Video yükleniyor...

Video Yüklenemedi

Ana Sayfaya Dön

Sir Roger Penrose just delivered a masterclass in physical skepticism. In this sharp exchange with Brian Cox, he dismantles the dangerous allure of mathematical aestheticism. We often fall into the trap of assuming that if an equation is beautiful, it must be true. But Sir Roger warns that "beauty...

cosmosarcive's profile picture

Cosmos Archive

24,181 subscribers

97,475 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce •via X (Twitter)

Bilim & Teknoloji
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Yorum

Yorum bulunmuyor

Orijinal gönderinin yorumları burada görünecek

Benzer Videolar

Sir Roger Penrose argues that current AI is a misnomer because it lacks the one ingredient essential for true intelligence: Understanding. By applying the lens of mathematical logic, he explains that while machines are masters of following rules, the ability to understand why those rules work is a non-computational process. To Penrose, the leap from calculation to comprehension requires more than just better code; it requires Consciousness. At the fundamental level, intelligence isn't just data processing; it's the conscious awareness that gives meaning to the math. Credit: TheInstituteOfArtAndIdeas
0:43

Sir Roger Penrose argues that current AI is a misnomer because it lacks the one ingredient essential for true intelligence: Understanding. By applying the lens of mathematical logic, he explains that while machines are masters of following rules, the ability to understand why those rules work is a non-computational process. To Penrose, the leap from calculation to comprehension requires more than just better code; it requires Consciousness. At the fundamental level, intelligence isn't just data processing; it's the conscious awareness that gives meaning to the math. Credit: TheInstituteOfArtAndIdeas

Cosmos Archive

75,819 görüntüleme • 5 ay önce

"It’s not AI; it’s AC; Artificial Cleverness!" Sir Roger Penrose explains why current "Artificial Intelligence" is missing the most critical ingredient: consciousness. By delving into the limits of mathematical computability, he argues that while computers are masters of "computational mathematics," true intelligence requires a conscious understanding that exists beyond any algorithm. At the fundamental level, what we call AI is just high-speed calculation. To Penrose, intelligence and consciousness are inseparable; and until a machine can "understand," it’s simply being clever.
0:52

"It’s not AI; it’s AC; Artificial Cleverness!" Sir Roger Penrose explains why current "Artificial Intelligence" is missing the most critical ingredient: consciousness. By delving into the limits of mathematical computability, he argues that while computers are masters of "computational mathematics," true intelligence requires a conscious understanding that exists beyond any algorithm. At the fundamental level, what we call AI is just high-speed calculation. To Penrose, intelligence and consciousness are inseparable; and until a machine can "understand," it’s simply being clever.

Cosmos Archive

83,200 görüntüleme • 5 ay önce

🚨 A REAL PHYSICIST SAYS WE LIVE IN A SIMULATION (and he worked for NASA) 😱 💥He’s not an influencer. He’s not a conspiracy theorist. It’s Thomas Campbell, a physicist, former missile defense researcher, and author of *My Big TOE* (Theory of Everything). In an interview with Joe Rogan, he calmly explains: > “This physical reality is calculated. It is generated by consciousness.” According to him: - We are not humans. We are consciousnesses playing in a virtual universe (exactly like in *The Matrix*). - What we call “reality” is just a stream of data sent to our consciousness. - The purpose of this system? To reduce entropy (to increase order and the evolution of consciousness). He even goes further by citing the anthropic principle: the universe seems perfectly fine-tuned to allow the emergence of consciousness. As if it had been designed for that. And the most disturbing part: He says that logic alone is not enough to understand this. We also need to use the intuitive part of our consciousness. What do you think? Are we really in a simulation… or is it just an elegant metaphor?
2:49

🚨 A REAL PHYSICIST SAYS WE LIVE IN A SIMULATION (and he worked for NASA) 😱 💥He’s not an influencer. He’s not a conspiracy theorist. It’s Thomas Campbell, a physicist, former missile defense researcher, and author of *My Big TOE* (Theory of Everything). In an interview with Joe Rogan, he calmly explains: > “This physical reality is calculated. It is generated by consciousness.” According to him: - We are not humans. We are consciousnesses playing in a virtual universe (exactly like in *The Matrix*). - What we call “reality” is just a stream of data sent to our consciousness. - The purpose of this system? To reduce entropy (to increase order and the evolution of consciousness). He even goes further by citing the anthropic principle: the universe seems perfectly fine-tuned to allow the emergence of consciousness. As if it had been designed for that. And the most disturbing part: He says that logic alone is not enough to understand this. We also need to use the intuitive part of our consciousness. What do you think? Are we really in a simulation… or is it just an elegant metaphor?

