Stephen Wolfram on Observer Theory
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 12 มิ.ย. 2024
- Stephen reads a recent blog from writings.stephenwolfram.com and then answers questions live from his viewers.
Read the blog along with Stephen: writings.stephenwolfram.com/2...
00:00 Start stream
20:03 SW starts talking
20:34 The Concept of the Observer
26:19 The Operation of Observers
37:48 How Observers Construct Their Perceived Reality
41:36 The Case of Quantum Mechanics
50:04 Observers of Abstract Worlds
1:01:52 In the End It's All Just the Ruliad
1:07:57 What We Assume about Ourselves
1:15:57 The Cost of Observation
1:25:22 The Future of Observer Theory
1:33:20 What are the computational rules of observation? how do you get from bits of space to bits of meaning?
1:36:29 So you are saying there are no discrete objects, everything is connected, there is just oneness of quantum fields...
1:37:16 But who observes the observer?
1:38:24 Computational boundedness leads to unpredictability thanks to chaos theory?
1:43:35 Can we confidently say where we are in the ruliad?
1:47:03 So is the multiway graph based on Everettian Quantum Mechanics?
1:49:24 Are you kind of defining the axioms of Einstein's 'Observer' in special relativity?
1:53:59 Leonard Susskind described an observation as an entanglement, would like to know your thoughts on this. Can an observer be something that is both accelerating and decelerating in stable tandem?
1:54:57 Is "analysis" our best bet to transfer an observation between two observers in a lossless manner?
1:57:00 How should observers like us consider scientific measurements?
2:00:39 End stream
Originally livestreamed at: / stephen_wolfram
Follow us on our official social media channels.
Twitter: / wolframresearch
Facebook: / wolframresearch
Instagram: / wolframresearch
LinkedIn: / wolfram-research
Stephen Wolfram's Twitter: / stephen_wolfram
Contribute to the official Wolfram Community: community.wolfram.com/
Stay up-to-date on the latest interest at Wolfram Research through our blog: blog.wolfram.com/
Follow Stephen Wolfram's life, interests, and what makes him tick on his blog: writings.stephenwolfram.com/ - บันเทิง
This is the most amazing and comprehensive explanation of human knowledge and communication I have heard in one paper.
agreed, it was rather EPIC and brilliant to the point of surreal
Outstanding
Stephen I’m very grateful that you not only built mathematica, wolfram alpha, the physics project which are all incredible valuable to society. But I’m especially grateful you care so much about these things that are important but not urgent and sharing them with the world. I hope your health span extends well into the future and you have the motivation to continue these amazing blog posts, videos, and research. Thank you.
Stephen , amazing! You have no idea how good this sounds with blade runner-ish Ambience music playing in the other tab!!! Almost like a techno prayer! Love what you doing! Best of luck in 2024!
Thank you Stephen Wolfram, you are helping me to keep my mind open!🌈
And Hello All of you amazing people, watching this stream!💚💚💚
Amazing lecture. Stephan is truly a brilliant man, pushing the boundaries of our understanding of the world. 🌎 ✨ 💫
That was Fantastic, now i will listen again 😃
This was a mind blowing lecture from a beautiful mind.
I know you never read the comments but stil... thank you, Stephen.
I read this essay and was blown away by how well it was expressed. I did not understand every aspect of what was being said, but the overarching sentiments were fascinating.
There were so many complex connections and a carefully crafted synthesis of scientific discoveries that aimed to frame a narrative of why the world as we experience it might be the way it is from a broader scientific perspective. And all the implications that can be derived as a result of that.
I find it interesting that there were almost no complex mathematical or physics formulas used to form a presentation on this theory, which for someone like Stephen to do is remarkable - being a master of both, making this sort of knowledge accessible (at least conceptually) to the average person like myself.
I feel smart just listening and contemplating this stuff, lol! This is like a perfect merging of science and philosophy. Awesome!
A couple of questions would be:
1. What theories do we have that explain what causes this sense of persistence in time?
2. Can the Ruliad ever be fully computed?
3. What would it mean if new mathematical rules emerged into the Ruliad?
4. Should there be ethical considerations when exploring computational possibilities? Like atomic science, are some things better not known so they could not be exploited?
5. Should our understanding of the Ruliad be objective-based or simply explorative?
6. Can meaning in the Ruliad ever be derived beyond the observer?
7. A rule generally implies restricted parameters; are there limits to what we can compute as observers?
The ruliad by definition encodes all Turing machines with all initial configurations and all rules. It contains everything. No new mathematical rules can be discovered that are not already in the ruliad.
