BBC-Dangerous Knowledge (Part 8-10)

[bakinmuffins]

Not sure that an Olympic caliber marathoner smoked the cigarettes...

[incarnation316]

I do want to say though that the incompleteness theorem has a little gremlin inside it that religious people could use and there is nothing anyone could do about it, a religious person could simply state that due to Gödel's theorem they don't have to prove 100% that 'god' exists for 'god' to exist, this is very troubling to me even though the inverse is true as well

[Argibon]

How do you know when to stop? When you are no longer breathing and your heart stops beating would be a good indicator.

[Peralisc]

the incompleteness theory is a paradox in itself ... it even proves that the theory itself cant be proven

[incarnation316]

@Peralisc which that logic in its self is proof that the theory is correct

[adjustthemorgue]

Me eating 3 Big Macs in one sitting = A MACHINE! (proof enough)

[JG129]

@adjustthemorgue wow that is impressive !!!

[baalisgod666]

The incompleteness Theory is just like the dreaded killer Joke (Monty Python), fatal when read.

[hyperhumana]

It was Polish matematicians who broke enigma code not Turing.

[vivizapa]

@hyperhumana "In December 1932, the Polish Cipher Bureau first broke Germany's military Enigma". As always the brits, the jews, the canadians and the americans, steal ideas and claim it is theirs. They did the same with a few romanian ideas, like the discovery of insuline of profesor Nicolae Paulescu or Petrache Poenaru's fountain pen. They always use some backdoor to take all the credit. I find it nauseating. It is so easy to steal from the small countries, isnt it?

[baalisgod666]

@hyperhumana bullshit. The nerds at bletchley park who did it. Turing was one of them. The polish were too busy letting the nazis fuck their asses.

[hyperhumana]

@baalisgod666 read some facts. dick.

Poles did it in 1932.

if you would use more of your brain than your hypocampus you would have noticed what vivizapa wrate.

now you can franchkiss my asshole.

[AdriaFloriDeSoc]

2:58 something strange on the sky. Did someone noticed it?

[MillenniumRequiem]

That hypothesis seems cursed....0.o;

[GlobalMagik]

Alan Turnings suicide is the perfect example of the battle that rages within a single being. The spirit of an amazing creator who's contribution will result in the uniting of humanity through linking of the minds as the internet is a created technological brain designed to link the brains of humanity though educating the minds and the body of a non breeder. To be gay is the end of a DNA cycle and these bodies have no desire to create beyond self yet the body still has basic thought.

[kelviniskelly]

I want to smoke pot now!

[jmm1233]

Alan Turing FTW

[slack7639]

There's something beyond numbers. What is it?

[BeatleEDs]

@slack7639 - "What is it?" Some call it GOD. Some call it consciousness.

[slack7639]

@BeatleEDs I believe in God, but was thinking of an answer other than God. Maybe like, we all know how the computer works using 0's and1's . . . maybe it's something along the lines of how the quantum computer works, using up, down, left, and right - are those numbers? No, I think they are states.

[BeatleEDs]

@slack7639 - They are possibilities.

[nostreborph2000]

i am completely drowsy

[TheSonjaxfactor]

@nostreborph2000 lol

[tatsumakisempyukaku]

You guys should look up John searle's Chinese room argument. It's too long to put here. But it simply shows that a machine that performs algorithmic functions does not possess meaning and therefore AI via this route is impossible

[tatsumakisempyukaku]

You guys should look up John searle's argument called the Chinese room. A guy in a box is given rules to follow. For every Chinese symbol x, he is to couple it with Chinese symbol y. To the Chinese, he appears to know Chinese. All the while he knows no Chinese, he's just following an algorithm. Therefore, a CPU working in this way does not "know" anything. Meaning is beyond cpu's

[lamp779]

I wonder how much debt the field of Cognitive Psychology owes Turing. Can anyone summarize the historical relevance?

[Nuijin007]

I think if you're a mathematician and you are working on a theory, you should have an open mind, because if your mind is narrow you'll want to prove to your self what you believe therefore; you're just creating loops around what you believe and not what you're actually working on. that's just my opinion.

[Dolphidood]

6:10 why would computers need to learn like children when we could simply just transfer data filed into them

[Elhardt]

@Dolphidood What good is transferring data into a computer if the computer doesn't understand or can't process the data to achieve some goal? There are a lot of things that the human mind can do easily but are impossible to program computers to do. That's why there are computer programs called neural networks that act like brain networks. They need to be trained by feeding them data, both good and bad, until they become robust enough to work correctly. Character recognition is an example.

