3000 years ago, one Chinese said, “Word is said, not always Word. Name is named, not always name.” Cells say, “We have no problem to understand any word. What exactly are scientists searching for? What exactly are you guys want for? “
"Computational Irreducibility" is nice turn of phrase for differential Galois theory. But Wolfram didn't invent the concept of a mathematical distinction between mathematical models that have closed kinematic solutions and those that have only dynamical solutions.
I have listened to Waffleram many times.He has cleverly figured out something that he never fully explains .Is anyone else hoping he delivers an amazing treasure but cannot convey it . Am I always missing something 😢? If they are derivable ,please open up and derive them fully
Wow I thought I was alone in this. He always appears in some sort of grift channel (HN, Reddit, YT), says important sounding words about his important sounding thoughts and then goes irrelevant for several months afterwards.
Considering his recent insights in physics, he combines other people's ideas without crediting them. No papers, many claims proven false. I'm not even sure if he has any framework which can "have proven that quantum mechanics and general relativity are exactly the same, different terms only"
I have listened to Waffleram many times.He has cleverly figured out something that he never fully explains .Is anyone else hoping he delivers an amazing treasure but cannot convey it . Am I always missing something 😢? If they are derivable ,please open up and derive them fully
@@brendawilliams8062 you're right about that that's because all of their theories are far too complicated and none of them are correct completely Rodger Penrose had the closest theory. Is your theory makes predictions mathematically and they are match by actual physical reality like the speed of light and things like that then you have proven your theory that is how they have proven many things. In a lot of times in physics they leave room for error in the series The theory I have created does it have any room for errors it's in the exact match
In my theory gravity and light are both created by the expansion of the universe into nothingness. The complexity of nothingness is far larger than anything in existence in fact nothingness is larger than anything else. When you accelerate in a vehicle you were pushed back the opposite direction as space is accelerating in all directions that is what creates gravity and wherever space goes it turns nothingness into something and Shadow is space without light. So that means the possibility for light must exist. The further away you go from any reference point the faster space is moving add infinite velocity is a physical impossibility. Not even space can travel or expand infinitely fast so the speed of light is the direct proof that causality is limiting the expansion of space. The speed of light is a finite number so where does the rest of the energy go as infinite is far larger than any finite number? What part of it is expended on creating space itself while the other half is expended creating light and matter. The arrow of time is the result of nothing becoming something and entropy is something once again fading to nothingness through the processes of life expansion and heat death as the black holes evaporate the space does as well because space and matter are codependent. Nothing is impossible because of information and unity is impossible because unity is nothingness for all intents and purposes because for existence to happen you have to have duality because one thing needs something to mirror itself from. That is the point of paradox that he is calling the ruliad. I call it the present moment where consciousness is focused as all things are being differentiated so they can exist because the unity is undifferentiated I just said you told me in your other comment that you can't have a theory for everything and I said you can't count to Infinity well neither can the infinite everything. Cuz it is only one thing it cannot count to Infinity not even God could break the laws of existence. The only way the infinite source of all things can know each part of itself is to divide itself into infinite number of finite units which can further be divided into an infinite number of infinitesimals or particles or singularities which are at a mid-level in between and the whole thing is one gigantic feedback loop that is an open loop not a closed loop as each revolution is different due to Identity and the fact that it is ever expanding and ever increasing so basically it has the shape of a spiral just like DNA and just like the golden ratio and the Fibonacci sequence that's why all growth in the universe is usually structured in this fashion. I'm not very knowledgeable in algebra and how to write these equations down but I guarantee you that they are correct just through logic alone and the fact that do I have actually checked calculations that would need to be done with existing equations about relativity and quantum physics and they match up on the one-to-one basis perfectly. Relativity deals with continuums to define quantum gravity you have to quantify it. So there's a space time continuum the opposite of that is the mind Time singularity. Or the ruliad. For the point of paradox as I call it because that is where it all comes from the paradox of nothing becoming something because nothing is impossible because of information. Absolute nothingness cannot exist because the information describing what it is what exists either way. So since absolutely nothing is impossible that means it must be everything and that is nothing is becoming infinity and we live in the the potential Infinity that is also a duality of nothingness. When do I see is nothingness and infinity Howard duality is created from those two and it's nothingness and something which is duality to nothingness but it's part of infinity and that is the direction of time it also gives us our electromagnetic effects and polarity. All of this can easily be proven just by looking at the physical values of things like the speed of light and the plant constant and gravitational constant of the universe it self. It also describes what dark matter and dark energy are install the paradox of how chaos and order can coexist in duality as they are mutually incompatible. The point of paradox in the place in between them that we call probability. That is where the continuous potential Infiniti a relativity is united with the discreet quantized multiplicity and the quantum. Relativity deals with subjectivity in that backwards while quantum mechanics deals with objectivity which is also backwards and these things should be dealing with the opposite this is kind of an interlocking operation. Yeah there's not enough room here to describe the whole thing and what I need help with is actually writing the equations down algebraicly. Whoever can help me with that can help me write a proof a paper and a book about it and become famous.
@@youtubebane7036 I think others who will never reach the heights of mathematical Giants have a right to their heroes. Either by just pure interests or the actual work or both. It works best that way
I’d like an interpreter like Brian Greene to have Stephen share his whole mind and explain to us in layman’s terms.Clever man so full of information,just struggles to share it 👏
Examples of computational irreducibility abound: Chaos Theory, Navier Stokes equation and turbulence, fractals . Mathematically defined: Arbitrarily small changes in initial conditions of input of a predictive function create arbitrarily large differences results caused by non linearity and/or non differentiability of the functional definition. Who needs a ruliad whatever that is?
Considering his recent insights in physics, he combines other people's ideas without crediting them. No papers, many claims proven false. I'm not even sure if he has any framework which can "have proven that quantum mechanics and general relativity are exactly the same, different terms only"
A lot of yapping and tongue wagging by Wolfram, but nothing really explained. I understand chaos and probability theories with a mixture of the laws of physics but beyond that, this computational irreducibility is gobbledygook.
I'd love to talk with him for 20 min. And have him explain his examples . The concept works., and what it can be applied to has more uses Than what Is thought imho
If this guy is half as smart as they see he is he is definitely leading you all astray. He talks smart and acts smart but so does a magician. He designed the code hes helping you try and uncover. Hes like the friend who steals the bag of drugs then helps you look for em.
His attempt to describe computational irreducibility sounds like a word soup tbh. You would think that someone trying to develop a TOE, would have the ability to describe complex ideas, or an idea, in terms which were far clearer. Seems that the very idea of CI is irreducible itself
Sounds like CI =Complexity. Because the notion inherent in reason/logic/mathematics is of a traceable link between initial rules/parameters and agents of a system and their interactive expression over time. If the sheer complexity of those interactions is too much to predict, that is because of your inability to hold sufficient computational complexity for the variety of potential outcomes
" ECK is totality of all awareness." _The Shariyat-Ki-SUGMAD_ (Way of the Eternal). Experiment to expand awareness/alter personal frequency: Sing *HU* daily. Search how to sing *HU* . A simple, safe sonic tuning fork. "If you want to find the secrets of the universe, think in terms of energy, frequency and vibration."-Nikola Tesla. Skip "think" and do experiment. Keep It Simple Soul.
Dude, ain't entropy the *third* law of thermodynamics, dafuq? Second is flow law and heat energy differential, third is entropy, give rise to the term information together. You mixed up the second and third law of thermodynamics, I guess it's okay, everyone kinda forgets the actual second law, as important for computer science it may be(graphs etc)
Its more than that. He says most laws of nature are irreducible. We are fixated only on the reducible slivers which is why there are so many unsolved questions. I totally disagree with this..
Where are Buckminster Fuller's investigations into and around the tetrahedron in all of this. The primary enclosed space and associtated vetors from the equilateral triangle. Where are the referances to this fundamental shape?
Only 7 mins in. CIR sounds like nonlinearity, the source of chaotic time evolutions of surprisingly simple systems of coupled equations. You can't just "plug in 1000,000" and get the right answer here also. Looking forward to hearing how CIR is new and interesting.
That's my same impression indeed. But I went back to listen to it again and I (maybe) understood that CIR is just about not reproducibility if jumps are made in the calculations whilst non linearity is non reproducibility because of uncertainty in initial conditions which lead to large deviations when running the calculation. Did I get it or am I wrong?
One thing I think… is it… “feels” like Stephen’s theory goes a lot deeper and seems a lot more technical and has more ability to eventually have prediction power. Hoffmann s theory sounds a lot more… surface level and doesn’t have a lot of the technical underpinnings and ability to be applied. I think it’s important to remember that Stephen’s work has produced a lot of real world tools that scientists around the world use daily. Like Mathematica and wolfram alpha.
@@ericgraham8150 I think Hoffman's is in its early stages and is thus under-developed compared to what Stephen has been working on. Time will tell where Hoffman's work takes him.
@@dylanpaul7371 that’s undeniably true. Wolfram has been workshopping His theories for many decades so yeah I can concede that Hofmanns work is definitely worth keeping an eye on to see where it goes!
Space and time shouldn't be conjoined? Yeah, no kidding... Once again, famous people are now finally saying what I've been screaming from the rooftops for 20 years. 1:12:00 Particles as topological defects, eddies and black holes. Yes, exactly but you need to stop thinking GR is greater than fluid dynamics and instead accept that inviscid fluid dynamics is how we arrived at GR. You're just not aware of the history of MacCullagh's influence on GR through Mie and Hilbert. (and that EM was fluid dynamics from the start) There's no need to wait 100 years. I can explain exactly why and how particles are black holes and topological defects and point you to numerous papers in fluid dynamics that will show you the mechanics responsible for it. I didn't come up with it, 100 other scientists across a variety of fields have, but we're just overspecialized and compartmentalized too much to properly communicate. The issue you're running into with the concept is that there's a scale based perspective where a particulate-like substrate can be more like a crystalline structure or granular (mechanically gear-like) at one scale and a fluid at another. It's merely an issue of scale. ...well that and the superstitious fear of the word aether. Sorry if you just had to cross yourself upon reading that offensive word I just wrote.
