Infinity is fake: The base layer of reality is discrete | Joscha Bach and Lex Fridman
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 21 авг 2021
- Lex Fridman Podcast full episode: • Joscha Bach: Nature of...
Please support this podcast by checking out our sponsors:
- Coinbase: coinbase.com/lex to get $5 in free Bitcoin
- Codecademy: codecademy.com and use code LEX to get 15% off
- Linode: linode.com/lex to get $100 free credit
- NetSuite: netsuite.com/lex to get free product tour
- ExpressVPN: expressvpn.com/lexpod and use code LexPod to get 3 months free
GUEST BIO:
Joscha Bach is a cognitive scientist, AI researcher, and philosopher.
PODCAST INFO:
Podcast website: lexfridman.com/podcast
Apple Podcasts: apple.co/2lwqZIr
Spotify: spoti.fi/2nEwCF8
RSS: lexfridman.com/feed/podcast/
Full episodes playlist: • Lex Fridman Podcast
Clips playlist: • Lex Fridman Podcast Clips
SOCIAL:
- Twitter: / lexfridman
- LinkedIn: / lexfridman
- Facebook: / lexfridman
- Instagram: / lexfridman
- Medium: / lexfridman
- Reddit: / lexfridman
- Support on Patreon: / lexfridman 
Наука
Great, another podcast with this guy... now I have to listen to this episode 48 times to understand everything he says, but can't wait to do so.
This guest is brilliant. He's not only insightful, but explains things in a way that's easy for a lay person to understand.
I'm yet to listen to this interview but his original one from last year is maybe the best podcast I've ever listened to. I recommend you find the older one if you liked this. Joscha is a cool guy
@@EuphoricDan That's good advice. I'll have to listen to that one too.
Lay person... did you intentionally not say layman?
@@Protohomo1 Yeah. I don’t like the term in general, but I was just making a quick comment. I’m not politically correct, but some words are dumb - landman and journeyman immediately come to mind.
@@pirizzo Now you're just personsplaining :)
90% of my worldview comes from guests on this podcast, and im perfectly happy with that
that is O.K.
The part about numbers not being values but being functions was great
There are no numbers, only number-ing... there's no 3, just " f(x)=3.0000...." for so long as you desire to run the function. This is how I've mused about it at least, I could be wrong.
I love how lex regularly has guest that remind im no where near as smart as I think I am.
You’re smart man. Just tap in! Everything is unlock-able.
Haha true
The skinny end of the Dunning Kruger is a great place to be Nick
@@juancpgo even if we could, time is limited and this guy probably cant be this smart in his field and also master flying helicopters or traning dogs or what have you. Its cool that we can use people like this and collective intelligence to catch up where we cant spend a lifetime to be on the cutting edge. We take it for granted that we can but its really pretty incredible how accessible it is nowadays. Im math dumb but i can grasp the reasoning of physicists that are good communicators.
These are in general the top comments.
Joscha might be the most interesting guest I’ve encountered on Lex’s pod. I haven’t listened to all of them…
Any recommendations for other guests if this is my jam?
Don Hoffman!
I love that he’s attacking the relativity of space.
Always look forward to your podcasts.
He avoided the question of the turtle, just saying that there is a turtle.
The problem with his argument is that just because we can't conceive something, does not mean reality has to follow those rules, or that it cannot contradict itself. It's simply wishful thinking.
Also boundless pretty much means infinity, unless he wants to argue that something discrete can be boundless, which makes no sense.
Moreover, values are not more real than functions, which are based on values. Discrete numbers aren't real, they are measurements, or they are nothing. Measurements aren't real in and of themselves, they need to measure something and be measured by someone. So sure, you can't measure infinity, you only measure values, and it has to do with our limited senses and brain. It does not mean anything else about reality. No measurement is totally precise so when you put it into a "value", it is also fake. Of course, two fakes will create other fakes if you compare them, and that could include infinity. Fakes eventually contradict themselves, this is true, and it is why measurements can't tell you anything about reality. There is a reason why philosophers did not measure things, it's because it is fake. Our language might be fake too, but at least it is closer to our perceptions and way of thinking and you won't contradict yourself if done correctly.
