I got this from WIkipedia "In order to study simple rules and their often complex behaviour, Wolfram believes it is necessary to systematically explore all of these computational systems and document what they do. He believes this study should become a new branch of science, like physics or chemistry. The basic goal of this field is to understand and characterize the computational universe using experimental methods." This is a brilliant approach. Wolfram deserves praise for his tenacity, systematic approach and for creating a new method for studying mathematical science.
@@mbengiepeter965 p, np, they're all the same as 0 and infinite. Abstraction means logic Madness means geniality Quantum mechanics means General relativity and they're both coded in qubits of entropy
I've been doing this sort of thing since I learned to program in 1985 that's why these patterns are pretty familiar. I moved on to biology and chemistry and saw the patterns there because I had already seen them in just goofing around with the rules I set up in my programs. Later I moved on to the Human Genome data from NIH and have it on my computers. My prior goofing around with turning math into images caused me to write a program that assigns a color value to each of the 4 bases in the Human Genome files. a is red, g is blue, c is green, and t is yellow. Then I wrote several programs using a different bit simple scheme to draw a pixel of that color as it encountered that particular base letter in the file. My hypothesis being "a picture is worth a thousand words". It easier to spot patterns in millions of data points if they are displayed as an image. Then I wrote another program that allowed me to dive into the file where I saw a particularly interesting pattern and pull that sequence out. I have been doing this for about 12 or so years now and I can assure you there is an underlying structure , a framework of patterns if you will, and its pretty interesting. To me anyway. I have worked out multiple schemes such as viewing the data in sets of 4 instead of 3 which are called codons and my set of 4 I call Quadons where each position has 4 possible choices and thus a set of 4 of these produces 256 possible combinations. Which oddly enough is the same as the ASCII table. I blocked off the printing of some codes because they are basically meaningless now but have often wondered what my program would produce if run on an old machine which would try to actually perform the codes which "back in the day" would cause the computer to act weird and lock up. I wrote a sci fi story based on this idea where a guy does this and it turns out that the evolution of computer code and our own DNA have a common base code and running this program on an old machine reveals that. In short......I get exactly what this guy was doing. He and Professor James Gates should talk. If you are interested in some of the DNA images and patterns I found you can see them at thearmageddonclub.blogspot.com. Having the attention span of a gnat has caused me to study and try my hand at many things. That blog is where I display them. Great VID thanks
I found Wolframs claims in studying complexity theory and how my, I assumed novel idea, had already been introduced by him. I believe there is more to it, but I believe this is the most complete picture of the universe yet. The axioms you learn regarding complex systems as applied to our universe are epic, if we truly are the expression of an equation. As above, so below.
@@ILLUMINATED-1 Keep working at it. I've been working on this weird thing involving the emergence of mathematical patterns even in our language. (Among other things.) A quick run down is the preponderance of triangularism. Like atoms are Protons, Neutrons, and Electrons. Protons and Neutrons have 3 quarks. There are 3 charge states, positive, negative, and neutral. 3 fundamental forces. I know they say 4 but recently 2 have been linked. It's like the universe presents at an atomic and sub atomic level as a Trinary Language sort of like Binary which is of course On/Off. Trinary is +/-/0. Now look at our belief systems. 3 characters. God, Satan, Jesus. Odin, Hella, Thor. Zeus, Hades, Hercules. Etc. Not all of course. Now here's something pretty weird. The number 6 which as you probably know is one of the, if not the, oldest venerated number. It is called Perfect. It's factors add up to itself. 1 + 2 + 3 = 6. Now take the ENGLISH language and assign values as such; a = 6, b = 12, c = 18, etc and put in some names. JESUS, JOSHUA, JEWISH, MESSIAH, GOSPEL, CROSS, LUCIFER, and more. I will cut to the chase. They all equal 444. Interesting coincidence. But I kept plugging away which is the point of this reply. Keep plugging away even if what you have now has been done. I kept at it off and on for years. It hinges on the ENGLISH language. All those words come from Greek, Hebrew, and Latin, originally. JOSHUA is the ENGLISH translation of the Greek word for JESUS. Same character. So I kind of obsessed on that for awhile in my 20s but eventually set it aside. one time, years later, out of curiosity I wondered if there were a string of letters within the alphabet that would equal 444. I discovered QRST. On a lark I looked it up and found out it is the Eqyptian designation for JESUS. Boom mind blown. There are others but I started to focus on the number 444 and not just 6. HEXAGON is a 444 word and 6 sided. The 6th planet has a HEXAGON at the top. The 6th ELEMENT is the basis of life. The Roman Numeral for 444 is CDXLIV which is a 444 "word". The Roman Cubit is 444mm. CUBITS is a 444 word. The JEWISH numerology practice is called GEMATRIA. It is totally different from my linear progression. It gives values based on the letter's importance. It has the value of JESUS at 888. Pi and √2 are fundamental to circles and squares. Super common geometric shapes. Pi x √2 = 4.44.... The 12th prime is 37. 12 x 37 = 444. DNA is composed of 3 base sets called Codons. There are 4 bases thus 4 x 4 x 4 possible Codons. It's pretty weird. Not saying it means anything or is mystical but it's a cluster of activity. Anyway I found the QRST thing a decade after I stopped goofing around with the initial findings. Just like a discovery (purely for myself) about the Great Pyramid. Now it isnt as weird, except the Speed of Light part, because humans built it and of course threw some numbers in it but the numbers indicate it is more Sumerian in nature than Egyptian. I still find new things. I of course will never publish this stuff but I don't do it for anyone else. I just like working the numbers. Anyway. Just keep doing it. Who knows you mind find something no one else knows.
