This really hit home. From my previous comments, on recent videos, I have had similar experiences. Most recently I was speaking with Donald Hoffman and also Kip Thorne about frame dragging in maximally rotating Kerr Black holes. The pandemic messed up my ability to meet people, like Leonard Susskind etc. but yeah. Instead I wrote a 700 page book almost done opening a new realm of knowledge and inquiry. A re-interpretation of the history of everything. So maybe it wasn’t so bad. It has to be done right. Everyone else doesn’t seem to be able to see the whole. So thank you for this. ❤❤❤
There's a classic story on this, attributable to one of the wives of the crowd: "When I talk to Von Neuman I come away convinved that he is the most intelligent person in the world. When I talk to Einstein I come away convinved that I am the most intelligent person in the world."
As a mathematician (PhD), I’ve always considered Von Neumann one of my most important influences. Luckily I even won a mathematics award at my university known as the Von Neumann Award in my undergraduate degree. I’m utterly shocked that most people don’t know anything about this brilliant man. In light of the success of the Oppenheimer film, perhaps somebody should make a biopic about Von Neumann.
As a Hungarian I am very proud of him, also involved in DNA, whether forecast, torpedoes, etc. Probably one of the smartest men ever walked on our planet. When Nobel price winter fellow Hungarian Jenő Wigner was asked how it was working with so many genius like Fermi, Heisenberg, Einstein, Leó Szilárd, etc. he answered he only knew one genius: Johnny Von Naumann.
Something often touched on but not pursued in depth is his career as a consultant. This is possibly the best interpretation of the value of being there: not creating something brand new, but solving intractable problems that arise here and there. He probably made a lot of money doing consulting. Most consultants do.
Von Neumann was a human super computer. It is crazy how many different areas of math and science the contributed too. So a general purpose super computer......
In my world ( digital signal processing, computation and information theory ) he is extremely well known and respected The stories of his intellect are legend
What was special about Von Neumann is that it seemed like his mind was almost limitless. He could do complex calculations in his head almost instantly and could recall entire books (and even translate them perfectly on the spot!). He may not have been the typical genius that is depicted having a grandious vision or having the extreme intuition of Einstein, but I’m fairly certain there has been no other human in history with the same processing power as he had. Just imagine if Von Neumann had the same creativity as Einstein…
I heard of him, he was famous mathematician, one of firstly, if not first, wrote axiomatic set theory, ~1946. with group of engineers at one of Ivy League U he constructed electronic computer, which is father or grandfather of all today's (PCs & servers) digital computers. Anyway, he was great american mathematician of hungary ancestry, born in Austro-Hungarian empire 1903.y. as Yanosh (Janos in Hungarian).
When I moved to Budapest I was surprised how little he is memorialized. Wigner has a plaque in his birthplace, and they share one at their Gimnázium. A few blocks on the same street from von Neuman is another plaque for the birthplace of Tommy Ramone.
The great computer programming school in Budapest named after him, and you have to be very smart to get in there. Hungarians know their geniuses, but many mathematicians, inventors, but like to be modest
@@lasttheory Also there is "John von Neumann Computer Society (NJSZT)" in Budapest founded in 1968. Still a communist country back then, it was really rare to appreciate scientists who had emigrated and did their work in other countries.
Eugene Wigner told a story of Von Neumann. Both had been working together and with a few others to prove some mathematical theorem. It was finally proved and had connections to several areas of mathematcs. Wigner was struggling to interrupt the theorem in this context. Von Neumann asked him what was troubling him. He said he knew that it was true but felt like he didn't totally understand it. Von Neumann told him that mathematicians don't understand truths they just get used to them.
And in addition to a great episode, we find wonderful instructions on how to write off your vacation as business expenses on your taxes. ;-) Something everyone who owns a business should know.
Ha, I _wish_ I could write off my vacation as a business expense! Sadly, I'm not sure I could justify that, given the small scale of this channel. Maybe in a few years' time? Thanks Darren!
Thank you for this excellent and thoughtful video. The comments and discussion are also stimulating, not to mention the fun plays on words. I used to think of Newton as the greatest intellectual to have lived. More recently, as I digested general relativity, I tended to think of Einstein that way. And now, as a result of all this, I'm inclined to put Von Neumann there instead. A very, very remarkable man. Thanks again
That's great to hear! If you have time, check out Ananyo Bhattacharya's biography of von Neumann: The Man from the Future. It's a really good read! Good luck with your research project.
You might be wrong saying Von Neumann understood math. In the man's own words "... in mathematics you don't understand things. You just get used to them."
I have read the legends about John von Neumann in Richard Rhodes' "The Making of the Atomic Bomb." I have often wondered what the mid-century physicists would have thought of where Physics is today. How would physicists such as John von Neumann, Niels Bohr, or Richard Feynman, with their powerful intuitive skills, have responded to recent events?
Richard Rhodes' _The Making of the Atomic Bomb_ is a great book! And yes, that's a great question, what would those physicists have thought of where we are today. It'd be interesting to make a video on this question!
Perhaps von Neumann would be able to design self-replicating machines using modern nano technology if he were alive today. Computers would be far faster and he would have figured out economics shortcuts to semiconductor advancements, and developed the first algorithms, as well as quantum computing decades before it was an idea (possibly).
@@lasttheory Yes, The Making of the Atomic Bomb is a must-read, well written book! I'm going to see Oppenheimer tomorrow (and try to stay away from the theater sweets lol).
@@campbellpaul Yes, it's interesting to speculate what past scientists/engineers would have done with modern theories/technologies. There's an interesting video in _that_, too!
*If he had lived long enough, Mr. Von Neumann would likely have won a Nobel Prize -- in Economics, for his work on Game Theory. But Nobel Prizes in Economics were not awarded until 1969, more than a dozen years after Mr. Von Neumann's death.*
A scalar product is required. The length of a vector ("norm") is derived from the scalar product. The space has to be complete with respect to this norm.
Okay, right now I'm far too curious to worry about whether or not Stephen ("The father of Complexity Theory" 🙂) is correct about his theory. Concerning the burgeoning field of Complexity Theory, his NKS book is so interesting (and easy to read)! Reading it will make you think deeply.
I use the more general term 'digital computer' instead of 'electronic', although it was the electric semi-conductors which really enabled this technology. An analogue circuit - is it electric or electronic? P. S. Nearly unknown as Von Neumann the main contributor to electronics: F. Von Braun, discovered the semi- conductor, invented the electronic tube and screen, and telecommunication, although not alone.
Yes, thanks. I used the term _electronic computer_ to distinguish it from the _mechanical computers_ of Babbage et al and the _human computers_ who did calculations manually.
Very entertaining and informative. It may be that JVN was wrong about one thing. The whole hidden variable debate in QM. Grete and Bell, I believe exposed an error in JVN's version of the story (no hidden variables are possible) which hinges on an assumption. Just saying, if you work on enough fundamental innovations, you are predetermined to make at least one mistake somewhere, evolution and probably cellular autonoma almost hinge on making mistakes, no?
Yes, thanks Daniel. Certainly physicists interpreted John von Neumann's analysis of quantum mechanics as ruling out hidden variables. In fact, as you say, it did no such thing, it only ruled out hidden variables in von Neumann's own particular framework for quantum mechanics. Was the mistake was von Neumann's or was his analysis just interpreted more broadly than it should have been?
Thanks Andrew! I'm sure you're right, and those three called him Johnny. Others called him János or Jancsi. We all have different names. I never knew John von Neumann, and certainly never received his permission to call him Johnny, so like most current sources (other than the Hungarian ones) I went with John.
