As I was listening to this video at 7:55 my wife walks through the kitchen and hears, "No number will ever answer those deep philosophical questions." "Forty-two," she says on her way by without skipping a beat. Nick immediately answers, as if he heard her, "Not even 42." Makes my day. :)
Great upload! I've heard that phrase so many times and it's never really been explained. I love how you went into so much detail about defining everything. Awesome!
@@ScienceAsylum(even as a math and physics lover I can't take it in a easy way,but it's the truth but still u can't tell math is not a universal language just for density or even numbers) I agree that our math can't quite explain everything in a Meaningful way now.if somebody can change it mean like how Newton did by inventing calculus,math can discribe any phenomenon with clear and in meaningful way.THEN AFTER THAT IT WILL BECOME THE LANGUAGE THAT WE USE TO UNIVERSE.
Language is the application of meaning to a pattern. Color is the language the brain uses to understand wavelengths of light. Odor and flavor are the languages the brain uses to understand chemical reactions in the nose and tongue. Texture, sensation, and sound are the languages that the brain uses to understand pressure differentials. This is why things like synesthesia, illusions, hallucinations, dreams, and ghost limb syndrome exists. This is why plugging an audio cord into a video port creates crazy colors and shapes and why plugging a video cord into an audio port creates screeching sounds. This is why an idea in your mind has to be translated into words in the Broca’s Area and then translated into the patterns of muscle activations in your lips, mouth, throat, and diaphragm to produce the proper pattern of sounds which creates a sympathetic vibration in another’s ears which is sent to the Wernicke’s area to be translated back into words and then translated into an idea. ANY one of those processes can corrupt the intended idea being transmitted and defeat communications. Every layer of neurons creates patterns for each successive layer to constantly condense information so that all the data received from the each retina can be understood in each respective hemisphere of the brain which is then processed using the corpus callosum to achieve depth perception through comparison of information rather than rejection of a complete data set to avoid cognitive dissonance. Whenever two sets of data do not coincide at one level of dimensionality, it creates dissonance, by increasing the number of dimensions used to analyze, you are able to achieve a better understanding. This is true in depth perception, politics, relationships, and even M-Theory in String Theory. Math describes ALL of those languages.
@@ScienceAsylum Just the fact that we employ digital communications to transmit information in any form of language through another always ends up applying meaning to a pattern of physical phenomena: light pulses, radio wave features, optical pits, magnetized particles, quantum states, and even tree rings. Everything comes down to “exists” or “does not exist” and the pattern of “existence” and “non-existence” gives rise to the ability to apply meaning to it all.
@5:11 It totally has a translation in Propositional Logic and in Predicate Logic which are both branches of Mathematics. Check it. I⇔(K⇔(B≤C)) = It’s okay to be a little crazy = Eίναι εντάξει να είσαι λίγο τρελός. (Math) (English) (Greek, just to go the extra mile) (I didn't use Google for any of this, didn't need to; I'm fluent in Greek, and I'm a Math/Logic Undergrad) Notation Legend (Math/Logic) ---------------------------------------------------- I = It’s K = okay B = to be C = crazy ⇔ equivalent, (logically equivalent) ⊆ a subset, ⊆C is a set contained in C ≤ less than or equal to ∃ = Existential quantifier, it reads: "there exists..." : such that It means the same thing as this: I=(K=(B≤C)) (Each term is just represented with a variable.) You might also see Logician write this in Set Theory: I⇔(K⇔(B⊆C) or in Predicate Logic = ∃K: K(B,C) This states that: "There exists K, such that K describes the relationship between B, C." or to be more specific: "There exists "Okay" such that "Okay" describes the relationship "Being" is having with "Crazy." Notation Greek to English ---------------------------------------- Eίναι εντάξει να είσαι λίγο τρελός = It’s okay to be a-little crazy Eίναι = It’s εντάξει = okay να = to είσαι = be λίγο = little *(see asterik at bottom of page for details) τρελός = crazy Notation: Math to English to Greek ----------------------------------------------------- I = It’s = Eίναι K = okay = εντάξει B = to be = να είσαι C = crazy = τρελός ⇔ equivalent, (logically equivalent) ⊆ a subset, ⊆C is a set contained in C ≤ less than or equal to ∃ = Existential quantifier, it reads: "there exists..." : such that I⇔(K⇔(B≤C)) = Eίναι εντάξει να είσαι λίγο τρελός. *(There is no “a” because “little” itself does not have singularity or plurality in Greek unless more than one entity is slightly crazy. Here, only one thing is little: the size, or measurement of “crazy.“) The literal, "word-for-word," translation from Greek→English would be: “It’s okay to be little crazy.” Which is exactly what you hear from many people with European accents, like some of my Uncles lol. I may have abused the "it's okay to be a little crazy" rule, and went to far, lol. (If anyone understands it then totally worth it!)
