How complexity emerges from simplicity | Sean Carroll and Lex Fridman
Vložit
- čas přidán 15. 05. 2024
- Lex Fridman Podcast full episode: • Sean Carroll: General ...
Please support this podcast by checking out our sponsors:
- HiddenLayer: hiddenlayer.com/lex
- Cloaked: cloaked.com/lex and use code LexPod to get 25% off
- Notion: notion.com/lex
- Shopify: shopify.com/lex to get $1 per month trial
- NetSuite: netsuite.com/lex to get free product tour
GUEST BIO:
Sean Carroll is a theoretical physicist, author, and host of Mindscape podcast.
PODCAST INFO:
Podcast website: lexfridman.com/podcast
Apple Podcasts: apple.co/2lwqZIr
Spotify: spoti.fi/2nEwCF8
RSS: lexfridman.com/feed/podcast/
Full episodes playlist: • Lex Fridman Podcast
Clips playlist: • Lex Fridman Podcast Clips
SOCIAL:
- Twitter: / lexfridman
- LinkedIn: / lexfridman
- Facebook: / lexfridman
- Instagram: / lexfridman
- Medium: / lexfridman
- Reddit: / lexfridman
- Support on Patreon: / lexfridman - Věda a technologie
![tattoo printer tutorial[제품단순선물]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/g40_GwEJak0/mqdefault.jpg)
Full podcast episode: czcams.com/video/tdv7r2JSokI/video.html
Lex Fridman podcast channel: czcams.com/users/lexfridman
Guest bio: Sean Carroll is a theoretical physicist, author, and host of Mindscape podcast.
The ending was good. Learnt something
I'd like to hear Sean Carroll do an Alan Alda impersonation. I think he could nail it.
This was one of the most interesting conversations I've watched in a while
Good stuff in here. Nice work.
Every version of complexity given was configurative... Entropy is easier to calculate than complexity because it doesn't require considering temporal sequences. You can measure entropy in any given system in any given moment. Complexity cannot be derived this way for the same reason cellular automata cannot be time-reversed: complexity can be time-reliant. Just my two cents.
I think you're right about how complexity emerges from simplicity. Take a simple rock song for example. The song writer starts with a simple idea. Two, maybe three chords, maybe more, and finds a simple melody. The writer loops the idea over and over and over and feels it...enjoys it. pays attention to it. hears and feels detail... Looping... until something more emerges. New ideas to add to it. Keep looping... more and more emerges. Now add band mates. One at a time... Drums. Bass.... Keyboard... saxophone.... add effects..... The layers keep building more and more cleaver complexity. But for the players, it's so simple, fun, and obvious in the moment. The jam continues...looping. Both the players and the dancers are enjoying the evolution of their co-creation. As they jam, more and more news keeps evolving... Someone feels the urge to vocalize. Now there seem to be emerging lyrics. What is the story teller telling? Feeling? So cleaver... Don't be afraid to experiment and let new ideas fly freely. It's ok to make a mistake. Sometimes it goes too far... ok, not so good. Everybody sees it. But shame has no place here. Just discard what isnt working and keep moving. Dial it back a little. Keep the ideas flowing.. Eventually the song writers arrive at what they agree might be a finished song. Record of it. Here exists is a new thing. Complex yes, but reduced to it's simplest form. Constructed from trial and error and constant criticism and reformulations. Is it perfect? Listen. Look at it. How many perfect songs have been written so far? And the train keeps a rolling, all night long.... It never stops. I love the process of art. I know that this is how some musical compositions are created. I think somehow nature must be creating some of it's beautiful art in the same way.
The destination is the fantastic end. The journey is most enjoyable part of creation
What a beautiful description of a music writing process! I was really feeling it.
I wonder if the complexity bell curve of the music creation process is related to the fundamental rules of complexity, if they can be called as such.
what a remarkably contradictory example. the process you're describing obviously requires a mind behind it to steer it towards the preferred direction. then at the end you say it's "nature". how many rock songs have just spontaneously composed themselves?
I’m just back hours later to say I’m still blown away that you thought this was a compelling argument for evolution. It’s actually a compelling argument for the opposite. It’s so perfect. Please never delete.
I only watched this because of the fancy broccoli in the thumbnail
Complexity as an area of study (both bio and non-bio) has so much more history than what Sean mentions here. The concept of Autopoiesis and related ideas is not new at all, but its great that more minds are thinking about this!