Something can be discrete in one dimension and continuous in another, and those dimensions do not need causal influence on each other until certain fundamental properties of particles causes an interaction to change from one state to another, and that change is only ever going to seem more discontinuous the closer we look at it, but more continuous the more we think about it. You can get it all messed up in your head that nothing is real, but that's already faulty, your ability to tell what is real mustn't be either if that's your logic. The limited senses and measurements of the brain are limited, but *sufficient* for survival, we have brains still more computationally efficient than any known computer and we're running on meatware
This is an amazing conversation....thx lex
Thank you Lex for introducing me to Joscha Bach. It's refreshing to find another person who shares my views on the nature of /math
What a fantastic guest.
Interesting thought approaches
Lex need a nap in the worse way … thanks for grinding my dude. We love the content
Wow, this is a cool argument that makes you realize that there is really no right way to do mathematics, and we usually just adhere to the canonized set of mathematics that has developed in the mainstream. Infinities and real numbers, and so on such as complex numbers, are assumptions made. Even integers and such lower-level math are all assumed in order to be used.
You're conflating ideas a bit. Yes we're making assumptions but we were never assuming anything physical. Even if infinities, irrational number etc don't exist in the real world they can still be very useful for describing things that are physical. Because you can embed discreet problems into continuous space, solve the problem using tools like calculus, and then transform the solution back into discreet space. In other words, studying infinity helps us to understand the finite.
You're partly correct in saying that there is no correct way to do mathematics because there are lots of consistent sets of assumptions that we could validly chose to work with (we call them "axioms" usually not "assumptions" but whatever). But you're only partly right. because if the assumptions you chose to study end up producing nothing useful, then you're doing mathematics the wrong way. We choose to assume real numbers etc because we can do so without contradiction and the assumptions have helped us to do lots of very useful - and physically applicable - mathematics. Again this isn't to say that everyone must study the standard axioms systems exclusively. If you're interested in constructivist mathematics or finite mathematics, there are plenty of interesting and potentially useful things to study.
I agree that some infinities are a function like Pi, but it seems that if we are talking about time being infinite - that kind of infinite is not a remainder going toward a smaller fraction and so is no longer relevant. Is space itself infinite? The larger structures of space are only hinted at because the speed of light is so slow on such a scale. When it comes to doing math maybe limits make the equation work properly, but would it be accurate - especially with time and space?
Everything is a paradox. There is no point in actually trying to understand what is/what we are. Doesn't mean there is no point in doing science though. But that's a different thing because what we are achieving through science isn't actually what we're trying to accomplish through it.
Please explain each sentence in more detail.
@@maguy8133 What?
@@maguy8133 Cool. I just wanted to know what OP meant, because I can find many ways to interpret each sentence; some of which I agree with, some of which I don't.
It certainly does lead to confusion 👍 🤯
A perfect circle really is just a band.
It seems to me that most of these complaints are cleared up with the simple statement "Inifinity is not a number" (and mathematicians and physicists don't treat infinity as a number)
As for the "not a number, just a function" idea: fine, but the argument also applies to rational numbers. They're just an made-up way of expressing a relationship between natural numbers.
Ever heard of “infinity equals -1/12”? This comes from physicists. So actually they do often try to make infinity a number, even though they aren’t supposed to (you will find that mathematicians disapprove what physicists do with math on occasion (such as with derivatives and integrals at times)).
Love your guest. Lex, get some collar stays.
Interesting take on it but the ouroboros would beg to differ
The problem with our meat logic is that we treat a lot of emergent properties as fundamental. For example, it makes perfect sense to us to count items, to have well order, and then see primeness/orthogonality as emergent, but it is equally reasonable to assume the primes and then allow ordering/counting to emerge.