That's what they are doing, but based on the completely generic substrate of hypergraphs. "Cellular automata happen to have too rigid of a register" to implement physics, quoting from Jonathan Gorard. A good video to dig deeper in the topic: th-cam.com/video/asCDGSYzwhw/w-d-xo.html
7:58 : ".....and it turns out this interplay between the computational irreducibility of underlying systems and our computational boundedness as observers of those systems, that seems to be the key thing that basically leads us to the laws of physics that we have". This statement confuses me too much, please explain!
first part: the world is really complicated (irreducible complex, aka cannot be simplified to a basic equation) second part: we are not capable of knowing everything. our knowledge, and our ability to study the world, is bounded. we are bounded in space, aka it’s really hard to forecast the weather on friday for an exoplanet around a distant star. we are bounded in time, aka it’s really hard to know what the weather was 10,000 fridays ago, or will be in 10,000 fridays. we are bounded in computational ability, it’s hard to simulate 10,000 clouds in a computer. and we are bounded in scale. our machines cannot see things smaller than atoms very well, we have a hard time measuring the largest galactic systems of space. third part: this interplay between “things are really complicated” and “thinking is hard” seems to explain why we’ve found physics the way we have. we started with Newton, which is the human scale. later came chemistry and astronomy, which pushed us into smaller/larger scales of time/space. then came nuclear physics and cosmology, even further in both directions. if we were the size of electrons, where time is effectively meaningless, particles pass through each other, there’s no friction, light, or sound, and everything is always moving, then we probably wouldn’t start with newton’s laws, which require things to stand still, bounce off each other, and move forward through time. in fact, newton’s laws of physics may never occur to us. and Einstein’s theory of relativity would be useless for us to understand the universe at an electron scale. steven may add that, at such a small scale, it’s possible we wouldn’t be able to program things as big as galaxies into our tiny computers. similarly, if each person was the size of a galaxy, we might not discover solar systems for a long time, like it took humans forever to discover the cell. and it would take even longer to discover the stars (or even planets!) orbiting inside them. creatures that large would experience time differently, since light/information travels very slowly. they would likely never need to know about chemistry, much less nuclear physics. steven may add that, at such a large scale, it’s possible they wouldn’t even be able to build a microscope powerful enough to see into the world of atoms and electrons. it’s sort of a venn diagram. “things that can be simplified to the point where we can understand them” in one circle. “models of the world we can build” in the other circle. where they overlap is the space where we can build laws of physics. hope that helps somewhat!
@@helicopter_trafficI think he means even more, like we are as observers confined to a fraction of the Ruliad, so all of reality we have access to, not just limited by reducible phenomena and measuring instruments, but by principle, has some set rules and physical laws and constants, defined solely by us being tied to that region of the Ruliad. The fact that you need exactly our given set of rules and physical constants in order to sustain beings like us who basically encode information from further apart into time crystal media, which are our bodies, gives rise to this very set of rules and physical constants in the first place. Think of the particles on their way from A to B, as it were, basically taking into consideration every possible worldline from A to B before choosing one random one of them
@@helicopter_trafficimagine a physical constant doing soneyhing similar, in every moment actually ceasing to stay constant and changing its value, but YOU would never know, because the only way of your continuity is surfing the ever winning lottery ticket of the constant not changing
@@ratbullkan i love that interpretation and agree, i imagine dragonflies are probably nearby but not directly on top of the human ruliad coordinate, and i wonder what their spot looks like. i also wonder about what part of ruliad space computers are, i imagine part of what we do with computers is send them out into the ruliad like scouts in hot air balloons to look around and send us back information about what other parts of the ruliad look like. i was recently thinking that our brains themselves are scouts for DNA so that it can respond to threats coming from another scale of time and space as well. that's a lot of words but basically, just, yes i love what you said and it makes me think of fun things so thank you for sharing!
That's pretty funny - I must have been checking the equipment, or the notes or something. I had to switch studios last minute to film this so who knows what fires I was putting out in the background. I seem to settle down with my compulsions after the first 15 minutes or so...
The first step is to objectively determine whether or not this is a relevant question. If it is found to be so, then the next question is, to what extent is it relevant and in what context. I say, if one is on a journey of discovery, then what is of greater importance, the origin of the journey, or the destination?
Great guest. Very enjoyable to listen to. But please... what is the point of the other guys clearly ignorant face poping up every few minutes? No offence, but i never seen anything like this before. He doesn't say anything not does he apear to have any comprehension what so ever about anything being said. The only impact of his unbelievably blank stare is brightening up the screen on and off for absolutely no apparent reason...
My apologies.. turns out after doezens of times his face pops out he even tried to contribute something to the conversation... i gues it made more sence when he was just a brightness annoyance 😂
Quack quack quack. His sickness is relativity. I moved an apple, its a new apple. I moved an apple behind the curtain, in aggregate reality its both gone and not gone, but aggregate reality collapses to a consensus state with a infinitely limited degree of randomness when i look behind the curtain so that a nearly identical apple is instantiated in a nealy identical state. And the "randomness" or rather reality measured is the aggregate result of the currently possible dominating but still fighting against the currently unpossible. Thanks Shane for asking: his model is a hidden variable model, obfuscated through the exploration of all possibility spaces limited by the probability uncertainty baked into quantum mechanics. They accept hidden variables in their field as an aggregate feature of what they dont know. To get around it they grind out a probabilistic map through (magic numbers, magic formulas) quantum formulas to predict what will happen but within a range of possibilities: its a best guess framework with an error factor inverted to give the probability factor. Whose "pedictions" become less accurate as time / the algorithm updates because their lack of information is parameterized then factorized by time and thus baked into the algorith: resulting in the probability map of all plausibilities in their possibility space over time. They bake in the uncertainty range because without it, and with base Newtonian physics limited by the accuracy of our measurements, we have an atomic level of innaccuracy / error they need to account for. They have an idea on the scale or range of error but they just accept the notion that the universe jiggles atoms ever so slighty, draft up their fudge factor range, and say there's no need to understand why or how because it's impossibly incomprehensible due to the infinite complexity of reality. His hypergraph is a fancy aggregate representation of a possibily space, the strength or likelyhood of relationships & results in the space, between all factors considered. To be fair its a neat tool. But the metaphysical kosmological diefication of uncertainty, relativity, and subjectivity is a bit much. These guys just want your money, or rather your governments money. Dont trust speculations of anyone who believes you age slower the faster you are accelerating. Or that you are simultaniously dead and alive until observed. Not saying his information is analytically useless, just dont drink the koolaid. Their science is based on Einsteins theories: that are built on fudge factors, subjective assumptions about reality, and non-experiments i.e. thought experiments. To be fair the tool is useful for brute forcing posibility maps under know parameters and constraints; good for guessing and checking as he says.
I fear this genuis of a man is lost in his research, skewing his data. He goes on record claiming that his theory is working for the theory of everything. U can see the excitement in his eyes. Hopefully he has the wherewithal to balance himself back out. The esoterics can be dangerous
Actually, considering his recent insights in physics, he combines other people's ideas without crediting them. No papers, many claims proven false. I'm not even sure if he has any framework which can "have proven that quantum mechanics and general relativity are exactly the same, different terms only"
Is there a reason why pauli exclusion can not be extended with "no two fermions can be compressed to a volume that would be their event horizon"? If it is that a black hole made from two femions would be equlivent to two fermions existing in the same quantum state, and prohibited by quantum dynamics. Then maybe the event horizon is a mathmatical thing that isn't real and exist in our universe, as tachyons being mathmatical things with immaginary mass and don't exist in our universe.
These are the kind of conversations I wish I'd listened to as a teenager, an honest description about what math and science are rather than the rather shallow and somewhat disingenuous utilitarian sales pitch schools dish out.
Hi Diego, Going through his derivations of GR, QM, and statistical mechanics in more detail is definitely necessary. I tried a bit to pry open what the derivation of QM looks like at around 54:40, but a full account would really need a second interview. My impression is that they have fragments of a theory and they are in the process of tying all the pieces together. Its quite ambitious. I need to see/read more before I am convinced of the approach, but I don't think the ideas should be discounted for being incomplete or alternative. Even if they turn out not to work, our best models might one day take bits and pieces from the attempt. In particular, it doesn't seem crazy to think that the ideas of 'computational irreducibility' and 'computational boundedness' might have something interesting to say about what a measurement is and who an observer is in QM. An emergent spacetime with particles being described by topological defects is also not so wildly outside the mainstream. Perhaps if this video gets enough interest I'll be able to convince Stephen to come back on to go through some of the details of the derivations in more detail. Thanks for listening.
@@EscapedSapiens Hello. if your interested, Gorard has a 3 part lecture online where he goes through the derivations (Wolfram Physics 1 : Basic Formalism, Causal Invariance and Special Relativity) Another good set of videos to watch is wolframs NKS series where he reads the book. Here it’s clearly defined what irreducibility is, and experimental evidence for it (the whole book is basically a proof by exhaustion, as his thing is to just run classes of rules) and computational equivalence which form the basis of the work in the physics model. IMO I think people do the work backwards. Got to go from NKS -> wolfram physics model, since the wolfram model is a consequence of the work in NKS being true. Cheers, and thanks for the interview!
Hi NCP, thanks - yes I've been meaning to go more closely through Gorard's GR and QM videos now that my interview with Stephen has been filmed (the ones on 'the last theory' from about 9 months ago...). It's a bit of a balancing act when I do research for these interviews, because I want to know enough about a subject to ask good questions, but not so much that the conversation/my curiosity isn't genuine. Thanks for listening! :)
@@EscapedSapiens Until he submits his work for peer review and makes some novel predictions, which are then confirmed, his thoughts will remain just a curiosity. Verbal arm-waving means nothing.