In my view, its more close to invented (convenience). in the past centuries all scientists tend to justify aspects of universe through maths. Its a little crazy to understand simple physics without using Maths
Akshay Patil One question you can pose for this idea is if humanity was wipped out and all knowledge was lost and millions of years later a new intellectual species evolved the two societies would differ in terms of language, faith and culture. Math however would likely remain at its core the same giving evidence to point to that it is discovered. The letters and symbols between the post wipe and pre wipe would most certainly differ however so it would need to be translated but it may be similar to a codex for English in which every letter is replaced by the one two down, but if a codex was found or created than one would likely easily be able to transition between the two. Think Fahrenheit and Celsius, they both messure the same thing - temperature - but you need a simple equation to transition between the two.
Here's the way I see it. Math seems to me to be an inherent property of the universe. It's underlying mechanics were discovered, but the actual language we use to communicate those underlying mechanics had to be invented.
Math is a language we made up. A small portion of the mathematical language has been created and expanded precicely because it described some bits of the universe. Physics is our attempt to describe the universe at its fundamental levels, and physics used to be done in a spoken language, such Aristotelian logic. But that didn't get us anywhere. So people started using math, and the results were so overwhelmingly good that we just kept on using math, and making up new math when needed.
I don’t think we can take credit for math, we may have stumbled onto it when looking at the cosmos, everything is created mathematically down to its very atomic structure. Math is something the universe taught us.
Yeah maths is just a tool to rely on the laws that were observed recently, but when scientists found out about black matter, or black holes not even maths or science could explain these phenomenons
@@수찬장-n3o and the very small, quantum mechanics, other dimensions, the stuff we can not see or measure. Butt it is still the math that tells us something is missing…. If you go back and look at the actual reason why we are looking for that.
@@수찬장-n3o the “question” is what science is all about, if we run out of questions, than we run out of science. We must have something to investigate, measure, observe. Numbers, need to be accompanied by letters, they explain the measurement, or formulas or what the numbers represent.
@@anthonysandoval9275 Science is not for the thrill of it, its created to satisfy the curiousity of us humans. If science was all about the questions then science wouldnt be used in the first place.
Loved the video. Math might be our human language’s attempt to describe the universe, But the universe does not speak the language of math, the universe could probably care less about our math!
Whoever coined that phrase that "math is the language of the universe" probably meant it in the sense that math has a universal quality that other sentient beings would understand. Because of that, mathematical concepts as well as formulas could serve as a foundation for communication. One plus one equals two is a universal fact (as far as we know), so building on that, it should be possible to trade with aliens. That example is simplistic but it illustrates the point I'm making. I enjoy your videos, by the way. They're very informative.
True, but we also use language to describe things as accurately as possible. We use math to describe the universe. So technically, math is a language, but more a sublanguage.
Not wanna be mean but you sooo underestimate the different fields of maths that humans have created (yes, created). Because even this simplistic example of 1+1=2 is not inherent but one of the consequenses of the rules that we made for this paticular arithmetics (for example Peano axioms). And we could easily change these rules to create completely new arithmetics. To put it simply, our pure maths could be much much more crazy than the universe, so there are many possible kinds of this craziness
@@Predated2 You mix up a language we invented with the mathematical entities we try to descibe with the language we invented. The entities exist, no matter wether our universe exists or not. They are universal, and do not require our universe to exist. Math is a landscape, made up of mathematical structures. Dealing with math is exploring these landscapes. In order to describe these landscapes to others, of course you need a language. This languages is not the landscapes though. I understand, that physicists see math only as a tool - I took lectures in physics as well. What you learn in an average physics studium is not math at all, its algorithms molten into mathematic language at best. Don't mix up these algorithms with math.
