21APR2020 - Was noticing the columns. Most are rounded with a conical top. Others are rectangular. Makes me wonder if this area is a work in progress. Math Philosophy always puts a smile on my face. Kind of like watching people slip on ice. What were they thinking when they got out on it? Michio had it right up front about counting. But he left off the other fundamental requirement: agreement. A four-inch-wide stripe in the middle of the road does not prevent two cars from colliding (under normal operating conditions). The "agreement" we've made to stay to the right of the stripe relative to our direction of motion is what works. Counting works because we agree it does.
Lmfao he preemptively asks himself the questions that the interviewer should ask before he even asks them...right after finishing the answer to the previous one. 😆😆😆
Hm. It feels like Kaku is partly circumventing these really intelligent questions in order to sell the string theory. On the other side the argument that inconsistent theories rule out themselves sounds very plausible. But I cannot believe that string theory is the only consistent theory candidate of everything.
Penrose was on Weinstein's podcast recently. If you'd like to explore your thoughts more that would be a really good place to go. There are other ways.
He's resorting to what sounds like early 20th century logicism a la Frege, Russell, Wittgenstein. Unless he has a solution for Russell's paradox and the problems leading to first and second order logic, someone needs to tell him that the reduction of mathematics to set theory and logical rules died 100 years ago.
I don't why Robert had to ask Michio about why the inverse square law is an exact square when Ed "Brain on Legs" Witten had already explained it to him in a previous episode. When Ed tells you something, it's golden...
What about the truth of conscious experience? How do you mathematically describe the redness of red as it appears to us in our experience? Same goes for pretty much everything we experience. There seems to be an explanatory gap between conscious experience and literally every other phenomenon known to science. I'm quote certain the Hard Problem of Consciousness will never be solved within A physicalist framework. And I've been an atheist since I was twelve.
@@BugRib We have self driving cars that run on some pretty simple equations. These equations "experience" red as well. Your brain is probably just a big neural network and consciousness an emergent phenomenon of this network being stimulated.
@@BugRib I don't think that explanatory gap is nearly as large as you think it is, especially not to the point of being unexplainable as you claim. There are already serious ideas that seem to give at least clues to the answer, like Information Integration Theory which shows mathematically how in a neural network like the brain more information emerges than what was input into the system. Shouldn't that additional information inevitably be a perception generated by those input, and shouldn't a perception obligatorily be something subjectively experienced? Those are not explanations but they certainly are clues that there is some logic connecting conscious experience to what the brain is physically doing. And remember science has really only been seriously at work for 3 or 4 centuries, how could you expect that we already have an answer to such a deep question? I'm amazed we actually do have clues right now. Maybe it's just something that will take many more centuries with the help of high level artificial intelligence and who knows what to figure out.
@@BugRib red is a certain wavelength of light. Your eyes capture light and your brain process the information, and presents the information as visual experience. I don't understand what your question is beyond that.
"Truth", however, is a metaphysical issue, not a physical one. Likewise, "logic" is a human invented tool. There is no evidence to support any contention that it is a property of nature. And numbers. Don't get me started on numbers.
He described the edge of the Universe one night on Coast2Coast (with Art Bell) and it folded my brain but made so much sense. It was like hearing a Great Song for the First time, I was standing when he was done.
I feel like he answered the question, about as well as it could be answered. The mathematics of String theory, does seem to be the most effective, at describing everything we know, (so far). It took Einstein's theory and went a step further. Einstein's theory, stops at the edge of a black hole. String theory, goes into and includes it. As technology advances, and as the human brain advances, we'll be able to detect and measure more. And maybe then perhaps, we'll expand into an even greater more encompassing, in depth theory. The God theory, as they mention, or closer to it...
Mathematics merely describes sets of relationships. If you take one apple and add two apples, you have three apples. The numbers "1," "2," and "3," aren't inside the apples. Those are just symbols we use to describe relationships between "things" (conditions) in reality. Because reality works in particular ways (i.e., according to natural laws), the mathematics we've invented to describe the real relationships in nature also necessarily tend to work. And then by extension, when we've devised correct symbolic relationships to describe what's happening in reality, the symbols then naturally behave correctly even in relation to themselves, i.e., in "abstract" ways that aren't necessarily related to physical phenomena but are just "pure mathematics." It's not a big mystery - we should rather be glad we've been so accurate about reality that our symbolic representations tend to work so well!
Take 3 apples from 2. Is it real? You make it real with a concept to go with it. Math can perfectly describe and be merely an analogy. What good is a mere description? I think math is an awesome tool, but it should not dictate a cause just because it accurately describes. I think anything with a constant in it is a description using incidental variables that have nothing to do with cause. Yes, G is probably a fudge factor that fixes the squared relationship curve to fit the radius. Many will say, "What else could it be?" Science is now a crowd, and nothing good comes from a crowd.
Very nice. I agree with you. I would put shortly: Numbers are merely the conclusions of experimentation. We experimented with counting apples. And concluded that there are so and so apples. We induced from that - the laws of mathematics. So math is a scientific discovery. It is not a pure philosophical construct. It is actually part and parcel of physics. So of course it is a precise tool to describe physics.
Part of the problem is getting cause and effect backwards or causation vs. correlation backwards and such, which is a common problem when people think about things. The question about the inverse square law is one good example. He seemed to see this as some magical thing that it comes out that way. But it only comes out that way because Pi, which is a completely irrational number that had to be worked out over a long period of time, is used to bridge the connection between radius and volume. There's nothing clean and obvious about Pi as a value. It's just a reflection of a (very messy and non-obvious) physical reality that we can measure. Anyhoo, math works because it is about patterns and relationships. And, at least at the macroscopic level, the universe is full of patterns and relationships, because it is not random. Those relationships may not be clean and obvious (like Pi), but they are there. If you need to notate numerical and spatial relationships that exist in nature, obviously you'll use math because it's the natural language in which to express those relationships and patterns concisely. You could do it in prose, bu it wouldn't be very practical. Once we get to the very random quantum world, then math doesn't work nearly so well, other than at a statistical level, because those clean and fixed patterns and relationships are not there.
He really didn't explain his reasoning. He takes it as a complete given. If you ask someone how a computer program works, it's not "just one equation" or even elegant. It's extremely ad hoc. Yet the universe is apparently simple and elegant.
Michio's first statement is flat wrong: mathematics cannot be reduced to set theory plus logic. The whole first half of XXth century made it clear to all mathematicians. Poor Russell and Gödel....
@Sky Gardener Gödel's result is much stronger than that: no matter what axioms you choose and how many you have, there will always be statements that you cannot prove or disprove with your axioms, or else your mathematical system is inconsistent. So Michio's statement is wrong.
@Sky Gardener The fact that you would have to add an infinity of axioms to your/any system in order for it to cover all mathematics (or all natural truths) is the definite signature of the fact that mathematics does not reduce to set theory and logic as Michio stated. I fully agree with both your points a) and b) and a) eloquently brings the point home.
@Sky GardenerI agree here needs to be a distinction between the Platonic ideal of mathematics (but that's the one Michio seems to refer to per the context), which cannot and does not reduce to set theory and logic; and the imperfect mathematics as imperfectly practiced by mankind. This one is indeed founded on set theory and logic (although remark that this foundation is more a principle than a concretely used one in most branches of mathematics), with cracks starting to show at the seams (e.g. the continuum hypothesis).
