I've been waiting for what these new type of mathematics are , and i'm still waiting , but the video is over ...
@thelastcipher91357 жыл бұрын
basically, he's saying that the next big mathematics since the discovery of calculus can be found by studying the brain because of the similar complexity of celestial motion in the ancient times and the brain in modern times.
@dearlm7 жыл бұрын
He had nothing to present. If you look at artificial intelligence now and compare it to 40 so years ago it has improved using the same mathematics.
@XXcreeps3 жыл бұрын
Sounds like he only just learned about matrices. Its not new math, just math with grids of numbers and slightly different rules. Its also how we calculate higher than 3 dimensions, as well as that "the brain works on 11 diminsions. Its not that its 11 dimensional, just that it has the same number of "dimensions" (basically rows in the grid) as when you use a matrix to simulate 11 diminsions.
@rachaelbrimhall52087 жыл бұрын
For those of you saying his talk wasn't about the title- it totally was! He is saying that, in a similar manner as looking at the planets' movement before we understood the math behind them was, we are seeing something similar with the human brain now. You could say his talk was a hypothesis based off of what he is seeing for something that might come out of what he is studying- a new mathematics that our brain uses that we haven't yet qualified.
@SiriusGraves6 жыл бұрын
still waiting for the new type of math
@123lowp7 жыл бұрын
I think this dude was in my classes back in the early 2000s at UMBC. I remember a young kid that was around 10 years old in my class and thought "WTF!??"
@velllllll6 жыл бұрын
That was brilliant and it seems almost none in the comment section got it.
@metalhead3756 жыл бұрын
I felt like I was falling down a flight of stairs in slow motion in a barn full of fedora wearing spiders while watching this.
@TheMrMxyspptlk6 жыл бұрын
haters, accept you are bulling the weirdo. He's strange and unreachable to most of you, don't feel intimidated, accept he has sensitivity, understanding and vision much wider than you and stop reassuring yourself diminishing him.
@sajjadpanahi27368 жыл бұрын
That branch of knowledge is Alchemy.
@itzshoulderific9 жыл бұрын
This is awesome dude. Ahead of its time... golden brother. Coming from an engineer this sounds and I know its right on the money
@sirretardation8413 Жыл бұрын
Do you still think it was on the money
@ericphu78129 жыл бұрын
wow did you guys really miss the idea about the speech, the meaning of the title "new type of mathematic" is a new approach of solving problems
@blechtic10 жыл бұрын
They really should have let this guy pee before the talk.
@dominic24466 жыл бұрын
why?
@yamenarhim93366 жыл бұрын
because he jiggle a lot
@badlandskid6 жыл бұрын
Lol
@naashiirisartar95766 жыл бұрын
obviously you didn't understand what it was about......but go on believe you're super brained..............don't forget to eat your McDo extra large.........
@criticallook13526 жыл бұрын
+blechtic He could pee in his har. :
@lishlash37498 жыл бұрын
That word on top of your slide, "homeostasis", should have clued you in to the branch of mathematics you're groping for. It's called Feedback Control Theory and it was developed in the World War II era. Post-war developments led to the field of "cybernetics", the precursor to the current age of artificial intelligence.
@Andrewlohbihler8 жыл бұрын
I was hoping to see some "New math" as the title suggests, but instead it was a blank page that someone has to write. So much for David's insight here. Some suggest that the brain is holographic by nature, so maybe this is the new math we are looking for.
@kobayashimaru81148 жыл бұрын
+Andrew Lohbihler Same here. I was hoping to catch a glimpse of some new concept. Instead we got a vague promise of some hypothetical new paradigm in math that is as yet unexplained. Not saying he doesn't know what he's talking about but it would've been nice to hear some real details.
@CzechRiot8 жыл бұрын
Let me explain things better, what happens is that when th
@jonathanbush61978 жыл бұрын
But what ab
@amilahansen84359 жыл бұрын
I assumed comments would be less objective and more inquisitive but alas humans have no future insight again... Go for it David! Neurology is a 1000 page book with most blank pages. I look forward to following your work :)
@Zulu3699 жыл бұрын
Instead of what is said here at 5:25 (future affecting the present, brain travelling back in time), I would rather say that the brain is doing some kind of pattern matching based on action-reaction sets already stored from past experiences. A baby or youngster who has little or no life experience would not be able to react the same. It's also the same for a person who moves to a different environment in a different culture.
