He also says that we should halt AI research (so our opponents get ahead of us). I guess he is glad the US developed the bomb rather than let the NAZIs win.
Tegmark contradicts himself though – he opens eyes but doesn’t provide a definitive picture – and he doesn’t seem to see a problem with it. Just sayin’
🤖 Max Tegmark shows why Max Tegmark is wrong about AI
Professor Max Tegmark almost predicted the last years of AI development. But he got one thing wrong, which undermines his argument about the dangers of AI.
Back in 1986, swami Chinmayananda said ‘A human is matter groomed to consciousness’. I was mesmerised by this statement extrapolated from the Upanishads and still am. Here’s the video from the OP.
Hmm, the way the Standard Model is currently represented is perfect in it is simple and complete. You can ssee what confusion can be caused when you weave everything into a mind/brain/tree map.
Particle physics mindmap: iMindMap mind map template
… and there are loads of tools for mind mapping available now. Would be good is there was a contest or universal repository with the best ones for each subject as the subject evolves.
They still haven’t caught on enough. Old ways with lists alone don’t work as well than having a variety of ways to represent a subject or sub-subject. I highly recommend what this school is doing now, and many others.
Visual Learners learn best when material is presented to them in the form of diagrams, graphics, maps or drawings. This helps them to visualise what is being asked of them. You might find the following ways of study helpful:
Nature is an unstoppable force, and a beautiful one at that. Everywhere you look, the natural world is laced with stunning patterns that can be described with mathematics. From bees to blood vessels, ferns to fangs, math can explain how such beauty e
Good comment on this video “As a working mathematician, the scariest part of incompleteness is that when I can’t solve a problem, I don’t know if the problem I’m working on is just really hard… or if it’s actually impossible.”
Euclid introduced the axiomatic method still used in mathematics today, consisting of the definition, axiom, theorem, and proof. You may be confusing math with the relationships math describes.
Just found the response on Quora about a similar question, how philosophical and mathematical logic differ. I have pasted one answer below as it tickled me.
“When I was getting my PhD, we had a joint logic seminar with both philosophical and mathematical logicians. I would say the most striking difference is what part of the talk they are interested in.
When a mathematical logician gives a talk in front of an audience that contains philosophical logicians, it often goes something like this. There is a brief introduction, including a couple of definitions. For the mathematical logician, this is just boring routine stuff, something you need to go through before you write down the theorem and gets to the interesting part, the neat techniques he or she invented to prove it.
However, as soon as the definitions are shown, the philosophers raise their hands and want to discuss whether this is the “right” definition. For them, the definition is supposed to clarify what you are studying; the definition itself should captures some underlying basic truth. The mathematical logician just doesn’t care about that. He or she will rather be thinking something along the lines of “Clearly it is the right definition, because that is the definition that lets us prove this extremely cool theorem that I haven’t even gotten to write down yet! Shut up and let me get on with it!””
What is the difference between philosophical logic & mathematical logic? - Quora
Philosophical and mathematical – but they are really the same thing. however there is a difference in how they are taught and used. From stack exchange… “The main difference between “Logic in Philosophy” and “Mathematical Logic” is that in the former case logic is used as a tool, while in the latter it is studied for its own sake.”
At my university, students majoring in philosophy take a course called “Logic in Philosophy” and there is also a course offered in the Math Department called “Mathematical Logic”. There are also
In logic, an argument can be invalid even if its conclusion is true, and an argument can be valid even if its conclusion is false. It’s a confusing concept, and people are easily fooled when …
Hmm, I thought this was a silly idea, but I just read on Wikipedia otherwise. That “In mathematics and logic, a higher-order logic is a form of predicate logic that is distinguished from first-order logic by additional quantifiers and, sometimes, stronger semantics.”
In mathematics and logic, a higher-order logic is a form of predicate logic that is distinguished from first-order logic by additional quantifiers and, sometimes, stronger semantics. Higher-order logics with their standard semantics are more expressive, but their model-theoretic properties are less ... Read more
Sean Carroll would agree with you here. It’s the name of his website too. Nothing in the universe is set up that way to make it make sense to us. Why should it?
“In mathematics, there are imaginary numbers which cannot be represented directly in reality (the physical world). For example, you can’t have i apples where
i = √-1 (square root of -1)
Can we then say that in some sense mathematics is not truth, assuming truth in this sense is that which is manifest or possible in reality?”
Is mathematics truth? As in the sense of that which is manifest or possible in reality?
In mathematics there are imaginary numbers which cannot be represented directly in reality (the physical world). For example, you can't have i apples where
i = √-1 (square root of -1)
Can we
Often, when I try to describe mathematics to the layman, I find myself struggling to convince them of the importance and consequence of "proof". I receive responses like: "surely if Collatz is true...
omg, don’t laugh… ” I always see the number 1234. I see it as on clocks, in emails, on TV, and just out and about. At first, I thought it was a coincidence, but then I started to realize that it was a pattern….
Because everything in this reality is at its core is energy, Spirit will send messages through numbers because your vibrational field is so responsive to them. It is what the world around you is made out of. “
Always See The Same Number? Spiritual or Psychological? | Crystal Clear Intuition
Weird things happen to most people at some point in their lives, and if not to you directly than probably to someone you know. But what is the ultimate meaning to such coincidences? They may seem amazing, and psychologically scream out for an equally amazing explanation.
