วีดีโอ

One of the greatest minds of the 20th Century. Basic Von Neumann architecture is used in every computer on the planet.

Once a profession is established ideas are carefully selected that will support current doctrine. Any ides that threaten that domain are universally ridiculed or ignored. This is why String Theory has been stuck for so long. The principle of Nature lies deep within it's concept but seeing the simplicity of it's true nature requires theoretical physicists to not make Nature look perfectly symmetrical. Asymmetry is key to unlocking the understanding the truth lying deep within Nature's laws.

Finishing my PhD in high energy physics in a couple of months. This video says nothing of substance. Waste of 11 minutes. Academia and physics has its problems, but this particular video doesn't touch any of them. Or anything meaningful, really.

The new kid on the block for sure. Great times ahead. Seen him twice and sense greatness. Makes me want to take it serious.

sry for being so late, that one took me a while 😄 Great editing! 🤗 Can't imagine how many micro-decisions had to be made 🤭 I think subtitles would be great and make it much more accessible. Also chapter marks could help. All in all: A historic document, in my book 😍

Thank you so much for posting full length interviews vs the shorts.

Dark matter is proof physics barking up wrong tree

someone buy this gentleman a strap for his glasses

Great to hear an explanation of theoretical physics. Lots of complexity in how things have developed.

Its far from a theory explaining nature. Its only a framework in which to frame such a theory. It really has no explanotory power, but it gives a way how theories can be formed outside of space time. And thats amazing. But, the question still remains, why universe exist and why it is this specific way.

I knew, one day someone would explain whats going on.

I promise you: We are cartoons drawing cartoon tools.

*If he had lived long enough, Mr. Von Neumann would likely have won a Nobel Prize -- in Economics, for his work on Game Theory. But Nobel Prizes in Economics were not awarded until 1969, more than a dozen years after Mr. Von Neumann's death.*

What about Wolfram’s idea that black holes and electrons might be the same thing. So causally disconnected regions in the data structure. does that relate to the idea of a particle being a Conwayesque structure?

I was looking for the date or at least year of the interview, but instead discovered Los Alamos is run by "Triad National Security, LLC," which is both more personally relevant and something I should have known.

Yay finally get to see the whole thing. Thanks for interview.

When I was around 13 years old, over 30 years ago, I was thinking deeply about time and the speed of light, and other things like zetos paradox. I came to the conclusion then that either time or space or probably both HAD to be discreet, it was the only answer that made any sense. Ive been troubled ever since, until I found out about Wolfram's physics, that noone in science was talking about this. Tbh learning about WP was a relief. At least now I know it's something someone is studying earnestly, and that gives me much comfort.

Pure gold. My favourite new generation scientist, J.G. Thanks for your effort, both.

13:53 nine minutes of gold: on computationalism and constructivism “people confuse the substrate of a model for a statement about ontology” This reminded me of Joscha Bach talking about how “Correspondence Theories” are fundamentally flawed: it can’t be about setting individual pointers to reality right, because models can per definition only point (and talk) within themselves. th-cam.com/video/XsGfCfMQgNs/w-d-xo.htmlsi=Y5kRvydF131HHinB 22:39 “… there are situations in which you can prove formally: No experiment that you can in principle do, could distinguish wether the universe is discrete or continuous”, “it keeps running away from you” 31:30 nine more minutes of pure gold: wanting rewriting rules that preserve distance in the causal structure (- otherwise you would lose a notion of locality) - the hypergraph is what drops out naturally / obviously 40:55 implementation: how to do the plumbing 46:44 Edit: I finally have time to continue with this video. 1:34:14 The multiverse is more trivial than the universe. - Intuition: There is some content to the universe. // In my own words: You have to have starting conditions; you can’t just start with rules and arrive at our universe; the rules have to act on something preexisting. You can have a multiverse from nothing, but you can’t have “our” universe from nothing. It’s like a (random number?) “seed” in a sandbox-(computer-)game, that distinguishes this universe from all possible universes. 1:39:01 Where to place the computational burden? Bottom Up, or Top Down? The role of the observer in “slicing the Ruliad”. 1:41:10 Being more realistic about the nature of the observer: GR and QM were a start, what’s the next logical step? The observer imposes a coarse graining / “fake rules”: the observer imposes causal invariance post-hoc. 1:50:13 getting QM for free (- I’ll have to rewatch that a few more times.) 2:10:47 GR is more generic / less “special” than one might have hoped for: it applies quite “naturally” to a large part of possible hypergraph rewriting rules; it doesn’t narrow down / pick out “our” universe; vice versa: our type of universe might not be uncommon in the hypothetical space of reasonably constructed universes. 2:12:58 particles