As a math graduate, I always assumed physics was ultimately discreet at the lowest level, but I don't see how that absolves us from having to work with infinity. Because if you have 4 discreet things in a square and the sides are lets say 1 planck length or whatever now what is the distance between the two diagonal points on that square? It's root 2. Now you can say root two is only a function but... then are you trying to tell me that that distance doesn't actually exist? How does it work then?
Maybe spacetime curves in such a way that there is a minimum distance but no configuration of things which would result in any of the pairwise distances of things ever being an irrational distance from any other... I don't know.
To be clear there are massive practical benefits to treating infinity as existing because you can take discreet problems and embed them in continuous space and then use calculus. But I don't think that that's really the point Bach is arguing against. Seems like he's asking whether any irrational numbers are needed to describe anything in the real world.
What do you think? I'm genuinely curious.
I think the way out would be to see space as non-fundamental in which case there would be no real rad 2 distance between two points. That distance only exists as the projection from a "real" discrete Hilbert Space.
The distance between two points would always have to be along the lines of the “graph,” as through the connections. So in a very large plane, the connections would approach this root-2 diagonal distance, but on the very minimal level, the distance would be along the edges of your “square” only - the diagonal simply would not exist.
What contradictions do you run into with infinity?
C P Steinmetz was brilliant and believed in unified field theory. Still has unsolved math problems. Made me believe the electron is not a particul but a dielectric band of force.
Maybe those integers which we use to express numbers as a "ratio" between two of them, are meant to relate to "values" within every other brain hemisphere ? ...
I feel like his statement at the end ‘you cannot construct mathematics with an infinite resolution without contradictions’ is one of those hand wavy extrapolations of godels theorems that isn’t necessarily true.
I’m curious of your idea… it sounded sound to me.
This is one of the things I found interesting learning about the universe. How nothing seems analog or infinite.. . Doesn't quantum (everything) and speed of light pretty much say it all ?
I'm a bit surprised if this controversial. Isn't this a part of the 'simulation' theory floating around ? :)
- Would programmers really miss infinity? (I'm sure they love to ditch nan first :)
There are alternative derivations of Einstein’s equations that do not require relativity. Einstein himself produced one of them
If the speed of light weren't a hard limit then everything would not be happening in as neat of an order of events as they would be taking place right now, the speed of light is the universal metronome keeping all parts of the universe ready to interact with any part of itself and not contradict conservatory laws
reality as we know it can exist because of limits but this does not mean that limits are the ultimate turtle. people take for granted that we can conceive of greater things and things greater than our comprehension. their theories of everything discounts their own minds therefore it is not a theory of everything because it leaves themselves out in some sense.
The eggs start after the last turtle......
Does the #1 truly exist? Is there an original #1 that forms after an original 0?
If the universe is discrete then is it fair to ask him to tell us the last value of pi that can exist in our world? Would that mean that there is some equivalent to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle for mathematics?
As he said; Pi is a function not a value.Godels uncertainty principle?
@@lukenick2299 i realize that I said my original comment incorrectly. I should have asked if there is a mathematical equivalent to the plank length for numbers, not the uncertainty principle. But whatevs. I would pay good money to hear joscha Bach in conversation with max tegmark or especially David duetche (or to have either as guests on lex’s show!)
If infinities don’t exist then what is the biggest number that can exist in our universe? What is the farthest distance before the reality of our universe breaks down?
@@ettvanligtkonto but the universe is expanding, so that number will always be increasing. I guess its like Joshua Bach said about pi - its not a number but an unbounded function to goes to, but never reaches, a limit.
Hyperbolic geometry??
He does not play dice. He does not round. Measurements are discrete statements about a non-discrete existence, a simplification of reality. This simplifies reality to make it easier to describe and predict results, but when I say something is one nanometer wide, that does not make it one nanometer wide, it is merely a sensory limited approximation of the distance. You can get quite far without going to extreme depths as he seems to be saying, but if he thinks the limitations of sensing, describing, or calculating results makes reality itself discrete, I believe he's wrong.
