yego.me
💡 Stop wasting time. Read Youtube instead of watch. Download Chrome Extension

How Einstein, Heisenberg and Gödel Used Constraints to Rethink the Universe, with Janna Levin


3m read
·Nov 4, 2024

I became interested in this phenomenon of constraints inspiring creative outbursts. And if you look at the last century, there were three really profound examples of that.

I would say the earliest that I found incredibly interesting was the limit of the speed of light leading Einstein to the theory of relativity. Where a lot of other scientists wanted to remove the limit, they wanted to say there is no limit to the speed of light. That doesn't make any sense. That's impossible.

Einstein actually, despite the word relativity, adhered to a very strict absolute. And that absolute was the speed of light. He took that to be his guiding constraint. And by sticking to it rigidly, he said I'll give up anything else but the speed of light, the constancy of the speed of light. And by doing so, he gave up on the absolute nature of space and time.

I mean, that's just much harder to let go of intuitively and a much greater violation of our common sense, but it was right. And so, this was an example where this tight constraint led to a creative outburst. From this one constraint, you could trace the line, not only to the relativity of space and time but the expansion of the universe; the existence of black holes; the ideal that the entire space has a shape, all of these things burgeoned from this really tight constraint.

Another great example is the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. So, Heisenberg begins to believe that we can't precisely know the location of a particle and its motion and its momentum. And this seems to violate what we believe that things objectively exist, that there should be no such limit, but he takes it very seriously.

He doesn't just say oh, it's often cast in this way; oh, disturb a particle when we observe it, therefore we can't also know its momentum once we've located it because, in the process of measuring it, we've somehow disturbed it. That's not really true. That's much deeper than that.

Heisenberg took very seriously that this was profound, that in some sense, the particle doesn't have a location or a momentum, that in some sense the particle doesn't really exist in the old-fashioned way we used to think it existed, like a marble exists. So, by taking it that much more seriously, it leads to the discovery of the deeper phenomenon of quantum mechanics and that incredibly strange world that, even though we don't actually understand it, even today, we verify experimentally over and over again it's the most well tested paradigm in all of physics, and yet it's the one we understand the least.

My third example would be Gödel's limit theorem. So, the great mashing notation Hilbert sent out a call to all mathematicians just to confirm that all mathematical facts could indeed be proven within the context of mathematics. It wasn't the case that he wanted every infinite proof; that's obviously impossible, he just wanted to prove that the proofs existed.

It seems like a sort of meta-level question. It is, it's a meta-level question, can we prove that all facts are knowable? Is a simpler way of saying it? And Gödel comes along in the 1930s and proves that even in the context of something as basic as arithmetic, that there are facts among the members that can never be proven to be true or false.

There are literally facts we can never know in the context of mathematics. And that was a real blow to this idea of a mathematical theory of everything. We've recovered from that blow, and it turned out to have profound consequences, and the profound consequence was the invention of the computer and AI.

So, you can trace Turing's creation of the idea of a machine that can think directly to his work on the limit theorems and the fact that there are certain things we could never know. And that limit is severe. And from that thinking about that limit, he was able to imagine how to mechanize thought, begin to think about making machines that think, and to begin to think that we're just machines that think, and therefore there could be an artificial intelligence just like there's a biological intelligence.

More Articles

View All
Signs of a Toxic Friend | Buddhist Philosophy
At some point in our lives, we begin to question our friendships. Some friendships have stood the test of time and can still be considered sources of mutual enjoyment and growth. But other friends do not seem to add any value to our lives. Or worse: they’…
Warren Buffett: Value Investing vs. Growth Investing
So if you tell me that you own a business that’s going to grow to the sky, and isn’t that wonderful? I don’t know whether it’s wonderful or not until I know what the economics are of that growth. How much you have to put in today, and how much you will re…
Dalton Caldwell - Startup Investor School Day 2
Hey, good morning! Thank you. We have a lot to do today, so I’d like to get my part out of the way as quickly as possible. Good morning again, and welcome to our second day of Startup Investor School. My role is a little bit more, but not much more than …
Howard Marks & Joel Greenblatt on Value Investing
So I don’t think the reason people don’t beat the market is because the market is efficient or even close to efficient or not emotional. It’s very emotional. Or that it can’t be done. There’s all kinds of institutional and agency reasons and tons of other…
Uranium: Twisting the Dragon's Tail
Did you know that after the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear disaster at reactor number four, the other reactors on that site were not shut down permanently? In fact, they were kept running, producing electricity by workers who were brought in by train every day to…
15 RULES of CHANGE
Change is inevitable. Many people have tried opposing it, only to learn that lesson the hard way. You’re consuming this content because a big change is about to happen in your life. This resource will guide you through it. Here are 15 Rules of Change. Ru…