I positively love that he asks this extraordinary question to every intelligent human being he interviews. I think the very simple answer is not only that God (however you to interpret that word) is a mathematician but that he/she/it couldn't be anything else. How else can you specify a coherent universe of patterns and forms worth exploring? Without some basic rules, you'd just get a bunch of chaos you couldn't get a grasp on. From there, how best to explore this beautiful thing you've created? From the outside looking in, or would you additionally want eyes down on the lowest levels exploring every nook and cranny? AND HERE WE ARE.
@@ferdinandkraft857 Can't program without math. ;) Can't conceive of evil without balancing the equation with good. Myth is possible I guess, but that's a short circuit imo that offers almost nothing to a thinking person except perhaps reinforcing their egos investment in cynicism.
actually most of the people don't address the main problem Wigner talked about, which is the ability of the mathematician to come up with mathematical patterns to describe the world, without looking at the world and using only his mind.
I think mathematicians can do it. For example, the Sterm-Liouville equation which came before Schrodinger's equations fully encompasses it and is much broader, thus the quantum mechanical nature of the wave function which describes many things was resolved a-priori by mathematics... Actually, I retract the statement, I assume by "the world" you mean "[our] world". You cannot know what you do not know, I need to observe that something behaves like something to say it is most likely something. At the fundamental level, I cannot describe something that I have not observed.
@@alexandreleblanc9582 If you dig very deep in the nature of mathematics, you will find that it was a tool originally created by our minds to describe our world, but not to describe the workings of the world, and actually not related to the outside world at all. Let me explain. One of the building blocks of mathematics are numbers, which first appeared very early in our history through counting. Numbers are tools to count, but they are not related whatsoever to the things they are counting, they are just tools in our minds. When we say there is ''one'' aple on the table, there is nothing in common between the apple and the ''one'', the apple is made of cells, it can be eaten, it has a colour. While the number is made of numbers, which are abstract concepts in our minds Mathematics is mainly the invention of the fundamental concepts (numbers, lines, points), and the invention (or the discovery) of logical relationships between these concepts. And dont get me started on asking what the hell is logic and how does it exist in our minds. The world outside is made of things that move, change, collide, fall, dissolve, etc.... Nothing that is related to the world of mathematics.
It's simple, Mathematics describes patterns, patterns are simple at the core of it, and our procedurally generated universe follows certain patterns that can be described by mathematics. Maths is only an abstraction of what is already going on.
Wow, Mlodinov simply echoes Wigner himself and understands the issues as Wigner himself did. Hence this unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics is MIRACULOUS, and as Wigner added, a GIFT we should all be thankful for. But then these descriptions cry out for an explanation, at least offer a reasonable inference. So, brute fact-no reason? Coincidence (what a jackpot!)? Multiverse (extravagant violation of the law of parsimony!)? Or inferring a single, simple mathematical MIND doing the math behind the universe (Einstein's 'superior reasoning power')-or as Mlodinov said at the end of the clip, God. Now that's a pretty rational inference. Only those committed to the ideology of reductive naturalism will find that unacceptable, not on the basis of the data but on dogma.
The fact that the principals mathematics explain indeed appear to exist is what I find awesome. Mathematics, by my personal definition, is simply the words and symbols we as humans use to comprehend and communicate these principles. Mathematics didn't already exist before us, the principals it describes however did and do. I suppose the answer lies in where the individual slices their loaf of bread so to say.
Why do these principles exist in the first place is the question. You can attach any word or symbol to it you'd like to, in fact every different language does, but that doesn't mean anything with regard math's incredible serviceability in predicting the universe.
Situations in which this is perfectly reasonable and what you would expect are utterly disturbing. Imagine a video game where all the characters are self aware and believe they are real world entities rather than a simulation.
Zero, the thing mathematicians put there to show there's nothing there. Infinity, the number that means numberless. Limit, the number that you never get to, so always lies beyond the limit. Math deploys absurdities, contradictions and paradoxes to explain and predict. Mlodinow may have been right to tell us 2:53 that "built into mathematical language you have rules of logic and reasoning. . . the framework of mathematics restrains where we're going", but then it's where you're coming from which makes that journey a wild adventure. The effective unreasonableness of mathematics, not just its unreasonable effectiveness.
