@@TheTransitmtl i would guess its one of those two reasons (could also be both reasons combined): 1. They know and support each other 2. Hes a simp and wants her attention as hes crushing for her. What do you think lol?
Creators like you make RU-vid an amazing place. Thankyou for your quality content. I am watching this video from India, from the outskirts of a small city. Just wandering and feeling grateful that people like you exist. ( Vsauce, Physics Girl, Arvin Ash, Veretasiam etc etc ) All are great individuals.
Seems you don't know reality very well...? It's not like it would just burst into flames.... She'd have to hold the match under any part of the wood for a good bit before it would start burning. And even then it would take many minutes for the fire to spread. Comments that make no sense like yours are depressingly common. It's like you're either bots or people that have never done anything and have some seriously weird, illogical ways to "think".
@@MuscarV2 wow, thanks for stating the obvious. I was saying how much I liked the Ferris wheel model in a wacky way. Comments like yours that are condescending and insensible ain't rare and delightful either. It's like beheading someone for sneezing in the library!
@@nithyadavuluri7287 lmfao that guy has a stick so far up his own ass he wouldn't know to laugh or cry at his own sorry shit. how the heck does he even survive in youtube comments xD
One of the best arguments (for me) is, that if simulated universes are possible, there would be a simulation inside a simulation inside a simulation, going on forever, making it almost impossible that any specific world would be the original one (by chance). So if it is possible, we're almost certainly a simulation, and if we aren't a simulation we also most likely won't be able to create a super-computer strong enough to simulate a universe with sentience. So simply put... Either we are a simulated reality, or it's impossible to simulate realities. The chance that we are the first generation to think about it, in the infinity of space and time, is almost too ridiculously small to even consider it... But all the logical experiments end up at the same conclusion.. Either we are, or we aren't xD
@@liquidminds Very interesting commentary! We may or may not be living inside a simulation... but sure we are living in an illusion that we can wake up from what i mean is that as many atoms form a molecule, many molecules a cell, many cells an organ, many organs an animal, many animals a pack, many packs a society, many societies a civilization (i may be skipping lots of things, but sure the point is understood)... what will happen when humankind as a whole become a single sentient being on its own? The process indicates that we may find and merge with other planetary civilizations and form a bigger one and so on How vast and deep can grow our knowledge and understanding of everything? there's no limit... so, there you have the layers of the alleged simulation... nothing more (or nothing less) than different and ever increasing complex (visions of) realities BTW, @UpAndAtom, very interesting video!
Also illustrated here is that nonlocal structure and behavior can emerge from strictly local rulesets. One of the early - admittedly handmade - implementations of this insight was the use of "simulated annealing" for finding nonlocal optima using strictly local rules. Local rules can perform simple hill climbing in an obvious way, but the search will terminate upon hitting a local maximum. Short of allowing each local climber to confer with the others (thus destroying strict locality) what can we do? Simply shake the system periodically, to overcome local maxima. Each progressive shake is less forceful, so that the climbers tend to end up less far away from their starting point on a given iteration. What's good about this approach is its local rules leading to emergent global optimization, which not only lends itself to parallel implementation but also supports the natural emergence of such rules if they confer survival advantage. Adding noise to aid convergence is also a technique used in signal discrimination. I believe that the CDMA cellular protocol was one of the earlier implementations, or maybe it was spread spectrum.
Keep it up! Don't ever let yourself believe you can't learn something. And NEVER stop learning. Even years from now keep learning something new every day. At least 1 thing. You'll be amazed at what you're capable of by the time you're 30. And I want to say how much I respect you for having that drive to learn and being inspired by videos like this just the way I was, and still am to this day. I'm 37 years old by the way and still very much learning everything I can. I've got a stack of notebooks just like any school student. I watch college and university lectures online, and stuff like this. I read textbooks for fun. Even though I left school when I was only 14 because people beat me up and spit on me and the teachers treated me bad and so on. And I wasn't interesting in learning at that time. But thankfully I grew into it. And yeah, sure enough learning since I was 18 or 19, making a point of learning a few things each day, I now know and can do things I never would have thought I could learn. Because I'd see a subject like quantum mechanics and I wouldn't think "oh that's too hard, I'll never understand that. Why bother trying?" I'll go and try it anyways, even if I know I won't understand. Because you still pick up little bits and pieces here and there. Even if you don't realize it. And if you do that enough times with enough different resources for long enough, eventually you'll learn it just the same. It's not the fastest way to learn something. But anything worth learning is going to take a lot of time and effort to learn. So don't even worry about how long it takes you to learn something (unless you have a deadline for school hehe). Just enjoy the journey of learning! Sorry this wound up being rather long. But I respect the hell out of people like you and I just want to give you as much advice as I can from my own experiences. Even if it helps a little bit, that's fine by me. But I do hope this has been useful to you. By the way I also want to mention, your English is very good. Take care, and be well. Wishing you all the best from Canada.