A new kind of science got me obsessed for a good couple of years, back in 2004. I don´t know if this will ever get to form a new kind of science, but it´s definitely a new kind of seeing at things and thinking about them
I tried reading the book when it first came out, but didn't get the point. Now with this video presentation I am blown away by the depth and potential of the ideas. The way the same principles create insights in different domains of science is inspiring. For example, for me as a physicist, the view of spacetime creation as a causal network is really appealing.
Stephen Wolfram is bringing generative formal logic into a new era. This concept of formal logic as any induction is going to create a revolution in both the way we think about formal logic and mental sciences. This is a really big deal. This is the biggest deal. People like Sebastian Seung, Angela Belcher, Caig Venter, David Chalmers, Stephen Wolfram make me feel like sticking around a bit longer.
This video has impacted me greatly. I am pondering how this could be used in studying brain development/ mental illness etc. This is very enlightening, thanks!
Wow. Fascinating theory. Blows my mind. It's genius really. And it only took 9 years to get to this presentation. :-) Thank you TH-cam and UCTV for making this accessible. Otherwise, I may never have ever seen it.
Regardless of weather I think Wolfram is a genius or a crackpot, it's encouraging to see a company put this much effort into basic research that has no obvious financial payoff.
***** i bet we could program 3d printers to make tissues , bones , nerves from basic stem cells and use atomatatons outcomes to get desired patterns in turn creating structure like the snowflakes etc..
He's a very very bright lad, and a lot of his stuff is useful -- and apparently nobody at his publishers had the nerve to say "Sorry, Steve, this is old stuff, and you're making a total fool of yourself." So a nice guy who'd done a lot of good work has gone and made a fool of himself. Damn shame.
Wow. I thought it was strange that he introduced rule 30 and my mind went straight to a time when I mapped primes in a spiral using large sieves (leaving out points that are obviously not prime), and a little while later he showed a system that found primes and it looked just like the maps I created. Makes me want to read his book and then look at that program again.
This has changed my life, particularly in the view of physics and quantum mechanics, as I will get my degree, I want to help in revising and simplifying physics. I know that as new generations will begin to study this, our perspective of this world and science will make another paradigm shift as it did 400 years ago. In the future, people will laugh at how we thought invisibility, deep space travel to get to a star, anti-gravity, perpetual motion, even walking through walls was impossible.
as a computer scientist who is a mathematician and a physicist but through self directed knowledge. you have sold me on Mathematica. it is the programmer in me that you have inspired most, Stephen Wolfram.
Velocity in which entropy grows In a chaotic p-atic fractal, but yes, time flow, arrow of time and fractal infinite curve filling surface→volume of quantum entropy in qubits, entangled to all of spacetime But yes, very much the universe flows to slower time and higher entropy.
The only thing bad about all this, is that Stephen Wolfram seems to be so self aware about how important this is - I wonder if he does not fear himself to maybe come across arrogant. Very fascinating (besides the deep implacations) just how visually beautiful those results are.
The point of arrogance is that it comes from superior people. So if I humble myself (which I already do) wont help :P. "Sure of their qualities and demanding praise, more go to ruined fortunes than are raised." - Alexander Pope
This video was uploaded 8 years ago, and mathematica was already able to represent all that. No wonder why Mathematica is that smart now. I like the "new" scientific approach.
@bdogshredder Remember that you can find patterns everywhere, and Wolfram also never says randomness, but rather apparent randomness (it seems random to us, but it might have an overall structure that is infinite, or close to infinite, and then it repeats itself).
Why can't people keep comments relevant to the video? Regardless of the theory's implications for humans, or each others' ego, his theory does an excellent job at describing HOW the universe happens, as opposed to WHAT is happening. It will be interesting to see where this goes. I'm disappointed there aren't more NKS videos on youtube.
And here we thought idea of making meth with your crystallography skills blew your mind ... No problems. We get it, you're retired now. So this is what you're doing?
A little after the 30 minute mark it gets really mind-blowing. Although I've heard of ideas like this before it's extremely exciting to think that we might be getting close to discover the basic underlying structure of reality or whatever you want to call it.
from wiki on 'A New Kind of Science' #criticisms: "In a 2002 review of NKS, the Nobel laureate and elementary particle physicist Steven Weinberg wrote, "Wolfram himself is a lapsed elementary particle physicist, and I suppose he can't resist trying to apply his experience with digital computer programs to the laws of nature. This has led him to the view (also considered in a 1981 paper by Richard Feynman) that nature is discrete rather than continuous. He suggests that space consists of a set of isolated points, like cells in a cellular automaton, and that even time flows in discrete steps. Following an idea of Edward Fredkin, he concludes that the universe itself would then be an automaton, like a giant computer. It's possible, but I can't see any motivation for these speculations, except that this is the sort of system that Wolfram and others have become used to in their work on computers. So might a carpenter, looking at the moon, suppose that it is made of wood." Note: Weinberg is an atheist, criticizing another atheist for thinking everything is discrete. The Universe, and life itself, is not a Cellular Automaton, and I agree...though I much admire his Mathematica.