I guess it's good that Dr Kuhn seeks out many opinions since virtually all the questions he asks can only be answered by an opinion (unless he got to do the interview he wants the most - God). My opinion, for what it's worth, is that math seems effective because it is formulated with the answer already known, and if a new observation or experimental result should contradict it, the math will simply be modified until it is unreasonably effective once again.
The Higgs/Boson particular was predicted to exist as a result of the math. The equation was done before they found it. They didn't work backwards from discovery, they worked towards it.
@@jdm11060 That is apparently true, although it could be a little hyped up for effect, but in any case, the exception does not prove the rule. If a monkey picks your stock portfolio, sooner or later he will get a winner. Show me 100 significant features of nature that were predicted by math with no prior experimental indications, and maybe I'll have to reevaluate.
As Leonard noted, mathematics is simply a descriptor.. Humans didn't invent math, we DISCOVERED it.. Aliens would discover the SAME rules and laws, whether they are just COUNTING objects or utilizing algebraic equations, Mathematic descriptors should be universally recognized among ALL intelligent entities.. One man's opinion..
@Psychiatrysts What you are claiming is PURELY assumptive knowledge stated as fact. You have NO WAY of knowing if reality is ultimately beyond the purview of physics, so you're also being disingenuous.. Nonetheless, everyone has a right to speak..Peace
@Psychiatrysts Everything's cool. We've talked before.. I've got a question for you along the lines of your assertion.. Do YOU think humans invented math? Peace.. different hour a different attitude..
Our math fails at the moment of the big bang so there is one example. I like Sabine Hossenfelder's comment that maybe things can be described with relatively simple formulas because we're looking at relatively simple things.
Math does not fail at the moment of Big Bang. Physics as we know it breaks though. The complexity or the lack there of (simple) does not take away from the fact that math works in the first place
@@conversative : I am only quoting physicists. Their calculations are currently insufficient to go back further. If you're suggesting math exists without humans; that's a philosophical argument that has no practical meaning for me. Stuff happens, math is a language we use to try to describe it. It works because we keep changing it to make it fit. But if you want to believe it exists on it's own, that's fine with me.
@@jdm11060 : It's not a leap. It's the point she was making. Hossenfelder thinks physicists spend too much time looking for simple beauty in the math, like E=Mc2. and it may be inhibiting progress.
Someone would have to explain how an illogical world could have existed for me to think a logical and mathematically describable world is unreasonable. My understanding is that everything and nothing would have to exist and not exist simultaneously, or something like that, for an illogical world to exist. The existence of anything other than that would disprove a purely chaotic world. Not to mention any claim to any type of truth about the world implies a kind of logic to it. I can’t even think of a simple answer for the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics. It’s like asking why the unreasonable effectiveness of language, or grammar, or art, or circles. There’s many reasons why these things are effective, but are they unreasonably effective? Well, they have why’s.
Understanding a verbal language doesn't give us the ability to predict undiscovered languages in existence. Its the predictive accuracy of math that separates it from everything else you mentioned.
@@jdm11060 other than the appearance of a disagreement, I can’t see how what u’re saying is related to my comment. Can u elaborate or quote the problem sentences?
@@enfomy "I can't even think of a simple answer for the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics. It's like asking why the unreasonable effectiveness of language or grammar or art or circles." It's not like asking about those things at all. That's a false equivalency. Math is uniquely different in it's predictive capacity, not merely it's "effectiveness." Yes, all the things you reference are effective, but they are not predictive of the objective universe. Math is both predictive and effective which puts it into a category on its own. That intelligibility is what mathematicians and philosophers have been discussing for decades. I don't think you're altogether wrong though. Its true that if we lived in a universe that lacked the mathematical cohesiveness and logic that we do observe, we wouldn't even be here to recognize it. But this still begs the question why on earth (no pun intended) there is such a uniform intelligibility. Clearly math isnt invented like language and art, because it's predictive; the Higgs/Boson particle being a great example. That wouldn't be the case if we were simply making things up to explain the universe. Sorry for not being more clear. I hope that helps explain my objection. Cheers.
