Yes, that's right, it's just a brief overview of the origins of the project. There's much more of substance to come from this interview, that I'll be releasing in upcoming videos. Also, if it's explanation you're after, I have 64 other videos explaining the theory already on this channel. A good place to start is with this playlist: th-cam.com/play/PLVwcxwu8hWKnCIn_SXq8myTf2JH6ee83U.html
Yes, this is a real highlight for me, to be able to talk to Stephen Wolfram himself. And our conversation lasted three hours, so much more to come from it! Thanks for following along up to this high point!
General relativity and quantum mechanics will never be combined until we realize that each individual observer is observing them both at different moments in time. Because causality has a speed limit (c) every point in space where one observes it from will be the closest to the present moment. When one looks out into the universe they see the past which is made of particles (GR). When one tries to measure the position of a particle they are observing smaller distances and getting closer to the present moment (QM). The wave property of particles appears when we start trying to predict the future of that particle. A particle that has not had an interaction exists in a future state. It is a probability wave because the future is probabilistic. Wave function collapse is what we perceive as the present moment and is what divides the past from the future. GR is making measurements in the observed past and therefore, predictable. It can predict the future but only from information collected from the past. QM is attempting to make measurements of the unobserved future and therefore, unpredictable. Only once a particle interacts with the present moment does it become predictable. If we could observe a particle light years away up close enough it too would appear as a probability wave. Therefore if we could observe the universe in the present moment all matter would be a probability wave. This universal probability wave collapsing into the present is what separates the past from the future and general relativity from quantum mechanics.
Thanks Ned. Yes, that's a big question, and not one that was addressed in this brief story of the origins of The Wolfram Physics Project. I'm currently working on a series of videos that'll explain this: how General Relativity emerges from the hypergraph, and how Quantum Mechanics emerges _in the same way_ from the causal graph. It's a much longer story than can fit into a 9-minute video, but I'm working on it! In the meantime, for a high-level overview, take a look here: www.wolframphysics.org/technical-introduction/potential-relation-to-physics/correspondence-between-relativity-and-quantum-mechanics/
Wow- a parrelel- c and the speed of entanglement- amazing- two theories are the same. Let's add "but in different kinds of space" after four years, and then smth else after another four- and again- and again- no one will understand that we have nothing anyways. I mean, doesn't that framework incorporate both models by design? They ARE different within this framework. Of course, both have the same root. What's revelatory about that!?!?
@@GEMSofGOD_com Just to be clear, the "different kinds of space" has been part of the model from the start. Take a look here in the original technical introduction: www.wolframphysics.org/technical-introduction/potential-relation-to-physics/correspondence-between-relativity-and-quantum-mechanics/
Thanks for this interview. I'd personally appreciate a longer format (even if released less frequently) as sometimes I forget the previous weeks content. Since the concepts are tightly coupled, it helps my concentration if they flow more continuously.
Yes, I appreciate that works better for some people, and I will eventually release the entire conversation as a single video. It's going to take a while to edit and annotate, though, so I will be putting it out as a series of excerpts first. Thanks for your patience!
For those of the interested layman persuasion, short bursts give time to contemplate, "read" around, understand and most of all digest and assimilate. So both approaches!
Could be both. Right now he doesn't exactly even have a theory, rather a framework for a theory. It's incredibly compelling, but until someone finds an updating rule that generates hypergraphs with characteristics similar enough to our current understanding of physics to be promising, yet different enough to be testable, it's a meta theory.
He really is on "Something" very revolutionary, but unfortunately this has been published already. Just find the book - "Theory of Everything in Physics and the Universe" - There is the union between the physics of Micro and Macro Cosmos.
Right, thanks Kelly, it's a question, for sure. One thing that gives me confidence that this is real is Jonathan Gorard's early involvement in the project. He has shown that this isn't just computational games, but maps on to real physics in a precise, mathematical way.
@niblick616 No, there's really nothing to confirm, yet, since no novel predictions have come out of the framework. I really think that physicists should be taking a closer look at these ideas, though, than they have done to date. Sabine Hossenfelder agrees th-cam.com/video/-yzdjziS-bo/w-d-xo.html
Thanks Neale! Here's a good place to start on the relationship between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics: www.wolframphysics.org/technical-introduction/potential-relation-to-physics/correspondence-between-relativity-and-quantum-mechanics/ I'm hoping to make this easier to grasp with future videos specifically on this topic. So much to cover!
"but played out in different kinds of space" didn't exist the initial revelation in Stephen's dialogue with Weinstein. Finding parallels between c and entanglement speed is... Man, I just can't. Just no.
@@GEMSofGOD_com By "played out in different kinds of space" Stephen means that General Relativity emerges from physical space (the hypergraph) in the same way as Quantum Mechanics emerges from causal space (the causal graph). And yes, I'll need to make a good few more videos to explain that properly!
Jesus! if you can't edit down the word salad and clickbait those of us who are genuinely fascinated by Wolfram, do you really think we are going to listen to another 12 videos where what seems to be on offer is just gratuitous fawning?
@@simonmasters3295 Hi Simon, You're welcome to watch the remaining excerpts from this conversation, and, of course, free not to watch if you'd prefer. I'm not going to edit Stephen Wolfram down, because that seems unfair to him. What I can promise is to continue to create my usual short ~8-minute explainer videos, explaining these ideas as briefly as I can. Hope you'll follow along!
It reminds me of Dune's God Emperor. He saw all possibilities at the same time, past and present and was able to choose the Golden Path, the only one that did not end. Does Wolfram plan to merge with a sand worm?
That is, a gravitating body dissipates a small part of its energy in the vacuum due to its fluctuations and thus distorts the trajectories of other objects around it in a probabilistic way (the probability of flying not in a straight line but towards a massive object increases). Did I understand correctly? That is, gravitons are not needed?
Great question but I think we still have to wait a bit for a real answer. The main idea (as I understood it) is, that particles and fields and all are what happens, when rewriting rules in the multigraph are applied. Maybe they will get more in depth in the following videos 🤗
Thanks Yarov. And yes, @harriehausenman8623, Stephen and I get into particles more deeply later in the conversation, though not so much into gravity. So let me give this my best effort at an answer. Mass/energy emerges from the Wolfram model as _tangling_ in the hypergraph. (To be technical, mass/energy corresponds to the flux of causal edges through spacelike hypersurfaces.) And, of course, tangling of the hypergraph changes the shortest path through the hypergraph for any passing particles. (Again, to be technical, it changes the _geodesic,_ which is the path particles will follow through space, or, in the Minkowskian framing, through space-time.) And the effects of the mass/energy, i.e. of the tangling of the hypergraph, can propagate outwards, through the repeated application of hypergraph rewriting rules, eventually, if the tangling is significant, affecting the shortest paths through the hypergraph at a great distance. So the Sun, which is an awful lot of mass/energy, changes the geodesic for the Earth, albeit after a delay of several minutes for the effect to propagate through the hypergraph. So, to get to your question about gravitons, I could answer it either way. You _could_ think about this propagation of the effects of mass/energy through the hypergraph in terms of the propagation of persistent tangles of the hypergraph, which you _could_ call gravitons. _Or_ you could just say that it's all just nodes and edges being rewritten by rules. I'm not sure even experiment will answer this question. Sure, there have been some hints of gravitons, or at least behaviour consistent with the hypothesis that gravitons exist. My suspicion is that we'll always need higher-level concepts like gravitons, even if the behaviour we're modelling ultimately reduces to the hypergraph and hypergraph rewriting rules. It's just that, as ever, we'll need to hold these concepts lightly.
@@YarUnderoaker The simplest definition is that energy is the flux of causal edges through spacelike hypersurfaces. For more detail, a good place to start is www.wolframphysics.org/technical-introduction/potential-relation-to-physics/matter-energy-and-gravitation/ And for a easier-to-follow explanation, including an explanation of the causal graph itself, well, I'm working on that. Hoping to get a video out on the causal graph soon, and on energy soon after that, and on how that feeds into the derivation of Einstein's equations from the hypergraph soon after that. So much to cover. Thanks Yarov!
Can you explain something to me about the Wolfram Physics Project. It connects to mainstream mathematics by suggesting that mathematical structures can be seen as different views of the same underlying computational rules. So, experimental physics in the Wolfram Physics project is to produce contemporary mathematics and make predictions about new math in addition to predictions about the physical world. Is that a correct understanding?
Thanks for the question. Are you referring to metamathematics, Stephen Wolfram's application of the ideas of hypergraph, causal graph, ruliad, etc. to mathematics? I'm less familiar with Stephen's ideas on this, so I'll limit my answer to the physics. Yes, the Wolfram model is a framework that can produce different kinds of physics depending on which rules are chosen. But it can be generalized, too: for example, whole classes of rules can give rise to the Einstein equations. And yes, eventually it should be able to produce concrete predictions that can be tested against physical reality. Hope that helps!
@@lasttheory I suppose I am talking about meta mathematics. For example, it’s an interesting question why the world we actually live in is so well described by Clifford Algebras. For example fermions represented by spinors are a Clifford algebra, spacetime geometry is a Clifford algebra, etc. I’m curious if familiar mathematical structures somehow “emerge” from the hyper graph and ruliad, etc. Where does mathematics come from, is an interesting philosophical question.
Is this the first real paradigm shift since Einstein and "that lot" responsible for quantum physics? A synthesis between information science and particle physics? The advantages of a generalist perspective coming from different angles gained from a lifetime of experience? There are terms here I've never heard of before, like "ruliads" and "hypergraphs". Thank you Professor Wolfram for some new stuff to think about. Plus you've got a cool name. Can we imagine "The Wolfram Drive", "Wolframian physics", "Wolfram generators". You have a name that needs to be put in front of stuff. I look forward to delving deeper, exciting!
i would say, yes. Computational Equivalence (which I'm sure he will talk about soon) is what mass-energy equivalence was to Einstein 100 years ago. It's an equivalence statement about all systems...and that then has consequences. Just like how we unlocked the power of the sun with Mass-Energy equivalence, Computational Equivalence unlocks a new kind of power..10x 100x over.
A quick look tells me computation theory is different from information theory. Not sure why that would be, isn't there kind of a big overlap? Without going into research papers on the topic, does computational equivalence not show up in information theory. I'm also bothered by irrational numbers, which brings infinity into the issue as irrational numbers can only be, by their nature, only computable to a finite number of digits. I don't know why I'm bothered, but if the Universe is computational, how do irrational numbers exist? You sound like you know what you're talking about, can you shed some light on this?
@@GeorgesDupont-do8pe Computational Equivalence is an equivalence statement about systems, specifically that "Any systems that follow rules are equivalent to a Turing universal machine" which stated more colloquially is "Systems that aren't obviously simple are going to be equivalent in their sophistication" or said another way "Turing Universality is ubiquitous." What that really means is that any system in front of you, is capable of computing any computable function. Whether that is the caterpillar in your hand...the iphone in your hand...the box of particles in your hand. Each system is doing computation that is as sophisticated as a Turing universal machine. They are all computationally equivalent. This principle implies that any system can be programmed, to behave like any other system. This was the plot of the New Kind of Science book where he shows how the Cellular Automata rule class emulate each others behavior under different initial conditions. IE: that rule 22, when given a certain initial condition (a set of instructions) can emulate the behavior of rule 90. the idea was to prove rule 110 as universal, and then under the logic of the emulation argument, the entire rule class is universal. This principle, and the idea of emulation that comes with it implies that all these systems are "dipping into" a shared state-space. That when a system "reaches out" into this statespace and starts behaving like a different system, is the basis for what the ruliad is. Thus, to get a system to behave like another system is an excercise in how to navigate, or sample this state space. When you listen to Wolfram speak, he uses these words..."sampling" and calling everything a "space" like "inter-concept space." It's no mistake when he uses this language; he is referring precisely to what is being stated here. That there is this underlying statespace all systems share, and this is the ruliad object. Hope that's enough to get you started. If you can't wait for Last Theory, fill the gap between uploads by watching wolframs New Kind of Science series he made. It will give you alot of pretext to help you understand his work. cheers.
GR and QFT playing out in separate space --- are 'unitary' operations the unifying element, excuse the pun? It's a SYMMETRY that relates-them, right? Do we have to use "Spinors", if it is a "symmetry[group]" or can we use simpler Pauli matrix?
Yes, that's right, it's a symmetry. I'm not deep enough into the physics, I'm afraid, to be able to answer your second question. I'll be working on better understanding the quantum mechanics side of the Wolfram model!
If time is a computational process, how did it initiate processing without there first being time in which to process to boot the time creation process? This is a bit of a bootstrap issue. Either this is a weak translation from math to language, or there would have to be an external initiating event.
If you think of the hypergraph as _being_ space rather than being _in_ space, then there's no question of there having to be a space _in_ which the hypergraph appears. It's the same with time. If you think of the applications of rules to the hypergraph as _being_ time rather than happening _in_ time, then there's no question of there having to be a time _in_ which the rules are applied.
We don't know if there was any creation process. I think we're caught up in a birth-death POV, where we see beginnings and endings. Maybe there's never been a beginning. Maybe there just *is*. Always was, always will be.
On the quantum side. The idea of a network rewrite sort of resonates for me with techniques like ZX algebra, used extensively in the field of quantum computing now.