@faultroy "That appears to be correct, but there is no evidence that shows that Human Logic is necessarily accurate or unerring. Human Logic is rationalization. It is by its very nature flawed and certainly not pure. " * How do you get evidence? Is it possible? "Therefore while I agree with the definition that Mathematics is counting and logic, there are numerous phases of mathematics that are by nature illogical. For example, humans are easily able to divide parts into three equal units. But in this case, dividing MATHEMATICALLY forces one to divide the number one by three equal parts which is 33.33333.... ad infinitum. " * The representation is infinite, not the number. 1/3 is a representation with a finite number of symbols. "Of course, Infinity is something not clearly understood, and "three infinities (33.333333.... times three equals "1" is by its very nature ILLOGICAL." " * There are infinites that appear to be well understood. All the differential calculus is based on notions of the infinite. Cantor set theory and its cardinals, too. "So the point here is that CONTRARY to Kaku's comments, there is no correlation in which mathematics works exactly in the real world. " * Think about that. If Mathematics doesn't work, what could possible work then? Does Reason still work? "The very same with the concept of "The Infinite." There is no way humans can calculate the "infinite." We don't even know whether the term "infinite" even means "something." It is by its very nature "uncountable and illogical..." " * Cantor set theory. Differential Calculus. "It works the same way with definitions which are by nature "subjective." For example, what is the definition of "Hot?" "Cold?" "Good," "Bad?" "Warm?" "Far?" "Close?" These are completely subjective, and NOT CALCULABLE as they are being discussed. Why? Because they are completely subjective. They are by nature VAGUE and Inconsistent, and therefore ILLOGICAL from the perspective of "counting and logic." " * Fuzzy logic deals with vagueness. "And so, while mathematics is really EXACT COUNTING mixed with LOGIC, our real world is imprecise, vague, subjective and FLUID. And IF mathematics is exact and logical, it can only be so because illogical ,imprecise and vague SUBJECTIVE humans have decreed it so. " * If "our" world is subjective, let's say contingent to ourselves, well, forget to try to communicate with an alien being. We wouldn't be able even to recognize it as a "being". Now, a question for you. Does that subjectiveness depends on the historical time where we humans live? Is it contingent to our time? "The entire argument of Kaku's is one of OPINION based on mathematics and logic. Something we humans do not rigidly subscribe to." * Think about this, instead of Mathematics what about "The unreasonable effectivenes of Reason"?
Insering a comment here that I made in the Ed Witten video on the same topic. "I humbly disagree with Eugene Wigner's claim that mathematics is unreasonably effective. In fact, there are cases where mathematics lacks effectiveness, and in many cases, mathematical models are approximations. In addition, one would expect within reason, that mathematics would be effective in modeling the processes of the natural world. Thus far, mathematics is not doing too well to model, described, and explain "mind", "self," and "consciousness," all of which are part of the natural world. That said, I love mathematics and physics having taken a degree in both. Both are quite powerful and amazing at times, but not unreasonably so."
He doesn't think there's anything unreasonable about the effectiveness of mathematics because it couldn't have been any other way. That's an interesting point of view.
@*Floofy shibe* I sympathise with this, but, I guess Robert could push through. Kaku appealed to selfconsistency axiom. The more interesting question, is reality logical or is logic simply our only means to understand/explain it?
"what I find shocking, is that this simple set of counting rules can describe the physical universe." I think this is only partially true. If you let go of a helium balloon, there's simple math that will tell you that it will go up. But "up" is merely an approximation; it can't describe the incredibly complex path the balloon will take as it meanders through the atmosphere, because the atmosphere is a complex system evolving in real time. And even if you had all the math to describe it, performing that computation would be slower than the balloon's travel itself, meaning your model would have no predictive power and therefore no reason to even be a model. Personally I don't think that math "describes the physical universe," it only describes the things that have simple enough relationships to be described by math, and that's what causes the bias toward simple equations. It's sort of circular.
You bring in some good points, especially the complexity of modelling a balloon. In reality, the nature of our world evolved such that it is made to be comprehended and this results out of our consciousness. Since we are conscious, we can identify and model the world around us and the world is reflective of the state of our own brains in evolutionary time spans. The evolution of time and thus space itself is the real reason for math's ability to capture the nature of the world. Order occurs across chaos after a long enough time span and systems harmonize to create the order of the world we view and these naturally will not be complex equations since that would violate the nature of entropy. What would be weird is if nature was a complex system to the extent that the animals that evolved from it could not perceive the nature of the world around them. This is most animals, humans got lucky with brains that can create language and thus manipulate the logic of how they define math to coincide with the science of what is around them. It is the most natural result imaginable and the fact that humans are surprised by such a thing show how stupid humans are lol
Brilliant. This is why we don't need to stretch science in order to believe in God, as often does WLC. By the way, WLC has been criticized because he said similar things about maths. Now I want to read "skeptics" or "debunkers" dare to call "dumb" or "stupid" prof. Kaku.
Calling mathematics "unreasonable" is not science. It is a personal opinion, which happens to be wrong. Information, mathematics, and probability are fundamental. Everything else: SpaceTime, MatterEnergy, and the Standard Model are all emergent.
"EXCELLENT".....Dr. Michio Kaku speaks so much eloquantly , beautifully and in a simple language , that any layman can understand.....in this short video post , in between , Dr. Kaku made the things so clear that I myself felt as if I am face to face with God and which is so simple to understand..... this also helps me in validating concept of pure consciousness as described in the Hindu Vedic scriptures.........of course , Dr. Robert L Kuhn's approach in getting out the best from the mind of the opposite party is also best...his patience ( most of the times , he knows what the other person is going to answer, what word / sentence but he allows other person to confirm it patientially.) , way of asking the questions & extracting the best possible answer... asking the right question for best possible answer , always humble.... sometimes I feel he has been send by God himself to unfold the truth for us viewers in best possible way in our life span.... thanks 🙏.
I'm not sure if transitivity always works so I don't necessarily buy that it's just about counting although that's a significant part of it. Also, I'm not sure why we keep emphasizing that it'd be nice to have a one inch equation or whatever because that's just notation and how big you write. If you expand out the action for the Einstein Hilbert term, you get a whole mess that'd be tedious to write. At the same time, you can compress the entire standard model Lagrangian and literally just call it L_SM. Boom, 1 inch. 5:07 Biggest troll if there ends up being more than one consistent equation. Oh, that's the next question. LOL, Michio. Everything else is logically inconsistent. I love how direct he is. I hope he's right though. That'd make it nice but we might not ever know.
If you ask a murderer why he killed his wife and he said it was because "it was a logical inevitability" he would be laughed at. Saying that something is logically inevitable tells us nothing. But if the murderer instead stated that he killed his wife because she cheated on him then it would be more useful.
As I have expressed before, it is time we update the topic to match interdisciplinary know-how of the 21st century. Mathematics and physics are both sides of the same coin: sensorial experience. Both are simultaneously created in the observational brain-mind grid. The so-called theory of everything can only emergr from the self-modelling of that grid, not the 19-20th version stemming from standard model and quantum gravity. The latter is a misconstruction of what math and physics is really about. Other speculations come from confusing psychology with neursocience, or metaphysics with scientific conjectures.
Imagine a world of structurally solid metal piping -- but the pipes are embedded in a thick 3D thickness of foam, a cloud-like foam that obscures all the pipes. All you can see and feel is foam. After years of slopping through the foam, you bump into a pipe, and wipe away the foam to expose a small region of pipes. You can climb on the pipes, they are sturdy -- so they are very usefull in taking you places. After some experience in this world, you learn to always clear away the foam and look for the pipes where ever you are. The pipes are math -- it's what really there, the useful stuff -- it's what the structure of the universe is made of -- the foam is all the fluff and nonsense that we love so much, including politics, but leads us no where.
Math can perfectly describe using incidental variables that have nothing to do with the cause. I believe that the ability to describe it does not mean that you understand it. To me, anything with a constant in it means that you are not using causal variables. Relativity actually changes the data before you look at it using transform equations, but light speed remains the assumed "c." Before you change length, mass, and time, light does not look constant. There is not an alternative theory to the theory that changes the data before you even look at it seriously. Did anyone really try? If so, do you think it would get published? NO WAY! Gamma Ray Bursts arrive here in order of wavelength. A blast wave effect saves that from being a contradiction. If you actually look, there are a lot of these contradictions ignored as such. How about the fact that the Strong force was invented to prevent having to second guess electric charge? Maybe charge becomes something else when a nucleus is created. No one really tried. That is not science, it's people. Second guess something.