@@jdm11060 What a difficult thing to respond to. I guess my first step is to ask what u mean by "invent" and "predict?" I suppose u believe math is discovered, rather than invented (assuming I'm using the term the same way u are). But I'm struggling to see how one discovers math without art and grammar. Are u saying geometry and topology arent related to art? Are u saying arithmetic and algebra have nothing to do with grammar? If u're studying swans, and u observe 100 white swans, but there's a black swan u haven't observed yet, how can mathematics help u predict that black swan exist before observing it?
Most of modern cosmology is built on mathematics which is overly complicated and not grounded in reality...I call it Mathterbation! What if the universe is rooted in much simpler set of concepts...Quality, Connection and Process. I recommend checking out the work of Arthur M Young in his books The Reflexive Universe and The Theory of Process.
So we have quantum building blocks that are all exact copies of same kind, we have light conveying information at straight path and fixed speed, and everything can be perfectly balanced, those are the basic constituents of functional number theory that allow mathematics to exist. Except all those concepts are just constructs, electrons are all the same, but have no shape and defined location, light is traveling straight, but in a curved space, speed of light is a constant, but propagate at different rates in materials, perfect balance can't exist because nothing is divisible exactly at half and can't be because everything is connected and in constant motion. This would mean mathematics emerge only in restrains of our dimension, where things are well tuned with our biological senses.It doesn't mean there is no number theory deep down and in a holistic dimension, it's just representations of numbers are different, logical order still exist, so they must be convertible into our dimension. Essence of the world could explain effectiveness of logical relations and structures, but not why are we aware of it. World could exist according to biological laws of evolution also, things pop up into existence and evolve into something else, than dissolve and transform into something completely different, like one form of chaos flow into another kind of unstable nonsense, just because it can. This chaotic and relativistic nature of the world enable us to do more mathematics than we can see in our environment, we can invent new concepts and force elements to do extended mathematics that do not exist in natural world. Number theory is natural foundation of reality, mathematics is not, it's invented by evolution of mind. Why do we think of forms same as mathematical constructs, those things are very different, but there must be a reason why we mix them together in a single construct. It's because we can observe past and contemplate about the future, if we could sense only what is now, rules would still apply, but no mathematics could exist since there would be no way to follow how some system evolved. Light, relativity and time are somehow merged into a single principle, this is telling me not all reality could be described by mathematics. No wonder logos was such a big deal for ancient philosophers, mathematics is a veil constructed over true underlying nature of reality. Think about that, entire logical structure of the universe could fall apart, could unwind just the same as it was added together, but universe itself would still exist. What set mathematical monster in motion billions of years ago, this is a better question.
The answer is an anthropic one: if reality wasn't consistent (i.e. the same cause always goes to the same effect and so reality is describable by a logical, mathematical model), we couldn't exist as biological machines. Maybe there are universes not described by mathematics, but no one lives there.
Dr Keun pls note that math is simple because it is based on ONE & platonic figures & shapes are points or lines...this might be encoding a unitary language of ONE ..so it is Allah's way to show his onness...!
it's a poor argument to refer to aliens when talking about mathematics. we cant see any aliens in our universe - our planet is a single one with life on it. and this can be a fundamental consequence from the laws of physics (formulated in a math form) which our universe obeys.
I positively love that he asks this extraordinary question to every intelligent human being he interviews. I think the very simple answer is not only that God (however you to interpret that word) is a mathematician but that he/she/it couldn't be anything else. How else can you specify a coherent universe of patterns and forms worth exploring? Without some basic rules, you'd just get a bunch of chaos you couldn't get a grasp on. From there, how best to explore this beautiful thing you've created? From the outside looking in, or would you additionally want eyes down on the lowest levels exploring every nook and cranny? AND HERE WE ARE.
God is not a mathematician, he/she/it is either a sadistic computer programmer or a myth.
