I know “never meet your heroes” and all that but I admire the heck out of how much of the inner workings of the Wolfram Physics Project are available for direct inspection by the public. It seems like just the livestreams constitute a significant body of work.
I believe this model is one of the great, true breakthrough since the golden age of physics. The model has so many rich areas to explore like what is spin? What is quantum tunneling?
Admitting that one has been wrong about some things for their entire life is a hard pill to swallow and most people just throw up instead (cognitive dissonance). Ego and pride are our ultimate nemesis, the biggest obstacle to personal development.
@@matterasmachine Not anyone in particular. In general, whoever has their beliefs proven incorrect by overwhelming evidence. Although, nothing can be proven 100% (objectively) true at this point. As an example of what I was talking about... There are people who believe that the right way to go about their life is to use and abuse others for their selfish benefit (power, wealth, fame, etc.). And they may even be successful at all that. But this is not sustainable and broad adoption of this mindset would lead to a very fast disintegration of the human societies as we know them. However, how does one make a transition away from this kind of thinking? Especially when they have been doing all that shit for e.g. 30+ years? How does a physicist depart from the classical physics after teaching (preaching) it for many years and completely buying into it?
@@ACzechManGoingHisOwnWay societies Are built only to abuse others for their selfish benefit. Country that fights another country is an example of that. Power can be taken down only by another power. You can make a new power by joining the weak one and making it stronger. But in this case both sides are strong - one is millionaire, other "official science". And both can be wrong.
@@michaeljmcguffin I see. Here on Twitter, he says nothing at all about his involvement in the Wolfram Physics project. And he's also no longer on the Physics project life stream. Seems like he's saying goodbye to this?
@@silberlinieHe says, under 'tweets and replies': " I’m still working on developing the underlying hypergraph formalism (e.g. with Xerxes), but I stepped back from the project itself several months ago due to disagreements over how I was being treated. I might rejoin at some point, but some stuff would need to change." Hard to know what's behind it, but I suspect SW's sometimes brutal honesty was hard to take. But then again SW's a billionaire and he presumably didn't get there being overly concerned with other people's feelings.
@@philiprice6961 I myself, some time ago, in my commentary on a session, pointed out with astonishment and anger ... how someone was treated ... Especially at the beginning of a session not so interesting for SW, he is often unbearable. Even for me as a spectator. The lower a staff member is in the hierarchy, the harder SW's bad mood will hit him.
The Wolfram Model is as important, in my college level understandings opinion, as Newton. In a way it is a more intuitive way of seeing the universe! For example the ideas around density of space has so many interesting implications. I think the Wolfram Model opens us up to understanding gravity waves....
Looks like Terrence Howard’s models in the background . I would reach out. I just randomly came across this video and I love Astrophysics and Physics in general
Dark Matter and Dark Energy Revisited. It strikes me that one way of looking at the project is simply modeling what is already known. The cellular automaton is by definition a series of relationships with pattern showing in various areas. These patterns are special because of their relationship to other patterns due to the common method of creation. But isn't modeling what mathematics is all about? A series of (mathematical) relationships that can be used to represent some empirical knowledge (dropping an apple from a tower). Math is modeling the real world. So it's not surprising that a sufficiently complicated pattern of related items (relationships however created, ie, running rule 30 long enough, or calculus for determining the volume of a sphere) will reveal relationships that can be mapped to theories that identify related phenomena - such as quantum theory, General relativity, etc. No surprise in that really, but still a different approach (the Project) than coming from the side of empiricism, creating a model and then using the model to expand our understanding of the phenomenon under investigation (traditional use of math to model the world). So, isn't the key to gaining more knowledge (obviously) through development of the Project primarily to go beyond finding patterns representing our current knowledge of physics to find surprises or strings to pull that lead to surprises that might be shown in the models that are adjacent to these models of current knowledge. It might be cool to find all current knowledge modeled by relationship modeling of the Project, but the mother lode is new information, directly or indirectly found through the novel approach (I'm repeating myself - sorry). Whether the Project can reveal new knowledge will require first mapping all or most of the current knowledge, so it makes sense this is the first step, but it seems that the real goal is finding those unknown strings to pull, and that would include things like explaining the accelerating expansion of the universe, or the problems with the rotations of solar systems in galaxies. Finding any sort of insights into some of these big physics problems would show the huge value of the project bringing an avalanche of interest and support in pursing it.