Paul White Gold Eagle

18,369 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

––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 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

Thomas Nagel dismantles relativism in one paragraph. In a 1995 talk on reason, the philosopher exposes a fatal flaw at the heart of the relativist position: "Claims to the effect that a type of judgment expresses a local point of view are inherently objective in intent. They suggest a picture of the true sources of those judgments which places them in an unconditional context." In other words, the moment you say "all truth is relative," you've already made an absolute claim. Nagel sharpens this into a precise logical trap: "The judgment of relativity or conditionality cannot be applied to the judgment of relativity itself." The relativist wants to stand outside all perspectives and declare that no perspective is universal. But that declaration is itself a universal perspective. He then drives it home: "To put it schematically, 'everything is subjective' must be nonsense, for it would itself have to be either subjective or objective. But it can't be objective, since in that case it would be false if true. And it can't be subjective, because then it would not rule out any objective claim including the claim that it is objectively false." The argument is elegant in its completeness. If "everything is subjective" is an objective truth, it defeats itself immediately because it would mean at least one thing is objective. But if it's merely a subjective opinion, it has no power to challenge objectivity at all. Either way, relativism collapses under its own weight. What's striking is how often this self-refuting structure goes unnoticed in everyday debates about truth, culture, and morality. The person who says "that's just your perspective" is quietly assuming their own perspective is the correct one. Nagel's point isn't that objectivity is easy to achieve, only that abandoning it entirely is incoherent.
0:52

Thomas Nagel dismantles relativism in one paragraph. In a 1995 talk on reason, the philosopher exposes a fatal flaw at the heart of the relativist position: "Claims to the effect that a type of judgment expresses a local point of view are inherently objective in intent. They suggest a picture of the true sources of those judgments which places them in an unconditional context." In other words, the moment you say "all truth is relative," you've already made an absolute claim. Nagel sharpens this into a precise logical trap: "The judgment of relativity or conditionality cannot be applied to the judgment of relativity itself." The relativist wants to stand outside all perspectives and declare that no perspective is universal. But that declaration is itself a universal perspective. He then drives it home: "To put it schematically, 'everything is subjective' must be nonsense, for it would itself have to be either subjective or objective. But it can't be objective, since in that case it would be false if true. And it can't be subjective, because then it would not rule out any objective claim including the claim that it is objectively false." The argument is elegant in its completeness. If "everything is subjective" is an objective truth, it defeats itself immediately because it would mean at least one thing is objective. But if it's merely a subjective opinion, it has no power to challenge objectivity at all. Either way, relativism collapses under its own weight. What's striking is how often this self-refuting structure goes unnoticed in everyday debates about truth, culture, and morality. The person who says "that's just your perspective" is quietly assuming their own perspective is the correct one. Nagel's point isn't that objectivity is easy to achieve, only that abandoning it entirely is incoherent.

Mateus — eu/acc 🇪🇺

27,895 görüntüleme • 4 ay önce

“We express our gratitude for this crystal clear position by the 145 countries addressed to the host country, to respect its obligation under the Headquarters Agreement… the host country does not have the right or the privilege to abuse its authority and deny visas for our leaders to participate. We sincerely hope that this abuse is reversed as quickly as possible. We have the right to be with all of you, for our leaders, to be with all of you, and to share our thoughts and ideas peacefully, diplomatically, legally, and in a civilized way. Denying us, denying our leaders, the opportunity to do so is an abuse of the authority, and it is a punishment for the State of Palestine that should not take place. Our leaders will participate in the capacity that is possible to us, but we will not yield an inch for our right to be treated like the rest of you and to receive our visas for our leaders in any meetings that we are invited to participate in, and we will continue doing that. “
3:32