I like listening to Joscha because it's a good counterbalance to Naval simping on David Deutsch
1:38 "There is unboundedness but... " That is infinity. The act of not stopping. Like an infinitesimal is the act of starting.
It was interesting hearing him say that, as he said there’s contradiction with infinity he seemed to contradict himself as you say in confirming infinity. There can be order in chaos if infinity were chaotic it would eventually naturally become ordered chaos. What may need said is there may not be physical infinity but there is mental infinity.
No unboundedness is not infinity, it just means for any n, you can always get n+1 and it can be an incredibly large number, but still countable and not infinite
@@goochipoochie Keep counting them and there’s no end. Countable but still infinity. There are different types of infinities and countable infinity is one of them.
I think Joscha is saying infinity is just an idea but not physically real/possible, hence the reality is discrete and not continuous.
An unbounded number is not an infinity, but it is infinite. There are no instances of infinity.
There is no infinity that is implemented. Only unboundedness. But to be implemented it needs to be resolve to a value. Like Pi to n decimal places for a given resolution that converges on a value will give you everything you need.
The problem with this theory is quantum space time uncertainty,if a discrete "value" of a function from a continuos wave pattern and let's say that function is minute of all convergent triangle which has no room for physical vibration for function change (not possible that's why infinity),so taking that discrete value chosen "first" will be changed at next discrete level with same space and time while recording due to same uncertainty in "measuring" that singular discrete value.
So reality can be made discrete with minutely escaping vibrations,the summed discreteness of that function will continue to change in quantum scale.
the validity of discrete space had to be presupposed in order to make the measuring instruments used in any experiments of quantum mechanics. And thus those measurements could never disprove the discreteness of space.
Mathematics and physics is just a language. It cannot explain everything. In fact, there is no mathematical equation for the different gravitas of love, hate, happiness. Infinity or eternity would be a similiar realm where a concept of language or script like mathematics would exhaust itself.
Yep. The subjective is the vehicle of objectivity. It's moot.
The good news is, no matter what language we use, or how our knowledge evolves, or what discoveries we make, our bridges won’t suddenly just fall over.
Infinities and continuous mediums do not exist in physics, but they do in mathematics. They do not naturally lead to contradictions, they only do when you don't deal with them properly.
Please interview Tom Campbell
I think, and Joscha probably would agree, that my take would be that there may be a real possibility that infinity describes the sum of all sets of axioms.
In other words -- an infinity isn't contradictory, perhaps, and this is pretty far out there and pure science fiction speculation, but is rather our notion of meeting a bound of a particular set of rules in a universe and beyond that set is another set of axioms that would contradict the 1st but operates fine within another bounded system.
In other words -- the universe may have some "russian doll" like structure in which our spacetime is bounded by a particular set of rules and another is bounded by an entirely different set.
That way, you avoid contradiction but retain "infinity". Just spit-balling. I am not a trained mathematician so these are just intuitions.
We are dealing with small infinities!
nice 👍 besides this, a non-discrete world would imply infinite entropy, an unpleasant thought for a thermodynamicist.....the third low would give a constant but infinite entropy limit for zero temperature ....
The issue he's protesting has nothing to do with reality but with our ability to describe it in language. He already agreed that unboundedness exists.
I like to simplify everything, and infinity creates unnecessary complexity. So the question is what is reality in its simplest form. It seems to be energy interacting with itself in a grand spectacle. Physical matter is an emergent reflection of energy and in essence is one and the same.
Numbers go on infinitely, human potential is infinite given infinite time, the way we try and predict the future is by our brains coming up with an infinite amount of scenarios; regardless if they are all wrong, infinity is real and it’s pretty simple to understand, it’s just HARD TO ACCEPT. If you lived forever, how can you say you don’t understand it? You just have a hard time accepting that you’re reality will never end.