@MrBeiragua9 жыл бұрын
He kind of said what you said. When he talked about a multidimensional manifold and all. Also, when he said that current theoretical approxes to imitate the brains future vision, namely neural networks, look too complicated to be right, like epicycles. He wasn't the clearest of the presenters km Ted.
@joshh69228 жыл бұрын
Yea John Locke, tabula rasa. Something of the future is affecting your decision, due to experience from the past. Therefore, long story short..something from the past affected your decision. Nontheless, he might be onto something.
@jabyers8 жыл бұрын
+KZfaqx This is not what he meant, yes you do use past experiences, but he is specifically talking about your brain imagining the future and how that is difficult to model
@AustinTexas6thStreet8 жыл бұрын
It shouldn't be ThaT difficult as it's made out to be here. The "AI" could run multiple simulations based on the continuous steam or incoming info and decide the appropriate response. It is improper to say our brains are "looking into the future" and deciding action based on that. The brain is basically taking in data and comparing that to past experiences and running multiple simulations at ultra high speed to determine the Best course of action to take....and it does this countless times when we, say, take a drink of water. It's not the same as seeing the future...
@lishlash37498 жыл бұрын
+KZfaqx What's the point in debating Dalrymple's glib science fiction metaphor? It's not like he put any serious thought into it.
@ddorman3657 жыл бұрын
Thank you Canada for the love, you know I love you back:), WoW David, those were very kind words you chose, Thank you, I am honored that you considered me a influence in your understanding of everything, I look forward to working on any thing that is of interest to you and your research, good luck, peace and love, Doug.
@wheelieblind6 жыл бұрын
I think the big red circle is just so that the people know how much room they have to stand in before the camera guy has to shift the camera over.
@Cind3r66008 жыл бұрын
Is it just me or does this guy sound like David Schwimmer
@PurelocalAustralia7 жыл бұрын
Sounds like Ross from friends
@abevan717 жыл бұрын
Previous pioneers would be proud that we can share information like this. If only this was main-stream TV!
@fothgil6 жыл бұрын
Excellent presentation which presents an absolutely fundamental concept about how math has developed and how it may evolve. How and what we can actually observe in Nature influences the level of math we perform. (Creativity and imagination is obviously a must..I hope not to offend any pure mathematicians). He points out that our level of scientific inquiries have provided new mathematical insights through advances in technology (and vice versa). I believe this was the most concise impression possible regarding the nature of math (regardless whether you believe math is created or discovered). This talk provides the audience with a sample of the complexity surrounding the development of mathematics. IMO his points are definitely relevant to the future of mathematics. Thank you for your talk!!
@keniangervo841710 жыл бұрын
Over 50% watched now and not a single drop of mathematics. The title is misleading! Not a bad speech but he's really stating obvious things.
@jakenodal42179 жыл бұрын
One would have to use existing mathematics to create mathematics so abstract that this form of mathematics could explain the brain and human consciousness. The mathematics of human thinking is coming.
@hardik1993ful7 жыл бұрын
Title of this video is misleading..
@CandidDate7 жыл бұрын
There are a lot of us who don't work at Google, who are following the developments of the forefront of technology. Call them cheerleaders if you will. I do believe we are nearing an AI explosion and I for one am cheering this on. Why? because I care and I have faith in the powers of human scientific understanding. All he says is that the future is unknown, but there will be a future. You can be in the trenches, studying the brain or developing AI firsthand, or you can be on the sidelines as a nerd cheerleader. I like his enthusiasm and I hope we can build a better world through technology. Do we have a choice but to progress?
@srinjoyghosh82299 жыл бұрын
Being an economics major, I think what he means in his "looking into the future brain model", is simply put, a type of Backward induction technique which we do in Game theory. But Game theory has one major flaw, just like traditional economics in general, that "All individuals are rational." I think a combination of Game Theory and Behavorial economics along with neuro-science (obviously) is the way forward to understand the mathematics of the brain.
@fizixx10 жыл бұрын
I'm sure he's great at what he does, but he is sooooooooo boring as a speaker. My GOD, if I had to listen to this in a classroom I'd be asleep.
@joshv591710 жыл бұрын
That's just you. He's not really that boring. I don't think anyone in the audience fell asleep.
@LordoftheCats6 жыл бұрын
I know I didn't. I went and made a sandwich while he was pontificating just so I wouldn't doze off.