+Arthur Sulit I agree but I don't think it matters. If you grow up a carpenter, you see things as a carpenter. This surely doesn't automatically invalidate the claim that moon is made from wood. It might not make it particularly likely. But if look at plumbers, carpenters and all other tradesman, one of them is bound to be closest to a working theory. And Wolfram very well might be. So investigating, validating or refuting, his ideas, instead of his persona or heritage, is surely more worthwhile.
lnternet RB I'm glad we might Agree on many points, but I think historically, most Ideas are inseparable, in fact incomprehensible, without an understanding of the Person(s) and historical context behind them. So why "limit" intellectual inquiry to just "ideas", as if the context and persons were not relevant? Wouldn't that be guilty of a certain level of anti-intellectualism or narrowness which fails to enrich and enliven the discussions? So shall we have a colorless "detached" debate, watered down to political correctness, and therefore, achieve no deeper understanding of other potentially hidden variables involved? I am highly interested in Epistemology, and the interactions / environment / history of the persons involved. I am not one to naively rule out the possibility that he or she might have been influenced by positive or negative forces directly relevant to the idea (weather it be an abusive vs. a loving father, or internal "demons" like Freud's coming out in his so-called "scientific" ideas, etc.). Without story, drama and context, most people won't find it interesting, and therefore won't "get it". So in the end, it's all about people, inseparable from their ideas, which has the most potential to enlighten and reach the most people, yes? In a Utopian world, one might "wish" that all people can remain "detached" from people and their ideas. But that is not reality. The reality is that people, mysteriously, like to read the Tabloids, or 'People' Magazine. They don't buy into purely "academic" dry discussions. They want drama. So if drama serves the interests of getting more people interested in Science, then that in itself, is a useful service, yes? In addition, it is scientific to do so, because it is an Affirmation, not a Utopian rejection, of human (and potentially spiritual) nature, which in the opinion of a few psychiatrists (like Dr. M. Scott Peck, 'People of the Lie')...deserve more scientific inquiry. If we start with a Premise, such as that the Ideas cannot be separable from the Soul (or Consciousness) which expressed them, then that Premise itself, fully deserves more rigorous and lively investigation. So rather than declare personalities "irrelevant", merely because it is now "Taboo" or "politically incorrect", I prefer to lift the implicit bans on free inquiry, from those who mistakenly try to suppress it. That to me is less narrow-minded approach, which enables richer more open-minded and rewarding, more memorable, and hence, more educational discussions...kind of like the William F. Buckley vs. Gore Vidal debates. Sound reasonable? So when I say Wienberg was an "atheist criticizing another atheist", perhaps that is what made you feel uncomfortable. Yet that point is highly relevant, because Darwin himself became an atheist, due to loss of his Daughter, now angry at God. Yet his theories were later invalidated in many cases, by his own fellow atheists (like Wolfram) later on. So theologians who are also scientists, do not need to resort to theological moral arguments to expose the (oft monstrous) scientific flaws of so many big name Atheists (such as how Darwinism led to the Holocaust, and to Eugenics). All they need to do, is study more carefully the population of other big-name Atheists, who will do their work for them, lol! i.e. Atheistic Science itself, is exposing the fallacies of its own most-revered Atheists like Darwinism, which is leading everyone to Question Atheism itself. Particularly their claim there are no souls, nor I.D. involved in anything. Well, that Question, deserves rigorous investigation, yes? It is not resolved, yes? Therefore it is highly relevant and enlightening, enriching, to discuss the Persons themselves, so we can train ourselves to think deeper, rather than just be satisfied with the superficial surface of things.
+Arthur Sulit I am glad that both Weinberg & Wolfram are atheists, but why did you bring that irrelevant fact up? Why not mention whether they are American or German or vegan or socialist or communist or capitalist?
Yes, true, I accept your point which concedes that atheists are a divided bunch who do not agree with one another on science, economics, psychiatry, education, law, diet, et al. The only thing they "agree" on apparently is "no God". Beyond that, they (to our advantage) angrily assassinate one another, basically neutralizing each other's flawed world-view. It is highly relevant I bring this up, because their very premise "no God" leads to internal inconsistencies with reality, which in observable testable reality, end up nullifying one another as untrustworthy. I apologize for the blanket statement here, but it would take volumes. One place to start might be your online ID "The Ultimate Reductionist". Surely, that name betrays a person of at least some level of higher education, who is fully aware that the philosophy of Scientism / Reductionism / radical Empiricism is self contradictory, since it demands "proof" of everything else, yet fails to prove itself. Are you aware of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem, which basically proves that not everything is formally provable, yet we still know large regions are true? (Starting with, "This statement is unprovable"). In short, the typical atheist prides himself or herself of being "free" of circular arguments, then has the nerve to accuse theists of being circular. Sorry, friend, all Language (spoken, mathematical, etc.) is self-referential (circular), and you / we cannot avoid it. We can only "choose", not "prove". So "Ultimate Reductionist" is a self-contradiction, for you cannot reduce your nature, as if you can describe yourself, without self-referring to many traits about yourself, which are themselves describable only by referencing themselves. For instance, "Pleasure is that which is pleasurable". You can kick and scream all you want that you aren't just as faith-based and ciruclar as theists, but the scientific and Linguistic evidence proves, all our arguments end up being circular upon Axioms we choose, not prove. The difference, then, between an atheist and a theist (pun intended), is in precisely which Circular premise they choose: "I am that am" or "I ain't nothing but myself". Either way is Circular. Pick pill: red or blue? Thanks, buddy (or bud-gal?), for the entertainment! Take care :-)
Its not all that new but one should always listen to Wolfram because he is a deep and passionate thinker. The question he poses is whether the Universe is discreet or continuous or to put it into another way, are "real numbers" for real?