@@mbengiepeter965If Kurt Gödel's incompleteness theorems proved that all formal systems of logic, including mathematics, contain true statements that cannot be proved, and that math is inconsistent, then we can't ever be sure no new math will turn up?
Awesomeness! Thank you for all the hard work.
I really like the emerging, metaphysical part of the path
that Stephan's world of thought may be moving towards.
Many of his thoughts are based on the formation of
his thinking in the western traditional way of semantic
consideration.
They lead to the explicit way of his description of
ontology, I think they are moving increasingly towards
the ancient, the thousand-fold thought out conceptual
approach of Vedic knowledge.
They approach the questions of our existence and
the wonders of being as such that we as biologically
bound entities can only just imagine.
Thank you Stephen. I'm curious, I appreciate it. Excellent presentation.
Much appreciated!!
Thank you for your being and ability to strapulate information!
Another powerful, yet easy to understand representation.
Just amazing, all the best.
We create a "reality" that fits within our brain and fits within a whole series of "obvious to us" assumptions, that is to say, our limited (and probably incorrect) perceptions of our world. Some of these flawed observations become our "physical laws" as a bit of a crutch to allow us to try to understand the universe badly. Incredible insight.
Unfortunately newton told everyone and classical American founders use the fact of knowing he math mapped human dashboard equations of the knowledge of good and evil so to speak.
It really wasn't a secret that he plagiarizes a clock, correlated it on a pretending absolute space time for a benefit of a ruler.
But sadly the movement & dualistic traditions wanted to lean into the biases, they all followed chaldean model anyways, the idealism is subjective objects = physicalism .
Same ole dualistic model.
Its just mascarading as something else.
Stephen Thanks a lot for this gift to human knowledge, I think I started to understand the basics of it as this is most clear explanation of the observer theory. Our old physics is wrong
Glad to be of help, btw. You are one of the favorites
I'm an observer and I've been running a computation for 20yrs. I have a pattern that when rotated can be seen as either structure or wave.
Thank you mr. Wolfram
This was dense, but spot on. Thank you
1:36:27 The parallels to Vedanta philosophy are astounding
"slices of reducibility" is the perfect explanation of the existential notion of the human condition. Now, we understand that this is a universal condition of being, no matter how advanced. If you can know it all, you can't exist as an entity.
Very interesting.
Yes, but incredibly complicated.
Also quite intuitive
Bravo, ty SW
Excellent talk!
Would love to hear how Stephan evaluates or will recommend to us to think about the Mary's black and white room experiment with the Observer theory.
😊 cool stuff.
great essay! seems to me that a deep implicit message is floating around: the remark on the position of us as boundedness, collectiviness, beliefs of existential continuity, with assumptions necesity, reduction and connection trend,
Bravo!
Does a state of superposition require existence of superobserver?
Thanks
i equate what he is doing to finding the mathematical explanation to "unification". excellent work Mr Wolfram
I prefer the term "ordering". it's not necessarily bringing things together in the way we think of together. Things could be ordered yet distant
@@TheGingerjames123 randomness is a real force in the universe , but it's ultimately also a form of determinism
we're just the record on a record player that keeps skipping and the record has holes in it
For us philosophers this theory has such great explanatory power. But I can understand why the scientists are slow to even consider it. I have come to believe that it will be the next paradigm.
Every perception is to some extent memory. Every memory is to some extent imagination. Narratives are the outcome.
Every choice we make generates a corresponding timeline of experience. Is the resulting narrative a limit or a creative guideline? No wrong answer - only another choice.
This is ridiculously interesting.
I have to listen to this talk again. My guess as I listened to this excellent presentation is that a neural network is a good model for an observer. It also seems to be that he has finally found a way to democratise programming in natural languages.
Trace -> Map -> Pattern Match -> React
Excellent presentation! I really enjoyed, and couldn't agree more. I loved that last couple sentences of the essay, and I would add to it, that, it's not just that science has been unable to live true to ideal of objectivity, but there actually is no such thing as pure objective truth in the living world.
I made a talk a couple weeks ago which I titled "gestalt ecology", dealing with the same question of the role of the observer, albeit at a much lower intellectual level than this material. Very good
Are you saying it is objective truth that there is no objective truth?
@@jyjjy7 I would say you are describing well, how philosophy is often mental masturbation.