These videos are brilliant! I can't understand why there are only 40K subscribers! You deserve to have at least 20 times that amount! Keep up the good work Nick, this channel deserves to be huge!
5:42 "if math really is the language of the universe, then everything we calculate should have meaning" Totally desagress with this. English is the language of the Harry Potter books, but not every sentence in english has a meaning in the books, and every meaning of the books can be written in english. So not everything in math should have a meaning in the universe, but all in the universe should be able to be written using math. Gravity, speed of light, all celestial bodies, everything is described using math, and what isn't is probably because we still didn't figured how to do it. So in my opinion math is the language of the universe. About the deep philosophical questions, they aren't about the universe, they are about us, and the universe can exist without us in it, so these questions shouldn't be used to disprove math as the language of the universe.
I kinda agree with you, but then again if you think about it, is there any mathematical statement that cannot be translated to a regular language? The answer is no, it's just that it would be really inefficient for some math statements. It follows then, that every language is the language of the universe. Which kind of makes sense, I mean, that's why languages evolved right, to be able to communicate ideas.
I prefer comments at end of your videos. I'd only do comment video on its own if it's a question about you / your background / how you make videos etc...
"It's OK to be a little crazy" has no exact translation in maths...yet. But just as every language maths evolves too. If we found out a new way to express psychological stuff in maths we could express that too. I like your way of thinking and it formed mine in some ways since I follow your channel. Your presentation style is top quality too. Keep up the good work Nick!
(Preface: I love the videos, I'm going through them one-by-one. Usually I'm uniquely unqualified to comment, but this video is perhaps an exception.) To consider whether math is a lanugage, it's *really* helpful to go to the fields that study lanugage. There are many characteristics of human language, which you're not going to get by relying on dictionary definitions. One loses the interesting characteristics of both math and language by trying to equate them. I would consider math to be a special subset of language, used in a specific domain. It's unusual because it has its own strict grammar, very different from human languages. The meanings of mathematical statements are of a different kind. It would be related to programming languages and the rules of logic. Math doesn't deal with emotional states, nor could any community function using only math as a language. "I love you." "Let's go to the seashore." "I think there's something funny about that guy." How would you say these in Math-Speak? Human language has to deal with all the crazy states of mind, actions, and imaginings of a featherless biped. I'm guessing that math originated in the jargon used by ancient surveyers and accountants. Originally it described the crafts and processes of specialists: figuring out areas, counting jugs of olive oil. Then it gradually became general and abstract, e.g. with the Greeks.
Math can definitely describe our physical situation but our spiritual/ philosophical situation is another matter. I think you hit on this dichotomy brilliantly.
This was possibly your best video! Math definitely IS the language of the universe. It's the only language that remains as a constant on our planet. (2 + 2 = 4) is the same in English as it is in French, Swedish or German. Logic states that if math remains a constant throughout all of humanity, then it most likely would be the same on another planet with intelligent life. If math is able to accurately predict cosmic events in our universe with pinpoint precision,... then yes, "Math" is clearly the language of the universe.
Man, you can make the comment response videos interesting by explaining random topics you find in them. Kind of like a short answer (or maybe question). I am sure that it can be pulled of with your charisma.
Hello Crazy, great channel. I am a Sociology Major with a lot of studies and practical knowledge in communications, language, philosophy statistics and computer science. I STRONGLY recommend you to inmerse into the first and second Witgenstein. It's a good seed for a mind like yours.
This is more important than we can imagine for a number of reasons. It’s also the reason (conjecture) why we can’t unify a continuum and a quantum reality using the form of math we call math.