NKS was only published ~8 years ago. The seminal implications of Wolfram's thought have only begun to influence younger members of the CS community. Just a slight shift in technological focus will reveal the real - and surprisingly dramatic - impact of these concepts.
his mind is a good example that something supposedly simple can bring about something very complex, lol. But seriously, he's great explaining complexity. Am getting much out of this. It'll be interesting to see how the "time-constraint" of natural calculation will be explained. Thanks, Stephen
Don't think I've ever seen one video that's left me re-considering so many aspects of the universe. Human thought may be no more intrinsically complex than the patterns that form in rock. Woah. And, from what I gathered, there are many computations that we can never predict the outcome of, we just have to run the program and see what happens. Reminds me of planet Earth in Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy.
I'm not a math person but wasn't similar complex behaviour from a simple set of rules already known a long time ago (Lorentz attractors, the Mandelbrot set, etc.)?
Kind of, Mandelbrot said "oh look at this cool pattern". Wolfram said" Here is how this pattern applies to natural systems". The difference is night and day.
***** True, but he's not talking behaviors of chaotic systems, per se. It touches on compute universality of cellular automata and axiomatic systems, how they related and can be seen in nature and how physical systems be reduced to specific, relatively simple rules of deterministic automata. Completely different idea.
This seems quite the program to sort out what McKenna refered as "Novelty". Is not about what things are made of, but what things that are already made could become. As a non mathematician per se, to me the Mandelbort series seems to capture the same phenomena from a different angle, the expantion of theoretical sequences resembling what time does to matter from a central point, which could be related as the present we're living in as the Universe is. I can barely fathom what kind of things might be archivable by getting down one single and cohesive understanding of matter behavior in a constant state of presumable chaos.
15 minutes in and I'm thinking, "this guy has been seeking for 10 minutes just to tell me the same thing in like, 7 different ways." I get it. simple computations have complex results. honestly I feel like this isn't so spectacular like he builds it up to be.
except that he's developed systems based on 8 simple rules that show remarkable similarity to the way subatomic particles interact and how space time is shaped.
8:47 that's not random, that's predictable, You set a limit for the resolution and when the resolution goes higher than the limit it will bunch up just as if you stretched a .jpg image larger than was. There is no truly randomness in computers unless you can get background noise from external sources and even then its based on your programing.
At 24:09, aren't phenomena such as cellular automata (and, as Wolfram suggests, fluid turbulence) dependent on simple rules also dependent on initial conditions and therefore just as unrepeatable in the real world as other kinds of chaotic systems? Am I missing something?
david196609876 ...by a computer program, but in the real world (given they occur as Wolfram hypothesizes)? My point was that I'm not sure cellular automata are absolutely distinct from chaotic systems, and that therefore the same problems of repeatability don't apply (see definition of chaos theory).
Maurice Green depends on how much the system under observeration is isolated from disturbances from outside. the idea is that, as long as the rules stay the same and the system is not disturbed, its behaviour is perfectly determined (though not easily predicted, as you need to simulate the system step by step just like in chaos theory). if the rules prevent strong interaction between the parts of the system, most likely a repeating pattern will result. if strong interactions occur between the parts, more interesting behaviours emerge - of which some even appear completely random (although they are perfectly determined, just like the digits of pi). in the real world there is no perfectly isolated system however, so the real question is how disturbances from the outside propagate within systems with different rules - and that's such a general question that solutions to that work on all scales and kinds of systems. depending on the rules of the system, a disturbance can be "forgotten" over time and the system may settle to a certain state again; or the disturbance might propagate in some fashion but without fundamentally changing the system; or actually the disturbance might, over time, change how the system "works" completely. chaotic systems are a case of that latter class of systems where disturbances are not only propagated but may completely change the makeup of the system. within this class of systems, depending on how strongly the parts interact and whether there are mechanisms that modify/dampen/amplify the "impulse".
@ToddAndelin It actually is used in studying the brain. What one does in cognitive science is to look for patterns in the brain, and say that this particular pattern yields this particular behavior. The problem is that one does not find the underlying rules for why those patterns arise. The models of Wolfram can possibly provide patterns to compare with brain-scans and thus be able to find the underlying rules.
at time 1:11:13 mathematica is currently on version 9....so much of this is history, interesting listening to Wolfram predicting quantum computers 2-3 years before they were even envisioned...(about the time D-wave was forming up)
dx dt Mr. Wolfram attributes to himself lots of things which belong to other people. If someone is misinformed, someone simply "buy" that... better yet: buy his book! and buy his software!
All those information described by Sir Wolfram....what a wonderful world ! I wonder how far those ideas can be explored and twisted into the computer and what will emerge from all this complexity ... I suggest you people to read John D. Barrow's book The Grand Theory in which he discussed the computational irreducibility concept. Another point of view... My question : how do arise physical constants through complexity emergence ?