Von Neumann never considered it necessary to restrict his area of interest to one narrow lane. Heidi gunso, especially in the area of mathematics, he might have been more recognizable as one of the all-time masters of the field, (although he already enjoys that reputation to degree in several disciplines).
That piece of logical mathematics 0:35 is from Principia Mathematica by Russell and Northhead. It says is alpha and beta are class 1 then their intersection is Null class is equivalent with their reunion is class 2. I am aware of von Neumann axiomatization of set theory but what has this piece of Pricipia to do with von Neumann? It is not from Godel's demonstration. And out of curiosity what has von Neumann to do with Godel's demonstration? Indeed Godel argues the impossibility of the Principia logicism project but what has von Neumann with Godel's demonstration?
Yes, well spotted! You've identified it correctly, and you'll have noticed, too, that I added the text "not actually Gödel's theorem" to this still, just to make sure! Here's what Principia Mathematica has to do with Gödel's theorem. Russell and Northhead's project was one of the last attempts to make mathematics complete and consistent, before Gödel proved that it is, in fact, impossible to do so. And here's what von Neumann has to do with Gödel's theorem. As I explain in the video, von Neumann was literally _there_ when it happened. When Gödel first presented his ideas, von Neumann was the only one who recognized its significance. And von Neumann went on to _extend_ Gödel's discovery, only to find that Gödel had, in fact, beaten him to it. If Gödel hadn't been so fast, von Neumann's name might have appeared alongside Gödel's as the formulator of probably the most important mathematical discovery ever. I think that shows that von Neumann had rather a lot to do with Gödel's demonstration, don't you?
@@lasttheory Thank you for clarification. All I know is from old books I bought. It would be nice to know the historical circumstances of these discoveries and what motivated the scientist to formulate his/her idea.
Neumann is my main inspiration and his cellular automata is what I currently trying to finally develop on an updated and more flexible basis. I consider everything to be a combination/collection/superposition of other derivative entities, and therefore the world to be inherently dynamically inter-dependent. Only a portion of the world can be perceived simultaneously while the intrinsically hidden part, when tested/measured/quantized, appears to be fading into something unpredictable/undiscoverable/non-existent. The apparent presence of existence/life/consciousness in itself is enough proof for the undeniable presence of the realms of the undiscoverable, ergo the very nature of this SINGLE fundamental component is that it can never be discovered even though it might be possible to model it with computers, thereby creating an actual (not artificial but) derivative intelligence that I call the real cellular automata.
Interesting. Cellular automata are what led Stephen Wolfram on his path to hypergraphs as a model of the universe. Have you taken a look at the Wolfram model? (That's what I explore in this channel.) How does it compare to your approach?
@@lasttheory Thank you that you are dealing with hobbyists like me! He says that the universe is made of 1) atoms 2) space 3) connections between: All the world’s a graph and all the entities merely nodes. While his model can also be considered (partly) valid, being THIS quick to leave behind nature and start dealing with (hyper)graphs, was like taking a photo of the zoo from the main entrance then going home to design their homepage according to the subset of information you have on the photo. Or, he has an outstanding hammer of mathematics, therefore he reconducts everything forcefully to nails. In the model I’m shaping, his above 3 “fundamental” components are derivative categories (just like everything else), and I can’t see any convincing proof that the discoverable universe (let alone everything) can be squeezed into the commode of mathematics either. The beach is necessarily larger than our beach blanket of scientific methods and knowledge. I only believe in intellectually digesting the impressions from the widest possible range of natural phenomena (particle physics, chemistry, biology, cosmology etc.), without considering existing dogmas too much, until they start to make sense consistently: that’s nature’s big IQ test to us that you only can complete if you humbly ACCEPT the fact that nature is infinitely more intelligent and meaningful than any ephemeral human scientific trickery will ever be. Unlike the apes who never considered people smarter than themselves and never asked questions, we have to use our intelligence to be more respectful that that. To create that “cellular automata” that actually has IQ, one only need to pass the test himself.
@@idegteke Thanks, I enjoy these kinds of conversations! I'd shorten your list of 1) atoms 2) space 3) connections to just 1) nodes (same as what you and Stephen Wolfram both call atoms) and 2) edges (what you call connections). Space _emerges_ from these nodes and edges; in other words, the hypergraph _is_ space. I think you're right when you say that Jonathan's hammer is mathematics and so he finds a nail in the form of the hypergraph. But physicists have been using mathematics in this way for centuries, and been extraordinarily successful. It seems that, as Galileo said, The Book of Nature is written in the language of mathematics. Or perhaps computation. And yes, it's difficult to imagine that _everything_ can be squeezed into this hypergraph framework. Matter in particular is difficult to picture in the hypergraph. Stephen Wolfram's and Jonathan Gorard's current concept of particles is that it consists of persistent tangles of nodes and edges propagating through the hypergraph, but they've yet to discover any such tangles. I'm happy that you and others are interested in these theories despite their being so incomplete and unproven at this stage!
@@lasttheory Yes, even before I was familiar with his work, I was fairly sure myself that something like that must be a model to consider: I started to call the legs 1) entity 2) rules 3) information but I still find these categories to be rudimentary. Later, I started to consider the 3rd fundamental element to rather be an elementary piece of intelligence stored in the duality or superposition of the other 2 fundamental ingredient, and is (materially) represented by the prospective particle’s fitness for existence thanks to the entity’s stability in the context of the rules it comes with. This node of information - forming later intelligence, even later consciousness - is like an application form to gain material existence in our discoverable universe, and in the case of a real world particle (a material analogy we don’t have to follow through entirely) the wave function collapses (the elementary information content is read out) and a new particle (together, I admit, potentially space-time itself) is now successfully created:) Don’t get me wrong, I used to love mathematics, the only subject I was straight A in college (when not knowing the multiplication table stopped being a lethal sin and SIMPLE calculators were already allowed). It is as useful as a rope that stops you from falling. This rope, however, is not so crucial on a flat surface on which we can do perfectly well without it. Computation, however, is definitely the star of every show! I don’t exclude the possibility to squeeze everything (the whole discoverable universe) into that hypergraph framework of yours - but then don’t be too surprised when, however hard you try (and many others since the 70s), your everything remains inherently limited to a subset and the big(ger) picture never shows itself. What I would like you to consider is that those nodes need no EXTERNAL tangles, and even calling those assumed interconnections, neutrally, “edges” is like sitting on the horse the wrong way around, so don’t be too surprised when you see the village getting farther and farther as you think you proceed forward. Etc...
@@idegteke Yes, we'll see where this goes! Stephen Wolfram has already made one generalization, from the tripartite graphs he originally used to simulate the universe to the fully generalized directional hypergraphs he uses today, and you're right, further generalization _might_ be required.
Really interesting topic and great writing, unfortunately, the crazy hand-held-shaky-style give me headaches and the sound could be more consistent in quality.
Yes, it's a much rougher style of shooting than my usual studio recordings. I thought it'd be worth it to tough out the shaky on-the-road video and noisy audio (you wouldn't believe how long I had to wait for traffic and pedestrian noise to die down before I resumed recording!) to get an on-location feel. Thanks for persevering, I'll be releasing more videos from back in the studio soon!