@Sky Gardener I think modern physicists are taught a single theory, and that is all they have, for the most part anyway. What's more is that it is all math. The only thing that is not math is a mnemonic device that is painted over the math to make it seem real. I firmly believe that there should be a causal understanding of a mechanism first that is subsequently described mathematically. I found a cause for the gyroscope that contradicts the use of angular vectors, and it says that angular momentum has nothing to do with the cause the gyroscopic effect. The understanding of the cause led me to different math that no one will publish. This is a toy, and modern math is wrong. The mechanism makes it a much more beautiful effect. ssrn.com/author=4143288 This paper is at an Elsevier site that invited me to share it on their site. They will not publish it. The use of angular vectors is a math convenience that has hidden the true cause from everyone, and no trained physicist can see it. Non-trained laypersons get it right away. A physicist named Ryspek Usubamatov is currently really close to my gyro description, but he cannot let go of angular momentum right now, because he has a book coming out in a month. I think that mathematical physics is a procedural approach to physics that rote memory knuckle draggers can thrive in, because an empathy for cause and imagination is not needed so much. Nature does not know what a mathematical constant is. Then there is politics. I think it is a mess.
Maybe the effectiveness of mathematics is an illusion? When you say that the mathematical description is very precise because it is true to a number of places after decimal point, in fact you are saying the description is false because there is a point at which it stops working. Before the mathematical description reaches that point, it APPEARS to be working because it was within the margin of error.
I don’t think this episode goes far enough to explain how simplicity can generate infinite complexity. Of course, I’m thinking of fractals of which the Mandelbrot set is an example. I believe that scientific evidence suggests that the universe is fractal rather than quantum in nature. For example, looking at the boundaries of the Mandelbrot set we know that there are an infinite number of similar 'looks' and complexities regardless of how closely we look - even if we look trillions of times more closely. Perhaps 'locality' and 'non-locality' are the axes to plot the fractal of the universe on an Argand diagram? This could also be a substitute for the 'multiverse' theory so that every possible outcome of the wavefunction collapse plays out in all the other 'fractal scales' all at once - and we only observe the result that is at our fractal scale. By mathematics we can now envisage that the Big Bang seeded a fractal structure to the universe so that other universes could lie within each other at differing fractal scales. Indeed, an infinite number of fractal scale universes could lie within every one of our fundamental particles! Furthermore, could dark matter be the evidence for the ‘information energy’ of the sum of an infinite number of fractal scales which we are not aware of? It was only in the 70’s that we discovered fractals by mathematics, but perhaps in this case the results really do give a hint to reality rather than reality leading to the discoveries of mathematics
Mathematics is a just a tool like any language is a tool. First we tried to explain the world in languages such as English, but Maths does a much better job at it. Maths in itself does not represent reality, but could be used to model reality. Many things in Maths cannot actually be used to represent reality at all. For example what is "-1" apples ?? But we use this as if negative numbers really "exist in nature". We need to be verycareful in understanding juglarey resulting absurd things ... These people like Michio take every opportunity to just push their String theory, n dimensions, multiverse stories via these Mathematical absurdities, none of which represent reality
Some physicists suggest an infinite universe theory where different laws of physics apply to each unit universe. A separate 1" God equation for each universe. Sounds a bit like a computer program?
We may still need some creativity from outside the math, maybe the soul, to explain why people can solve so many more open ended problems like driving a car, from A to B, that current AI cannot solve?
well actually higher dimensions would have alot of tricks like that in which 2 plus 2 could equal 5. first of all they have to realize that they can not dable in a higher dimension but i see that they think that they are.
I think that we are yet sure that the current formulas in math describe the whole universe but at least a part of it that we can detect .Mathematics are more applicable into engineering and Technology I think there is no perfect Harmony in the Universe
This one of the few interviews I've seen where michio is actually having a conversation. In a lot of interviews He always talks like he's reading a script to dumb down his answers.
I liked that about this interview as well. I don't really like listening to Michio Kaku's talks anymore because a lot of the time he seems too preachy, like he's trying to make certain things in science seem mystical. I would personally like it if more of the mathematics and the down-and-dirty details of physical theories and hypotheses were discussed.
@@ConsciousBreaks He's a popularizer. His audience is the intelligent layman. How can you become a celebrity scientists and make any decent money talking only to egg heads?
@@ConsciousBreaks I'll buy that. Michio doesn't seem too interested in any sort of "middle ground," though. I've been reading his Physics of the Impossible, and chapter 5 on "Telepathy" left me in a total state of consternation and disappointment. He studiously avoids serious analysis of it, and completely dismisses it in favor of the "materialistic" interpretation, which I already know to be a total dead end. I have read many of the better books on the subject, and so I don't have to swallow his opinions just because he has a Ph.D. in physics and I don't. The truth of telepathy, aka, "remote viewing," has been available to scientists and the public alike for quite a few years with very extensive literature to support its reality. I can't believe that Michio could be so misinformed of this fascinating body of work. The only choice left is that he has deliberately debunked it for ulterior motives, i.e., to protect his professional reputation from "ridicule" from other debunkers. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em! Therefore, I have to conclude that Michio's work is not as trustworthy as it seems. Beware.
But inconsistencies with regards to quantum theory is not satisfactory as quantum theory is still part of the original equation. It is still governed by the same set of mathematics that one is trying to diverge away from. Is it not?
Computer games exist and are therefore logically consistent. They describe some sort of pseudo reality that resembles ours in many important ways. They come without any quantum mechanics. The idea that only our laws of nature are logically consistent is flawed.
If God exists outside of the physical universe (space and time) would He need to obey logic? He could make 2+2=5 in the act of creating the universe. He could then exist both inside of time and outside of time to fully experience/interact with His creation and at the same time analyzing the effects of His interactions from outside of space and time.
I tend to disagree with Mr. Kaku. Physical theories have to be consistent with the measurement, the experiment. To which extent is logic connected to the experiment?
I think that logic is somewhat embedded in our conducting of experiments. The scientific method is fundamentally based on logic. To put it bluntly, you have your hypothesis or premise of the form: "If A then B", that is to say, your hypothesis claims that if A is true then B is true. Next, you conduct experiments to confirm or disprove your hypothesis. If it turns out when A is true, B is also true, then there is a causal relation between A and B confirmed by experiment but it still follows logic. Indeed, if when A is true, B is not true according to experiment, then you may say that your hypothesis is false. You're still in the bounds of logic. Logic is just the patterning of human reasoning -- we reason in a linear fashion and we can express our chain of reasoning through symbols. If when A is true, B is false, you cannot say that your hypothesis is correct, and similarly in logic it is the same.
That's true. But, for example, breaking of parity or even living in a four dimensional space seemed illogical until proven by the experiment. Even our logic is based on our everyday life experimentation.
Isn't the question worded wrongly? Imagine how unreasonable a non mathematical universe would be. No stability, no order, no life. Maybe there are non mathematical universes. There's no life in them though so no mathematicians & besides there'd be no maths for them to do even if there were. Its basically the anthropic principle. Why does the interviewer keep referring to maths as unreasonable?🤔 He's unreasonable 🙄
Why are the words "green tree" so good at describing a green tree? The better question is why is the tree green? Why is it a tree? Why are some aspects of the universe so simple, that they can be describe with maths?
Despite of getting unbelievable thoughts about time and space and changing human perceptions about them forever, Einstein’s brain couldn’t convince of no God. I would ask why? Number two, if mathematics has the capability to define universe in a logical way then why in this world negative multiply by negative is positive. Hmm. How one explain it logically and under whose logic.