What reality?
Get Chris Langan on here Lex
Everything was once in perfect structure and harmony with itself... It was the one that we call 0.Then..it felt the need to not be..
Voila
The Archimedean Property of the real numbers is what tells us that the reals do not have infinite resolution, right?
Oh e=6u yummy 66
I'm very tired because I didn't sleep at all last night. I don't recall typing that or even feeling the need to comment on the video but I'm posting that. Maybe it's the answer to all of our questions.
1:25
It is simply impossible for there not to be infinity. The universe is infinite. Suppose that its not and the universe does have an end. For example, lets say you have a cardboard box and all of the contents of the box, or lack there of, is the known universe and the actual cardboard, all the way around, is the end. That's what I imagine a finite universe would be like; however what is OUTSIDE of that box? what is outside the 'edge' or 'end' of that universe? Suppose it's just empty space, is that empty space not accessible? Regardless, isn't 'nothing' technically, 'something'? Let's once again say the universe is finite and where it comes to an end there is some kind of void.. Okay... What is that void? What does it consist of? How far does that void extend? Does it extend to infinity? Perhaps it ends, and there is something behind that 'void'. Does that not extend to infinity?
I don't believe there is a way around infinity. Change my mind.
Well, empty space and nothing are two different things. Nothing may be impossible to imagine but it doesn't mean that it's an invalid concept.
Having said that, it could be that the Big Bang Theory is false after all. There is good reason to think so, but I have no strong opinion... Yet.
@@Biosynchro is nothing none accessible then? how far does the 'nothing' extend? to infinity?
@@blackwidows570 By definition, Nothing cannot extend anywhere, because it's Nothing. 😉
@@Biosynchro well then nothing must be infinity? checkmate?
@@blackwidows570 I don't think so. Nothing is not a quantity or a direction. Imagine that you were never born. Well, that's impossible to do because even thinking that you were never born entails that you exist to think about it. I am happy to stand corrected but I'm pretty sure I'm not wrong.
What you talkin’ bout, Willis?
LEX, we need brian Cox on the podcast! i loved watching his shows on BBC when growingup the man has an amazing way of explaining the world.
He's OK for the One Show version of science, but he's a bit of a wet lettuce if you ask me (sorry!).
@@MrPancakeRepairman please explain wtf wet lettuce means in terms of describing a person
@@MagicManurnei he’s a sap. He’s insipid. He’s a wet blanket. Personality wise.
@@MrPancakeRepairman i think we all know you are just projecting your own insecurities on to this fine scientist because life isnt what you thought it ought to be. you have never spoken to this brian cox, but yet you go on to describe his enthusiastic outlook on the cosmos and infatuation with the amazingness of it all as sappy and wet through. he may be wet, he may be covered in your mothers juices, but he is a great scientist, and has inspired many britons and many more world wide to pursue the answers of the Universe. please keep your judgements to yourself, much love
Life is fine, but you can make your own assumptions if it makes you feel better.
To the case in point, I offer clear evidence:
There is a discussion somewhere on RUclips where he almost apologises for being an athiest in a debate with some religious types. He is soooo apologetic, and tries to meet them halfway with platitudes and apologies that he is (sensibly) an atheist. In my opinion he needs not apologise and could have entered into worthy debate with them. A wasted opportunity.
I find his explanations weak when dealing with complicated material (time travel, string theory, etc), and overly saccharin when dealing with other matters. As I initially described he is a weeknight 7pm "One Show" scientist (it is a low-brow magazine-type programme broadcast daily here in the UK). He can explain nice floaty stuff to your Nan or Neice, but he isn't much good for very much else.
Just my opinion of course, but one I'm very much entitled to.