The physical <> computational correspondence clicked for me when I realized how distributed computing is inherently bound by special relativity, and you can directly observe the effects here (and you have to work around them).

uploading a 3 hour video with no timestamps is very unethical

Neat.

You even know what your working on you little freak

🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🐸😊

Your perspectives and videos have been very helpful. Thank you.

Well said.

"Wake up kids, we have a Last Theory upload."

The theory of the mule and the cockroach! Planet of the apes is planet of endless wonders!

Settling in with the popcorn

Informative and candid interview! Well done 👏

Incredible. I love the wolfram physics project! Can't wait to see more progress

👍 You had the best interview with Jonathan. I would love to hear another one

So this is the interview from last year?

You might be wrong saying Von Neumann understood math. In the man's own words "... in mathematics you don't understand things. You just get used to them."

J. von Neumann was an intellectual thief. I am well aware of the credit that he STOLE for ENIAC. I'd sooner trust Klaus Fuchs and David Greenglass with my intellectual property.

He's just autistic. Autistic with genius IQ and high conscientiousness and curiosity. I believe he's a great man.

The entire time this dude was giving this talk he was listening to Europe performing the song "The Final Countdown" on loop at top volume.

"Wolfram physics" is proposing to use certain mathematical tools (graphs, automata...) as the basic tools to formulate physics (formalism). Those are powerful tools that are currently not much used in physics. So, there is much "space" to investigate and potentially much to contribute to Physics itself. "Wolfram physics" also proposes a set of ideas of how to "represent" many physical facts (like space dimensions, or QM superposition etc.) in terms of those mathematical tools (hyper graphs and automata). In a way it is similar to string and M-theories that uses mathematical tools like spaces (and also objects) with higher dimensions and different topologies and other "advanced" mathematical tools (and should not be called "theories" either). I think that "wolfram physics" is promising, but, like in the case of the "string theory", there exist the "trap" of forgetting that this is physics (not mathematics) and that empirically testable (falsifiable!) predictions should be made asap. An exposition of "wolfram physics" should begin by saying how the main concepts in "standard" physics emerge, for it to have some meaning to physicists. It should begin by saying, for instance: how is the spacetime interval defined in terms of the graphs/hypergraph, or how do the "amplitudes of probability" and phases of QM emerge. Does a point of spacetime corresponds to a node in the hypergraph? or does it corresponds to certain graph structures? etc. etc.

A work colleague and I were discussing this very question the other week. He has a degree in physics whereas im just a commoner. His explanation was that Stephens work isn't attached to any university amd therefore there is a snobbish ignoring of it.

Does anyone here know if these models naturally collapse from infinite to 3 dimensional in particular?

Nice!

For Gosh sakes it was “Johnny.” Teller, Bethe,Feynman- none of them ever called him “ John.”

Lovely!

I agree that most of physicists , especially in the field of particles research, are very closed minded to anything new. They just want to repeat what they read in a book and never try something else.

In terms of the observer vs the universe, it maybe that fractal processes underlie the evolution of the universe and that somehow, the observer and the initial conditions and fractal processes of the early universe are equivalent. Here, the observer is a consequence of the observed but that the qualities of the observer that arose from the observed are the elements that permit limited observation. In other words, just as you can see copies of the Buddha in the Mandelbrot set (each being non-identical but yet mostly similar to the original form) so it is possible that varying structures generated by the universe exhibit consciousness, and that human consciousness is simply residing at some level of the overall fractal expansion of the whole universe. In this model the universe develops consciousness and that consciousness re-synthesizes self-consciousness, which itself re-synthesizes consciousness. Thus, our view of the universe is distorted by our own internal mental representations which have arisen as a result of our exposure to the world. The output of our consciousness will inform the development of human beings yet to come, such that their conscious experiences in 400 years from now~~~having been modified by the output of 400 years more observing~~maybe unfathomable by our current human paradigms.