[Dolphidood]

@Elhardt Well make them faster then lol. Maybe they could come up with a transference that literally does give the computer a replica of the human experience but just of a great speed. So how do these neural network programs work if you could be as general as possible?

[Elhardt]

@Dolphidood Neural Net programs are kind of like data structures of interconnected layers that mimic biological neurons. When you train a neural net with data, the artificial neurons build up weighted values. In character recognition for example, a neural net would be shown digitized letters and told what they are. It would also be shown letters that are smudged, different fonts, rotated, etc. so the neural net can handle real-world applications, like the post office reading address labels.

[Elhardt]

@Dolphidood A while back I had one customer who was using neural networks to recognize the silhouettes of military planes. I believe they may also be used in machines that sniff out dangerous chemicals at airports. For more info, just do a google search, or wikipedia search for neural networks. I'm sure there's plenty there about what they are, how they work, and where they're used.

[Dolphidood]

Godel is my hero, he just stood up to the crappy assumptions that poison society and basically said "no, we're after what is true" I respect him and think he is one of the great thinkers of all time and its sad that he is not given such credit that he deserves based on the pure ignorance of those who like to invent reality like ungrateful 'sane' people.

[austpom333]

Just like to say that not getting away from it all - one whole year from time to time - is where a lot of these early mathematicians went wrong.

[thunderbolt3333]

what is all this bs 4? computers, maths, incomplete, complete blah blah

[daniloorbolato]

@thunderbolt3333 its not for you.

[aehaynes]

"Up next Sloppy Drunk in the Bath tub!!!"

-__-

[phabbiola]

@aehaynes hahahaha

[sgreen4]

Turing was a genius.Too bad he lived in dangerous times.

I wonder what he would have thought of the computers of today. Maybe if he had lived, computers of today would be different

[DancingSpiderman]

MY kind of certainty:

Pi = 3.

It's good enuf yer me.

That means it's good enuff yer yew too.

BWAAAhahahaha

[ninjaswordtothehead]

Just as there is no such thing as cold, only heat and the absence of heat and as there is no such thing as dark, only light and the absence thereof; what if there is no logic? Only illogic and the lack thereof. We seem to be trying very hard in a very complicated way to prove logic, while it's quite easy to prove the existence of illogic. Occam's razor anyone?

[PROFFESORSEXY]

gay creatures

[mrboycom]

Just don't think anything, don't think anything, instead just feel.

[RoshWilliams]

Turin is my favorite I like computers lol

[neoneoneofu]

Why is the video of two drunken sluts in the bath tub related to this video? I guess, there are some secret relations in nature that are just impossible for a mathematicians to see...

[rainzoro]

@neoneoneofu LOL

[silvisakeru]

@neoneoneofu then we should compute a theory of relationship. XD

[sorenkierkegaard2008]

@neoneoneofu I'm probably gonna be laughing about this comment for several days.

[SidewalkFrequencies]

9:12 lucky cigarette.

[CaptainBluebear08]

The actor playing Gödel rather resembles Anton webern, the composer.

[MrZhuKeeper]

Note to self, "Don't read the incompleteness theorem, will drive crazy."

[Psychogenius018]

@MrZhuKeeper LOL!!!!!!!! It's too late for me!!!!!!!!!! AAAAAAAHHHHHHAAAAAAHHAAAHAHAHA­HAHAHAH!!!!!!  I'm a darn fool duck!!!!!!! WHOHOWHOHOWHOHO!!!!!!! You're silly I like you!!!!

[candyberriche]

@MrZhuKeeper  LOL!!

[Hinaisthebest]

@MrZhuKeeper lol yeah eh...

[pilotmonkey]

@MrZhuKeeper

Hehehe Yeah, was thinking that. Also some1 mentioned it sounds like Monty Pythons funniest joke.

I am protected from the deadliness of this problem by being too stupid to even grasp the basics.

[Hrimpurstala]

@MrZhuKeeper

Of course, it isn't that easy to read - the problem is if you try to improve upon it.

[0musing]

@MrZhuKeeper Its not the incompleteness theorem that drives people crazy its cantor's continuum hypothesis that you need to stay away from!

[lmos26]

@MrZhuKeeper haha, I know!  it's literally the theory of incomprehensibility

[hyperhumana]

@MrZhuKeeper It just  claims that you can not bite your own teeth...

it is not so strange.

[MrZhuKeeper]

@hyperhumana ? I do not know how you came up with that. But it is strange, because you could bite your own teeth if it fell out.

