正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

返回首页

Is math something humans invent—or something we discover? And why does it describe the universe so uncannily well? In this episode of Uncommon Knowledge, Peter Robinson sits down with mathematicians David Berlinski, Sergiu Klainerman, and Stephen C. Meyer to explore one of the deepest mysteries in science and philosophy:...

HooverInst's profile picture

Hoover Institution

198,981 subscribers

52,543 次观看 • 9 个月前 •via X (Twitter)

教育科学技术
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

18 条评论

Adrian Hofman 的头像
Adrian Hofman9 个月前

@p_m_robinson @StephenCMeyer Fascinating. Great beauty and mystery lays in Fibonacci sequence and golden ratio too. How is that possible if not a divine concept.

Angus Macnamara 的头像
Angus Macnamara9 个月前

@p_m_robinson @StephenCMeyer God created man, and henceforth man endeavoured to explain what he observed

Kabiru 的头像
Kabiru9 个月前

@p_m_robinson @StephenCMeyer Our world exists beyond our forms of perception, which is mainly material. Philosophy tries to consider all possible factors but math(science) considers only the factors we can perceive. Hence it’s rather a discovery than an invention. It’s our highest form of consciousness.😂

TakingHayekSeriously 的头像
TakingHayekSeriously9 个月前

@Jon_Hartley_ @p_m_robinson @StephenCMeyer These discussions are always an embarrassment.

Richard Halley 的头像
Richard Halley9 个月前

@p_m_robinson @StephenCMeyer @BenBayer : fascinating study case: a mystic, an agnostic and a septic in the same room !

Wes Anderson 🇺🇲 的头像
Wes Anderson 🇺🇲9 个月前

@p_m_robinson @StephenCMeyer As an engineer with some math background, I was in awe of the minds at the table. Then I wondered if I would feel the same awe if they were AI avatars. I think I felt it because I could relate to them as human minds. Where are we heading?

Mike Seder 的头像
Mike Seder9 个月前

@p_m_robinson @StephenCMeyer nah, I'm good

CJSebastian 的头像
CJSebastian9 个月前

@p_m_robinson @StephenCMeyer Thank you all for this!

Richard Halley 的头像
Richard Halley9 个月前

@p_m_robinson @StephenCMeyer of course objectivism compel to allegiance !

John Rorabaugh 的头像
John Rorabaugh9 个月前

@p_m_robinson @StephenCMeyer

Alan Rendall🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿🇩🇪🇮🇱 的头像
Alan Rendall🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿🇩🇪🇮🇱7 个月前

@p_m_robinson @StephenCMeyer I liked the discussion. Concerning the role of God I would like to quote what Laplace said to Napoleon about his book on celestial mechanics and the need for God: je n'ai pas besoin de cette hypothese

John Tegland 的头像
John Tegland9 个月前

@p_m_robinson @StephenCMeyer Language is something humans invented, so they can have silly conversations about math.

John Rorabaugh 的头像
John Rorabaugh9 个月前

@p_m_robinson @StephenCMeyer

The Resolute Mind 的头像
The Resolute Mind9 个月前

Peter...uncommon indeed! The average high school graduate can barely read and write, and this group ponders esoteric mathematics.

John 的头像
John9 个月前

@p_m_robinson @StephenCMeyer Cannot wait to see this! I have to wait until morning though.

The Resolute Mind 的头像
The Resolute Mind9 个月前

@p_m_robinson @StephenCMeyer Uncommon Knowledge is the only production that redeems Hoover.

Richard Halley 的头像
Richard Halley9 个月前

@p_m_robinson @StephenCMeyer "The consistency of the hole is not an axiom at all" it is a pure whim. "Existence exists", "Consciousness is conscious" and "A is A" are the fundamental axioms of metaphysics.

A. J. Acharya 的头像
A. J. Acharya9 个月前

@p_m_robinson @StephenCMeyer 2+2=4 is interesting in our being certain of it - as a tool in making sense (our sense) of the universe - & projected it on the world. Later we ascertained the sameness of units - two ducks & not 1 hill + 1 duck unless acknowledged the difference & accepted it. It is just a tool.

