วีดีโอ

I totally agree. QM is an information theory that uses linear algebra to model physical systems. It works on a high level where it accurately predicts the outcome of many experiments or events in a statistical framework It fails to explain what is really going on. This leads to many equivalent and non testable interpretations. We need a completely new conceptual framework that invokes new metaphysics. We have hit a limit and must start over. Lee Smolin is on the right track. Go back to the Greeks.

0:54 not a good argument 😂 You could say that about anything, in 500 years time nobody's going to be doing anything that we're doing now!

Of course given we haven’t found such an experiment it’s also possible that there is no such experiment which shows quantum mechanics breaks down and efforts to find such an experiment (if that is the sole purpose of those efforts) may also be in vein.

How about not 200 years time but 2 years time? 1) Quantum particles have no inherent properties.

It is silly to look for QM from LHC. The point is scaling up from few atoms to many atoms, what to observe in an ideal experiment and how to set the ideal experiment.

So we're all going to become god's. Mormons are going to love this theory

Do these guys shit on the street? Or house trained?

After being gifted with great knowledge Why let a little knowledge of belief destroy you doesn't take medication nor eat from other spiritual backgrounds ?

Missing understanding the electron is the results of the computation it doesn’t need to do computation to decide where to go at least that’s my understanding

1st like is mine...

Any computer simulation of quantum mechanics needs to deal with the Courant-Friedrichs-Levy condition and the prospect of the simulation needing to run in exponential time. We may come up with a bright idea but it is likely to fail on these points. My own bright idea is adding tachyonic Brownian motion to a simulation of an alpha particle hitting two molecules of nitrogen tri-iodide.

Bro loves his fucking automata.

I've seen relational database applications that were built by people who didn't study computer science, and it was obvious that they didn't, because the databases were nowhere near 3rd normal form, the performance of the applications was abysmal, data redundancy, what's a primary key? more prone to corruption, you name it every amateur database design error in the book was made. And for a short time I worked for these people, I would try and show them the error of their ways, but no their way was better. They were completely clueless, and these terribly performing databases were out there being used by customers who of course knew no better. Head shaking stuff.

A physicist "understanding" a mathematical model is the same thing as a Geocentric Epicyclist "understanding" why planets go retrograde. To have an "understanding" of phenomena viewed through a wrong paradigm is not exactly a good thing.

I agree with Wolfram that the Many Worlds implementation of QM is the most sensible one.

And still the old Feynman saying stands "if you think you understand quantum mechanics then you don't understand quantum mechanics". That was 4 minutes of nonsense

what is going on with the circular area on the board right behind the back of his head? xD wth is this wobblyness when his head comes close? xD

what he is calling "Ruliad" is called "Brahman" in Vedanta. It is the exact same "thing", except its not a "thing" in traditional sense

What? Say something and say nothing at the same time! I lost 4 minutes of my life!

tldw: Go into a field that uses computation to do x, instead of study computation for computation sake, CS should be abolished and split into several fields that are more specialized.

Stephen is (has always been?) an eccentric with a mouth too big for his brain. a modicum of success turns otherwise normal people into raving, self-assured lunatics.

I like the 2 passive virgins sitting beside him.

I published a dozen Palmilot apps in 68000 assembly language.

No-code AI tools make programming obsolete.

I used to think Stephen Wolfram was one of the smartest people to ever live but now he just sounds like a nutjob like Michio Kaku. And he blatantly takes claim for writing books that he does not write.

Wolf's a smart guy and all due respect to him, but no he doesn't understand QM. How could he even address the "knowing" subject without mentioning/addressing Bell's theorem? Knowing in a broad sense means replacing the statistical mechanics with classical mechanics. A much more fruitful path to understanding comes from following De Broglie's ideas about wave mechanics and physical interpretation of such. Google (and youtube) around on "walking drops" for some insightful experiments in that regard. Yet Bell looms large over all these considerations... it's hard to get around the guy (grin). He really earned that Nobel.

Maybe humility?