@@lasttheory I like the outside setting and it definitely gives a more "open" feeling, but it's REALLY hard to do properly. Tom Scott had to experiment a lot for his (unique) format. Maybe he would be willing to share some insights? 🙂
@@harriehausenman8623 Thanks Harrie, I really appreciate the feedback! I just took a look at Tom Scott's recording, and he does really well, especially with his radio mic. These last two on-the-road videos of mine, in Oxford and Budapest, were born of necessity: I was travelling from the Yukon to Europe and back, with a tiny baggage limit that didn't allow for _any_ equipment beyond my phone and computer. But I might experiment with outdoor recordings in quieter locations this summer, which might work better. As you say, it takes a lot of experimentation!
@@lasttheory I think a lavalier microphone would be a perfect fit here. They can be very small (travelling!), a good one gives excellent audio even in harsh conditions, and in case you want to capture the voice of someone else, they can be very quickly reapplied. Only thing one really needs to know is how and where to put the mic, which is a crucial factor.
in the comments section people are talking a lot about his relationship to the us military. gotta remember everyone it was a wildy different time. i don't agree with his stances but, you understand them in the context of his time. the nazis and ww2 only happened recently for von neumann. The soviets had murdered 20 million of there own citizens. china had fallen. japan wasn't much of a trusted ally. the usa had 160 million citizens. the soviets had more than double that. the old world in britian, france and co was tired and spent. victory against the soviets was something everyone was doubting.
Yes, that's well said, thanks Jeremy. As you say, John von Neumann was personally touched by the Nazi occupation of Europe. Having fortuitously escaped to the US, he was horrified by what was done to members of his own family back in Hungary.
Actually, it's science fans treating him like a saint that is the problem. He really was a sycophant to the U. S. military. It was a quality that other scientists noted frequently about him. There is a reason he was the guy assigned to figure our the best place to detonate a nuke to kill the most people. It's because he was regarded as the scientist at Trinity who cared least about other human lives and most about progress at all costs. Von Neumann simply wasn't capable of seeing the dark side to tech like AI and nukes. Politically, he was a fool. Game theory isn't going to save us.
I mean, if you study computer science GCSE like I did, then we all heard of von Neumann architecture. We never studied the man himself though, like we did a bit with Turing.
@@lasttheory Yeah, I wish we got round to doing logic though. I was waiting to get round to studying logic gates and them boom, Covid hits and all is shut down. No exams at all and GCSE grades are teacher assessed. Super sucks. It was probably the first year to have a zoom prom for the leavers. I didn't attend, and I hear I didn't miss much. The comp science lessons pre covid were fun though.
Quantum surfer. I was at hunting beach pier Sunday, my friends finally wanted to know more about quantum theory. I wold always talk of quantum wave , no they get it, they wanted the movie OPPENHEIMER.. Quantum Surfer. Downey California ❤❤❤
The consequences of Gödel incompleteness theorem are disastrous for mathematics. This because for every law or rule you discover, there is a wider rule which encompasses your new law, even if you can't see or discover it. John Von Neumann behaved as the "Consoler in Chief" for mathematicians and physicists. He later setup the structure of a computer with a stack of registers, a pointer, a memory and a calculation unit - a structure that is still used today because it is the only one which works - by use of Boolean logic. A selfless genius...
@@lasttheory I think two things that help make Von Neumann so influential compared to other great intellectuals were his extroversion - he liked to party a lot and people really seemed to have enjoyed his presence- and he also sounds like the kind of person you would reach out to if you had any exciting project that you got stumped on or thought could be great. That might be why he'd always "be there" so to speak when there were grand ideas. In a sense he was the chatGPT of his time.
A teacher of mine used to said that people should stop praising Einstein, because he only formalized the relativity theory and the rest of his existence was just consuming oxygen. Instead of praising Einstein one should take a deep look to John von Neumann.. what a mastermind.
Well, based on what Einstein accomplished I think he should be given a pass on just consuming oxygen in his later years . After all , isn't that what the vast majority ( including you and your teacher ) of humans end up doing ?
@@michaelblankenau6598 of course most of us are just consuming oxygen, that's undoubtedly true and I don't have objection. However there is a valid point about all this discussion: Eintein's work is hardly understood or adopted by most of the humans, almost nobody is able to get the Theory of Relativity right because its applicability seems to be very low for an average human being. On the other hand, using a computer (Modern computers are based on Von Neumann architecture) is something that an average person can use and understand in its daily life (Understand its use, not its architecture). Game Theory is also there and it's used by many people in decision making. And there would be more examples about John Von Neumann achievements. At the end, I would say that the main take away here is why one is so praised and the other so ignored? It seems most of this discussion is about being charismatic as @lasttheory said.
Thanks Martin. You're right, of course: we've lost sight a little of how apocalyptic these weapons might prove to be. I don't think of working on the atomic bomb as _doing good._ Still, John von Neumann was _there,_ doing work that regardless of any value judgement of its outcome was certainly brilliant.
Wolfram is overrated and obsolete. I attended a lecture that he gave at Oxford many years ago - he had a very limited grasp of the theoretical underpinnings of math. The talk was just a waste of time!
Sorry about that! This is a low-production-value on-the-road recording. Most of my videos are recorded in the studio, i.e. my basement. Those should be less hard on you!
Right, maybe I'm overestimating Gödel's name recognition. He certainly _should be_ among the best-known figures of the 20th century, but _should be_ and _is_ are not the same. Thanks Alex!
There used to be a sense among the pure mathematicians that applied mathematicians aren't smarter than pure mathematicians. Counter point is John Von Neumann. He could possibly be the smartest person to ever exist, this year plus or minus 160 years I don't know if there will be a smarter person to rise. He is smarter than Terrance Tao, Oppenheimer, Einstein, and many others.
Terrance Tao is a big fan of mathematical collaboration, and despite his stellar reputation, values the joy derived from interacting with mathematicians of all abilities. A bit more laid back than Von Neumann with similar work habits.
If I ever get to Budapest (my Darling Wife speaks Hungarian fluently) there are two things I want to see - the von Neumann plaque, and the statue of Peter Falk as Columbo with his dog Dog... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbo_statue_(Budapest)
Sadly I didn't see the Columbo statue! Of course I went to see the von Neumann plaque, but it really does astonish me that in a city with a (well-deserved, I'm sure!) statue of Columbo, there's none of von Neumann. Hope you make it to Budapest with your wife some day!
There are a couple of statues of Neumann in Budapest: one in Infopark in the street, one in the garden of Óbuda University, one in the building of the high school he attended, one in the memorial garden of the Technical University (there's also a hologram of him in one of the buildings there). And, to top it all, he has a wax figure in the newly opened Madame Tussauds Budapest.
@lasttheory Probably becuse in Hungary, you have to search for his birth name "Neumann János". We rarely refer to his more known name (used after he emigrated) in Hungary
Maybe I can say this with a bit of playfulness: Computer guys rule! He, after all, is a "computer guy", HAHA. A certain kind of metaphysics or philosophy of mathematics just love computers. There is no paradox in computer world, no infinity either, everything is so clear, abeit being complicated. No, not even "so" clear, ABSOLUTELY clear. SO, the universe seems to have to be a computation one. Maybe that's why our VON is ubiquitous?
@@lasttheory think you might be right that most people arn’t as aware of John von Neumann but may be aware of Von Neumann machines but on a seperate note I have always wondered wether he thought our universe could be a computer simulation as it was strange to leave physics & mathematics for computing & secondly Richard Feynman was the first to suggest the possibility publicly of Quantum Computing who was very influenced by von Neumann at Los Alamos
@@jasonwhiteley3612 Thanks, Jason. I don't know of any indication that von Neumann though about reality as a simulation. I suspect that it's a more modern idea. I wonder whether he could have had any idea of how far we've taken computers since his day?