Yes, there's definitely a link between ZX-Calculus and hypergraph rewriting. Take a look at these papers from Jonathan Gorard, Manojna Namuduri and Xerxes D. Arsiwalla: ZX-Calculus and Extended Hypergraph Rewriting Systems I: A Multiway Approach to Categorical Quantum Information Theory arxiv.org/abs/2010.02752 ZX-Calculus and Extended Wolfram Model Systems II: Fast Diagrammatic Reasoning with an Application to Quantum Circuit Simplification arxiv.org/abs/2103.15820
Thanks for the question. I don't think so, branes are a fundamentally different concept from the hypergraph, and String Theory and M-Theory are based in a fundamentally different paradigm: continuous and mathematical rather than discrete and computational.
@@lasttheory Thanks for replying. I had not heard of Wolfram's ideas and work before, still not sure exactly what he is saying, so will need to do a lot more reading and listening. I looked up hypergraphs, which I was also not familiar with, and tried to understand how & what was being represented and how that related to relativity. I was struck by how the planes formed by various groupings of points in a hypergraph could represent planes of relativity (slices of space with same relative time) and how the branes of string theory are akin to those planes of relativity ignoring scale etc i.e. visually similar when represented by hypergraph and at one level or scale, actually representing the same thing.
In terms of dimensionality, fractals are simply a special case of the hypergraph. Both can have non-integer dimensionality (e.g. be 2.37-dimensional), but the hypergraph is more general (and can be more chaotic).
Most of the existing ideas that fall under "quantum gravity" are attempts to reconcile general relativity and quantum mechanics within the existing continuous mathematical paradigm. The Wolfram model is a fundamentally different approach, based on a discrete hypergraph and application of rules computationally.
Space is a dielectric super fluid. Flows in space , flows in a dielectric fluid cause charge separation. Charge is an artifact of flows in space. There is only space, and flows in space. All particles can BEST be modeled as fluid flow structures in space. This is why I've always supported the strategy, though building a universe bottom up takes a while.
I love this man and I think he is a very smart fella indeed, very creative as well. But for the life of me I cant wrap my head around the ruliad no matter how much I read about it. It seems like a framework by which you can view a problem and possibly find connections within the framework that would help in this or that, but I fail to see its practical usefulness. I don't know if its failure in communication on the Wolframs team or maybe the concept is beyond explaining, but i would love to hear more about the subject matter that is more approachable or better explained. maybe with a video or something starting with the most basic concepts and working from there.
Totally agree. Whilst it’s more than likely that I’m simply not bright enough to understand it, I’d welcome an attempt at a designed-for-idiots explanation. Although I also suppose that may not be possible……
It's about creating a structure based on a simple rule. All possibilities are actualized and calculated. It could be useful to replace quantum mechanics by computational calculations. Overall it looks like superdeterminism but formalized and easy to program. It's not different than Copernicus. There was no reason to formalize the solar system with one simple rule, no direct usefulness, but it's simpler, easier to calculate and gives a better overall picture. But more importantly perhaps, it can scale.
Yes, the ruliad's not an easy idea to wrap your head around! I'm slowly releasing videos to explain all the different graphs - hypergraph, multiway graph, causal graph, etc. - but it'll take me a while longer to get to the ruliad. Working on it!
@@harriehausenman8623 Not on this one. I've done a couple of A/B tests before, but they've always come out 49% / 51%, not exactly conclusive. For this one, I just wanted to get it out as soon as I could, so I went with my first design.
Have you ever thought of treating space, time and light as the same because of our inability to measure under the Planck Scale? Light speed creates a logical barrier, a light wall (like the sound wall). Perhaps some hints are behind that light wall and smaller than the Planck scale. Yes, we cannot see beyond that, but the symmetry from the cellular automata can calculate it theoretically. By that nature could sidestep the light speed limitation of information transfer.
Yes, according to the Wolfram model, the hypergraph evolves at scales much smaller than the Planck scale (though _how_ much smaller is hard to say). Unlike General Relativity (at least in the Minkowskian framing), however, the model does hold space and time to be fundamentally different things: space is the hypergraph; time is the _evolution_ of the hypergraph.
Spacetime is light,just out of phase light. Pure frequency photonic domain out of spacetime doesnt have extention nor time ,light is maximaly contracted and time dilated,its everywhere at once,its communication happens at infinite speed,its perfect conductive( how pauli s exclusion principle knows where is every Electron in the univer instantl if this communication didnt happen outside spacetime at instantâneous speed?),it doesnt suffer Atomic Decay,its eternal. Photonic domain works in ortogonal angles, Spacetime out of ortogonal angles. This happens in the complex plane. There are walls separating each quadrant .each quadrant have 90°of course. 1st quadrant positive real Numbers(space)+positive imaginary Numbers (time) 2nd quadrant positive imaginary Numbers+negative real Numbers 3rd quadrant negative real Numbers+negative imaginary Numbers 4th quadrant negative imaginary Numbers+positive real Numbers. This gives total 360°,the circle(2pi) Relativity is derived from the movement of the point arround this circle and the Change of angular movement.change lorentz contractions to radians and you see relativity inbuilt in there. Spacetime is literaly made of complex Numbers ,spacetime is defined by all the angular moment other than 0_90_180_270_360°
So space time is actually a field of energy and the energy has momentum/inertia within the field. I don't know kinda sounds like an aether theory to me. What was old is new again.
Thanks, John. The existence of the hypergraph as a substrate for the universe is kinda reminiscent of aether, isn't it? Now I wish I'd asked Stephen about _that!_
A good model should still refer to basic physics: conservation laws (angular/linear momentum, energy), basic quantum mechanics, basic relativity, basic cosmology, physics constants, etc.
Yes, absolutely. And the Wolfram model _does_ refer to these basic physics: it has precise definitions of mass/energy and momentum; Einstein's equations of General Relativity can be derived from the model; aspects of Quantum Mechanics, too, emerge from the model.
Ok.. can't say how many wolfram videos I've clicked on now about theory X , just to listen to how amazing and wonderful theory X is instead, not a word about what it IS.. Is this just a sales pitch for a book? someone point me to video where he actually has something to say💔
Yes, sorry Ken, this really is a high-level overview of the origins of the theory. But I do have an entire channel's worth of videos on the theory itself. This playlist is a good place to start: th-cam.com/play/PLVwcxwu8hWKnCIn_SXq8myTf2JH6ee83U.html
If it's cake you're after, I have another 64 videos about Wolfram Physics on this channel, that dig deep into the details. This playlist is a good place to start: th-cam.com/play/PLVwcxwu8hWKnCIn_SXq8myTf2JH6ee83U.html
Hypergraph theory is really cool. Yet couldn't hypergraphs describe infinite universes, some with 4 space dimensions, etc.? And couldn't there be infinite mathematical or computational models that describe out universe? And wouldn't some families of these models be related and possibly indistinguishable from each other? It will be very interesting to find out what the testable predictions of each model is, which models are even testable (String Theory is not), which models pass tests, etc. I think Wolfram's model may be the best. I just get this feeling that we'll make it down to multiple candidates that could each describe our universe, and have no way of knowing whether hypergraph or some other computational/mathematical model is the "real" solution.
These are great questions and great observations. I agree, I suspect there will be multiple, even infinite, different models that match the observations we're able to make of our universe. But the Wolfram model _doesn't_ entail infinite possibilities. There are constraints. Yes, it allows for universe with numbers of dimensions other than 3 (more on this in the next excerpt of my conversation with Stephen). But it does _not_ allow for universes that don't conform to Einstein's equations. If the Wolfram model is right (and if we make a couple of other basic assumptions, such as causal invariance), then the universe _must_ conform to General Relativity.
If energy=curvature, then curvature=energy. Energy bends, and in our frame that looks like spacetime bending. But really energy is described by discretized fields.
YES... it takes a minimum effort to cause a reaction, a certain amount is required, either in terms of potency or duration of effect. If it is too weak or too short-lived, it has no effect. This can have two possible causes, either only suitable packages occur or the affected persons are stuck somewhere. In this case, however, solid, sticky structures would have to provide support in the middle of the vacuum. However, if there were really only exactly quantized energy packets, then they would really only need the void to fly from A to B. This variant sounds simpler at first and therefore more convincing, but not for the father of quantization, Max Planck. There are many more unanswered questions than there are answers. Why should nature rely on energy packets of all things? How do packets manage to seal themselves off from their surroundings? How do you pack precisely defined, always equally strong charges into them? Planck was not at ease with all this, but the spirit of the times, which had just chased the ether to hell, developed its folly and so it was the packet model, which every bread baker can understand, that prevailed. Today, a false theory of all things is allowed to stick to invisible structures in a vacuum, inertia sticks to the Higgs field. Wrong, inertia is sticking to each other without having to conjure up additional miracles out of a hat, just as Ernst Mach put it into play: “Atoms are not just small, circular parts, but expand into infinity, which is clearly recognizable by the gravitational attraction of all masses. Here, too, a clever fib was used to please the ether-taboo zeitgeist. How does space curve and why at all? Because you get a crooked hump if you have to carry too much mass?
For sure, Jonathan Gorard deserves a huge amount of the credit here, for relating the hypergraph to physics. I do think Stephen and Jonathan complement each other, though: Stephen the expansive, philosophical, big-ideas guy; Jonathan the agnostic, mathematical, brilliant thinker.
Dude, I know this is something you've wanted for long time. Who wouldn't? Really happy for you. (And keep the beard. It looks good!) The more Wolfram's ideas marinate, and the more I learn from other Physcists and computer science (I'm a software engineer), the more I think he's on to something. It takes time to metabolize these ideas.
Thanks! Yes, it does take a while to marinate, and I do find that these ideas seem more intuitive to software engineers, or at least anyone steeped in computation.
There have been many times in the history of physics when physicists have thought that a new idea _works_ but can't be _right._ Planck, for example, knew that the idea that light is quantized _works,_ but refused to believe in photons. Eventually everyone just agreed that since the idea that light is quantized works so well, we might as well just accept that the theory of photons is _right._
Thanks Sahil. I know that people really appreciate the annotations I add to my videos, so I'm going to keep on doing that, as I did with my conversation with Jonathan Gorard. It takes a little while, so I beg your patience as I slowly get there!
Thanks so much for spending your time on this Mark! Love getting your newsletter and so excited you got Stephen Wolfram on. Your love of physics shines through
If you want hard mathematics rather than the high-level summary, take a look at some of Jonathan Gorard's papers. Here is a good place to start: _Some Relativistic and Gravitational Properties of the Wolfram Model_ arxiv.org/abs/2004.14810 and _Some Quantum Mechanical Properties of the Wolfram Model_ www.complex-systems.com/abstracts/v29_i02_a02/
@lasttheory Yeah I read it, and no. It's gobbledygook maths mixed in with general relativity. Honestly, I have no idea where he's going with it, and I don't think anyone else does either.
Thanks! Almost exactly three years since I released my first video on The Last Theory, it's a true high point to have been able to talk to Stephen Wolfram for three hours!
Yes, sorry Randy, I did kind of put that out there as a _mention_ without explanation. I have much more to come on this, working on explaining how General Relativity emerges from the hypergraph _and_ how Quantum Mechanics emerges from the causal graph. It's going to take me a while to get there, though, so if you're looking for an explanation in the meantime, here's a good place to start: www.wolframphysics.org/technical-introduction/potential-relation-to-physics/correspondence-between-relativity-and-quantum-mechanics/
Very nice, and the usual Wolfram enthusiastic rhetoric. But beyond having found a new way of calculating old results, what are the actual fundamental new results he has found in physics? Where has he extended physics to resolve (or stat resolving) the various major uncertaintes in physics that remain? Has he published any of his breakthrough results in peer-reviewed literature to be subject to proper peer review? Have any new results been experimentally verified? I would be a lot more impressed if I heard clear and. specific examnples of where his approach has actually moved the boundaries of physics forward (beyond “a new kind of calculation”), and this had been scrutinised by fellow physicists and verified experimentalluy. If tthe scientific method was good enough for Einstein it should be good enough for Wolfram. Unclear why he appears to get a free pass on this? It would be much more impressive if scientists other than Wolfram himself were telling us how brilliant his thinking is.
Einstein didn’t use the scientific method. He took other people’s data, looked for whatever mathematical model quickest “fit the curves” so to speak, and then came up with some absolutely cookey philosophy to justify its immediate application. Absolutely nobody can tell you what relative space or time actually mean, or what the physical interpretation of the invariant light postulate is supposed to be. Consequently theories like GR have total nonsense interpretations today. A hundred years later most physicists are still using this “math-first” method instead of actual coming up with physical models that explain our theories, which is what we actually need.