Course grain observations are consistant, in jest a compound int a mouse will produce constant behaviour time and time again. So what ever is going on at a fine grain level, must average itself out, to produce constant results.
I think that bunch of bits is some significant feature within object/picture and if we can put word to it "description", so will a futuristic AI be able to do. The big problem with todays AI is they are to lttle AGI they have to narrow scope. That is what i like with your "expertsystem" that i just watched briefly in a video, i think an AGI will heavily use an expertsystem as support frame even an expertsystem which it maintain and update itself. Without words we will be alienated from the AI's and they will be alienated from us. And we may in the end lack common ground for our experience of reality. Such an expertsystem will be heavily interconnected using some features but it may not necessarily be a complicated graph, those connection may end up be very database like usning lookup tables. Language is the nut and bolt in any relation, sure they may even come up with words that describe the features of the universe that we were not aware of. And at that point their ways of understanding the universe become pretty humanlike. But the causal graphs you make and create to describe the universe as energy pockets and their influence over other regions may also need new words or new use of words to describe what is going on in the graph, sure a numeric spreadsheet or graph in all honor, but that will only speak to a small group of expert analysts on the subject. Maybe there already is a lingo to describe local computational features of a computational system. I think it is pretty amazing that we are able to come up with new words in itself to describe properties of objects, events and processes. That language isn't a static thing but steadily moving forward together with our understanding/misunderstanding. I always thought of graphs as lookup tables describing their connectivity between nodes, it seem a more set like approach to see the edges as a set of connectivity that belong to the node in the graph. I think that has an advantage especially if the connectivity is optimised to traverse A to B using minimal jumps. It is kind of strange how the numbers of dimensions of a node "connections" make the network/graph traversable independent of network size "node amount" in very few steps independent of network size as the dimensions of network just some tenths of edges for each node in graph, in a network of 1000 of billions of nodes, any two random nodes can be traversed in just a few jumps. And it seem as you add edges there is a "threshold?/limit" where it no longer matter how many nodes you put in. Any pair of nodes in the network will always be traversable in a fixed "few steps". This is of course maybe obvious to anyone that knows anything about search algorithms, but for me it was a surprise because one just do not think about networks/graphs to have "order" and named nodes. So knowing the order/numeric name of "node X" helps us traverse the network knowing my name is Y. By just look around at neighboured "by edges/links" nodes we can chose the "preferable" one to traverse. There is some weird relation leading you right once you set up such an indexed named network in minimal number of steps. Thinking a bit of Hans and Gretel and the bread crumbs maybe not such a bad idea LoL, but maybe that is just a malfunction of my network connectivity... It really make information retrieval alot easier. It seem that this kind of "arrangement" of connectivity will matter for how fast the AI think/search/retrieve information. It could be that the data layer of network "information", is independent from its connectivity layer. And that there is a second graph describing a relation between the dataset and the node connectivity set. Or maybe just a simple lookup table. Can independent graphs be linked by connectivity graphs, could we have an hiearchy of lookup tables or graphs, where each graph / lookup table hold certain relations or features of the whole "reality" that is just another database isn't it? How an AGI store things may be vital for how smart/diverse an AGI will be. I think the frontend of an AGI will be a neural net or a dousins of neural running scanning sensor information in parallell, but the backbone of its thinking will be a database expertsystem. And maybe some intermediate statistical algorithm layer that make choices which connectivity to open dependent upon keywords, keyfeatures of the sensor information. I really do not know anything about AGI and AI but i find them fascinating, because one have to think about how information really could/would be structured and what process must take place when we think "process data" aquired from our sensors. Thinking about us as sensor driven thingies that process data in feedbackloops, is a bit superficial, just as my knowledge. I think there is more to the causal graph of humans then just processing and sensor information, it seem to be interconnective ties in the network that is not apparent to our senses. It seem Penrose is open for the idea that information