Don't worry, I don't believe that the cat is literally half dead and half alive, I know that the correct form of words is that it's in a superposition of dead and alive states. Actually, I don't believe that it's in a superposition of dead and alive states, either, and nor did Schrödinger. I'm hoping the Wolfram model will sort out this mess of the Copenhagen interpretation!
The sponsor of this channel is being too generous in his assumption that most people have heard of the various former preeminent physicists that he mentions. Most Americans at least - even most of the college educated- sad to say - would recognize Einstein’s name only.
You might be right, Jesse. I'd hope that given everything that's going on in AI right now, most people would have heard of the Turing Test. But who knows, maybe not :(
Neuman was there when all were discovered, but he surely wasn't there when quantum fields collapsed the field when fine tuned particles lead to life, consciousness, soul and faith brought together physics and metaphysics, explained reality. I WAS.
I agree that Einstein's genius was of a different kind, more imaginative. It _is_ informative that von Neumann didn't make any true leaps himself. I'm not sure I have such faith in modern AI, though! The next-word-guessers really aren't very good at what Einstein did, for sure, or even, I suspect, at what von Neumann did. Thanks for the comment!
@@attica7980 Right, I'd never heard any plagiarism accusation against von Neumann! I think Einstein was an original, too. Sure, much of what he published had been hinted at before, but Einstein took these ideas further. There'd been plenty of indications that light is discrete, for example, but Einstein took this idea to its extraordinary logical conclusion: photons.
Yes, that's for sure, genius ≠ saint. I didn't go deep into von Neumann's relationship with the military here, and for sure, there were some moments that reflect very badly on him, such as when he seriously advocated a first strike nuclear attack on Russia.
I think Bronowski's quote in his tv series Ascent of Man was: "John Von Neumann was in love with the aristocracy of intellect and that is a belief that can only destroy the civilization we know".
@@sdm7372 Yes, I get the impression, too, that von Neumann was somewhat aristocratic in his thinking. More than once, his family changed their name, e.g. adding the "von", to make themselves sound more aristocratic.
@@lasttheory Yes, that's a great point! Apparently, even Bertrand Russell who tried brokering a deal with the Soviets during the Cuban missile crises at one time advocated for a preemptive strike in the early fifties, but later said he never did.
"Heisenberg? Certainly. Gödel? Completely." That was gold! XD
Thanks for noticing that, Shivani!
brilliant
Very clever!
Took a minute to realize! clever!
During his time, Von Neumann was widely regarded (at least among physicists and mathematicians) as the most intelligent person in the world.
Yes, absolutely! Which makes it all the more puzzling that he's so little known among non-physicists and non-mathematicians today.
This really hit home. From my previous comments, on recent videos, I have had similar experiences. Most recently I was speaking with Donald Hoffman and also Kip Thorne about frame dragging in maximally rotating Kerr Black holes. The pandemic messed up my ability to meet people, like Leonard Susskind etc. but yeah. Instead I wrote a 700 page book almost done opening a new realm of knowledge and inquiry. A re-interpretation of the history of everything. So maybe it wasn’t so bad. It has to be done right. Everyone else doesn’t seem to be able to see the whole. So thank you for this. ❤❤❤
There's a classic story on this, attributable to one of the wives of the crowd: "When I talk to Von Neuman I come away convinved that he is the most intelligent person in the world. When I talk to Einstein I come away convinved that I am the most intelligent person in the world."
@@TheDavidlloydjones Ah, yes, that's a good story! I kinda think Einstein was a charmer. Von Neumann, not so much.
Einstein said that von Neumann was more intelligent than he was.
As a mathematician (PhD), I’ve always considered Von Neumann one of my most important influences. Luckily I even won a mathematics award at my university known as the Von Neumann Award in my undergraduate degree.
I’m utterly shocked that most people don’t know anything about this brilliant man. In light of the success of the Oppenheimer film, perhaps somebody should make a biopic about Von Neumann.
Thanks Jack! Now that's a movie I'd go see!
Greetings from a fellow math PhD ('92) in Topological Algebra😊!
As a Hungarian I am very proud of him, also involved in DNA, whether forecast, torpedoes, etc.
Probably one of the smartest men ever walked on our planet.
When Nobel price winter fellow Hungarian Jenő Wigner was asked how it was working with so many genius like Fermi, Heisenberg, Einstein, Leó Szilárd, etc. he answered he only knew one genius: Johnny Von Naumann.
Yes, it's striking how highly his contemporaries regarded him!
Fermi said the same
Wigner also liked to talk about his "famous brother in law" (Paul Dirac's wife was Wigner's sister).
@@attica7980 Einstein considered him smarter than he was.
@@attica7980 Paul Dirac is the other physicist that is highly under rated by the Public but was one of the most rated by other physicists
Something often touched on but not pursued in depth is his career as a consultant. This is possibly the best interpretation of the value of being there: not creating something brand new, but solving intractable problems that arise here and there. He probably made a lot of money doing consulting. Most consultants do.
Yes, absolutely. A lot of that consulting was for the military, I think, one way or another. He was a complex human being, for sure!
Von Neumann was a human super computer. It is crazy how many different areas of math and science the contributed too. So a general purpose super computer......
Yes, it's a shame he was unable to replicate himself!
In my world ( digital signal processing, computation and information theory ) he is extremely well known and respected
The stories of his intellect are legend
Yes. Given how universally used computation is these days, it's a shame that you have to be in the field to have heard of von Neumann. Thanks Tim!
The historical importance of this video simply cannot be over stated.
Thanks Esra! Von Neumann was a seriously underrated figure.
What was special about Von Neumann is that it seemed like his mind was almost limitless. He could do complex calculations in his head almost instantly and could recall entire books (and even translate them perfectly on the spot!). He may not have been the typical genius that is depicted having a grandious vision or having the extreme intuition of Einstein, but I’m fairly certain there has been no other human in history with the same processing power as he had.
Just imagine if Von Neumann had the same creativity as Einstein…
Right, yes, that's an interesting dichotomy, between creativity/intuition and computation/intelligence. The combination of both is extremely powerful.
wish i had that dude's brain
I ended up here because I’m reading Benjamín Labatut’s novel “the Maniac”.
Thank you, really nice video. All you mentioned comes on said book.
Thanks! I've not read that, sounds fascinating. So I've just ordered it: thanks for the pointer!
Great book. Would recommend 5/5
@@antetesija3033 Yes, I'm about a quarter of the way through The Maniac, and I'm really liking it!
He literally proved the first chess search function minimax. The algorithm is a simple DFS yet the proof is so advanced.
Yes, thanks Salah! in so many ways, John von Neumann was ahead of his time.
He was not only a scientist, he also had a practical mind.
Yes, absolutely: he directed efforts to build one of the earliest electronic computers, among other practical achievements!
Also, a giant in the Cold War arms race; he gave America and the UK a definite edge!!
@@barneyronnie Yes. How did von Neumann pack so much into his life? Makes me feel like a laggard.
Not according to his family members.
I heard of him, he was famous mathematician, one of firstly, if not first, wrote axiomatic set theory, ~1946. with group of engineers at one of Ivy League U he constructed electronic computer, which is father or grandfather of all today's (PCs & servers) digital computers. Anyway, he was great american mathematician of hungary ancestry, born in Austro-Hungarian empire 1903.y. as Yanosh (Janos in Hungarian).
