Hey it's cool to see someone your age inspired to comment, and I'm sure Carroll would appreciate the Feynman allusion. And yeah, the internet can reveal so much about... almost everything! You've just got to skip over the bright & sparkling, steer around the dark & murky, and keep going for the SPECTACULAR and OUTSTANDING. Good luck, and stay safe.

What quarantine? The local grocery gave me a hard time because I didn't have a face covering, but I told them I had no way to get one if I couldn't shop, and they didn'thave any to sell! Other than that nonsense, I didn't do anything different or unusual for the past few decades.

Wait he’s stopping after 25 episodes? :(

Same, I'll be sad when these end. I was stupid when I started watching...I'm still stupid, but I feel like I've made a friend.

He should make a playlist of what to watch next. My suggestions: * Brian Greene daily equation * 3Blue1Brown lockdown math * old SETI Colloquium recordings * SLAC public lectures

@@JohnDlugosz Also Leonard Susskind's lectures.

@@ScienceMessiah im afraid that is true 😏

Thank you Dr. Carroll. I'll watch the series several times again hoping to understand, not just be inspired. BTW, multiplying numbers is using a slide rule's relative lengths to get a number. Heaven help us to figure where the decimal point goes. That's where I started. Thanks again.

How true -- I am still stuck in the "The Road to Reality" -- without much hope I will understand most of it.... Here to one should give credit to Sean Carroll -- he gives credit to Roger Penrose where it is due and gives 50% probability estimate about "inflaton" field and cosmic inflation -- a courageous position. Roger Penrose is on record that he considers inflation a fantasy than can't explain key features of post-Big Bang.... - including in his famous book "Fashion, Faith and Fantasy"

Oh man, I've tried to read "Road to Reality" so many times over the years. I absolutely love the early chapters, but I always end up hitting a wall around chapter 9, at which point I become unfamiliar with much of the math. Penrose claims in the introduction that he intends the book to be readable and useful even for those with only high school level math (he basically says "just skip over the equations and focus on concepts!"), but as someone with undergrad minors in both math and physics, I've always been dubious of that claim. Maybe I should just keep pushing through the book and I'll actually get something out of the later chapters, but I can't help but feeling my time is better spent on either slightly less technical content (like this series) or by actually rigorously digging into the topics discussed. I tend to just get frustrated or lost in the in-between approach of "Road to Reality." I admire the intent of the book, and I'm glad it exists, but it's just... tough!

The book is always better than the movie...

He might have made it because of you!

THX!

Could you give us your take on Constructor Theory?

I'm gonna bring that up with my dietician. My mass^3/4 tells me I need more food! (jk) Thanks Prof. You make learning physics a gentle process in this format. I hope you're taking notes and talking with colleagues because this format is far more effective than any online course I've seen, and more effective than most of my in-person classes from undergrad through my PhD (in nutrition). I think your joy in your material is obvious, and a big part of your effectiveness.

@@kabirmunjal9149 Another new quantum mechanics book? Have you checked out Sean's book "Something Deeply Hidden"?

@@darektidwell1158 YES, just YES!

It is wrong to make fish of one and flesh of the other, but I'd rather have Professor Carroll's series any day : nobody explains it more lucidly than Sean.

I have Feynman's 6 hour vid & all of this series saved for a second viewing. Hope I live long enough to watch again.

He

That's a real problem I have with the current definition of a planet - that it has to clear out its orbit. They made a post-hoc definition that excluded Pluto. Pluto is still working on it! It has not revolved around the sun nearly as often as the inner planets, so it hasn't had the chance to clear its orbit. Besides, what did Mercury have to clear out? How much material was in stable orbit in Mercury's path that didn't quickly fall into the sun early during accretion or get cleared away by Venus or Earth? There are other objects in Earth's orbit that have not been cleared out, so it has to be a matter of degree, but when I read that definition, I don't remember there being any minimum or maximum degree of allowed material still in the orbit, or any specification of how far from the orbit debris can be allowed. Yes, I am sentimental about Pluto, and I accept that it is obviously a Kuyper Belt object (orbital eccentricity and non-circularity, other KB objects being larger and of similar composition, etc.), but they need another definition of a planet that does not seem custom-designed to exclude Pluto. It's more planetary bigotry than objectivity. What is the justification for needing to clear out its orbital path as a definition for a planet? That just means it's massive, old, and close to the parent star. While our current 8 planets were busy clearing out their orbits, were they not planets then? Which asteroid impact signaled Earth's transition from non-planet to planet? When was its path clear enough?

@@beenaplumber8379 You won't come up with a proper definition that includes _only_ Pluto. The same story played out with Ceres and Vesta -- textbooks shows them as planets! But once astronomers realized they were members of a "belt" they dropped the designation with little fanfare. Clearing the orbit, different from Mercury: Pluto's actually under Neptune's thumb. It's locked into a 3:2 resonance, along with many other bodies.; It's not doing any clearing! Rather, it's shepherded into position by the planet that rules that region. I think the real definition needs to be "what's interesting/unique" to be learned by the general population. Like with bodies of water: you don't learn every pond in the world, and not only the "great lakes"/"inland seas" either, but some that are of novel character or special importance, regardless of size. Others are just groups like "the finger lakes", a feature made up of many individual bodies. Lake Vostok in Antarctica is _interesting_ and the first found and largest of its class, but not "large" like the Nile or the Med. But it's on the list of things people learn about.

24 + 42 + life = mindscape episode 100

It will depend somewhat on the training algorithm and also there will be cutoff and normalization effects, but yes, it seems that a power law is the best fit, and that\s not unexpected considering.

And brain and mind.

Got em lol

No, since you would need to specify where in the digits of pi your sequence starts, and that specification will most likely be more complex than the sequence itself.

@@juanmanuellosada2818 Ah makes sense, thanks!

Not because they are pseudo-random, but because they are patternless and infinite. Being found in the digits of pi does not make any finite string simple, (nor did he imply that) since you would also need to give the place in pi where that string takes place, and that is likely longer than the string itself, (proof left as an exercise). You would need to find a algorithm for every finite string which is shorter than the string itself.

I think the answer is: No, because the finite substring is defined by two parameters in addition to the function for pi itself: the length of the substring, and the number of digits of pi you have to discard from the function before you can start consuming them. But how do you determine where to stop discarding? Well, you have to search for it, and in particular to search for the thing, you have to know *what* it is you are searching for, which means the actual complexity is equal to the complexity of the number you are searching for in addition to the complexity of pi (and searching itself.)

1:14:02 yep, me too. I definitely had to rewind five times to convince myself it wasn't "size of an orgasm". Which tbh would be a riveting topic.

Ok, on hearing the second Freudian slip I'm now pretty sure that Sean isn't really interested in organisms.

New podcast: Sexy Time with Prof. Sean Carroll