[hyperhumana]

@MrZhuKeeper with what???

[alcoholichealer]

this is one of the greatest vids i have ever had the grand fortune to view. it has really set me to thinking in several realms of my soulstream

[buckfushes]

This makes me want to read Brian Adams books ")

BTW the answer they're looking for is 42 of course...

[The2012phenomneon]

If some problems are unsolvable with our finite minds, would an Infinite mind proof the seemingly unprovable like the proof itself? so since the proof does exist, it contains the truth, so an Infinite mind would see everything include the truth which is this.

[TheRavingRandomist]

@The2012phenomneon

count to 10^100 (say)

and then tell me what

you think an "infinite

mind" is / might be

[Consciousish]

Hi, can anyone tell me what the music is once Alan Turing arrives on the scene?

It sounds very neat I would like to know the name of the piece at 0:45 ?

[mightyafrowhitey]

@Consciousish hmmm... sounds like Prokofiev, but I don't know which one it is.

[EnvyAbomination]

The guy in the red shirt is so energetic, lol.

[Baustrophedonic]

It's really astounding how irresponsible this sensationalisation is; so many people come away with this mystical and in many aspects patently false understanding of the events leading up to the end of logical positivism and the formalist programme. The pseudo-mystics seem to be drawn to this documentary like moths to a flame.

[GetMeThere1]

@Baustrophedonic: You don't understand. "Real" mysticism has failed miserably, so culture now is turning to the worship of science--and there must be some mysticism injected into the new direction because the mystical thirst is still there.

[n080di]

@Baustrophedonic This is not a good documentary. I am surprised that it's a BBC documentary, the same BBC that made the Andrew Wiles documentary.

[gamesbok]

Churchill said that Turing shortened the war by 2 years, on his own.

[nuggbubbler]

happened to me once

[DairDubh]

The torch that was passed between these men is now in the hands of Hofstadter and Dennet.

[sergelu]

Turing was a 2h46 marathoner. Was he really smoking?

[shahbaztherock]

This is not a great documentary, as the point of the view of the director/writer is biased , they are basically trying to convey how the emotional effect of being not able to convince their fellow scientists of their theories lead them to schizopherinic.

[AAinsworth255]

Do you think the documentary is called Dangerous Knowledge because of the great things that it has done for the world? That's not dangerous. The point of this documentry, is about "I wish i was the smartest man on earth" well no you don't because the reality would drive you insane, just like it has done to "the greatest minds of all time" Go read the mathematical equations if you want to understand the theories.

[carusggg]

is just about how reality is so uncertain and even if you have high basic expectation on soemthing to be so you are wrong. Very few persons have the power to think against themselves and even fewer to accept reality and not just an illusion. It isn't about wanting to be the most intelligent person on the world it is about how reality can be against you and your beliefs and this isn't a pleasant thing giving that most of humanity is driven even in math and modern "physics" by illusions.

[BenNCM]

Jesus. what you've written is shit.

[marsCubed]

@AAinsworth255 I could tell you why it is called dangerous knowledge, but then I would have to kill you. ;)

[BenNCM]

your comment is rubbish. they are primarily educating viewers about the nature of the aspects of the universe. the emotion is merely a token backdrop to make the film of human interest..

[emkajii]

Math does not work that way.

If something is proven to be true, it is always true. The Pythagorean Theorem will always be true(in euclidean space), regardless of how far in the future we go. Similarly, Godel's Incompleteness Theorem will always be true regardless of how far in the future we go.

There will always be things that are true, but unprovable in a rigorous way.

[Ulrna]

Really?

So it is a constructed absolute?

[jonesgerard]

Thank you for the clear explanation, that makes sense. Funny how truth has a certain "ring" to it.

[PeeteyP]

Lie: "there is no way of telling whether the theorem you're working on is provable or not."

Godel's theorem says that some theorems are unprovable. Some theorems are now known to be unprovable.

This is what I hate about documentaries, especially Mathematics documentaries- while they have lots of tidbits about the mathematicians' private lives, they are not overly concerned with accurately presenting the theories of those mathematicians.

[insanezenmistress]

so, i should not be lead to belive and mis-quote saying "Nener nener nener Godel disproved logic." ?

[PeeteyP]

well that kinda sounds better than Neener, neener, Godel proved than in any w- consistent system there are some w- indeterminite statements, ha ha.