@marcosadelino69906 жыл бұрын
I totally agree, I was telling the same thing to my wife in the car today! A new type of math made to navigate through solutions that are no longer scarce, and a new type if scientist that will have to get used to wait for hours for computers to do their thing :)
@criticallook13526 жыл бұрын
[Q] Did you hear the one about a constipated mathematician? [A] He worked it out with a pencil. :
@tedbaughn74008 жыл бұрын
Application of math to known subject does not mean new, but going forward into this is not only intriguing but is awesome science. Good luck.
@patton2818 жыл бұрын
His talk is really a big departure from the title of the actual title of the talk...
@dannygjk8 жыл бұрын
+Aditya C Yes, it sounds like merely an intro to what we actually want to hear.
@AustinTexas6thStreet8 жыл бұрын
I am SO glad you said that....I was starting to feel like the only one who felt this way. It is a Very misleading title...
@vadymvashchenko30368 жыл бұрын
It's pity but TED is very often about that. That's why our governments need the mass-media - to stupefy people. I wonder whether the abbreviation says: Talking Even Dummies? - Is there something inside those hats except cranial bones? One can't yield a definitive answer. That's why I think we shouldn't be here and be better reading books, discussing issues and solving tasks ourselves - that is much more useful and good for us and the world around. Just yesterday decided to read Galileo Galilei's dialogues on celestial movement and mechanics written in 1632 and 1638 (Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems and Discourses and Mathematical Demonstrations Relating to Two New Sciences) and meet a lot of good and deep thoughts there, it's nothing like TED's speeches - the thinker there (Galileo Galilei) is deep, never sold for money and supply the reader with only qualitative ideas and deep discussions. So, back to reading - and good luck to you all :)
@patton2818 жыл бұрын
Vadim V, regarding your claim, " the thinker there (Galileo Galilei) is deep, never sold for money and supply the reader with only qualitative ideas and deep discussions..." um... no, Galileo got his books published to be sold... Never mind the fact that some of them were banned... He was what we would call a scientist by profession... it's not surprising that the commodity he sold was his thoughts. And regarding your statement, "That's why I think we shouldn't be here and be better reading books, discussing issues and solving tasks ourselves - that is much more useful and good for us and the world around..." Fool, you're reading a 378 year old book with outdated science and world views... If your claim is that you're reading this because it's interesting to know what a man from 378 years ago thought of the world and mathematics, in his time... sure, it's a great book for that purpose. However, if your claim is that you're trying to make the world better (haha give me a fucking break) then no: this is not a good book to read. There are far better books that reflect our understanding of the world today. For example, The Road to Reality, by Roger Penrose, gives you a fairly detailed look at the current state of physics and how we see the world today. It's a good book, if you actually wanna understand things... and he actually goes over some of the really intense modern mathematics that is utilized. but also, if you're reading that book, you're not a physicist... you're a layman. And so you're not making a contribution to physics anyway... So you're not "making the world better" But I have a feeling that you mentioned what you're reading because you wanna give people a sense that you are more "intellectual" than those who watch Ted Talks (while watching ted talks yourself)... And in that case, let me tell you: nobody is impressed that you can read a book. And under no circumstance should you mistake the quality of the book you're reading with the depth of your understanding of the material. And certainly, the quality of the book you read does not, in any way, reflect your intelligence. You could be reading Critique of Pure Reason by Immanuel Kant and nobody would be impressed.
@vadymvashchenko30368 жыл бұрын
+Aditya C, you are right - I'm a layman, but.. a layman having several published works on radiophysics, so, you missed, but never mind - it's o.k. You are right also about one's reading - one should pick up an interesting book to be satisfied. I was reading Galilei because I am interested in the history of physics and science in general and it's better to promote historical interest than to promote something no one even knows what is all about, like in this particular talk. So, your conclusion is actually wrong and a bit out of place - some physicist and other people DO read Galilei and others who worked before them. It's not about having a fashionable fresh look on science - for that you can read a modern course. In some cases it is also questionable what is better. It's rather about comparison, sometimes about respecting your predecessors, analyzing their ideas and worldviews. And also reading (solving tasks, and discussing) is just the way we got knowledge for a couple of last millennia. And still you press keys with letters on them to write your messages - the same Latin (or other language) letters that were printed centuries ago. About my reading preference over the majority of TED talks and telling you now that I have some contributions to physics - it's not about emphasizing my "intellectual" superiority or desire to "give people a sense that you're (i'm) more `intellectual` than those who watch Ted Talks (while watching ted talks yourself)"... You know, when it works - let it be - we all improve by trying to be better or looking at someone who set a good example - a contest is a good way of improving oneself. So, there is nothing bad about intellectual superiority and showing it. One's intellectual power can be defined over the set of practical or theoretical tasks one can solve - it's also not about a number of one's publications - we have a bunch of scientists whose publications' counters are nothing in comparison with their scientific impact. And to know that we still need to read - at least history books. To be a good solver you need to watch (or do whatever you prefer) some better stuff than current TED talks then pick a challenge on your taste, concentrate and solve some tasks your own way - that is the way mathematicians usually work. It's better to think about TED channel content and its scientific value whatever it is... It may be better watching other scientific channels or looking over conference talks, or reading something else on ArXiVe or somewhere else where scientific value do present. At least for now. Also I'm free to express my own opinion as you are. That I am and I was trying to tell you.