For everything to exist, there must be symmetry, even at the quantum level, and the math follows that. I like the Dr. Kaku approaches that and other topics. There's nothing "Unreasonable" about the math. Dr. Kaku's recent book is also quite good BTW.
Dr. Kaku isn’t trying to sell string theory to us lol. The vast majority of us couldn’t even begin to understand the mathematics of it anyway. He does have an excellent point about mathematics being the only system which would give rise and structure to our universe though
I am willing to pay him if he can proof my axioms are wrong in mathematics, but then again he is a physical theorist, even conspiracy theorists think they are right!!!🧐
Michio sounds like he knows the universe intimately and that it's simple. Sabine Hossenfelder had more humble, realistic answers to these questions. She said that it may be much more complex; it's just the simple parts that happen to be amenable to our current mathematics.
I love michio kaku, still an really open mind scientist, he can talk about aliens, god, or different paradigms, he does not fall on "scientific religion" like most of american scientist.
I think most scientists accept the possibility of life outside of earth. Many physicists think it's probably inevitable. I wouldn't look to deep into his use of the word God though. He is not talking about a Christian God or anything like in any of the religions. He uses the word as Einstein did. I do appreciate how much liberty he gives to speculation though. It makes for really good conversations.
@@8beef4u ,I did not mention Christian God , but now you mentioned, "christian God" is something we must not say in general, Most of the people that have and idea of the Judeo-christian god have not even read the bible, or even know the culture and meanings. But this is not the subject of the video, I know Know Spinoza God, but if God exist, i dont think he depends in our definitions, that wy "he is who he is". Any way, i just like how Michio Kaku is open to ideas and paradigms.
That isn't what mathematics is. Logic and set theory are tools commonly used in mathematical theories, but those two tools are subsets of mathematics themselves. In his defense, the mathematics he uses has everything to do with what he said. But this is like saying C++ is the fundamental language of computers.
One issue I have with the mathematics of geometry is that none of these shapes exist in nature at the same perfection. For example there are no perfect circles in nature so the equations that govern the mathematics don't really pertain to nature itself. Our world isn't made out of perfect geometry but rather our brains see these patterns in the world to understand it by creating patterns. Mathematics doesn't seem to govern reality but rather a perfect representation of the universe that doesn't actually exist.
Now don't get me wrong. I don't hate string theory. It just looks like a 1d representation of a 3d system in time which in order to work has to have a Multi representation which makes sense. Ergo takes at least 10d. Which is a valid simplification of the system. However, in the concept of string theory I think 2+2=4 because of that representation. When in reality it is more like (2+-(a))+-(2+-(b))=4 so on that 1d string yes the equation is always put in that 2+2=4 but the solution with more resolution should have a solution that extends to a perceivable grid solution in some way with string theory being sort of a higher dimensional representation of a 4d universe compresses down to a 1d view. Which takes away the unimaginable complexity of the system to a level that can be handled. I don't think its wrong I just think it's one piece of the puzzle.
I would not say that mathematics is counting and I prefer to say that mathematics is an emulation of various OPERATORS that exists in the universe when states contribute their input to action. Obviously counting with logic is an operator but counting seems to infer the same weighting of what is counted. To cover all the functions which may evolve and can be obtained by counting, I prefer to say that mathematics is counting with a logic where the count weighting may differ according to the state of the function in hand. I am thinking of higher-order integral and differential at the moment where they are no more by operators found all around us. Evolution is no more than a majestic and elegant massive integral of the stats of the universe.
If we can measure it. Then I suggest our universe is that game in town. So if it is a must describe a philosophical universe. But if we can’t measure it then why all the effort. What is beyond the observable universe might interest us, because gravity might influence our reality. So I guess quantum gravity most likely be that our approach has to clarified. String theory seems to be what math suggest. Poul Dirac was determined to get rid of these ugly mathematical solutions. If it is too complex , it might not be right.i hardly can wait for what is next. Observation and math hand in hand would be nice
Yes, counting. That's the most unreasonable bit of math and it starts at 2. I don't necessarily mean at that age but when one thing occupies the place previously occupied by two. Gets even worse when you get to 9, and as for 100. . .That's another unreasonable thing, 0. Something there to show nothing's there. Math is useful precisely because it's unreasonable. The unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics is its effective unreasonableness.
mathematics is just counting. Its just an answer to how many or how much of something (material, forces or energy). every thing in math builds on counting i.e. adding one thing to rest of the things. Whether its classical or quantum physics, math is the same ie. counting (or adding 1 to the rest of the quantity). If a description does not follows our intuition of counting ( ie. adding one piece of something to rest of the pieces of something), it is not correct. It is the only way we have of verifying something so far where experiment cannot be carried out. And math or counting is found to be true in every experiment mankind has carried out to this day. physics is the knowledge about the characteristics of something. Whereas, mathematics is just the language to express the quantity (ie. how many or how much?) of something. finding out the equation that something follows is science whereas the equation itself is math. Here equation is the language which is math.
Mathematics is not always effective. If you find it doesn't effective( unsatisfied ), you would change something or add something, until it is effective again.
Glad they were able to find a suitable parking garage to have this discussion in.
21APR2020 - Was noticing the columns. Most are rounded with a conical top. Others are rectangular. Makes me wonder if this area is a work in progress. Math Philosophy always puts a smile on my face. Kind of like watching people slip on ice. What were they thinking when they got out on it? Michio had it right up front about counting. But he left off the other fundamental requirement: agreement. A four-inch-wide stripe in the middle of the road does not prevent two cars from colliding (under normal operating conditions). The "agreement" we've made to stay to the right of the stripe relative to our direction of motion is what works. Counting works because we agree it does.
Yeah, nice parking garage. Nice boat floating (starting at 3:02 ) behind them also, by the way.
mickey brumfield You have to admit that its a very symmetric parking garage
@@taquiupa Good catch on the boat. I missed. However, I don't think this was ever a garage.
@@scoop4363 thank you bro.
Michio Kaku is really good at interviewing himself.
Lmfao he preemptively asks himself the questions that the interviewer should ask before he even asks them...right after finishing the answer to the previous one. 😆😆😆
true 😅
Oh, U R killing me :)
I think Michio is trying to secretly tell us he's being held hostage
what makes you think like that?
It was a joke.
Lol
@Tiger Talk LOL
This is logically inconsistent.
Turn on captions and you'll read "supersymmetry is a cemetery of string theory it is the biggest cemetery known to science".
that's also what I heard without captions turned on. so he didn't mean that, huh
@@flatisland Me too. That's why I turned on the captions, to be sure.
@@ThalesPo maybe there's a deeper meaning to it
IROOOOONICCC
@@narutosaga12 Or true
I swear Michio walks around all day talking to himself memorizing his answers to any question that could ever be asked to him
Hm. It feels like Kaku is partly circumventing these really intelligent questions in order to sell the string theory. On the other side the argument that inconsistent theories rule out themselves sounds very plausible. But I cannot believe that string theory is the only consistent theory candidate of everything.
Penrose was on Weinstein's podcast recently. If you'd like to explore your thoughts more that would be a really good place to go. There are other ways.
@@EuphoricDan Thanks. I will do that!
String theory haven’t been taken too seriously in fundamental physics for a while now.
He usually does that
He's resorting to what sounds like early 20th century logicism a la Frege, Russell, Wittgenstein. Unless he has a solution for Russell's paradox and the problems leading to first and second order logic, someone needs to tell him that the reduction of mathematics to set theory and logical rules died 100 years ago.
I don't why Robert had to ask Michio about why the inverse square law is an exact square when Ed "Brain on Legs" Witten had already explained it to him in a previous episode. When Ed tells you something, it's golden...
i love the way Witten explain things, but lets not act like the description was original his idea, this is a known fact for physics for loooong time.
