TIMESTAMPS: 0:00 - Introduction 0:26 - The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics 4:29 - Mathematics vs Literature 12:53 - Creatio Ex Nihilo 16:44 - Why does the Universe have patterns of regularity? 19:34 - How to Construct a Universe with Mathematics 24:37 - Nothingness = Empty Sets 26:21 - Mathematical "Nature" 29:36 - The Big Bang of Numbers in a nutshell 32:58 - Complexity from Simplicity (Fractals) 36:42 - Life & Consciousness 47:49 - Practicality & Teleology of a Mathematical Cosmos 53:11 - Manil's Current work 59:37 - AI & Machine Learning 1:06:53 - Final thoughts on The Big Bang of Numbers (and what inspired the name) 1:11:45 - Conclusion THANKS FOR WATCHING! If you enjoyed the content, please like this video, subscribe to the channel and turn on notifications for future updates. :)
The idea that nature is a force that turns abstract maths into real stuff seems improbable to me. Firstly it has to posit the existence of a 'something', in this case some natural force, to be the source of anything but maths existing. It's an oxymoron to say something creates something from nothing but an abstract concept (maths). But if we take the view that maths is a way of describing what already exists, the characteristics of stuff, then maths as an abstract concept makes sense. And an abstract concept can't causally affect of create things also makes sense. To ascribe causality and reality to something abstract like maths, also implies that abstract things can exist independently of minds, where-as the definition of an abstract concept is that it only exists in minds, as thought. So it strikes me that this idea is at face value at least, incoherent. When trying to combine it with a physical universe at least. It might somehow work in the context of a universe which is itself 'made of' or created by 'abstract' mind, but that doesn't seem to be the argument here. Because that mind would itself be a pre-existing something, and again maths would be a way of describing how a mind-universe is constituted and inter-relates. In other words, abstracts which have no embodied reality (physical or mental) can't create or otherwise act causally. Unless we live in a universe completely different to what is being envisioned here, and I can't even imagine.
![[JLF 2023] A Universe Built on Math: ‘The Big Bang of Numbers’](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/C0zt9hBAolA/mqdefault.jpg)
TIMESTAMPS:
0:00 - Introduction
0:26 - The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics
4:29 - Mathematics vs Literature
12:53 - Creatio Ex Nihilo
16:44 - Why does the Universe have patterns of regularity?
19:34 - How to Construct a Universe with Mathematics
24:37 - Nothingness = Empty Sets
26:21 - Mathematical "Nature"
29:36 - The Big Bang of Numbers in a nutshell
32:58 - Complexity from Simplicity (Fractals)
36:42 - Life & Consciousness
47:49 - Practicality & Teleology of a Mathematical Cosmos
53:11 - Manil's Current work
59:37 - AI & Machine Learning
1:06:53 - Final thoughts on The Big Bang of Numbers (and what inspired the name)
1:11:45 - Conclusion
THANKS FOR WATCHING!
If you enjoyed the content, please like this video, subscribe to the channel and turn on notifications for future updates. :)
I love the description of empty set, this was a really pleasant interview thank you!
Thank you!
The idea that nature is a force that turns abstract maths into real stuff seems improbable to me. Firstly it has to posit the existence of a 'something', in this case some natural force, to be the source of anything but maths existing. It's an oxymoron to say something creates something from nothing but an abstract concept (maths).
But if we take the view that maths is a way of describing what already exists, the characteristics of stuff, then maths as an abstract concept makes sense. And an abstract concept can't causally affect of create things also makes sense.
To ascribe causality and reality to something abstract like maths, also implies that abstract things can exist independently of minds, where-as the definition of an abstract concept is that it only exists in minds, as thought.
So it strikes me that this idea is at face value at least, incoherent. When trying to combine it with a physical universe at least. It might somehow work in the context of a universe which is itself 'made of' or created by 'abstract' mind, but that doesn't seem to be the argument here. Because that mind would itself be a pre-existing something, and again maths would be a way of describing how a mind-universe is constituted and inter-relates.
In other words, abstracts which have no embodied reality (physical or mental) can't create or otherwise act causally. Unless we live in a universe completely different to what is being envisioned here, and I can't even imagine.