@@NightmareCourtPictures 1/ Where exactly is the 'experimental evidence' you mention? 2/ What exactly does that supposed 'experimental evidence' consist of?
Finding the right hypergraph for HERE. That's all I'm interested in. Total possibilities is one kind of infinity and manifestatable is another. One is a volume, and one is a slice. You helped me realize compactified time. Which creates minima and maxima. How do you evade conservation? How do you evade closure between maxima and minima?
Perhaps we’re framing the question wrong, and what we need is a solid theory of nothing. Your might find that everything just pops out of it as an emergent property 😉
This is a really good comment, you've hit the nail on the head here, people always say before the beginning there was nothing and everything in existence came from that so a 'theory of nothing' is probably more needed than 'a theory of everything'.
18:42 FINALLY! Well done sir. 👏👏👏 I've been waiting and waiting and waiting. Now that you grasp the meaning of everything all at once, all the time, i know you will inevitably be led to understand that this thing we call the universe is the sweet spot in all of that spectrum that nature tries its hand at. Our existence in this reality isn't necessarily the product of intelligent design due to its being owing to that of perfection. It is the perfect sequence of all things that is revealed when all sequences are simultaneously tested. It is the revealing of the coin toss. 😏 It is that which is able to 'climb up to the very top of the rope' that' chance has thrown down' for him. Or more accurately, it is he who is able to climb up the rope which he previously threw down for himself.... The big bang is not the beginning of everything.... The heat death of the universe isn't the end. It is actually the other way around. *At these maxims the fractions can be considered close enough to immeasurable to be sensitive only unto itself. Where it also acts as a singular point in its own reference frame. Like an embryo that becomes fertilised and becomes a fully formed being... It grew inwards not outwards. You didn't grow from one cell like thst which is in a particular part of your body now and develop imto all the othrr cells as you assemble yourself cell by cell.... Also, the equal n opposite thing... Neh. This winning lottery ticket we call chance or intelligent design is not a perfect union of action n reaction. For that would dictate that the structure of reality is perfectly reflective, or balanced. Nature is a lazy simpleton with chronic OCD. It will always find the path of least resistance. And it wouldn't take long to become fixated on reducing the restrictions of density and eliminating mirrored pairs as rapidly as possible. This would inevitably lead to a situation where two opposits are secured whose existence underpins the entire plane of physical manifestation we call the universe... And it either decays into chaos, or it cascades down into larger and larger groups of opposition that come together and neutralise the other. Till there is an existence of a state of non-existence. Everything is within the node.... The only way some like Penrose tiling works is if the initial parameters are predetermined and the manner in which they may develop and proliferate are also predetermined and the structure splits amd develops inwards, and the sorce of this all? The immeasurable complexity of the fractal nature of the universe that has split more times than numbers can account 5 for. The end shapes the principles present at the start and the start is the sum total of the end. And gravity. Its a dipole... Just doesn't originate here on earth. Actually only one side is here at any one time.
He's just talking about the backpropagation from the necessary 2D space (cause 1D necessarily has to be measured against another D) into 1D space, A) to which this second D can be attached at any place, OR B) which can be probed from that 2D in every point of this 1D, depending on the property of the prober of this 2D space.
According to Wolfram's ideas particles moving through space follow a deterministic group behavior as far as the updates that are read as "movement" are concerned.
Thanks for the kind words and thanks for the suggestion. I might eventually invite Eric on - it will need to be some time down the line though, as I already have quite a few other great physicists/mathematicians lined up :). Thanks for listening!
I believe the Penrose tiling, or something very similar, holds the cypher for decoding the reference frames of nature to the most discernible degree, after which our current philosophy and conceptual capacity is woefully i adequate for taking any further steps and will need to develop its capacity and complexity many orders of magnitude to make any meaningful progress in this direction
@18:45 Stephen overlooks that not all things follow all rules all the time? And also that *perception of* what is going on is another way around "rules". Materialism is a fundamentally flawed perspective to figure out this problem.
> follow all rules all the time time doesn't exist at this point yet. the perception of time is something that emerges over successive application of the rules.
I don't think you can construct a real particle from an infinite sum of quantum field fluctuations because of the computational irreducibility of the goldbach conjecture.
I wonder if it is made necessary because you can't be definitive about your calculation being a representation to the true underlying steps and if it contains within it the uncertainty that your model may not be precisely equivalent to what you think you're modeling and not simply coincidentally matches what empirical methods of inquiry were satisfied and stopped quantifying deviation as a net expected value not accountable as a random variable. So in other words, hypothetico-deductive methods being at their essence, arbitrary in nature with no driver to minimize that arbitrariness, and worse, it seems so many researchers consider reductionist approaches as so much a knee jerk that Michael Levin even universally skips the all important step of allowing research design to flow from the ontological justifications given a predetermined most appropriate epistemological stance--but instead he emphatically jumps to "perturb the system," which is tantamount to "endorsement of blindly applying reductionist methods to complex systems that all but guarantee your answer cannot be correct but also even worse, that you think you even should get an answer that had any validity to model the actual system. You wouldn't use stoichiometric calculations to predict mood or anything even beyond the macromolecular domain because you know that steric factors are orders of magnitude greater than electrostatic interactions and it's not that domains with predominant charge or whatever isn't valid at that abstraction, but it is so overwhelmed and made irrelevant by each other of complexity being mediated by different mechanisms entirely. But this "presumption to the applicability of reductionist hypothetico-deductive methods without having let it flow from a syllogistic examination of what you want to know, how that exists within the relevant episteme: scientific method that will bring about its own need to be superceded. We're starting to look to science with a misapprehension of the purpose of science in the first place: by its very definition, scientific method cannot aim as a goal to arrive at "correct"; it's is only a framework that is premised on its being a consistent framework that can orient your inquiries towards hopefully an incrementally increasingly correct direction, but in order to arrive at actual correctness, you are always going to need more than once syllogistic step, so if you did happen to arrive at correct, it's either the end of times or if it is correct, then it was accidentally discovered and not scientific.
Unfortunately I think you are basically correct. I had a look at your channel, you seem to be a talented guy, I like the main graphic, where does that come from?
@@JohnnyTwoFingers For what it's worth I don’t think I did “determine of it is to be true”. I said that I thought it was “basically correct”, which is rather different really.
'Computational irreducibility': "In general, the only way to know what a program will do is to run it. In general there is no shortcut". These are equivalent, to my mind - related to the long-proven impossibility of telling something about a program as simple as whether or not it will halt.. I've always considered the math theory of computation wonderful, abstract and mystical; still, I attended what must be considered to have been a mainstream course in it at Stanford in '74, which contained the initial assertion above. I.e., this was a mainstream thought at least a decade before Wolfram claims to have invented the idea. Likewise Cellular automata and their theory - long studied. Or the related idea that great complexity can emerge from simple rules (ahem... the PDEs of physics are such simple rules, albeit continuous rather than discrete (something I haven't heard Wolfram mentioning that he's noticed). Voila - complex universe). Or computational universality, another Math Th Comp basic idea Wolfram is obviously familiar with. Exactly how is that different from this 'ruliad' term he coins, as if from bad sciFi? Has he explained that somewhere? I really do like Wolfram and his ideas - a lot. But I constantly get the feeling he thinks he's discovering for the very first time (and with immense expected near-future impact) things that have long been known.
@@brendawilliams8062 It's no different in physics. If you look at all possible Hamiltonians, a mere dozen or so are integrable, meaning that we can predict the long term evolution of the systems that they are describing. All other Hamiltonians (of which there is a very large infinity) are non-integrable. That math can tell us very much about "life in general" was a misguided hope of the 18th and 19th century. It just ain't so. That's why I don't understand these efforts by folks like Wolfram. There is no such thing as a "world formula", not even at the most basic level of dynamic systems. The limitations we are encountering due to Goedel for arbitrary mathematical expressions are replicated just as well at the level of continuous systems and quantum systems. Things don't get better just because we are talking about physics. If anything they get worse.
@@lepidoptera9337 I do not know if it is possible with Turin maths to accomplish less or more than what you are referring to I just have not accomplished much more than the concept of how it moves.
@@brendawilliams8062 It seems to me that there are similar fundamental barriers everywhere. The recent proofs that quantum computing and conventional computing are equally expressive in terms of algorithms (one is just more efficient than the other depending on the particular problem) is probably a hint that there is a fundamental limit to knowledge that can not be broken by reformulating problems in a different language.
I had one question for Stephen Wolfram: is there a limit to how much spacetime can be curved due to the presence of mass? If this were so, there would be an upper limit on the "size" of the black hole (the apparent mass inferred via its gravitational effects), since any additional mass accretion would no longer be able to increase the gravity due to the black hole. I don't think we have found an upper limit to the size of black holes - not yet anyways.
Sounds like a promising mathematical model. Let's see if the gold standard of better data-fitting can get other physicsts to take a look… And some implications described are remarkable, given the blinding paradigm. Indeed, a BH should have a surface over a "hole punched in it" and topology is key to fixing the threefoldly inverted paradigm which blinds physicsts. Different mathematical models are still just mathematical models - not understandings of mechanism. And the current paradigm underlying them all is as invisible to physicsts as was the Geocentricism of dark-ages astronomers. All these MMs are great, as long as one remembers Newton's "hypotheses non fingo" honesty. Some, of course, always knew that Earth isn't in the middle, no matter that interpreting epicycles "proved" that planets were embedded in Crystal Spheres. Likewise, some of us have always known the simple mechanism by which all phenomena appear. Physicsts do data-fitting, and understand the mathematics. Listen to physicsts if you want to know exactly (or even only the probabilities of) how much, where and when. Listen to those with an understanding of mechanism if you want to know the why and the how of things, and (eventually) come up with better Mathematical Models. Note the progress made by the generation of physicsts who's reading list extended eastward. That progress came from having their thinking loosened up a bit. None were trained in the basics necessary to understanding what they were reading. When understanding of the mechanism of the fundamental finally seeps through the firewalls of the Physics echo chamber, it will be a description of the simplicity from which complexities emerge … and as long as interpretations and models get more complex, the further physicsts are getting lost in mathematics.