There is no merging in the quantum many-worlds. The only way to turn two branches into one is when they are identical.

I'll say something more coherent, which is that CS majors should take their math and CS theory courses seriously, and not fall into the "why do I need this to be a software engineer?" attitude, that we see in undergrads all the time. Building your theory skills will allow you to adapt faster to new trends, and stand out in the workplace. It's not the only path to success, it's not required for all paths, but I see too many undergrads with a bad attitude for it (and then they worry about being replaced with AI...).

Whats the difference between computational & ...determined according to the laws that governs in certain time and location..?

Well said.

This is nonsense. It's got nothing to do with minds or brains. (Although I for one believe minds are important aspects of reality, but for totally different reasons). Quantum mechanics can be understood if you admit closed timelike curves into general relativity. When you do, GR is _already a quantum theory._ There is no need for branching, and no "wavefunction of the universe" except for purposes of description when you lack the ability to compute the effects of CTCs (which we do, so we do in fact need the tricks, and QFT is one such good trick.) By the way, the latter is what Feynman understood, although he did not understand GR could admit CTCs. We'd only get paradoxes if CTCs permit macroscopic objects traversals, but they do not. Only a "qubit" can traverse a Planck scale CTC (aka. ER=EPR wormhole traversal).

Someone is still not over failing those first-year CS proof courses. Let it go Stephen!

WTF is he talking about

My favorite part is how the video stopped before it even answered the question in the title

Lol what “model” does she suggest that businesses use online to stay afloat! These liberals are so quick to criticize capitalism, but they never have alternatives

Not only that, he is a thief (one of the sick irrational thief apes who have stolen and polluted human thoughts.m, such as Time and space as one indivisible unit,….etc

I browsed Wolframs book where he, a long time ago, tried to do something we claimed were phys8cs. I also browsed a book Hubbard, the father of Scientology wrote on his stuff. They were pretty much of the same quality! It isn't just AI:s which can hallucinate! We all do that while dreaming, but only a few of us can write like that while awake. They were awake, weren't they?

He seems to be describing universe as a giant git repository..

just study some combination of Math, Computer Science, Electrical Engineering, Physics with some hints of Biology, Economics and Philosophy

Yes, you got it! All conceivable realities actually exist and are real for “those” in that frame of reference. So we are part of “all those realities” (we are actually projecting them), and we simply collapse one of the infinite realities into our experience and call it “come to pass”. This is the essence of the Observer Effect. That’s all that QM really describes. 👍🏼

so we're dealing with histories we don't know about but we are a part of ? Sexy, exotic

So if you go ask your professor and they don't have anything sensible to say, can you say that you were probably barking up the wrong tree branch?

It has been shown. that in certain circumstances there is a high probability, that is when things line up, it happens. Inconclusively!

Wolfram is completely wrong about computer science in the 70s. I graduated in 1975 with a Computational Science degree and went on to a PhD where the thrust of the department and my research was to close the semantic gap between the computational problem and the language used to program solutions. There was no reason to use assembly language in 1973; there were several high level languages such as Algol 68, Simula and so on. I used C and PL360 (Niklaus Wirth). We also studied how to write programs to solve problems (e.g stepwise refinement). Dijkstra was a well known figure in writing "correct" programs. There was work on proving programs correct. Simula had already introduced object orientedness and Smalltalk took it further. Parallel programming was being looked at (Hoare). The 1970s and 1980s were very interesting, ground breaking times in computing science.

Why is Wolfram talking to two nodding dummies??