@@ferdinandkraft857 Can't program without math. ;) Can't conceive of evil without balancing the equation with good. Myth is possible I guess, but that's a short circuit imo that offers almost nothing to a thinking person except perhaps reinforcing their egos investment in cynicism.
actually most of the people don't address the main problem Wigner talked about, which is the ability of the mathematician to come up with mathematical patterns to describe the world, without looking at the world and using only his mind.
I think mathematicians can do it. For example, the Sterm-Liouville equation which came before Schrodinger's equations fully encompasses it and is much broader, thus the quantum mechanical nature of the wave function which describes many things was resolved a-priori by mathematics...
Actually, I retract the statement, I assume by "the world" you mean "[our] world". You cannot know what you do not know, I need to observe that something behaves like something to say it is most likely something. At the fundamental level, I cannot describe something that I have not observed.
@@alexandreleblanc9582 If you dig very deep in the nature of mathematics, you will find that it was a tool originally created by our minds to describe our world, but not to describe the workings of the world, and actually not related to the outside world at all. Let me explain.
One of the building blocks of mathematics are numbers, which first appeared very early in our history through counting. Numbers are tools to count, but they are not related whatsoever to the things they are counting, they are just tools in our minds. When we say there is ''one'' aple on the table, there is nothing in common between the apple and the ''one'', the apple is made of cells, it can be eaten, it has a colour. While the number is made of numbers, which are abstract concepts in our minds
Mathematics is mainly the invention of the fundamental concepts (numbers, lines, points), and the invention (or the discovery) of logical relationships between these concepts. And dont get me started on asking what the hell is logic and how does it exist in our minds.
The world outside is made of things that move, change, collide, fall, dissolve, etc.... Nothing that is related to the world of mathematics.
thank you
It's simple, Mathematics describes patterns, patterns are simple at the core of it, and our procedurally generated universe follows certain patterns that can be described by mathematics.
Maths is only an abstraction of what is already going on.
Wow, Mlodinov simply echoes Wigner himself and understands the issues as Wigner himself did. Hence this unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics is MIRACULOUS, and as Wigner added, a GIFT we should all be thankful for. But then these descriptions cry out for an explanation, at least offer a reasonable inference. So, brute fact-no reason? Coincidence (what a jackpot!)? Multiverse (extravagant violation of the law of parsimony!)? Or inferring a single, simple mathematical MIND doing the math behind the universe (Einstein's 'superior reasoning power')-or as Mlodinov said at the end of the clip, God. Now that's a pretty rational inference. Only those committed to the ideology of reductive naturalism will find that unacceptable, not on the basis of the data but on dogma.
The fact that the principals mathematics explain indeed appear to exist is what I find awesome. Mathematics, by my personal definition, is simply the words and symbols we as humans use to comprehend and communicate these principles. Mathematics didn't already exist before us, the principals it describes however did and do. I suppose the answer lies in where the individual slices their loaf of bread so to say.
Why do these principles exist in the first place is the question. You can attach any word or symbol to it you'd like to, in fact every different language does, but that doesn't mean anything with regard math's incredible serviceability in predicting the universe.
Situations in which this is perfectly reasonable and what you would expect are utterly disturbing.
Imagine a video game where all the characters are self aware and believe they are real world entities rather than a simulation.
Does the abstract use mathematics to bring about the physical?
Kudos -- 444 Gematria -- 🗽
Looking for some input and invester
Zero, the thing mathematicians put there to show there's nothing there. Infinity, the number that means numberless. Limit, the number that you never get to, so always lies beyond the limit. Math deploys absurdities, contradictions and paradoxes to explain and predict.
Mlodinow may have been right to tell us 2:53 that "built into mathematical language you have rules of logic and reasoning. . . the framework of mathematics restrains where we're going", but then it's where you're coming from which makes that journey a wild adventure.
The effective unreasonableness of mathematics, not just its unreasonable effectiveness.
I guess it's good that Dr Kuhn seeks out many opinions since virtually all the questions he asks can only be answered by an opinion (unless he got to do the interview he wants the most - God). My opinion, for what it's worth, is that math seems effective because it is formulated with the answer already known, and if a new observation or experimental result should contradict it, the math will simply be modified until it is unreasonably effective once again.
