For me it's the one left-out. Imagine if *Cosmos* was just a dense textbook of bland facts, and a companion video of Carl Sagan talking monotonously for 13 hours against a plain black backdrop. Why do so many people in STEM reject the importance of Art, Aesthetics and Appreciation if STEM is about gaining public Acceptance and Awareness of those topics? Isn't the A more important than the other letters in STEM to get Average people interested and Approving and Accepting of STEM to Accelerate Advances that All people can Admire, Applaud, and Acknowledge with Accolades? STEM is narrow and difficult to grasp, sometimes covered in thorns. STEAM is power.
Mathematics. I find patterns in most things as a way of comprehension. I'm teaching myself keyboard (a classic 80's Casio), and began with C Major and improvise fairly fluently without a single lesson. I played clarinet in school and regional bands in Tasmania. So I'm just using my ear, and letting my feelings flow through the patterns of sounds. I'd love to hear a little about the emotional connection between the mathematics of music and how I can play my sorrow or loneliness or love without knowing how. Hey everyone... Sorry for my long reply. 🤠🤓✌️
I think it would be valuable to invite Edward Frenkel on with Dr Eric Weinstein, next time he wants to discuss his work in progress _Unified Field Theory_ that is called _Geometric Unity._ It seems the Langlands unification is a mathematical superset of the toolset used by the physics in _The Standard Model,_ and Howard Georgi and Sheldon Glashow's SO(10) _Grand Unified Theory_ and _Geometric Unity_ which seems to be SO(64, 64) or in an abuse of notation... the outermost of these Russian dolls: Spin(14, ℂ) → U(128, ℂ) → SO(64, 64) ⊃ SO(10) ⊃ SU(5) ⊃ SU(3) × SU(2) × U(1) Where 256 > 248 > 128 given a Structure Group determined by : Y⁷·⁷ = Met(X³·¹) ↓ X³·¹ having 128 = 2⁷ which I think is limited to these maximum set of dimensional measures on X³·¹ or the proto space-time X⁴ because the largest Exceptionally Simple Lie Group is E₈ which is 248 and so may 'clip' the Structure Group to U(128, ℂ) when elaborated with Complex Numbers, as there exists no larger E₉ to include a Structure Group that is U(256, ℂ) based off 256 = 2⁸ and with X³·¹ being the only sensible combination of Space and Time dimensions in which to tie a knot (a mathematical bulwark for information persistence - i.e. "knottedness" - to fight against entropy, and without which there can be no short term agglomeration of structures, that can react chemically with each other, and in some circumstances lead to replication with some small degrees of replication error, leading to mutations of replications, some of which may persist within their semi-stable ecological niche. and evolve into curious sentient beings who have their own podcasts.... At least that is my layman's understanding of the latter part of Dr Weinstein's draft paper, having read it five times because I had nothing else to do in the UK pandemic lockdowns. Here "gravity is the engine of observation" (in a manner that seems similar to things Sir Roger Penrose has said), rather than a conscious observer collapsing a probabilistic wave function due to their interaction with the indeterminate quantum state of the experiment (or possibly some entanglement, even EPR = ER equivalence to support "spooky action at a distance"), which implies fate (and karma) are real - so I understand why Dr Weinstein has said that "gravity is the engine of observation" sampling some information from a complexified coiled up ten dimensional hypersphere that is hidden from view because it is at a tangent to our observable universe, and can only be inferred to exist by examining the shrapnel produced by the LHC. I think there is a strong likelihood that the Langlands unification (and bridges between specialisms), will be a superset of the tools needed to describe a _Unified Field Theory_ which will probably be a _tour de force_ of mathematical articulacy, not limited to single orthodox specialisms, and perhaps seeming somewhat more intangibly mathematical than physical in its full general case, where our observable universe appears to hint towards recurrent patterns that may echoa deep underlying mathematical "crystalline" beauty borne from symmetry, but will actually reveal themselves to be ultimately awkward and messy because the limitations of E₈ prevented a unification of all three C P & T-symmetries (which means that time does no longer coexist with anti-time, with the universe a ideal symmetrical crystalline complexification of E₈ as this perfect mathematical symmetry was required to break into the asymmetric CPT symmetries, especially as the universe cooled down and slowed to form mass). So, by analogy physics is like the NTSB investigating debris and trying to figure out how the crash occurred, when they weren't present to witness it, only to eventually realise there was a mid-air collision between two planes in thick cloud. Happy Hanukkah!
Facinating - to facinate; by definition "attract the strong attention and interest of (someone)" The top 3 most interesting STEM areas in the world right now are Geneticist, Data-analyst, Astronaut. But there are large veriations from country to country.
@@DrBrianKeating btw, biological life is really a planetary scale phenomenon very close to what Edward was talking about Solaris despite his different point of view on this living thing.. as well as human's consciousness is also a planatary scale phenomenon what is more and more widely recognised among professionals in the field of cognitive sciences. )
Yay. Can you do me a favor? Please leave a rating and review of my Podcast! On Apple devices, click here, scroll down to the ratings and leave a 5 star rating and review The INTO THE IMPOSSIBLE Podcast apple.co/39UaHlB On Spotify it’s here spoti.fi/3vpfXok | on @audible_com adbl.co/3MeLPTj and other ways to rate here: briankeating.com/podcast
I knew when he mentioned his love of Van Gogh that I would enjoy this video. I really liked Dr. Frenkel's humbly saying that learning and grasping new things shouldn't cause us to think that we don't have much more to learn. I agree. I think that even if a person lives forever, he or she will never become bored; there will always be much more to learn. Good job as always!