This man is a wonderful human being, my favorite kind of person, a free thinker, and an innovator. I would love to be able to talk with him. Very interested to see if he's met and spoken with John Nash, or if he also appreciates the ideas of F. A. Hayek. I would like to see him design a robot with a brain that has a functional replica of every portion of the human brain, only optimized. The power is there RIGHT now. I would love to speak with him about the indicators, parallel projects.
They don't teach this stuff (cellular automata) in computer science courses. The fact that it's capable of universal computation is really significant.
Better find a better computer science curriculum. Wolfram wrote "Universality and Complexity in Cellular Automata" in 1984. At U. Stonybrook, functional languages, Prolog, and lambda calculus were introduced year one as an undergrad. If I remember correctly, I had automata as a sophomore, or maybe a junior.
Did you not learn about finite automata and regular languages? Studied physics but I kinda assumed that's the theoretical aspect of a Cs degree would cover it.
You can set a program to perform functions in a precise manner when having the correct mathematical computation. As said in this video, discovered a pattern by performing a function not discovered....and then eureka.... same is with computer programming. There is no spooky action about performing precise function input to get the desired results
Is is the primes thing? I discovered calculus at 17 through binomial expansions of infinite series, and I honestly think ideas like these connect abstract Ally the logic that binds science together. Madness/geniality is the glue binding knowledge and creativity together to form ideas
the real person to which the as yet to happen but arguably inevitable "singularity" should be attributed. Primarily though, here is a great mind put to great action with a remarkable legacy already
@Uaz31 "Oh I know very well what the terms mean." If you think that information theory makes any sort of trouble for evolutionary biology, or if you think that a cow (for example) is a "closed system", or that evolution means "one animal into another" we're already very much off track. (Not that there's anything wrong with that, these ideas can be challenging.) Maybe we should start from the beginning, can you give us a brief explanation what you think biological evolution is?
I can't help wondering that the universe has re-written the rules after the big bang, and the initial conditions aren't part of our known universe. It's a pity that the video quality so poor. Those diagrams really are beautiful in print. (but I guess that's why they did it - to sell his book)
The game of life is very simple and would produce a pretty simple pattern (immediate isappearence) if, like in Wolframs examples, you woul start out with just one cell. If you choose different starting states employing Wolframs CA, you can get event more complexity. But the very point of this presentation is to show that with minimal complexity in the initial conditions and the rules you get a lot of complex output, so making the initial conditions more complex would miss the point.
Who the funk is ringing right now, Stephen giving them the death glance enlightenment to shut it off. Never stopped spitting truth about reality, the most fundamental Abstraction we have to that reality and how our intuitions and pure luck allow us to arrive to these truths in our minds.
The main problem is, that cells of cellular automates have discrete states (black, white, etc.). Elementary particles have uncertain states 60%black and 40%white. Usually, they are in superposition of several states with several probabilities. So, this new kind of science can discribe our world only roughly, but not exactly. Because, it's a "classical" theory.
No and yes. The universe is based on 3 states of being. Positive, negative, and neutral. Its like a computer language (see videos on Professor James Gates) except instead of binary its 1, 0, -1. Everything we can think of either comes together or moves apart because of this. All of chemistry and therefore life is about the bonding of atoms and the "need" to balance forces. Where fractalization comes in is on both the macro and micro realms. They have imaged and plotted a lot of galaxies and when viewed from a great distance they form patterns just like electrical discharges. See (Thunderbolts Project). You may also be interested in videos on Cymatics.
@Uaz31 The axiom of your conclusion, is that the genome is what you call a closed system. This is new to me, and I hope you can link me to some creditable source. If not, then this discussion will reach an early end, as we might as well wish new laws of nature into existence. Why do we asume the genome to be plastic? Because we have observed relatively large changes within species, over short periods of time. We can also follow trails of evolution back through history. Examples?
British Mathematician John Conway's "Game of Life" work on cellular automata preceded Wolframs' work by a few decades. I find them far more interesting than a Sierpinski Triangle. Some patterns resemble bacterial colonies both in structure and movement. Search wikipedia and TH-cam for "Conways Game of Life"
43:06 my first wow moment since I'd heard of this before and messed around a bit, idk just a cool simple calculation done in a new kind of way. 46:30 is where I get the idea that all complex things can be done more simply, like how sin(x) or cos(x) are pretty funky equations that are sometimes very difficult to do by hand, but by representing them as a series (simple rules of computing), we arrive to the same values. This might not scale up more, this is just the speculation of someone not quite in college yet.
seems to me the whole mathematica principle is more to break down the seeming exponential growth of our existence into recognizable patterns in an effort to see the underlying principles of the universe but how can you quantify and qualify the mathematical formula used in a way that removes the "randomness" and allows us to see the patterns in the "chaos".... I say exponential growth because of the seemingly increasing complexity of life that we are able to recognize and categorize
I really don't understand his characterization of fractals as they are not merely "self similar" repeating patterns, but instead can exhibit any shape possible. How is that different from what he supposedly discovered with respect to rule 30?
