An excellent presentation. You and your team have made so much incredible progress in this truly groundbreaking work that will be the foundation for scientific learnings over the next century. Amazing. I thank you for recording and documenting all this work over the years -- it will be studied by generations. Thank you.
Imo, the best metaphor for the Computational Irreducibility is that one has to live his life to find out where he stands on his, say, 60th birthday. There is no function F(t) that will do the job, whether deterministic or probabilistic.
This is rather fascinating. Does the paradigm capture the quantization of things and so on? Does it lead inexorably to fundamental particles with the right spins and so forth? Can you get Heisenberg uncertainty? So many questions... Oh, sorry - you're coming to it.
If you understand this work, you can apply it to things. I’ve done so myself (studied Wolframs theories for 2.5 years now) and have done his applicable science (Ruliology and Multi-Computation) studying rules and making systems based on the principles for my own purposes, and it’s incredible. It’s also a bit more than just doing science and making technology based on it but it’s also a mindset shift, which helps one figure out how systems work in order to study them, and how to create systems. I highly recommend studying and understanding not just his work but also understanding the problems with mainstream science…and it will help one differentiate whether you are doing things right.
@@NightmareCourtPictures Yes, very well, I also mean the actual use of the Wolfram language and its correct use of its syntax in the notebook. And with it the construction of a longer Wolfram Language program. I think Wolfram can do a lot here in the future with the help and integration of the new AI chat assistants.
It may be that even though the multiple quantum history branches are being evaluated at the same time, there are only specific way points in that evolution of multiple quantum history branches at which things align in such a way that, only at those way points the perception can occur and one of the characteristics of these way points is that the multiple branches have merged to only let us perceive one outcome of the measurement. And that is why we (or our measuring devices) - who are embedded in this brancheal space - never perceive (or measure) a simultaneously dead or alive cat. So in some sense a measurement can be thought of as a brancheal network update that forces and hastens the arrival of such way points. Think of it like this....a key can enter a key hole of a lock only when the internal tabs are pushed out in a specific way to let the key through. Or another example is when travelling on a city road, only when we arrive at a crossing we can see the side street buildings. The very phenomenon which we call a perception - can only happen at the way points in the previous paragraph. And in fact there could be other network updates which may force these way points and force the merging. That is why quantum computers are protected from stray air molecules lest they destroy the quantum state. BTW the last sentence also debunks the myth that consciousness is necessary to collapse quantum wave function.
Branchial space pretty obviously maps onto Everett’s “many worlds” multiverse. However in Wolfram’s model it is made explicit that the configuration of any spacelike slice could be arrived at by multiple paths through branchial space. So at any given instant we don’t merely have multiple potential futures branching odd ahead of us but also multiple alternative pasts behind us leading to the same moment.
@Sam Wall I agree there must be convergence between multiple branches with similar outcomes. This is why the principle of least action works. So consciousness is sort of beside the point. This convergence appears to be necessary just to make physics work.
@Sam Wall everettian many worlds is widely misinterpreted eg many people seem to think it means splitting the entire universe every time some random quantum event has multiple possible outcomes. This is nonsense obviously. It doesn’t matter that least action was derived classically. The entire macroscopic universe is derived classically but the underlying mechanisms are quantum mechanical. Hence, so too with least action. I hate it when people try to treat consciousness as something magical. The important aspects of our brains with respect to the observer role are entirely physical and subject to thermodynamics. A photon strikes a cone cell, it says “blue” to the visual cortex, neurotransmitters float across a synaptic gap and result in chemical changes to the membrane on the other side. Hence a memory is formed. Repeat a million times and memories are laid down on top of other memories. The physics of each quantum interaction is reversible, but the overall process is only meaningful in one direction. This is where the arrow of time comes from. Nowhere else. It’s just computation.
he explained what each of his terms mean. just because his foundations diverge from *accepted* math & physics, does not mean at all that his ideas are bad or wrong
Dr. W ended abruptly, so let me make his point about consciousness. Evolution selected for a large frontal cortex which gave us the ability to plan and develop abstract thinking, which propelled us to the top of the food chain. A necessary part of the ability to plan is the ability to imagine a Conceptualized Self, and place this Self in various possible imaginary situations and predict possible and probable outcomes. Consciousness is a spinoff of this, an "executive function" designed by evolution to oversee the operation. All of this is taking place inside a Rule 30 universe where the bizarre and unexpected happens all the time. BTW, another byproduct of the Conceptualized Self is human suffering. The Conceptualized Self is only in the imagination, but we start to think it's real. There is no "real me" at the core of my being, I'm an organism, albeit a higher-level organism, reacting to an environment with the goal of survival. Buddhism is kind of saying the same thing (see Robert Wright's "Why Buddhism Is True"). :)
It's more like to a sermon than a scientific presentation. The difference between science and religion is that in science we acknowledge the contributions of others and we don't present what we know as the singular truth. He does neither of those two things.
To any simple mind, a thing inaccessible to it is simply a mess. That is a good thing. For those who are in knowledge and understanding can do their thing in peace.
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 85 | คู่เอก "ยอดเหล็กเพชร vs ผึ้งหลวง"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Qq_19bnnxEo/mqdefault.jpg)
I've occasionally checked in on this research over a fair number of years - you guys have really come a long way, Dr. Wolfram. Congratulations!
An excellent presentation. You and your team have made so much incredible progress in this truly groundbreaking work that will be the foundation for scientific learnings over the next century. Amazing. I thank you for recording and documenting all this work over the years -- it will be studied by generations. Thank you.
Could not agree more
hear hear
Why are the questions not included in this recording? I asked a question and it was cut from this recording.