Physics must be understood the way you do.. I am inspired from you and aiming to pursue a research carrier in physics. I am in 12th grade currently.. Love from India.
@ROHIT RANA Those will always be servants who study just for a job... We should remember Feynman's statement that everything must be studied in order to correct it, to verify and give the correct thing... A job aimed study will never leads toward enlightenment ...
The top-down vs bottom-up approach is one of the reasons I love statistical mechanics. Understanding heat and entropy as an arrangement of objects given certain parameters seem like a simple and nonstraight forward way to describe heat. Yet as you slowly expand the system into the macroscale, many emergent properties arise.
Conway's game of life -- brings back many fond memories. Entertaining intro into cellular automata. I like the connections you made to biology and recent developments in cellular automata.
Conway's Game of Life is Turing-complete. There are configurations in the Game that simulate Turing machines. Combining that idea with the Recursion Theorem (there are Turing machines that output their own descriptions), you can produce configurations in the Game that simulate Turing machines that output their own descriptions.
O . O do you have examples? also, aren't turing machines... indistinguishable from humans or something? or is a turing machine different from passing the turing test...
@alveolate hermeneutist No, Turing test and Turing machine have nothing to do with each other, except both named after Alan Turing. A Turing machine is a simple, abstract model of a computer. It’s for example used to define what an algorithm is.
9:50 She says while sitting on an Ikea chair (I have the same one in the same color!). 13:34 Impostor syndrome. I'm sure your ideas on the subject are very much worth listening to.
I'm so excited to have a video I can share with my friends about complex adaptive systems! Whenever I try to do it I end up sounding like a crazy person. Thank you so much!
haha yeah whenever someone asked me what this video was about I'd end up sounding like a crazy person and defeatedly say "just wait til the video is out..."
This script was amazing! Things followed one after the other, the analogies were great, and the takeaway was thought-provoking. And to top it off, I learned a few solid facts too about the way nature works.
You clearly understand the subject well with how simply you are able to convey it. It's also refreshing to see a professional woman that makes no attempt to sell her material with low cut collars, layers of make up, etc.... In your case, though, Jade, you can't hide your natural elegance. Thank you for providing complex content in a simple enjoyable way.
Love this video! And I feel it's a really good way to show how higher order can be emergent. I see SO many people conflating the idea of "Because entropy increases, all systems work towards chaos." and "Chaos = inability to become more complex." . Entropy isn't a "loss of energy." It is the leveling of energy gradients: something like, "as the cold side warms up, the hot side cools down until they are both the same temperature." No energy was lost, just its ability to be used because of lack of differentiation. If we think of information in its most elementary form, it can consist of just a single energy difference. And with that, we have one piece of information. But if no differences are there, no information can be given / attained. Let's say you have two energy states: 0 and 2. If you come across this system and its energy gradients are 0000, no information can be attained. If its gradients are 2222, still no information can be attained. But if it was at 0220, there are now obviously 2 gradients. As the energy in the system works to equalize the gradients, eventually, no information can exist in the system. Because 0220 will eventually become 1111 once everything evens out. So the complexity isn't really affected. What IS affected, is the system's ability to hold onto information as the energy gradients are leveled out. However, given a system that has an energy source, (in this case, a computer and the electricity), then the system is no longer locally susceptible to the amount of entropy it would take to make the system lose information. This allows the formation of more complex information and actions from simple information. And voila! You have what we see in your video and in life!
@@MrKelaher It isn't a miracle if this is the only universe we could have been in. We are only here to observe the universe because it's a universe where were are capable of existing. We have no way of observing what a universe we couldn't exist in would look like. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle
Idk. 1. Supply materials and instructions to customer, 2. Customer assembles it themselves. Sounds like complex behaviour arising from simple rules. jk
Honestly, when I watch ur videos about more space stuff (like a year ago) I thought u had a bigger channel like may a million subs, but Idk why I thought so, may be because of the video quality 😆👍. So I feel u do deserve more than this... And it's good to see many responses to comment from u. Keep up the good work, and let ur dad know I 👏👌
@@upandatom yes the channel is growing. But please maintain the genuine quality content that you present. I really like your videos they present a natural approach towards things. I hope I had teacher like you in high school :) Don't dilute content to get more followers. You have really good high quality educated fan following, don't compromise that to get more and more ....