相关视频

On a new episode of Uncommon Knowledge, Peter Robinson sits down with mathematician Prof John Lennox, philosopher of science Stephen C. Meyer, and chemist Dr James Tour to examine what modern science suggests about the origin of the universe and life itself. Moving from the Big Bang and the discovery of cosmic beginnings, to the fine-tuning of the physical constants that make life possible, to the extraordinary complexity and information embedded in DNA, the conversation explores whether these developments point to blind, undirected processes—or to the activity of an intelligent mind. The trio challenges long-held materialist assumptions, revisits classic scientific debates, and reflects on what these questions mean not only for science but also for our understanding of human existence and purpose. Uncommon Knowledge Discovery Institute
1:01:30

On a new episode of Uncommon Knowledge, Peter Robinson sits down with mathematician Prof John Lennox, philosopher of science Stephen C. Meyer, and chemist Dr James Tour to examine what modern science suggests about the origin of the universe and life itself. Moving from the Big Bang and the discovery of cosmic beginnings, to the fine-tuning of the physical constants that make life possible, to the extraordinary complexity and information embedded in DNA, the conversation explores whether these developments point to blind, undirected processes—or to the activity of an intelligent mind. The trio challenges long-held materialist assumptions, revisits classic scientific debates, and reflects on what these questions mean not only for science but also for our understanding of human existence and purpose. Uncommon Knowledge Discovery Institute

Hoover Institution

33,075 次观看 • 6 个月前

Nothing in physics may be truly fundamental. Questions whether the idea of “building blocks” in nature are increasingly outliving its usefulness, suggesting that our most basic concepts reflect the limits of human understanding rather than the structure of reality itself. Here Physicist Sabine Hossenfelder (Sabine Hossenfelder) argues that mathematics isn't real, and rather a tool we use to describe the world. If that’s the case, what would a coherent picture of the world even look like? And can physics progress without appealing to particles, things, or foundations? Watch the full debate via the link, also featuring critic of realism Hilary Lawson and celebrated philosopher of science Tim Maudlin:
1:07

Nothing in physics may be truly fundamental. Questions whether the idea of “building blocks” in nature are increasingly outliving its usefulness, suggesting that our most basic concepts reflect the limits of human understanding rather than the structure of reality itself. Here Physicist Sabine Hossenfelder (Sabine Hossenfelder) argues that mathematics isn't real, and rather a tool we use to describe the world. If that’s the case, what would a coherent picture of the world even look like? And can physics progress without appealing to particles, things, or foundations? Watch the full debate via the link, also featuring critic of realism Hilary Lawson and celebrated philosopher of science Tim Maudlin:

Institute of Art and Ideas

57,185 次观看 • 10 个月前

Historians Niall Ferguson, Victor Davis Hanson, and Stephen Kotkin appear together for the first time in a public discussion. The topic of this Uncommon Knowledge episode: Is the United States in decline or on the verge of renewal? The Hoover senior fellows discuss: - Donald Trump's second term and the transformation of the Republican Party - Relations between China and Taiwan - America's fiscal crisis - The current state of universities - The upcoming 250th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence This wide-ranging and often passionate conversation dives deep into history, politics, and the fate of Western civilization. Watch the full video on X via Uncommon Knowledge with Peter Robinson:
1:19:28

Historians Niall Ferguson, Victor Davis Hanson, and Stephen Kotkin appear together for the first time in a public discussion. The topic of this Uncommon Knowledge episode: Is the United States in decline or on the verge of renewal? The Hoover senior fellows discuss: - Donald Trump's second term and the transformation of the Republican Party - Relations between China and Taiwan - America's fiscal crisis - The current state of universities - The upcoming 250th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence This wide-ranging and often passionate conversation dives deep into history, politics, and the fate of Western civilization. Watch the full video on X via Uncommon Knowledge with Peter Robinson:

Hoover Institution

117,971 次观看 • 1 年前

💎 FULL CONVERSATION 💎 Renowned professor of mathematics Emily Riehl at Johns Hopkins University sits down with Math Inc's Jesse Michael Han and Jared Duker Lichtman for a conversation on the future of mathematics. “Formalization has completely changed my view of what mathematics is.” “It acquainted me with a different approach to the foundations of mathematics.” “It helps you think and speak more precisely, often at this dream stage where new ideas are being developed.” “This is what I think the future of mathematics could be.” Watch the full video on YouTube:
43:11

💎 FULL CONVERSATION 💎 Renowned professor of mathematics Emily Riehl at Johns Hopkins University sits down with Math Inc's Jesse Michael Han and Jared Duker Lichtman for a conversation on the future of mathematics. “Formalization has completely changed my view of what mathematics is.” “It acquainted me with a different approach to the foundations of mathematics.” “It helps you think and speak more precisely, often at this dream stage where new ideas are being developed.” “This is what I think the future of mathematics could be.” Watch the full video on YouTube:

Math, Inc.

