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
Galileo the Scientific Parrot
Okay, so we’re at the University of Sydney to experiment with Dr. Phil’s dead bird. He’s a famous scientist, this guy. He helped us out back in, uh, the 16th century, I think. Uh, the 17th century, isn’t it? 17th century, 1600s. Thank you! Galileo was, u…
15 Ways To Win People Over
Life is just easier when people are on your side, right? And winning people over requires some finesse and social skills. This is how you do it. Welcome to Locke’s first step. And pretty simple. Actually, listen to what they’re saying. The fastest way fo…
Jack Bogle: Beware of This One Mistake 99% of Investors Make
At least start off. I mean, I’d say start off an index fund period. And for five years, don’t do anything else and then look around and see what’s happened in the five years. See how it felt when the market dropped fifty percent. See how it felt when it c…
What Everyone Gets Wrong About Planes
(brooding music) Most plane doors aren’t locked. There are no keys, no sensors, or passcodes to secure them. If someone wants to pull the lever, they can. A man opened the emergency exit door and forced his way off the plane. And yet with 40 million flig…
How I handle crises.
Overnight cost two nights. I mean, we’re selling the plane. Here’s the day in my life handling crisis and unexpected challenges. I arrive at the office early to get a head start. My first task is ensuring everything is in order. During our morning briefi…
Divergence example
So I’ve got a vector field here V of XY where the first component of the output is just ( x \cdot y ) and the second component is ( y^2 - x^2 ). The picture of this vector field is here; this is what that vector field looks like. What I’d like to do is co…