QM IS GR, Leonard Susskind and Maldacena are working on complexity too. Intuition and abstraction lead to psychedelic mathematics, the wildest way to think about maths and at the same time the most trivial and intuitive. Topology, geometry and abstraction instead of numbers and paper logical machinery
Wolfram is absolutely NOT implying that a higher power is necessary- He is explaining exactly why you do not need intelligence to create complicated structures. Emergence is the answer to the "If you find a watch, there must be a watchmaker" argument for the existence of God.
Penrose quasi-crystal tile patterns that "almost" repeat using only a few tile shapes are similar to many of these cellular automata results. Pi-like unending and non-repeating fractional numbers that are in-between the countable infinite numbers (not 1, 2, 3, 5/33, etc.) also should be able to be handled by these systems if they are to be universal in their application.
can anyone explane please, can we solve CFD, electromagnetics or heat problems with cellular automata? what is the benefits or disadvantages of CA according to FDTD, FEM etc.
@Uaz31 You point out lingual restrictions, not flaws in evolutionary theory. We cathegorize in order to "stack" information, allowing our short term memory to be more effective, and to enable ourselves to communicate more in less time. However, our cathegories will always remain inaccurate, rather than clearly defined by nature. What exactly are you arguing? That the theory of evolution is false? Do you deny that certain traits are heritable, and that evolution is a necessary result of this?
"Self-aggrandizement is so set in"... what a travesty, that a man who has spent 25yrs of his life on a project is proud that the fruits are finally starting to bear. Why don't we have the self effacing, shy, coy, timid genius who doesn't intimidate our ego and remind as to how little we have achieved ourselves. Hell he worked for it, he focused on it, he got good results, its not perfect but its a success... and he should be proud of himself and say so publicly. The world belongs to the bold.
Coming up with this idea too I can cite him, Leonard Susskind, Juan Maldacena, Robert Sapolski, Elon musk or someone in neuralink, Isaac Arthur.... Each and every human's ideas are connected culturally. We must find the connections and rationally build a better world through manipulation of this knowledge
Extremely simple rules can produce incredibly complicated behavior. That is his entire thesis, which he actually thinks he invented. God, look at him in the beginning holding his book up in the air, then awkwardly handling it, before just putting it on the stand next to him. You can tell he thinks its like the bible or something, he holds it up for all of us to see its depth. He thinks its needs its own stand really, that's what he wishes he had. Very smart man. Really smart, in fact. Unfortunately, totally self obsessed
i consider it an absolute that this is the basis of the eventual view our decendants will hold of the physical universe we find ourselves contained within ..as it is certain to be the view of other beings who have preceded our evolution throughout the stars and galaxies.. galaxies that themselves, may someday be 'explorable' by extension of these very models aplied to the physical phenomenon currently refered to as reality
This is not particularly original. The over-arching term is 'Emergent phenomena' pioneered by such folks as: Linda Werner, Jill Denner, Shannon, and Weaver, Titsche, Campe, Damon Chizuru and others. This is a little naughty on Stephen Wolfram's part. I think you can still download Shannon and Weavers small computer programs that let you run this stuff yourself.
Adam Mangler Oh, you might also be interested to know that the computability of a system really started with Alan Turin in a paper he wrote during WWII.:- en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church%E2%80%93Turing_thesis
I'm so glad the Toobeyoo has put their little blue box under the video telling us what the bureaucrats at the UN and our talking head politicians think is true. They are so much smarter than Stephen Wolfram and I am so grateful for their input.
@@brendawilliams8062 My comment was in regard to the blue box TH-cam put below the video, but as now has removed, telling us what the UN and the governing class wants us to think about very complicated systems such as Stephen Wolfram describes. I agree with you, he is a hero and a turning point in science.
I got this from WIkipedia "In order to study simple rules and their often complex behaviour, Wolfram believes it is necessary to systematically explore all of these computational systems and document what they do. He believes this study should become a new branch of science, like physics or chemistry. The basic goal of this field is to understand and characterize the computational universe using experimental methods." This is a brilliant approach. Wolfram deserves praise for his tenacity, systematic approach and for creating a new method for studying mathematical science.
This is an excellent and astonishing talk.
Is the principle of computational equivalence and the NP completeness connected in anyway?
it's the principle of computational irreducibility
@@mbengiepeter965 p, np, they're all the same as 0 and infinite.
Abstraction means logic
Madness means geniality
Quantum mechanics means General relativity and they're both coded in qubits of entropy
Interesting pyramid connections
12:25 crystalline
Wolfram is way ahead of his time. This is a science still in its infancy.
I've been doing this sort of thing since I learned to program in 1985 that's why these patterns are pretty familiar. I moved on to biology and chemistry and saw the patterns there because I had already seen them in just goofing around with the rules I set up in my programs.
Later I moved on to the Human Genome data from NIH and have it on my computers. My prior goofing around with turning math into images caused me to write a program that assigns a color value to each of the 4 bases in the Human Genome files. a is red, g is blue, c is green, and t is yellow. Then I wrote several programs using a different bit simple scheme to draw a pixel of that color as it encountered that particular base letter in the file. My hypothesis being "a picture is worth a thousand words". It easier to spot patterns in millions of data points if they are displayed as an image. Then I wrote another program that allowed me to dive into the file where I saw a particularly interesting pattern and pull that sequence out. I have been doing this for about 12 or so years now and I can assure you there is an underlying structure , a framework of patterns if you will, and its pretty interesting. To me anyway. I have worked out multiple schemes such as viewing the data in sets of 4 instead of 3 which are called codons and my set of 4 I call Quadons where each position has 4 possible choices and thus a set of 4 of these produces 256 possible combinations. Which oddly enough is the same as the ASCII table. I blocked off the printing of some codes because they are basically meaningless now but have often wondered what my program would produce if run on an old machine which would try to actually perform the codes which "back in the day" would cause the computer to act weird and lock up.