Is our world made up of a 3D/4D sponge with the 4D dimension hidden from us except in out observations of Quantum interactions?? If quarks have not been isolated and gluons have not been isolated, how do we know they are not parts of the same thing? The tentacles of an octopus and the body of an octopus are parts of the same creature. Is there an alternative interpretation of "Asymptotic Freedom"? What if Quarks are actually made up of twisted tubes which become physically entangled with two other twisted tubes to produce a proton? Instead of the Strong Force being mediated by the constant exchange of gluons, it would be mediated by the physical entanglement of these twisted tubes. When only two twisted tubules are entangled, a meson is produced which is unstable and rapidly unwinds (decays) into something else. A proton would be analogous to three twisted rubber bands becoming entangled and the "Quarks" would be the places where the tubes are tangled together. The behavior would be the same as rubber balls (representing the Quarks) connected with twisted rubber bands being separated from each other or placed closer together producing the exact same phenomenon as "Asymptotic Freedom" in protons and neutrons. The force would become greater as the balls are separated, but the force would become less if the balls were placed closer together. Therefore, the gluon is a synthetic particle (zero mass, zero charge) invented to explain the Strong Force. An artificial Christmas tree can hold the ornaments in place, but it is not a real tree. String Theory was not a waste of time, because Geometry is the key to Math and Physics. However, can we describe Standard Model interactions using only one extra spatial dimension? What did some of the old clockmakers use to store the energy to power the clock? Was it a string or was it a spring? What if we describe subatomic particles as spatial curvature, instead of trying to describe General Relativity as being mediated by particles? Fixing the Standard Model with more particles is like trying to mend a torn fishing net with small rubber balls, instead of a piece of twisted twine. “We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question which divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct.” Neils Bohr (lecture on a theory of elementary particles given by Wolfgang Pauli in New York, c. 1957-8, in Scientific American vol. 199, no. 3, 1958) The following is meant to be a generalized framework for an extension of Kaluza-Klein Theory. Does it agree with some aspects of the “Twistor Theory” of Roger Penrose, and the work of Eric Weinstein on “Geometric Unity”, and the work of Dr. Lisa Randall on the possibility of one extra spatial dimension? During the early history of mankind, the twisting of fibers was used to produce thread, and this thread was used to produce fabrics. The twist of the thread is locked up within these fabrics. Is matter made up of twisted 3D-4D structures which store spatial curvature that we describe as “particles"? Are the twist cycles the "quanta" of Quantum Mechanics? When we draw a sine wave on a blackboard, we are representing spatial curvature. Does a photon transfer spatial curvature from one location to another? Wrap a piece of wire around a pencil and it can produce a 3D coil of wire, much like a spring. When viewed from the side it can look like a two-dimensional sine wave. You could coil the wire with either a right-hand twist, or with a left-hand twist. Could Planck's Constant be proportional to the twist cycles. A photon with a higher frequency has more energy. ( E=hf, More spatial curvature as the frequency increases = more Energy ). What if Quark/Gluons are actually made up of these twisted tubes which become entangled with other tubes to produce quarks where the tubes are entangled? (In the same way twisted electrical extension cords can become entangled.) Therefore, the gluons are a part of the quarks. Quarks cannot exist without gluons, and vice-versa. Mesons are made up of two entangled tubes (Quarks/Gluons), while protons and neutrons would be made up of three entangled tubes. (Quarks/Gluons) The "Color Charge" would be related to the XYZ coordinates (orientation) of entanglement. "Asymptotic Freedom", and "flux tubes" are logically based on this concept. The Dirac “belt trick” also reveals the concept of twist in the ½ spin of subatomic particles. If each twist cycle is proportional to h, we have identified the source of Quantum Mechanics as a consequence twist cycle geometry. Modern physicists say the Strong Force is mediated by a constant exchange of Gluons. The diagrams produced by some modern physicists actually represent the Strong Force like a spring connecting the two quarks. Asymptotic Freedom acts like real springs. Their drawing is actually more correct than their theory and matches perfectly to what I am saying in this model. You cannot separate the Gluons from the Quarks because they are a part of the same thing. The Quarks are the places where the Gluons are entangled with each other. Neutrinos would be made up of a twisted torus (like a twisted donut) within this model. The twist in the torus can