One of the greatest minds of the 20th Century. Basic Von Neumann architecture is used in every computer on the planet.
Yep, he was one of a kind, for sure, thanks Wayno!
I really loved how you connected different pieces spread across various domains. Well presented.
Thanks Santosh, I appreciate that!
The way ideas are brought up and exposed in this video is really creative and well executed, appreciated
Thanks, I appreciate that!
When I moved to Budapest I was surprised how little he is memorialized. Wigner has a plaque in his birthplace, and they share one at their Gimnázium.
A few blocks on the same street from von Neuman is another plaque for the birthplace of Tommy Ramone.
Yes! There's even a statue to a fictional character (the television police detective Columbo)... but so little for von Neumann.
The great computer programming school in Budapest named after him, and you have to be very smart to get in there.
Hungarians know their geniuses, but many mathematicians, inventors, but like to be modest
@@hunmari Ah, thanks Maria, I didn't know that the computer school was named after von Neumann. A fitting tribute!
@@lasttheory Also there is "John von Neumann Computer Society (NJSZT)" in Budapest founded in 1968. Still a communist country back then, it was really rare to appreciate scientists who had emigrated and did their work in other countries.
@@kalinkaata Thanks, that's good to know. And yes, that must have been quite a stretch back then, naming it after someone who was living in the US.
thank you so much for this great video and presentation!!! I have subscribed and liked and watched the entire video and bookmarked it.
Eugene Wigner told a story of Von Neumann.
Both had been working together and with a few others to prove some mathematical theorem. It was finally proved and had connections to several areas of mathematcs. Wigner was struggling to interrupt the theorem in this context. Von Neumann asked him what was troubling him. He said he knew that it was true but felt like he didn't totally understand it.
Von Neumann told him that mathematicians don't understand truths they just get used to them.
Nice story, thanks William!
And in addition to a great episode, we find wonderful instructions on how to write off your vacation as business expenses on your taxes. ;-) Something everyone who owns a business should know.
Ha, I _wish_ I could write off my vacation as a business expense! Sadly, I'm not sure I could justify that, given the small scale of this channel. Maybe in a few years' time? Thanks Darren!
@@lasttheory Ask your accountant. You'd be amazed. Assuming it's actually a legal business entity and not just a sole-proprietor business.
He also told Claude Shannon to call his quantification of information, "entropy"
Oh, wow, I didn't know that. Thanks Steve!
Great take on Von Neumann 🎉
Thanks Bernardo! Von Neumann is a fascinating character.
Thank you for this excellent and thoughtful video. The comments and discussion are also stimulating, not to mention the fun plays on words. I used to think of Newton as the greatest intellectual to have lived. More recently, as I digested general relativity, I tended to think of Einstein that way. And now, as a result of all this, I'm inclined to put Von Neumann there instead. A very, very remarkable man. Thanks again
Thanks David, I really appreciate that! Von Neumann's certainly a fascinating figure!
Thank you for this excellent video. Well done.
Hello cutie patootie
Thank you, I was doing a research project about this lad and this was so helpful :) ❤
That's great to hear! If you have time, check out Ananyo Bhattacharya's biography of von Neumann: The Man from the Future. It's a really good read! Good luck with your research project.
Thank you :)@@lasttheory
One of the coolest Wiki pages ever....Why? the list of "known for"'s....Its long but...under it is this "and 93 more" to click on
Right, I hadn't noticed that. That's crazy! Thanks George!
Excellent presentation, thank you very much.
Thanks, that's good to hear!
Thank you so much for your wonderful presentation :)
Thanks, Tarık, I appreciate that!
You might be wrong saying Von Neumann understood math. In the man's own words "... in mathematics you don't understand things. You just get used to them."
Yes, I love that quote, thanks James!
Admirably succinct delivery of a largely incomprehensible thinker, INSTANT SUBSCRIBE! ✅
Thanks Lulu, hope you enjoy the rest of my videos, too!
Excellent video! Entertaining and informative.
Thanks Luis!
I have read the legends about John von Neumann in Richard Rhodes' "The Making of the Atomic Bomb." I have often wondered what the mid-century physicists would have thought of where Physics is today. How would physicists such as John von Neumann, Niels Bohr, or Richard Feynman, with their powerful intuitive skills, have responded to recent events?
Richard Rhodes' _The Making of the Atomic Bomb_ is a great book!
And yes, that's a great question, what would those physicists have thought of where we are today. It'd be interesting to make a video on this question!
Perhaps von Neumann would be able to design self-replicating machines using modern nano technology if he were alive today. Computers would be far faster and he would have figured out economics shortcuts to semiconductor advancements, and developed the first algorithms, as well as quantum computing decades before it was an idea (possibly).
@@lasttheory Yes, The Making of the Atomic Bomb is a must-read, well written book! I'm going to see Oppenheimer tomorrow (and try to stay away from the theater sweets lol).
@@campbellpaul Yes, it's interesting to speculate what past scientists/engineers would have done with modern theories/technologies. There's an interesting video in _that_, too!
Thank you for making these videos. I really appreciate them :)
Thanks Emil, that's good to hear!
Game theory: John Von Neumann was there.
Yes, absolutely, he was!
*If he had lived long enough, Mr. Von Neumann would likely have won a Nobel Prize -- in Economics, for his work on Game Theory. But Nobel Prizes in Economics were not awarded until 1969, more than a dozen years after Mr. Von Neumann's death.*
Yes, it's extraordinary that a mathematician made contributions in so many fields well beyond mathematics!
Great job, loved the video, keep it up
Thanks, I appreciate it!
Leo Szilard was first to think of the atomic chain reaction.
Yes, Szilard was another underrated Hungarian!
He even got patents on the chain reaction, but carefully prevented publication by sending them to the British Admirality.
we get the 'completely' pun for Godel - well done!
Ah, good, thanks Ravi!
Hilbert space is an infinite dimensional vector space in which all vectors are of finite length.
How does one obtain the lengths of those vectors? Is it a complete space? Which linear operators are bounded?
A scalar product is required. The length of a vector ("norm") is derived from the scalar product. The space has to be complete with respect to this norm.
this was amazing!!!!
Thanks Peter!
Thank you.
Well said.
Hello from Ukraine 🇺🇦 Thanks for the video!
Hello Andrii! And thanks for watching!
Okay, right now I'm far too curious to worry about whether or not Stephen ("The father of Complexity Theory" 🙂) is correct about his theory. Concerning the burgeoning field of Complexity Theory, his NKS book is so interesting (and easy to read)! Reading it will make you think deeply.
Yes, good to hear you're hooked, and you're right, the Wolfram model is fascinating regardless of whether it's right!
I use the more general term 'digital computer' instead of 'electronic', although it was the electric semi-conductors which really enabled this technology. An analogue circuit - is it electric or electronic? P. S. Nearly unknown as Von Neumann the main contributor to electronics: F. Von Braun, discovered the semi- conductor, invented the electronic tube and screen, and telecommunication, although not alone.
Yes, thanks. I used the term _electronic computer_ to distinguish it from the _mechanical computers_ of Babbage et al and the _human computers_ who did calculations manually.
Very entertaining and informative. It may be that JVN was wrong about one thing. The whole hidden variable debate in QM. Grete and Bell, I believe exposed an error in JVN's version of the story (no hidden variables are possible) which hinges on an assumption. Just saying, if you work on enough fundamental innovations, you are predetermined to make at least one mistake somewhere, evolution and probably cellular autonoma almost hinge on making mistakes, no?