I wrote a sci fi story based on this idea where a guy does this and it turns out that the evolution of computer code and our own DNA have a common base code and running this program on an old machine reveals that.
In short......I get exactly what this guy was doing. He and Professor James Gates should talk.
If you are interested in some of the DNA images and patterns I found you can see them at thearmageddonclub.blogspot.com. Having the attention span of a gnat has caused me to study and try my hand at many things. That blog is where I display them.
Great VID thanks
I found Wolframs claims in studying complexity theory and how my, I assumed novel idea, had already been introduced by him.
I believe there is more to it, but I believe this is the most complete picture of the universe yet.
The axioms you learn regarding complex systems as applied to our universe are epic, if we truly are the expression of an equation. As above, so below.
@@ILLUMINATED-1
Keep working at it. I've been working on this weird thing involving the emergence of mathematical patterns even in our language. (Among other things.) A quick run down is the preponderance of triangularism. Like atoms are Protons, Neutrons, and Electrons. Protons and Neutrons have 3 quarks. There are 3 charge states, positive, negative, and neutral. 3 fundamental forces. I know they say 4 but recently 2 have been linked. It's like the universe presents at an atomic and sub atomic level as a Trinary Language sort of like Binary which is of course On/Off. Trinary is +/-/0.
Now look at our belief systems. 3 characters. God, Satan, Jesus. Odin, Hella, Thor. Zeus, Hades, Hercules. Etc. Not all of course.
Now here's something pretty weird. The number 6 which as you probably know is one of the, if not the, oldest venerated number. It is called Perfect. It's factors add up to itself. 1 + 2 + 3 = 6. Now take the ENGLISH language and assign values as such; a = 6, b = 12, c = 18, etc and put in some names. JESUS, JOSHUA, JEWISH, MESSIAH, GOSPEL, CROSS, LUCIFER, and more. I will cut to the chase. They all equal 444. Interesting coincidence. But I kept plugging away which is the point of this reply. Keep plugging away even if what you have now has been done. I kept at it off and on for years. It hinges on the ENGLISH language. All those words come from Greek, Hebrew, and Latin, originally. JOSHUA is the ENGLISH translation of the Greek word for JESUS. Same character.
So I kind of obsessed on that for awhile in my 20s but eventually set it aside. one time, years later, out of curiosity I wondered if there were a string of letters within the alphabet that would equal 444. I discovered QRST. On a lark I looked it up and found out it is the Eqyptian designation for JESUS. Boom mind blown. There are others but I started to focus on the number 444 and not just 6. HEXAGON is a 444 word and 6 sided. The 6th planet has a HEXAGON at the top. The 6th ELEMENT is the basis of life. The Roman Numeral for 444 is CDXLIV which is a 444 "word". The Roman Cubit is 444mm. CUBITS is a 444 word. The JEWISH numerology practice is called GEMATRIA. It is totally different from my linear progression. It gives values based on the letter's importance. It has the value of JESUS at 888. Pi and √2 are fundamental to circles and squares. Super common geometric shapes. Pi x √2 = 4.44.... The 12th prime is 37. 12 x 37 = 444. DNA is composed of 3 base sets called Codons. There are 4 bases thus 4 x 4 x 4 possible Codons.
It's pretty weird. Not saying it means anything or is mystical but it's a cluster of activity. Anyway I found the QRST thing a decade after I stopped goofing around with the initial findings. Just like a discovery (purely for myself) about the Great Pyramid. Now it isnt as weird, except the Speed of Light part, because humans built it and of course threw some numbers in it but the numbers indicate it is more Sumerian in nature than Egyptian. I still find new things.
I of course will never publish this stuff but I don't do it for anyone else. I just like working the numbers.
Anyway. Just keep doing it. Who knows you mind find something no one else knows.
One of the most enlightening hour and half I ever spent. Now to reading the book.
A new kind of science got me obsessed for a good couple of years, back in 2004. I don´t know if this will ever get to form a new kind of science, but it´s definitely a new kind of seeing at things and thinking about them
I tried reading the book when it first came out, but didn't get the point. Now with this video presentation I am blown away by the depth and potential of the ideas. The way the same principles create insights in different domains of science is inspiring. For example, for me as a physicist, the view of spacetime creation as a causal network is really appealing.
The bit about mollusc shells "sampling available programs" got me. Some work - some don't; there's your natural selection engine right there.
Stephen Wolfram is bringing generative formal logic into a new era. This concept of formal logic as any induction is going to create a revolution in both the way we think about formal logic and mental sciences. This is a really big deal. This is the biggest deal. People like Sebastian Seung, Angela Belcher, Caig Venter, David Chalmers, Stephen Wolfram make me feel like sticking around a bit longer.
Thank you so much. I was glued every word and I will re-watch from the beginning to the end. As well as proselytize this subject to as many as I can.