Conclusion - mathematics is A universal language but is not THE only language one needs to describe all things in the universe - you see I need to use a verbal language like English to better describe the conclusion! Example: I could use maths to talk to an alien from another planet about mathematical physics but not to express my feelings
Nova did a great show on this called "The Great Math Mystery" but it's true that the question of whether we made it up or it already existed in the universe still remains. For kids, a hard to find but incredible video was done by Disney on math called Donald in Mathmagic Land.
it is not more crazy than 1+2=3. Both statements require certain axioms in order to be true and known, otherwise they are just random signs without meaning. The reasion why 1+2=3 seems a lot less crazy is that you are a lot more familiar with simple arithemitc than with analytical continuation
Crazies, the OP is just making a joke. Try not to take everything so seriously 😉. For anyone who can't let it go, watch this video from Numberphile from 2014: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-w-I6XTVZXww.html ...then this much deeper dive from 3blue1brown in 2016: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-sD0NjbwqlYw.html *TL;DR The sum might not be rigorously defined where the sum equals -1/12, but there's nothing rigorously disproving it either. The result is still compelling.*
Probably my favorite video! It's actually helped me approach math in a different way! Keep it up even though this video is from 2016! Also I love rule #7... xD
That's an interesting take on the "Language of the Universe" statement. I always took it to mean that the universe was mathematical in nature, so we were just working out what was already there, trying to understand it, not literally a "language". For me, I don't see math as being intrinsic to the universe, so it can't be discovered. Math is a human invention the seems to be endlessly useful, but comes from us and is overlaid on to the universe. In terms of being an actual "Language of the Universe", of course not. The universe is not sentient (unless you mean us), so it doesn't communicate in any way, so it can't have a "language".
"Math would be just a small part of the best translation of the language of the universe." This expression only makes me see things in a totally different perspective. Thanks.
Great vid, very well explained. My big problem with the idea of math and science being intrinsic to the universe and something we discover is the simple fact that all the units of measurements measurements we use, the fundamental properties of both math and science are arbitrary, made up values. They are useful yes, and help us describe the universe so that we can understand it, but it is something we have made up and do not exist as an objective reality. The fact that we are constantly changing these units of measurements is a testament to the fact that they are something we have created. Math and science are both a means to manipulate these measurements in order for use to assign meaning to the universe. Does a photon calculate its trajectory using Einstein's equations through curved space before moving from point A to B? Of course not; it is simply following a path of least resistance through space. The universe simply happens around us and it does so outside of the realm of both math and science. Yet math and science have been quite useful in describing and predicting, what has and will happen in the universe, and this is what puzzles people. It isn't much of a puzzle though; math and science have been designed to do just that, i.e., describe the universe. You design a glove to fit a hand and it may take a few tries before you get all the cloth to go in the right direction to fit all the fingers, but after trial and error, some experimentation and thinking about it, eventually you get a pattern that works. It may work for quite a while, but then you come across a hand that just won't fit in the glove. In this case, the universal glove doesn't turn out to be all that universal and you start the process all over again. This is exactly what we do in math and science. We change the rules when we need to, when we come across an observation that doesn't fit with our existing description of the universe. We can do that, because we have created the system in the first place. We have created the units of measurements and the rules that govern those measurements, so we can change them as we need. This is what makes math and science so powerful. We are not locked into a rigid system defined by some impersonal universe that doesn't care about whether we understand or not. We have created the rules of the game, and we can change the rules as we need. We need a new unit of measurement? We simply make it, and then create the rules that govern those measurements and tweak those rules until it makes the observations we have. Do we need a new form of math to describe something? We simply create it, just as we did with Calculus and imaginary numbers. Math and science do describe the world around us, not perfectly, but to a high degree of precision, where precision is defined as the standard we have set for ourselves, based on the units of measurements that we have created to facilitate that description of the universe. It does so, not because math and science are inherent properties of the universe, but because we have created both math and science to describe the universe in terms that we can understand. That is why math and science are always changing, always evolving and will continue to do so. math and science are both very similar to languages; they are all tools we have created to understand what is going on around us.