16,325 次观看 • 9 个月前

This is a podcast about whether AI could discover the laws of physics before we do. Hirosi Ooguri Hirosi Ooguri, chair of Caltech’s Division of Physics, Mathematics and Astronomy, joins for his first English podcast to explain why AI has moved faster in mathematics than in physics. He fears it could solve physics in a way we cannot understand. We discuss why quantum field theory lacks a firm mathematical foundation, quantum gravity as the “final boss,” the swampland distance conjecture he proposed with Cumrun Vafa, and his estimate that, left to humans, verifying string theory could take 2,250 years. The conversation also covers the PhD thesis numbers that turned up in a Mathieu group table twenty years later. What an honor.
2:38

This is a podcast about whether AI could discover the laws of physics before we do. Hirosi Ooguri Hirosi Ooguri, chair of Caltech’s Division of Physics, Mathematics and Astronomy, joins for his first English podcast to explain why AI has moved faster in mathematics than in physics. He fears it could solve physics in a way we cannot understand. We discuss why quantum field theory lacks a firm mathematical foundation, quantum gravity as the “final boss,” the swampland distance conjecture he proposed with Cumrun Vafa, and his estimate that, left to humans, verifying string theory could take 2,250 years. The conversation also covers the PhD thesis numbers that turned up in a Mathieu group table twenty years later. What an honor.

Curt Jaimungal

14,529 次观看 • 20 天前

What is mathematics, really? Mathematician David Bessis joins me to argue that math isn't about numbers in a Platonic realm or a meaningless game of symbols—it's a cognitive technology for rewiring your brain. We explore why the official definitions of mathematics have been unresolved for 2,300 years, why understanding something means finding it obvious, and how the gap between a beginner and Terence Tao looks less like genetic destiny and more like compound interest on intuition. When asked what mathematics fundamentally is, his answer cuts through millennia of philosophy: it's what happens in your head when you pretend something is true until it feels real.
2:33

What is mathematics, really? Mathematician David Bessis joins me to argue that math isn't about numbers in a Platonic realm or a meaningless game of symbols—it's a cognitive technology for rewiring your brain. We explore why the official definitions of mathematics have been unresolved for 2,300 years, why understanding something means finding it obvious, and how the gap between a beginner and Terence Tao looks less like genetic destiny and more like compound interest on intuition. When asked what mathematics fundamentally is, his answer cuts through millennia of philosophy: it's what happens in your head when you pretend something is true until it feels real.

Curt Jaimungal

12,833 次观看 • 8 个月前

✅Explanation of Meaning (by parts): 1. “Why does it exist? In what way does it exist? Does it have a purpose?” : The author opens with foundational questions about the Universe’s existence, its mode of being, and potential purpose, probing the reasons and nature of reality, inviting deep philosophical inquiry. 2. “Could it have not existed at all? Could reality be such that no intelligent being would have appeared?” : These questions explore the contingency of the Universe and the possibility of a reality without intelligence, highlighting the fragility and randomness of conditions that allow for conscious life. 3. “Why does it have the ability to give birth to intelligence?” : The author questions why the Universe possesses the capacity to produce intelligent beings, emphasizing the remarkable and seemingly improbable emergence of consciousness as a key feature of reality. 4. “Why is the world the way it is? Why is it so whimsical?” : These queries address the specific nature of the Universe and its apparent capriciousness, suggesting that its structure and behavior may lack clear logic or predictability, challenging deterministic views. 5. “What is its structure? Is it finite or infinite?” : The author seeks to understand the Universe’s composition and scale, questioning whether it has boundaries or extends infinitely, reflecting on its physical and metaphysical framework. 6. “Has it always existed or does it have a beginning? Does it have a prime cause?” : These questions probe the temporal origin of the Universe and whether it stems from a primary cause, engaging with debates about eternity versus a finite beginning, like the Big Bang. 7. “What lies beyond its limits? Is it eternally evolving or destined to decline in the future?” : The author wonders about what exists outside the Universe and its long-term trajectory, contemplating whether it will continue to evolve or face eventual decline, such as heat death. 8. “Can intelligent beings live forever? Is the world knowable or not?” : The final questions address the potential immortality of intelligent life and the Universe’s comprehensibility, exploring whether consciousness can persist indefinitely and if reality can be fully understood. 🗝️Main Idea (refined version): The author presents a series of profound questions about the Universe’s existence, purpose, structure, and capacity to produce intelligence, probing its contingency, whimsy, and knowability. These inquiries challenge us to reflect on reality’s nature, our place within it, and the possibility of eternal life or decline. They underscore the mystery of why the Universe exists as it does, ensuring humility and curiosity in the face of cosmic unknowns. By engaging with these questions, we confront the randomness and fragility of intelligent life’s emergence. This reflection inspires a quest for knowledge, blending philosophy and science to explore our origins. Ultimately, it urges us to find meaning in an uncertain, evolving cosmos, embracing the pursuit of truth as a guiding purpose.
0:38