@legomaster31898 жыл бұрын
13.25 i thought that was a perfect example of the true nature of reality. ..it's there my friends. ..
@basalduat7 жыл бұрын
Why is this man on TEDx Talks????
@kamikaze86456 жыл бұрын
Why shouldn't he be ? Why aren't you there ? or me ? Why are we here ? What is the purpose of purpose ?
@allprivelegsofworld4 жыл бұрын
@@kamikaze8645 the purpose of purpose is to achieve things.
@Drmagiccube111 жыл бұрын
In summary, he states that all living entities incorporate their knowledge from the past into a situation to predict the outcome. Solving something requires knowledgeable incorporation of of solutions to previous situations in order to combat this situation. The solution to this situation is then incorporated with other solutions to solve problems within the future.
@Streamwalker100010 жыл бұрын
The continuum problem is outside of our present mathematics. Parallel processing at the quantum level, is where the source of consciousness will be found. By the way David has PLENTY of common sense.
@amandaclaireon40652 жыл бұрын
The source of consciousness is divinity , Christ spoke of it
@Streamwalker10002 жыл бұрын
@@amandaclaireon4065 I agree whole heartedly. :)
@dearlm7 жыл бұрын
I guess MIT didn't teach him that "you give a presentation when you actually have something to present." Anyone who've answered a phone knows they are still having trouble with artificial intelligence but it is getting a lot better than before!
@dearlm7 жыл бұрын
Using the same math!
@kelvinkersey50586 жыл бұрын
5 minute talk spun out to infinity
@MClaudeW6 жыл бұрын
I clicked this because the image in the thumbnail matches my notion of consciousness.
@kellygwdobbs8 жыл бұрын
Didn't even begin to watch this as the other comments were stating that no 'new type of maths' can be found here. I suggest look up Vedic Mathematics.
@criticallook13526 жыл бұрын
SUM, DIFFERENCE, PRODUCT, and QUOTIENT, is the *_aftermath_* of arithmetic. :
@jackpullen38208 жыл бұрын
At 5:39 He's talking about Time Symmetric Quantum Mechanics! A destiny wave function which emanates from the future backwards in time to influence the conventional quantum wave function evolving forwards in time...
@tintobrassimo27116 жыл бұрын
I felt like Ross of Friends speaking for a while
@ChrisBrengel7 жыл бұрын
We are living in the future. -Dalrymple There's a lot of room at the bottom. -Feynman
@eglintonflats6 жыл бұрын
There is no future and will never be, there is only now
@LabaneTsilo4 жыл бұрын
When will you give Professor Oyibo the Nobel prize for GAGUT?
@AustinTexas6thStreet8 жыл бұрын
So where was the "new type of math" promised in the title?? Guess I blinked and missed it
@Don.Challenger8 жыл бұрын
I think that he is positing the need for a new type of mathematics to comprehend the problem of the mind - that it's solution will be that new branch of mathematics - that the current toolset has been taken to a point of over complexity and the result will be a simplifying new tool thrown into the toolbox.
@chrisGoad21878 жыл бұрын
I don't think you blinked, or if so, I did too. My summary: we didn't understand the planetary motion before calculus, and calculus came along. We don't understand the brain. Surely something must be coming along. (I would add, "or maybe not")
@igrewold8 жыл бұрын
9:36 there will be a new kinda math but it/we ain't there yet!
@gregoryfenn14627 жыл бұрын
Calculus isn't really a 'new' maths though... it can be reduced to arithmetic (and logic). Or it can be reduced to geometry if you prefer. OR it can be reduced to set theory if you prefer. A new field of maths isn't a "new" maths...
@LordoftheCats6 жыл бұрын
It was between the second and third nod.