Math is "effective" because it represents the truth. When we encounter truth, we keep winding up expressing it in mathematics.
What about the truth of conscious experience? How do you mathematically describe the redness of red as it appears to us in our experience? Same goes for pretty much everything we experience.
There seems to be an explanatory gap between conscious experience and literally every other phenomenon known to science.
I'm quote certain the Hard Problem of Consciousness will never be solved within A physicalist framework. And I've been an atheist since I was twelve.
@@BugRib We have self driving cars that run on some pretty simple equations. These equations "experience" red as well. Your brain is probably just a big neural network and consciousness an emergent phenomenon of this network being stimulated.
@@BugRib I don't think that explanatory gap is nearly as large as you think it is, especially not to the point of being unexplainable as you claim. There are already serious ideas that seem to give at least clues to the answer, like Information Integration Theory which shows mathematically how in a neural network like the brain more information emerges than what was input into the system. Shouldn't that additional information inevitably be a perception generated by those input, and shouldn't a perception obligatorily be something subjectively experienced?
Those are not explanations but they certainly are clues that there is some logic connecting conscious experience to what the brain is physically doing. And remember science has really only been seriously at work for 3 or 4 centuries, how could you expect that we already have an answer to such a deep question? I'm amazed we actually do have clues right now. Maybe it's just something that will take many more centuries with the help of high level artificial intelligence and who knows what to figure out.
@@BugRib red is a certain wavelength of light. Your eyes capture light and your brain process the information, and presents the information as visual experience.
I don't understand what your question is beyond that.
"Truth", however, is a metaphysical issue, not a physical one. Likewise, "logic" is a human invented tool. There is no evidence to support any contention that it is a property of nature. And numbers. Don't get me started on numbers.
Always a pleasure listening to michio.
i met him when i was working in Circuit City years ago. I called him Mr. Kaku and he said Dr. and got pissed off
@@TactileTherapy Then he removed Circuit City from the map out of rage. Do not anger Dr. Kaku.
Big Gulp actually he asked for a discount
I hear he's an asshole.
@@TactileTherapy sure buddy, then why on his show is he called professor?
This quickly devolved into a ridiculous word salad that seemed largely meaningless
Well said, snarky, well said. That happens to physicists all too often. I feel like Alice in Wonderland when I listen to them a lot of the time.
I know many other scientist get credit for explaining things in a simple manner, but Michio stands above the rest in his explanations.
He described the edge of the Universe one night on Coast2Coast (with Art Bell) and it folded my brain but made so much sense. It was like hearing a Great Song for the First time, I was standing when he was done.
Say what you want, but Kaku is a fantastic story teller that interviews himself.
I feel like he answered the question, about as well as it could be answered. The mathematics of String theory, does seem to be the most effective, at describing everything we know, (so far). It took Einstein's theory and went a step further. Einstein's theory, stops at the edge of a black hole. String theory, goes into and includes it. As technology advances, and as the human brain advances, we'll be able to detect and measure more. And maybe then perhaps, we'll expand into an even greater more encompassing, in depth theory. The God theory, as they mention, or closer to it...
Mathematics merely describes sets of relationships. If you take one apple and add two apples, you have three apples. The numbers "1," "2," and "3," aren't inside the apples. Those are just symbols we use to describe relationships between "things" (conditions) in reality. Because reality works in particular ways (i.e., according to natural laws), the mathematics we've invented to describe the real relationships in nature also necessarily tend to work. And then by extension, when we've devised correct symbolic relationships to describe what's happening in reality, the symbols then naturally behave correctly even in relation to themselves, i.e., in "abstract" ways that aren't necessarily related to physical phenomena but are just "pure mathematics." It's not a big mystery - we should rather be glad we've been so accurate about reality that our symbolic representations tend to work so well!
Take 3 apples from 2. Is it real? You make it real with a concept to go with it. Math can perfectly describe and be merely an analogy. What good is a mere description? I think math is an awesome tool, but it should not dictate a cause just because it accurately describes. I think anything with a constant in it is a description using incidental variables that have nothing to do with cause. Yes, G is probably a fudge factor that fixes the squared relationship curve to fit the radius. Many will say, "What else could it be?" Science is now a crowd, and nothing good comes from a crowd.
Very nice. I agree with you. I would put shortly: Numbers are merely the conclusions of experimentation. We experimented with counting apples. And concluded that there are so and so apples. We induced from that - the laws of mathematics. So math is a scientific discovery. It is not a pure philosophical construct. It is actually part and parcel of physics. So of course it is a precise tool to describe physics.
Finally someone that answered the question!
Mathematics truly the logical numeric description of the universe
Part of the problem is getting cause and effect backwards or causation vs. correlation backwards and such, which is a common problem when people think about things. The question about the inverse square law is one good example. He seemed to see this as some magical thing that it comes out that way. But it only comes out that way because Pi, which is a completely irrational number that had to be worked out over a long period of time, is used to bridge the connection between radius and volume. There's nothing clean and obvious about Pi as a value. It's just a reflection of a (very messy and non-obvious) physical reality that we can measure.
Anyhoo, math works because it is about patterns and relationships. And, at least at the macroscopic level, the universe is full of patterns and relationships, because it is not random. Those relationships may not be clean and obvious (like Pi), but they are there. If you need to notate numerical and spatial relationships that exist in nature, obviously you'll use math because it's the natural language in which to express those relationships and patterns concisely. You could do it in prose, bu it wouldn't be very practical.
Once we get to the very random quantum world, then math doesn't work nearly so well, other than at a statistical level, because those clean and fixed patterns and relationships are not there.
He really didn't explain his reasoning. He takes it as a complete given. If you ask someone how a computer program works, it's not "just one equation" or even elegant. It's extremely ad hoc. Yet the universe is apparently simple and elegant.
Michio's first statement is flat wrong: mathematics cannot be reduced to set theory plus logic. The whole first half of XXth century made it clear to all mathematicians. Poor Russell and Gödel....
@Sky Gardener Gödel's result is much stronger than that: no matter what axioms you choose and how many you have, there will always be statements that you cannot prove or disprove with your axioms, or else your mathematical system is inconsistent. So Michio's statement is wrong.
@Sky Gardener The fact that you would have to add an infinity of axioms to your/any system in order for it to cover all mathematics (or all natural truths) is the definite signature of the fact that mathematics does not reduce to set theory and logic as Michio stated. I fully agree with both your points a) and b) and a) eloquently brings the point home.
@Sky GardenerI agree here needs to be a distinction between the Platonic ideal of mathematics (but that's the one Michio seems to refer to per the context), which cannot and does not reduce to set theory and logic; and the imperfect mathematics as imperfectly practiced by mankind. This one is indeed founded on set theory and logic (although remark that this foundation is more a principle than a concretely used one in most branches of mathematics), with cracks starting to show at the seams (e.g. the continuum hypothesis).
They're in Patrick Swayze's loft in "Ghost".
I think Morgan Freeman was God in there, too
Beautiful insight from Mr Michio Kaku. Mathematics is counting plus logic. I would go a little deeper, Mathematics is Order.
@faultroy "That appears to be correct, but there is no evidence that shows that Human Logic is necessarily accurate or unerring. Human Logic is rationalization. It is by its very nature flawed and certainly not pure. "
* How do you get evidence? Is it possible?
"Therefore while I agree with the definition that Mathematics is counting and logic, there are numerous phases of mathematics that are by nature illogical. For example, humans are easily able to divide parts into three equal units. But in this case, dividing MATHEMATICALLY forces one to divide the number one by three equal parts which is 33.33333.... ad infinitum. "
* The representation is infinite, not the number. 1/3 is a representation with a finite number of symbols.
"Of course, Infinity is something not clearly understood, and "three infinities (33.333333.... times three equals "1" is by its very nature ILLOGICAL." "
* There are infinites that appear to be well understood. All the differential calculus is based on notions of the infinite. Cantor set theory and its cardinals, too.