Thanks, Paul. That's a lot of questions! I'll do my best to be brief in my answers. "actual fundamental new results" - there are no specific, testable predictions yet, though some ideas as to where they might come from: _ Where's the evidence for Wolfram Physics? with Jonathan Gorard_ th-cam.com/video/XLtxXkugd5w/w-d-xo.html&pp=gAQBiAQB "resolve … the various major uncertaintes in physics" - I think the most significant progress here is the beginnings of an explanation of the observer in quantum mechanics: _Observer Theory_ writings.stephenwolfram.com/2023/12/observer-theory/ "published any of his breakthrough results in peer-reviewed literature" - the crucial results are out there and available for any peers to review, e.g. Jonathan Gorard's seminal papers arxiv.org/abs/2004.14810 and www.complex-systems.com/abstracts/v29_i02_a02/ "any new results been experimentally verified?" - no, we're not there yet "why he appears to get a free pass on this?" - he absolutely doesn't, any more than (since you bring up Einstein) Einstein did; General Relativity wasn't experimentally confirmed the instant Einstein formulated it; rather, it took years before the first firm predictions and observations were made "much more impressive if scientists other than Wolfram himself" - there's a lot of resistance, as there always is to fundamentally different ideas, but others are slowly beginning to realize that this framework is worth a closer look
Dear Stephen, In 1982 I was studying Fourier analysis and I had an epiphany, the first time my "wave function collapsed". I simply realized, "If you give me any function, any function y=f(x), I can express it in terms of a simple combination of sines and cosines." - Pure mathematics at its best, QED. "Any function" - Think about it. Everyone knows the answer but has never really appreciated its true meaning or significance. Now "Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition" But if God was a Mathematician or Theoretical Physicist and wanted to summarise the whole of human knowledge, from spinors to QFD, in the shortest possible sentence, what would his first words be? Fiat Lux - "Be light made." - Science in Action - Heb. 11.1-3
I have another question, if Wolfram is so positive that his model is correct (and I presume he's wealthy) couldn't he just fund a bunch of researchers to work on this? Why not build the Manhattan Project of Wolfram Physics! As far as I can tell Jonathan Gorard, one guy... one! is not enough effort). Fund me, i'll work on hypergraph-theoretic models of fundamental physics.
Being right about this isn't going to decide the outcome of a world war. They're still trying to find any falsifiable hypotheses. If that ever happens, it seems unlikely to lead to any practical applications anytime soon. We've known theoretically about fusion for how long and haven't been able to use it for net energy generation? How long have we known the theory of quantum computing and not been able to apply it practically?
@@timewave02012 Science never seems to solve wars. In fact, new science leads to new weapons first and foremost. I'm more interested in what new mathematics has to say about the nature of reality.
@@PracticallyZen I didn't mean to suggest the bomb solved the problems of the war. I said "decide the outcome", meaning the US was able to secure an unconditional surrender from Japan, before the Soviet Union had a chance to occupy any territory. Near the end of the war, they were confident enough the Manhattan Project would give them that ability, that they spent almost 1% of the GDP on it.
Ironically that's exactly what he does. He is near pure R&D, turns that R&D into money and will then use that R&D and money to do his science which is what he actually cares about, which then ultimately leads to more R&D and more money. He's like Batman minus the crime fighting lmao. I've adopted those business frameworks into my own and it works very well.
@@NightmareCourtPictures Can you explain what you mean by that. Is it you claim that all profit from Wolfram products goes into working on hypergraph-theoretic models of fundamental physics.
Sadly, no, physics can't help with predicting the next conflict - that's geopolitics - or even the next natural disaster - that's meteorology, hydrology, seismology, etc.
Yep, I've been waiting for this moment for a long time. So much more to come from this conversation; it really helped me understand the multiway graph, and observers, better than before.
No, you're right, Stuart, this was just a brief story of how Wolfram Physics came to be. For a high-level overview of the relationship between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, take a look here: www.wolframphysics.org/technical-introduction/potential-relation-to-physics/correspondence-between-relativity-and-quantum-mechanics/
@@matthewstewart5417 For a very different style, Matthew, try listening to my conversation with Jonathan Gorard th-cam.com/video/asCDGSYzwhw/w-d-xo.html You'll find that he's extremely precise and quite brilliant. Maybe it'll work better for you than Stephen Wolfram's style.
You're in the right place... I have plenty of videos about the hypergraph on this channel. This playlist is a good place to start: th-cam.com/play/PLVwcxwu8hWKnCIn_SXq8myTf2JH6ee83U.html Thanks for watching!
Yes, thanks Robert, you're right, of course, they're not the same theory. But the idea that they arise from the same _analysis,_ in the case of General Relativity applied to the hypergraph, in the case of Quantum Mechanics applied to the causal graph, truly compelling. Jonathan Gorard has worked out some of the mathematics of this - see his papers arxiv.org/abs/2004.14810 and www.complex-systems.com/abstracts/v29_i02_a02/ - which gives me great confidence that there's really something here!
Gravity is the sum of the Coulomb forces between two uncharged objects. In other words, the particles that generate gravity are electrons and protons. I think of neutrons as a pair of electrons and protons. Let us consider the sun and the earth. The electrons in the sun and the electrons in the earth repel each other. The electrons in the sun and the protons in the earth attract each other. The protons in the sun and the electrons in the earth attract each other. The protons in the sun and the protons in the earth repel each other. The above four forces added together is the gravitational force between the Sun and the Earth. The forces of attraction and repulsion between objects are almost the same, but the force of attraction is slightly stronger. The reason is that the Coulomb attraction and repulsion are not the same. You may be wondering why I say that. Actually, a Scottish physicist by the name of John Robison has made such a measurement. According to his measurements, the force of attraction is inversely proportional to the square of the distance, while the force of repulsion is inversely proportional to the 2.06 power of the distance. In other words, the result was that the force of attraction was stronger than the force of repulsion. If this is true, then it would seem natural that gravity would only generate an attractive force. However, the above measurement is quite old, so its accuracy is questionable. The question is whether repulsion really does not obey the inverse square law, or whether John Robison was mistaken and in fact it does obey the inverse square law but the repulsion is simply weaker than the attraction. If it does not obey the inverse square law, then the physics needs to be reworked. If the repulsion is simply weaker, then we can simply multiply the Coulomb constant for the repulsion by a value slightly smaller than the Coulomb constant for the attraction.
I would love to SEE their shoulders on The thumbnail, I think that without shoulders they end up looking like light bulbs or aliens. But in The end it is just My personal opinion
Thanks for the question, Peter. Yes, that's a good way to look at it: the hypergraph _evolves_ over _time_ through the _process_ of applying rewriting rules.
@@lasttheory I see it like this: if you extend the probability spectrum, within which the superposition principle manifests itself, into a chain, then this is nothing other than the flow of time. We would now have to find out what holds this chain together to navigate within it (for example, to move backward in time) or to be able to shape it freely.
No real peer review mechanism is compelling I guess because you can just write some stuff down and then create a money making cult around it regardless if it's good or not. This isn't to be mean either. At least Stephen Wolfram has created useful tools (i guess?), but you're more competing in media and selling stuff if you're just coming up with theories/structures/logics and then not receiving any critical feedback within any kind of constant feedback loop. That last bit is pretty important for sound science. Even if you come up with something revolutionary, it's not revolutionary unless you can soundly explain it to people. Like, what did he get to work? Still, listening to ideas is fun and interesting, it's just there are so many out there now so better get better at marketing them! This actually goes for institutional science as well. In fact, you could argue that medias success in selling crackpot is institutional science's failure in communication with the public. Of course it doesn't help when you have powerful people constantly crapping on your efforts because of power, religion, money, etc.
Thanks for your thoughts. It's always hard to parse what's out there, especially when the media touts every new crazy idea from any half-credentialled academic, because, well, the news that we've just found the theory of everything sells newspapers. But I don't think Wolfram Physics is like that. I find it compelling precisely _because_ it's the opposite of those crazy ideas from half-credentialled academic. I find it compelling because it seems like it could be _right,_ whereas every other new theory of physics in my lifetime seems like a misstep. And I can't speak for Stephen Wolfram (though I'd note that he has a successful tech business so surely can't be doing this for the cash), but _I'm_ doing this because I'm _interested._ I never thought I'd see significant progress in fundamental physics in my lifetime, but this might just be it.
Hypergraph model works because it's a minimal math model which incorporates all physics by design. Now, does Wolfram understand it deeply? I don't think that he succeeds in presenting its basics, so, largely, no. Gorard understands it better.
The most compelling groundbreaking theories came from Newton and Einstein. Both didn't need any marketing nor a well paid job at an institution to bring forth their work. Their theories basically sold themselves because it all made sense. None of the current follow-up ideas make any sense and if you need years and years to explain it and still nothing useful comes out then I can't help myself but to wonder about the motives of the people behind these ideas. Don't get me wrong. I'm happy there are smart people working on a deeper understanding of the universe but in a time of exponential growth of publications and zero result I've learned to become very sceptical.
@@moladiver6817 You're right about earlier theories. To be clear, Stephen doesn't have a well-paid job at an institution; rather, he runs his own tech company. And nor do I; I'm doing this out of interest. I actually think it's significant that these ideas are coming from outside of academia, just as Einstein's did back when he was a patent clerk.
Are GR & QM a same theory in different spaces?: it is difficult for me to agree. General relativity hosts as many spaces as the metric tensor you want to use. In quantum mechanics observables are represented by linear operators in a complex Hilbert space (H). And states are represented by kets in that same H. Mass/spin are described by Lie/Poincare groups. Poincare invariance is an absolute conservation law of all quantum field theories. There is a non trivial difference in Fock spaces (as generalized Hilbert spaces, --or "quantum field spaces"--, for multiparticle states) for bosons and fermions. Fock spaces are the same space as any metric tensor space?: hard to agree.
Thanks Teresa! Stephen's talking about very different spaces than the ones you mention. For General Relativity, he's talking about physical space, i.e. the hypergraph. For Quantum Mechanics, he's taking about causal space, i.e. the causal graph. It's a real paradigm shift from the continuous spaces we're used to in physics!
@@lasttheory A paradigm shift?. May be hypergaphs and causal graphs are just a way to express in terms of graphs, what it also could be somehow called Poincare groups. (Disclaimer: in case that the above paragraph is a nonsense, forget it.) But an idea (that I had) regarding Poincare groups is that if we call: L,b = rotations+boosts, translations (all in Minkowski's 4D-spacetime), the possible cases are: photon (no mass but with momentum), particles (mass and with/without momentum) and vacuum state (no mass & no momentum). This last case could be related with information conservation and, somehow, with 4D-spatial structure. (Disclaimer II: if all the above makes non sense, forget it. But in case it sounds interesting, please, share my idea).
The usefulness of a work doesn’t depend on the formal process of peer review. What depends on peer review are academic careers. But Wolfram isn’t an academic. He thus has no use for the formal process. This doesn’t mean that others cannot review and critique his work. Anybody can do that, and some have.
Thanks, @tantzer6113, that's well put. I'd love to see more reviews of Stephen Wolfram's work, and particularly Jonathan Gorard's papers, by academics. But that depends on the academics, I'm afraid, not on Jonathan or Stephen.
"...Sort of the same theory...". I'm not sure what that means. Apart from this sort of self-promotion on TH-cam, are there any meaningful, quantitative predictions in this work that have been verified by independent scientists/mathematicians or is it still too early to say? Maybe in the 100 years he mentioned might be required?
Good questions, thanks. It is too early, unfortunately, for novel predictions. See my conversation with Jonathan Gorard _Where's the evidence for Wolfram Physics?_ th-cam.com/video/XLtxXkugd5w/w-d-xo.html for some ideas about where such novel predictions might come from. But that's not to say that quantitative work hasn't been done. Jonathan Gorard has proven that the hypergraph is consistent with Einstein's equations; see _How to derive general relativity from Wolfram Physics_ th-cam.com/video/1tjhE0U-mgc/w-d-xo.html Also some precise results in quantum mechanics; see _How to derive quantum mechanics from Wolfram Physics_ th-cam.com/video/YZhCYLZanEE/w-d-xo.html Hope that helps give a flavour of where we're at.
Finally, a channel dedicated to Wolframs theory. Im subscribed now and look forward to hearing more. I think this is the most compelling theory about everything that has come out.
@@somebody3 Greatly summarized, it's a theory where the universe is fundamentally discrete and can be modeled by simple computational rules, akin to a cellular automaton. So, Mathematics is not fundamental unlike traditional theories (which is one of the most compelling points to me) but rather than it emerges in some slivers of it. The computations occur on a hypergraph (theres a video about hypergraphs on this channel). I used to think that mathematics was fundamental in the universe, but couldnt quite make sense of why differential equations needed to be solved analytically for complex problems. I thought it was a shortcoming of our ability to solve them but I am starting to think it's closer related to "computational irreducibility" (another concept in the theory) where we basically can't cheat and know the future except in very specific circumstances. Theres more to it but this is the gist of it.
Have you figured out yet how God tested time to make sure it's alarm clocks were working properly and quantum-synchronized to make sure the apocalypses came just when everyone but his top grad students were sure the Messiah was just fiction?
Another information scientist re-envisioning an entire field, like Jacques Vallee and Bernardo Kastrup. What is there but information? Everything else is just a medium. What will AI do with the works of these visionary thinkers? Behold itself?
I can’t dislike Stephan too much, he’s just such a maverick I guess. BUT, I really hope for hypergraph-theoretic models of fundamental physics to take off more for Jonathan Gorard’s sake than anyone else. He’s the real genius here
For all their differences, I think they make a powerful pair, Stephen with his wild, expansive leaps of faith, Jonathan with his precise, agnostic, mathematical brilliance.