✅Explanation of Meaning (by parts): 1. “Why does it exist? In what way does it exist? Does it have a purpose?” : The author opens with foundational questions about the Universe’s existence, its mode of being, and potential purpose, probing the reasons and nature of reality, inviting deep philosophical inquiry. 2. “Could it have not existed at all? Could reality be such that no intelligent being would have appeared?” : These questions explore the contingency of the Universe and the possibility of a reality without intelligence, highlighting the fragility and randomness of conditions that allow for conscious life. 3. “Why does it have the ability to give birth to intelligence?” : The author questions why the Universe possesses the capacity to produce intelligent beings, emphasizing the remarkable and seemingly improbable emergence of consciousness as a key feature of reality. 4. “Why is the world the way it is? Why is it so whimsical?” : These queries address the specific nature of the Universe and its apparent capriciousness, suggesting that its structure and behavior may lack clear logic or predictability, challenging deterministic views. 5. “What is its structure? Is it finite or infinite?” : The author seeks to understand the Universe’s composition and scale, questioning whether it has boundaries or extends infinitely, reflecting on its physical and metaphysical framework. 6. “Has it always existed or does it have a beginning? Does it have a prime cause?” : These questions probe the temporal origin of the Universe and whether it stems from a primary cause, engaging with debates about eternity versus a finite beginning, like the Big Bang. 7. “What lies beyond its limits? Is it eternally evolving or destined to decline in the future?” : The author wonders about what exists outside the Universe and its long-term trajectory, contemplating whether it will continue to evolve or face eventual decline, such as heat death. 8. “Can intelligent beings live forever? Is the world knowable or not?” : The final questions address the potential immortality of intelligent life and the Universe’s comprehensibility, exploring whether consciousness can persist indefinitely and if reality can be fully understood. 🗝️Main Idea (refined version): The author presents a series of profound questions about the Universe’s existence, purpose, structure, and capacity to produce intelligence, probing its contingency, whimsy, and knowability. These inquiries challenge us to reflect on reality’s nature, our place within it, and the possibility of eternal life or decline. They underscore the mystery of why the Universe exists as it does, ensuring humility and curiosity in the face of cosmic unknowns. By engaging with these questions, we confront the randomness and fragility of intelligent life’s emergence. This reflection inspires a quest for knowledge, blending philosophy and science to explore our origins. Ultimately, it urges us to find meaning in an uncertain, evolving cosmos, embracing the pursuit of truth as a guiding purpose.

Zafar Mirzo | Quotes

529,789 次观看 • 1 年前

On a new episode of Uncommon Knowledge, Peter Robinson (Peter Robinson) is joined by Zohar Palti—former head of the Intelligence Directorate in Israel's Mossad—for a rare, inside account of how Israel thinks about war, deterrence, and survival. From the shock of October 7 to the current campaign against Iran, Palti explains why Israel sees both nuclear capability and ballistic missiles as existential threats—and why waiting is not an option. The conversation explores the logic of preemptive war, the limits of intelligence when it comes to predicting regime change, and the realities of fighting a modern conflict—from missile defense and drone warfare to the vulnerability of global energy routes. Palti also reflects on Israel's internal challenges, the resilience of its people under constant attack, and the enduring partnership with the United States. A candid, strategic, and deeply personal look at how one of America's closest allies fights—and why it believes it must. Watch the full conversation Uncommon Knowledge conversation on X:
50:55

On a new episode of Uncommon Knowledge, Peter Robinson (Peter Robinson) is joined by Zohar Palti—former head of the Intelligence Directorate in Israel's Mossad—for a rare, inside account of how Israel thinks about war, deterrence, and survival. From the shock of October 7 to the current campaign against Iran, Palti explains why Israel sees both nuclear capability and ballistic missiles as existential threats—and why waiting is not an option. The conversation explores the logic of preemptive war, the limits of intelligence when it comes to predicting regime change, and the realities of fighting a modern conflict—from missile defense and drone warfare to the vulnerability of global energy routes. Palti also reflects on Israel's internal challenges, the resilience of its people under constant attack, and the enduring partnership with the United States. A candid, strategic, and deeply personal look at how one of America's closest allies fights—and why it believes it must. Watch the full conversation Uncommon Knowledge conversation on X:

Hoover Institution

22,420 次观看 • 7 个月前

"Tolerance is not enough, you have to work together." The conversation with Amartya Sen becomes a masterclass in humanity. Among the themes we touched on: - the ancestry of mathematics, - the ideas of freedom and justice, - how mathematics and Sanskrit have shaped his economic thinking, - and even the legendary bicycle that carried him to win the The Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences, for his contributions to welfare economics. One thing I’ve learned is that his knowledge stands upon admiration and affection, admiration for the beauty of mathematics, and affection for the philosophical depth of Sanskrit literature. He's an economist by formation, but a humanitarian by heart and experience. An honor to learn from him. Tune in,
0:50

"Tolerance is not enough, you have to work together." The conversation with Amartya Sen becomes a masterclass in humanity. Among the themes we touched on: - the ancestry of mathematics, - the ideas of freedom and justice, - how mathematics and Sanskrit have shaped his economic thinking, - and even the legendary bicycle that carried him to win the The Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences, for his contributions to welfare economics. One thing I’ve learned is that his knowledge stands upon admiration and affection, admiration for the beauty of mathematics, and affection for the philosophical depth of Sanskrit literature. He's an economist by formation, but a humanitarian by heart and experience. An honor to learn from him. Tune in,

Gita Wirjawan

20,976 次观看 • 11 个月前

DIVINE MATHEMATICS Number One (1) is the Number of God. Everything is from Number. Number One (1) is the Number of Hydrogen. Your DNA is written in the Divine Mathematics of the Fibonacci Geometric Patterns/Sequences. Your DNA is written in Mathematical Number Patterns. That is why Science is filled with Calculations. Nature is written in the Fibonacci Geometric Patterns/Sequences. You do not need religion to know God. You need to understand the nature of existence from the angle of Science and Mathematics. Galileo Galilei, who deserves to be called the Father of Physics said thus how God created the Universe: "God created the Universe in the language of Mathematics" Everything in the Universe is Governed by Numbers. For this Purpose, Zero or Nothing or the Void is counted, not just as a Number, but as the Source of All Numbers. Zero or Nothing or the Void is mentioned in the Bible as early as Genesis because the Zero or the Void or Nothing is the Basis of All Numbers. In Genesis 1: 1-3 it is written thus: 1. In the Heaven and Earth. 2. And the Earth was without Form and Void; and Darkness was upon the Face of the Deep.... 3. And God said Let there be Light and there was Light. What follows are the 7 Days of Creation. Religion deceives and brainwashed the Masses that these are 7 literal Days. They're really about the Fibonacci Geometric Patterns/Sequences. Numbers govern the Chemical Elements that constitute the Universe, with Hydrogen being Number One to emerge from Zero and is the Same as the Zero with the Zero being the Darkness that was upon the Face of the Great Deep mentioned in Genesis 1:2. Number One became the Light which emerged from the Darkness. Without Darkness, there can be no Light. Everything is essentially a Mirror of the Same Thing. This is what is called Polarity. In other Words, Opposite Things depend on the each other in order to exist. Without Darkness, you cannot know what Light is. This is also represented by Gender, with the Female and the Male being diverse Forms of the Same Thing. The Hermetic Principles explain the relationship between everything in some details. In that regards, I suggest that you should look up the Hermetic Principles in the Kyballion. It is because the Numbers begins from Zero or Nothing or the Void that it is said that God made the Universe from Nothing. As already mentioned Number One is the Number of Hydrogen. The Hydrogen Atom permeates Everything in the Universe. It is because there is Hydrogen that there is a Material Universe. Hydrogen is Number One (1) on the Chemical Periodic Table. There is Nothing in the Material Universe that is not from Hydrogen. Hydrogen is the Basis of all Physical Existence. That is why Number One (1) is also the Number of God. The Sun and the Stars and Planets are All comprised of Hydrogen. Oxygen is constituted by the Thermonuclear Synthesis Hydrogen in the Nuclei of Stars. Hydrogen then COMBUSTS with Hydrogen to produce Dihydrogen Monoxide aka WATER. Your very being is literally powered by Hydrogen. As already indicated, Oxygen first came into Existence through Thermonuclear Fusion of Hydrogen Atoms in Stars. Stars are composed of the Hydrogen. Hydrogen is the Medium of Consciousness and Medium of the Material Universe of which we are an Intrinsic part. All of Nature is powered by Number One (1) aka Hydrogen. You're literally made of Hydrogen that has been transformed in Stars. The Sun, as a Star is composed of Hydrogen Atoms. The Circle which represents Zeros Nothing or the Void or the Darkness and also the Light represents the Hydrogen Atom. That is why the Sun and Moon are Circles. The Circle is the Basic Geometric Pattern. The multiplication of identical Circles create the Patterns and Sequences of the Flower of Life which is in All Indigenous Cultures. ✨🙌🏾💫
3:25