How long would it take for Minecraft to mutate into Matlab with random bit mutations?
1×10^9 years
Evolution with random mutations of DNA is statistically preposterous. Throw all of science and any human knowledge if you think origin of life and evolution occurred randomly. The p-value for that is so absurdly small, that to believe in random evolution makes you the religious fundamentalist.
Can't you see stars when you are underwater as well? Wouldn't fish "see" or feel from vibrations coming from farther away?
This is one of the better episodes in a while, probably since Joscha's 3rd round
Thumbnail pic is of broccoli taken from the world’s largest digital camera the LSST. It’s 3.2 gigapixels or 3200 megapixels.
I’m glad I’m not the only one who thought of romanesco when I saw the thumbnail
He asserts the mechanism for the simple to produce the complex is essentially the ability to adapt to environmental challenges. But doesn’t that existence of the gift of adaptability suggest the simple was never so simple to begin with. He’s really just saying the simple (which is just latent complexity) eventually revealed its complexity which is a different proposition then the simple becoming complex.
From my perspective anything that seems complex is just simple things stacked on top of each other. In regards to your comment i would say everything has the potential for complexity but it does it simple step after simple step. Adaptation is a response to something changing but it doesnt have to be a complex or sophisticated change. It can be a very simple one thus the adaptation could be too. If the cycle continues inevitably it will become more and more complex as will the adaptations. So almost everything that starts out simple (at least in theory) should have the potential for developing into something more complex but it doesnt mean thats something it inherently possesses.
Yes and he should know this better than anyone being a quantum physicist. Nothing has ever been simple on earth since quantum mechanics had always been here
@@ciaracet0716 I agree 💯
Adaptability isn't a 'gift', it's just a by-product of things being arranged in a certain way. The mechanism isn't adaptation, the mechanism is just the physical process of our universe, like forces being applied, temperature changes, all of the things that effect the distribution of energy. Simple and complex in this context are just temporary states of energy, so describing something as having a latent complexity isn't really an accurate assessment of what's happening.
Bot
My brains 🧠 just reached maximum entropy thanks 😅
I've been studying Metamathematics by Stephen Wolfram, it's exciting for sure, if you're interested in how computation and physics can blend and enjoy maths I highly recommend
can you name any other examples of a a given system ordering itself towards HIGHER levels of information?
Perhaps the consolidation of black holes (galaxies converging) eventually brings us back to simplicity….ie one giant vacuum cleaner with a giant vacuum bag which eventually breaks and brings about entropy again….
It’s a little disingenuous to say Einstein “guessed right” when he had powerful theories backed by nearly flawless mathematics to make his cases. Sean Carroll’s guesses about complexity emerging from simplicity, unlike Einstein’s guesses, aren’t backed with anything but, well, guesses.
Don't forget delusion!
6:23 I was thinking 🔮🦀☠️skeletons or exoskeletons
Can’t tell if the thumbnail is a fractal image, or romanesco cauliflower
both :D
The mind prints painting of paisley’s hoping the believer will realize the greater entailments of life.
I see a zoomed in shot of trichomes 😂
I say don't worry so much about 'guessing right' -- create valid models, and something can be learned from them. It may not be what you expect, but how often science progresses in ways unexpected by those who run experiments, or develop theories.
Anyway, that's my take.
Josha Bach needs to learn from Sean Carroll on how to handle complexity when explaining things
A simple question followed by a complex non-answer. I suppose we got what we wanted…
if you wanna know what it looks like, i recommend a large dose of lsd 25 for insight, really!
FASCINATING : (1) "Complexogenesis” and (2) the singularly and uniquely humane “ability to imagine counterfactual hypothetical futures”! I’m EUPHORIC … ❤
Why You keep taking down Qep = TC^2 Qe potential of space is X=π/E
We don't actually know ANYTHING, but let me tell you about my fascinating guesses conjured in my imagination.
A beautiful and impressive postdated check from Wimpy: "I'll pay you on the second Tuesday of next week."
Looks like Lex uses words like 'realm', 'landscape' etc. to make the question sound smarter than it is.
Lex Fridman here is challenging Sean Carroll to defend Sean's second PhD thesis.
Normalized space is 1.673x10^-4 rad•S.U.^-2. I got enteopy down. No multi-worlds.
