that is you.

HexerPsy
Автор

That is a great answer. It may be the only way of knowing difference between an actual conscious AI and one that was just programmed to act precisely as a conscious agent but actually is not conscious. We wouldnt know right now even if a supercomputer told us it was conscious or sentient.

Jamie-Russell-CME
Автор

25:19 did the question perhaps mean that its not the numbers put to describe the constants that is important but, the relation between them is.

Bultish
Автор

Could someone please tell me the name of the book mentioned at 3:30? I can't make the name and was unable to find it...

kebacek
Автор

Free will means the input does't determine the output.

moonstriker
Автор

Given quantum physics is a root, probablistic, then this seem like a "fudge factor" has been smuggled in through the back door. Every anomaly can be explained away by chance or infinity. So really, how can one then conclude that the Universe is mathematical? Surely, we are just describing the Universe, with mathematics?

tensevo
Автор

(407) Can someone please write down title of book mentioned at 3rd minute just before C Koch?! Thanks!

junak
Автор

Max, how can eye knows itself without any object to see? Who is the knower of things that can be known?

akshaymore
Автор

A Universal Quantum Mechanism, all of an infinite information spectrum, is a functional formulation = Mathematics.

davidwilkie
Автор

The guy at 24.09 should be taken seriously as I can detect a Scottish accent and they have a reputation of being a very knowledgeable people. I think Max Tegmark will go over the guys question again after the lecture.

kpzcbttp
Автор

It seems that mathematical equations are made to fit observable data. In this sense, surely the math follows the universe, rather than the other way round.

tensevo
Автор

Watching and listening this lecture and answers, I think, I have wasted time... I am sorry.

atomhydrogen
Автор

What's the man on the left doing there?

Fransamsterdam
Автор

American scientists (and the lecturer is a typical example) very like to support some mystery in their studies. This is the result of so-called Physical Mathematics, which very popular now among the majority of theorists working in quantum physics, particle physics, gravity and cosmology (in the beginning of 20th century this discipline was called Jewish Science). The classical European physics school is against such an approach. Science must be based on pure mathematics, pure physics and mathematical physics, not Physical Mathematics. In the future, I think this pseudoscientific approach known as Physical Mathematics will dye.

atomhydrogen