either be Right-Hand or Left-Hand. Some twisted donuts can be larger than others, which can produce three different types of neutrinos. If a twisted tube winds up on one end and unwinds on the other end as it moves through space, this would help explain the “spin” of normal particles, and perhaps also the “Higgs Field”. However, if the end of the twisted tube joins to the other end of the twisted tube forming a twisted torus (neutrino), would this help explain “Parity Symmetry” violation in Beta Decay? Could the conversion of twist cycles to writhe cycles through the process of supercoiling help explain “neutrino oscillations”? Spatial curvature (mass) would be conserved, but the structure could change. ===================== Gravity is a result of a very small curvature imbalance within atoms. (This is why the force of gravity is so small.) Instead of attempting to explain matter as "particles", this concept attempts to explain matter more in the manner of our current understanding of the space-time curvature of gravity. If an electron has qualities of both a particle and a wave, it cannot be either one. It must be something else. Therefore, a "particle" is actually a structure which stores spatial curvature. Can an electron-positron pair (which are made up of opposite directions of twist) annihilate each other by unwinding into each other producing Gamma Ray photons? Does an electron travel through space like a threaded nut traveling down a threaded rod, with each twist cycle proportional to Planck’s Constant? Does it wind up on one end, while unwinding on the other end? Is this related to the Higgs field? Does this help explain the strange ½ spin of many subatomic particles? Does the 720 degree rotation of a 1/2 spin particle require at least one extra dimension? Alpha decay occurs when the two protons and two neutrons (which are bound together by entangled tubes), become un-entangled from the rest of the nucleons . Beta decay occurs when the tube of a down quark/gluon in a neutron becomes overtwisted and breaks producing a twisted torus (neutrino) and an up quark, and the ejected electron. The production of the torus may help explain the “Symmetry Violation” in Beta Decay, because one end of the broken tube section is connected to the other end of the tube produced, like a snake eating its tail. The phenomenon of Supercoiling involving twist and writhe cycles may reveal how overtwisted quarks can produce these new particles. The conversion of twists into writhes, and vice-versa, is an interesting process, which is also found in DNA molecules. Could the production of multiple writhe cycles help explain the three generations of quarks and neutrinos? If the twist cycles increase, the writhe cycles would also have a tendency to increase. Gamma photons are produced when a tube unwinds producing electromagnetic waves. ( Mass=1/Length ) The “Electric Charge” of electrons or positrons would be the result of one twist cycle being displayed at the 3D-4D surface interface of the particle. The physical entanglement of twisted tubes in quarks within protons and neutrons and mesons displays an overall external surface charge of an integer number. Because the neutrinos do not have open tube ends, (They are a twisted torus.) they have no overall electric charge. Within this model a black hole could represent a quantum of gravity, because it is one cycle of spatial gravitational curvature. Therefore, instead of a graviton being a subatomic particle it could be considered to be a black hole. The overall gravitational attraction would be caused by a very tiny curvature imbalance within atoms. In this model Alpha equals the compactification ratio within the twistor cone, which is approximately 1/137. 1= Hypertubule diameter at 4D interface 137= Cone’s larger end diameter at 3D interface where the photons are absorbed or emitted. The 4D twisted Hypertubule gets longer or shorter as twisting or untwisting occurs. (720 degrees per twist cycle.) How many neutrinos are left over from the Big Bang? They have a small mass, but they could be very large in number. Could this help explain Dark Matter? Why did Paul Dirac use the twist in a belt to help explain particle spin? Is Dirac’s belt trick related to this model? Is the “Quantum” unit based on twist cycles? I started out imagining a subatomic Einstein-Rosen Bridge whose internal surface is twisted with either a Right-Hand twist, or a Left-Hand twist producing a twisted 3D/4D membrane. This topological Soliton model grew out of that simple idea.

Well it turns out: He does not know more than any other individual on the planet. He just uses different words and cites Everettian hypotheses which are still considererd strange - compatible with assumptions, calculations, possible but not really something that can be understood (rather than accepted as being not refuted). What is this bragging all about? I don’t get it.

This is nothing new. He’s just rehashing the Everettian interpretation of QM and like he does so often fails to credit precursors for their ideas and acts like he thought this up himself.

In a nutshell, he meant they still don’t understand quantum mechanics.