@@advaitrahasya 1/ It is not an insult to tell the truth about something. Sorry. 2/ I notice that you failed to show that anything I pointed out is wrong in any way. Has it predicted anything that is novel? You didn't say. He started out trying to find one rule but appears to now be claiming that all possible rules are required. 3/ Thank you for making my point by resorting to personal abuse rather than advancing any rational arguments.
Great interview, thanks ! Just listened a second time, this might be the first theory of everything Ive heard that includes the Platonic Realm as an actual structural support. I like it !
The fact that LLMs make the same kind of models that brains do is non-obvious, but it's surprisingly simple to explain. It's a consequence of the Free Energy Principle. I highly recommend Fields et al. Free Energy Principle for generic quantum systems. It shows that two quantum systems interacting through an N-qubit quantum channel can be considered Bayesian observers making models of each other. The FEP is a scale-free, background-free phenomenon. It applies to everything that exists. It does not say how observers form the models, but it can show that necessarily they can be seen as doing so. So, it's a bit of a weird answer, but ChatGPT forms models that are the kind of models we form because it cannot not to. The main innovation behind ChatGPT, Transformers, provided an efficient learning architecture allowing parallelization of training and thus efficient use of GPUs and web data.
I was surprised to see this in a comment section. Well done on possessing such a depth of knowledge. You must be on a long journey on the path to what this existence is all about. Good luck on your adventure. Few will get as far as you have already.
The only way to counter 2nd. Law of Thermodynamics and computational irreducibility is to target only PREVENTION OF EVIL (exhaustively defined as DISASTERS, PREDATION, DISEASES ~ which include all birth defects, all weapons manufacture, all violence ~ and DEATH), which is finite, as the sole purpose cum criterion of proof of all knowledge. Note the most fundamental difference between this target, PREVENTION of only the EVIL, and the goal of SCIENCE ~ PREDICTION of ALL future events. That renders "search for knowledge" a finite task, that hopefully, can be achieved by present generation. Life thereafter would only be exploring the universe to terraform and populate all celestial bodies with the 100% CERTAINTY that all negative possibilities are PREVENTED by a system of indicators and rectifiers of certain evil, if left unattended, that guatantees it. The answer to the question "are the LAWS OF NATURE deteeministic or probabilistic?" is a very clear one: Neither. Nature doesn't have any such law, but it permits DISCOVERY of the sources of all evil which are finite, hence can deterministically be countered, while leaving all positive events unpredictable. POSITIVE, thereby, is meant as in the common, lay person's, usage and NOT in the various mutually contradicting usages of the term in science and mathematics (increase of anything ~ even diseases or violence in arithmetic, result confirming suggestion in experiments or tests, charge of protons in physics and 3 of 6 directions in space as defined by the Cartesian system, which has absolutely no physical meaning ~ all mutually incompatible and contradicting with the common usage) Positive surprises are even more enjoyable than positive certainties. So it is very good that not all future events are PREDICTABLE. Science, all hitherto search for knowledge rather, has set the wrong goal as target. That is the reason why the entire human race, from antiquity to present day, from Thales of Miletus to Stephen Hawking and still continuing, has failed to derive the mathematical model for even a single natural phenomenon that could PREDICT accurately when it may harm life function, let alone PREVENT such.
@@mykrahmaan3408 1/ More utter nonsense, of course. 2/ Anyone who chooses to post a series of absurd assertions without a single piece of valid evidence for any of them, as you have manifestly done, cannot be taken seriously. 3/ Unsupported nonsense remains unsupported nonsense no matter how much you whinge about it. 4/ Where is the valid evidence for any of your claims? You utterly failed to provide a single piece! Empty and unsupported claims are not evidence for anything.
@@wtfatc4556 You forgot to provide a single example of what you are claiming. Please provide just five valid and verified examples of what you are talking about?
Super fluid convection and conduction may be the unifying theory, it's a medium that allows anything to form, as long as there is enough convection energy to drive evolution towards complex energy state arrangements.
Stephen' s explanation of virtual particles is nonsensical. Either the host should learn physics or he should have a physicist present At one time, I advised Stephen to leave physics and go into business even he is a genius. He did I strongly believe he should have a Nobel Prize in physics for the tools he developed for scientific research Most of my colleagues agree
I am an endocrinologist from india enthusiast about fundamentalphysics ..i have been listening to Mr Wolfrum as i find his explanation for reality very logical...but this interview beats everything else .well done.please say hi and an endocrinologist from india is willto work for Mr wolfrum with out any pay 😊
Non-warpable 3d space and linear progressing time is fundamental, the curvatures in perceived spacetime are displacements of motion flux competing kinetically for this fundamental space (energy density warps the vacuum, and the vacuum has a degree of permittivity and permeability which gives this fake "space" like material a warpable space time dilation factor, stress energy contraction and curvature) the general relativistic space is not a real space, but a competing quantity of motion flux.
Here is a qubit: In Fischer’s own words: “What I propose is that normality, creativity, schizophrenia, and mystical states, though seemingly disparate, actually lie on a continuum. Furthermore, they represent increasing levels of arousal and a gradual withdrawal from the synchronized physical-sensory-cerebral spacetime of the normal state. Specifically, there is a retreat first to sensory-cerebral spacetime and, ultimately, to cerebral spacetime only. The gradual withdrawal from physical spacetime is an expression of the dissolution of ego boundaries, that is, the fusion of object and subject, and it implies that an existence solely in spacetime is an oceanic experience, the most intense mirroring of the ego in its own meaning.” In summary, we can see that for any individual perception of the universe (as Self or mind) can occur as an internal or external experience. It is our rich internal experiences that have puzzled researchers in consciousness as the so-called “hard problem” of consciousness. At the extreme parameter in either direction, we experience an encounter with the Absolute. Along the continuum, we may experience varying forms of an I-Thou dialogue uniting reaching either extremely hyper- or hypo-arousal states.
I have to commend the interviewer for letting the guest finish his thoughts. That's all too rare these days. 😎👍
Thanks for the kind words!
Kind of funny that the first answer, which was supposed to be an introductory question, took 17 minutes of speech. Not easy for the interviewer
3000 years ago, one Chinese said, “Word is said, not always Word. Name is named, not always name.”
Cells say, “We have no problem to understand any word. What exactly are scientists searching for? What exactly are you guys want for? “
Kamala Harris, our next president, has recently been theorizing on the passage of time ..has she been talking to Wolfram I wonder?
"Computational Irreducibility" is nice turn of phrase for differential Galois theory. But Wolfram didn't invent the concept of a mathematical distinction between mathematical models that have closed kinematic solutions and those that have only dynamical solutions.
I have listened to Waffleram many times.He has cleverly figured out something that he never fully explains .Is anyone else hoping he delivers an amazing treasure but cannot convey it . Am I always missing something 😢?
If they are derivable ,please open up and derive them fully
He's a grifter, word salad Is his biggest asset.
Wow I thought I was alone in this. He always appears in some sort of grift channel (HN, Reddit, YT), says important sounding words about his important sounding thoughts and then goes irrelevant for several months afterwards.
Considering his recent insights in physics, he combines other people's ideas without crediting them. No papers, many claims proven false. I'm not even sure if he has any framework which can "have proven that quantum mechanics and general relativity are exactly the same, different terms only"
Hes one of the biggest frauds in the world. Hes a great actor but he'll never teach anyone real science
Is hypergraph a particular type of hype?
High dimensional hype.
I have listened to Waffleram many times.He has cleverly figured out something that he never fully explains .Is anyone else hoping he delivers an amazing treasure but cannot convey it . Am I always missing something 😢?
If they are derivable ,please open up and derive them fully
The amount of work that a committee would have to do to prove or disprove anything mathematical boggles the mind. You can’t ask an individual
@@brendawilliams8062 you're right about that that's because all of their theories are far too complicated and none of them are correct completely Rodger Penrose had the closest theory. Is your theory makes predictions mathematically and they are match by actual physical reality like the speed of light and things like that then you have proven your theory that is how they have proven many things. In a lot of times in physics they leave room for error in the series The theory I have created does it have any room for errors it's in the exact match
In my theory gravity and light are both created by the expansion of the universe into nothingness. The complexity of nothingness is far larger than anything in existence in fact nothingness is larger than anything else. When you accelerate in a vehicle you were pushed back the opposite direction as space is accelerating in all directions that is what creates gravity and wherever space goes it turns nothingness into something and Shadow is space without light. So that means the possibility for light must exist. The further away you go from any reference point the faster space is moving add infinite velocity is a physical impossibility. Not even space can travel or expand infinitely fast so the speed of light is the direct proof that causality is limiting the expansion of space. The speed of light is a finite number so where does the rest of the energy go as infinite is far larger than any finite number? What part of it is expended on creating space itself while the other half is expended creating light and matter. The arrow of time is the result of nothing becoming something and entropy is something once again fading to nothingness through the processes of life expansion and heat death as the black holes evaporate the space does as well because space and matter are codependent. Nothing is impossible because of information and unity is impossible because unity is nothingness for all intents and purposes because for existence to happen you have to have duality because one thing needs something to mirror itself from. That is the point of paradox that he is calling the ruliad. I call it the present moment where consciousness is focused as all things are being differentiated so they can exist because the unity is undifferentiated I just said you told me in your other comment that you can't have a theory for everything and I said you can't count to Infinity well neither can the infinite everything. Cuz it is only one thing it cannot count to Infinity not even God could break the laws of existence. The only way the infinite source of all things can know each part of itself is to divide itself into infinite number of finite units which can further be divided into an infinite number of infinitesimals or particles or singularities which are at a mid-level in between and the whole thing is one gigantic feedback loop that is an open loop not a closed loop as each revolution is different due to Identity and the fact that it is ever expanding and ever increasing so basically it has the shape of a spiral just like DNA and just like the golden ratio and the Fibonacci sequence that's why all growth in the universe is usually structured in this fashion. I'm not very knowledgeable in algebra and how to write these equations down but I guarantee you that they are correct just through logic alone and the fact that do I have actually checked calculations that would need to be done with existing equations about relativity and quantum physics and they match up on the one-to-one basis perfectly. Relativity deals with continuums to define quantum gravity you have to quantify it. So there's a space time continuum the opposite of that is the mind Time singularity. Or the ruliad. For the point of paradox as I call it because that is where it all comes from the paradox of nothing becoming something because nothing is impossible because of information. Absolute nothingness cannot exist because the information describing what it is what exists either way. So since absolutely nothing is impossible that means it must be everything and that is nothing is becoming infinity and we live in the the potential Infinity that is also a duality of nothingness. When do I see is nothingness and infinity Howard duality is created from those two and it's nothingness and something which is duality to nothingness but it's part of infinity and that is the direction of time it also gives us our electromagnetic effects and polarity. All of this can easily be proven just by looking at the physical values of things like the speed of light and the plant constant and gravitational constant of the universe it self. It also describes what dark matter and dark energy are install the paradox of how chaos and order can coexist in duality as they are mutually incompatible. The point of paradox in the place in between them that we call probability. That is where the continuous potential Infiniti a relativity is united with the discreet quantized multiplicity and the quantum. Relativity deals with subjectivity in that backwards while quantum mechanics deals with objectivity which is also backwards and these things should be dealing with the opposite this is kind of an interlocking operation. Yeah there's not enough room here to describe the whole thing and what I need help with is actually writing the equations down algebraicly. Whoever can help me with that can help me write a proof a paper and a book about it and become famous.