@tinfoilhatscholar Be careful when your mental masturbation suggests everything is actually mental masturbation all the way down
Formal communication of any meaning is great, we will have it as soon as we solve mechanistic interpretability.
The way I kind of interpret this lecture is that all concepts have their own boundaries in rulial space. A mind, or an observer, is basically an entity that can go from one boundary of rulial space, let's call it an island, and communicate the information acquired from that island to another mind sampling the same slice of rulial space as the observer and the physical world acs as a medium for information to be transferred. So I guess the next question is: How can we transmit bits of information from our slice of rulial space to another mind in another slice 🤔?
Is the bit around 59:55 - 1:00:40 related to the free energy principle?
edit: and is it just me, or does it seem Wolfram's work is going to impact our understanding in the same way Newton's did? It seems to be mind-blowingly on point, from quite a few vantages.
If you haven't seen it already, Wolfram did an interview with Friston where they tried to connect their ideas and reconcile them a bit
@@codegeek98 I hadn't, thanks! will check it out
SUPERB 👌 I really enjoyed this explanation. Observer Theory is fascinating.
Stephen Im curious if E8 could be the ruliad and the 4D render of E8 being the observerse? How far am I off? 😅
Starts at 20:03
Can this be drawn in a simple way?
2x speed wolfram generalizing observers
i bet this will play into defining complexity
I think to put it simply, it's not about observers, it's about information exchange.
Observers aren't really anything special, we're just systems of particles exchanging information with other systems and individual particles - just like any other system of particles. So your theory probably needs to deal more with what it means for two particles to exchange information such that they can react to each other in some way.
Naa. This is not what Wolframs work implies. Yes all things are observers, but what we define as physics are characteristics of us humans imposing onto the universe based on our perception of it.
For instance, you and I are both looking at a cube. You are looking at the cube however from a head on perspective…meaning you don’t see the cube you see a 2 dimensional square. In another angle, you see a rectangle…and another a hexagon. Try that yourself it’s a fun experiment.
The reason you see a completely different object then the cube is because information is hidden from you, in an axis you can’t resolve. You convolve the object into some reduced representation. In extension the cube is actually an infinitely complex object (the ruliad) and we can only perceive it in this finite bounded way…ie this cube.
The theory strictly imposes that observers create perception, because they have to when they are computationally bounded. Because it’s finite and bounded means different perspectives can be had even though it is describing the same infinite object (again like looking at an object from different points of view)
Observation is therefor crucial…and each possible perception is unique…therefor special. Physics is thus special because it is our interpretation of physics and this is why Wolframs belief is that other kinds of creatures and systems would develop different kinds of physics…because they perceive the universe differently.
It is about information but it’s not reductionist in the way your describing, it is or must be inclusive to all scales, all systems all logical systems those systems can create
❤
The medium is the message - Marshall McLuhan
"Who observes what?" This 'does' the split-mind from a whole that cannot be otherwise signified or represented; being infinite/unbounded?
Though willingly limited as means to focus through and with.
Assumptions are logically extended.
Any definition runs input to our result.
The word of definition given sets the measure and kind of the fruits.
Logical consistency within a frame of reference can be wrong or inverted if the premise exceeds its bounds.
I cannot observe reality that creates all that I am by knowing me - not "about me" but directly - without a second or compare.
This quality of knowing is a perfect resonance - not a computational selectivity.
But I perceive as I conceive & believe/accept my own reality to be (in terms of the world such a self gives and takes from).
Guided & aligned perception is qualitatively selective rather than quantitatively biased.
36:36 mission of science
Are split brain patients one or two observers?
The brain is not completely split in those patients, I know, but still there appears to be a separation of processing sensory information as well as disagreement about some actions between each side.
In other words, can observers be divided? If so, could they be merged?
No, just one of course.
Have to ask them... Na
The AI and LLM are they observers too? Just like how individual radio telescopes can work together through interferometry to create a more detailed image than any single telescope could alone, combining observations from different "observers" like AI and humans can provide a richer, more nuanced understanding of complex concepts or phenomena.
The idea that the distinct observational capabilities of AI and humans can enrich our collective understanding and problem-solving abilities contrasts with the notion of merging AI and human intelligence to keep pace with technological advancements. This perspective celebrates the unique contributions each observer brings to the table, suggesting that the interplay between different forms of intelligence can foster innovation and resilience, rather than homogenization being the sole path forward.
I have an association with the Law of Requisite Variety by Ashby.
WHAT IS AN OSSERVER?
In very simple terms, an observer is something or some body that thinks input, processes it, and gives output. It equivalences the input and the output by doing a computational process.