Great video as ever Jade! Though I don’t draw the same conclusions. While cellular automata can illustrate how a universe with relatively simple laws can support complex ‘life forms’, they are not responsible for creating those life forms. An external actor (the programmer) has to first create the laws but more importantly has to create the initial starting conditions. Using random initial starting conditions with Conway’s game of life can result in some interesting life forms, but the more complex ones you demonstrated inevitably need to be created by an external actor.
Who would you say “created” the laws of mathematics? It is a rich and complex system, but appears to exist on its own accord, rather than having been designed by some external actor.
@@mensaswede4028 that's a great question. My point though is simply that the laws cannot prove or disprove the existence of an external actor. At this point we move from science to philosophy. Philosophy has many ideas in this area
Paul McClean Well I am partial to the MUH (mathematical universe hypothesis), in which reality itself is nothing more than math, so the math itself is all you need to explain why we exist. But you are right, we will never “prove” anything. We are like an ant colony confined to the inside of a beach ball that is floating down a river. We sense the turbulence of the river, and suspect that there is a lot is going on that we don’t understand. But the ant colony has no hope of proving how the river formed from rainfall. Much less proving how the rain formed from evaporation from oceans due to star energy. There are extremely complex forces in play that are simply far too inaccessible to form scientific theories around them.
About Gemini (for geeks only): It shows some "replication aspects" but it's not a full replicator, mainly because it does not copy it's "dna" (the stream of gliders that describe how to built it). When running the number of copies does not grow. As far as I know, the first full replicator is 0E0P which is also a universal constructor (if you manipulate the "dna" inside you can have it build anything you want) and also a meta cell (very zoomed out it looks like and behave as a cellular automaton cell and you can program it to emulate any rule). Search " OTCA metapixel" for an illustration of what is a meta cell. Gemini has an interesting property: basically it behaves as a spaceship, (because it just eventually reach the same state but translated) but the translation step is neither diagonal or orthogonal but oblique. Oblique spaceship are very rare in Conway's game of life.
The end of this video is great. The bottom up vs top down paradigms and how science develops. Even Stephen Wolfram gets a shout out. These honest, deeper musings on the basic science is one of the things that distinguish this channel from many others.
Explaning why you've become a presenter rather than a researcher is a very honest, bold and gutsy statement! You have my utmost respect and admiration! I love your concise and to the point videos.
Thank you for the unsettling concept of self-assembling, self-replicating Ikea furniture... of all the physical and philosophical processes I have pondered, that is quite possibly the most disturbing. Instead of gray goo, earth, the solar system, and possibly beyond is turned into a horrible assortment of shelves, nightstands, tables and chairs.
One of the first 'games' I played was the Game Of Life on my Sinclair ZX81 computer in 1981. It randomised the first generation and then the magic happened based on the rules mentioned. I still remember it vividly!
Not going to lie, I started watching Cantor's Infinity Paradox for school and almost 2-hours later I ended up here and still going strong. Literally every video is awesome and so interesting. Great job
Life was the first thing I wrote when I added a C compiler to my Kaypro II computer. I learned a lot writing and refining the program and the designs were hypnotic to watch.
This is one of the best videos you have ever done. Congratulations. You are getting so good at this. As a physicist I found this fascinating and very deep.
Jade: excellent video! What will the end of the universe, do for the “meaning” of what knowledge we will have accumulated? This is just a thought experiment, considering the value of what we learn . Similar to the question you asked here about the order of discovery.
That was a real intellectual treat for my inquisitive mind and actually much more than that, this kind of content keeps people like me motivated, in our path of discovering something new, always! Thank you very much. ☺
Excellent. There is real depth underneath the very approachable presenting style. I would expect that you are well placed to indeed come up with original ideas in this area and I look forward to seeing it.
@@upandatomits very interesting how close physics and philosophy are. I mean in buddhism they have 4 states of being. A thing can have existence and non existence at the same time. A lot of their theory are very similar to the stuff found in quantum physics
@@queeny5613 as interesting as both physics and buddhism both are in their ideas, it is often a false equivalence to equate ideas in theology/philosophy and ideas in physics and as such one should be careful with it. The ability to see effects of quatum superposition is not something one can reasonably expect to be observable during the time of buddhism.
@@queeny5613 yes it is really fascinating that sometimes starting from really different goals and in different ways, philosophy and physics do chance upon the same things. Sorry if the earlier reply appeared lowkey hostile, need to deal with a lot of attempts to basically handwave ancient indian mythos and religion into modern science in my day to day life as a person of indian origin studying physics.