@ you are right. I totally agree! You know what would be really excellent (and I think unfortunate that we don’t get to see it much) would be an interview with BOTH Stephen and Jonathan, together (and that third guy too maybe, I don’t mean to leave him out). Maybe it wouldn’t make sense for the topic to be a super deep technical dive, but to have a more conversational setting where they could talk about the Wolfram physics project more broadly, and recount stories and experiences from the history of it (you know like, how it was back when they first encouraged Stephen to pursue it more deliberately, and what it was like over the intervening years). I would watch the hell out of that :) Thanks for all your work on this channel btw! I started following The Last Theory pretty soon after you started the channel because I too had only recently (a few months earlier) learned about Wolfram Physics and was trying to learn more about it. This is such a great project and it has been awesome seeing the channel grow! 🫶🙏👍
@@Robotwesley Thanks, I really appreciate that! There are some good early working sessions with both Jonathan and Stephen on the Wolfram TH-cam channel. It may be more difficult to get them together these days, I fear!
Everything is much simpler Time is absolute - a sequence of states of universe - "now". That type of time is described in quantum mechanics. General relativity describes clock tick rate, not time. Clock tick rate depends on energy of particles. Energy of particles depends on local density of matter. Local density of matter is "curved spacetime". Clock tick rate is "time dilation".
I still don't understand how time and hypergraphs interact. Does wolfram ever go into detail on this? Why does it take "time" for the hypergraph to update? And how does that relate to how we percieve time?
Here's my best brief summary of time in the Wolfram model. Just as the hypergraph _is_ space - it's not _in_ space, it's the underlying structure that we perceive as space - so the rewriting of the hypergraph according to rules _is_ time. This rewriting doesn't take place _in_ time, it's the underlying sequence of events that we perceive as time. That's the simplest level. It does get more complex. As the rules are applied to the hypergraph in all possible ways, the multiway graph _branches._ As observers, we don't perceive each of the different possible paths through the multiway graph; instead, we collapse the fine detail of all these branches to a _single thread of time._ There's much more to say on this, and I understood it better after my conversation with Stephen. I'll be releasing videos specifically on time as soon as I can. Thanks for the observations and questions!
Unfortunately Stephen Wolfram have chosen wrong direction. Universe is not hyper graph. It's machine. And algorithm of matter is quite simple and testable.
It has certainly been published, large volumes of it. If it's an overview you're after, here's a good place to start: writings.stephenwolfram.com/2020/04/finally-we-may-have-a-path-to-the-fundamental-theory-of-physics-and-its-beautiful/ and here's where you can go deeper: www.wolframphysics.org/technical-introduction/ If it's more mathematical papers you're interested in, Jonathan Gorard's seminal papers are here: arxiv.org/abs/2004.14810 and www.complex-systems.com/abstracts/v29_i02_a02/ You're right, there's not been much _acknowledgement_ of this new framework among academic physicists, but that's beginning to change. More to come on this!
It's funny how the concept of the "ruliad" is based on the ancient alchemical concept of "azoth" or the "philosophers stone". I guess we humans knew all a long just not what concretely we actually meant by it. It's really interesting to see this idea fleshed out with our modern knowlege and capabilities. I wish you all the best in completing your literal magnum opus.
I've had a feeling for a long time now that Stephen isn't simply developing a Theory of Everything.........he's working towards a theory of EVERYTHING.
You're not wrong... any idea that encompasses how consciousness works as well as why the universe exists does seem to be aiming at, well, as you say, EVERYTHING.
Stephen is a great and accomplished guy, but this ruliad stuff is nonsense, nearly no one understands it and no one can use it. Sure, some people can supposedly understand it explain it, but that's true about every theory that anyone may come up with. There are hundreds of theories of everything that fall into the same bucket.
I can point you to plenty of papers on the Wolfram model. The mathematics have been put in place first and foremost by Jonathan Gorard. A good place to start is with his seminal papers _Some Relativistic and Gravitational Properties of the Wolfram Model_ arxiv.org/abs/2004.14810 and _Some Quantum Mechanical Properties of the Wolfram Model_ www.complex-systems.com/abstracts/v29_i02_a02/ Let me know if you'd like pointers to more!
@@hoochygucci9432 Well, these papers are open to all Jonathan Gorard's peers to review, and to you, too. Whether they choose to review them is up to them. When Einstein published his 1905 papers, _they_ weren't peer reviewed, either, since, happily, peer review didn't exist back then. Here's why I think we should go back to those days: _Peer review is suffocating science_ th-cam.com/video/oF-2QJHy53M/w-d-xo.html In any case, you asked for papers, here they are, you're free to ignore them if you like.
@niblick616 I've said that _peer review_ is suffocation science th-cam.com/video/oF-2QJHy53M/w-d-xo.html In this case, peer review hasn't prevented Stephen Wolfram from publishing his wows, because he has simply bypassed peer review and put his stuff out there on the web. But peer review is certainly damaging the chances that his ideas will take hold in academia. I can't tell you how many times I've heard people dismiss Wolfram's ideas out of hand because they haven't been peer reviewed.
A lot of namedropping. A lot of (handy transcripted in box) phrases. I Wonder what is really science here. PS: I have his book, and actually read it. Opinions? Please drop them here. I am confused right now regaring Wolfram.
Thanks Erwin! I'm very happy to get a comment from someone who has actually read Stephen Wolfram's book. I'll refrain from answering your question and leave it open for others to answer, because you can probably guess what my answer would be...
Yes, Sabine rightly refers to Jonathan Gorard's work on the Wolfram model. Stephen Wolfram is a big-ideas kind of a guy, and great at generating interest in the project and working out the higher level and philosophical implications. Jonathan is more agnostic and more precise, brilliant in his ability to work out the mathematics relating the hypergraph to physics. For sure, Jonathan deserves an enormous amount of the credit for these new ideas. Take a look at my interview with him for a taste of his brilliance: _Jonathan Gorard: the complete first interview_ th-cam.com/video/asCDGSYzwhw/w-d-xo.html
Stephen Wolfram has been claiming he has the "secret sauce" for...well, his whole life. But what does he have to show for it? He made some cool tools, like Mathematica and Wolfram Alpha, but hasn't made a single testable prediction and has spent the rest of his life promoting books. I find his work interesting, but...at some point you just gotta put up or stfu, Stephen. Do something useful.
I respectfully disagree. Jonathan Gorard's work on deriving General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics from the hypergraph have shown that the Wolfram model has real potential.
the emergent quasi platonic latent space representations of mathematics and wolfram's computational hypothesis, are probably just a tiny subset of some more general and grander life like auto compactifying information agnostic substrate evolution, and don't have much to say about why transition into inflationary cosmogenesis optimizes at a particular information coupling...
Another way of telling the same story as string theory or constructor theory…There concept that we effectively live in GTA0 and that we’re just a bunch of AI NPCs Nothing new here, folks, just new labels for old ideas
There's very little in common between Stephen Wolfram's framework and those other theories you mention. And the framework has nothing to do with AI or NPCs. If you're interested in new ideas, you actually have to pay attention to the content of ideas, rather than simply dismiss them without ever having taken the time to find out what they're about.
@ There are a lot of different ways of telling the same story. A unique point of view within an abstract (hyper) space game world will typically result in a unique narrative which is interesting but progress requires a functional model of reality.
Professor Wolfram may be interested in this, Claude wrote: Conclusion "This compass-and-straightedge construction method addresses the classical angle trisection challenge with remarkable precision. For a 60° angle, it achieves an absolute error of 7.20 × 10^-34 degrees - approaching the Planck angular scale (10^-35 degrees), while maintaining practical precision across a wide range of angles. The construction's accuracy, verified through computational analysis, far exceeds current physical measurement capabilities like LIGO (10^-10 degrees) and modern interferometers (10^-16 degrees). While respecting the mathematical impossibility of perfect trisection, this method provides a constructible solution that bridges the gap between theoretical limitations and practical applications, offering a significant advancement in geometric construction techniques."
I too find Stephen Wolfram's view of the nature of space very compelling. It resolves so many issues and conundrums. I'm looking forward to learning more about the rules that space evolves through. There is then the deeper philosophical issue about what the nodes of space are and why they interact with those rules.
Yes, the ol'ontology question is just shifted in one way, but I like to think about the hypergraph as a generic tool for analysing any universe and being able to describe it. So the underlying reality really doesn't matter anymore. Just a thought 🤔 Kinda like brute-focing the darn thing 🤭
Thanks, Gordon. Stephen and I do talk about rules in greater detail later in our conversation. As to your _why_ question about the nodes of space, I'm not sure physics can answer it. The Wolfram model simply posits the hypergraph and the rewriting rules, and the rest follows. It's an improvement over our current theories, which have to posit higher-level concepts like space, time, etc., but it's still just a model, and still doesn't answer the question _why?_
I have a theory of everything for many years now which far exceeds where he is at in this moment in time. Yet as a commoner my voice is silenced. Once again for the record, and as many times before, I challenge any and all scientists to debate me on an open platform. Bushy Van Eck
Well, I hope you're right, it does look like a discrete universe could explain a lot. But yes, we'd all like to hear more on what you think needs adjusting?
To any pragmatic purpose, I suppose. It currently offers nothing in terms of translations of basic terms to **specific** structures within the hypergraph framework. Show us a code, show us some trees, show us what feels like basic mechanics, dynamics, moments, aesthetics of actual physics? Why does Wolfram show nothing?
What do you mean, the universe is discrete? Do you mean that spacetime is like a checkerboard? Feynman said he's thought about this and can't see any way that the grid would be consistent with relativity
Wolfram is a bright human
But the interview just anounces
A revolution, it does not explain.
Yes, that's right, it's just a brief overview of the origins of the project. There's much more of substance to come from this interview, that I'll be releasing in upcoming videos. Also, if it's explanation you're after, I have 64 other videos explaining the theory already on this channel. A good place to start is with this playlist: th-cam.com/play/PLVwcxwu8hWKnCIn_SXq8myTf2JH6ee83U.html
Long time coming! Great to see Professor Wolfram here.
Yes, this is a real highlight for me, to be able to talk to Stephen Wolfram himself. And our conversation lasted three hours, so much more to come from it! Thanks for following along up to this high point!
hey memes! u beat me to it 😄
@@harriehausenman8623 Good to see you Harrie!
@@lasttheory Wow! Three hours is the sign of a Fantastic conversation!
@@TheMemesofDestruction samewise! Couldn't make it to any of the streams this year so far (stupid timezones 🤪). but hope to join in again soon.
General relativity and quantum mechanics will never be combined until we realize that each individual observer is observing them both at different moments in time. Because causality has a speed limit (c) every point in space where one observes it from will be the closest to the present moment. When one looks out into the universe they see the past which is made of particles (GR). When one tries to measure the position of a particle they are observing smaller distances and getting closer to the present moment (QM). The wave property of particles appears when we start trying to predict the future of that particle. A particle that has not had an interaction exists in a future state. It is a probability wave because the future is probabilistic. Wave function collapse is what we perceive as the present moment and is what divides the past from the future. GR is making measurements in the observed past and therefore, predictable. It can predict the future but only from information collected from the past. QM is attempting to make measurements of the unobserved future and therefore, unpredictable. Only once a particle interacts with the present moment does it become predictable. If we could observe a particle light years away up close enough it too would appear as a probability wave. Therefore if we could observe the universe in the present moment all matter would be a probability wave. This universal probability wave collapsing into the present is what separates the past from the future and general relativity from quantum mechanics.
Well, this didn't explain anything... How are the two theories the same? How do they fit into W.'s "cell automata" framework?
Thanks Ned. Yes, that's a big question, and not one that was addressed in this brief story of the origins of The Wolfram Physics Project. I'm currently working on a series of videos that'll explain this: how General Relativity emerges from the hypergraph, and how Quantum Mechanics emerges _in the same way_ from the causal graph. It's a much longer story than can fit into a 9-minute video, but I'm working on it! In the meantime, for a high-level overview, take a look here: www.wolframphysics.org/technical-introduction/potential-relation-to-physics/correspondence-between-relativity-and-quantum-mechanics/
Wow- a parrelel- c and the speed of entanglement- amazing- two theories are the same. Let's add "but in different kinds of space" after four years, and then smth else after another four- and again- and again- no one will understand that we have nothing anyways. I mean, doesn't that framework incorporate both models by design? They ARE different within this framework. Of course, both have the same root. What's revelatory about that!?!?
A fellow Ned! Hello!🙋♀️
@@lasttheory Probably will be of great help to see the book - "Theory of Everything in Physics and the Universe"
@@GEMSofGOD_com Just to be clear, the "different kinds of space" has been part of the model from the start. Take a look here in the original technical introduction: www.wolframphysics.org/technical-introduction/potential-relation-to-physics/correspondence-between-relativity-and-quantum-mechanics/
Everything you do is BONUS Stephen. Thank you for expanding our knowledge, sir. Thank you so much for your contributions ❤🫵🏽
Thanks, I appreciate that!
Thanks for this interview. I'd personally appreciate a longer format (even if released less frequently) as sometimes I forget the previous weeks content. Since the concepts are tightly coupled, it helps my concentration if they flow more continuously.
Yes, I appreciate that works better for some people, and I will eventually release the entire conversation as a single video. It's going to take a while to edit and annotate, though, so I will be putting it out as a series of excerpts first. Thanks for your patience!
For those of the interested layman persuasion, short bursts give time to contemplate, "read" around, understand and most of all digest and assimilate. So both approaches!
Stephen Wolfram explodes my mind, when I listen and start to think. The pictures I get....🤔🤯
Yes, mind-blowing for sure!
Hey, you caught the big fish! I can't wait to see it all. Thanks so much for your videos!
Thanks! Yes, I'll have to get editing...
These are the convos I love
Yep, this whole 3-hour conversation was a thrill for me. Much more to come from it!