More interesting is Neil de Grasse Tyson, Lex Friedman is an interesting young chap looking for answers (MIT comp sci. grad student), but the master of them all is of course Carl Sagan.
ruclips.net/video/cIANk7zQ05w/видео.html
Brian Cox is without a doubt useful for explaining science to children, young teenagers and people who read tabloid newspapers. However, if it was a choice of listening to him or watching a glass of water, I'd probably find the glass of water more acceptable.
I'm true
Because we’re in a compost pile.
"This is how to construct the notion of space" wtf I'm dumb
What does infinity + 1 = ?
Actually that makes sense with mathematics watch infinite hotel theory
@@Blueberry-tu9el Interesting, I'll check it out.
@@integrallens6045 you can actually fit an infinite to infinite. Like infinite+1 would consider that theat are different things you add. You have many different infinities in universe for example we have infinite universes and infinite planets in this one two different infinities in one realm of things
@@Blueberry-tu9el The problem is this is all very theoretical. There is no proof of infinite universes. Just mathematical theories.
@@integrallens6045 most of the things are theoretical and assumption you cant messure infinite because you are not infinite same way saying that a rock is a milion or bilion years old is also an assumption
1:23 lol
I have that hedgehog puppet. 1990s
That we perceive infinity (and/or perfection) is indicative of it's pervasiveness alongside our own inability to grasp it and in how we relate to it, in the same way that we operate on various moral hierarchies but fail to fully achieve them our self. Why else are we talking about it? He is failing to pull back to a larger lens here. Scientists are *_usually_* bad philosophers.
Are you sure that what we are able perceive is an infinity in any real sense actually infinite?
You're skipping the part about our inability to grasp it. And what, you mean our perception of infinity relative to ... infinity? I think you beat yourself to your own punchline.
I've always believed this to be the case! Wolfram's work backs this up (or relies on it depending on how you look at it).
I am so dumb.
String theory (the "strings" that are being observed) is the beginning of continuity, the smallest observable element of causality.
It's the liminal space (or moment) when pure possibility (chaos, infinity, etc.) crosses over into reality, when unknowable possibilities are reduced, when they are instantiated into something less than infinity. When possibility moves toward more certainty.
This effect is (from our perspective) perceived as order -- matter, time, space, energy, etc. Cause and effect.
It began with the cleaving of the universe into possibility and certainty. The unknowable and the knowable.
It's the very essence of multiplicity, of perspective (i.e., relativity), and intelligence.
"Infinity" i just a euphemism for "that which is beyond our ability to compute, calculate, or comprehend."
"..."Infinity" is just a euphemism for "that which is beyond our ability to compute, calculate, or comprehend."..."
Yeah, which scales. Like, infinitely...
@@innerpull Ok, but everything beyond the limit of computability is (by definition) unknowable. Call it "double infinity" if you want, or "infinity plus one." Let's say it's "infinity squared." It doesn't matter. The only way to transcend the limit of computability is to make a more accurate scaled-down model (of whatever you're modeling), which reduces the computational load. In other words, to transcend our current level of intelligence, and compute at a higher order.
@@sagat666 The Tao Te Ching talks about this. "Unity begat duality. Duality begat a third. And the three begat all things." This is a beautiful. poetic description of the 3-body problem. The introduction of a third agent into a system is complexity. Complexity is what gives rise to computation, to the need for modeling (which is intelligence itself), so as to reduce the computational load, to enable making predictions that would otherwise be impossible.
It's not that "nothing exists except atoms and empty space." It's that we have no way of perceiving anything beyond what our model of reality allows us to perceive.
@@sagat666 It all depends on how you count it. Three only exists because duality came first, so (in a sense) the complexity arising from the trinity originates from duality. But if ends there, with only two, that's not complex. That's a deterministic environment. There's a reason computers use binary digits (only 0s and 1s). They're made to be deterministic. (And yes, in a dualistic universe, the two are perfectly symmetrical, mirror images of each other.)
so why isn’t unboundedness equivalent to infinity? he says infinity doesn’t exist but unboundedness does, so why is he so caught up on the semantics of words? An absolute infinity doesn’t exist just like an absolute vacuum doesn’t exist. However, there are relative infinities between every number. Existence is a paradox. Deal with it.