A transducer can convert sound energy to electrical energy, but it is not an observer in the full sense because it has no memory, decision-making, and explicit rules that it follows. A piston that measures the pressure of gas molecules is also a pseudo observer.
Here is my opinion:
A Turing machine is a mathematical model of computation that consists of a tape divided into cells, a head that can read and write symbols on the tape, and a finite set of rules that determine how the head moves and changes the tape. A cellular automaton is a discrete model of computation that consists of a grid of cells, each of which can have one of a finite number of states, and a set of rules that determine how the states of the cells change based on their neighbors.
Both Turing machines and cellular automata can be considered as observers in some sense since they can perform computations and store information on their tapes or grids. However, they are not very sophisticated observers since they have limited memory, communication, and feedback capabilities. They also do not have any explicit goals or purposes that guide their observation, and they do not have any awareness or understanding of what they are observing.[in comparison with human observers like us].
There are some special cases of Turing machines and cellular automata that exhibit more complex behaviour and can be seen as more advanced observers. For example, a universal Turing machine is a Turing machine that can simulate any other Turing machine, given its description and input. The said Turing machine may encode any physical phenomena, e.g, sound waves, water, or gas molecules. The gas or water molecules individually follow Newton's laws of motion but the universal turing machine converte these movements to the movement of fluides that follow the laws of fluid mechanics.
A universal cellular automaton is a cellular automaton that can simulate any other cellular automaton or even a Turing machine, given its configuration and rules. These rules code encode Newton's laws of motion.
These models can be seen as observers that can explore the space of possible computations and algorithms[as encoded by their cells and rewrite rules on the cells] and that can potentially learn from their own experience. For this purpose, we need to provide a feedback loop. Such models can be seen as observers that can adapt to changing situations and optimize their performance, and that can potentially communicate and cooperate with other observers.
So, in summary, a Turing machine or cellular automaton can be considered as an observer only in a very basic sense since they can only perform simple computations and store limited information.
To be a more complete observer, they would need to have additional features that allow them to simulate, learn, communicate, and optimize. These are some of the features that make us human observers, and that may also apply to other kinds of observers, such as animals, artificial intelligence, or even the universe itself.
We don't just think there is only one "me". We also think we have only one eye. This is what Aristotle called a "common sense", the ability of the mind to integrate a single "world view" from multiple sensory inputs in the "fusion center" of our mind.
From this presentation, I actually think that a good model for the observer's mind is either a neural network or a cellular automaton[the mind takes an external phenomenon represented by several pixels and computes or applies automata like rules and arrives at a final stage with an output. This output is an attractor or label or classifier....
Philosophically, this suggests that even pistons in the example of gas molecules are observers like us. The principle of computational equivalence then says that we are basically the same, we are not special at all.
I don't necessarily believe that the ruliad and the psychosphere are a one to one function.
Or that the ruliad necessarily accounts for what is possible to happen in reality.
❤❤❤
We’re all made from the unique object that emerges at the entangled limit of all possible computations.
Infinite possibility is our master and yet its master of nothing at all. It's vapid
What if _everything_ is then an observer? I.e. the panpsychism-like concepts. And then, from that, that the "reality" is created by everything participatorily, and "physics" itself emerges (or emerged, "long ago") as spontaneously-formed agreement on the mutual dynamics between such an infinite field of observers, just like any other process of spontaneous order-formation?
20:00 start
Atman is Brahman.
I love this... A very fancy way of taking about generalisations, but the metaphor of a mind being like a computer is butting up against its limits. Communication in reality seems to function reconstructively not via discrete packages. Agreement is learned, mediated and moderated, but it is rooted in shared experience.
The arbitrariness of asserting observer's as a transcendental, Individualised objects actually creates the categorical problems. and is implicitly based on an ideological acceptance of individualism and egocentrism. We also have some reification of statistical accounting of reality but the ground reality is still there despite not being referred to and masked by an abstraction.
Discreteness is not necessarily suggested by the ground reality that we experience. The assertions of assumption of stability and unity of self is bogus- We learn via processes. but you talk as if we are a collection of states. "We assume" is followed by a rehashed list of Protestant transcendental individualistic tropes.
Have you thought that equivalencing is actually a function of time? and that the historicising effect of observing an illusion and what is really going on is merely a transition from statistical reification to connecting/aligning our 'process' with phenomena?
I would love to listen to you fitting observer theory to fields. Please please please!