@@youtubebane7036 I think others who will never reach the heights of mathematical Giants have a right to their heroes. Either by just pure interests or the actual work or both. It works best that way
I’d like an interpreter like Brian Greene to have Stephen share his whole mind and explain to us in layman’s terms.Clever man so full of information,just struggles to share it 👏
Examples of computational irreducibility abound: Chaos Theory, Navier Stokes equation and turbulence, fractals . Mathematically defined: Arbitrarily small changes in initial conditions of input of a predictive function create arbitrarily large differences results caused by non linearity and/or non differentiability of the functional definition. Who needs a ruliad whatever that is?
This video could make a great drinking game
I do not think Mr Wolfram explain what he is doing very well. Too fast, too confused, too eager, even Shane look confused
Considering his recent insights in physics, he combines other people's ideas without crediting them. No papers, many claims proven false. I'm not even sure if he has any framework which can "have proven that quantum mechanics and general relativity are exactly the same, different terms only"
With every possible rule operating on every possible space with every possible outcome, can’t we recreate an arbitrary number of different universes?
Love listening to Wolfram. Every time I do, I feel like I see a little further into the fundamental unit of nature.
Charlatanism at his best!
A lot of yapping and tongue wagging by Wolfram, but nothing really explained.
I understand chaos and probability theories with a mixture of the laws of physics but beyond that, this computational irreducibility is gobbledygook.
It's ok to not understand things buddy. That doesn't make them nonsense.
@@tellesu Do tell smartypants...
I'd love to talk with him for 20 min. And have him explain his examples . The concept works., and what it can be applied to has more uses Than what Is thought imho
If this guy is half as smart as they see he is he is definitely leading you all astray. He talks smart and acts smart but so does a magician. He designed the code hes helping you try and uncover. Hes like the friend who steals the bag of drugs then helps you look for em.
The theory of everything has no consistence. You just can't do an equation to explain the universe: its a fantasy.
His attempt to describe computational irreducibility sounds like a word soup tbh. You would think that someone trying to develop a TOE, would have the ability to describe complex ideas, or an idea, in terms which were far clearer. Seems that the very idea of CI is irreducible itself
Sounds like CI =Complexity.
Because the notion inherent in reason/logic/mathematics is of a traceable link between initial rules/parameters and agents of a system and their interactive expression over time. If the sheer complexity of those interactions is too much to predict, that is because of your inability to hold sufficient computational complexity for the variety of potential outcomes
Gobbledygook to most of us! WTF does it mean to us? Any practicality or just mumble jumble?
" ECK is totality of all awareness." _The Shariyat-Ki-SUGMAD_ (Way of the Eternal). Experiment to expand awareness/alter personal frequency: Sing *HU* daily. Search how to sing *HU* . A simple, safe sonic tuning fork. "If you want to find the secrets of the universe, think in terms of energy, frequency and vibration."-Nikola Tesla. Skip "think" and do experiment. Keep It Simple Soul.
Why do the math laws need to come from anything? They are 1 of all possible sets of laws
Dude, ain't entropy the *third* law of thermodynamics, dafuq?
Second is flow law and heat energy differential, third is entropy, give rise to the term information together.
You mixed up the second and third law of thermodynamics, I guess it's okay, everyone kinda forgets the actual second law, as important for computer science it may be(graphs etc)
Too many words, what Stephen has to say is that for nonlinear chaotic systems, we cannot make predictions when the Lyapunov exponent is high
Yeap, one half is still a pecan
In other words, "The Butterfly Effect".
Too much order guarantees the emergence of chaos to balance it out
Its more than that. He says most laws of nature are irreducible. We are fixated only on the reducible slivers which is why there are so many unsolved questions. I totally disagree with this..
Did you not just disprove your claim by making a prediction?
@16:45 Stephen gets lost in language ("cannot *solve* society"). I'm surprised he makes such fundamental errors!
I wonder if he found out about the passage of time from Kamala Harris..
Where are Buckminster Fuller's investigations into and around the tetrahedron in all of this. The primary enclosed space and associtated vetors from the equilateral triangle.
Where are the referances to this fundamental shape?
When you use a thousand words to describe your idea in a simple way, you haven't yet developed your idea
He points to valuable insights. We cannot expect of him to be perfect or some kind of demigod.
Only 7 mins in. CIR sounds like nonlinearity, the source of chaotic time evolutions of surprisingly simple systems of coupled equations. You can't just "plug in 1000,000" and get the right answer here also. Looking forward to hearing how CIR is new and interesting.
That's my same impression indeed. But I went back to listen to it again and I (maybe) understood that CIR is just about not reproducibility if jumps are made in the calculations whilst non linearity is non reproducibility because of uncertainty in initial conditions which lead to large deviations when running the calculation. Did I get it or am I wrong?
His theory aligned with Donald Hoffman simulation theory, it was funny to watch wolfram do several U-Turns in their recent talk 😅
I had the feeling that Donald Hoffman's theory was so fuzzy and premature that it could've aligned with Stephen's no matter what Stephen said
@@dylanpaul7371 it's certainly not without it's flaws, wich he is open about
One thing I think… is it… “feels” like Stephen’s theory goes a lot deeper and seems a lot more technical and has more ability to eventually have prediction power. Hoffmann s theory sounds a lot more… surface level and doesn’t have a lot of the technical underpinnings and ability to be applied. I think it’s important to remember that Stephen’s work has produced a lot of real world tools that scientists around the world use daily. Like Mathematica and wolfram alpha.
@@ericgraham8150 I think Hoffman's is in its early stages and is thus under-developed compared to what Stephen has been working on. Time will tell where Hoffman's work takes him.
@@dylanpaul7371 that’s undeniably true. Wolfram has been workshopping His theories for many decades so yeah I can concede that Hofmanns work is definitely worth keeping an eye on to see where it goes!
Garcia Anthony Moore Timothy Robinson Jessica
If you stop believing that everything started from a single point it will then make sense.
What will make sense?
Excellent point dtarby2095.
Martinez Donna Taylor Jessica Clark Betty
Good example of Smart going Overboard. Waste
Space and time shouldn't be conjoined? Yeah, no kidding... Once again, famous people are now finally saying what I've been screaming from the rooftops for 20 years.
1:12:00 Particles as topological defects, eddies and black holes.
Yes, exactly but you need to stop thinking GR is greater than fluid dynamics and instead accept that inviscid fluid dynamics is how we arrived at GR. You're just not aware of the history of MacCullagh's influence on GR through Mie and Hilbert. (and that EM was fluid dynamics from the start) There's no need to wait 100 years. I can explain exactly why and how particles are black holes and topological defects and point you to numerous papers in fluid dynamics that will show you the mechanics responsible for it. I didn't come up with it, 100 other scientists across a variety of fields have, but we're just overspecialized and compartmentalized too much to properly communicate. The issue you're running into with the concept is that there's a scale based perspective where a particulate-like substrate can be more like a crystalline structure or granular (mechanically gear-like) at one scale and a fluid at another. It's merely an issue of scale.
...well that and the superstitious fear of the word aether. Sorry if you just had to cross yourself upon reading that offensive word I just wrote.
There are no particles in nature. There are only people who don't know physics. ;-)
Not only on many systems, but in infinately more sistems you cant do it.
Jackson Patricia Wilson Melissa Brown Donna
Let's build particle physics out of cellular automata!
That's what they are doing, but based on the completely generic substrate of hypergraphs. "Cellular automata happen to have too rigid of a register" to implement physics, quoting from Jonathan Gorard. A good video to dig deeper in the topic: th-cam.com/video/asCDGSYzwhw/w-d-xo.html
7:58 : ".....and it turns out this interplay between the computational irreducibility of underlying systems and our computational boundedness as observers of those systems, that seems to be the key thing that basically leads us to the laws of physics that we have".