“We express our gratitude for this crystal clear position by the 145 countries addressed to the host country, to respect its obligation under the Headquarters Agreement… the host country does not have the right or the privilege to abuse its authority and deny visas for our leaders to participate. We sincerely hope that this abuse is reversed as quickly as possible. We have the right to be with all of you, for our leaders, to be with all of you, and to share our thoughts and ideas peacefully, diplomatically, legally, and in a civilized way. Denying us, denying our leaders, the opportunity to do so is an abuse of the authority, and it is a punishment for the State of Palestine that should not take place. Our leaders will participate in the capacity that is possible to us, but we will not yield an inch for our right to be treated like the rest of you and to receive our visas for our leaders in any meetings that we are invited to participate in, and we will continue doing that. “

State of Palestine

81,051 görüntüleme • 10 ay önce

GodLogic believes that Allah has to be something he can fully understand. That’s the problem when you reduce God to the level of creation, you end up imagining Him through human limitations and anthropomorphic concepts. This is precisely why Allah tells us in the Qur’an that there is nothing like Him. Anything you can see, touch, imagine, visualize, or comprehend whether physical or spiritual..is not Allah. The Creator is beyond the limitations of His creation. The reality is that we cannot comprehend the essence of Allah, and that is the most fitting description of the true God. An infinite Creator cannot be contained within the finite mind of a created being. Yet GodLogic keeps insisting that God must be something familiar to him, something that fits within his own understanding. That’s not a problem with Islam; it’s a problem with expecting the Creator to conform to the limitations of the creation. Christians fall into this trap because their theology encourages them to think of God in human terms, making it difficult to grasp the concept of a Creator who is completely unlike His creation.
1:54

GodLogic believes that Allah has to be something he can fully understand. That’s the problem when you reduce God to the level of creation, you end up imagining Him through human limitations and anthropomorphic concepts. This is precisely why Allah tells us in the Qur’an that there is nothing like Him. Anything you can see, touch, imagine, visualize, or comprehend whether physical or spiritual..is not Allah. The Creator is beyond the limitations of His creation. The reality is that we cannot comprehend the essence of Allah, and that is the most fitting description of the true God. An infinite Creator cannot be contained within the finite mind of a created being. Yet GodLogic keeps insisting that God must be something familiar to him, something that fits within his own understanding. That’s not a problem with Islam; it’s a problem with expecting the Creator to conform to the limitations of the creation. Christians fall into this trap because their theology encourages them to think of God in human terms, making it difficult to grasp the concept of a Creator who is completely unlike His creation.

Ali-O𝙣𝙚M𝙚𝙨𝙨𝙖𝙜𝙚☝︎

29,560 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

Theoretical Physicist Dr. Lara Anderson: "Our 3 dimensional universe is expanding in to a 4th dimension" "Early 20th-century physics revealed our universe has more dimensions than we can see, and string theory suggests they shape everything from particles to reality itself." "The universe is not only stranger than we suppose, but stranger than we can suppose." This insight from physicist Arthur Eddington captures how extra dimensions, compactified in complex shapes like Calabi-Yau manifolds, remain hidden yet influence the fundamental laws we observe. These dimensions aren't sci-fi portals. They're tiny, folded geometries woven into the fabric of spacetime, enabling string theory to unify quantum mechanics and gravity while explaining unseen aspects like dark matter. Consciousness may even connect to these deeper structures in ways physics is only beginning to explore. Mind bending science that challenges everything we think we know about existence. What if the reality we perceive is just a slice of something far richer?
3:14

Theoretical Physicist Dr. Lara Anderson: "Our 3 dimensional universe is expanding in to a 4th dimension" "Early 20th-century physics revealed our universe has more dimensions than we can see, and string theory suggests they shape everything from particles to reality itself." "The universe is not only stranger than we suppose, but stranger than we can suppose." This insight from physicist Arthur Eddington captures how extra dimensions, compactified in complex shapes like Calabi-Yau manifolds, remain hidden yet influence the fundamental laws we observe. These dimensions aren't sci-fi portals. They're tiny, folded geometries woven into the fabric of spacetime, enabling string theory to unify quantum mechanics and gravity while explaining unseen aspects like dark matter. Consciousness may even connect to these deeper structures in ways physics is only beginning to explore. Mind bending science that challenges everything we think we know about existence. What if the reality we perceive is just a slice of something far richer?