I agree with this statement 100%: "Does a photon calculate its trajectory using Einstein's equations through curved space before moving from point A to B? Of course not." As far as the units of measure go though, most theoretical work is done outside of any unit choices. Equations tend to be re-written so they would work with any units you wanted to apply. Some scientists think that these equations describe real relationships between real measurements that actually exist in the universe. I'm not so convinced.
Just another time Paradox movie, but more confusing because it had to attract the unfamiliar people who never saw a time paradox movie before. So, therefore, the movie adds unnecessary details to make the move even more confusing than necessary. I've been a time paradox nurd since Star Trek TOS. But after watching this movie, I fell asleep. Oh well.
imho even english is not the language of the universe. the consensus make it so. which mean it need agreement of each participant or community to use n engage it. nobody can say what is the language of the universe. only god know.
Totally agree with you. The way I see it - math is not a language of the universe but our best attempt (so far) to explain the universe. Math has also a lot of "bugs" such as imaginary numbers, so it is not even a "perfect" language so to speak.
The fact you mentioned piglatin, but said it in piglatin makes me reminisce back in the day when me and my buddy would always speak to each other in piglatin at school and stuff
Mathematics is often considered a formal language, akin to mathematical logic. With formal languages, it's improper to ascribe natural-language elements like nouns, verbs, etc. to formal languages as formal languages are strictly meaningless. There are many ways to interpret this, but consider a model-theoretic view: formal languages are sentences which can be manipulated according to some set of rules to preserve their meaning i.e. their truth-tables. By themselves, they mean nothing. They're intended to model the way sentences in natural-languages preserve truth (hence model-theory). If mathematics is to be a (albeit pretty complicated) formal language (or maybe a set or group of formal languages, viz. axiom relativity), then the meanings of the terms become null, nullifying those arguments which appeal to this property (we often offer a blueprint in translating back formally by stating something to the effect of "Let be ", etc." where "something" is in the metalanguage, and "phi" is a metavariable in the object language). What's curious is that the ontological status of mathematics is actually completely underdetermined. There's an infinite number of incommensurate ways to represent basic mathematical entities in set theory alone (see Benacerraf's identification problem for more), let alone the (what you might call the "mathematical constants" as it were, or) operations can be expressed in second or first-order predicate logic (with a bit of redundancy), or as a series of merelogical relations. There really isn't a way to tell, and this question is far from having the ghost of a consensus about it, but I am actually quite partial to a natural-language interpretation of mathematics, kinda like what you did. Only this kind of question about some natural-language entity would kick up as much fuss as it has. (Incidentally, this aporoximates the sort of appeal fictionalists, of all people, tend to make in their arguments).
There is a movie called “Pi, the order of chaos” that says this a lot. It is a good movie though. Of course a fiction movie. About your video I agree in everything.
I loved your explanation. I was watching a group of scientist talking and Neil DeGrasse Tyson (Astrophysict) said "Math is the language of the universe" Then Brian Green (Mathematacian and theoretical physicst) "Said how did you know its the language of the universe?" And then the debate starts I think this videos solved it all Thanks again 👍.
Great video! Math is just a tool we invented to describe the universe and make predictions. We always need to make adjustments or invent some new concepts when the old ones doesn't get the right results. So I really like your explanation that math is what we create to try to translate the language of the universe. Reading some of the comments reminds me of an arguments about probability a few years ago. In the comment section of a video about the Monty Hall problem, somebody disagree with the result and said something like "I don't think that's how the universe calculates probability" So I explained to him that probability is not something naturally exist in the universe, it's just a tool that we created to predict the possible outcomes, and that's why it can change when we get new information. Even with perfect calculation, lack of information can get you different probability than others with more information, and none of you are wrong here, you just have different prediction on the same problem. Then he replied something like "Oh, look at the nonsense this guy just said! He said probability doesn't exist in the universe!" Although he made it like I was drunk talking, I was telling the truth! I didn't know what to say. I felt like I was telling a kid that white light does not exist in natural. No single wave length of electromagnetic wave corresponds to the color white, it's what our brains made up, and that kid just yelled "This guy just said white does not exist, was he drunk?"