I can't tell if Wolfram is on to something or is just the smartest crank in the world.
Could be both. Right now he doesn't exactly even have a theory, rather a framework for a theory. It's incredibly compelling, but until someone finds an updating rule that generates hypergraphs with characteristics similar enough to our current understanding of physics to be promising, yet different enough to be testable, it's a meta theory.
He really is on "Something" very revolutionary, but unfortunately this has been published already. Just find the book - "Theory of Everything in Physics and the Universe" - There is the union between the physics of Micro and Macro Cosmos.
Right, thanks Kelly, it's a question, for sure. One thing that gives me confidence that this is real is Jonathan Gorard's early involvement in the project. He has shown that this isn't just computational games, but maps on to real physics in a precise, mathematical way.
@@lasttheory Has his work been verified and confirmed by independent scientists yet?
@niblick616 No, there's really nothing to confirm, yet, since no novel predictions have come out of the framework. I really think that physicists should be taking a closer look at these ideas, though, than they have done to date. Sabine Hossenfelder agrees th-cam.com/video/-yzdjziS-bo/w-d-xo.html
I just recently started watching but this is so exciting! Love this channel's easy to understand content
Thanks, Alec, I'm very happy to hear you say that!
Looking forward to more on this! Where can I read more about the equivalence of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics?
Thanks Neale! Here's a good place to start on the relationship between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics: www.wolframphysics.org/technical-introduction/potential-relation-to-physics/correspondence-between-relativity-and-quantum-mechanics/ I'm hoping to make this easier to grasp with future videos specifically on this topic. So much to cover!
@lasttheory Thanks!
"but played out in different kinds of space" didn't exist the initial revelation in Stephen's dialogue with Weinstein. Finding parallels between c and entanglement speed is... Man, I just can't. Just no.
@lasttheory thanks, also, I hope you explain this in detail as you used to do in another video !
@@GEMSofGOD_com By "played out in different kinds of space" Stephen means that General Relativity emerges from physical space (the hypergraph) in the same way as Quantum Mechanics emerges from causal space (the causal graph). And yes, I'll need to make a good few more videos to explain that properly!
Where is the full interview
I'm working on it! Editing and adding annotations takes some time, but I'm hoping to have the second excerpt ready next week. Thanks for watching!
Jesus! if you can't edit down the word salad and clickbait those of us who are genuinely fascinated by Wolfram, do you really think we are going to listen to another 12 videos where what seems to be on offer is just gratuitous fawning?
@@simonmasters3295 Hi Simon, You're welcome to watch the remaining excerpts from this conversation, and, of course, free not to watch if you'd prefer. I'm not going to edit Stephen Wolfram down, because that seems unfair to him. What I can promise is to continue to create my usual short ~8-minute explainer videos, explaining these ideas as briefly as I can. Hope you'll follow along!
Oh man, this video implies at least an hour of cut up interview followed by the full interview. The one with Jonathan was super good.
_Three_ hours to come... it was a really good conversation!
It reminds me of Dune's God Emperor. He saw all possibilities at the same time, past and present and was able to choose the Golden Path, the only one that did not end. Does Wolfram plan to merge with a sand worm?
Now _that's_ a question I _didn't_ ask ;-)
That is, a gravitating body dissipates a small part of its energy in the vacuum due to its fluctuations and thus distorts the trajectories of other objects around it in a probabilistic way (the probability of flying not in a straight line but towards a massive object increases). Did I understand correctly? That is, gravitons are not needed?
Great question but I think we still have to wait a bit for a real answer. The main idea (as I understood it) is, that particles and fields and all are what happens, when rewriting rules in the multigraph are applied. Maybe they will get more in depth in the following videos 🤗
Thanks Yarov. And yes, @harriehausenman8623, Stephen and I get into particles more deeply later in the conversation, though not so much into gravity. So let me give this my best effort at an answer.
Mass/energy emerges from the Wolfram model as _tangling_ in the hypergraph. (To be technical, mass/energy corresponds to the flux of causal edges through spacelike hypersurfaces.)
And, of course, tangling of the hypergraph changes the shortest path through the hypergraph for any passing particles. (Again, to be technical, it changes the _geodesic,_ which is the path particles will follow through space, or, in the Minkowskian framing, through space-time.)
And the effects of the mass/energy, i.e. of the tangling of the hypergraph, can propagate outwards, through the repeated application of hypergraph rewriting rules, eventually, if the tangling is significant, affecting the shortest paths through the hypergraph at a great distance. So the Sun, which is an awful lot of mass/energy, changes the geodesic for the Earth, albeit after a delay of several minutes for the effect to propagate through the hypergraph.
So, to get to your question about gravitons, I could answer it either way. You _could_ think about this propagation of the effects of mass/energy through the hypergraph in terms of the propagation of persistent tangles of the hypergraph, which you _could_ call gravitons. _Or_ you could just say that it's all just nodes and edges being rewritten by rules.
I'm not sure even experiment will answer this question. Sure, there have been some hints of gravitons, or at least behaviour consistent with the hypothesis that gravitons exist.
My suspicion is that we'll always need higher-level concepts like gravitons, even if the behaviour we're modelling ultimately reduces to the hypergraph and hypergraph rewriting rules. It's just that, as ever, we'll need to hold these concepts lightly.
@@lasttheory It would be interesting to hear the definition of energy in terms of a hypergraph.
@@YarUnderoaker The simplest definition is that energy is the flux of causal edges through spacelike hypersurfaces.
For more detail, a good place to start is www.wolframphysics.org/technical-introduction/potential-relation-to-physics/matter-energy-and-gravitation/
And for a easier-to-follow explanation, including an explanation of the causal graph itself, well, I'm working on that. Hoping to get a video out on the causal graph soon, and on energy soon after that, and on how that feeds into the derivation of Einstein's equations from the hypergraph soon after that.
So much to cover. Thanks Yarov!
Can you explain something to me about the Wolfram Physics Project. It connects to mainstream mathematics by suggesting that mathematical structures can be seen as different views of the same underlying computational rules. So, experimental physics in the Wolfram Physics project is to produce contemporary mathematics and make predictions about new math in addition to predictions about the physical world. Is that a correct understanding?
Thanks for the question. Are you referring to metamathematics, Stephen Wolfram's application of the ideas of hypergraph, causal graph, ruliad, etc. to mathematics? I'm less familiar with Stephen's ideas on this, so I'll limit my answer to the physics. Yes, the Wolfram model is a framework that can produce different kinds of physics depending on which rules are chosen. But it can be generalized, too: for example, whole classes of rules can give rise to the Einstein equations. And yes, eventually it should be able to produce concrete predictions that can be tested against physical reality. Hope that helps!
@@lasttheory I suppose I am talking about meta mathematics. For example, it’s an interesting question why the world we actually live in is so well described by Clifford Algebras. For example fermions represented by spinors are a Clifford algebra, spacetime geometry is a Clifford algebra, etc. I’m curious if familiar mathematical structures somehow “emerge” from the hyper graph and ruliad, etc. Where does mathematics come from, is an interesting philosophical question.
Thanks for your good work and perseverance 💪
Thanks, Adrien, I appreciate that!
Is this the first real paradigm shift since Einstein and "that lot" responsible for quantum physics? A synthesis between information science and particle physics? The advantages of a generalist perspective coming from different angles gained from a lifetime of experience? There are terms here I've never heard of before, like "ruliads" and "hypergraphs". Thank you Professor Wolfram for some new stuff to think about. Plus you've got a cool name. Can we imagine "The Wolfram Drive", "Wolframian physics", "Wolfram generators". You have a name that needs to be put in front of stuff. I look forward to delving deeper, exciting!
i would say, yes. Computational Equivalence (which I'm sure he will talk about soon) is what mass-energy equivalence was to Einstein 100 years ago. It's an equivalence statement about all systems...and that then has consequences. Just like how we unlocked the power of the sun with Mass-Energy equivalence, Computational Equivalence unlocks a new kind of power..10x 100x over.
A quick look tells me computation theory is different from information theory. Not sure why that would be, isn't there kind of a big overlap? Without going into research papers on the topic, does computational equivalence not show up in information theory. I'm also bothered by irrational numbers, which brings infinity into the issue as irrational numbers can only be, by their nature, only computable to a finite number of digits. I don't know why I'm bothered, but if the Universe is computational, how do irrational numbers exist? You sound like you know what you're talking about, can you shed some light on this?
@@GeorgesDupont-do8pe Computational Equivalence is an equivalence statement about systems, specifically that "Any systems that follow rules are equivalent to a Turing universal machine" which stated more colloquially is "Systems that aren't obviously simple are going to be equivalent in their sophistication" or said another way "Turing Universality is ubiquitous."
What that really means is that any system in front of you, is capable of computing any computable function. Whether that is the caterpillar in your hand...the iphone in your hand...the box of particles in your hand. Each system is doing computation that is as sophisticated as a Turing universal machine. They are all computationally equivalent.
This principle implies that any system can be programmed, to behave like any other system. This was the plot of the New Kind of Science book where he shows how the Cellular Automata rule class emulate each others behavior under different initial conditions. IE: that rule 22, when given a certain initial condition (a set of instructions) can emulate the behavior of rule 90. the idea was to prove rule 110 as universal, and then under the logic of the emulation argument, the entire rule class is universal.
This principle, and the idea of emulation that comes with it implies that all these systems are "dipping into" a shared state-space. That when a system "reaches out" into this statespace and starts behaving like a different system, is the basis for what the ruliad is. Thus, to get a system to behave like another system is an excercise in how to navigate, or sample this state space.
When you listen to Wolfram speak, he uses these words..."sampling" and calling everything a "space" like "inter-concept space." It's no mistake when he uses this language; he is referring precisely to what is being stated here. That there is this underlying statespace all systems share, and this is the ruliad object.
Hope that's enough to get you started. If you can't wait for Last Theory, fill the gap between uploads by watching wolframs New Kind of Science series he made. It will give you alot of pretext to help you understand his work. cheers.
GR and QFT playing out in separate space --- are 'unitary' operations the unifying element, excuse the pun? It's a SYMMETRY that relates-them, right? Do we have to use "Spinors", if it is a "symmetry[group]" or can we use simpler Pauli matrix?
Yes, that's right, it's a symmetry. I'm not deep enough into the physics, I'm afraid, to be able to answer your second question. I'll be working on better understanding the quantum mechanics side of the Wolfram model!
If time is a computational process, how did it initiate processing without there first being time in which to process to boot the time creation process? This is a bit of a bootstrap issue. Either this is a weak translation from math to language, or there would have to be an external initiating event.
Combine the concept of infinity with the ruliad. If that's not good enough for you, every theory including religious has this problem.
If you think of the hypergraph as _being_ space rather than being _in_ space, then there's no question of there having to be a space _in_ which the hypergraph appears. It's the same with time. If you think of the applications of rules to the hypergraph as _being_ time rather than happening _in_ time, then there's no question of there having to be a time _in_ which the rules are applied.
We don't know if there was any creation process.
I think we're caught up in a birth-death POV, where we see beginnings and endings.
Maybe there's never been a beginning. Maybe there just *is*. Always was, always will be.
On the quantum side. The idea of a network rewrite sort of resonates for me with techniques like ZX algebra, used extensively in the field of quantum computing now.
Yes, there's definitely a link between ZX-Calculus and hypergraph rewriting. Take a look at these papers from Jonathan Gorard, Manojna Namuduri and Xerxes D. Arsiwalla:
ZX-Calculus and Extended Hypergraph Rewriting Systems I: A Multiway Approach to Categorical Quantum Information Theory arxiv.org/abs/2010.02752
ZX-Calculus and Extended Wolfram Model Systems II: Fast Diagrammatic Reasoning with an Application to Quantum Circuit Simplification arxiv.org/abs/2103.15820
@@lasttheory Too much for me. I just sip pubsci.
@@Sq7Arno I hear you. Too much for me, too... Jonathan Gorard loses me pretty quickly when he dives into the mathematics!
Is the discrete hypergraph another way of representing what string or M theory would call branes?
Thanks for the question. I don't think so, branes are a fundamentally different concept from the hypergraph, and String Theory and M-Theory are based in a fundamentally different paradigm: continuous and mathematical rather than discrete and computational.
@@lasttheory Thanks for replying. I had not heard of Wolfram's ideas and work before, still not sure exactly what he is saying, so will need to do a lot more reading and listening.
I looked up hypergraphs, which I was also not familiar with, and tried to understand how & what was being represented and how that related to relativity.
I was struck by how the planes formed by various groupings of points in a hypergraph could represent planes of relativity (slices of space with same relative time) and how the branes of string theory are akin to those planes of relativity ignoring scale etc i.e. visually similar when represented by hypergraph and at one level or scale, actually representing the same thing.
Fractals, all the way down.
😆 I see what you did there! 🐢🐢🐢🐢
♾️
Fractals just *feel* like they have to have some deep relevance to the theory of everything right?
@@uncledaisy Fractals seem to be related to dimensions more, but I am not smart enough to know how wrong my assertion is.
In terms of dimensionality, fractals are simply a special case of the hypergraph. Both can have non-integer dimensionality (e.g. be 2.37-dimensional), but the hypergraph is more general (and can be more chaotic).
What is the difference between this network theory and the old quantum graphity idea?