Yes, thanks Daniel. Certainly physicists interpreted John von Neumann's analysis of quantum mechanics as ruling out hidden variables. In fact, as you say, it did no such thing, it only ruled out hidden variables in von Neumann's own particular framework for quantum mechanics. Was the mistake was von Neumann's or was his analysis just interpreted more broadly than it should have been?
For Gosh sakes it was “Johnny.” Teller, Bethe,Feynman- none of them ever called him “ John.”
Thanks Andrew! I'm sure you're right, and those three called him Johnny. Others called him János or Jancsi. We all have different names. I never knew John von Neumann, and certainly never received his permission to call him Johnny, so like most current sources (other than the Hungarian ones) I went with John.
He's like a man behind all the scientific achievements of 21st century. Like mathematics is behind it all
Having hard time? As von Neumann
Forest Gump Von Neumann😊! He was everywhere ...
Von Neumann - Morgenstern utility function and the invention of Game Theory
Yes, thanks Matteo! There's so much von Neumann was involved in that I had to leave out of this video!
Von Neumann never considered it necessary to restrict his area of interest to one narrow lane. Heidi gunso, especially in the area of mathematics, he might have been more recognizable as one of the all-time masters of the field, (although he already enjoys that reputation to degree in several disciplines).
Yes, thanks Giles. There are advantages to being a generalist!
That piece of logical mathematics 0:35 is from Principia Mathematica by Russell and Northhead. It says is alpha and beta are class 1 then their intersection is Null class is equivalent with their reunion is class 2. I am aware of von Neumann axiomatization of set theory but what has this piece of Pricipia to do with von Neumann? It is not from Godel's demonstration. And out of curiosity what has von Neumann to do with Godel's demonstration? Indeed Godel argues the impossibility of the Principia logicism project but what has von Neumann with Godel's demonstration?
Yes, well spotted! You've identified it correctly, and you'll have noticed, too, that I added the text "not actually Gödel's theorem" to this still, just to make sure!
Here's what Principia Mathematica has to do with Gödel's theorem. Russell and Northhead's project was one of the last attempts to make mathematics complete and consistent, before Gödel proved that it is, in fact, impossible to do so.
And here's what von Neumann has to do with Gödel's theorem. As I explain in the video, von Neumann was literally _there_ when it happened. When Gödel first presented his ideas, von Neumann was the only one who recognized its significance. And von Neumann went on to _extend_ Gödel's discovery, only to find that Gödel had, in fact, beaten him to it.
If Gödel hadn't been so fast, von Neumann's name might have appeared alongside Gödel's as the formulator of probably the most important mathematical discovery ever.
I think that shows that von Neumann had rather a lot to do with Gödel's demonstration, don't you?
@@lasttheory Thank you for clarification. All I know is from old books I bought. It would be nice to know the historical circumstances of these discoveries and what motivated the scientist to formulate his/her idea.
All♾️time LEGEND 🌟
Yes, indeed!
Neumann is my main inspiration and his cellular automata is what I currently trying to finally develop on an updated and more flexible basis. I consider everything to be a combination/collection/superposition of other derivative entities, and therefore the world to be inherently dynamically inter-dependent. Only a portion of the world can be perceived simultaneously while the intrinsically hidden part, when tested/measured/quantized, appears to be fading into something unpredictable/undiscoverable/non-existent. The apparent presence of existence/life/consciousness in itself is enough proof for the undeniable presence of the realms of the undiscoverable, ergo the very nature of this SINGLE fundamental component is that it can never be discovered even though it might be possible to model it with computers, thereby creating an actual (not artificial but) derivative intelligence that I call the real cellular automata.
Interesting. Cellular automata are what led Stephen Wolfram on his path to hypergraphs as a model of the universe. Have you taken a look at the Wolfram model? (That's what I explore in this channel.) How does it compare to your approach?
@@lasttheory Thank you that you are dealing with hobbyists like me! He says that the universe is made of 1) atoms 2) space 3) connections between: All the world’s a graph and all the entities merely nodes. While his model can also be considered (partly) valid, being THIS quick to leave behind nature and start dealing with (hyper)graphs, was like taking a photo of the zoo from the main entrance then going home to design their homepage according to the subset of information you have on the photo. Or, he has an outstanding hammer of mathematics, therefore he reconducts everything forcefully to nails. In the model I’m shaping, his above 3 “fundamental” components are derivative categories (just like everything else), and I can’t see any convincing proof that the discoverable universe (let alone everything) can be squeezed into the commode of mathematics either. The beach is necessarily larger than our beach blanket of scientific methods and knowledge. I only believe in intellectually digesting the impressions from the widest possible range of natural phenomena (particle physics, chemistry, biology, cosmology etc.), without considering existing dogmas too much, until they start to make sense consistently: that’s nature’s big IQ test to us that you only can complete if you humbly ACCEPT the fact that nature is infinitely more intelligent and meaningful than any ephemeral human scientific trickery will ever be. Unlike the apes who never considered people smarter than themselves and never asked questions, we have to use our intelligence to be more respectful that that. To create that “cellular automata” that actually has IQ, one only need to pass the test himself.
@@idegteke Thanks, I enjoy these kinds of conversations!
I'd shorten your list of 1) atoms 2) space 3) connections to just 1) nodes (same as what you and Stephen Wolfram both call atoms) and 2) edges (what you call connections). Space _emerges_ from these nodes and edges; in other words, the hypergraph _is_ space.
I think you're right when you say that Jonathan's hammer is mathematics and so he finds a nail in the form of the hypergraph. But physicists have been using mathematics in this way for centuries, and been extraordinarily successful. It seems that, as Galileo said, The Book of Nature is written in the language of mathematics.
Or perhaps computation.
And yes, it's difficult to imagine that _everything_ can be squeezed into this hypergraph framework. Matter in particular is difficult to picture in the hypergraph. Stephen Wolfram's and Jonathan Gorard's current concept of particles is that it consists of persistent tangles of nodes and edges propagating through the hypergraph, but they've yet to discover any such tangles.
I'm happy that you and others are interested in these theories despite their being so incomplete and unproven at this stage!
@@lasttheory Yes, even before I was familiar with his work, I was fairly sure myself that something like that must be a model to consider: I started to call the legs 1) entity 2) rules 3) information but I still find these categories to be rudimentary. Later, I started to consider the 3rd fundamental element to rather be an elementary piece of intelligence stored in the duality or superposition of the other 2 fundamental ingredient, and is (materially) represented by the prospective particle’s fitness for existence thanks to the entity’s stability in the context of the rules it comes with. This node of information - forming later intelligence, even later consciousness - is like an application form to gain material existence in our discoverable universe, and in the case of a real world particle (a material analogy we don’t have to follow through entirely) the wave function collapses (the elementary information content is read out) and a new particle (together, I admit, potentially space-time itself) is now successfully created:)
Don’t get me wrong, I used to love mathematics, the only subject I was straight A in college (when not knowing the multiplication table stopped being a lethal sin and SIMPLE calculators were already allowed). It is as useful as a rope that stops you from falling. This rope, however, is not so crucial on a flat surface on which we can do perfectly well without it. Computation, however, is definitely the star of every show!
I don’t exclude the possibility to squeeze everything (the whole discoverable universe) into that hypergraph framework of yours - but then don’t be too surprised when, however hard you try (and many others since the 70s), your everything remains inherently limited to a subset and the big(ger) picture never shows itself.