DIVINE MATHEMATICS Number One (1) is the Number of God. Everything is from Number. Number One (1) is the Number of Hydrogen. Your DNA is written in the Divine Mathematics of the Fibonacci Geometric Patterns/Sequences. Your DNA is written in Mathematical Number Patterns. That is why Science is filled with Calculations. Nature is written in the Fibonacci Geometric Patterns/Sequences. You do not need religion to know God. You need to understand the nature of existence from the angle of Science and Mathematics. Galileo Galilei, who deserves to be called the Father of Physics said thus how God created the Universe: "God created the Universe in the language of Mathematics" Everything in the Universe is Governed by Numbers. For this Purpose, Zero or Nothing or the Void is counted, not just as a Number, but as the Source of All Numbers. Zero or Nothing or the Void is mentioned in the Bible as early as Genesis because the Zero or the Void or Nothing is the Basis of All Numbers. In Genesis 1: 1-3 it is written thus: 1. In the Heaven and Earth. 2. And the Earth was without Form and Void; and Darkness was upon the Face of the Deep.... 3. And God said Let there be Light and there was Light. What follows are the 7 Days of Creation. Religion deceives and brainwashed the Masses that these are 7 literal Days. They're really about the Fibonacci Geometric Patterns/Sequences. Numbers govern the Chemical Elements that constitute the Universe, with Hydrogen being Number One to emerge from Zero and is the Same as the Zero with the Zero being the Darkness that was upon the Face of the Great Deep mentioned in Genesis 1:2. Number One became the Light which emerged from the Darkness. Without Darkness, there can be no Light. Everything is essentially a Mirror of the Same Thing. This is what is called Polarity. In other Words, Opposite Things depend on the each other in order to exist. Without Darkness, you cannot know what Light is. This is also represented by Gender, with the Female and the Male being diverse Forms of the Same Thing. The Hermetic Principles explain the relationship between everything in some details. In that regards, I suggest that you should look up the Hermetic Principles in the Kyballion. It is because the Numbers begins from Zero or Nothing or the Void that it is said that God made the Universe from Nothing. As already mentioned Number One is the Number of Hydrogen. The Hydrogen Atom permeates Everything in the Universe. It is because there is Hydrogen that there is a Material Universe. Hydrogen is Number One (1) on the Chemical Periodic Table. There is Nothing in the Material Universe that is not from Hydrogen. Hydrogen is the Basis of all Physical Existence. That is why Number One (1) is also the Number of God. The Sun and the Stars and Planets are All comprised of Hydrogen. Oxygen is constituted by the Thermonuclear Synthesis Hydrogen in the Nuclei of Stars. Hydrogen then COMBUSTS with Hydrogen to produce Dihydrogen Monoxide aka WATER. Your very being is literally powered by Hydrogen. As already indicated, Oxygen first came into Existence through Thermonuclear Fusion of Hydrogen Atoms in Stars. Stars are composed of the Hydrogen. Hydrogen is the Medium of Consciousness and Medium of the Material Universe of which we are an Intrinsic part. All of Nature is powered by Number One (1) aka Hydrogen. You're literally made of Hydrogen that has been transformed in Stars. The Sun, as a Star is composed of Hydrogen Atoms. The Circle which represents Zeros Nothing or the Void or the Darkness and also the Light represents the Hydrogen Atom. That is why the Sun and Moon are Circles. The Circle is the Basic Geometric Pattern. The multiplication of identical Circles create the Patterns and Sequences of the Flower of Life which is in All Indigenous Cultures. ✨🙌🏾💫

🧬Maxpein🧬

25,608 次观看 • 1 年前

By popular demand, I'm posting here on X the entire Episode 1 of my new podcast AFTERMATH, bridging mathematics, quantum physics, philosophy & Jungian psychology. In this episode we explore hidden connections between our minds using math. Your feedback will be much appreciated! #AfterMath #Podcast #EdwardFrenkel #Science #Math #QuantumPhysics #Philosophy #Psychology #LoveandMath
40:38

By popular demand, I'm posting here on X the entire Episode 1 of my new podcast AFTERMATH, bridging mathematics, quantum physics, philosophy & Jungian psychology. In this episode we explore hidden connections between our minds using math. Your feedback will be much appreciated! #AfterMath #Podcast #EdwardFrenkel #Science #Math #QuantumPhysics #Philosophy #Psychology #LoveandMath