In terms of bottom up versus top-down or downwards causation, we see this clearly in molecular biology. For instance, it's clear that amino-acids combine to form proteins: the folding of strings of amino acids under the control of post-translational modification during the transit of newly synthesised amino-acid strings through the golgi apparatus leads to secondary structures that further fold into tertiary structures. These can then combine into quaternary structures which form functional proteins or enzymes. If those proteins happen to be Histones, they are sent to the nucleus to act as spools that DNA is wrapped around in order to facilitate the compression of DNA. One spool is composed of 4 histones, and many spools in sequence combine to condense the whole DNA string for a chromosome. Yet, that step is not enough: further folding of that string of spools into a rope conposed of spools and that rope is then folded upon itself to generate still more data compression~~~here we see evidence of bottom up processes leading to massive data compression. Yet, in order for any organism to survive, it must react to challenges in the environment. All the books in the library cannot be read unless they are first found, and second, extracted from the moving shelves~~by winding apart these moving book cases that sit on tracks to get access to the information. In the library system, a book is only read if am external agent comes to the library with the instruction to access a particular book. Similarly, if specific cell receptors are bound by their cognate ligands~~and if the ligands exist due to some change in the external world leading to the synthesis of a particular ligand~~then those bound receptors change their morphology such that second messengers connected to those receptors at the inner wall of the cell membrane become enzymatically modified. This event kicks off a whole sequence of modification events that travel towards the cell nucleus. Eventually, the signal reaches the nucleus leading to changes in Histone configuration that permit a section of DNA to be unwound and copied into messenger RNA. That mRNA is then cleaved of its non-coding sections and then sent to the protein manufacturing factory (the Rough Endoplasmic Reticulum) where the mRNA is used as a blueprint for the construction of a string of amini-acids. Ergo, the external world acts upon structures generated from a bottom up construction, leading to an internal response to the external challenge. Complex systems may form from bottom up cooperation due to non-component specific interactions leading to emergent structures and resulting functionality. Yet, due to complex structures sitting at the edge of chaos, external events can radically change the internal system such that the internal system rearranges itself into an alternative state. From the pov of modelling, this biological complexity will be hard to find from bottom up assumptions just because chaotic systems evolve quite differently from relatively minor changes in initial conditions, yet the question is which precise conditions lead to human biological systems. It might be practically impossible to bottom up reconstruct human biology, ergo you might need to start with that system and work backwards to define which sets of initial conditions exist that would permit evolution of eukaryotic biological systems.

CERN is total BS

I’m not understanding. Why would the physics community deny a better method offered by Wolfram… How could one deny the reality of a solution?

The Standard Model was fairly complete by the mid 1980s. The Higgs boson was detected at the LHC in 2012. And that's about it - nothing major has happened in fundamental physics since then. All BSM (beyond the standard model) hypotheses have come up short. Strings, supersymmetry, axions, etc - none of these have been detected. Why? Because they don't exist. But the real problem is at the very core of every research university - the obsession with getting grant money. I was a graduate student in physics when I had the realization that what REALLY mattered was getting grants - I saw professors spending more time writing grant proposals than doing actual research. A friend of mine, an oceanography professor, told me flat out that tenure depended on how much money one could bring in. At that point, I decided I really didn't want to go down that road. Yes, I got my PhD, but I went to a teaching college instead of a research university. Honestly, researchers scrambling for the next big grant reminds me of drug addicts looking for the next fix. All the thousands of papers on the arxiv are just there to get grant money - most of them are at best minor results and at worst complete garbage. Well, I've said my peace.

This little "unstable" patterns / knots, Could be the equivalent to dark matter or dark energy? Something that is definitively there but we cannot see.