What I would like you to consider is that those nodes need no EXTERNAL tangles, and even calling those assumed interconnections, neutrally, “edges” is like sitting on the horse the wrong way around, so don’t be too surprised when you see the village getting farther and farther as you think you proceed forward. Etc...
@@idegteke Yes, we'll see where this goes! Stephen Wolfram has already made one generalization, from the tripartite graphs he originally used to simulate the universe to the fully generalized directional hypergraphs he uses today, and you're right, further generalization _might_ be required.
Luck is the product of preparation and opportunity.
Well said!
Le hasard ne favorise que les esprits préparés. (Pasteur)
Really interesting topic and great writing, unfortunately, the crazy hand-held-shaky-style give me headaches and the sound could be more consistent in quality.
Yes, it's a much rougher style of shooting than my usual studio recordings.
I thought it'd be worth it to tough out the shaky on-the-road video and noisy audio (you wouldn't believe how long I had to wait for traffic and pedestrian noise to die down before I resumed recording!) to get an on-location feel.
Thanks for persevering, I'll be releasing more videos from back in the studio soon!
@@lasttheory I like the outside setting and it definitely gives a more "open" feeling, but it's REALLY hard to do properly. Tom Scott had to experiment a lot for his (unique) format. Maybe he would be willing to share some insights? 🙂
@@harriehausenman8623 Thanks Harrie, I really appreciate the feedback!
I just took a look at Tom Scott's recording, and he does really well, especially with his radio mic.
These last two on-the-road videos of mine, in Oxford and Budapest, were born of necessity: I was travelling from the Yukon to Europe and back, with a tiny baggage limit that didn't allow for _any_ equipment beyond my phone and computer.
But I might experiment with outdoor recordings in quieter locations this summer, which might work better. As you say, it takes a lot of experimentation!
@@lasttheory I think a lavalier microphone would be a perfect fit here. They can be very small (travelling!), a good one gives excellent audio even in harsh conditions, and in case you want to capture the voice of someone else, they can be very quickly reapplied. Only thing one really needs to know is how and where to put the mic, which is a crucial factor.
Game Theory in economics and political science, he was there too.
Yes, absolutely, thanks Omar. There's so much more I could have added to this episode... von Neumann did so much!
in the comments section people are talking a lot about his relationship to the us military. gotta remember everyone it was a wildy different time. i don't agree with his stances but, you understand them in the context of his time.
the nazis and ww2 only happened recently for von neumann. The soviets had murdered 20 million of there own citizens. china had fallen. japan wasn't much of a trusted ally. the usa had 160 million citizens. the soviets had more than double that. the old world in britian, france and co was tired and spent. victory against the soviets was something everyone was doubting.
Yes, that's well said, thanks Jeremy.
As you say, John von Neumann was personally touched by the Nazi occupation of Europe. Having fortuitously escaped to the US, he was horrified by what was done to members of his own family back in Hungary.
Actually, it's science fans treating him like a saint that is the problem. He really was a sycophant to the U. S. military. It was a quality that other scientists noted frequently about him. There is a reason he was the guy assigned to figure our the best place to detonate a nuke to kill the most people. It's because he was regarded as the scientist at Trinity who cared least about other human lives and most about progress at all costs. Von Neumann simply wasn't capable of seeing the dark side to tech like AI and nukes. Politically, he was a fool. Game theory isn't going to save us.
I mean, if you study computer science GCSE like I did, then we all heard of von Neumann architecture. We never studied the man himself though, like we did a bit with Turing.
Ah, computer science GCSE! I wish that'd been a thing back in my day!
@@lasttheory Yeah, I wish we got round to doing logic though. I was waiting to get round to studying logic gates and them boom, Covid hits and all is shut down. No exams at all and GCSE grades are teacher assessed. Super sucks. It was probably the first year to have a zoom prom for the leavers. I didn't attend, and I hear I didn't miss much. The comp science lessons pre covid were fun though.
@@topdog5252 No logic gates! That's a real shame!
Quantum surfer. I was at hunting beach pier Sunday, my friends finally wanted to know more about quantum theory. I wold always talk of quantum wave , no they get it, they wanted the movie OPPENHEIMER.. Quantum Surfer. Downey California ❤❤❤
The consequences of Gödel incompleteness theorem are disastrous for mathematics. This because for every law or rule you discover, there is a wider rule which encompasses your new law, even if you can't see or discover it.
John Von Neumann behaved as the "Consoler in Chief" for mathematicians and physicists.
He later setup the structure of a computer with a stack of registers, a pointer, a memory and a calculation unit - a structure that is still used today because it is the only one which works - by use of Boolean logic. A selfless genius...
Yes, thanks! I like that title: "Consoler in Chief"!
@@lasttheory
I think two things that help make Von Neumann so influential compared to other great intellectuals were his extroversion - he liked to party a lot and people really seemed to have enjoyed his presence- and he also sounds like the kind of person you would reach out to if you had any exciting project that you got stumped on or thought could be great. That might be why he'd always "be there" so to speak when there were grand ideas.
In a sense he was the chatGPT of his time.
@@jebprime Yes, I'm sure you're right. Sociability and charisma are underrated qualities in science. Thanks for the comment!
That’s crazy, that my grandpa‘s second cousin
A teacher of mine used to said that people should stop praising Einstein, because he only formalized the relativity theory and the rest of his existence was just consuming oxygen. Instead of praising Einstein one should take a deep look to John von Neumann.. what a mastermind.
Yes, we do tend to focus too much on a few charismatic figures in science, and too little on people like John von Neumann!
Well, based on what Einstein accomplished I think he should be given a pass on just consuming oxygen in his later years . After all , isn't that what the vast majority ( including you and your teacher ) of humans end up doing ?
@@michaelblankenau6598 Yes, well said. Einstein was a charismatic figure and certainly attracted attention, but, well, you know, relativity.
@@michaelblankenau6598 of course most of us are just consuming oxygen, that's undoubtedly true and I don't have objection. However there is a valid point about all this discussion: Eintein's work is hardly understood or adopted by most of the humans, almost nobody is able to get the Theory of Relativity right because its applicability seems to be very low for an average human being. On the other hand, using a computer (Modern computers are based on Von Neumann architecture) is something that an average person can use and understand in its daily life (Understand its use, not its architecture). Game Theory is also there and it's used by many people in decision making. And there would be more examples about John Von Neumann achievements. At the end, I would say that the main take away here is why one is so praised and the other so ignored?
It seems most of this discussion is about being charismatic as @lasttheory said.
@@andresram_1 I agree . The media obviously plays a huge role in establishing who gets the title of genius .
He did a lot of good, but would you include the development of the atomic bomb in this? This weapon could still destroy civilisation as we know it.
Thanks Martin. You're right, of course: we've lost sight a little of how apocalyptic these weapons might prove to be. I don't think of working on the atomic bomb as _doing good._ Still, John von Neumann was _there,_ doing work that regardless of any value judgement of its outcome was certainly brilliant.
I like this video.
Thanks, glad you liked it! It was a fun video to make.
If you have heard of Schroedinger's cat or the Turing test, then surely you have heard of von Neumann probes?
I'd like to think so, Brendan!
Guess who was there?
I had to google Wolfram Physics. How typically self-aggrandizing of Stephen Wolfram to name this project after himself.
Wolfram is overrated and obsolete. I attended a lecture that he gave at Oxford many years ago - he had a very limited grasp of the theoretical underpinnings of math. The talk was just a waste of time!
Being at the right place at right time so many times could be proof that Von Neumann was a time traveler ?
Ah, I never thought of that. He must have had a space-time teleportation device.
