Physics Knows the Numbers But Can't Explain a Single One - Dr. Alexander Unzicker, DemystifySci #417
Unlock all features
FREE: Get instant access to 10 AI summaries, chats, or transcripts per day.
Unlock all features
FREE: Get instant access to 10 AI summaries, chats, or transcripts per day.
Unlock all features
FREE: Get instant access to 10 AI summaries, chats, or transcripts per day.
Unlock all features
FREE: Get instant access to 10 AI summaries, chats, or transcripts per day.
Unlock all features
FREE: Get instant access to 10 AI summaries, chats, or transcripts per day.
Related videos
"Secret BANKERS!" - Roman Empire Expert on Alexander, BLOODLINES & The Vatican | Jeremy Slate • 418
Julian Dorey
38.1k views
EU's Russia Obsession: Nukes, Military Drills, and a Loan No One Can Explain
The Duran
10.3k views
Trump Drops A NUKE On These Podcasters
Michael Knowles
85.7k views
JD Vance Knows the Iran War Is a Disaster—But Can’t Say It (w/ Tom Nichols) | The Bulwark Podcast
The Bulwark
22.9k views
David Kirtley: Nuclear Fusion, Plasma Physics, and the Future of Energy | Lex Fridman Podcast #485
Lex Fridman
428.2k views
Stephen A. on sports to politics, always under fire but responds to criticisms & call outs|The Pivot
The Pivot Podcast
363.7k views
We Need to Delete 500 Years of Fake History - Lance Weaver, DemystifySci #370
The DemystifySci Podcast
28.5k views
Where Biology Goes Off the Rails - Dr. Michael Levin, DemystifySci #369
The DemystifySci Podcast
27.4k views
Hidden Payoff of Civilizational Ruin - Dr. Dani Sulikowski, DemystifySci #360
The DemystifySci Podcast
40.7k views
David Deutsch: The Quantum Theory No One Dares Explain!
Dr Brian Keating
51.6k views
Top Comments (10)
Within the human brain, there is something (an internal frame of reference) that sees or hears the end result of that processing which is missing in a digital computer. A computer never sees the entire picture or hears the music, it only shifts numbers around.
My first really *hard* Physics course was Thermodynamics & Statistical Mechanics during the Fall Quarter of my Sophomore Year (40+ years ago). It was taught by Professor Peter Scott (1933-2024) who I had in one of my Freshman courses so I was familiar with his teaching style; we used "Thermodynamics, Kinetic Theory and Statistical Thermodynamics" by Sears & Salinger, in addition to his lectures. I found the math fairly straight-forward, but the *physical concepts* extremely subtle: I could compute a solution, but not really "get it". I learned that "Physics" isn't just doing computations in a physical context, but demands a deep understanding of the consequences of physical concepts.
Listen on the go at all podcast locations: https://anchor.fm/demystifysci Paradox Lost is now on pre-sale! https://buy.stripe.com/7sY7sKdoN5d29eUdYddEs0b Music on vinyl, bandcamp, or whatever: https://demystifysci-shop.fourthwall.com/products/vinyl-lp-secretary-of-nature-everything-is-so-good-here
Shiloh’s analysis of the huge issue with universities today (the misalignment of the original educational mission with administration corporate goals) is so important = devalued product
*AI:* "I'm sorry, *Doug* . ... I'm afraid I can't do that."
I think it would be great to invite neuroscientist Juan Carlos-Letelier to talk about language, cognition and autopoiesis.
23:27 amen sister. Entities interacting with entities is all there is, so causality (identical entities acting identically under identical essential conditions) is the driving regularity behind all there is.
I really appreciate your counterpoint to the purely numerical POV
Such a great conversation, and I always wanted to hear Werner Herzog talking about physics from a philosophical direction
Unzicker is a great example of the importance of an objective metaphysics and epistemology to progress physics at this point. He thinks a complete understanding of consciousness is needed in order to have a coherent epistemology.
Unlock the Data Inside
Turn Videos into Knowledge
- Get FREE 10/day: transcripts, summaries, chats
- Chat with videos, export text & PDF
- $1 free API credit for RAG, chatbots & research
Free forever plan • All features unlocked
Top Comments (10)
Within the human brain, there is something (an internal frame of reference) that sees or hears the end result of that processing which is missing in a digital computer. A computer never sees the entire picture or hears the music, it only shifts numbers around.
My first really *hard* Physics course was Thermodynamics & Statistical Mechanics during the Fall Quarter of my Sophomore Year (40+ years ago). It was taught by Professor Peter Scott (1933-2024) who I had in one of my Freshman courses so I was familiar with his teaching style; we used "Thermodynamics, Kinetic Theory and Statistical Thermodynamics" by Sears & Salinger, in addition to his lectures. I found the math fairly straight-forward, but the *physical concepts* extremely subtle: I could compute a solution, but not really "get it". I learned that "Physics" isn't just doing computations in a physical context, but demands a deep understanding of the consequences of physical concepts.
Listen on the go at all podcast locations: https://anchor.fm/demystifysci Paradox Lost is now on pre-sale! https://buy.stripe.com/7sY7sKdoN5d29eUdYddEs0b Music on vinyl, bandcamp, or whatever: https://demystifysci-shop.fourthwall.com/products/vinyl-lp-secretary-of-nature-everything-is-so-good-here
Shiloh’s analysis of the huge issue with universities today (the misalignment of the original educational mission with administration corporate goals) is so important = devalued product
*AI:* "I'm sorry, *Doug* . ... I'm afraid I can't do that."
I think it would be great to invite neuroscientist Juan Carlos-Letelier to talk about language, cognition and autopoiesis.
23:27 amen sister. Entities interacting with entities is all there is, so causality (identical entities acting identically under identical essential conditions) is the driving regularity behind all there is.
I really appreciate your counterpoint to the purely numerical POV
Such a great conversation, and I always wanted to hear Werner Herzog talking about physics from a philosophical direction
Unzicker is a great example of the importance of an objective metaphysics and epistemology to progress physics at this point. He thinks a complete understanding of consciousness is needed in order to have a coherent epistemology.