The idea that an observer can effect reality, quantum or not, is very close to a belief in Simulation Theory (which I is think is a quasi-religious position).
It implies that reality is spontaneously spun out as we become aware of it.
The hard problem is yet to be even tackled.
drive.google.com/file/d/1Xd2cOMbafhVy-_kGlSVFn-eJxiDgQ1Mq/view?usp=share_link
It's everything everywhere all at once
The discrete pattern within continuous time.
Video starts at 20:00
🎉
Time separate from the rotating patter, time the source of energy.
Stepen: your theory works for music…
like the theory Stephen Wolfram tells about the universe.
If I am understanding him well, this comes through that the beginning was simple,then mainly what he calls computations (acually systematic changes, the guy is a mathematician you know) are taking place again and again.
This many computations makes us human observes think that a chaoz emerges from the original order, quod non.
So my music starts from a simple base, and the changes make it different but we still here music because my structure is less complicated than the universe.
Thx to Stephen!
://th-cam.com/video/xKAXKCCxplI/w-d-xo.htmlsi=Xzq5uGz7LDeLgOqP
Wow !how can you sleep?what a amazing mind .super smart.
I’m not educated enough for this discussion, and I might looking at this from the wrong angle, but the existence of mathematical axioms seem to imply some static structure in the ruliad. Or are those axioms a sampling/high level view of a particular application/pattern of a sequence of rules? If someone replies please keep the language to a college dropout level 😅
Or perhaps more abstractly, are the rulial structures of concepts replicated/modelled inside each observer (and how isomorphic are those representations in terms of their hypergraph configuration, or at a higher level, how similar are concepts implemented between different minds)
Hello. Late response here. The Ruliad is an eternal abstract computational object that “just exists” independent of time. So it’s structure is static and you can imagine what it is like by thinking about it as if it were a statespace. You define sampling in the ruliad as transformations from one state to another. And this statespace is infinite.
So to answer the question what actually has structure is the observer…the finite mathematics being that must choose a state and move to another state in the statespace. This deconstruction of the finite object to the infinite object is the ultimate point, the meat behind where time comes from (we have to perceive it) and where space comes from (again we have to perceive it) since there is no way for us to choose as finite beings the statespace in its entirety.
It’s like relativity but for all systems. We can’t choose an observer that is independent of time and space, as this is equivalent to choosing an observer that is spatially infinite and temporarily happening at all times (selecting all states in the state-space)
Mathematically the idea is that yes the statespace is isomorphic, as you can always create a function and inverse function between states. The entire ruliad is therefor maximally symmetric. The isomorphism breaks down only when we pick the viewpoint of the finite observers that can not make an inverse mapping since their view point is only surjective (as they have to collapse states in the statespace)
That’s hard to envision but basically think about it like this: you have a cube in front of you. If you turn it in such a way that you only see one of its faces then what you see is a 2d square. What’s happening is that the points that you once interpreted as making the shape look like a 3d cube is now hidden from you due to your perspective. The Ruliad is this idea but it’s an infinitely complex object, where an infinite number of possible “sides” are hidden from your view.
The same is true in terms of meta mathematics and the buisness with axioms. We have to make a choice about what information we can view. The ruliad contains all of these choices, all of the perspectives and we can’t describe it without picking a reference frame…using higher level descriptions or lower ones is like whether we want to talk about the 2d square, or the 3d cube. We lose information in either direction.
It’s an elegant relativistic framework and it really is the next step Einstein probably envisioned the universe was supposed to be.
I hope this answer somewhat helps to answer some of your question.
The persistence of the observer amounts to a persistence of the internalized world of the observer, and thus we assume a persistence of the world itself. This is an additional assumption.
In summary, the perspective of the person can affect the experience of that person and the observable universe.
This seems very much related to Shackell`s Finite Semiotics - same ontological base in the finiteness of cognition, just a lot of cosmological and quantum implications on top
Resonance AT macroscopic scale vs resonance în quantum mechanics, this corespondance i don t no if there is made. Like corespondence between quantum mechanics and clasical mechanics throw little planck constant. Quantum resonance îs important în act of observation.
Consciousness does not know if it's in the past present of future, it seems to put up a barrier, yet it receives feedback from all 3.
What a catching considerations (!).
There are so many sentences to dwell upon!
Unbelievably rich and vibrating with intellectual triggers .
Just to promote the simplest of ideas:
Where are you as an observer in, say, physical space?... On what level, bodies,
molecules, atoms, particles, universe, multiverse, what ?
On what frequency?