Existence is the only language of the universe. It's a little complicated unless you look at it taxonometrically. If you do then it's quite simple. But the key word in your quest is the word "of." Mathematics is our language which partially describes the universe, and as we learn more about the universe, the more math we use to describe the physics that we use to describe the universe. When you use the word "of" you are ascribing a directionality or quality of emanation. I don't think anyone sees the number "three" floating out in space (although I suppose that if you could see the Horsehead nebula or Orion's Belt, you could see the shape of the number three someplace) with the intention of it defining the set of three things or being part of its own superset, or that if we multiply it (the mere shape) by 2 we will somehow get 6. I love your work but I think you need to get further into the directionality of your definitions. Just another loudmouth opinion from the cheap seats. Keep up your great work!
Someone should keep a list of topics for another future video. The amount of times Nick says that makes it seem like he has a full schedule until next year... oh wait. Happy new year!
Umm, it was taught to you as a language as a starting point for numbers, things like basic addition were taught like 3+6=9 (if Jack has 3 apples and he buys 6 more apples, he now has 9 apples) and 9-5=4 (If Jack sold 5 apples while he had 9, he now has 4 left)
Ahnaf Abdullah well, in most Russian schools math is taught in a very “violent” way, everything is deeply detailed from the very beginning (which is a problem in any sphere) and no one has actually put it this way (that math is a means of communication to an outside world). Yeah, train A and train B, yeah - apples, and then all of a sudden you’re trying to find the length of a line inside a circle, that doesn’t go through the center and is perpendicular to another line which is in fact a hypotenuse of a triangle....... I mean, you also gotta have a very specific mindset to become a school math teacher
Well in your first days you learned "mama" but most probably you even pronounced it wrong like "baba" or something like that. Your mum was most probably proud of this your failure. Then other words came, sentences, colors, more abstract things, math... And all of a sudden you are discussing if we are learning math too fast and with too many shortcuts. I agree that everyone should go according to his/her phase but that is quite imposible if one teacher teaches a class of 30 kids from which one half does not even care, one quarter sleeps and one guy is bored because the phase is too slow. It depends.
Thank's for your videos and all those questions. I like most of your questions very much and I love your humor and the unpretentious way you convey these exciting topics. Naturally, I certainly do not agree with all of your conclusions. But the topics and questions are good food for the brain. With me, at least they set off a lot of reflection and speculation 😀
The principles of mathematics has existed from the beginning of creation. We have assigned symbols to these principles in order to comprehend and predict. However, you are absolutely correct in saying there is an aspect of creation that cannot be answered by mathematics. Great video.
Nice video. I have been just returning in the last pair of years or so to Math and Physics (now out of pure interest and not school pressure!) and, in my inmense ignorance and subjectivity, find myself very attracted to the idea of mathematical Platonism.
"Math is the Language that we use to give detailed explanations of our understanding of the human mind's perceptions of the Universe" ... might be closer.
Ich schließe mich meinem Vorredner an, sehr schönes Video. Genauso wie du finde ich auch dass Mathematik nicht die Sprache des Universums ist, aber man kann mit ihrer Hilfe das Universum sehr gut beschreiben, wenn man noch die normale Sprache dazu nimmt. Schönes Video! Mach weiter so. Grüße aus Deutschland.
@Keen Tan Math is not a language, IMHO. What you refer to is I guess our formalisms we invented to describe maths. Math is far beyond that, just as if one claimed the 'lonely planet' travellers' guide for Cuba was Cuba - no, its not, its a way to describe Cuba. Math are abstract landscapes, not tied to any particular language - we require one language in order to describe it, because differently as for Cuba, one cannot travel to those landscapes to observe them without description.
This is exactly what I used to figure out physics, and calculus. I also say that paradoxes aren't a problem in nature because paradoxes are lapses in logical reasoning, meaning either our attention to detail dissolves or we simply don't have the processing power to comprehend the concept. I still lean towards the first.
Is mathematics the language of the universe? Partly, I would say. It depends on what you want to ask or do or want to know. If, for example, you want to describe the motion of a planet round the sun, mathematics would be your thing. On the other hand, if you wanted to know why I have just risen from my chair and walked towards the fridge, it seems utterly impotent.