MERCI
Imo, the best metaphor for the Computational Irreducibility is that one has to live his life to find out where he stands on his, say, 60th birthday. There is no function F(t) that will do the job, whether deterministic or probabilistic.
This is rather fascinating. Does the paradigm capture the quantization of things and so on? Does it lead inexorably to fundamental particles with the right spins and so forth? Can you get Heisenberg uncertainty? So many questions...
Oh, sorry - you're coming to it.
For me, there is less question about understanding
Stephen's work.
But rather about how I am able to make it possible
for myself to play with it ...
If you understand this work, you can apply it to things. I’ve done so myself (studied Wolframs theories for 2.5 years now) and have done his applicable science (Ruliology and Multi-Computation) studying rules and making systems based on the principles for my own purposes, and it’s incredible.
It’s also a bit more than just doing science and making technology based on it but it’s also a mindset shift, which helps one figure out how systems work in order to study them, and how to create systems.
I highly recommend studying and understanding not just his work but also understanding the problems with mainstream science…and it will help one differentiate whether you are doing things right.
@@NightmareCourtPictures Yes, very well, I also mean the
actual use of the Wolfram language and its correct use of
its syntax in the notebook.
And with it the construction of a longer Wolfram
Language program.
I think Wolfram can do a lot here in the future with the
help and integration of the new AI chat assistants.
This really does offer a nice explanation for how quantum computation can bring enhanced performance.
Wolfram says his theory suggests quantum computers will not actually work essentially
I believe it was in his second interview with Lex Fridman that he explained it if you are interested
It may be that even though the multiple quantum history branches are being evaluated at the same time, there are only specific way points in that evolution of multiple quantum history branches at which things align in such a way that, only at those way points the perception can occur and one of the characteristics of these way points is that the multiple branches have merged to only let us perceive one outcome of the measurement. And that is why we (or our measuring devices) - who are embedded in this brancheal space - never perceive (or measure) a simultaneously dead or alive cat. So in some sense a measurement can be thought of as a brancheal network update that forces and hastens the arrival of such way points. Think of it like this....a key can enter a key hole of a lock only when the internal tabs are pushed out in a specific way to let the key through. Or another example is when travelling on a city road, only when we arrive at a crossing we can see the side street buildings.
The very phenomenon which we call a perception - can only happen at the way points in the previous paragraph. And in fact there could be other network updates which may force these way points and force the merging. That is why quantum computers are protected from stray air molecules lest they destroy the quantum state. BTW the last sentence also debunks the myth that consciousness is necessary to collapse quantum wave function.
How do you generate those patterns from those rules? Is there some source code available?
They are described in detail in 'A New Kind of Science'
and provided with many examples.
Talking faster has never communicated an idea faster.
At 1:08 is he saying Tegmark is correct essentially?
Would be interested to hear how this would apply or not to the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics.
Branchial space pretty obviously maps onto Everett’s “many worlds” multiverse. However in Wolfram’s model it is made explicit that the configuration of any spacelike slice could be arrived at by multiple paths through branchial space. So at any given instant we don’t merely have multiple potential futures branching odd ahead of us but also multiple alternative pasts behind us leading to the same moment.
@Sam Wall I agree there must be convergence between multiple branches with similar outcomes. This is why the principle of least action works. So consciousness is sort of beside the point. This convergence appears to be necessary just to make physics work.
@Sam Wall everettian many worlds is widely misinterpreted eg many people seem to think it means splitting the entire universe every time some random quantum event has multiple possible outcomes. This is nonsense obviously.
It doesn’t matter that least action was derived classically. The entire macroscopic universe is derived classically but the underlying mechanisms are quantum mechanical. Hence, so too with least action.
I hate it when people try to treat consciousness as something magical. The important aspects of our brains with respect to the observer role are entirely physical and subject to thermodynamics. A photon strikes a cone cell, it says “blue” to the visual cortex, neurotransmitters float across a synaptic gap and result in chemical changes to the membrane on the other side. Hence a memory is formed. Repeat a million times and memories are laid down on top of other memories. The physics of each quantum interaction is reversible, but the overall process is only meaningful in one direction. This is where the arrow of time comes from. Nowhere else. It’s just computation.
Interresting I need to listen to the rest
Could not understand a word of what he said. He truly must be a genius !
All that seemed like embroidery to me !!
he explained what each of his terms mean. just because his foundations diverge from *accepted* math & physics, does not mean at all that his ideas are bad or wrong
Dr. W ended abruptly, so let me make his point about consciousness. Evolution selected for a large frontal cortex which gave us the ability to plan and develop abstract thinking, which propelled us to the top of the food chain. A necessary part of the ability to plan is the ability to imagine a Conceptualized Self, and place this Self in various possible imaginary situations and predict possible and probable outcomes. Consciousness is a spinoff of this, an "executive function" designed by evolution to oversee the operation. All of this is taking place inside a Rule 30 universe where the bizarre and unexpected happens all the time. BTW, another byproduct of the Conceptualized Self is human suffering. The Conceptualized Self is only in the imagination, but we start to think it's real. There is no "real me" at the core of my being, I'm an organism, albeit a higher-level organism, reacting to an environment with the goal of survival. Buddhism is kind of saying the same thing (see Robert Wright's "Why Buddhism Is True"). :)
Read the ctmu
He looks like a deepfake of himself
It's more like to a sermon than a scientific presentation. The difference between science and religion is that in science we acknowledge the contributions of others and we don't present what we know as the singular truth. He does neither of those two things.
gibberish
To any simple mind, a thing inaccessible to it
is simply a mess.
That is a good thing. For those who are in
knowledge and understanding can do their
thing in peace.