My point of view (sorry if I make mistakes, please):
How the beginning of the universe could be a low entropy if the “beginning state or processe” definition itself have a non clear definition? I mean who is the fuck guy to say: well this is the beginning not that…
Moreover, the information is a feedback between real world and human brain, so, it’s necessary to have a outsider, or exmachina, of universe to measure the information or entropy at the beginning (if there is a definition).
❤
“Quantum mechanics is an unfinished theory”. Roger Penrose
Simplicity is what complexity seeks to achieve and complexity is what simplicity seeks to understand. Just a thought I just had watching this bit.. We're what we eat so feeding our minds properly comes first otherwise..
Pothead like they call it and you also did in one of the Clips here, internal dialogue shared out loud, so to speak, no pun planned and intended it just so happens, not a question therefore not an answer either, not a Pothead question, just merely thoughts' conclusions that didn't get to their destination as exactly and particularly as in questions, not in that format but pretty close.
I have the answers. I'll take this guy on.
Do scientists ever think that simplicity and complexity always existed at the same time? We can see that the shape of the universe shapes the way life evolved on earth. So basically, we can prove that an infinitely more complex structure helped orchestrate the evolution of life on earth. And what we think of as the big bang had all the ingredients and physics to create our universe and all of us in it. So ultimately, we can prove that all complexity arises from the simple, infinitely complex, shape of our universe.
2nd law of thermodynamics- entropy only increases or remains static it never increases- meaning the physical laws determine that all things erode- loose order (i,e, complexity) --meaning the universe becomes less complex not more complex. This is why his original premise of "the universe becomes more complex as time goes on" seems to have some logical flaws on its face. decreasing entropy only exists where conciseness exists. Therefore a mindless mechanical understructure of the universe cant exist if his orginal premise were to hold true.
Order and complexity are not the same at all. For the record, the second law of thermodynamics only applies to the universe as a whole (as one system) so there are places everywhere in the universe where entropy is decreasing. Earth’s entropy is decreasing every day when suns light shines on it and this is allowed because the suns entropy increases a lot more to produce that sunlight, which results in net entropy increase. The universe gets more complex as it ages by any definition of complexity. According to you a gas cloud is more complex than our current solar system with us included. That just makes no sense.
@@brandontwoguns5196 The second law of thermodynamics states that the total entropy of a system either increases or remains constant in any spontaneous process; it never decreases.
Entropy is defined as:
1.a thermodynamic quantity representing the unavailability of a system's thermal energy for conversion into mechanical work, often interpreted as the degree of disorder or randomness in the system.
"the second law of thermodynamics says that entropy always increases with time"
2.lack of order or predictability; gradual decline into disorder.
"a marketplace where entropy reigns supreme"
The system that you provide includes the Sun and the Earth, and in the example you gave entropy is increasing in that system. The Sun as a star will eventually die and is moving toward oblivion in its processes of energy transfer.
What I said was merely repeating the law and that law does not state that a gas cloud is more complex than the solar system in any form.
But complexity out of simplicity (without intervention) is totally in contradiction to thermodynamics
313+/-(1/137) minds eye arbitration
Following is the abstract for a paper which is soon to be published. The paper achieves what the abstract promises very well. Welcome to the future
Darwinian Universal
Abstract
Darwinian Universal is a cosmology and physics theory that aims to provide a comprehensive explanation of the universe's origin and evolution, as well as the fundamental principles governing its behaviour. This theory incorporates elements of natural selection and evolution, as well as concepts from various fields of physics, such as quantum mechanics and general relativity.
The Darwinian Universal theory posits that the universe is a dynamic and evolving system, in which structures and processes emerge and change over time in a manner analogous to biological evolution. This includes the formation of galaxies, stars, planets, and the emergence of life itself.
The theory also proposes that the fundamental constants and laws of physics may not be fixed and unchanging, but could have evolved and fine-tuned over time through a process of natural selection. This could potentially explain the apparent "fine-tuning" of the universe for life, as well as the emergence of complex structures and phenomena.
@lex simplicity emerging from complexity is more interesting…
Again my comment is taken down. This guy can't beat my Smith-Borden Proton or Quantum Field Density Theory. Qep=TC^2 and X=π/E is dark energy that comports and is a product of my theory.
I guess abandoning God for the Enlightenment was a watershed similar to the fish going onto land.