[GrayFox61803]

To PeeteyP: It is said in the documentary. There is no GENERAL way of telling wether the problem you're working on is provable or nor. (It's a subtle detail, that word) The problems which are known to be unprovable(within ZFC, or any other model) have been proven to be so using the particularities of those problems. What Turing proved is there is no GENERAL recipe for knowing, it doesn't say there is no recipe for each special case.

[GrayFox61803]

And still so, when it is said a statement cannot be proven true or false, it is within a set of axioms. The continuum hypothesis is known to be unprovable by ZF set theory, but who's to say it isn't provable with another set of axioms?

In mthematics, you are always working with a set of axioms, things you assume to be true.

[shadowq8]

They proved limits.

[Ulrna]

What is a limit?

What do you mean?

[jonesgerard]

I think Turing said we cannot know beforehand whether something is provable. Seems obvious to me.

Godel said axioms cannot provide certain answers, intuition is therefore not axiomatic.

I think this is a problem for atheists?

[Ulrna]

What is obvious to you?

[diomedes39]

@jonesgerard

I don't see why it would be.

[mightyafrowhitey]

@PeeteyP I think what he meant was that there is no way of telling whether the theorem you're working on is provable or not BEFORE HAND, but yea, it is pretty vague.

[qtzlctl2012]

@PeeteyP you're not understanding the concept correctly. It's not that you will never know, that is a watering down for layman, the truth is there is no algorithm to figure out if a given problem is provable or not without actually trying to solve the problem. What it means is you only have trial and error.

[bucles2000]

@PeeteyP You can use english to speak about english. Godel call that "metalanguage". If you are not smart, even if you speak very well, you never are going to change the current gramma structure. Metalanguage comes when you really prove something and make a sustantial change to the current language. But if you are not smart, it does not matter how well you speak about a language, therefore is not "metalanguage", is just selfreference. What Godel did is just a fancy self reference paradox.

[Hanato2]

@PeeteyP At 3:00 "Godel's theorem says that some theorems are unprovable." Is exactly what the documentary says. The "lie" you're talking about was just their way of saying it after they had already defined it the correct way.

[aesrp]

@PeeteyP go look it up, or ask in school providing you're in school....do you want to learn about these maths or are you just let down because the series didn't talk about complex mathematics you might very well not understand anyways?

[TheMerlinOfAR]

@PeeteyP The mathematician in the video said there is no systematic way to prove which theorems are unprovable. Godel proved that the Continuum Hypothesis can not be disproved. Cohen proved that the Continuum Hypothesis can not be proven. Apparently the Incompleteness Theorem alone cant prove what is or isnt unprovable.

[arbusto]

@TheMerlinOfAR

provability isn't something absolute, but relative to a set of axioms (and a chosen logic, e.g. classical first order logic) - so your statement is misleading. goedel and cohen together proved, that the continuum hypothesis is neither provable nor disprovable from the axioms of zfc set theory (a special axiomatization of cantor's informal set theory - there are others, some equivalent, some not). the continuum hypothesis is logically independent from zfc set theory, that's all.

[BombaMolotov]

@PeeteyP Turing and Chruch showed there is no decision procedure by which to mechanically determine whether a first-order formula is true or false.

So it's not really a lie. Learn your logic and computer science properly, or stfu

[AmokBR]

@PeeteyP Well duh, it would takes years of study for the average Joe to understand the incompleteness theorem; some people might never be able to grasp all the maths necessary for it. How are they going to present theses theorems here?

[Hrimpurstala]

@PeeteyP

Doesn't incompleteness theorem say that any arithmetical system has statements within it which are true but unprovable within that system? They may still be provable if you introduce new axioms -however, introducing new axioms will create additional statements which are true but unp...

I know that there are also some theorems which are unprovable for practical purposes. However, If you can point me to any which are proven to be unprovable in an arithmetical system - I'd be fascinated.

[phabbiola]

@PeeteyP well...maybe because many of us wouldnt understand a single thing....

[Poconnor82803]

@PeeteyP I'm glad that this is the top rated comment so that everyone can bask in your ignorance.

[PeeteyP]

@Poconnor82803 Thanks Poconnor, that's basically the same way I feel. At the time I made this comment, I really thought that "proving a statement unprovable" was possible. (Turing seems to prove otherwise.)

[blahbl4hblahtoo]

@PeeteyP Jesus Christ...Note to math nerds...documentaries are about telling stories...NOT FILLING IN FOR A MATH CLASS.

LIGHTEN UP.

[braydeny]

when Dr gregory chatilin says " and that i felt was getting more in the right direction.

He says it as if he was living in the same time as Godel.

strange....