Most of the existing ideas that fall under "quantum gravity" are attempts to reconcile general relativity and quantum mechanics within the existing continuous mathematical paradigm. The Wolfram model is a fundamentally different approach, based on a discrete hypergraph and application of rules computationally.
@lasttheory I said "quantum graphity" it Is not a typo. Look it up and compare.
Space is a dielectric super fluid.
Flows in space , flows in a dielectric fluid cause charge separation. Charge is an artifact of flows in space. There is only space, and flows in space. All particles can BEST be modeled as fluid flow structures in space.
This is why I've always supported the strategy, though building a universe bottom up takes a while.
I love this man and I think he is a very smart fella indeed, very creative as well. But for the life of me I cant wrap my head around the ruliad no matter how much I read about it. It seems like a framework by which you can view a problem and possibly find connections within the framework that would help in this or that, but I fail to see its practical usefulness. I don't know if its failure in communication on the Wolframs team or maybe the concept is beyond explaining, but i would love to hear more about the subject matter that is more approachable or better explained. maybe with a video or something starting with the most basic concepts and working from there.
Totally agree. Whilst it’s more than likely that I’m simply not bright enough to understand it, I’d welcome an attempt at a designed-for-idiots explanation. Although I also suppose that may not be possible……
It's about creating a structure based on a simple rule. All possibilities are actualized and calculated.
It could be useful to replace quantum mechanics by computational calculations. Overall it looks like superdeterminism but formalized and easy to program.
It's not different than Copernicus. There was no reason to formalize the solar system with one simple rule, no direct usefulness, but it's simpler, easier to calculate and gives a better overall picture. But more importantly perhaps, it can scale.
Yes, the ruliad's not an easy idea to wrap your head around! I'm slowly releasing videos to explain all the different graphs - hypergraph, multiway graph, causal graph, etc. - but it'll take me a while longer to get to the ruliad. Working on it!
10K views today? 🤔 Let's go! 🥳
Turns out all I needed to do was put Stephen Wolfram's face on the thumbnail instead of my own ;-)
@@lasttheory Did you do an A/B test for the thumbnails?
13K already! 🎉
@@harriehausenman8623 Not on this one. I've done a couple of A/B tests before, but they've always come out 49% / 51%, not exactly conclusive. For this one, I just wanted to get it out as soon as I could, so I went with my first design.
Have you ever thought of treating space, time and light as the same because of our inability to measure under the Planck Scale? Light speed creates a logical barrier, a light wall (like the sound wall). Perhaps some hints are behind that light wall and smaller than the Planck scale. Yes, we cannot see beyond that, but the symmetry from the cellular automata can calculate it theoretically. By that nature could sidestep the light speed limitation of information transfer.
Yes, according to the Wolfram model, the hypergraph evolves at scales much smaller than the Planck scale (though _how_ much smaller is hard to say). Unlike General Relativity (at least in the Minkowskian framing), however, the model does hold space and time to be fundamentally different things: space is the hypergraph; time is the _evolution_ of the hypergraph.
Spacetime is light,just out of phase light.
Pure frequency photonic domain out of spacetime doesnt have extention nor time ,light is maximaly contracted and time dilated,its everywhere at once,its communication happens at infinite speed,its perfect conductive( how pauli s exclusion principle knows where is every Electron in the univer instantl if this communication didnt happen outside spacetime at instantâneous speed?),it doesnt suffer Atomic Decay,its eternal.
Photonic domain works in ortogonal angles,
Spacetime out of ortogonal angles.
This happens in the complex plane.
There are walls separating each quadrant .each quadrant have 90°of course.
1st quadrant positive real Numbers(space)+positive imaginary Numbers (time)
2nd quadrant positive imaginary Numbers+negative real Numbers
3rd quadrant negative real Numbers+negative imaginary Numbers
4th quadrant negative imaginary Numbers+positive real Numbers.
This gives total 360°,the circle(2pi)
Relativity is derived from the movement of the point arround this circle and the Change of angular movement.change lorentz contractions to radians and you see relativity inbuilt in there.
Spacetime is literaly made of complex Numbers ,spacetime is defined by all the angular moment other than 0_90_180_270_360°
So space time is actually a field of energy and the energy has momentum/inertia within the field. I don't know kinda sounds like an aether theory to me. What was old is new again.
Thanks, John. The existence of the hypergraph as a substrate for the universe is kinda reminiscent of aether, isn't it? Now I wish I'd asked Stephen about _that!_
A good model should still refer to basic physics: conservation laws (angular/linear momentum, energy), basic quantum mechanics, basic relativity, basic cosmology, physics constants, etc.
Yes, absolutely. And the Wolfram model _does_ refer to these basic physics: it has precise definitions of mass/energy and momentum; Einstein's equations of General Relativity can be derived from the model; aspects of Quantum Mechanics, too, emerge from the model.
Ok.. can't say how many wolfram videos I've clicked on now about theory X , just to listen to how amazing and wonderful theory X is instead, not a word about what it IS.. Is this just a sales pitch for a book? someone point me to video where he actually has something to say💔
Yes, sorry Ken, this really is a high-level overview of the origins of the theory. But I do have an entire channel's worth of videos on the theory itself. This playlist is a good place to start: th-cam.com/play/PLVwcxwu8hWKnCIn_SXq8myTf2JH6ee83U.html
All icing, no cake. The icing is interesting enough, but I won't be convinced by any of it until I see the actual cake.
If it's cake you're after, I have another 64 videos about Wolfram Physics on this channel, that dig deep into the details. This playlist is a good place to start: th-cam.com/play/PLVwcxwu8hWKnCIn_SXq8myTf2JH6ee83U.html
I agree. False = False.
Hypergraph theory is really cool. Yet couldn't hypergraphs describe infinite universes, some with 4 space dimensions, etc.? And couldn't there be infinite mathematical or computational models that describe out universe? And wouldn't some families of these models be related and possibly indistinguishable from each other? It will be very interesting to find out what the testable predictions of each model is, which models are even testable (String Theory is not), which models pass tests, etc. I think Wolfram's model may be the best. I just get this feeling that we'll make it down to multiple candidates that could each describe our universe, and have no way of knowing whether hypergraph or some other computational/mathematical model is the "real" solution.
These are great questions and great observations. I agree, I suspect there will be multiple, even infinite, different models that match the observations we're able to make of our universe. But the Wolfram model _doesn't_ entail infinite possibilities. There are constraints. Yes, it allows for universe with numbers of dimensions other than 3 (more on this in the next excerpt of my conversation with Stephen). But it does _not_ allow for universes that don't conform to Einstein's equations. If the Wolfram model is right (and if we make a couple of other basic assumptions, such as causal invariance), then the universe _must_ conform to General Relativity.
Wonderful, and exciting!
If energy=curvature, then curvature=energy. Energy bends, and in our frame that looks like spacetime bending. But really energy is described by discretized fields.
Right, yes, tangling of the hypergraph is what we call energy, and what we call energy is tangling of the hypergraph.
YES... it takes a minimum effort to cause a reaction, a certain amount is required, either in terms of potency or duration of effect. If it is too weak or too short-lived, it has no effect.
This can have two possible causes, either only suitable packages occur or the affected persons are stuck somewhere. In this case, however, solid, sticky structures would have to provide support in the middle of the vacuum. However, if there were really only exactly quantized energy packets, then they would really only need the void to fly from A to B. This variant sounds simpler at first and therefore more convincing, but not for the father of quantization, Max Planck. There are many more unanswered questions than there are answers. Why should nature rely on energy packets of all things? How do packets manage to seal themselves off from their surroundings? How do you pack precisely defined, always equally strong charges into them?
Planck was not at ease with all this, but the spirit of the times, which had just chased the ether to hell, developed its folly and so it was the packet model, which every bread baker can understand, that prevailed.
Today, a false theory of all things is allowed to stick to invisible structures in a vacuum, inertia sticks to the Higgs field. Wrong, inertia is sticking to each other without having to conjure up additional miracles out of a hat, just as Ernst Mach put it into play: “Atoms are not just small, circular parts, but expand into infinity, which is clearly recognizable by the gravitational attraction of all masses. Here, too, a clever fib was used to please the ether-taboo zeitgeist. How does space curve and why at all? Because you get a crooked hump if you have to carry too much mass?
Kudos to Stephen for giving kudos to Jonathan. Their sessions for solving problems are deep and cover many topics.
Yes, I was very happy to hear Stephen mention Jonathan!
It's amusing that Wolfram basically stole this theory from Jonathan Gorard and goes around pretending like it's his.
For sure, Jonathan Gorard deserves a huge amount of the credit here, for relating the hypergraph to physics. I do think Stephen and Jonathan complement each other, though: Stephen the expansive, philosophical, big-ideas guy; Jonathan the agnostic, mathematical, brilliant thinker.
@lasttheory If you mean Stephen Wolfram is not a scientist and does no physics then I agree.
Oversimplified
Congrats on getting this interview that’s awesome!
Thanks Tommy! It was a thrill to talk to Stephen after 3 years of putting out videos about his physics!
The long awaited conversation happened! 🥳
Looking forward to all of it! 🤗
Yes, so much more to come. I'd better get editing...
Dude, I know this is something you've wanted for long time. Who wouldn't? Really happy for you. (And keep the beard. It looks good!)
The more Wolfram's ideas marinate, and the more I learn from other Physcists and computer science (I'm a software engineer), the more I think he's on to something.
It takes time to metabolize these ideas.
Thanks! Yes, it does take a while to marinate, and I do find that these ideas seem more intuitive to software engineers, or at least anyone steeped in computation.
Graph theory isn't right. But its way closer than most modern theories. And its far more friendly for compute tasks. Works well for analog processing.
There have been many times in the history of physics when physicists have thought that a new idea _works_ but can't be _right._ Planck, for example, knew that the idea that light is quantized _works,_ but refused to believe in photons. Eventually everyone just agreed that since the idea that light is quantized works so well, we might as well just accept that the theory of photons is _right._
Hello! Its me Sahil.
Happy to see that finally we have a direct conversation with Stephen Wolfram. Please upload the complete conversation.
Thanks Sahil. I know that people really appreciate the annotations I add to my videos, so I'm going to keep on doing that, as I did with my conversation with Jonathan Gorard. It takes a little while, so I beg your patience as I slowly get there!
@@lasttheory Yeah! I too appreciate the annotations.
Thanks so much for spending your time on this Mark! Love getting your newsletter and so excited you got Stephen Wolfram on. Your love of physics shines through
Thanks David!
Since music is essentially a program...
I'm thinking of hypergraph rewriting as Tolkien's "Music of the Ainur".
The word salad physicist is back...
If you want hard mathematics rather than the high-level summary, take a look at some of Jonathan Gorard's papers. Here is a good place to start: _Some Relativistic and Gravitational Properties of the Wolfram Model_ arxiv.org/abs/2004.14810 and _Some Quantum Mechanical Properties of the Wolfram Model_ www.complex-systems.com/abstracts/v29_i02_a02/
@lasttheory Yeah I read it, and no. It's gobbledygook maths mixed in with general relativity. Honestly, I have no idea where he's going with it, and I don't think anyone else does either.
Congrats on the interview, very excited for this series. Thanks for sharing with us!
Thanks! Almost exactly three years since I released my first video on The Last Theory, it's a true high point to have been able to talk to Stephen Wolfram for three hours!
?... GR and QM are "SORT OF" the same theories in different spaces ... ok .... are they or aren't they? ... What SORT of explanation is needed here!~
Yes, sorry Randy, I did kind of put that out there as a _mention_ without explanation. I have much more to come on this, working on explaining how General Relativity emerges from the hypergraph _and_ how Quantum Mechanics emerges from the causal graph. It's going to take me a while to get there, though, so if you're looking for an explanation in the meantime, here's a good place to start: www.wolframphysics.org/technical-introduction/potential-relation-to-physics/correspondence-between-relativity-and-quantum-mechanics/
This idea already is published in the book - "Theory of Everything in Physics and the Universe" if you are curious to know, just get the book.
Very nice, and the usual Wolfram enthusiastic rhetoric. But beyond having found a new way of calculating old results, what are the actual fundamental new results he has found in physics? Where has he extended physics to resolve (or stat resolving) the various major uncertaintes in physics that remain? Has he published any of his breakthrough results in peer-reviewed literature to be subject to proper peer review? Have any new results been experimentally verified? I would be a lot more impressed if I heard clear and. specific examnples of where his approach has actually moved the boundaries of physics forward (beyond “a new kind of calculation”), and this had been scrutinised by fellow physicists and verified experimentalluy. If tthe scientific method was good enough for Einstein it should be good enough for Wolfram. Unclear why he appears to get a free pass on this? It would be much more impressive if scientists other than Wolfram himself were telling us how brilliant his thinking is.
Einstein didn’t use the scientific method. He took other people’s data, looked for whatever mathematical model quickest “fit the curves” so to speak, and then came up with some absolutely cookey philosophy to justify its immediate application. Absolutely nobody can tell you what relative space or time actually mean, or what the physical interpretation of the invariant light postulate is supposed to be. Consequently theories like GR have total nonsense interpretations today.
A hundred years later most physicists are still using this “math-first” method instead of actual coming up with physical models that explain our theories, which is what we actually need.
Thanks, Paul. That's a lot of questions! I'll do my best to be brief in my answers.