Interstellar

25,400 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

Ever wondered what neural networks are and how they work? Systems like ChatGPT use neural networks to work as well as they do. Neural networks are composed of "layers" of neurons, layers with different functions; connections between layers called "weights"; and mathematical functions called "activation functions". If you’re interested in learning about these systems, check the comments. Ultimately, the neural network structure of the model serves to visually demonstrate that it is, in fact, a complex mathematical equation. When companies release the model's weights, they are releasing a key component needed to run the model's complete equation. Without the weights, the equation is incomplete. For the math-minded: the weights of a model are the learned numbers (they are variables during training) that are then used as constants in the mathematical functions that make up the model. Neural networks are ultimately just one big, hyper-complex mathematical function, and when a model is trained, it learns the constants associated with the high-dimensional input.
2:37

Ever wondered what neural networks are and how they work? Systems like ChatGPT use neural networks to work as well as they do. Neural networks are composed of "layers" of neurons, layers with different functions; connections between layers called "weights"; and mathematical functions called "activation functions". If you’re interested in learning about these systems, check the comments. Ultimately, the neural network structure of the model serves to visually demonstrate that it is, in fact, a complex mathematical equation. When companies release the model's weights, they are releasing a key component needed to run the model's complete equation. Without the weights, the equation is incomplete. For the math-minded: the weights of a model are the learned numbers (they are variables during training) that are then used as constants in the mathematical functions that make up the model. Neural networks are ultimately just one big, hyper-complex mathematical function, and when a model is trained, it learns the constants associated with the high-dimensional input.

Harper Carroll

32,735 görüntüleme • 9 ay önce

We as a society have NO OBLIGATION to "affirm" and validate the delusions of others. We DO have an obligation to tell the truth. And the TRUTH is, if you're a biological man who believes he's a woman trapped in the wrong body, you're delusional. Don't be afraid to call it what it is. It is a mental illness that is turning deadly.
2:20

We as a society have NO OBLIGATION to "affirm" and validate the delusions of others. We DO have an obligation to tell the truth. And the TRUTH is, if you're a biological man who believes he's a woman trapped in the wrong body, you're delusional. Don't be afraid to call it what it is. It is a mental illness that is turning deadly.

Shawn Farash

58,873 görüntüleme • 5 ay önce

“Don’t Panic.” THE ANSWER IS 42 The ultimate question remains deliciously unsolved. In Douglas Adams’ 1979 masterpiece, a supercomputer Deep Thought spends 7.5 million years computing the Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything—only to deliver the cryptic integer 42. This is pure mathematical comedy gold: a dimensionless, context-free number that mocks our human obsession with finding meaning in a cosmos governed by probabilistic quantum fields, general relativity, and the second law of thermodynamics. Adams weaponizes absurdity to remind us that the universe is under no obligation to make sense to three-dimensional carbon-based lifeforms evolved on a minor planet orbiting an unregarded yellow sun. Yet the joke lands hardest because 42 is real—it’s the atomic number of molybdenum, appears in light refraction formulas, and even shows up in the cosmic microwave background anomaly known as the “Cold Spot.” The galaxy doesn’t need our questions to be coherent; it just keeps expanding at 73 km/s/Mpc anyway. 42 (The Answer, apparently definitive, Answer) Adams’ genius is turning computational complexity into existential slapstick. By making the universe’s deepest truth a prime-number-age crisis, he forces physicists and philosophers alike to confront the limits of reducibility. In an era of Large Hadron Colliders and quantum supremacy claims, 42 is the perfect reminder that some patterns may be true yet forever uninterpretable—much like the fine-structure constant ≈ 1/137 that still baffles theoreticians. If 42 really is the Answer, what exact question would make the universe finally make sense to you? 🚀🧠 Primary source: The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, Douglas Adams - Grok Imagine Images
0:54