@WeTravelOnlyByNightAsItsSoHot7 жыл бұрын
Interesting to note he works at Twitter as a software engineer, I guess to be closest to a random data modeling collection and patterning event horizon. I personally think he should work in the Quantum Computer RAS-RASA. Utilizing his RALA process. Just a thought.
@Drmagiccube111 жыл бұрын
Incorporation is a very critical word to what I am speaking about. I do apologize for the mass usage of it as it may seem to be a habitual word in my speech, it is not.
@justinmuller697210 жыл бұрын
It we could make the human the size of a cube, we would all benefit by the intellectually awesome discussions that would happen. We will be flying cars in a year :) Cmon researchers!
@MichaelBrown-uu9kt9 жыл бұрын
IMHO a slight misrepresentation of von Neumann's book, which you can get as for Kindle on Amazon and read for yourself. I don't think it's unfinished. But other than that, a great talk! I guess this guy was a child prodigy, but he shows a capacity not just for technical achievement but for deep and profound insights. I hope he is right that a 'calculus' of immensely complex systems awaits discovery, and that it is coming soon.
@tr33m00nk7 жыл бұрын
Mr Willet, it seems, was one of the few who LISTENED to Dalrymple's presentation instead of fixating on only some of the visuals as most of the commentors did. As a neuroscientist, I have always been uncomfortable with the usual hard-nosed math applied to neural functions. Anyone who has listened to and watched the displays of single neuron and brain area activity can tell that a mathematical description of this input-output/stasis system is more than the sum of the hard-nosed math equations used sofar. His analogy to unraveling celestial orbits by going beyond the math of that day is probably correct. Back in the 1970's, someone tried unsuccessfully to apply the math of holography to brain functions; others since have tried to build on that also without much success. A new perspective on the math that is needed is in order - what we got ain't working.
@kindlin7 жыл бұрын
I enjoyed the talk, though it's not very profound. We all know the brain is crazy, and crazy things always have lots of crazy math to go along with them, but the talk gets you thinking more holistically on how discovery drives math and math drivers discovery. Math is how we frame the world around us, so there will be at least a new formulation, the brain-formulation, that finally allows us a more fundamental understanding. I'm a little more intrigued that he thinks its going to be a new kind of math, though. Maybe if we discover that quantum effects really are very important in our brain and consciousness, it would be a tool to bridge the two realms, and with the AdS/CFT correspondence, all known phenomenon would be under one theory. That's quite intriguing indeed.
@moiquiregardevideo6 жыл бұрын
Seriously, about using 2 lasers to probe something complicated in the biological world: It is the amazing discovery of the way rodhopsine work ; that is, how a single photon can trigger an action potential ; how we, mammals and other vertebrates, can see using chemical reaction. A slowly increasing pulse provide an energy level just below the trigger level of the molecule. An ultra short pulse using femto-second laser, is fired at different time, compared to the slow laser pulse. The resulting fluorescence is captured with light sensors. This allowed to discover which part of the molecule is reacting to the photon. It was a specific place where the bond is weaker and the atom start oscillating around its rest position like a child on a swing. The surprise was how fast this occur. Nobody suspected that a single atom in the middle of a molecule could move so fast that it's vibration frequency is in the order of a few hundreds femto-seconds, brief almost as fast as a the periodic oscillation of a middle range infrared photon (in between visible red and microwave). Second surprise : the frequency start at x and slowly increase to about 10x while the intensity decrease. It is comparable to the rotation of a plate trowed on a flat surface. It start will large amplitude wobble and slowly increase its rotation speed until the plate fall and make contact with the surface. Brief, the rodhopsine molecule is in such shape that one of its atom stand in unstable position, ready to vibrate when a single photon hit it. That vibration is surprisingly fast for an actual physical object with mass. Eventually, that unstable portion can create a cascade of reaction, amplified sufficiently to trigger an action potential which is relayed to the brain for image processing. Such sensitive molecule can trigger spontaneously, just by thermal noise. The first image processing happen in the retina. A summation neuron wait to receive a pulse from at least 3 rod or cones inside a given time period before transmitting an action potential to the next layer. This constitute a noise filter which eliminate most of the random noise. When enough cones detect photons in a small area of the visual field, then that area is a majority vote to declare that this area is really bright enough to overcome the random thermal noise. The next layer, still in the retina, does the opposite logiqal operation. It receive the information from the noise cancellation layer and transmit an action potential only if there is a difference between spatially oriented visual field. In other word, it try to increase contrast by reacting to difference in brightness in arbitrary direction. The result of this layer is to draw artificial contour lines around small variation of light intensity. It is like seeing the world like a typical cartoon with thick dark lines around shapes. A similar contrast enhancement is done with the cones. Each of the 3 colors is compared and a winner is decided by neural vote. The result is to create artificially sharp color from the combination of 3 binary value, giving a total of 6 distinct colors. This contrast mechanism explain why, when we look at the rainbow spectrum of a prism, separating white light in an infinite number of frequency, our brain perceive sharp color bands.