retrieval and humans work nonelocal to some extent, i think that is true things that shunned by science may hold truths about the none visible/observable layer of reality that "may" be there but no instruments managed to pick up so far. And i think that what is observable just like you say, is sizedependent these thingies that pick up aspects of reality we just have no instruments to observe yet. But our brains may have these quantum tuneforks and ability to traverse "the nonelocal and out of phase temporal" reality, because the interconnectivity is there in just a few jumps, but on quantum level and independent of the senses we "count/know" of today. Reality may sprung out from a network who knows. That have of course implications for what reality is, and as a layman i can afford to speculate LoL
To summarise my rant and ask a question, could there within a brainlike structure be two type "or more of connectivities", one "information flow/data set" connectivity and another that is used for traversal? I mean we use it all the time normally we have to travel follow roads, but we have designated flights if we do long travels. Then somehow we must arrange the traversal to have smart features, that somehow link to the names of the nodes of the information graph. Exploit the names for ordering, we can fold/sort/search well whatever name suits. So the traversal network is kind of a meta structure upon the information flow/storage network. Just like flight is for travelling to a place of "properties/features" and aquire them with your senses. I think time in a graph/network is the intermediate nodes between A and B the temporal is countable without spacelike features "dimensions space and time". So if one should bring in the out of normal experiences "paranormal", one do travel another network, using another connectivity. That our "normal?" sensing can not. Further speculation, the timeflow in this "out of normal sensor reach universe" may be different or faster.
Does anyone have further reading on the “ruliad” or “rulio” not sure how it’s being pronounced (the geometric structure-having object containing all possible rules Stephen was referring to)?
@@things_leftunsaid Everything is much simpler. You don't see the simplicity because search for complexity. Universe is a robot following algorithm, not some computation machine. Each quantum of energy is separate primitive discrete machine. Speed is limited because that machine can move only one square at a time. Speed of light - speed of straight movement.
@@things_leftunsaid I have algorithm that leads to relativity and time delation and explains complex numbers/shrodinger cat. I think everybody would benefit from it. What Leonard Susskind can give me? I don't need physics at all.
Dead poets, philosophs, priests, Martyrs, artists, inventors, governments long since, Language-shapers on other shores, Nations once powerful, now reduced, withdrawn, or desolate, I dare not proceed till I respectfully credit what you have left wafted hither, I have perused it, own it is admirable, (moving awhile among it,) Think nothing can ever be greater, nothing can ever deserve more than it deserves, Regarding it all intently a long while, then dismissing it, I stand in my place with my own day here. Here lands female and male, Here the heir-ship and heiress-ship of the world, here the flame of materials, Here spirituality the translatress, the openly-avow’d, The ever-tending, the finale of visible forms, The satisfier, after due long-waiting now advancing, Yes here comes my mistress the soul. 6 The soul, Forever and forever-longer than soil is brown and solid-longer than water ebbs and flows. I will make the poems of materials, for I think they are to be the most spiritual poems, And I will make the poems of my body and of mortality, For I think I shall then supply myself with the poems of my soul and of immortality. Leaves of Grass -Walt Whitman
I know “never meet your heroes” and all that but I admire the heck out of how much of the inner workings of the Wolfram Physics Project are available for direct inspection by the public. It seems like just the livestreams constitute a significant body of work.
I had a great experience when I met my favorite author Douglas Adams.
I believe this model is one of the great, true breakthrough since the golden age of physics. The model has so many rich areas to explore like what is spin? What is quantum tunneling?
vas, not anymore :D th-cam.com/video/eyzWz8mpMM8/w-d-xo.html
Dr. Wolfram is onto something! The more i hear him speak the more i am learning about this way of looking at the universe
When you do the work and struggle with the maths it opens you up to a whole new way of understanding the universe.
Admitting that one has been wrong about some things for their entire life is a hard pill to swallow and most people just throw up instead (cognitive dissonance). Ego and pride are our ultimate nemesis, the biggest obstacle to personal development.
And who is wrong?
@@matterasmachine Not anyone in particular. In general, whoever has their beliefs proven incorrect by overwhelming evidence.
Although, nothing can be proven 100% (objectively) true at this point.