Just letting you know that I am nonetheless looking forward to seeing you talk about invention vs. discovery in/of maths and other sciences. I am strongly convinced that I am not the only one, so please, make a video or two about the topic here on RU-vid as well! Thanks for the quality and content of your videos!!
@@upandatom It is amazing. Sparking the interest of science in someone is an achievement that all educational You Tubers should strive for. Great job Jade!
I am watching all your videos for quite a while, I don't know why this is more interesting than Netflix movies.. your are genius jade.. thanks for making these videos
All our scientific laws are simplified models of reality, and only an approximation of reality. Like Newton had a rough model of gravity, Einstein had a completely different model of gravity which is more accurate. And then we have quantum gravity... Since these are just approximations, it is absolutely possible to have a completely different models, approaching the same piece of reality from an entirely different ways. And all these very different models can provide a different view on the very same reality. So yes, I could imagine having very different physics describing our reality, with similar precision.
@@triton62674 It might be a way of getting more easily to some new conclusions. There's a reason in math you often have several different, seemingly unrelated definitions for the same thing (which students then often have to prove are really equivalent).
triton62674 Because different models give you better predictions in different circumstances. Wave model predicts photon behavior in some cases, particle model in other cases. Newton model gives adequate predictions with simple math, relativity gives more precision with complicated math. To have the perfect model for a system with N particles, you need a computer with N particles. So we need to cut corners to simplify it, but don’t lose too much precision. Different models cut different corners.
Michael Bishop I just told you different theories for gravity, both with very good predictive power. Newton, and Relativity. If you don’t know the differences between these 2, then YOU don’t understand science. And here is quantum gravity: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_gravity Please put more effort into learning before commenting...
I am glad I found this, Now Wolfram's, "A New Science", is becoming understandable, as always your ability to explain concepts and ideas is outstanding! We know for sure that your Father finds Tremendous Joy in working on Projects with you!
Jade your channel is just great. What I notice is you don't confine yourself to one area (although it seems physics is your thing). Instead, you seem to be interested in everything and want to synthesize and find connections between all areas from philosophy to physics to biology. All done with an endearing enthusiasm and wonder. And I like how you stress how you sometimes have struggled in the past to understand some concepts. I think it is exactly this wrestling with concepts that produces a better teacher. And you clearly are an excellent teacher. Keep up the great work.
Game of life was the first program I did in my masters parallel programming. C++ OMP and Cuda programming then outputting the runs to gifs... oh such good times.. always so exciting when I see another Up and Atom video!
This is an amazing video, you touched upon Science and it's consequences on humanity today, made me think quite a bit and it was quite philosophical too, which I absolutely loved!! Keep going and continue to upload more amazing videos like this in the future, Cheers!
This video is actually phenomenal. It takes a question that everyone has probably wondered about at some point in time (i.e: how did life / complexity come about? could it have just "been built" on its own?) and gives it a satisfying answer. This must have taken a LOT of research, but more than that, a huge amount of alone thinking time to come to grips with such a far-reaching question. Amazing video! (And the ferris wheel at the start was a plus too :P)
Great as always. Nice to mention: Gerard 't Hooft uses cellular automata in his interpretation of quantum mechanics. So much interesting stuff, just one life to live and investigate...
The glider is named for an actual mathematical operation known as a _glide transformation,_ which is a combined translation in some direction and reflection about a line in that direction. The Life glider undergoes a glide transformation every 2 moves. Every move it alternates between 2 shapes. So it takes 4 moves for it to repeat as a purely translated figure. Also note: "automata" is plural; the singular is "automaton." Fred
@@upandatom Quite welcome! I recall this from Scientific American's _Mathematical Games_ column around 1970, when Martin Gardner introduced many of us to the game of Life. In turn, I didn't know the thing got born on a Go board. Thanks for that, and lots of other info! Another trivium: There was actually a semi-popular board game named "Life" back around that time. I think it was a Milton Bradley product. So you used to have to call the automaton, "John Conway's game of Life" to avoid confusion sometimes. Fred
Amazing video man. Learnt a lot. Only one suggestion, it will be nice if you reduce the volume of the background music. At times it was hard to hear you over the kinda unnecessary music
12:35 Such a great question. I'm really happy to hear that you are still questioning. We hear a voice on the TV and they say its true, so it must be. I am looking forward to great discoveries. Now, you just need confidence! 236,000 have faith in you!