The shaking camera gave me motion sickness.
Sorry about that! This is a low-production-value on-the-road recording. Most of my videos are recorded in the studio, i.e. my basement. Those should be less hard on you!
Claude Shannon is also even quite less popular
Right, yes, another underappreciated figure!
In my experience, almost no one has heard of Gödel. But the joke was worth the inaccuracy. Ha.
Right, maybe I'm overestimating Gödel's name recognition. He certainly _should be_ among the best-known figures of the 20th century, but _should be_ and _is_ are not the same. Thanks Alex!
Von Neumann was the main character of that time. We’re all just playing the sequel mmo
Yep! Thanks Nigel!
There used to be a sense among the pure mathematicians that applied mathematicians aren't smarter than pure mathematicians. Counter point is John Von Neumann. He could possibly be the smartest person to ever exist, this year plus or minus 160 years I don't know if there will be a smarter person to rise. He is smarter than Terrance Tao, Oppenheimer, Einstein, and many others.
Yes, absolutely, nothing wrong with applied! It can attract the most brilliant minds.
Terrance Tao is a big fan of mathematical collaboration, and despite his stellar reputation, values the joy derived from interacting with mathematicians of all abilities. A bit more laid back than Von Neumann with similar work habits.
move your teleprompter up a little
Teleprompter? Ah, now I wish I had a teleprompter :)
If I ever get to Budapest (my Darling Wife speaks Hungarian fluently) there are two things I want to see - the von Neumann plaque, and the statue of Peter Falk as Columbo with his dog Dog... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbo_statue_(Budapest)
Sadly I didn't see the Columbo statue! Of course I went to see the von Neumann plaque, but it really does astonish me that in a city with a (well-deserved, I'm sure!) statue of Columbo, there's none of von Neumann. Hope you make it to Budapest with your wife some day!
There are a couple of statues of Neumann in Budapest: one in Infopark in the street, one in the garden of Óbuda University, one in the building of the high school he attended, one in the memorial garden of the Technical University (there's also a hologram of him in one of the buildings there). And, to top it all, he has a wax figure in the newly opened Madame Tussauds Budapest.
@@lauterunvollkommenheit4344 Oh, wow, I had no idea, I was unable to find any mention of these on the web! Do you have photos or links?
@@lasttheory I give up: YT deleted four of my attempts to tell you how you find the statues. Is there an email address I can write to?
@lasttheory Probably becuse in Hungary, you have to search for his birth name "Neumann János". We rarely refer to his more known name (used after he emigrated) in Hungary
Maybe I can say this with a bit of playfulness: Computer guys rule! He, after all, is a "computer guy", HAHA. A certain kind of metaphysics or philosophy of mathematics just love computers. There is no paradox in computer world, no infinity either, everything is so clear, abeit being complicated. No, not even "so" clear, ABSOLUTELY clear. SO, the universe seems to have to be a computation one. Maybe that's why our VON is ubiquitous?
How about that pesky Halting Problem?!
Most people will have heard of a von Neumann machine(self replicating)
Thanks Jason! I think we know different people ;-)
Yes, the subject of Von Neumann probes came up quite regularly during all the discussion about Oumuamua, the interstellar object.
@@gerryjamesedwards1227 Yes, thanks Gerry! I wish more people had heard of Oumuamua!
@@lasttheory think you might be right that most people arn’t as aware of John von Neumann but may be aware of Von Neumann machines but on a seperate note I have always wondered wether he thought our universe could be a computer simulation as it was strange to leave physics & mathematics for computing & secondly Richard Feynman was the first to suggest the possibility publicly of Quantum Computing who was very influenced by von Neumann at Los Alamos
@@jasonwhiteley3612 Thanks, Jason. I don't know of any indication that von Neumann though about reality as a simulation. I suspect that it's a more modern idea. I wonder whether he could have had any idea of how far we've taken computers since his day?
you obviously didn't understand the cat metaphor ;)
Don't worry, I don't believe that the cat is literally half dead and half alive, I know that the correct form of words is that it's in a superposition of dead and alive states.
Actually, I don't believe that it's in a superposition of dead and alive states, either, and nor did Schrödinger.
I'm hoping the Wolfram model will sort out this mess of the Copenhagen interpretation!
1:10 Gödel? Completely. 😂😂😂😂
Thanks, I'm glad someone appreciated that ;-)
The sponsor of this channel is being too generous in his assumption that most people have heard of the various former preeminent physicists that he mentions. Most Americans at least - even most of the college educated- sad to say - would recognize Einstein’s name only.
You might be right, Jesse. I'd hope that given everything that's going on in AI right now, most people would have heard of the Turing Test. But who knows, maybe not :(
Big disaster, people don't know about this man the monster of science, I love him
Yes, it's a shame that we focus only on a few famous scientists, like Einstein. Von Neumann deserves to be better known! Thanks for watching!
Game theory
Jhon von newmann
So what I’m hearing is John von Neumann was an alien…
Yes, that seems highly probable. What's not know is which star system he came from...
Yes from Marsh, speaking with a Hungarian accent in every language he spoke, except German, of course.
Einstein Vs Neumann
Neuman was there when all were discovered, but he surely wasn't there when quantum fields collapsed the field when fine tuned particles lead to life, consciousness, soul and faith brought together physics and metaphysics, explained reality. I WAS.
Hmm...von Neumann's intellectual abilities could easily be replaced by modern AI... Einstein's vision&creativity couldn't
I agree that Einstein's genius was of a different kind, more imaginative. It _is_ informative that von Neumann didn't make any true leaps himself.
I'm not sure I have such faith in modern AI, though! The next-word-guessers really aren't very good at what Einstein did, for sure, or even, I suspect, at what von Neumann did.
Thanks for the comment!
You only wrote this because you know nothing about him.
Plagiarism is theft
That's a little cryptic, Pual! Could you say more? Are you saying that John von Neumann was a plagiarist?
@@lasttheory No, not von Neumann. Einstein is described as the incorrigible pagiarist. In fact, there is even a book with that title.
@@attica7980 Right, I'd never heard any plagiarism accusation against von Neumann! I think Einstein was an original, too. Sure, much of what he published had been hinted at before, but Einstein took these ideas further. There'd been plenty of indications that light is discrete, for example, but Einstein took this idea to its extraordinary logical conclusion: photons.
Bronowski believed von Neumann sold out to the US military. Being a mathematical genius does not make you a saint.
Yes, that's for sure, genius ≠ saint. I didn't go deep into von Neumann's relationship with the military here, and for sure, there were some moments that reflect very badly on him, such as when he seriously advocated a first strike nuclear attack on Russia.
I think Bronowski's quote in his tv series Ascent of Man was: "John Von Neumann was in love with the aristocracy of intellect and that is a belief that can only destroy the civilization we know".
@@sdm7372 Yes, I get the impression, too, that von Neumann was somewhat aristocratic in his thinking. More than once, his family changed their name, e.g. adding the "von", to make themselves sound more aristocratic.
@@lasttheory Yes, that's a great point! Apparently, even Bertrand Russell who tried brokering a deal with the Soviets during the Cuban missile crises at one time advocated for a preemptive strike in the early fifties, but later said he never did.
@@campbellpaul It was a crazy time... No one knew quite what to do with this new threat of nuclear annihilation! Arguably, that's still true today.
Wolfram physics? Who cares
Physicists do
@@user-hu3iy9gz5j I just wanted a video JVN as advertised, not to launch into a Wolfram circlejerk
Game theory
Jhon von newmann