Edward Frenkel

42,221 次观看 • 2 年前

––Charlie Barnett: "Consciousness and the computability of it. It sounds like, or at least in the past, that you've implied that consciousness is computable. Some, like Roger Penrose, have argued the opposite, and he's argued that consciousness is non-computational, and he uses Gödel's incompleteness theorems to argue that the mind can see truths that a purely algorithmic system can't derive, and therefore the brain must be using some kind of non-computable process when it comes to consciousness, something beyond what machines can do. What would you say to a view like that? David Deutsch: Yet again, it is using an impossible conception of what knowledge is. So Penrose thinks that when we see a proof of a mathematical theorem, we are touching certainty, we are god-like entities when we're mathematicians. But that's not true. Our mathematical knowledge is conjectural, just like our knowledge of physics. It's even more removed from our senses, because it's not true that the interior of our brains and the interior of our thoughts is more accessible to us than the world we perceive through our senses, or the world that we perceive through our theories, the center of the sun. We know lots about the center of the sun, even though no one has ever perceived it, and perhaps no one ever will. So mathematical truths are based on conjecture. What Gödel showed is that there is no firm ground underneath mathematical theories either. There's no way of proving that the standards of proof that we currently use are perfectly rigorous. And there have been cases in history where they have shown not to be rigorous. I think Pernot, who was the first to axiomatize the principles of the natural numbers, his first attempt at that was wrong. And it's interesting that he did not say, well, I've axiomatized them, therefore there's nothing to them other than my axioms. No, he said, oh dear, my axioms don't correctly represent the real number, the natural numbers, so I have to change them. So he was grasping, conjecturing for a reality, an abstract reality, just like scientists try to grasp physical reality. So the same epistemology applies to mathematics as it does to science."
2:31

––Charlie Barnett: "Consciousness and the computability of it. It sounds like, or at least in the past, that you've implied that consciousness is computable. Some, like Roger Penrose, have argued the opposite, and he's argued that consciousness is non-computational, and he uses Gödel's incompleteness theorems to argue that the mind can see truths that a purely algorithmic system can't derive, and therefore the brain must be using some kind of non-computable process when it comes to consciousness, something beyond what machines can do. What would you say to a view like that? David Deutsch: Yet again, it is using an impossible conception of what knowledge is. So Penrose thinks that when we see a proof of a mathematical theorem, we are touching certainty, we are god-like entities when we're mathematicians. But that's not true. Our mathematical knowledge is conjectural, just like our knowledge of physics. It's even more removed from our senses, because it's not true that the interior of our brains and the interior of our thoughts is more accessible to us than the world we perceive through our senses, or the world that we perceive through our theories, the center of the sun. We know lots about the center of the sun, even though no one has ever perceived it, and perhaps no one ever will. So mathematical truths are based on conjecture. What Gödel showed is that there is no firm ground underneath mathematical theories either. There's no way of proving that the standards of proof that we currently use are perfectly rigorous. And there have been cases in history where they have shown not to be rigorous. I think Pernot, who was the first to axiomatize the principles of the natural numbers, his first attempt at that was wrong. And it's interesting that he did not say, well, I've axiomatized them, therefore there's nothing to them other than my axioms. No, he said, oh dear, my axioms don't correctly represent the real number, the natural numbers, so I have to change them. So he was grasping, conjecturing for a reality, an abstract reality, just like scientists try to grasp physical reality. So the same epistemology applies to mathematics as it does to science."

Deutsch Explains

13,826 次观看 • 1 年前

🚨 FULL CONVERSATION Fields medalist Terry Tao sits down with Math Inc's Jesse Michael Han and Jared Duker Lichtman for a conversation on the future of mathematics. "I got convinced that this was the future of mathematics [...] It's a different style of writing proofs that actually is in some ways easier to read—harder to check by humans, but you see more clearly the inputs and outputs of a proof, which traditional writing often conceals [...] I think the definition of a mathematician will broaden."
32:02

🚨 FULL CONVERSATION Fields medalist Terry Tao sits down with Math Inc's Jesse Michael Han and Jared Duker Lichtman for a conversation on the future of mathematics. "I got convinced that this was the future of mathematics [...] It's a different style of writing proofs that actually is in some ways easier to read—harder to check by humans, but you see more clearly the inputs and outputs of a proof, which traditional writing often conceals [...] I think the definition of a mathematician will broaden."

Math, Inc.