"So the point here is that CONTRARY to Kaku's comments, there is no correlation in which mathematics works exactly in the real world. "
* Think about that. If Mathematics doesn't work, what could possible work then? Does Reason still work?
"The very same with the concept of "The Infinite." There is no way humans can calculate the "infinite." We don't even know whether the term "infinite" even means "something." It is by its very nature "uncountable and illogical..." "
* Cantor set theory. Differential Calculus.
"It works the same way with definitions which are by nature "subjective." For example, what is the definition of "Hot?" "Cold?" "Good," "Bad?" "Warm?" "Far?" "Close?" These are completely subjective, and NOT CALCULABLE as they are being discussed. Why? Because they are completely subjective. They are by nature VAGUE and Inconsistent, and therefore ILLOGICAL from the perspective of "counting and logic." "
* Fuzzy logic deals with vagueness.
"And so, while mathematics is really EXACT COUNTING mixed with LOGIC, our real world is imprecise, vague, subjective and FLUID. And IF mathematics is exact and logical, it can only be so because illogical ,imprecise and vague SUBJECTIVE humans have decreed it so. "
* If "our" world is subjective, let's say contingent to ourselves, well, forget to try to communicate with an alien being. We wouldn't be able even to recognize it as a "being". Now, a question for you. Does that subjectiveness depends on the historical time where we humans live? Is it contingent to our time?
"The entire argument of Kaku's is one of OPINION based on mathematics and logic. Something we humans do not rigidly subscribe to."
* Think about this, instead of Mathematics what about "The unreasonable effectivenes of Reason"?
@faultroy You said "You Moron". I thought that we were having a civil conversation. Not so it seems.
Not interested.
Every explanation of string theory sounds like a scientific study run from the basis of a conclusion that develops a theory.
The equation of everything may be so long and complicated the explanatory power is gone.
Profound simplicity of Existence AMAZING
What's the rent on that attic?
Insering a comment here that I made in the Ed Witten video on the same topic.
"I humbly disagree with Eugene Wigner's claim that mathematics is unreasonably effective. In fact, there are cases where mathematics lacks effectiveness, and in many cases, mathematical models are approximations. In addition, one would expect within reason, that mathematics would be effective in modeling the processes of the natural world.
Thus far, mathematics is not doing too well to model, described, and explain "mind", "self," and "consciousness," all of which are part of the natural world.
That said, I love mathematics and physics having taken a degree in both. Both are quite powerful and amazing at times, but not unreasonably so."
He doesn't think there's anything unreasonable about the effectiveness of mathematics because it couldn't have been any other way. That's an interesting point of view.
@*Floofy shibe* I sympathise with this, but, I guess Robert could push through. Kaku appealed to selfconsistency axiom. The more interesting question, is reality logical or is logic simply our only means to understand/explain it?
A world where you pit cereals before the milk is logically inconsistent
Added: Now we have another K vs K after
Kennedy vs Kruschev
Karpov vs Kasparov
Now, Kuhn vs Kaku
I think "Unreasonable" is the wrong word. How about "extraordinary"?
These are exactly the questions I asked myself and the mostly the answers I arrived at that the physicist gave.
"what I find shocking, is that this simple set of counting rules can describe the physical universe."
I think this is only partially true.
If you let go of a helium balloon, there's simple math that will tell you that it will go up. But "up" is merely an approximation; it can't describe the incredibly complex path the balloon will take as it meanders through the atmosphere, because the atmosphere is a complex system evolving in real time. And even if you had all the math to describe it, performing that computation would be slower than the balloon's travel itself, meaning your model would have no predictive power and therefore no reason to even be a model.
Personally I don't think that math "describes the physical universe," it only describes the things that have simple enough relationships to be described by math, and that's what causes the bias toward simple equations. It's sort of circular.
You bring in some good points, especially the complexity of modelling a balloon. In reality, the nature of our world evolved such that it is made to be comprehended and this results out of our consciousness. Since we are conscious, we can identify and model the world around us and the world is reflective of the state of our own brains in evolutionary time spans. The evolution of time and thus space itself is the real reason for math's ability to capture the nature of the world. Order occurs across chaos after a long enough time span and systems harmonize to create the order of the world we view and these naturally will not be complex equations since that would violate the nature of entropy. What would be weird is if nature was a complex system to the extent that the animals that evolved from it could not perceive the nature of the world around them. This is most animals, humans got lucky with brains that can create language and thus manipulate the logic of how they define math to coincide with the science of what is around them. It is the most natural result imaginable and the fact that humans are surprised by such a thing show how stupid humans are lol
Brilliant. This is why we don't need to stretch science in order to believe in God, as often does WLC.
By the way, WLC has been criticized because he said similar things about maths.
Now I want to read "skeptics" or "debunkers" dare to call "dumb" or "stupid" prof. Kaku.
Calling mathematics "unreasonable" is not science. It is a personal opinion, which happens to be wrong. Information, mathematics, and probability are fundamental. Everything else: SpaceTime, MatterEnergy, and the Standard Model are all emergent.
"EXCELLENT".....Dr. Michio Kaku speaks so much eloquantly , beautifully and in a simple language , that any layman can understand.....in this short video post , in between , Dr. Kaku made the things so clear that I myself felt as if I am face to face with God and which is so simple to understand..... this also helps me in validating concept of pure consciousness as described in the Hindu Vedic scriptures.........of course , Dr. Robert L Kuhn's approach in getting out the best from the mind of the opposite party is also best...his patience ( most of the times , he knows what the other person is going to answer, what word / sentence but he allows other person to confirm it patientially.) , way of asking the questions & extracting the best possible answer... asking the right question for best possible answer , always humble.... sometimes I feel he has been send by God himself to unfold the truth for us viewers in best possible way in our life span.... thanks 🙏.
I'm not sure if transitivity always works so I don't necessarily buy that it's just about counting although that's a significant part of it.
Also, I'm not sure why we keep emphasizing that it'd be nice to have a one inch equation or whatever because that's just notation and how big you write. If you expand out the action for the Einstein Hilbert term, you get a whole mess that'd be tedious to write. At the same time, you can compress the entire standard model Lagrangian and literally just call it L_SM. Boom, 1 inch.
5:07 Biggest troll if there ends up being more than one consistent equation. Oh, that's the next question.
LOL, Michio. Everything else is logically inconsistent. I love how direct he is. I hope he's right though. That'd make it nice but we might not ever know.
Okay.
If you ask a murderer why he killed his wife and he said it was because "it was a logical inevitability" he would be laughed at. Saying that something is logically inevitable tells us nothing. But if the murderer instead stated that he killed his wife because she cheated on him then it would be more useful.
As I have expressed before, it is time we update the topic to match interdisciplinary know-how of the 21st century. Mathematics and physics are both sides of the same coin: sensorial experience. Both are simultaneously created in the observational brain-mind grid. The so-called theory of everything can only emergr from the self-modelling of that grid, not the 19-20th version stemming from standard model and quantum gravity. The latter is a misconstruction of what math and physics is really about. Other speculations come from confusing psychology with neursocience, or metaphysics with scientific conjectures.
Imagine a world of structurally solid metal piping -- but the pipes are embedded in a thick 3D thickness of foam, a cloud-like foam that obscures all the pipes. All you can see and feel is foam. After years of slopping through the foam, you bump into a pipe, and wipe away the foam to expose a small region of pipes. You can climb on the pipes, they are sturdy -- so they are very usefull in taking you places. After some experience in this world, you learn to always clear away the foam and look for the pipes where ever you are. The pipes are math -- it's what really there, the useful stuff -- it's what the structure of the universe is made of -- the foam is all the fluff and nonsense that we love so much, including politics, but leads us no where.
