Talk Shows the Mysterious Power of Mathematics

Here's a very interesting video from the Ted Talks on the origin of fractals, and how they are used extensively in African culture. It reminds me of why I find mathematical history so fascinating.

The speaker, Ron Eglash makes some broad, rather unsubstantiated claims in this, particularly when, like the proverbial man with the hammer who sees everything as a nail, he suggests capitalism is an out-of-control self-replicating system.

Nevertheless, Eglash makes a real contribution to our understanding of mathematics and culture, and raises truly fascinating questions. Particularly about the mysterious power that mathematics offers up to us out of the riddles at its core.

A Philosophically Rich Slice of Web Television

Here is a marvelous video discussion on Fora.Tv with Leonard Susskind, one of the fathers of "String Theory." What will you learn from it? Some very interesting ideas from physics:

• That when you get to the "basement" of the world as Susskind calls it, you find material reality evaporating into numbers.
• That at the bottom of everything you discover multiple dimensions of reality, maybe up to 11, which makes you wonder why we only have three (or four!).
• The "multiverse" theory of the universe, which suggests that our world is but one emanation from the multiple potentialities that those basement numbers possess.

Also contained in this rich discussion is insight into the origins of the "Intelligent Design" theory, as championed these days by the Seattle-based Discovery Institute, and its intellectual roots in philosopher William Paley's "watchmaker" argument for God. It states that basically some things are so complex (such as the "eye") as to not be reducible to bits of matter coming together randomly a la evolution.

Susskind takes issue with Intelligent Design. Call it his "argument from intellectual curiosity." He doesn't deny the existence of God. But, basically, he won't stop looking to reduce things, because he is naturally curious, and perhaps because there is a risk to science in doing so.

I can completely respect his point of view. He strikes me as intellectually honest. However, listen carefully as he describes the Darwinists' refutation of intelligent design of the eye. It sounds not so much as a description, but as enormous guesswork. See # 16, Q2. There is something odd about accepting that much guesswork as "satisfactory."

All in all, however, this is a fantastic presentation, and a demonstration of the cultural potential of the Web. Congratulations to ForaTv for capturing it.