“Don’t Panic.” THE ANSWER IS 42 The ultimate question remains deliciously unsolved. In Douglas Adams’ 1979 masterpiece, a supercomputer Deep Thought spends 7.5 million years computing the Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything—only to deliver the cryptic integer 42. This is pure mathematical comedy gold: a dimensionless, context-free number that mocks our human obsession with finding meaning in a cosmos governed by probabilistic quantum fields, general relativity, and the second law of thermodynamics. Adams weaponizes absurdity to remind us that the universe is under no obligation to make sense to three-dimensional carbon-based lifeforms evolved on a minor planet orbiting an unregarded yellow sun. Yet the joke lands hardest because 42 is real—it’s the atomic number of molybdenum, appears in light refraction formulas, and even shows up in the cosmic microwave background anomaly known as the “Cold Spot.” The galaxy doesn’t need our questions to be coherent; it just keeps expanding at 73 km/s/Mpc anyway. 42 (The Answer, apparently definitive, Answer) Adams’ genius is turning computational complexity into existential slapstick. By making the universe’s deepest truth a prime-number-age crisis, he forces physicists and philosophers alike to confront the limits of reducibility. In an era of Large Hadron Colliders and quantum supremacy claims, 42 is the perfect reminder that some patterns may be true yet forever uninterpretable—much like the fine-structure constant ≈ 1/137 that still baffles theoreticians. If 42 really is the Answer, what exact question would make the universe finally make sense to you? 🚀🧠 Primary source: The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, Douglas Adams - Grok Imagine Images

Lacey

99,131 görüntüleme • 8 ay önce

It is no accident that we are witnessing a complete shift in our world—a profound unraveling and reweaving of how we experience each other, the creatures we share this planet with, and the quiet, intricate beauty of the universe itself. This transformation is a call to remember our place in the web of existence, not as masters of it, but as participants—deeply entwined, urgently invited to feel more, see more, and live with reverence for all that surrounds us.
1:04

It is no accident that we are witnessing a complete shift in our world—a profound unraveling and reweaving of how we experience each other, the creatures we share this planet with, and the quiet, intricate beauty of the universe itself. This transformation is a call to remember our place in the web of existence, not as masters of it, but as participants—deeply entwined, urgently invited to feel more, see more, and live with reverence for all that surrounds us.

armygirl

123,574 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

Sam Altman says something strange is happening that we don’t yet understand "this is such an odd time to be alive in all of human history" Not sure if simulation theory is true, but our consciousness is the only thing we can be sure is really going on
0:41

Sam Altman says something strange is happening that we don’t yet understand "this is such an odd time to be alive in all of human history" Not sure if simulation theory is true, but our consciousness is the only thing we can be sure is really going on

Haider.

852,263 görüntüleme • 10 ay önce

🚨 New episode of AFTERMATH (my new series) is about Unification of Mathematics & Analytic Psychology. Following Carl Jung, I propose that all mathematical objects & ideas come from archetypes in our Collective Unconscious, so Math is a Portal into the Human Psyche. KEY POINTS: 1. All mathematical objects and ideas (such as perfect lines and planes) are rooted in the shared structural elements of our Collective Unconscious, which Carl Jung called archetypes. These mathematical archetypes produce identical images in our individual minds – explaining why everyone imagines the same idealized mathematical forms; even those forms that don't appear in the outer, physical reality. 2. Similarly to how individuals project their undesired or repressed character traits onto others (manifesting the Jungian archetype of the Shadow), entire societies projected the mathematical archetype of Flat Space onto the surface of the Earth, accepting as an axiom that it was flat. This unconscious belief exemplifies how unintegrated archetypal forces shape our perception of physical reality in the absence of conscious scrutiny. 3. Progress and evolution occur when people recognize and integrate mathematical archetypes, as exemplified by Pythagoreans' insight 2500 years ago that the surface of the Earth might be spherical. Moving from unconscious acceptance to evidence-based inquiry mirrors the process of owning and integrating personal shadow elements. 4. The Enduring Spell of Flat Space: Even though we now realize that Earth is round, most of us still reflexively perceive the Universe as a three-dimensional flat expanse. This unconscious attachment to the archetype of the 3D Flat Space hampers serious consideration of curved or higher-dimensional geometries. When we integrate the archetypes of the 3D Flat Space, the 3D Sphere, and so on, new dimensions of Reality may well open up to us. 5. Brilliant scientists, such as Einstein, Wigner, Weil, Poincaré, and Ramanujan have stressed the essential role of the unconscious (and dream-based) revelations in their work. Such flashes of insight align with Jung's view of archetypes spontaneously emerging from the Collective Unconscious, fueling humanity's creative and mathematical breakthroughs.
2:17