An amazing video, a really intuitive explanation of Conway's GoL - but it also leads me to question whether it's truly "simple". Yes, the rules are very simple, but if you start with a simple input (a single dot, a 2X2 square) it doesn't produce anything interesting, only when we input a complex starting point do we get interesting behaviour. I'm not an expert, but it seems to me that we haven't yet shown that a simple input with a simple ruleset leads to complexity, only that we can use a simple ruleset with a complex input or a simple input with a complex ruleset to create complexity.
The way you started! OMG! It is comparable with Vsause(1)'s best relation of a completely another topic to the main one! If not already far better! Keep *up* the good work *and atoms* will Parise you. 😂👍🏻
Vsauce can't hold a candle to her. Perhaps I should rephrase that. Ms. Atom is phenomenal. I'm not a fan of the sauce guy. What does Vsauce even mean? "Reads wikipedia and tries to summarize"? Un-subbed years ago. Check out PBS Spacetime and SciShow.
@@JiveDadson already a fan of theirs too. That guy is awesome too, and she too both in thier own ways I didn't mean on any manner to compare them but to show a level of how authentic and awesome she is, and that she has got an excellent sence of connecting things to one another, which is quiet rare.
Hello Jayden. Just recently subscribed and love your vids so much I really want to become a astrophysicist and you have a coherent arguments that really question our existence well done 😁 👍
Interesting. But with all of the examples you’ve brought discussed the emergent properties of ‘rules’, a good question would be, Who sets these rules?!
Jason Fuller I’m not the most knowledgeable about the English language but usually ‘who’ is used to refer to something with ‘intelligence to think and make’ rather than that which doesn’t. That’s why I said who, because whoever created everything; placing them rules in its place, must have been intelligent and possessed adequate knowledge to do so. ‘What’ usually refers to that which has no real intelligence. So thought experiment, if a computer just carried out instructions inputted, we would call it ‘what’, but if the computer spoke back to you, conversed with you, understood the complexities of creation and was able to be ‘creative’ and demonstrated ‘understanding’ would you still call him a ‘what’? But to be fair, the ‘what’ of this would be impossible, as the ‘what’ would not be like the creation and be uncreated.
Asking the question "who/what set the rules" implies the rules are perceived to be non-random, because following them produces interesting/notable things, and there needs to be a person/thing that chose them. In the mentioned Game of Life, the rules are: a (live) cell survives if it has exactly 2 or 3 neighbors, and a dead cell becomes live if it has exactly 3 neighbor. Who set the rules? We set them. Why we set them as such? Because some configurations produce interesting things. How did we find out those rules? We tried other rules but most of them did not produce interesting things. So even though it could be said we set the rules, we just searched parts of the "rules space/structure/multiverse" and deemed some of them more interesting than others. If cells within the 2-3,3 universe could ask these questions, they could come to the same conclusions - there is either a creator (you manipulating the board, or a computer simulating the universe at your behalf), or their rules are just one element within the vast multiverse.
Mu Che the problem with your ‘reply’ is that it attempts to answer something with speculation. Ie “multi-verse talk”. The reality that we all know and observe as far as we know is that randomness can not explain the world we see around us, and not even consciousness. The fact I’m typing this on a phone I made and discussing the meaning of life is not something that can be explained away as being ‘accidental emergent properties’. So to keep it simple, it makes more logical and observable sense that creation was created by a creator who possesses knowledge and wisdom than an accident by any number of ‘multiverses’. Arkums razor.
This channel is incredible thanks. I learn from the videos and the perspective you shared at the end of this one is really inspiring. That was really cool.
Another great source of information about that last question, "How much of science is a discovery, and how much is human intervention" is the book "The Story of Western Science" by Susan Wise Bauer. Also, it seems like I'm in a very similar place philosophically, so I am absolutely loving these videos! Keep em' coming!
Up and Atom, just signed up for Nebula and looking forward to your your content! Right now it’s showing the same videos as RU-vid. Will exclusive content for this platform be highlighted or on it’s own page?
Probably the most impactful video to me since the "can machines be conscious?" one... Time to go on a wikipedia rabbit hole and rethink the way I look at the world. Personal breakdowns apart, can everyone just appreciate how human this channel is? When you hang out on youtube for long enough you start to get a bit sick of all the "clean", new cut every 3 seconds types of videos, which unfortunately permeate every corner of this platform in some way. Channels like this are just on a whole other level for me. Up and atom specifically, is like watching an inconceivably good science presentation at high school or college or something, and to me that just speaks tons for itself. Anyway, sorry for the rant. Thanks for the video Jade! :D
Hey, just so you know, I subscribed to the trial of brilliant with your promo code, didn't cancel in time before I was charged for a year subscription, and then decided, what the hell, I'll keep it. These are good classes and or supports your work.