Would you say that math describes reality (the pipes) and not that math is itself the structure of the universe?
Amazing ❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤.
Math can perfectly describe using incidental variables that have nothing to do with the cause. I believe that the ability to describe it does not mean that you understand it. To me, anything with a constant in it means that you are not using causal variables. Relativity actually changes the data before you look at it using transform equations, but light speed remains the assumed "c." Before you change length, mass, and time, light does not look constant. There is not an alternative theory to the theory that changes the data before you even look at it seriously. Did anyone really try? If so, do you think it would get published? NO WAY! Gamma Ray Bursts arrive here in order of wavelength. A blast wave effect saves that from being a contradiction. If you actually look, there are a lot of these contradictions ignored as such. How about the fact that the Strong force was invented to prevent having to second guess electric charge? Maybe charge becomes something else when a nucleus is created. No one really tried. That is not science, it's people. Second guess something.
@Sky Gardener I think modern physicists are taught a single theory, and that is all they have, for the most part anyway. What's more is that it is all math. The only thing that is not math is a mnemonic device that is painted over the math to make it seem real. I firmly believe that there should be a causal understanding of a mechanism first that is subsequently described mathematically. I found a cause for the gyroscope that contradicts the use of angular vectors, and it says that angular momentum has nothing to do with the cause the gyroscopic effect. The understanding of the cause led me to different math that no one will publish. This is a toy, and modern math is wrong. The mechanism makes it a much more beautiful effect.
ssrn.com/author=4143288 This paper is at an Elsevier site that invited me to share it on their site. They will not publish it. The use of angular vectors is a math convenience that has hidden the true cause from everyone, and no trained physicist can see it. Non-trained laypersons get it right away. A physicist named Ryspek Usubamatov is currently really close to my gyro description, but he cannot let go of angular momentum right now, because he has a book coming out in a month.
I think that mathematical physics is a procedural approach to physics that rote memory knuckle draggers can thrive in, because an empathy for cause and imagination is not needed so much. Nature does not know what a mathematical constant is. Then there is politics. I think it is a mess.
Wonderful, just wonderful.
I don't understand any of it he's talking about, or even what Kuhn is asking.
Maybe the effectiveness of mathematics is an illusion? When you say that the mathematical description is very precise because it is true to a number of places after decimal point, in fact you are saying the description is false because there is a point at which it stops working. Before the mathematical description reaches that point, it APPEARS to be working because it was within the margin of error.
I don’t think this episode goes far enough to explain how simplicity can generate infinite complexity. Of course, I’m thinking of fractals of which the Mandelbrot set is an example. I believe that scientific evidence suggests that the universe is fractal rather than quantum in nature. For example, looking at the boundaries of the Mandelbrot set we know that there are an infinite number of similar 'looks' and complexities regardless of how closely we look - even if we look trillions of times more closely. Perhaps 'locality' and 'non-locality' are the axes to plot the fractal of the universe on an Argand diagram? This could also be a substitute for the 'multiverse' theory so that every possible outcome of the wavefunction collapse plays out in all the other 'fractal scales' all at once - and we only observe the result that is at our fractal scale. By mathematics we can now envisage that the Big Bang seeded a fractal structure to the universe so that other universes could lie within each other at differing fractal scales. Indeed, an infinite number of fractal scale universes could lie within every one of our fundamental particles! Furthermore, could dark matter be the evidence for the ‘information energy’ of the sum of an infinite number of fractal scales which we are not aware of? It was only in the 70’s that we discovered fractals by mathematics, but perhaps in this case the results really do give a hint to reality rather than reality leading to the discoveries of mathematics
Mr Kaku has a brilliant mind. He's gets a bit defensive though if you doubt his theories 😉
So?
Mathematics is a just a tool like any language is a tool. First we tried to explain the world in languages such as English, but Maths does a much better job at it. Maths in itself does not represent reality, but could be used to model reality. Many things in Maths cannot actually be used to represent reality at all. For example what is "-1" apples ?? But we use this as if negative numbers really "exist in nature". We need to be verycareful in understanding juglarey resulting absurd things ... These people like Michio take every opportunity to just push their String theory, n dimensions, multiverse stories via these Mathematical absurdities, none of which represent reality
Some physicists suggest an infinite universe theory where different laws of physics apply to each unit universe. A separate 1" God equation for each universe. Sounds a bit like a computer program?
Disagreeing W/ Great Michio in many issues, I Like the location, conversation & this Empty, simple background ...
We may still need some creativity from outside the math, maybe the soul, to explain why people can solve so many more open ended problems like driving a car, from A to B, that current AI cannot solve?
Thank you professor Kaku.
If this kind of design doesn’t make you think about God, nothing else will do
well actually higher dimensions would have alot of tricks like that in which 2 plus 2 could equal 5. first of all they have to realize that they can not dable in a higher dimension but i see that they think that they are.
It's the defined axium pattern recognition
I think that we are yet sure that the current formulas in math describe the whole universe but at least a part of it that we can detect .Mathematics are more applicable into engineering and Technology I think there is no perfect Harmony in the Universe
This one of the few interviews I've seen where michio is actually having a conversation.
In a lot of interviews He always talks like he's reading a script to dumb down his answers.
I liked that about this interview as well.
I don't really like listening to Michio Kaku's talks anymore because a lot of the time he seems too preachy, like he's trying to make certain things in science seem mystical. I would personally like it if more of the mathematics and the down-and-dirty details of physical theories and hypotheses were discussed.
@@ConsciousBreaks He's a popularizer. His audience is the intelligent layman. How can you become a celebrity scientists and make any decent money talking only to egg heads?
@@tabletalk33 I think there's definitely a middle ground somewhere.
PBS Spacetime does a pretty good job at this, IMO.
@@ConsciousBreaks I'll buy that. Michio doesn't seem too interested in any sort of "middle ground," though. I've been reading his Physics of the Impossible, and chapter 5 on "Telepathy" left me in a total state of consternation and disappointment. He studiously avoids serious analysis of it, and completely dismisses it in favor of the "materialistic" interpretation, which I already know to be a total dead end. I have read many of the better books on the subject, and so I don't have to swallow his opinions just because he has a Ph.D. in physics and I don't. The truth of telepathy, aka, "remote viewing," has been available to scientists and the public alike for quite a few years with very extensive literature to support its reality. I can't believe that Michio could be so misinformed of this fascinating body of work. The only choice left is that he has deliberately debunked it for ulterior motives, i.e., to protect his professional reputation from "ridicule" from other debunkers. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em! Therefore, I have to conclude that Michio's work is not as trustworthy as it seems. Beware.
But inconsistencies with regards to quantum theory is not satisfactory as quantum theory is still part of the original equation. It is still governed by the same set of mathematics that one is trying to diverge away from. Is it not?
Computer games exist and are therefore logically consistent. They describe some sort of pseudo reality that resembles ours in many important ways. They come without any quantum mechanics. The idea that only our laws of nature are logically consistent is flawed.
If God exists outside of the physical universe (space and time) would He need to obey logic? He could make 2+2=5 in the act of creating the universe. He could then exist both inside of time and outside of time to fully experience/interact with His creation and at the same time analyzing the effects of His interactions from outside of space and time.
We see that prof. Micho Kaku is so obssesed with the big graveyard- super cemetery....
This video was supposed to be longer but Giratina appeared and swooped both of them to the distortion world where 2+2=5
Why does the universe have to be logically consistent - that's one of those assumptions.....?
I tend to disagree with Mr. Kaku. Physical theories have to be consistent with the measurement, the experiment. To which extent is logic connected to the experiment?