@DylanGroves-to6ju3 ай бұрын
Damn there's a lot of negative comments. Antisemitism? Whatever. This is a great talk.
@lionardo8 жыл бұрын
he is probably referring to these new mathematical fields like transcendental mathematics or the abc Conjecture
@nirajgupta99827 жыл бұрын
What is the connection there?
@DylanGroves-to6ju3 ай бұрын
Well done.
@legomaster31898 жыл бұрын
dude u are awsome..thanking you
@senhora34819 жыл бұрын
Como já era esperado, poucos entenderam sobre o que ele falou.
@anastasiadunbar52468 жыл бұрын
Never wear a fedora, ever.
@dannygjk8 жыл бұрын
+Anastasia Dunbar Irrelevant
@Don.Challenger8 жыл бұрын
Fashion statements have no validity, they are matters of opinion alone.
@godsadog8 жыл бұрын
+Don Challenger If you really are into cherry picking, there are quality levels of fashion. There is such a thing as better and worse opinions in a sense that it shows a certain degree of maturity. And the speaker certainly lacks a few degrees of that particular maturity. Bad choice of fashion, good choice of words.
@zeddash8 жыл бұрын
I think if you are accepted into MIT at 14 years old, I think you have the privilege to wear whatever hat you want.
@igrewold8 жыл бұрын
why not when that is him: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Dalrymple_%28computer_scientist%29
@davidwilkie95518 жыл бұрын
Like he said, just look at it, because most of what it does, (the brain), is "reflect" and integrate a lifetime of images with the self-centered senses of sound and touch. So the "external" modelling of the world that is inside out relative to a sensation of coherent experience within surroundings, is a hologram of fractal recollection, (it matches perspective), and might be simulated with multiple lasers. A lifetime of human development, to make a mind of superimposed experience, is like when a little bit of talcum dust is put in a clear tube and the sound assembles a node in the middle. ...I would declare that to be what I've understood about String Theory, except that it is "inside out" relative to the descriptions I've read - ..but which is not a problem for Mathematicians (which I am not). Comment Maybe the combination of QM/Tachyons, String Theory and Fractal/Holography in one composite conglomerate of Math will provide jobs for another couple of generations making sense of it all. It's interesting.
@lasertuber11 жыл бұрын
The speaker predicts that a new type of math will be developed to model the brain and I suppose other complex systems. It seems like software algorithms already do that, so I'm not sure if he is adding any new insight(s) here.
@Marksman5606 жыл бұрын
The brain is mathematics. That's why computers become smarter then humans (Artificial Intelligence). Think about image recognition, autonomous driving, World Champion of Go, World Champion of Chess, language translations, sentiment analysis, and many more...
@BP-uq8mw6 жыл бұрын
So, how long then, before they figure out that the real computational power of the human brain isn't enough to account for our intellect?
@senshtatulo7 жыл бұрын
At 12:58 "It took a very powerful telescope to look at Jupiter's moons". No, not a "very powerful telescope". Galileo's telescope for looking at Jupiter's moons was a small one, probably hand-held (preserved at the Museo Galileo in Italy), with a power (or magnification) of about 10, which was only 3-4 times more powerful than previous telescopes, which had powers of about 3. Modern hand-held binoculars typically have powers of 7 or 10, with higher powers available.
@dagordon18 жыл бұрын
need to apply the wadsworth constant twice...
@manikshamik3 жыл бұрын
Amazing.
@michaelrdegroat9 жыл бұрын
Stand still.
@StephenPaulKing7 жыл бұрын
Logic reasons backwards in time! As we move our parse point forward, the choice depends on what has been previously proven.
@dhidhi10007 жыл бұрын
I hate to judge but for some reason the way he talks annoys me
@FraktalPriest6 жыл бұрын
If that's all you have to say then you sir, bore me.
@ominousscreech40546 жыл бұрын
kidXS what is boring ?