One of my favorite mathematicians. He embodies in his being the Langlands program in a profound way, incorporating the physical with the metaphysical in a way which retains the joy of there always being uncertainty. Yes “Love and math”. Awesome holiday present Prof Brian. Thanks. 🎉
Thanks so much! *What was your favorite takeaway from this conversation?* _Please join my mailing list to get _*_FREE_*_ notes & resources from this show! Click_ 👉 briankeating.com/list
@@DrBrianKeating my favourite takeaway of the conversation is where he uses the metaphor of a coffee cup to explain the Langlands problem - where projections of the same cup can lead to a circle as well as a rectangle. As a layman, I somehow see an analogy of this with string theory. It is interesting - that as Dr. Frenkel tries to find the grand unification theory by looking at the projections (numbers theory and geometry) - theoritical physicists like Dr. Andy Strominger are doing the reverse. They are trying to figure out how unification theory like string theory projects itself in the 4 dimensional world that we live in using approaches like Calabi-Yau manifolds - the problem ofcourse being there is a huge variation of such manifolds (all of which are supported by string theory) What I had been wondering (maybe due to my utter ignorance in this subject) is the fact that so far the LHC has failed to identify any of the super symmetry particles - does that provide a bigger clue than the fact that we are trying to detect these particles in our 4 dimensional world. Could the absence of seeing something provides a greater knowledge than inability to see something in an experiment. Only time will tell. Thanks for your podcasts. You are doing an amazing job.
Awesome! Can you do me a favor? Please leave a rating and review of my Podcast! On Apple devices, click here, scroll down to the ratings and leave a 5 star rating and review The INTO THE IMPOSSIBLE Podcast apple.co/39UaHlB On Spotify it’s here spoti.fi/3vpfXok | on @audible_com adbl.co/3MeLPTj and other ways to rate here: briankeating.com/podcast
I believe that the dilemma between love and mathematics can be resolved in this practical, although perhaps somewhat simplistic way: when you have all the data, reason and logic, when you don't, intuition and emotions.
I'm not a maths geek(no offense lol) and maybe there are features of maths that address these questions, but how can mathematics be the language of nature in any transcendental sense? Mathematics doesn't have an axiomatic sense of time built into it, to order operations and produce consistent logic. That's just taken for granted from empirical reality that things are temporally ordered. That is, it's physical reality that is imbuing mathematics with a reliable cause and effect temporal order to underpin its logic. Similarly mathematics doesn't axiomatically provide a space for information to exist to be contained and mathematically elaborated. That too is just taken for granted from the empirical reality we can move information about according to laws of nature. Sure after the fact mathematics can circularly explain aspects of space,time and information reality, but without the implicit features of reality like time, space, unitarity etc we use to coherently and robustly map and manipulate ideas by and which mathematics takes for granted, what does mathematics even mean?
In a different universe, if I drew a straight line in a rotating circle, imagine if the tracing extended throughout time, if an observer is on the outside while they observe and they only saw the tracing of my drawing within units of a full revolution… but the observer cannot see what happens within the revolution. Only a full revolution. What would the observer on the outside see? The observer would not see a straight line, they would see a circle. It’s called the circumference across the diameter….. if you lived in a different universe with different structures of circles then the observer would be a different ratio.
“Only connect! That was the whole of her sermon. Only connect the prose and the passion, and both will be exalted, and human love will be seen at its height. Live in fragments no longer.” ― E.M. Forster, Howards End.
I don't know about this one. Dr Keating this guy doesn't even know what a circle is. (this is very funny joke for somebody who read love & math) Really big fan of both you guys.
I don’t think that computers inherently are incapable of creativity, I just think that our ability to transfer angular momentum into computers is limited by our own understanding and inability to perform measurements among a chain reaction using very complex algorithms.
Per Pearlman YeC 'Ten utterances are 10 equations of creation (when the universe was created on day one and organized over week one), as the Aleph-Beis is alpha numeric.
16:20 that may be why Hashem did not have Moses spell out everything in scripture, so we could get merit and satisfaction via study and diligent consideration.
I think so, but I also believe that there must be a considerable amount of universal momentum at which gives us the energy density to exist. Thus we are backed by curvature among uncertainty I suppose.
I feel like the ability to think is the ability to create abstractions from something that is inherently basic. I think it is the equivalent to creating new neural networks, using strong and weak circuits that allow you to implement reason in more flexible scenarios. Further enabling your ability to envision things that others cannot.
The book of Nature as _representation_ of it is written in language of mathematics, but is Nature as is mathematical or is mathematics only an interpretation ?
And why the debate is confined to whether the math is discovered or invented ? Instead, What if it is imposed , for example by the hardwired structure of the brain?
Non commutative algebra reveals the real nature of physis. When AB-CD is not zero, but equal to a non zero term like ihH you are in the quantum realm. Or else you are in the classical realm.
The claims about discriminatory educational system are not credible. I've personally known many individuals (including Jewish like Frenkel) from that system who deny existence of alleged discrimination.