🚨 New episode of AFTERMATH (my new series) is about Unification of Mathematics & Analytic Psychology. Following Carl Jung, I propose that all mathematical objects & ideas come from archetypes in our Collective Unconscious, so Math is a Portal into the Human Psyche. KEY POINTS: 1. All mathematical objects and ideas (such as perfect lines and planes) are rooted in the shared structural elements of our Collective Unconscious, which Carl Jung called archetypes. These mathematical archetypes produce identical images in our individual minds – explaining why everyone imagines the same idealized mathematical forms; even those forms that don't appear in the outer, physical reality. 2. Similarly to how individuals project their undesired or repressed character traits onto others (manifesting the Jungian archetype of the Shadow), entire societies projected the mathematical archetype of Flat Space onto the surface of the Earth, accepting as an axiom that it was flat. This unconscious belief exemplifies how unintegrated archetypal forces shape our perception of physical reality in the absence of conscious scrutiny. 3. Progress and evolution occur when people recognize and integrate mathematical archetypes, as exemplified by Pythagoreans' insight 2500 years ago that the surface of the Earth might be spherical. Moving from unconscious acceptance to evidence-based inquiry mirrors the process of owning and integrating personal shadow elements. 4. The Enduring Spell of Flat Space: Even though we now realize that Earth is round, most of us still reflexively perceive the Universe as a three-dimensional flat expanse. This unconscious attachment to the archetype of the 3D Flat Space hampers serious consideration of curved or higher-dimensional geometries. When we integrate the archetypes of the 3D Flat Space, the 3D Sphere, and so on, new dimensions of Reality may well open up to us. 5. Brilliant scientists, such as Einstein, Wigner, Weil, Poincaré, and Ramanujan have stressed the essential role of the unconscious (and dream-based) revelations in their work. Such flashes of insight align with Jung's view of archetypes spontaneously emerging from the Collective Unconscious, fueling humanity's creative and mathematical breakthroughs.

Edward Frenkel

34,344 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

Last year I was determined to make a contribution to America's 250th Anniversary. This documentary, The Thread of Liberty: Keeping Our Republic, is what came of that desire. I've posted it here in its entirety, as well as at We have an incredible nation, the first ever rights-based government in the history of the world in which the people are sovereign. We should appreciate it and, more importantly, love it. But loving requires understanding and then restoring. There is a great deal to celebrate and there is also a great deal of work that lies before us if we're to restore the republic. One of the central questions for the future of the American Republic is do we still feel an obligation to our experiment in free government? I believe one of the places that we renew the obligation, and begin the restoration, is with a rebirth of instinctive patriotism. I sincerely hope this documentary plays a role in that rebirth. Keep America Free.
1:23:31

Last year I was determined to make a contribution to America's 250th Anniversary. This documentary, The Thread of Liberty: Keeping Our Republic, is what came of that desire. I've posted it here in its entirety, as well as at We have an incredible nation, the first ever rights-based government in the history of the world in which the people are sovereign. We should appreciate it and, more importantly, love it. But loving requires understanding and then restoring. There is a great deal to celebrate and there is also a great deal of work that lies before us if we're to restore the republic. One of the central questions for the future of the American Republic is do we still feel an obligation to our experiment in free government? I believe one of the places that we renew the obligation, and begin the restoration, is with a rebirth of instinctive patriotism. I sincerely hope this documentary plays a role in that rebirth. Keep America Free.

Ned Ryun

1,953,656 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

Why do we do math in school? When I asked this question as a kid, my teachers always told me, "You'll use it one day." That's almost always false. Most adults are never going to be in a sticky situation with two binomials, thinking, thank goodness I can FOIL my way out of this mess. Most of us get by just fine without ever solving for x again. And especially in an Al age, fewer and fewer people will "use math" in the narrow, practical sense. But the origins of math have never been primarily about utility. Math is formative. It trains the mind to love what is true, to recognize what is orderly, and to be drawn toward what is beautiful. It teaches us that the universe is not chaos, but something intelligible, something structured, something that can be known. And you can see that truth made visible in the world's most breathtaking churches and cathedrals: arches, vaults, domes, proportions, symmetry, harmony, light-geometry turned into glory. The mathematics that shapes a cathedral is not cold or sterile. It's the language of wonder, carved into stone. We don't teach math because everyone will use it. We teach math because it forms the kind of person who can see that reality has meaning.
0:51