@vjpillay10 жыл бұрын
Ruth Lawrence got her doctorate in maths at 17 from oxford university in 1989.Wonder if the knowledge of all subjects and master of few the secret to future mathematics? Perhaps 100 scientists collaborate rather than a single genius .
@martin363697 жыл бұрын
The first picture of orbits is in fact of the retrograde motion of Venus round the Earth & not some old epicycle system. Surely the main area of Mathematics used by the Brain & Holograms is Fourier Transforms
@nirajgupta99827 жыл бұрын
Fourier transforms sounds familiar. Is that something related to the way information is transmitted?
@martin363697 жыл бұрын
It's the same as Harmonic Analysis
@nirajgupta99827 жыл бұрын
Ah, thanks
@bonob01236 жыл бұрын
So where's the update Hotshot
@fabriziodutto75086 жыл бұрын
I tought it was a serious talk. I cannot get the point, it seems to me jumping between different arguments, seeming unrelated the one with the other. I hope in his mind the whole argument is clearer...
@viarogmws34456 жыл бұрын
Somehow I got lost thinking his talk was about hypnosis instead of maths.
@wajideu50059 жыл бұрын
Pressing 5 repeatedly is more fun than actually watching all this crud.
@dlwatib9 жыл бұрын
Stupid commenters should be banned from using youtube. Thumbs up if you agree.
@SuperJuiceman119 жыл бұрын
Guess you would be the first person banned from you tube
@Apollys8 жыл бұрын
This was awesome. Ignore all the hate.
@bluemoon062311 жыл бұрын
Not all Ted talks are good. This is one example.
@AngelSilva-qn9wh8 жыл бұрын
hes wearing a fedora. thats dank af. does he watch mlp too?
@phanindrasimha46426 жыл бұрын
Was he imitating Ross from Friends at 2.30 - 2.45. He sounds soo similar
@sparramore8 жыл бұрын
agree...I think ur on to something
@sonofjesus14649 жыл бұрын
thought when he meant new type of math he meant something more exciting than differential equations. Good small talk though
@Maxander20019 жыл бұрын
David Shepler Fun example of completely missing the point! :) :)
@rudemanthony9 жыл бұрын
Anyone who wears a hat while giving a lecture, especially a fedora, is not to be taken seriously under any circumstance. Stopped the video at 0:59 to make this nonconstructive comment and I'm outskies!
@tellthemman19558 жыл бұрын
any one who think they know so much about their department may end up behaving like what this guy did. However, whether you know something or not, mathematics can never be proved wrong. its either you know nothing , or something, but not everything. even lecturers cannot work out all the maths problems in a text book. Even Leibniz and Sir Isaac Newton learnt about calculus in different ways and with different motives, but at the end their evaluation of calculus intersected at one point. that's why this guy even failed to present the '' new type of mathematics he thought he new about''. yes, he might be correct to say new maths, but new mats is still maths. and it will be built upon the maths that already exist.
@kevinabel23708 ай бұрын
I keep considering we will find a new math and it will not be built on old math. I hope we humans figure it out. Maybe some other animals use it and we can't tell.
@Unboundedominion9 жыл бұрын
Stream Networks (Branching Valley Networks) mathematics? What's the new branch of mathematics called?
@LabaneTsilo4 жыл бұрын
Wasn't this topic discussed as far back as 1950?
@SunnyApples8 жыл бұрын
Hmm... lots of thumbs down, but few negative comments. Why thumbs down?
@BB-jp3pj8 жыл бұрын
his sense of fashion, most likely
@AustinTexas6thStreet8 жыл бұрын
His talk does not really have anything to do with the title, leaving many of us to feel misled
@friedrichdergroe96646 жыл бұрын
Where's the math? I don't want the sizzle. Give me the steak already!!!
@asmcriminaL10 жыл бұрын
I only watched half of this.What does this have to do with mathematics??
@minch33310 жыл бұрын
I watched the whole thing... Absolutely nothing!
@yamenarhim93366 жыл бұрын
He is trying here (as i understood his talk)to make an analogy between the mistake of making epicycles and complicating the solar system model which turned out to be much simpler (after discovering calculus and applying it to the solar system) ,and the complicated neural networks algorithms that we are building which may have much simpler mathematical structure.
@elliott81756 жыл бұрын
You realise that's basically just Ocam's Razor? An idea well established in the scientific community - and for a long time. I'm sure that he has something to say about this to his colleagues at a bar - but in terms of a presentation, he's said nothing new.