As an example of what I was talking about... There are people who believe that the right way to go about their life is to use and abuse others for their selfish benefit (power, wealth, fame, etc.). And they may even be successful at all that. But this is not sustainable and broad adoption of this mindset would lead to a very fast disintegration of the human societies as we know them.
However, how does one make a transition away from this kind of thinking? Especially when they have been doing all that shit for e.g. 30+ years?
How does a physicist depart from the classical physics after teaching (preaching) it for many years and completely buying into it?
@@ACzechManGoingHisOwnWay societies Are built only to abuse others for their selfish benefit. Country that fights another country is an example of that. Power can be taken down only by another power. You can make a new power by joining the weak one and making it stronger. But in this case both sides are strong - one is millionaire, other "official science". And both can be wrong.
Love Wolfram, he never met a discussion he didn’t like.
The explanation for time dilation is what I've always intuitively imagined. Great to hear it from Stephen.
Absoluly great stuff.
What happened to Jonathan Gorard?
He explained on Twitter
@@michaeljmcguffin They should patch it up. It would be a pity if we didn't get more beautiful streams with those two.
@@michaeljmcguffin I see. Here on Twitter, he
says nothing at all about his involvement in the
Wolfram Physics project.
And he's also no longer on the Physics project
life stream.
Seems like he's saying goodbye to this?
@@silberlinieHe says, under 'tweets and replies': " I’m still working on developing the underlying hypergraph formalism (e.g. with Xerxes), but I stepped back from the project itself several months ago due to disagreements over how I was being treated. I might rejoin at some point, but some stuff would need to change." Hard to know what's behind it, but I suspect SW's sometimes brutal honesty was hard to take. But then again SW's a billionaire and he presumably didn't get there being overly concerned with other people's feelings.
@@philiprice6961 I myself, some time ago, in my
commentary on a session, pointed out with
astonishment and anger ... how someone was treated ...
Especially at the beginning of a session not
so interesting for SW, he is often unbearable.
Even for me as a spectator.
The lower a staff member is in the hierarchy,
the harder SW's bad mood will hit him.
Please get Jonathan back.
The Wolfram Model is as important, in my college level understandings opinion, as Newton. In a way it is a more intuitive way of seeing the universe! For example the ideas around density of space has so many interesting implications. I think the Wolfram Model opens us up to understanding gravity waves....
Thanks for answering my question about boundedness of observers so I expertly! I understand that point much better now.
Looks like Terrence Howard’s models in the background . I would reach out. I just randomly came across this video and I love Astrophysics and Physics in general
30:45 I'm imagining it as a lovely green LED VU meter on an 80s Hi-Fi and we can only see the red peak marks that drop off slowly.
Dark Matter and Dark Energy Revisited. It strikes me that one way of looking at the project is simply modeling what is already known. The cellular automaton is by definition a series of relationships with pattern showing in various areas. These patterns are special because of their relationship to other patterns due to the common method of creation. But isn't modeling what mathematics is all about? A series of (mathematical) relationships that can be used to represent some empirical knowledge (dropping an apple from a tower). Math is modeling the real world. So it's not surprising that a sufficiently complicated pattern of related items (relationships however created, ie, running rule 30 long enough, or calculus for determining the volume of a sphere) will reveal relationships that can be mapped to theories that identify related phenomena - such as quantum theory, General relativity, etc. No surprise in that really, but still a different approach (the Project) than coming from the side of empiricism, creating a model and then using the model to expand our understanding of the phenomenon under investigation (traditional use of math to model the world). So, isn't the key to gaining more knowledge (obviously) through development of the Project primarily to go beyond finding patterns representing our current knowledge of physics to find surprises or strings to pull that lead to surprises that might be shown in the models that are adjacent to these models of current knowledge. It might be cool to find all current knowledge modeled by relationship modeling of the Project, but the mother lode is new information, directly or indirectly found through the novel approach (I'm repeating myself - sorry). Whether the Project can reveal new knowledge will require first mapping all or most of the current knowledge, so it makes sense this is the first step, but it seems that the real goal is finding those unknown strings to pull, and that would include things like explaining the accelerating expansion of the universe, or the problems with the rotations of solar systems in galaxies. Finding any sort of insights into some of these big physics problems would show the huge value of the project bringing an avalanche of interest and support in pursing it.