This statement confuses me too much, please explain!
first part: the world is really complicated (irreducible complex, aka cannot be simplified to a basic equation)
second part: we are not capable of knowing everything. our knowledge, and our ability to study the world, is bounded. we are bounded in space, aka it’s really hard to forecast the weather on friday for an exoplanet around a distant star. we are bounded in time, aka it’s really hard to know what the weather was 10,000 fridays ago, or will be in 10,000 fridays. we are bounded in computational ability, it’s hard to simulate 10,000 clouds in a computer. and we are bounded in scale. our machines cannot see things smaller than atoms very well, we have a hard time measuring the largest galactic systems of space.
third part: this interplay between “things are really complicated” and “thinking is hard” seems to explain why we’ve found physics the way we have.
we started with Newton, which is the human scale. later came chemistry and astronomy, which pushed us into smaller/larger scales of time/space. then came nuclear physics and cosmology, even further in both directions.
if we were the size of electrons, where time is effectively meaningless, particles pass through each other, there’s no friction, light, or sound, and everything is always moving, then we probably wouldn’t start with newton’s laws, which require things to stand still, bounce off each other, and move forward through time. in fact, newton’s laws of physics may never occur to us. and Einstein’s theory of relativity would be useless for us to understand the universe at an electron scale. steven may add that, at such a small scale, it’s possible we wouldn’t be able to program things as big as galaxies into our tiny computers.
similarly, if each person was the size of a galaxy, we might not discover solar systems for a long time, like it took humans forever to discover the cell. and it would take even longer to discover the stars (or even planets!) orbiting inside them. creatures that large would experience time differently, since light/information travels very slowly. they would likely never need to know about chemistry, much less nuclear physics. steven may add that, at such a large scale, it’s possible they wouldn’t even be able to build a microscope powerful enough to see into the world of atoms and electrons.
it’s sort of a venn diagram. “things that can be simplified to the point where we can understand them” in one circle. “models of the world we can build” in the other circle. where they overlap is the space where we can build laws of physics.
hope that helps somewhat!
@@helicopter_trafficI think he means even more, like we are as observers confined to a fraction of the Ruliad, so all of reality we have access to, not just limited by reducible phenomena and measuring instruments, but by principle, has some set rules and physical laws and constants, defined solely by us being tied to that region of the Ruliad. The fact that you need exactly our given set of rules and physical constants in order to sustain beings like us who basically encode information from further apart into time crystal media, which are our bodies, gives rise to this very set of rules and physical constants in the first place. Think of the particles on their way from A to B, as it were, basically taking into consideration every possible worldline from A to B before choosing one random one of them
@@helicopter_trafficimagine a physical constant doing soneyhing similar, in every moment actually ceasing to stay constant and changing its value, but YOU would never know, because the only way of your continuity is surfing the ever winning lottery ticket of the constant not changing
@@ratbullkan i love that interpretation and agree, i imagine dragonflies are probably nearby but not directly on top of the human ruliad coordinate, and i wonder what their spot looks like. i also wonder about what part of ruliad space computers are, i imagine part of what we do with computers is send them out into the ruliad like scouts in hot air balloons to look around and send us back information about what other parts of the ruliad look like. i was recently thinking that our brains themselves are scouts for DNA so that it can respond to threats coming from another scale of time and space as well.
that's a lot of words but basically, just, yes i love what you said and it makes me think of fun things so thank you for sharing!
Moore Susan Robinson Kenneth Moore George
The interviewer seems to have a nervous compulsion to keep looking down or to the left and then back to the camera.
That's pretty funny - I must have been checking the equipment, or the notes or something. I had to switch studios last minute to film this so who knows what fires I was putting out in the background. I seem to settle down with my compulsions after the first 15 minutes or so...
Davis Jason Perez Jeffrey Hall Jose
3 Body problem ....
too many egotists
Lee Helen Walker Deborah Walker Steven
The first step is to objectively determine whether or not this is a relevant question. If it is found to be so, then the next question is, to what extent is it relevant and in what context.
I say, if one is on a journey of discovery, then what is of greater importance, the origin of the journey, or the destination?
20:03 what Is important here. I wonder what is meant.
Lee George Taylor Kenneth Clark Karen
Great guest. Very enjoyable to listen to. But please... what is the point of the other guys clearly ignorant face poping up every few minutes? No offence, but i never seen anything like this before. He doesn't say anything not does he apear to have any comprehension what so ever about anything being said. The only impact of his unbelievably blank stare is brightening up the screen on and off for absolutely no apparent reason...
My apologies.. turns out after doezens of times his face pops out he even tried to contribute something to the conversation... i gues it made more sence when he was just a brightness annoyance 😂
Quack quack quack. His sickness is relativity. I moved an apple, its a new apple. I moved an apple behind the curtain, in aggregate reality its both gone and not gone, but aggregate reality collapses to a consensus state with a infinitely limited degree of randomness when i look behind the curtain so that a nearly identical apple is instantiated in a nealy identical state. And the "randomness" or rather reality measured is the aggregate result of the currently possible dominating but still fighting against the currently unpossible.
Thanks Shane for asking: his model is a hidden variable model, obfuscated through the exploration of all possibility spaces limited by the probability uncertainty baked into quantum mechanics. They accept hidden variables in their field as an aggregate feature of what they dont know. To get around it they grind out a probabilistic map through (magic numbers, magic formulas) quantum formulas to predict what will happen but within a range of possibilities: its a best guess framework with an error factor inverted to give the probability factor. Whose "pedictions" become less accurate as time / the algorithm updates because their lack of information is parameterized then factorized by time and thus baked into the algorith: resulting in the probability map of all plausibilities in their possibility space over time.
They bake in the uncertainty range because without it, and with base Newtonian physics limited by the accuracy of our measurements, we have an atomic level of innaccuracy / error they need to account for. They have an idea on the scale or range of error but they just accept the notion that the universe jiggles atoms ever so slighty, draft up their fudge factor range, and say there's no need to understand why or how because it's impossibly incomprehensible due to the infinite complexity of reality.
His hypergraph is a fancy aggregate representation of a possibily space, the strength or likelyhood of relationships & results in the space, between all factors considered.
To be fair its a neat tool. But the metaphysical kosmological diefication of uncertainty, relativity, and subjectivity is a bit much. These guys just want your money, or rather your governments money. Dont trust speculations of anyone who believes you age slower the faster you are accelerating. Or that you are simultaniously dead and alive until observed. Not saying his information is analytically useless, just dont drink the koolaid. Their science is based on Einsteins theories: that are built on fudge factors, subjective assumptions about reality, and non-experiments i.e. thought experiments.
To be fair the tool is useful for brute forcing posibility maps under know parameters and constraints; good for guessing and checking as he says.
🍎
I fear this genuis of a man is lost in his research, skewing his data. He goes on record claiming that his theory is working for the theory of everything. U can see the excitement in his eyes. Hopefully he has the wherewithal to balance himself back out. The esoterics can be dangerous
Actually, considering his recent insights in physics, he combines other people's ideas without crediting them. No papers, many claims proven false. I'm not even sure if he has any framework which can "have proven that quantum mechanics and general relativity are exactly the same, different terms only"
Is there a reason why pauli exclusion can not be extended with "no two fermions can be compressed to a volume that would be their event horizon"?
If it is that a black hole made from two femions would be equlivent to two fermions existing in the same quantum state, and prohibited by quantum dynamics. Then maybe the event horizon is a mathmatical thing that isn't real and exist in our universe, as tachyons being mathmatical things with immaginary mass and don't exist in our universe.
Being isn’t mechanical
These are the kind of conversations I wish I'd listened to as a teenager, an honest description about what math and science are rather than the rather shallow and somewhat disingenuous utilitarian sales pitch schools dish out.
Steve has really been pushing this scheme all over the Internet without being able to submit definitions or proof. It sounds cool and all but c'mon.
Hi Diego, Going through his derivations of GR, QM, and statistical mechanics in more detail is definitely necessary. I tried a bit to pry open what the derivation of QM looks like at around 54:40, but a full account would really need a second interview.
My impression is that they have fragments of a theory and they are in the process of tying all the pieces together. Its quite ambitious. I need to see/read more before I am convinced of the approach, but I don't think the ideas should be discounted for being incomplete or alternative. Even if they turn out not to work, our best models might one day take bits and pieces from the attempt. In particular, it doesn't seem crazy to think that the ideas of 'computational irreducibility' and 'computational boundedness' might have something interesting to say about what a measurement is and who an observer is in QM. An emergent spacetime with particles being described by topological defects is also not so wildly outside the mainstream.
Perhaps if this video gets enough interest I'll be able to convince Stephen to come back on to go through some of the details of the derivations in more detail. Thanks for listening.
@@EscapedSapiens Hello.
if your interested, Gorard has a 3 part lecture online where he goes through the derivations (Wolfram Physics 1 : Basic Formalism, Causal Invariance and Special Relativity) Another good set of videos to watch is wolframs NKS series where he reads the book. Here it’s clearly defined what irreducibility is, and experimental evidence for it (the whole book is basically a proof by exhaustion, as his thing is to just run classes of rules) and computational equivalence which form the basis of the work in the physics model.
IMO I think people do the work backwards. Got to go from NKS -> wolfram physics model, since the wolfram model is a consequence of the work in NKS being true.
Cheers, and thanks for the interview!
Hi NCP, thanks - yes I've been meaning to go more closely through Gorard's GR and QM videos now that my interview with Stephen has been filmed (the ones on 'the last theory' from about 9 months ago...). It's a bit of a balancing act when I do research for these interviews, because I want to know enough about a subject to ask good questions, but not so much that the conversation/my curiosity isn't genuine.
Thanks for listening! :)
@@EscapedSapiens Until he submits his work for peer review and makes some novel predictions, which are then confirmed, his thoughts will remain just a curiosity. Verbal arm-waving means nothing.
@@NightmareCourtPictures
1/ Where exactly is the 'experimental evidence' you mention?
2/ What exactly does that supposed 'experimental evidence' consist of?
"From outside blackholes look the same".
How many has he inspected before concluding they look the same?
And exactly where? In the lab or at home?
Finding the right hypergraph for HERE. That's all I'm interested in. Total possibilities is one kind of infinity and manifestatable is another. One is a volume, and one is a slice.