Thanks for ditching the tenacious poetic storyline and taking a step back for a logical examination. I totally agree - math is just a tool set that is very effective at describing the mechanics of the universe, that tells almost nothing about the underlying "meaning" or "connection" to the universe itself. Look at string theory - it could describe so many universes, it is ridiculous to imply math has some magic connection to this one. Saying math is the language of the universe is a bit like saying frequency ratios is the language of music - while there are undeniable patterns, much of the magic comes from tone and character, not to mention the underlying emotional effect is not just the result of sound waves themselves, its much more complicated. That said I love Max Tegmarks Mathematical Universe hypothesis, I will stand and fall by his brilliance. Thanks for making us a little crazier Nick :D
Languages! My favourite subjects! Yes, Maths is a language...and an elegantly logical one too! I find its mythical rigidity unique and its mystical ability to spout out meta-truths fascinating. But alas, I need to work harder at it. Thanks for the inspiration! :)
PS., after thinking about it for quite some time, I believe 42 *is* actually the answer to "life the universe and everything". Douglas Adams snuck one by us there. He even said why it is the answer: "it appears you haven't thought about the question"... He was saying if you had the answer to such a complex question, the answer might appear meaningless. From Gauss we learned, the QUESTION, the PROCESS OF SOLUTION, and the ANSWER are all important. Ie., what DA was saying is the answer to the universe is abstract without the rest of the process.
When we find reasons of wonders happening in the universe, we try to apply and prove them in a theoratical way ,practically. And then we use maths, and invent it further on ,to explain such wonders. For example, I want to go to a location, which is double the distance from my place, and some additional distance is left, so I use equation (2x+y=location) to explain it.
You've made me feel like maybe Gödels incompleteness theorem makes sense somehow. Like the fact of the incompleteness of math would be expected if we really understood how the universe works.
The definition of language (0:33) seems important. It is used for communication (and other things). But what is the purpose of communication? To convey concepts, which in turn might (or might not) trigger a desired response in the person(s) you are communicating with. Language uses symbols (such as words) to represent concept elements, and it uses a set of protocols for organising those concept elements to convey meaning. Meaning can be discovered or invented - although non-fiction concepts (including scientific and mathematical concepts) are only models that try to represent reality, so even a discovery is an interpretation of available information. Some concepts in a model appear to strongly correlate to evidence/measurements, but they are still reliant on assumptions and are subject to paradigm shifts. So, mathematics is a language/tool that people use to help understand and describe phenomena (e.g. the physical universe) - it is not a feature of the universe, it has developed/changed over time and can be expected to continue to do so.
But Tegmark! (And me). OK, I'm biased because I studied Maths at uni, but I've always thought it possible that the universe only exists *as* pure mathematics, and we perceive it as physical only because *we* are also embedded in that mathematics, so we can't see 'outside it'. Of course, this is pure speculation (and therefore not science). But my feeling is that Ockham's razor applies here. We don't know whether the universe has a 'first cause', and we don't know whether it's part of a multiverse etc. or even whether it's a simulation. My view is that calling it 'all maths' is no more problematic than any other arbitrary explanation, and for me it is actually the most elegant because the single assumption one has to make is that mathematics (or a subset of it) is somehow 'eternal'. I find that rather glorious :)
First off, the saying as I've most heard it is not "the language of the universe" but "the language of nature", so the substitution implies a disputable equation of nature and the universe. Second, this question really deserves articulating to the distinction between classical and quantum physics. We learn natural language conventions by induction over speech acts illustrating them, without it being their purpose. This implies a relatively direct relationship between the illustrations and the abstracting generalizations we make of them. Newton's famous apple is pretty much a symbol for how this can happen with a behavior of nature substituting for a speech act. Quantum physics is where this analogy breaks down; in quantum physics, the law is about the dynamics of statistics and isn't illustrated by less than a statistic of observations.
The most satisfying set of words I've heard about this is that " Math isn't only a language but it's a language combined with logic. Maths is the language and logic is what allows us to jump from one idea to the other"........ putting the word "idea" in this messes it up alot though