Skeptics caution, however
Blimey, someone must have been trying hard to find some pattern in there. Just Google’d it and to be honest, would have expected lots more “patterns” than that in an infinite number.
I would go with Hoffman’s version – really it just seems to be a mathematical pattern as that’s all we are equipped to perceive.
He also says that we should halt AI research (so our opponents get ahead of us). I guess he is glad the US developed the bomb rather than let the NAZIs win.
Tegmark contradicts himself though – he opens eyes but doesn’t provide a definitive picture – and he doesn’t seem to see a problem with it. Just sayin’
Back in 1986, swami Chinmayananda said ‘A human is matter groomed to consciousness’. I was mesmerised by this statement extrapolated from the Upanishads and still am. Here’s the video from the OP.
Hmm, the way the Standard Model is currently represented is perfect in it is simple and complete. You can ssee what confusion can be caused when you weave everything into a mind/brain/tree map.
… and there are loads of tools for mind mapping available now. Would be good is there was a contest or universal repository with the best ones for each subject as the subject evolves.
They still haven’t caught on enough. Old ways with lists alone don’t work as well than having a variety of ways to represent a subject or sub-subject. I highly recommend what this school is doing now, and many others.
I agree, useful idea, loads of them are available here https://www.mindmeister.com/1181884332/mathematics
But…
Good comment on this video “As a working mathematician, the scariest part of incompleteness is that when I can’t solve a problem, I don’t know if the problem I’m working on is just really hard… or if it’s actually impossible.”
Euclid introduced the axiomatic method still used in mathematics today, consisting of the definition, axiom, theorem, and proof. You may be confusing math with the relationships math describes.
I guess you got this from the video I am linking to.
lol
Hmm, physics has been able to blame maths for being wrong for far too long now.
Logic has been a bit screwed since we discovered it was screwed.
Just found the response on Quora about a similar question, how philosophical and mathematical logic differ. I have pasted one answer below as it tickled me.
“When I was getting my PhD, we had a joint logic seminar with both philosophical and mathematical logicians. I would say the most striking difference is what part of the talk they are interested in.
When a mathematical logician gives a talk in front of an audience that contains philosophical logicians, it often goes something like this. There is a brief introduction, including a couple of definitions. For the mathematical logician, this is just boring routine stuff, something you need to go through before you write down the theorem and gets to the interesting part, the neat techniques he or she invented to prove it.
However, as soon as the definitions are shown, the philosophers raise their hands and want to discuss whether this is the “right” definition. For them, the definition is supposed to clarify what you are studying; the definition itself should captures some underlying basic truth. The mathematical logician just doesn’t care about that. He or she will rather be thinking something along the lines of “Clearly it is the right definition, because that is the definition that lets us prove this extremely cool theorem that I haven’t even gotten to write down yet! Shut up and let me get on with it!””
Philosophical and mathematical – but they are really the same thing. however there is a difference in how they are taught and used. From stack exchange… “The main difference between “Logic in Philosophy” and “Mathematical Logic” is that in the former case logic is used as a tool, while in the latter it is studied for its own sake.”
I blame Spock. Mr, not Dr. Fake news at the most fundamental level.
Hmm, I thought this was a silly idea, but I just read on Wikipedia otherwise. That “In mathematics and logic, a higher-order logic is a form of predicate logic that is distinguished from first-order logic by additional quantifiers and, sometimes, stronger semantics.”
That’s why you are here – to make sense of it.
Science is way to speculative nowadays, it needs to go back to the basic assumptions, rather than keep adding new ones.
The Universe is inherently preposterous
(1 upvotes)The Universe is under no obligation to make sense to you
(11 upvotes)Sean Carroll would agree with you here. It’s the name of his website too. Nothing in the universe is set up that way to make it make sense to us. Why should it?
Truth, is a loaded word, but yeah…
“In mathematics, there are imaginary numbers which cannot be represented directly in reality (the physical world). For example, you can’t have i apples where
i = √-1 (square root of -1)
Can we then say that in some sense mathematics is not truth, assuming truth in this sense is that which is manifest or possible in reality?”
Could depend on which truth you mean, trivial or fundamental.
I need to go back to school it seems. hehe
True, to a point.
Love how Khan teaches basic pattern spotting.
omg, don’t laugh… ” I always see the number 1234. I see it as on clocks, in emails, on TV, and just out and about. At first, I thought it was a coincidence, but then I started to realize that it was a pattern….
Because everything in this reality is at its core is energy, Spirit will send messages through numbers because your vibrational field is so responsive to them. It is what the world around you is made out of. “
Pie backwards anybody? Remember this as a teacher showed me it at school.
Blame sadistics and the law of large numbers.
Reminds me of the Feynman Point. Which I don’t think he even identified.
Blimey, someone must have been trying hard to find some pattern in there. Just Google’d it and to be honest, would have expected lots more “patterns” than that in an infinite number.
Saying God is spaceless and timeless is also extra meaningless because it only says what God is not.
Completely different from Atheism, thank god 😉