You helped me realize compactified time. Which creates minima and maxima.
How do you evade conservation?
How do you evade closure between maxima and minima?
Don't be silly.
Very interesting!
It's about the grand law of nature, focusing on the only concept of 'hype graph' would've been way more informative.
Thsnk you!
Welcome.
Perhaps we’re framing the question wrong, and what we need is a solid theory of nothing. Your might find that everything just pops out of it as an emergent property 😉
This is a really good comment, you've hit the nail on the head here, people always say before the beginning there was nothing and everything in existence came from that so a 'theory of nothing' is probably more needed than 'a theory of everything'.
It exists. After Finitude the book. Benben of modern theory.
Thank you!
Stephenwolfram is avery brilliant saipan on escape sapian only
We are all philosophers prior to scientific verification and peer review.
18:42
FINALLY!
Well done sir. 👏👏👏
I've been waiting and waiting and waiting.
Now that you grasp the meaning of everything all at once, all the time, i know you will inevitably be led to understand that this thing we call the universe is the sweet spot in all of that spectrum that nature tries its hand at. Our existence in this reality isn't necessarily the product of intelligent design due to its being owing to that of perfection. It is the perfect sequence of all things that is revealed when all sequences are simultaneously tested. It is the revealing of the coin toss.
😏
It is that which is able to 'climb up to the very top of the rope' that' chance has thrown down' for him.
Or more accurately, it is he who is able to climb up the rope which he previously threw down for himself....
The big bang is not the beginning of everything....
The heat death of the universe isn't the end.
It is actually the other way around. *At these maxims the fractions can be considered close enough to immeasurable to be sensitive only unto itself. Where it also acts as a singular point in its own reference frame. Like an embryo that becomes fertilised and becomes a fully formed being... It grew inwards not outwards. You didn't grow from one cell like thst which is in a particular part of your body now and develop imto all the othrr cells as you assemble yourself cell by cell....
Also, the equal n opposite thing... Neh.
This winning lottery ticket we call chance or intelligent design is not a perfect union of action n reaction. For that would dictate that the structure of reality is perfectly reflective, or balanced. Nature is a lazy simpleton with chronic OCD. It will always find the path of least resistance. And it wouldn't take long to become fixated on reducing the restrictions of density and eliminating mirrored pairs as rapidly as possible. This would inevitably lead to a situation where two opposits are secured whose existence underpins the entire plane of physical manifestation we call the universe... And it either decays into chaos, or it cascades down into larger and larger groups of opposition that come together and neutralise the other. Till there is an existence of a state of non-existence. Everything is within the node....
The only way some like Penrose tiling works is if the initial parameters are predetermined and the manner in which they may develop and proliferate are also predetermined and the structure splits amd develops inwards, and the sorce of this all? The immeasurable complexity of the fractal nature of the universe that has split more times than numbers can account 5 for.
The end shapes the principles present at the start and the start is the sum total of the end.
And gravity. Its a dipole... Just doesn't originate here on earth. Actually only one side is here at any one time.
He's just talking about the backpropagation from the necessary 2D space (cause 1D necessarily has to be measured against another D) into 1D space, A) to which this second D can be attached at any place, OR B) which can be probed from that 2D in every point of this 1D, depending on the property of the prober of this 2D space.
According to Wolfram's ideas particles moving through space follow a deterministic group behavior as far as the updates that are read as "movement" are concerned.
According to nature there are no particles. ;-)
Please have ERIC WEINSTEIN on Escaped Sapiens (which is becoming my favorite podcast) 🔹🔹
Thanks for the kind words and thanks for the suggestion. I might eventually invite Eric on - it will need to be some time down the line though, as I already have quite a few other great physicists/mathematicians lined up :). Thanks for listening!
"You sly dog!" You caught me monologueing!"
Is a ruliad some kind of number wheel?
He's trying to say it's dynamic.
Is the output to input Inflation ?
Turing’s theorem.. duh
No lie… that was low key 🔥
I believe the Penrose tiling, or something very similar, holds the cypher for decoding the reference frames of nature to the most discernible degree, after which our current philosophy and conceptual capacity is woefully i adequate for taking any further steps and will need to develop its capacity and complexity many orders of magnitude to make any meaningful progress in this direction
You should start a church based on that religious belief. ;-)
@@lepidoptera9337you need to look into the separation of church and state
@18:45 Stephen overlooks that not all things follow all rules all the time? And also that *perception of* what is going on is another way around "rules".
Materialism is a fundamentally flawed perspective to figure out this problem.
> follow all rules all the time
time doesn't exist at this point yet. the perception of time is something that emerges over successive application of the rules.
@@sunnyinvladivostok In constrained, disciplined environments it certainly exists...and pays dividends!
21:40 You are unaware of your personal Ruliad. It takes others to know more about yourself than you do your own self. 2 is a powerful statement
What exactly is a personal ruliad?
Clever! 💯
@@niblick616Consciousness, which runs culture.
@@JohnnyTwoFingers Is that what she is claiming?
@@niblick616 Consciousness running culture? Not that I know of, that is my claim.
Makes himself feel smart I suppose...
Projection eh?
I don't think you can construct a real particle from an infinite sum of quantum field fluctuations because of the computational irreducibility of the goldbach conjecture.
How does that work?
Wild
I wonder if it is made necessary because you can't be definitive about your calculation being a representation to the true underlying steps and if it contains within it the uncertainty that your model may not be precisely equivalent to what you think you're modeling and not simply coincidentally matches what empirical methods of inquiry were satisfied and stopped quantifying deviation as a net expected value not accountable as a random variable.
So in other words, hypothetico-deductive methods being at their essence, arbitrary in nature with no driver to minimize that arbitrariness, and worse, it seems so many researchers consider reductionist approaches as so much a knee jerk that Michael Levin even universally skips the all important step of allowing research design to flow from the ontological justifications given a predetermined most appropriate epistemological stance--but instead he emphatically jumps to "perturb the system," which is tantamount to "endorsement of blindly applying reductionist methods to complex systems that all but guarantee your answer cannot be correct but also even worse, that you think you even should get an answer that had any validity to model the actual system.
You wouldn't use stoichiometric calculations to predict mood or anything even beyond the macromolecular domain because you know that steric factors are orders of magnitude greater than electrostatic interactions and it's not that domains with predominant charge or whatever isn't valid at that abstraction, but it is so overwhelmed and made irrelevant by each other of complexity being mediated by different mechanisms entirely.
But this "presumption to the applicability of reductionist hypothetico-deductive methods without having let it flow from a syllogistic examination of what you want to know, how that exists within the relevant episteme: scientific method that will bring about its own need to be superceded.
We're starting to look to science with a misapprehension of the purpose of science in the first place: by its very definition, scientific method cannot aim as a goal to arrive at "correct"; it's is only a framework that is premised on its being a consistent framework that can orient your inquiries towards hopefully an incrementally increasingly correct direction, but in order to arrive at actual correctness, you are always going to need more than once syllogistic step, so if you did happen to arrive at correct, it's either the end of times or if it is correct, then it was accidentally discovered and not scientific.
Unfortunately I think you are basically correct. I had a look at your channel, you seem to be a talented guy, I like the main graphic, where does that come from?
How did you determine all of this to be true? Or did you?
@@JohnnyTwoFingers For what it's worth I don’t think I did “determine of it is to be true”. I said that I thought it was “basically correct”, which is rather different really.
@@montfort9581 Ah crap, cuz that would be some serious power!!
@@JohnnyTwoFingers I see now that I wasn't fully coherent in my reply -- but then neither is Wolfram half the time either...
You did not invent Turing’s Theorem 🤣
'Computational irreducibility': "In general, the only way to know what a program will do is to run it. In general there is no shortcut". These are equivalent, to my mind - related to the long-proven impossibility of telling something about a program as simple as whether or not it will halt.. I've always considered the math theory of computation wonderful, abstract and mystical; still, I attended what must be considered to have been a mainstream course in it at Stanford in '74, which contained the initial assertion above. I.e., this was a mainstream thought at least a decade before Wolfram claims to have invented the idea.
Likewise Cellular automata and their theory - long studied. Or the related idea that great complexity can emerge from simple rules (ahem... the PDEs of physics are such simple rules, albeit continuous rather than discrete (something I haven't heard Wolfram mentioning that he's noticed). Voila - complex universe). Or computational universality, another Math Th Comp basic idea Wolfram is obviously familiar with. Exactly how is that different from this 'ruliad' term he coins, as if from bad sciFi? Has he explained that somewhere?
I really do like Wolfram and his ideas - a lot. But I constantly get the feeling he thinks he's discovering for the very first time (and with immense expected near-future impact) things that have long been known.
You can't run a general program. Most of them won't terminate. ;-)
@@lepidoptera9337that seems probable
@@brendawilliams8062 It's no different in physics. If you look at all possible Hamiltonians, a mere dozen or so are integrable, meaning that we can predict the long term evolution of the systems that they are describing. All other Hamiltonians (of which there is a very large infinity) are non-integrable. That math can tell us very much about "life in general" was a misguided hope of the 18th and 19th century. It just ain't so. That's why I don't understand these efforts by folks like Wolfram. There is no such thing as a "world formula", not even at the most basic level of dynamic systems. The limitations we are encountering due to Goedel for arbitrary mathematical expressions are replicated just as well at the level of continuous systems and quantum systems. Things don't get better just because we are talking about physics. If anything they get worse.
@@lepidoptera9337 I do not know if it is possible with Turin maths to accomplish less or more than what you are referring to I just have not accomplished much more than the concept of how it moves.
@@brendawilliams8062 It seems to me that there are similar fundamental barriers everywhere. The recent proofs that quantum computing and conventional computing are equally expressive in terms of algorithms (one is just more efficient than the other depending on the particular problem) is probably a hint that there is a fundamental limit to knowledge that can not be broken by reformulating problems in a different language.
I want to see Shane ask more questions, like when he said 54:50, explore possibilities.