338,747 次观看 • 10 个月前

"America was an investment before it was a nation." That idea anchors this Uncommon Knowledge conversation between SEC Chairman Paul Atkins and Peter Robinson. Paul Atkins argues that vibrant capital markets are essential to American prosperity and explains why he believes excessive regulation has discouraged companies from going public and innovators from building in the United States. The discussion also covers crypto, disclosure rules, investor protection, and the role of free markets in driving economic growth. Watch the full episode of Uncommon Knowledge with Peter Robinson on X:
1:04:03

"America was an investment before it was a nation." That idea anchors this Uncommon Knowledge conversation between SEC Chairman Paul Atkins and Peter Robinson. Paul Atkins argues that vibrant capital markets are essential to American prosperity and explains why he believes excessive regulation has discouraged companies from going public and innovators from building in the United States. The discussion also covers crypto, disclosure rules, investor protection, and the role of free markets in driving economic growth. Watch the full episode of Uncommon Knowledge with Peter Robinson on X:

Hoover Institution

28,598 次观看 • 3 个月前

In our latest video, we speak with Terence Tao, one of the world’s top mathematicians and author of Six Maths Essentials, to diagnose the state of the field of mathematics right now and explore if it has a future even in the face of increasing automation.⁠ Watch now:
1:48

In our latest video, we speak with Terence Tao, one of the world’s top mathematicians and author of Six Maths Essentials, to diagnose the state of the field of mathematics right now and explore if it has a future even in the face of increasing automation.⁠ Watch now:

New Scientist

23,878 次观看 • 11 天前

David Chalmers on the one thing science can't explain: Consciousness is at once the most familiar thing in the world and the one science has almost nothing to say about. That's the puzzle Chalmers lays out in this early interview, and it's as disorienting today as it was then. His starting point is deceptively simple. Everything we know about the external world: subatomic particles, distant stars, the chemistry of life. We know through consciousness. It's the very first thing we have. And yet when we turn science around and try to explain consciousness itself, we hit a wall. "Consciousness is what we start with when it comes to knowing the world and looking out at the world… everything else is secondary." What makes this so strange is the asymmetry. We've made extraordinary progress understanding things that are genuinely remote and difficult quantum mechanics, stellar evolution, molecular biology. But understanding our own inner experience? Almost nothing. "It almost sticks out like a sore thumb in the scientific picture." This is what Chalmers would later formalise as the "hard problem of consciousness": not just explaining how the brain processes information or controls behaviour. Those are hard, but tractable. The real mystery is why any of that physical activity is accompanied by experience at all. Why is there something it feels like to be you? The question isn't abstract. It sits at the intersection of neuroscience, philosophy, physics, and AI. As we build systems that process language and reason about the world, the question of whether they are or could be conscious presses harder than ever. Chalmers doesn't offer an answer here. Only the sharpest possible version of the question.
0:54

David Chalmers on the one thing science can't explain: Consciousness is at once the most familiar thing in the world and the one science has almost nothing to say about. That's the puzzle Chalmers lays out in this early interview, and it's as disorienting today as it was then. His starting point is deceptively simple. Everything we know about the external world: subatomic particles, distant stars, the chemistry of life. We know through consciousness. It's the very first thing we have. And yet when we turn science around and try to explain consciousness itself, we hit a wall. "Consciousness is what we start with when it comes to knowing the world and looking out at the world… everything else is secondary." What makes this so strange is the asymmetry. We've made extraordinary progress understanding things that are genuinely remote and difficult quantum mechanics, stellar evolution, molecular biology. But understanding our own inner experience? Almost nothing. "It almost sticks out like a sore thumb in the scientific picture." This is what Chalmers would later formalise as the "hard problem of consciousness": not just explaining how the brain processes information or controls behaviour. Those are hard, but tractable. The real mystery is why any of that physical activity is accompanied by experience at all. Why is there something it feels like to be you? The question isn't abstract. It sits at the intersection of neuroscience, philosophy, physics, and AI. As we build systems that process language and reason about the world, the question of whether they are or could be conscious presses harder than ever. Chalmers doesn't offer an answer here. Only the sharpest possible version of the question.

Mateus — eu/acc 🇪🇺

14,034 次观看 • 6 个月前

The Gaussian integral is a key concept in mathematics, often used in probability, statistics, and physics. It calculates the area under the bell-shaped curve of the Gaussian (or normal) distribution. ✍️
0:28

The Gaussian integral is a key concept in mathematics, often used in probability, statistics, and physics. It calculates the area under the bell-shaped curve of the Gaussian (or normal) distribution. ✍️

Physics In History

83,231 次观看 • 2 年前

Did AI really solve a 70 year old math problem. Sabine Hossenfelder and I describe the actual problem and what the headlines miss, among our many discussions on this episode of the Origins Project podcast. ( Airing Wed 9 am PDT. #Science #Mathematics #Physics #AI
1:14

Did AI really solve a 70 year old math problem. Sabine Hossenfelder and I describe the actual problem and what the headlines miss, among our many discussions on this episode of the Origins Project podcast. ( Airing Wed 9 am PDT. #Science #Mathematics #Physics #AI

Lawrence M. Krauss

11,804 次观看 • 1 个月前