Home
Artists
Search Recent Random
Posts
Search DMs Popular Hash Lookup Tags Random
Importer
Import FAQ
Register
Partychan Telegram Live Sex ThePornDude
Home Artists Posts Import Register

Nick's Advice Show (Starring: Aiden) #53 [VIDEO] (Patreon)

Published:
2023-01-21 06:12:50
Imported:
Tags:

Downloads

Content

(Nick's camera shut off towards the end, so we've got animated nick again. Thanks again @shoobiart for the art!)

00:00:00 - Nick talks about why he was late

00:11:25 - I’m not sure if I should study abroad or just travel alone. 

00:28:45 - I’m studying the same course and attending the same university as my brother. I really just enjoy the course but now people just compare me to him.

00:45:50 - I’ve finally been accepted to medical school. However, I’ve only felt relief and no satisfaction. I feel so apathetic about my accomplishments. 

01:09:18 - thanks for watching

Comments

Anonymous

seeing the pan between aiden and animated nick makes the serious topic unnecessarily funny

Jaded Kills

The med school person just needs antidepressants. Depression isn’t always being sad. Apathy is one of the biggest indicators

Everett

Not a PhD in math but I have a bachelors in chemical engineering and have seen just how insanely well our perception of math fits in with the physical world. "Math" should be clarified though. Basic math, like addition, subtraction, division, multiplication, are essentially laws because we can define them physically. You add 1 apple to 1 apple, you have 2 apples. But whether or not our manipulation of basic math to produce algebra, some geometry, calculus, etc is real is a harder question. It's much harder to physically define why y=mx+b works than creating and splitting up groups of objects. So many of our "advanced" math techniques are just observations of trial and error over time, writing down what happened, and then trying again. Over time, we developed enough data to be able to notice patterns through the data, and then made a math language to explain those patterns. That's where math becomes theoretical rather than physical. We have been able to build buildings, roads, phones, and bottled water with our "made up" manipulation of basic math, so clearly it can be used physically, but is it real? Maybe it could have been manipulated in a different way and the same result would have been produced? There's so many communication languages that can effectively get the same point across, so why can't there be more numerical languages? What I'm getting at is that basic math is factual, but theoretical stuff is made up, just like any communication language. We can make an essay's-worth of formulas to describe how to make a building structurally stable, but that doesn't mean the language used is the only way to get that point across. It's just the first way we discovered how to, and we stuck with it

Deepto Chatterjee

Not a PhD in math, but I am on my way to a master's in math and physics and planning on getting a PhD in mathematical physics. I am very passionate about the idea of mathematics not being invented but embedded in the structure of the universe. When you see the fundamental building blocks of how stuff in the universe works, it is apparent to me that there's no way we just accidentally chanced upon all these complex but so logical concepts that just so happened to match up with how the world works at the deepest level (specifically what I have in mind is how every force of nature arises from unitary representations of the lie algebras of gauge symmetry groups, or equivalently how every physical thing that experiences a force can be thought of as a gauge principal bundle over spacetime -- obviously that is all technical and you don't need to understand any of this to appreciate how deeply embedded math is in nature). Our world is inherently geometrical, especially how gravity is given by the curvature of spacetime, which directly invokes differential geometry. Quantum mechanics is inherently a theory of linear algebra and (unitary) representations of symmetry groups -- the very fact that there is symmetry in the universe leads to the mathematical concept of groups! It's inescapable! There are just so many things in nature that are astoundingly mathematical that I just don't really understand how math could be made up, though I always reserve the philosophical possibility that it is. Also, of course, the *engineer* in the comments says that theoretical math is made up. I'll just say that I very much disagree with that, but there are very interesting philosophical arguments for both the idea that math is fundamentally real (mathematical platonism) and math is a construct we invented and employ (mathematical instrumentalism). But most mathematicians are platonists, for good reason. To me, it is because the world appears to be inherently logical, and almost immediately from logic you get mathematics. I could be a wrong, but I don't think we made up a language to describe what we see, I think we as a species were/are very observant and came up with the right and only natural answer to describe what is actually out there. Edit: Nick is right, we wouldn't be able to do anything without him

Everett
>>101254139

Hey! This is the *engineer* hahaha, that is a very interesting take and especially from someone more ingrained in the mathematical world. I do want to clarify that I said "some geometry" specifically because geometry is, on a base level, physical. For example, pi is completely factual, and it can be proven physically. I've thought about this more over the past few days and concentrated my opinion. I could be convinced that calculus, algebra, and all geometry are innate. Your point about gravity convinced me that geometry was innate. I mostly believe physical expressions, like thermodynamic laws, laws of gravity, relativity, and all the empirical expressions in engineering, are invented due to their slight uncertainties. If all mathematics were discoveries and not inventions, then it doesn't make sense to me how any uncertainty could exist in expressions like Newton's law of gravity or Einstein's theory of relativity, yet uncertainty exists. Newton's law has a precision of 1 in 10 million, Einstein's theory has 1 in 100 billion. Incredibly small uncertainties that allow us to continue explaining the world with them, but if they were innate expressions that we discovered rather than invented, wouldn't they be exact? There very well may be an exact answer that we haven't discovered yet, but I don't believe that physical expressions with uncertainty, no matter the precision, are innate. Interested in your thoughts on this!