Time is what happens when we interact with stuff ( that we do not yet understand ) as we travel through Space.
Starts at 1:58
sounds like the conway's game of life
Course grain observations are consistant, in jest a compound int a mouse will produce constant behaviour time and time again. So what ever is going on at a fine grain level, must average itself out, to produce constant results.
I think that bunch of bits is some significant feature within object/picture and if we can put word to it "description", so will a futuristic AI be able to do.
The big problem with todays AI is they are to lttle AGI they have to narrow scope.
That is what i like with your "expertsystem" that i just watched briefly in a video, i think an AGI will heavily use an expertsystem as support frame even an expertsystem which it maintain and update itself. Without words we will be alienated from the AI's and they will be alienated from us. And we may in the end lack common ground for our experience of reality.
Such an expertsystem will be heavily interconnected using some features but it may not necessarily be a complicated graph, those connection may end up be very database like usning lookup tables.
Language is the nut and bolt in any relation, sure they may even come up with words that describe the features of the universe that we were not aware of. And at that point their ways of understanding the universe become pretty humanlike.
But the causal graphs you make and create to describe the universe as energy pockets and their influence over other regions may also need new words or new use of words to describe what is going on in the graph, sure a numeric spreadsheet or graph in all honor, but that will only speak to a small group of expert analysts on the subject.
Maybe there already is a lingo to describe local computational features of a computational system.
I think it is pretty amazing that we are able to come up with new words in itself to describe properties of objects, events and processes.
That language isn't a static thing but steadily moving forward together with our understanding/misunderstanding.
I always thought of graphs as lookup tables describing their connectivity between nodes, it seem a more set like approach to see the edges as a set of connectivity that belong to the node in the graph. I think that has an advantage especially if the connectivity is optimised to traverse A to B using minimal jumps. It is kind of strange how the numbers of dimensions of a node "connections" make the network/graph traversable independent of network size "node amount" in very few steps independent of network size as the dimensions of network just some tenths of edges for each node in graph, in a network of 1000 of billions of nodes, any two random nodes can be traversed in just a few jumps. And it seem as you add edges there is a "threshold?/limit" where it no longer matter how many nodes you put in. Any pair of nodes in the network will always be traversable in a fixed "few steps".
This is of course maybe obvious to anyone that knows anything about search algorithms, but for me it was a surprise because one just do not think about networks/graphs to have "order" and named nodes. So knowing the order/numeric name of "node X" helps us traverse the network knowing my name is Y. By just look around at neighboured "by edges/links" nodes we can chose the "preferable" one to traverse. There is some weird relation leading you right once you set up such an indexed named network in minimal number of steps.
Thinking a bit of Hans and Gretel and the bread crumbs maybe not such a bad idea LoL, but maybe that is just a malfunction of my network connectivity...
It really make information retrieval alot easier.
It seem that this kind of "arrangement" of connectivity will matter for how fast the AI think/search/retrieve information.
It could be that the data layer of network "information", is independent from its connectivity layer. And that there is a second graph describing a relation between the dataset and the node connectivity set. Or maybe just a simple lookup table.
Can independent graphs be linked by connectivity graphs, could we have an hiearchy of lookup tables or graphs, where each graph / lookup table hold certain relations or features of the whole "reality" that is just another database isn't it?
How an AGI store things may be vital for how smart/diverse an AGI will be.
I think the frontend of an AGI will be a neural net or a dousins of neural running scanning sensor information in parallell, but the backbone of its thinking will be a database expertsystem. And maybe some intermediate statistical algorithm layer that make choices which connectivity to open dependent upon keywords, keyfeatures of the sensor information.
I really do not know anything about AGI and AI but i find them fascinating, because one have to think about how information really could/would be structured and what process must take place when we think "process data" aquired from our sensors.
Thinking about us as sensor driven thingies that process data in feedbackloops, is a bit superficial, just as my knowledge.
I think there is more to the causal graph of humans then just processing and sensor information, it seem to be interconnective ties in the network that is not apparent to our senses.