The Higgs/Boson particular was predicted to exist as a result of the math. The equation was done before they found it. They didn't work backwards from discovery, they worked towards it.
@@jdm11060 That is apparently true, although it could be a little hyped up for effect, but in any case, the exception does not prove the rule. If a monkey picks your stock portfolio, sooner or later he will get a winner. Show me 100 significant features of nature that were predicted by math with no prior experimental indications, and maybe I'll have to reevaluate.
As Leonard noted, mathematics is simply a descriptor.. Humans didn't invent math, we DISCOVERED it.. Aliens would discover the SAME rules and laws, whether they are just COUNTING objects or utilizing algebraic equations, Mathematic descriptors should be universally recognized among ALL intelligent entities.. One man's opinion..
@Psychiatrysts What you are claiming is PURELY assumptive knowledge stated as fact. You have NO WAY of knowing if reality is ultimately beyond the purview of physics, so you're also being disingenuous.. Nonetheless, everyone has a right to speak..Peace
My freaking translator is going crazy!
Probably user error. Haha
@Psychiatrysts Everything's cool. We've talked before.. I've got a question for you along the lines of your assertion.. Do YOU think humans invented math? Peace.. different hour a different attitude..
it's just a descriptor we use to describe reality, but we discovered it rather than invented it? wouldn't it be the other way around then?
Our math fails at the moment of the big bang so there is one example. I like Sabine Hossenfelder's comment that maybe things can be described with relatively simple formulas because we're looking at relatively simple things.
Math does not fail at the moment of Big Bang. Physics as we know it breaks though. The complexity or the lack there of (simple) does not take away from the fact that math works in the first place
The more humans explore the sciences, the more we discover just how complex things really are. So that's quite a leap.
@@conversative : I am only quoting physicists. Their calculations are currently insufficient to go back further. If you're suggesting math exists without humans; that's a philosophical argument that has no practical meaning for me. Stuff happens, math is a language we use to try to describe it. It works because we keep changing it to make it fit. But if you want to believe it exists on it's own, that's fine with me.
@@jdm11060 : It's not a leap. It's the point she was making. Hossenfelder thinks physicists spend too much time looking for simple beauty in the math, like E=Mc2. and it may be inhibiting progress.
Someone would have to explain how an illogical world could have existed for me to think a logical and mathematically describable world is unreasonable. My understanding is that everything and nothing would have to exist and not exist simultaneously, or something like that, for an illogical world to exist. The existence of anything other than that would disprove a purely chaotic world. Not to mention any claim to any type of truth about the world implies a kind of logic to it. I can’t even think of a simple answer for the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics. It’s like asking why the unreasonable effectiveness of language, or grammar, or art, or circles. There’s many reasons why these things are effective, but are they unreasonably effective? Well, they have why’s.
Understanding a verbal language doesn't give us the ability to predict undiscovered languages in existence. Its the predictive accuracy of math that separates it from everything else you mentioned.
@@jdm11060 other than the appearance of a disagreement, I can’t see how what u’re saying is related to my comment. Can u elaborate or quote the problem sentences?
@@enfomy "I can't even think of a simple answer for the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics. It's like asking why the unreasonable effectiveness of language or grammar or art or circles."
It's not like asking about those things at all. That's a false equivalency. Math is uniquely different in it's predictive capacity, not merely it's "effectiveness." Yes, all the things you reference are effective, but they are not predictive of the objective universe. Math is both predictive and effective which puts it into a category on its own. That intelligibility is what mathematicians and philosophers have been discussing for decades.
I don't think you're altogether wrong though. Its true that if we lived in a universe that lacked the mathematical cohesiveness and logic that we do observe, we wouldn't even be here to recognize it. But this still begs the question why on earth (no pun intended) there is such a uniform intelligibility. Clearly math isnt invented like language and art, because it's predictive; the Higgs/Boson particle being a great example. That wouldn't be the case if we were simply making things up to explain the universe.
Sorry for not being more clear. I hope that helps explain my objection. Cheers.