Copy and paste from one of my facebook posts from last week........ Infinity doesn’t necessary mean it goes on for ever, it just means that it never stops. You can orbit the planet around and around never stopping, you are not travelling an infinite distance, you are traveling in a circle and there will come a day when the material you are orbiting no longer exists in its current state and if your state of orbit is reliant on the state of that which is no longer there, your journey will undergo a transformation.
Reality is not infinite, It’s just revolving around a very large collection of thoughts, ideas and principles.
You're referring to "potential infinities". There's been debates since the Greeks about whether infinity is a potential infinity or an actual infinity. I find both constructions useful: potential infinities for when you're thinking about induction and actual infinities for when you're thinking about the number of numbers between zero and one
Past is past never comeback again
PI is a function not a value , yep that looks like ti
Yes!! Finally a voice against infinity, I dislike the concept of Infinity but not smart enough to adequetly vocalise my arguement. It's a gut feeling that the notion is a contradiction in both language and mathematical functions.
I find it interesting how many people think they can conceptualize infinity. When I press them, they reveal that they are conceptualizing a negative or merely extending a process over and over. We simply can't grasp infinity as such.
It depends on what you are measuring, and how you define existence. If you define existence as having instantiated at least once, then everything is infinite.
This guy is also ignoring half the picture. Yes, a discrete function is what generates the Pi sequence, but the Pi sequence will never end (I.e. infinity) if you write it out numerically. Just like time will never end - it has and will always exist (I.e. infinity).
On the other hand if you define existence as having some presence in the present moment (not even needing to have an impact on reality), then some things come and go and aren’t infinite. But most fundamental things, like the laws of physics, will always (I.e. infinity) be there in the present moment, impacting reality.
Its amusing to think that people believe a language or script can conceptualize something without end or beginning. It would be akin to saying someone's name is their identity. When in reality that person is composed of countless dimensions, ranging from superficial to intangible..
This theory is only valid if you assume that language or logic is at the base level, which reality certainly is not
Infinity is somewhere over the rainbow… so a useful scientific term.
No it's not discrete!
1:40 that’s his problem right there… he’s trying to claim infinities can’t exist because we can’t create a language that can make them consistent? lol That’s a constraint of languages, not the universe itself. 😆 "The map is not the territory."
If you cannot measure something with math or express it with any other natural language does it exist?
@@hein2883 absolutely… experience is more fundamental than language. We knew things existed prior to words, to math. Furthermore we can’t explain anything purely with language. If two people were in a dark room and couldn’t touch or interact outside of spoken words, in an even tone, could they truly communicate? No. Conversely, they *could* communicate if we instead allow them to see, touch and interact-but prohibit use of language. Language is not reality; language is only useful if you have experience to build upon, to tie meaning to the words.
I don’t even know on what basis he is making the claim that a language trying to describe infinities contains contradictions.
@@pmcate2 Godel and Tarskis theorems is his basis. However, I think he has it backwards. Usually those theorems imply the language is the problem.
@@hckytwn3192 But how do those directly show that there is a problem with infinity?
Hyper grass
Contradictions of infinity arise because because you are perceiving it from the 3D material world. An analogy would be like a 2D dimensional entities attempting to understand or experience life in our world. We do not posses the knowledge or higher level consciousness nor ability to perceive it. Only when your consciousness merges with all that is then ill you understand and it seem so simple. You have exist within the infinite realm to fully understand it.
boundless is a 720 degree form of infinity or endlessness dah !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!....
In my opinion, Infinity is real and only Pure Existence is Infinite. That's why we can't comprehend it no matter how hard we try. Our chemical bodies are not Pure Existence.
In other words- He has no idea.