I think that logic is somewhat embedded in our conducting of experiments. The scientific method is fundamentally based on logic. To put it bluntly, you have your hypothesis or premise of the form: "If A then B", that is to say, your hypothesis claims that if A is true then B is true. Next, you conduct experiments to confirm or disprove your hypothesis. If it turns out when A is true, B is also true, then there is a causal relation between A and B confirmed by experiment but it still follows logic. Indeed, if when A is true, B is not true according to experiment, then you may say that your hypothesis is false. You're still in the bounds of logic. Logic is just the patterning of human reasoning -- we reason in a linear fashion and we can express our chain of reasoning through symbols. If when A is true, B is false, you cannot say that your hypothesis is correct, and similarly in logic it is the same.
That's true. But, for example, breaking of parity or even living in a four dimensional space seemed illogical until proven by the experiment. Even our logic is based on our everyday life experimentation.
Isn't the question worded wrongly? Imagine how unreasonable a non mathematical universe would be. No stability, no order, no life. Maybe there are non mathematical universes. There's no life in them though so no mathematicians & besides there'd be no maths for them to do even if there were.
Its basically the anthropic principle.
Why does the interviewer keep referring to maths as unreasonable?🤔
He's unreasonable 🙄
Why are the words "green tree" so good at describing a green tree? The better question is why is the tree green? Why is it a tree?
Why are some aspects of the universe so simple, that they can be describe with maths?
Despite of getting unbelievable thoughts about time and space and changing human perceptions about them forever, Einstein’s brain couldn’t convince of no God. I would ask why? Number two, if mathematics has the capability to define universe in a logical way then why in this world negative multiply by negative is positive. Hmm. How one explain it logically and under whose logic.
Graphically, as rotation. Georg Lakoff, metaphors we live by.
For everything to exist, there must be symmetry, even at the quantum level, and the math follows that. I like the Dr. Kaku approaches that and other topics. There's nothing "Unreasonable" about the math. Dr. Kaku's recent book is also quite good BTW.
Dr. Kaku isn’t trying to sell string theory to us lol. The vast majority of us couldn’t even begin to understand the mathematics of it anyway. He does have an excellent point about mathematics being the only system which would give rise and structure to our universe though
the reason it is so effective is because it is reality a mathematical reality it can't be any other way
I don’t see why it’s so shocking. Physics is logical and can be described by numbers.
I am willing to pay him if he can proof my axioms are wrong in mathematics, but then again he is a physical theorist, even conspiracy theorists think they are right!!!🧐
Very peculiar speech pattern. Always sound like a script.
the more i listen to michio kaku describe deep physical topics the less i trust his intellect.
Just came to visit from 3005, mathematics was proven wrong.
Wow. I hope he didn't spend too much time working on that argument.
Michio sounds like he knows the universe intimately and that it's simple. Sabine Hossenfelder had more humble, realistic answers to these questions. She said that it may be much more complex; it's just the simple parts that happen to be amenable to our current mathematics.
great talk !!!
Neither a mathematician nor a philosopher….
Michio is out of control. Bring him to me😂😂😂😂
There might be also alternatives to mathematics.
..fear psyche hell..👽🤖👁️🕳️
He listens to reply
He := Michio Kaku
Maybe someday a super-computer will come up with the "God Equation" since computers are great at counting and logic...:)
I love michio kaku, still an really open mind scientist, he can talk about aliens, god, or different paradigms, he does not fall on "scientific religion" like most of american scientist.
I think most scientists accept the possibility of life outside of earth. Many physicists think it's probably inevitable. I wouldn't look to deep into his use of the word God though. He is not talking about a Christian God or anything like in any of the religions. He uses the word as Einstein did. I do appreciate how much liberty he gives to speculation though. It makes for really good conversations.
@@8beef4u ,I did not mention Christian God , but now you mentioned, "christian God" is something we must not say in general, Most of the people that have and idea of the Judeo-christian god have not even read the bible, or even know the culture and meanings.
But this is not the subject of the video, I know Know Spinoza God, but if God exist, i dont think he depends in our definitions, that wy "he is who he is". Any way, i just like how Michio Kaku is open to ideas and paradigms.
Effective visa vis our perceptions which are limited
Is god constrained to be consistent?
Michio Kaku is out of control.
no Michio is right, it's not 2.11111, it's in fact 2.11121 … just measured it accurately.
That isn't what mathematics is. Logic and set theory are tools commonly used in mathematical theories, but those two tools are subsets of mathematics themselves. In his defense, the mathematics he uses has everything to do with what he said. But this is like saying C++ is the fundamental language of computers.
Without watching the video, let me guess: "one inch long".
All I hear is "in other words" over and over and over........
One issue I have with the mathematics of geometry is that none of these shapes exist in nature at the same perfection. For example there are no perfect circles in nature so the equations that govern the mathematics don't really pertain to nature itself. Our world isn't made out of perfect geometry but rather our brains see these patterns in the world to understand it by creating patterns.
Mathematics doesn't seem to govern reality but rather a perfect representation of the universe that doesn't actually exist.
Now don't get me wrong. I don't hate string theory. It just looks like a 1d representation of a 3d system in time which in order to work has to have a Multi representation which makes sense. Ergo takes at least 10d. Which is a valid simplification of the system.
However, in the concept of string theory I think 2+2=4 because of that representation. When in reality it is more like (2+-(a))+-(2+-(b))=4 so on that 1d string yes the equation is always put in that 2+2=4 but the solution with more resolution should have a solution that extends to a perceivable grid solution in some way with string theory being sort of a higher dimensional representation of a 4d universe compresses down to a 1d view. Which takes away the unimaginable complexity of the system to a level that can be handled. I don't think its wrong I just think it's one piece of the puzzle.
I would not say that mathematics is counting and I prefer to say that mathematics is an emulation of various OPERATORS that exists in the universe when states contribute their input to action. Obviously counting with logic is an operator but counting seems to infer the same weighting of what is counted.
To cover all the functions which may evolve and can be obtained by counting, I prefer to say that mathematics is counting with a logic where the count weighting may differ according to the state of the function in hand. I am thinking of higher-order integral and differential at the moment where they are no more by operators found all around us. Evolution is no more than a majestic and elegant massive integral of the stats of the universe.
If we can measure it. Then I suggest our universe is that game in town. So if it is a must describe a philosophical universe. But if we can’t measure it then why all the effort. What is beyond the observable universe might interest us, because gravity might influence our reality. So I guess quantum gravity most likely be that our approach has to clarified. String theory seems to be what math suggest. Poul Dirac was determined to get rid of these ugly mathematical solutions. If it is too complex , it might not be right.i hardly can wait for what is next. Observation and math hand in hand would be nice
Math is counting and logic?
Known that way at least since Kant.
Yes, counting. That's the most unreasonable bit of math and it starts at 2. I don't necessarily mean at that age but when one thing occupies the place previously occupied by two. Gets even worse when you get to 9, and as for 100. . .That's another unreasonable thing, 0. Something there to show nothing's there. Math is useful precisely because it's unreasonable. The unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics is its effective unreasonableness.
mathematics is just counting. Its just an answer to how many or how much of something (material, forces or energy). every thing in math builds on counting i.e. adding one thing to rest of the things. Whether its classical or quantum physics, math is the same ie. counting (or adding 1 to the rest of the quantity). If a description does not follows our intuition of counting ( ie. adding one piece of something to rest of the pieces of something), it is not correct. It is the only way we have of verifying something so far where experiment cannot be carried out. And math or counting is found to be true in every experiment mankind has carried out to this day.
physics is the knowledge about the characteristics of something. Whereas, mathematics is just the language to express the quantity (ie. how many or how much?) of something. finding out the equation that something follows is science whereas the equation itself is math. Here equation is the language which is math.
Mathematics is not always effective. If you find it doesn't effective( unsatisfied ), you would change something or add something, until it is effective again.
Love Michio Kaku. He is the Isaac Asimov of physics.
Yeah, but who's the Isaac Asimov of science fiction? I'd say it's probably Arthur C. Clarke.