@@jdm11060 What a difficult thing to respond to. I guess my first step is to ask what u mean by "invent" and "predict?" I suppose u believe math is discovered, rather than invented (assuming I'm using the term the same way u are). But I'm struggling to see how one discovers math without art and grammar. Are u saying geometry and topology arent related to art? Are u saying arithmetic and algebra have nothing to do with grammar? If u're studying swans, and u observe 100 white swans, but there's a black swan u haven't observed yet, how can mathematics help u predict that black swan exist before observing it?
Wonderhussy Adventures has way more truth and wholesomeness in it t h a n this show does. Honestly it does.
Most of modern cosmology is built on mathematics which is overly complicated and not grounded in reality...I call it Mathterbation!
What if the universe is rooted in much simpler set of concepts...Quality, Connection and Process. I recommend checking out the work of Arthur M Young in his books The Reflexive Universe and The Theory of Process.
"Who says nature should be logical?"... logic does
logic has nothing to do with reality or even truth; it's about form.
Everyone has their own logic. For example, I see no excuse for those who have not bothered to find God.
@@mustafaelbahi7979 Wrong, there is only one logic. Your statement is just nonsense.
Therefore, you agree with me on the need to search for God
@@mustafaelbahi7979 ... i think you're confusing reasoning with logic.
michio kaku said that God is a mathematician
God is not a mathematician, but mathematics is God.
@@DeusExAstra Mathematics is the language of God in nature.
So we have quantum building blocks that are all exact copies of same kind, we have light conveying information at straight path and fixed speed, and everything can be perfectly balanced, those are the basic constituents of functional number theory that allow mathematics to exist. Except all those concepts are just constructs, electrons are all the same, but have no shape and defined location, light is traveling straight, but in a curved space, speed of light is a constant, but propagate at different rates in materials, perfect balance can't exist because nothing is divisible exactly at half and can't be because everything is connected and in constant motion. This would mean mathematics emerge only in restrains of our dimension, where things are well tuned with our biological senses.It doesn't mean there is no number theory deep down and in a holistic dimension, it's just representations of numbers are different, logical order still exist, so they must be convertible into our dimension.
Essence of the world could explain effectiveness of logical relations and structures, but not why are we aware of it. World could exist according to biological laws of evolution also, things pop up into existence and evolve into something else, than dissolve and transform into something completely different, like one form of chaos flow into another kind of unstable nonsense, just because it can.
This chaotic and relativistic nature of the world enable us to do more mathematics than we can see in our environment, we can invent new concepts and force elements to do extended mathematics that do not exist in natural world. Number theory is natural foundation of reality, mathematics is not, it's invented by evolution of mind. Why do we think of forms same as mathematical constructs, those things are very different, but there must be a reason why we mix them together in a single construct. It's because we can observe past and contemplate about the future, if we could sense only what is now, rules would still apply, but no mathematics could exist since there would be no way to follow how some system evolved. Light, relativity and time are somehow merged into a single principle, this is telling me not all reality could be described by mathematics. No wonder logos was such a big deal for ancient philosophers, mathematics is a veil constructed over true underlying nature of reality. Think about that, entire logical structure of the universe could fall apart, could unwind just the same as it was added together, but universe itself would still exist. What set mathematical monster in motion billions of years ago, this is a better question.
The answer is an anthropic one: if reality wasn't consistent (i.e. the same cause always goes to the same effect and so reality is describable by a logical, mathematical model), we couldn't exist as biological machines. Maybe there are universes not described by mathematics, but no one lives there.
But since we can't observe those other universes to find out, this is completely ad hoc requiring even more faith than ones assertion in God.
"It's kind of a language" -- yes, but let's push this a little further --> It's the Universal Language, not just any old language.
Dr Keun pls note that math is simple because it is based on ONE & platonic figures & shapes are points or lines...this might be encoding a unitary language of ONE ..so it is Allah's way to show his onness...!
it's a poor argument to refer to aliens when talking about mathematics. we cant see any aliens in our universe - our planet is a single one with life on it. and this can be a fundamental consequence from the laws of physics (formulated in a math form) which our universe obeys.