(A) 'Sender' or/and (a) 'reciever'?
What kind of observations is 'now' to perceive, mathematical, physical,
biological, computational, cultural etc ?
In love's eye?
Yet, imagine, a diversity of observers, (also) differently tuned...
And now , a comedy of situations and characters, a funny controversy and Einstein as an
Oracle of Commonsense in typical
manner :).
And immediately all kinds of Nobel Prize Probability Fellows, causing
what is called a cognitive dissonance by the Patriarch
and 'it all' goes on somehow...
Finite mind? That's where it all breaks down.
Computational irreducibility shows that there is more to the world that can be computed
As Rudy Tucker wrote. Computable or not it kept raining.
Actually nothing of us even on arbitrarily short time scales is made out of the same stuff, it is continually changing, the pattern being the only thing sort of conserved, it isn't so mysterious, all you have to imagine is something like a whirlpool at some drain or something like that where the water is continually running through the persistent pattern of the whirlpool, even electrons and other fundamental particles have the same character in some sense, there is no permanence of the constitution of any of it, only its form in most cases.
Being bourne and death, 2 ends of the same timeline. The fraction in between is eternal. Time.
How to have a theory of consciousness without having a theory of consciousness. 👏🏼
46:00
Stephen, Rule 30. To the left of the golden angle is our observable apparently organised reality, and to the right is what humans currently interpret as "quantum". There is no quantum, just our inability to observe through simple calculations within the Ruliad. Lets talk.
If we can reason Pi and fractals then it's obvious we are limited as observers.
Temperature or strong magnetic field destroy entangelment of electrons în superconductivity. There can be superluminic quantum conections between microspaces, 1 dimensional conections, fotons with 4 microspaces conected are The simplest structure foced to limited velocity. Oservers foced instantly local projection of quantum enthengeled structures, gravity create instant 1 dimensional conection between quantum structures. Like radio posts, are infinit numerabil histories overlapsed, observers only resonate with one.This îs a litle of my vision.
Very interesting.... but 20(!) minutes of nothing at the start?
It can be shown, Zeno never finishes that famous path of nested halves. And .999... is not exactly equal to 1.
A few years ago I conceptualized what I call the Observer Calculus that relies on mathematical witnesses, on intervals or across geometric scales.
Every change in position of some particle in a cloud, continuously
intervals of measurement and divisions between the particle and other particles, and beyond,
in continuous real-time. N-body problem.
An ever familiar cat-in-the-box ... every time you check to evaluate, change has occurred. Endless divisions already existing in constant change, as if they always had existed there... The cool shadows of their flags waving in the dry heat an ever moving, yet unsetting sun.
I wonder what this means for the expanse of man's consciousness. I wonder if mankind went extinct, and a new species emerged on our planet, would they even see the moon and stars the same? Definitely not.......
Even in our own species there are various kinds of color blindness and some women see extra colors
thank you. this is new einstein level stuff
Have you ever looked under a canopy of a tree?? There may be many lessons to learn from under a tree
How is this not a discussion of Gnostic religion, using the language of mathematics?
i just think he has completely misunderstood the nature of consciousness, how the brain is a physical symmetry that creates a wave form equivalent to a particle, not much, but enough to allow us to reflect back on ourselves, and say 'we exist'
I couldn’t see a logic within his arguments. Not sure if that reflects poorly on me or on him.
I can see no reason not to believe you. It's like listening to a guru say, "I am that I am." The Ruliad my not correspond to all of our limitations, perceived or not, yet it remains to be seen whether the afterlife will be ruled by it or not.
All scientific evidence shows life is a physical process localized in space and time. Outside of maybe certain forms of simulation theory, which is entirely theoretical but at least semi-plausible, science very strongly suggests the idea of an afterlife has no merit. I guess there's also Poincaré recurrence, but that doesn't accomplish much of what most hope for with regards to the possibility of an afterlife.
I could say the same about flying pigs?
This fits beautifully with the truth, that we are threefold beings, physical, spiritual, and unutterable. This will finally be proven when we consider the fact that this temporal telestial home will soon be shed for our terrestrial home in the center of our galaxy, where there is no darkness, and then finally the celestial realm where nothing and everything are one.
Did you steal the doc's phone? 😂
you guys hiring?
If you can offer value to Wolfram he will pay you. He's obviously pretty sharp, pretty sure he knows what's in his best interests when it comes to hiring someone
Thank's for sharing. Please build it in to an AI computer. Cognitive Neuroscience do that today.