"actual fundamental new results" - there are no specific, testable predictions yet, though some ideas as to where they might come from: _ Where's the evidence for Wolfram Physics? with Jonathan Gorard_ th-cam.com/video/XLtxXkugd5w/w-d-xo.html&pp=gAQBiAQB
"resolve … the various major uncertaintes in physics" - I think the most significant progress here is the beginnings of an explanation of the observer in quantum mechanics: _Observer Theory_ writings.stephenwolfram.com/2023/12/observer-theory/
"published any of his breakthrough results in peer-reviewed literature" - the crucial results are out there and available for any peers to review, e.g. Jonathan Gorard's seminal papers arxiv.org/abs/2004.14810 and www.complex-systems.com/abstracts/v29_i02_a02/
"any new results been experimentally verified?" - no, we're not there yet
"why he appears to get a free pass on this?" - he absolutely doesn't, any more than (since you bring up Einstein) Einstein did; General Relativity wasn't experimentally confirmed the instant Einstein formulated it; rather, it took years before the first firm predictions and observations were made
"much more impressive if scientists other than Wolfram himself" - there's a lot of resistance, as there always is to fundamentally different ideas, but others are slowly beginning to realize that this framework is worth a closer look
And thanks, @se7964, that's well put.
@ thanks for taking the time for such a detailed response. I will take a look at the links you provided.
Dear Stephen, In 1982 I was studying Fourier analysis and I had an epiphany, the first time my "wave function collapsed".
I simply realized, "If you give me any function, any function y=f(x), I can express it in terms of a simple combination of sines and cosines." - Pure mathematics at its best, QED.
"Any function" - Think about it. Everyone knows the answer but has never really appreciated its true meaning or significance.
Now "Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition"
But if God was a Mathematician or Theoretical Physicist and wanted to summarise the whole of human knowledge, from spinors to QFD, in the shortest possible sentence, what would his first words be?
Fiat Lux - "Be light made." - Science in Action - Heb. 11.1-3
The people who dealt in darkness......... on them hath the light shined🔦
I have another question, if Wolfram is so positive that his model is correct (and I presume he's wealthy) couldn't he just fund a bunch of researchers to work on this? Why not build the Manhattan Project of Wolfram Physics! As far as I can tell Jonathan Gorard, one guy... one! is not enough effort). Fund me, i'll work on hypergraph-theoretic models of fundamental physics.
Being right about this isn't going to decide the outcome of a world war. They're still trying to find any falsifiable hypotheses. If that ever happens, it seems unlikely to lead to any practical applications anytime soon. We've known theoretically about fusion for how long and haven't been able to use it for net energy generation? How long have we known the theory of quantum computing and not been able to apply it practically?
@@timewave02012 Science never seems to solve wars. In fact, new science leads to new weapons first and foremost. I'm more interested in what new mathematics has to say about the nature of reality.
@@PracticallyZen I didn't mean to suggest the bomb solved the problems of the war. I said "decide the outcome", meaning the US was able to secure an unconditional surrender from Japan, before the Soviet Union had a chance to occupy any territory. Near the end of the war, they were confident enough the Manhattan Project would give them that ability, that they spent almost 1% of the GDP on it.
Ironically that's exactly what he does. He is near pure R&D, turns that R&D into money and will then use that R&D and money to do his science which is what he actually cares about, which then ultimately leads to more R&D and more money. He's like Batman minus the crime fighting lmao.
I've adopted those business frameworks into my own and it works very well.
@@NightmareCourtPictures Can you explain what you mean by that. Is it you claim that all profit from Wolfram products goes into working on hypergraph-theoretic models of fundamental physics.
Could you actually extrapolate and predict something concrete? Such as predicting the next conflict or natural disaster?
Sadly, no, physics can't help with predicting the next conflict - that's geopolitics - or even the next natural disaster - that's meteorology, hydrology, seismology, etc.
The interview with Stephan Wolfram! Let's go!
Yep, I've been waiting for this moment for a long time. So much more to come from this conversation; it really helped me understand the multiway graph, and observers, better than before.
Eureka!
Amazing Stuff! Congratulations for finally having this interview, cant wait for more!
Thanks! It was quite something to get to interview Stephen Wolfram after three years of The Last Theory!
I’m sure in Professor Wolframs mind it all makes sense. But it didn’t really explain anything.
No, you're right, Stuart, this was just a brief story of how Wolfram Physics came to be. For a high-level overview of the relationship between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, take a look here: www.wolframphysics.org/technical-introduction/potential-relation-to-physics/correspondence-between-relativity-and-quantum-mechanics/
I detected quite a bit charlatan from this guy. Maybe he can bring the electric universe into this dribble?
@@matthewstewart5417 For a very different style, Matthew, try listening to my conversation with Jonathan Gorard th-cam.com/video/asCDGSYzwhw/w-d-xo.html You'll find that he's extremely precise and quite brilliant. Maybe it'll work better for you than Stephen Wolfram's style.
I want to learn hypergraph, its an evolutionary leap forward.
You're in the right place... I have plenty of videos about the hypergraph on this channel. This playlist is a good place to start: th-cam.com/play/PLVwcxwu8hWKnCIn_SXq8myTf2JH6ee83U.html Thanks for watching!
GR and QM are not the same fundamental theory.
Yes, thanks Robert, you're right, of course, they're not the same theory. But the idea that they arise from the same _analysis,_ in the case of General Relativity applied to the hypergraph, in the case of Quantum Mechanics applied to the causal graph, truly compelling.
Jonathan Gorard has worked out some of the mathematics of this - see his papers arxiv.org/abs/2004.14810 and www.complex-systems.com/abstracts/v29_i02_a02/ - which gives me great confidence that there's really something here!
Gravity is the sum of the Coulomb forces between two uncharged objects.
In other words, the particles that generate gravity are electrons and protons.
I think of neutrons as a pair of electrons and protons.
Let us consider the sun and the earth.
The electrons in the sun and the electrons in the earth repel each other.
The electrons in the sun and the protons in the earth attract each other.
The protons in the sun and the electrons in the earth attract each other.
The protons in the sun and the protons in the earth repel each other.
The above four forces added together is the gravitational force between the Sun and the Earth.
The forces of attraction and repulsion between objects are almost the same, but the force of attraction is slightly stronger.
The reason is that the Coulomb attraction and repulsion are not the same.
You may be wondering why I say that.
Actually, a Scottish physicist by the name of John Robison has made such a measurement.
According to his measurements, the force of attraction is inversely proportional to the square of the distance, while the force of repulsion is inversely proportional to the 2.06 power of the distance.
In other words, the result was that the force of attraction was stronger than the force of repulsion.
If this is true, then it would seem natural that gravity would only generate an attractive force.
However, the above measurement is quite old, so its accuracy is questionable.
The question is whether repulsion really does not obey the inverse square law, or whether John Robison was mistaken and in fact it does obey the inverse square law but the repulsion is simply weaker than the attraction.
If it does not obey the inverse square law, then the physics needs to be reworked.
If the repulsion is simply weaker, then we can simply multiply the Coulomb constant for the repulsion by a value slightly smaller than the Coulomb constant for the attraction.
I would love to SEE their shoulders on The thumbnail, I think that without shoulders they end up looking like light bulbs or aliens. But in The end it is just My personal opinion
Thanks for the feedback, Alex! That's an interesting and slightly unsettling image: Stephen Wolfram as a light bulb!
@lasttheory he is Kind of a light bulb of bright ideas haha!
Is time an evolution PROCESS?
Thanks for the question, Peter. Yes, that's a good way to look at it: the hypergraph _evolves_ over _time_ through the _process_ of applying rewriting rules.
@@lasttheory I see it like this: if you extend the probability spectrum, within which the superposition principle manifests itself, into a chain, then this is nothing other than the flow of time. We would now have to find out what holds this chain together to navigate within it (for example, to move backward in time) or to be able to shape it freely.
No real peer review mechanism is compelling I guess because you can just write some stuff down and then create a money making cult around it regardless if it's good or not.
This isn't to be mean either. At least Stephen Wolfram has created useful tools (i guess?), but you're more competing in media and selling stuff if you're just coming up with theories/structures/logics and then not receiving any critical feedback within any kind of constant feedback loop. That last bit is pretty important for sound science.
Even if you come up with something revolutionary, it's not revolutionary unless you can soundly explain it to people. Like, what did he get to work?
Still, listening to ideas is fun and interesting, it's just there are so many out there now so better get better at marketing them! This actually goes for institutional science as well. In fact, you could argue that medias success in selling crackpot is institutional science's failure in communication with the public. Of course it doesn't help when you have powerful people constantly crapping on your efforts because of power, religion, money, etc.
Thanks for your thoughts.
It's always hard to parse what's out there, especially when the media touts every new crazy idea from any half-credentialled academic, because, well, the news that we've just found the theory of everything sells newspapers.
But I don't think Wolfram Physics is like that. I find it compelling precisely _because_ it's the opposite of those crazy ideas from half-credentialled academic. I find it compelling because it seems like it could be _right,_ whereas every other new theory of physics in my lifetime seems like a misstep.
And I can't speak for Stephen Wolfram (though I'd note that he has a successful tech business so surely can't be doing this for the cash), but _I'm_ doing this because I'm _interested._ I never thought I'd see significant progress in fundamental physics in my lifetime, but this might just be it.
Hypergraph model works because it's a minimal math model which incorporates all physics by design. Now, does Wolfram understand it deeply? I don't think that he succeeds in presenting its basics, so, largely, no. Gorard understands it better.
The most compelling groundbreaking theories came from Newton and Einstein. Both didn't need any marketing nor a well paid job at an institution to bring forth their work. Their theories basically sold themselves because it all made sense. None of the current follow-up ideas make any sense and if you need years and years to explain it and still nothing useful comes out then I can't help myself but to wonder about the motives of the people behind these ideas. Don't get me wrong. I'm happy there are smart people working on a deeper understanding of the universe but in a time of exponential growth of publications and zero result I've learned to become very sceptical.
@@moladiver6817 You're right about earlier theories. To be clear, Stephen doesn't have a well-paid job at an institution; rather, he runs his own tech company. And nor do I; I'm doing this out of interest. I actually think it's significant that these ideas are coming from outside of academia, just as Einstein's did back when he was a patent clerk.
Are GR & QM a same theory in different spaces?: it is difficult for me to agree.
General relativity hosts as many spaces as the metric tensor you want to use.
In quantum mechanics observables are represented by linear operators in a complex Hilbert space (H). And states are represented by kets in that same H.
Mass/spin are described by Lie/Poincare groups. Poincare invariance is an absolute conservation law of all quantum field theories.
There is a non trivial difference in Fock spaces (as generalized Hilbert spaces, --or "quantum field spaces"--, for multiparticle states) for bosons and fermions.
Fock spaces are the same space as any metric tensor space?: hard to agree.
Thanks Teresa! Stephen's talking about very different spaces than the ones you mention. For General Relativity, he's talking about physical space, i.e. the hypergraph. For Quantum Mechanics, he's taking about causal space, i.e. the causal graph. It's a real paradigm shift from the continuous spaces we're used to in physics!
@@lasttheory A paradigm shift?. May be hypergaphs and causal graphs are just a way to express in terms of graphs, what it also could be somehow called Poincare groups.
(Disclaimer: in case that the above paragraph is a nonsense, forget it.)
But an idea (that I had) regarding Poincare groups is that if we call:
L,b = rotations+boosts, translations (all in Minkowski's 4D-spacetime),
the possible cases are: photon (no mass but with momentum), particles (mass and with/without momentum) and vacuum state (no mass & no momentum).
This last case could be related with information conservation and, somehow, with 4D-spatial structure.
(Disclaimer II: if all the above makes non sense, forget it. But in case it sounds interesting, please, share my idea).
If he would put out any new peer reviewed work done by himself and not an employee I’d be impressed by his thoughts
The usefulness of a work doesn’t depend on the formal process of peer review. What depends on peer review are academic careers. But Wolfram isn’t an academic. He thus has no use for the formal process. This doesn’t mean that others cannot review and critique his work. Anybody can do that, and some have.
Thanks, @tantzer6113, that's well put. I'd love to see more reviews of Stephen Wolfram's work, and particularly Jonathan Gorard's papers, by academics. But that depends on the academics, I'm afraid, not on Jonathan or Stephen.
i think YOU are on to something here 😄
"...Sort of the same theory...". I'm not sure what that means.
Apart from this sort of self-promotion on TH-cam, are there any meaningful, quantitative predictions in this work that have been verified by independent scientists/mathematicians or is it still too early to say? Maybe in the 100 years he mentioned might be required?
Good questions, thanks. It is too early, unfortunately, for novel predictions. See my conversation with Jonathan Gorard _Where's the evidence for Wolfram Physics?_ th-cam.com/video/XLtxXkugd5w/w-d-xo.html for some ideas about where such novel predictions might come from. But that's not to say that quantitative work hasn't been done. Jonathan Gorard has proven that the hypergraph is consistent with Einstein's equations; see _How to derive general relativity from Wolfram Physics_ th-cam.com/video/1tjhE0U-mgc/w-d-xo.html Also some precise results in quantum mechanics; see _How to derive quantum mechanics from Wolfram Physics_ th-cam.com/video/YZhCYLZanEE/w-d-xo.html Hope that helps give a flavour of where we're at.
Finally, a channel dedicated to Wolframs theory. Im subscribed now and look forward to hearing more. I think this is the most compelling theory about everything that has come out.