It seem Penrose is open for the idea that information retrieval and humans work nonelocal to some extent, i think that is true things that shunned by science may hold truths about the none visible/observable layer of reality that "may" be there but no instruments managed to pick up so far.
And i think that what is observable just like you say, is sizedependent these thingies that pick up aspects of reality we just have no instruments to observe yet.
But our brains may have these quantum tuneforks and ability to traverse "the nonelocal and out of phase temporal" reality, because the interconnectivity is there in just a few jumps, but on quantum level and independent of the senses we "count/know" of today.
Reality may sprung out from a network who knows.
That have of course implications for what reality is, and as a layman i can afford to speculate LoL
To summarise my rant and ask a question, could there within a brainlike structure be two type "or more of connectivities", one "information flow/data set" connectivity and another that is used for traversal?
I mean we use it all the time normally we have to travel follow roads, but we have designated flights if we do long travels.
Then somehow we must arrange the traversal to have smart features, that somehow link to the names of the nodes of the information graph.
Exploit the names for ordering, we can fold/sort/search well whatever name suits.
So the traversal network is kind of a meta structure upon the information flow/storage network.
Just like flight is for travelling to a place of "properties/features" and aquire them with your senses.
I think time in a graph/network is the intermediate nodes between A and B the temporal is countable without spacelike features "dimensions space and time".
So if one should bring in the out of normal experiences "paranormal", one do travel another network, using another connectivity. That our "normal?" sensing can not.
Further speculation, the timeflow in this "out of normal sensor reach universe" may be different or faster.
Starts @ 2:00
Got the Constructor Theory people talking.
...it's just a mathematical transformation.
No conservation of space?
GENIUS
What causes the computations ? Can they halt ?
It is God.
Does anyone have further reading on the “ruliad” or “rulio” not sure how it’s being pronounced (the geometric structure-having object containing all possible rules Stephen was referring to)?
The Fundamental Theory of Physics. Stephen Wolfram.
@@kostoglotov2000 thank you.
Your welcome
Is there a transcript of this talk please?
Please ignore. I found the way of doing it on the desktop / web view.
Hope he will live forever because there are more choices in this than in the string theory's 10^500. And he is not exactly coherent
Universe consists of discrete cubes, not hyper graphs. You are going in a wrong direction.
No is is all squares but i prefer to fold them LoL th-cam.com/video/LB5YkmjalDg/w-d-xo.html
@@things_leftunsaid Everything is much simpler. You don't see the simplicity because search for complexity. Universe is a robot following algorithm, not some computation machine. Each quantum of energy is separate primitive discrete machine. Speed is limited because that machine can move only one square at a time. Speed of light - speed of straight movement.
@@things_leftunsaid I have algorithm that leads to relativity and time delation and explains complex numbers/shrodinger cat. I think everybody would benefit from it. What Leonard Susskind can give me? I don't need physics at all.
@@things_leftunsaid physics is only statistics of algorithms execution
@@things_leftunsaid Universe is simple. As simple as dice
Solaris
😮 0:51
Dead poets, philosophs, priests,
Martyrs, artists, inventors, governments long since,
Language-shapers on other shores,
Nations once powerful, now reduced, withdrawn, or desolate,
I dare not proceed till I respectfully credit what you have left
wafted hither,
I have perused it, own it is admirable, (moving awhile among it,)
Think nothing can ever be greater, nothing can ever deserve more
than it deserves,
Regarding it all intently a long while, then dismissing it,
I stand in my place with my own day here.
Here lands female and male,
Here the heir-ship and heiress-ship of the world, here the flame of
materials,
Here spirituality the translatress, the openly-avow’d,
The ever-tending, the finale of visible forms,
The satisfier, after due long-waiting now advancing,
Yes here comes my mistress the soul.
6
The soul,
Forever and forever-longer than soil is brown and solid-longer
than water ebbs and flows.
I will make the poems of materials, for I think they are to be the
most spiritual poems,
And I will make the poems of my body and of mortality,
For I think I shall then supply myself with the poems of my soul and
of immortality.
Leaves of Grass
-Walt Whitman