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
Battling the Current | Primal Survivor
Finally, I know I’m approaching the waterfalls because the rush of water is becoming deafening. Here they are, amazing! Standing this close to such thundering power is breathtaking. When the fish migrate up the river to spawn, many gather near the base of…
Drowning in Grain: A Look at the Hidden Dangers of Farming | Short Film Showcase
So we’ve got a situation here with a farmer or child who’s trapped in a grain bin. We’ve got plastic coffers here, and we’ll be placing these on each side of the victim. These are actually going to protect the victim from the corn, to get the corn from co…
Bill Ackman Just Made a $1 Billion Bet on This Stock...
Billionaire investor Bill Ackman runs one of the most closely filed portfolios in all finance. The Preferral he runs, named Pershing Square, has assets under management of more than 10 billion and sizable holdings in well-known companies. These companies …
Solving square-root equations: no solution | Mathematics III | High School Math | Khan Academy
Let’s say that we have the radical equation: the square root of 3x minus seven plus the square root of 2x minus one is equal to zero. I encourage you to pause the video and see if you can solve for X before we work through it together. Alright, so one t…
Here's What Earthquakes Look Like From Inside the Earth | National Geographic
[Music] The question came up of whether you could hear earthquakes, and I said, “I don’t think so, but we could take the data and speed it up and listen to the whole planet ring after an [Music] earthquake.” The seismo show is an ongoing project in which…
Lecture 9 - How to Raise Money (Marc Andreessen, Ron Conway, Parker Conrad)
Um, but I want to start with a question for Mark and Ron, which is by far the number one question. Probably be a link answer: what do you guys decide to invest in—a founder or a company? Neither of you: no, no, no, no, you first. Um, well, we have a sli…