Why do we do math in school? When I asked this question as a kid, my teachers always told me, "You'll use it one day." That's almost always false. Most adults are never going to be in a sticky situation with two binomials, thinking, thank goodness I can FOIL my way out of this mess. Most of us get by just fine without ever solving for x again. And especially in an Al age, fewer and fewer people will "use math" in the narrow, practical sense. But the origins of math have never been primarily about utility. Math is formative. It trains the mind to love what is true, to recognize what is orderly, and to be drawn toward what is beautiful. It teaches us that the universe is not chaos, but something intelligible, something structured, something that can be known. And you can see that truth made visible in the world's most breathtaking churches and cathedrals: arches, vaults, domes, proportions, symmetry, harmony, light-geometry turned into glory. The mathematics that shapes a cathedral is not cold or sterile. It's the language of wonder, carved into stone. We don't teach math because everyone will use it. We teach math because it forms the kind of person who can see that reality has meaning.

Jeremy Wayne Tate

95,200 görüntüleme • 6 ay önce

🚨 Sec. Marco Rubio just NAILED IT: "One of the criticisms you sometimes hear of communism is that it 'sounds good in theory, but it never works in practice.'" "That's actually NOT TRUE. Communism does NOT sound good in theory. The world that envisions for all of us is small, flat, gray, leveled of all exception, drained of all that is good and noble in the human soul." "The world that envisions is a world without courage, a world without creativity, or ambition, a world without heroes, or glory, or great causes to strive towards, without a world without miracles, without men who rise above the rest to do incredible and extraordinary things." "And the world communism envisions is a world without God." "For these architects of revolutionary violence, the towering achievement of our civilization, for them, it's an unbearable humiliation, a reminder of what they cannot do and a reminder of what they cannot be. So they choose instead to destroy." 💯
1:09

🚨 Sec. Marco Rubio just NAILED IT: "One of the criticisms you sometimes hear of communism is that it 'sounds good in theory, but it never works in practice.'" "That's actually NOT TRUE. Communism does NOT sound good in theory. The world that envisions for all of us is small, flat, gray, leveled of all exception, drained of all that is good and noble in the human soul." "The world that envisions is a world without courage, a world without creativity, or ambition, a world without heroes, or glory, or great causes to strive towards, without a world without miracles, without men who rise above the rest to do incredible and extraordinary things." "And the world communism envisions is a world without God." "For these architects of revolutionary violence, the towering achievement of our civilization, for them, it's an unbearable humiliation, a reminder of what they cannot do and a reminder of what they cannot be. So they choose instead to destroy." 💯

Eric Daugherty

354,328 görüntüleme • 29 gün önce

True when I said it, true today. “Canada is, and always has been, our country. And we want Canada to be a True North that is as strong and as free as it can be in every way that matters: the best country in the world. That’s why we’re here, that’s why we strive, that’s why we serve. Canada must reflect the true character of the Canadian people: honourable in our dealings, faithful to our commitments, loyal to our friends. By turns, a courageous warrior and a compassionate neighbour. It is our purpose that Canada must be great, it must be great for all Canadians, it must be a country of hope and an example to the world. And only when it is these things, when Canada is all that it can be, only then can we say that our work is done.”
1:00

True when I said it, true today. “Canada is, and always has been, our country. And we want Canada to be a True North that is as strong and as free as it can be in every way that matters: the best country in the world. That’s why we’re here, that’s why we strive, that’s why we serve. Canada must reflect the true character of the Canadian people: honourable in our dealings, faithful to our commitments, loyal to our friends. By turns, a courageous warrior and a compassionate neighbour. It is our purpose that Canada must be great, it must be great for all Canadians, it must be a country of hope and an example to the world. And only when it is these things, when Canada is all that it can be, only then can we say that our work is done.”

