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:
“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...
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
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.