@jannikheidemann38056 жыл бұрын
He predicts a new field of mathematics. So obviously he doesn't present equations because these are yet to be discovered in said field.
@perimetromatematico82646 жыл бұрын
yamen arhim many thanks
@davidwilkie95517 жыл бұрын
Complex new mathematics is quantum chemistry.
@lancelotlozano98406 жыл бұрын
Okay but what was he trying to talk about??
@u1b211 жыл бұрын
well that is a new icebreaker, "what is going on in neuroscience?"
@ryannasworthy68708 жыл бұрын
All of his brilliant work is undone by the fact he is wearing a fedora.
@yamenarhim93366 жыл бұрын
One day he is wearing a fedora hat and giving a Ted-talk and next day He is destroying the world, don't belittle ppl you Never Know !!!!
@balasubramanians79326 жыл бұрын
What is the new kind of mathematics?
@thetrickster4211 жыл бұрын
I don't really buy his claim. More recently than calculus, it's been the case that developments in mathematics advanced by mathematicians have applied beautifully to science afterwards. For example, differential geometry was around before Einstein's General Relativity used it to revolutionise physics. Group theory was developed before particle physics started looking at groups. Nonetheless I'm sure the problems involved in this kind of Neuroscience are very hard.
@symbolxchannel6 жыл бұрын
I'm not sure there is anything to retain from this video... Does this guy have a point to make? Do he know where he is going when he start talking? Focus guy!
@abhir78236 жыл бұрын
Thankfully Dr Banner didn't turn during the talk
@emilyhenderson44136 жыл бұрын
press 5555 to make him fly away
@mrautistic25809 жыл бұрын
I call the new math shape math. It's based on infinite repetitive patterns on a surface. The type of patterns that Sir Roger Penrose has experience with. Building those shapes and sending light through the matrix will give you mathematical answers simply by timing the interval of time the light took to travel through.
@kevinmathewson42726 жыл бұрын
Would you mind expanding on your thinking a bit?
@GrothendiecksWish8 жыл бұрын
Can't discover a new mathematics in this simulation where we are living. The parameters are set so that we discover natural numbers then move on to the Euclidean framework along with the analytical geometry.
@Synodalian8 жыл бұрын
Mathematics is a set that actually transcends the parameters of our own universe. We start off with empirically derived patterns based on the regularity we observe within physical reality, but from that point onward, logic and relational analysis is what leads to the construction of new algorithms, rules, and structures that lie beyond our own three-dimensional conception of existence. So what may initially appear to be an impossibility of every discovering, has already been proven otherwise given the advanced development in the objects of mathematics throughout the years, decades, and centuries.
@GrothendiecksWish8 жыл бұрын
Yes but the creators of the simulation themselves reached a point where they couldn't go further. They had to hide these inconsistencies from us in the way of black holes, dark matter, dark energy, singularities, etc.
@Synodalian8 жыл бұрын
Fernando Reyes Actually, it may be that black holes, dark matter, dark energy, singularities, and many other seemingly anomalous entities within the composition of this system are merely illusory consequences of the integral behavior of the quantum information processing that constructs and drives spacetime to begin with: arxiv.org/abs/1402.5674 Conclusively, this implies that the universe is significantly more virtual and dynamical (hence Schrödinger's wavefunction) in stochastic processing than previously realized, and could mean that this massive computational system is actually derived from the most fundamental template of existence itself: Quantum information (commonly known as quantum informational realism): arxiv.org/abs/1405.0879 Mathematics, in essence, would be derived as the consequentially relational backbone that determines the autonomous causal behavior of quantum information integration, given that it is the only element in existence (mathematical patterns as the only reality).
@GrothendiecksWish8 жыл бұрын
XΣN awesome, can't wait till you prove that we live in a simulation. Then they'll pull the plug.
@Synodalian8 жыл бұрын
Fernando Reyes Who knows. Nick Bostrom and Ray Kurzweil's proposal is that our revelation of the nature of reality will actually lead to the exact opposite outcome; an eventual direct confrontation between us and the Creator(s). After all, what would be more interesting to a programmer than to see their own creation recognize itself for what it is, and strive beyond it? Maybe this is what the true meaning of life is; Growth: The extropic trend of intelligent systems evolving themselves to greater complexities, possibilities, and integrity. Perhaps this is what this universe was programmed for to begin with. Now it's only a matter of learning how to utilize it... *"Just as the constant increase of entropy is the basic law of the universe, so it is the basic law of life to be ever more highly structured and to struggle against entropy." - Vaclav Havel*