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
So, you're a lone wolf?
For a long time, I’ve been identifying myself as a loner. I saw myself as someone who functions better and is also happier when in solitude. I wore this label proudly and even named my channel after my self-proclaimed loner status. I aspired to be as soli…
The People Behind the Photography | Podcast | Overheard at National Geographic
Foreign [Music] To on my first visit to Indonesia in 1998. That’s John Stanmeier, a photographer at National Geographic. That year he was covering mass riots in the country triggered by economic collapse when he met someone who would change his life. I w…
Using recursive formulas of geometric sequences | Mathematics I | High School Math | Khan Academy
The geometric sequence ( a_i ) is defined by the formula where the first term ( a_1 ) is equal to -1⁄8 and then every term after that is defined as being so ( a_i ) is going to be two times the term before that. So, ( ai ) is ( 2 \times a{i-1} ). What is…
How Ultrasound Can Deactivate Parts of the Brain
[Derek] How do you fix a brain that’s not working properly? Well, until now the only real option has been to open up the skull, implant electrical or optical fibers, or even remove parts of the brain. If you do something like surgery or ablation, even wit…
Safari Live - Day 174 | National Geographic
This program features live coverage of an African safari and may include animal kills and carcasses. Viewer discretion is advised. A very good afternoon everybody and everyone, and a very warm welcome also to our sunset safari drive all the way from the K…
Real vs. nominal interest rate | Banking | Financial Literacy | Khan Academy
Let’s think about two different scenarios and decide which one is a better world for us. So, there is scenario one where, lucky day, we got a raise at work. We are now making 3% more than we used to make. That sounds good, but there’s a little bit of a t…