Hurray! Maybe we'll start getting somewhere again when we remove the dependence Mathematics and Physics *theories* have on the existence of both Zero and Infinity. The only reason some equations are deemed acceptable is the BELIEF that either or both must exist ... despite the existence of one negates the other; thus not allowing for one or the other to be present in equations .... but they are to make things _work_
Wow, he's a very abrasive guy.
Nah Lex was just saying such stupid things and clearly couldn't keep up. I was cringing.
Animals have no gods and I'm sure they don't understand the concept of infinity. Only humans do. We are the odd ones out and perhaps self reflection is a form of mental disorder and the concept of infinity is just part of this disorder. We don't want to die and lose consciousness forever so we delude ourselves.
Helluva baby to throw out with the bathwater there... think you might have left out a little bit.
@@innerpull I don't think so. Imagine that you are immortal, still have the issue of infinity. (pardon my English)
@@innerpull we aren't the baby or the bathwater, we are a tiny speck of rust on the bathtub. There are millions of species and there is only one of us.
Unboundedness is infinity. Infinity obviously exists. Infinity is a CONCEPT, not a discrete number (by definition, infinity isn't a discrete number). It is a description of a thing that keeps going forever. It is the FACT that an unbounded set doesn't have bounds, for example. The unboundedness of an unbounded set is its infiniteness, its quality of being infinite or without bound or limit.
I always thought zero and infinity were the same thing lol
Now that's interesting. I don't see how. But I like diversity of thought.
@@Biosynchro immeasurable measurements are one in the same..or something haha. Idk , I'm not a mathematician but it makes sense in the context of the cyclical nature of nature. Probably more of a philosophical or new age idea than anything.
@@relativerust 🤔 Well that is not a bad way to think about it! 😉 You seem to innately understand that zero is not the same as nothing.
@@Biosynchro thats exactly what my mrs thesis was about...its interesting, contradictory but fits perfectly
@@garethllewellyn215 You did a master's thesis on that? Damn. Did it drive you nuts? LOL
nani!?
How on earth could reality not be infinite. What outside force could prevent reality from just expanding outwards and inwards for infinity? And that force enforcing the boundary would also have to be explained. Its just infinity my dude
I don't think Bach is trying to deny potential infinities - finite things that are expanding without a bound. He's trying to deny actual infinites - that the reality isn't currently infinite, and, for any given point in time now or in the future, it still won't actually be infinitely big. Just very big and expanding without a bound.
*Talks for 7 minutes straight*
*Ends talk with: "And this leads to confusion"*
*Me: Right! Exactly what I thought too!* 😌
I can’t take anyone serious about this stuff that hasn’t smoked DMT
Then take it from someone who has. :) ruclips.net/video/loCBvaj4eSg/видео.html
What contradictions is Bach talking about? And what force does "constructivism" have? No, we cannot "construct" infinity, we need to axiomatize it, but we need to axiomatize all sorts of things.
Joscha needs to take mushrooms. I'm guessing he's in his 30's or 40's. Somewhere in the 40's the world shifts, as your friend John Vervaeke says the temporal event horizon flips. You guys need to get outside and talk with trees more.
It's funny how the people who oppose infinity the most are never the ones who really understand it. Talk to the mathematicians... the great ones.
Lies... zero is the sum total of all infinites.
This is pure BS. The talk about math and infinity is nonsense. He knows nothing of set theory and Godel/Turing.
He knows more than you that's for sure
@@looming_ Explain how what he says about infinity and Godel is true. This will be funny.
he's wrong about some of the math but I don't think he way trying to make a mathematical claim so much as a physical one.
How is it nonsense?
Lex...aaaa....you are speaking with an 👽 alien... seriously
Joe Biden's brain is the tiniest thing ever.
Lex needs to stop trying to sound like he knows what he's talking about. He clearly couldn't follow what was being said here. It was painful to listen to him try and reel off a bunch of buzzwords he just googled yesterday.