Mathematical Darwinisim is the way. And i bet thet entanglement is a crucial pivot of it.
😍😘
Too bad you didn’t talk about entropy and degradation - humans slow their entropy they age less - maybe that person that traveled at speed of light slowed their entropy at speed of light and therefore age slower. Two people born at same time don’t age (entropy wise) at same rate - has nothing to do with the revolutions of the earth around the sun.
I see so much time and energy devoted to theoretical fairy tales of how complexity of life came from a simple single cell…which was made from non-life and no intelligence. Which is impossible! This reasoning is a religion that requires so much faith and no science…And regarding physics, the second law stands strong and that has not been refuted outside of unproven theories.
Fish crawling onto land started imagination…..lawdy,… when you confuse adaptation with evolution (which basically has been disproven).
The shirt is terrible
People still believe in evolution in 2024????
wait til you hear how many people still believe in god!
@@mbolez yes, all the people who understand life can’t create itself
@@watchman9198ah, going with the god of the gaps fallacy, eh? what or whom created god?
@@watchman9198 life didn't create itself silly. Life evolved from nonlife. All life is composed of chemical elements (nonlife). The key to understanding how this can happen is understanding how chemical reactions produce different chemical products. For example, did you know that there wasn't oxygen on earth until cyanobacteria evolved.
@@joeymartinez5515 it’s never been observed, or repeated so it’s not science. You have faith believing that
Answer: from a designer.
13 minutes of vague theoretical yapping and I'm still waiting to learn how complexity emerges from simplicity.
To maintain its psychological hold on the masses, science needs to resort to the same language trickery used in "democracy". 🤷♂️
Watch the rest of the podcast if you need more clarification! ;)
Just search it up.
Robert Laughlin explains it better
I rarely come away from Sean Carroll video thinking "oh, now I get it." I guess I'm just too dumb.
Let's just ignore the fact that if I take a billion fish, of any/all kinds, and slowly move them from water to the land, at the end I will not have a single living fish that is now capable of living on land. I will however, have a billion dead fish.
you realize that creationism is a psyop akin to flat earth to make conservatives look stupid, right?
Evolution happens gradually. Time is the important factor, not quantity.
You could have just a few hundred fish. If they are gradually exposed to shallower and shallower waters over many generations, they will slowly develop something akin to legs to move on land, especially if there is more food to be found on land then in the water. Fish that evolve the ability to gather food from shallower waters will have an advantage and have more offspring.
There are many examples of this. Look up the "Walking Batfish".
This guy is a joke. He gets paid to talk about how inadequate his theory is. I can beat him.
Show me ONE example of complexity (more information) being added to a natural system without it being introduced externally. Oh wait, you can't.
Sure, a classic example would be the process of evolution itself via natural selection and mutation, regarding DNA; complex new traits arise and increase genetic information over time all internally, in a closed system.
@@AlphaFoxDelta not a good example, how was evolution caused? are you saying it was always existing? according to your science infinity in the universe has never been proved. There's actually way more evidence that there was a cause such is the cause and affect principle. Furthermore how were irrational cells made rational (required for evolution) without any external interference - relating to the Big Bang theory. The closed system started somewhere as did all things.
@@AlphaFoxDelta Evolution is a theory and not even a very good one. Show me a provable example of evolution that isn't based on assumptions, conjecture, or outright wishful thinking.
@@nomaanahmed9688 The question was in regards to information and complexity increasing in a closed system, internally. Not sure where you're going off to ha. Genetic information has this ability and it's cool how, without any external information being added, complexity and information can increase.
@@joedoe6471 The fact that DNA mutates is evident everywhere; if you have a mole you can see for yourself, quite plain, you don't have to believe in evolution if you don't want actually, it isn't strictly necessary to make my point about DNA mutation and genetic information
Most of the theories his ideas come from have turned out to be incorrect. 🤷♂️
No, they haven’t
I am sure you can give us an example of one of his idea's and the underlying theory that turned out to be incorrect? :)
@@stolpie a lot of his ideas are based on the Big Bang and the JWST is throwing that theory out the window by showing things that should not be according to that theory. Ex: seeing galaxies that have been around longer than they say the universe has been around.
Not necessarily incorrect but perhaps incomplete.
@@KristianWontroba I accept that compromise.
Great clip! Esp about fish-to-land being able to see further… and therefore imagine 🫨