Noted.
Totally agree Shane has to keep him honest by expanding on information.
I’d love to hear Stephen explain a timeline of his findings over 40 years ❤
I had one question for Stephen Wolfram: is there a limit to how much spacetime can be curved due to the presence of mass?
If this were so, there would be an upper limit on the "size" of the black hole (the apparent mass inferred via its gravitational effects), since any additional mass accretion would no longer be able to increase the gravity due to the black hole. I don't think we have found an upper limit to the size of black holes - not yet anyways.
Excellent question, something that can genuinely lead to experimental observations that could even validate his theories.
Could be like approaching the speed of light. You approach the limit but there isn't enough mass in the universe to reach it.
Sounds like a promising mathematical model.
Let's see if the gold standard of better data-fitting can get other physicsts to take a look…
And some implications described are remarkable, given the blinding paradigm.
Indeed, a BH should have a surface over a "hole punched in it" and topology is key to fixing the threefoldly inverted paradigm which blinds physicsts.
Different mathematical models are still just mathematical models - not understandings of mechanism.
And the current paradigm underlying them all is as invisible to physicsts as was the Geocentricism of dark-ages astronomers.
All these MMs are great, as long as one remembers Newton's "hypotheses non fingo" honesty.
Some, of course, always knew that Earth isn't in the middle, no matter that interpreting epicycles "proved" that planets were embedded in Crystal Spheres.
Likewise, some of us have always known the simple mechanism by which all phenomena appear.
Physicsts do data-fitting, and understand the mathematics.
Listen to physicsts if you want to know exactly (or even only the probabilities of) how much, where and when.
Listen to those with an understanding of mechanism if you want to know the why and the how of things, and (eventually) come up with better Mathematical Models.
Note the progress made by the generation of physicsts who's reading list extended eastward.
That progress came from having their thinking loosened up a bit. None were trained in the basics necessary to understanding what they were reading.
When understanding of the mechanism of the fundamental finally seeps through the firewalls of the Physics echo chamber, it will be a description of the simplicity from which complexities emerge … and as long as interpretations and models get more complex, the further physicsts are getting lost in mathematics.
Prove that any of that word salad is true!
@@niblick616 Out here, the baboons throw actual shit.
Congratulations on having evolved far enough to do that with words 😉
@@niblick616 your estimation of it as worth insult, reveals your mental capacity.
Good luck with that, poor fellow.
@@advaitrahasya
1/ It is not an insult to tell the truth about something. Sorry.
2/ I notice that you failed to show that anything I pointed out is wrong in any way. Has it predicted anything that is novel? You didn't say. He started out trying to find one rule but appears to now be claiming that all possible rules are required.
3/ Thank you for making my point by resorting to personal abuse rather than advancing any rational arguments.
@@niblick616 now, that's a word salad :)
Great interview, thanks ! Just listened a second time, this might be the first theory of everything Ive heard that includes the Platonic Realm as an actual structural support. I like it !
What better rules than the ten commandments?
What version?
@@niblick616 there is only one, contrary to popular fiction
Scientology has a sophisticated system. Taoism is superior imho.
@@JohnnyTwoFingers bullshit. Prove it. You just like the moral ambiguity they provide
@@theomnisthour6400 Haha, oh the irony.
The fact that LLMs make the same kind of models that brains do is non-obvious, but it's surprisingly simple to explain. It's a consequence of the Free Energy Principle. I highly recommend Fields et al. Free Energy Principle for generic quantum systems. It shows that two quantum systems interacting through an N-qubit quantum channel can be considered Bayesian observers making models of each other. The FEP is a scale-free, background-free phenomenon. It applies to everything that exists. It does not say how observers form the models, but it can show that necessarily they can be seen as doing so. So, it's a bit of a weird answer, but ChatGPT forms models that are the kind of models we form because it cannot not to. The main innovation behind ChatGPT, Transformers, provided an efficient learning architecture allowing parallelization of training and thus efficient use of GPUs and web data.
I was surprised to see this in a comment section. Well done on possessing such a depth of knowledge. You must be on a long journey on the path to what this existence is all about. Good luck on your adventure. Few will get as far as you have already.
I wonder if your guesses are right. 🤔
The only way to counter 2nd. Law of Thermodynamics and computational irreducibility is to target only PREVENTION OF EVIL (exhaustively defined as DISASTERS, PREDATION, DISEASES ~ which include all birth defects, all weapons manufacture, all violence ~ and DEATH), which is finite, as the sole purpose cum criterion of proof of all knowledge. Note the most fundamental difference between this target, PREVENTION of only the EVIL, and the goal of SCIENCE ~ PREDICTION of ALL future events.
That renders "search for knowledge" a finite task, that hopefully, can be achieved by present generation.
Life thereafter would only be exploring the universe to terraform and populate all celestial bodies with the 100% CERTAINTY that all negative possibilities are PREVENTED by a system of indicators and rectifiers of certain evil, if left unattended, that guatantees it.
The answer to the question "are the LAWS OF NATURE deteeministic or probabilistic?" is a very clear one: Neither.
Nature doesn't have any such law, but it permits DISCOVERY of the sources of all evil which are finite, hence can deterministically be countered, while leaving all positive events unpredictable. POSITIVE, thereby, is meant as in the common, lay person's, usage and NOT in the various mutually contradicting usages of the term in science and mathematics (increase of anything ~ even diseases or violence in arithmetic, result confirming suggestion in experiments or tests, charge of protons in physics and 3 of 6 directions in space as defined by the Cartesian system, which has absolutely no physical meaning ~ all mutually incompatible and contradicting with the common usage)
Positive surprises are even more enjoyable than positive certainties. So it is very good that not all future events are PREDICTABLE.
Science, all hitherto search for knowledge rather, has set the wrong goal as target. That is the reason why the entire human race, from antiquity to present day, from Thales of Miletus to Stephen Hawking and still continuing, has failed to derive the mathematical model for even a single natural phenomenon that could PREDICT accurately when it may harm life function, let alone PREVENT such.
Utter gibberish.
@@niblick616
Only incompetent idiot forwards a judgement without any reason whatsoever to back it.
@@niblick616
Only an incomotent idiot forwards a judgement without any reason to support it.
@@niblick616
Anybody who forwards a judgement without backing it with reason only indicates own incompetence.
@@mykrahmaan3408
1/ More utter nonsense, of course.
2/ Anyone who chooses to post a series of absurd assertions without a single piece of valid evidence for any of them, as you have manifestly done, cannot be taken seriously.
3/ Unsupported nonsense remains unsupported nonsense no matter how much you whinge about it.
4/ Where is the valid evidence for any of your claims? You utterly failed to provide a single piece! Empty and unsupported claims are not evidence for anything.
This computational irreducibility makes me think of the Bible and our geometric spiritual growth, where we comprehend over time. 😮
The bible is a book of lies and fiction and blood lust! Have you ever read any version of it from cover to cover?
1/ The 'bible' is a fictional book of nonsense.
2/ What is 'geometrical spiritual growth' other than some absurd word salad?
Religions capture something important, related to reality in a non objective way...
Yet to this day, science can only point out more and more unknowns
@@wtfatc4556 You forgot to provide a single example of what you are claiming. Please provide just five valid and verified examples of what you are talking about?
Super fluid convection and conduction may be the unifying theory, it's a medium that allows anything to form, as long as there is enough convection energy to drive evolution towards complex energy state arrangements.
Stephen' s explanation of virtual particles is nonsensical. Either the host should learn physics or he should have a physicist present
At one time, I advised Stephen to leave physics and go into business even he is a genius.
He did
I strongly believe he should have a Nobel Prize in physics for the tools he developed for scientific research
Most of my colleagues agree
See 1:26:25 for the section that Minhsp is talking about (I think).
By Jove! I think he’s cracked it!
I am an endocrinologist from india enthusiast about fundamentalphysics ..i have been listening to Mr
Wolfrum as i find his explanation for reality very logical...but this interview beats everything else .well done.please say hi and an endocrinologist from india is willto work for Mr wolfrum with out any pay 😊
loved Wolfram's book "A New Kind Of Science"
Non-warpable 3d space and linear progressing time is fundamental, the curvatures in perceived spacetime are displacements of motion flux competing kinetically for this fundamental space (energy density warps the vacuum, and the vacuum has a degree of permittivity and permeability which gives this fake "space" like material a warpable space time dilation factor, stress energy contraction and curvature) the general relativistic space is not a real space, but a competing quantity of motion flux.
Follow rules? It’s called cause and effect. This is loquacious verbosity. Whew. I’m glad we have Sean Carrol and Brian Green available.
46.05: atoms of space.
Are there protons, electrons, neutrons, quarks, leptons and bosons of space too?
No
@@AirSandFire
So, not different from the FIELDS without leaves, flowers or fruits.
Here is a qubit:
In Fischer’s own words:
“What I propose is that normality, creativity, schizophrenia, and mystical states, though seemingly disparate, actually lie on a continuum. Furthermore, they represent increasing levels of arousal and a gradual withdrawal from the synchronized physical-sensory-cerebral spacetime of the normal state. Specifically, there is a retreat first to sensory-cerebral spacetime and, ultimately, to cerebral spacetime only. The gradual withdrawal from physical spacetime is an expression of the dissolution of ego boundaries, that is, the fusion of object and subject, and it implies that an existence solely in spacetime is an oceanic experience, the most intense mirroring of the ego in its own meaning.”
In summary, we can see that for any individual perception of the universe (as Self or mind) can occur as an internal or external experience. It is our rich internal experiences that have puzzled researchers in consciousness as the so-called “hard problem” of consciousness. At the extreme parameter in either direction, we experience an encounter with the Absolute. Along the continuum, we may experience varying forms of an I-Thou dialogue uniting reaching either extremely hyper- or hypo-arousal states.
Wolfram can imagine a lot but prove nothing. Is he talking about one tule or an infinite set of rule? He doesn’t seem to know.