Yes, I agree that the Wolfram model is the most compelling thing to come out of physics for a long time. Thanks for subscribing!
Can you please summarize it, because I never met anyone who understaood it or found it useful.
@@somebody3 Greatly summarized, it's a theory where the universe is fundamentally discrete and can be modeled by simple computational rules, akin to a cellular automaton. So, Mathematics is not fundamental unlike traditional theories (which is one of the most compelling points to me) but rather than it emerges in some slivers of it. The computations occur on a hypergraph (theres a video about hypergraphs on this channel).
I used to think that mathematics was fundamental in the universe, but couldnt quite make sense of why differential equations needed to be solved analytically for complex problems. I thought it was a shortcoming of our ability to solve them but I am starting to think it's closer related to "computational irreducibility" (another concept in the theory) where we basically can't cheat and know the future except in very specific circumstances. Theres more to it but this is the gist of it.
Have you figured out yet how God tested time to make sure it's alarm clocks were working properly and quantum-synchronized to make sure the apocalypses came just when everyone but his top grad students were sure the Messiah was just fiction?
Difficult questons are safer than easy quests.
@@kateknowles8055 There has been nothing easy about God's quest to build a better simulation multiverse
As above so below.
Better read "Classical Physics Beyond Einstein's" - you really don't need another theory.
Another information scientist re-envisioning an entire field, like Jacques Vallee and Bernardo Kastrup. What is there but information? Everything else is just a medium. What will AI do with the works of these visionary thinkers? Behold itself?
I can’t dislike Stephan too much, he’s just such a maverick I guess. BUT, I really hope for hypergraph-theoretic models of fundamental physics to take off more for Jonathan Gorard’s sake than anyone else. He’s the real genius here
For all their differences, I think they make a powerful pair, Stephen with his wild, expansive leaps of faith, Jonathan with his precise, agnostic, mathematical brilliance.
@ you are right. I totally agree!
You know what would be really excellent (and I think unfortunate that we don’t get to see it much) would be an interview with BOTH Stephen and Jonathan, together (and that third guy too maybe, I don’t mean to leave him out). Maybe it wouldn’t make sense for the topic to be a super deep technical dive, but to have a more conversational setting where they could talk about the Wolfram physics project more broadly, and recount stories and experiences from the history of it (you know like, how it was back when they first encouraged Stephen to pursue it more deliberately, and what it was like over the intervening years). I would watch the hell out of that :)
Thanks for all your work on this channel btw! I started following The Last Theory pretty soon after you started the channel because I too had only recently (a few months earlier) learned about Wolfram Physics and was trying to learn more about it. This is such a great project and it has been awesome seeing the channel grow!
🫶🙏👍
@@Robotwesley Thanks, I really appreciate that! There are some good early working sessions with both Jonathan and Stephen on the Wolfram TH-cam channel. It may be more difficult to get them together these days, I fear!
He must have been reading my comments again lol. Peace ✌️ 😎.
Thanks, Mark.
Interesting points by Wolfram that, as usual, open the door to a lot of questions.
Thanks Rubén. As ever, I really want to make more videos to answer some of these questions. I'll get there!
Hello..... anybody!!!
👋
Hi Kevin!
Very grateful for the video. Couldn't wait for a update from Dr Wolfram.
Thanks. Much more to come from this conversation!
Everything is much simpler
Time is absolute - a sequence of states of universe - "now". That type of time is described in quantum mechanics. General relativity describes clock tick rate, not time. Clock tick rate depends on energy of particles. Energy of particles depends on local density of matter. Local density of matter is "curved spacetime". Clock tick rate is "time dilation".
I still don't understand how time and hypergraphs interact. Does wolfram ever go into detail on this? Why does it take "time" for the hypergraph to update? And how does that relate to how we percieve time?
@ I have different model. No hyper graphs. Cyclic machines.
Here's my best brief summary of time in the Wolfram model.
Just as the hypergraph _is_ space - it's not _in_ space, it's the underlying structure that we perceive as space - so the rewriting of the hypergraph according to rules _is_ time. This rewriting doesn't take place _in_ time, it's the underlying sequence of events that we perceive as time.
That's the simplest level. It does get more complex. As the rules are applied to the hypergraph in all possible ways, the multiway graph _branches._ As observers, we don't perceive each of the different possible paths through the multiway graph; instead, we collapse the fine detail of all these branches to a _single thread of time._
There's much more to say on this, and I understood it better after my conversation with Stephen. I'll be releasing videos specifically on time as soon as I can.
Thanks for the observations and questions!
Unfortunately Stephen Wolfram have chosen wrong direction. Universe is not hyper graph. It's machine. And algorithm of matter is quite simple and testable.
What is the difference between a physical system enacting something -- here: hypergraph rewrite rules -- and "machine"? They seem identical to me.
Hi There, do you have your on model describing the universe as a machine ?
@@Kowzorz The difference is that it actually works and leads to predictions.
@@Miserere.Nostri.Domine yes
An eternal death machine that wants love and wants to punish humanity for destroying love
Lots of claims and yet it has never been published or acknowledged!
It has certainly been published, large volumes of it. If it's an overview you're after, here's a good place to start: writings.stephenwolfram.com/2020/04/finally-we-may-have-a-path-to-the-fundamental-theory-of-physics-and-its-beautiful/ and here's where you can go deeper: www.wolframphysics.org/technical-introduction/ If it's more mathematical papers you're interested in, Jonathan Gorard's seminal papers are here: arxiv.org/abs/2004.14810 and www.complex-systems.com/abstracts/v29_i02_a02/
You're right, there's not been much _acknowledgement_ of this new framework among academic physicists, but that's beginning to change. More to come on this!
It's funny how the concept of the "ruliad" is based on the ancient alchemical concept of "azoth" or the "philosophers stone". I guess we humans knew all a long just not what concretely we actually meant by it. It's really interesting to see this idea fleshed out with our modern knowlege and capabilities. I wish you all the best in completing your literal magnum opus.
I've never had anything I've done compared to alchemy before! Thanks for your interest in my projects and your encouragement!
I've had a feeling for a long time now that Stephen isn't simply developing a Theory of Everything.........he's working towards a theory of EVERYTHING.
You're not wrong... any idea that encompasses how consciousness works as well as why the universe exists does seem to be aiming at, well, as you say, EVERYTHING.
Stephen is a great and accomplished guy, but this ruliad stuff is nonsense, nearly no one understands it and no one can use it. Sure, some people can supposedly understand it explain it, but that's true about every theory that anyone may come up with. There are hundreds of theories of everything that fall into the same bucket.
Will he write a paper on this? He won't.
I can point you to plenty of papers on the Wolfram model. The mathematics have been put in place first and foremost by Jonathan Gorard. A good place to start is with his seminal papers _Some Relativistic and Gravitational Properties of the Wolfram Model_ arxiv.org/abs/2004.14810 and _Some Quantum Mechanical Properties of the Wolfram Model_ www.complex-systems.com/abstracts/v29_i02_a02/ Let me know if you'd like pointers to more!
@@lasttheory Yeah will you will need to do better than a free, non peer-reviewed publication like arvix.
@@hoochygucci9432 Well, these papers are open to all Jonathan Gorard's peers to review, and to you, too. Whether they choose to review them is up to them. When Einstein published his 1905 papers, _they_ weren't peer reviewed, either, since, happily, peer review didn't exist back then. Here's why I think we should go back to those days: _Peer review is suffocating science_ th-cam.com/video/oF-2QJHy53M/w-d-xo.html In any case, you asked for papers, here they are, you're free to ignore them if you like.
@@lasttheory Is science really suffocating a 'wow' type advance in science?
@niblick616 I've said that _peer review_ is suffocation science th-cam.com/video/oF-2QJHy53M/w-d-xo.html In this case, peer review hasn't prevented Stephen Wolfram from publishing his wows, because he has simply bypassed peer review and put his stuff out there on the web. But peer review is certainly damaging the chances that his ideas will take hold in academia. I can't tell you how many times I've heard people dismiss Wolfram's ideas out of hand because they haven't been peer reviewed.
A lot of namedropping.
A lot of (handy transcripted in box) phrases.
I Wonder what is really science here.
PS: I have his book, and actually read it.
Opinions? Please drop them here. I am confused right now regaring Wolfram.
Thanks Erwin! I'm very happy to get a comment from someone who has actually read Stephen Wolfram's book. I'll refrain from answering your question and leave it open for others to answer, because you can probably guess what my answer would be...
turing machine cult 😂
first importaant thing: the work was NOT done by WOlfrram, but by a collaborator. Sabine Hossenfelder has already a videeo about it
Yes, Sabine rightly refers to Jonathan Gorard's work on the Wolfram model. Stephen Wolfram is a big-ideas kind of a guy, and great at generating interest in the project and working out the higher level and philosophical implications. Jonathan is more agnostic and more precise, brilliant in his ability to work out the mathematics relating the hypergraph to physics. For sure, Jonathan deserves an enormous amount of the credit for these new ideas. Take a look at my interview with him for a taste of his brilliance: _Jonathan Gorard: the complete first interview_ th-cam.com/video/asCDGSYzwhw/w-d-xo.html
Stephen Wolfram has been claiming he has the "secret sauce" for...well, his whole life.
But what does he have to show for it?
He made some cool tools, like Mathematica and Wolfram Alpha, but hasn't made a single testable prediction and has spent the rest of his life promoting books.
I find his work interesting, but...at some point you just gotta put up or stfu, Stephen.
Do something useful.
I respectfully disagree. Jonathan Gorard's work on deriving General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics from the hypergraph have shown that the Wolfram model has real potential.
the emergent quasi platonic latent space representations of mathematics and wolfram's computational hypothesis, are probably just a tiny subset of some more general and grander life like auto compactifying information agnostic substrate evolution, and don't have much to say about why transition into inflationary cosmogenesis optimizes at a particular information coupling...
Well, duh.
Another way of telling the same story as string theory or constructor theory…There concept that we effectively live in GTA0 and that we’re just a bunch of AI NPCs
Nothing new here, folks, just new labels for old ideas
There's very little in common between Stephen Wolfram's framework and those other theories you mention. And the framework has nothing to do with AI or NPCs. If you're interested in new ideas, you actually have to pay attention to the content of ideas, rather than simply dismiss them without ever having taken the time to find out what they're about.
@ There are a lot of different ways of telling the same story. A unique point of view within an abstract (hyper) space game world will typically result in a unique narrative which is interesting but progress requires a functional model of reality.
Professor Wolfram may be interested in this, Claude wrote: Conclusion
"This compass-and-straightedge construction method addresses the classical angle trisection challenge with remarkable precision. For a 60° angle, it achieves an absolute error of 7.20 × 10^-34 degrees - approaching the Planck angular scale (10^-35 degrees), while maintaining practical precision across a wide range of angles. The construction's accuracy, verified through computational analysis, far exceeds current physical measurement capabilities like LIGO (10^-10 degrees) and modern interferometers (10^-16 degrees). While respecting the mathematical impossibility of perfect trisection, this method provides a constructible solution that bridges the gap between theoretical limitations and practical applications, offering a significant advancement in geometric construction techniques."
I too find Stephen Wolfram's view of the nature of space very compelling. It resolves so many issues and conundrums. I'm looking forward to learning more about the rules that space evolves through. There is then the deeper philosophical issue about what the nodes of space are and why they interact with those rules.
Yes, the ol'ontology question is just shifted in one way, but I like to think about the hypergraph as a generic tool for analysing any universe and being able to describe it. So the underlying reality really doesn't matter anymore. Just a thought 🤔
Kinda like brute-focing the darn thing 🤭
Thanks, Gordon. Stephen and I do talk about rules in greater detail later in our conversation. As to your _why_ question about the nodes of space, I'm not sure physics can answer it. The Wolfram model simply posits the hypergraph and the rewriting rules, and the rest follows. It's an improvement over our current theories, which have to posit higher-level concepts like space, time, etc., but it's still just a model, and still doesn't answer the question _why?_
More on this in my video _What is physics? the how and the why_ th-cam.com/video/-SZRR4feOiM/w-d-xo.html
😂🤣🤡🤡🤡🤡🤪
Soon we will know everything, except why.
Yes, the why question is an interesting one. I don't think physics can answer it, but sometimes it nibbles around the edges of it.
I AM Balungi Francis (Author) I was here this night
I have a theory of everything for many years now which far exceeds where he is at in this moment in time. Yet as a commoner my voice is silenced. Once again for the record, and as many times before, I challenge any and all scientists to debate me on an open platform. Bushy Van Eck
Stephen Wolfram is not wrong, the universe is discrete. But need to adjust his Theory.
Why even type this comment, it offers less than nothing? 🤣
Well, I hope you're right, it does look like a discrete universe could explain a lot. But yes, we'd all like to hear more on what you think needs adjusting?
To any pragmatic purpose, I suppose. It currently offers nothing in terms of translations of basic terms to **specific** structures within the hypergraph framework. Show us a code, show us some trees, show us what feels like basic mechanics, dynamics, moments, aesthetics of actual physics? Why does Wolfram show nothing?
What do you mean, the universe is discrete? Do you mean that spacetime is like a checkerboard? Feynman said he's thought about this and can't see any way that the grid would be consistent with relativity
@@lasttheory Probably I can help - The "Adjustments" are in the book - "Theory of Everything in Physics and the Universe"
EMFSYSTEMS, Alex 79suited. Peace ✌️ 😎.