Stephen Harper

808,717 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

ELON MUSK: IT'S INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT FOR AI MODELS TO BE GROUNDED IN REALITY - "Physics is the law, and everything else is a recommendation" - People break human-made laws, but no one breaks the laws of physics - AI must be grounded in reality to ensure it is truthful and accurate - Examples of this necessity: Cars: Must drive safely and correctly. Optimus (Humanoid Robot): Must perform the physical tasks it is asked to do - Adhering to the laws of physics is helpful for ensuring the model is truthful - A somewhat overlooked point: To be really intelligent, AI has to make predictions that are in line with reality
1:08

ELON MUSK: IT'S INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT FOR AI MODELS TO BE GROUNDED IN REALITY - "Physics is the law, and everything else is a recommendation" - People break human-made laws, but no one breaks the laws of physics - AI must be grounded in reality to ensure it is truthful and accurate - Examples of this necessity: Cars: Must drive safely and correctly. Optimus (Humanoid Robot): Must perform the physical tasks it is asked to do - Adhering to the laws of physics is helpful for ensuring the model is truthful - A somewhat overlooked point: To be really intelligent, AI has to make predictions that are in line with reality

X Freeze

45,446 görüntüleme • 8 ay önce

Adding more GPUs will never make a machine conscious. Nobel Prize-winning physicist Roger Penrose just dismantled the entire AI race’s core assumption. Right now, the industry operates on one belief. Build massive data centers. Scale the models. AGI will just “wake up.” Penrose destroys this completely. Penrose: “There is this sort of view that once you make a computer complicated enough or something, it suddenly becomes aware. I just don’t believe that. There’s no reason to believe that.” A machine can compute better than any human alive. But computation is not awareness. Penrose: “There is something quite different involved in understanding things, in being aware of things, of feeling things, which is not part of computations.” We’re confusing rule-following with actual intelligence. Penrose: “The keyword is the word ‘understanding.’ You can follow rules alright, but we don’t understand what we’re doing. The understanding is the key point.” Models today are exceptional at processing data. At mimicking logic. But true understanding requires consciousness. Penrose: “It doesn’t make sense to say of a device that it understands something if it’s not even aware of it. There is something much more profound in being conscious of something.” And here’s what should terrify every AI lab on earth. Penrose: “I believe that the brain is following the laws of physics, sure. We don’t have a good picture of the laws of physics.” Penrose: “Quantum mechanics is not an answer to the way the universe operates. It’s a partial answer. It’s incomplete.” We’re trying to engineer synthetic consciousness using classical computation. While biological consciousness likely operates on physics we haven’t even discovered yet. The race to AGI isn’t just an engineering problem. It’s a frontier science problem. The labs are hiring engineers. The problem might require physicists who don’t exist yet.
2:02

Adding more GPUs will never make a machine conscious. Nobel Prize-winning physicist Roger Penrose just dismantled the entire AI race’s core assumption. Right now, the industry operates on one belief. Build massive data centers. Scale the models. AGI will just “wake up.” Penrose destroys this completely. Penrose: “There is this sort of view that once you make a computer complicated enough or something, it suddenly becomes aware. I just don’t believe that. There’s no reason to believe that.” A machine can compute better than any human alive. But computation is not awareness. Penrose: “There is something quite different involved in understanding things, in being aware of things, of feeling things, which is not part of computations.” We’re confusing rule-following with actual intelligence. Penrose: “The keyword is the word ‘understanding.’ You can follow rules alright, but we don’t understand what we’re doing. The understanding is the key point.” Models today are exceptional at processing data. At mimicking logic. But true understanding requires consciousness. Penrose: “It doesn’t make sense to say of a device that it understands something if it’s not even aware of it. There is something much more profound in being conscious of something.” And here’s what should terrify every AI lab on earth. Penrose: “I believe that the brain is following the laws of physics, sure. We don’t have a good picture of the laws of physics.” Penrose: “Quantum mechanics is not an answer to the way the universe operates. It’s a partial answer. It’s incomplete.” We’re trying to engineer synthetic consciousness using classical computation. While biological consciousness likely operates on physics we haven’t even discovered yet. The race to AGI isn’t just an engineering problem. It’s a frontier science problem. The labs are hiring engineers. The problem might require physicists who don’t exist yet.

Dustin

196,858 görüntüleme • 5 ay önce