This video has impacted me greatly. I am pondering how this could be used in studying brain development/ mental illness etc. This is very enlightening, thanks!
Wow. Fascinating theory. Blows my mind. It's genius really. And it only took 9 years to get to this presentation. :-) Thank you TH-cam and UCTV for making this accessible. Otherwise, I may never have ever seen it.
same im 15
@@SavageStephen hello Fifteen
@@Coincidence_Theorist now im 16
Regardless of weather I think Wolfram is a genius or a crackpot, it's encouraging to see a company put this much effort into basic research that has no obvious financial payoff.
***** i bet we could program 3d printers to make tissues , bones , nerves from basic stem cells and use atomatatons outcomes to get desired patterns in turn creating structure like the snowflakes etc..
wolfram-alpha best thing since graphing calcs move over TI *****
He's a very very bright lad, and a lot of his stuff is useful -- and apparently nobody at his publishers had the nerve to say "Sorry, Steve, this is old stuff, and you're making a total fool of yourself."
So a nice guy who'd done a lot of good work has gone and made a fool of himself.
Damn shame.
Tapecutter59
every landmark work starts at this stage.
I bought his book when it came out, and this video still blows my mind even today. Fantastic.
This guy is amazing, great speech.
Got a good voice too! :)
Incredible! How could anyone dislike this???
(꒵꜅꒵) _player-haters_ would not care for this lofty abstraction.
he makes it very complicated I can understand it but I get mad that others wont
How about - the images are too blurry to see? Could that be disliked?
@@chooshchoosh how about this was like recorded before you was born
Because it's shite
Wow. I thought it was strange that he introduced rule 30 and my mind went straight to a time when I mapped primes in a spiral using large sieves (leaving out points that are obviously not prime), and a little while later he showed a system that found primes and it looked just like the maps I created. Makes me want to read his book and then look at that program again.
This has changed my life, particularly in the view of physics and quantum mechanics, as I will get my degree, I want to help in revising and simplifying physics. I know that as new generations will begin to study this, our perspective of this world and science will make another paradigm shift as it did 400 years ago. In the future, people will laugh at how we thought invisibility, deep space travel to get to a star, anti-gravity, perpetual motion, even walking through walls was impossible.
as a computer scientist who is a mathematician and a physicist but through self directed knowledge. you have sold me on Mathematica. it is the programmer in me that you have inspired most, Stephen Wolfram.
Een a student of cellular automata for long but wolfram blasts all traditional thoughts. Awesome to say the least !
So thinking along these lines, the speed of light may actually represent the top speed at which the universe can process reality...very interesting...
And nukes are just heavy lag on a certain area
no your wrong the speed of light has been disproven
Velocity in which entropy grows In a chaotic p-atic fractal, but yes, time flow, arrow of time and fractal infinite curve filling surface→volume of quantum entropy in qubits, entangled to all of spacetime
But yes, very much the universe flows to slower time and higher entropy.
wonder what would if you gave the universe a few speed pills.
@@SavageStephenWRONG !!!!!!!!!!!
I strongly suggest the book review on A NEW KIND OF SCIENCE by Steven Weinberg, Nobel laureate in physics.
when can we get the universes' SDK ?
HA! Great comment. With GPT-3 and Neuralink projects on the waya, if we don't exterminate ourselves, probably not very far in the future.
We're almost at the singularity already, be patient
Just go play it yourself, it's fun, in many parts, and feels very real!
AMAZING VIDEO! Possibly the best video on youtube!
Your effort is tremendous. Your talk is very enlightening. Thank you and best of luck, Stephen.
The only thing bad about all this, is that Stephen Wolfram seems to be so self aware about how important this is - I wonder if he does not fear himself to maybe come across arrogant.
Very fascinating (besides the deep implacations) just how visually beautiful those results are.
The point of arrogance is that it comes from superior people. So if I humble myself (which I already do) wont help :P.
"Sure of their qualities and demanding praise, more go to ruined fortunes than are raised." - Alexander Pope
This guy deserves a medal of awesomeness.
This video was uploaded 8 years ago, and mathematica was already able to represent all that. No wonder why Mathematica is that smart now. I like the "new" scientific approach.
@bdogshredder Remember that you can find patterns everywhere, and Wolfram also never says randomness, but rather apparent randomness (it seems random to us, but it might have an overall structure that is infinite, or close to infinite, and then it repeats itself).
Why can't people keep comments relevant to the video?
Regardless of the theory's implications for humans, or each others' ego, his theory does an excellent job at describing HOW the universe happens, as opposed to WHAT is happening.
It will be interesting to see where this goes. I'm disappointed there aren't more NKS videos on youtube.
Amazing! He really is a genius. I have heard of him and I used Mathematica back in 1989 ... he just blew my mind with his insights.
And here we thought idea of making meth with your crystallography skills blew your mind ... No problems. We get it, you're retired now. So this is what you're doing?
The Professor is extremely brilliant. Hardcore
Abosolutely awesome. Simplicity breeds complexity.
That's right. Good times create soft men. Soft men create hard times. Hard times create hard men.
A little after the 30 minute mark it gets really mind-blowing. Although I've heard of ideas like this before it's extremely exciting to think that we might be getting close to discover the basic underlying structure of reality or whatever you want to call it.
Hello time traveler. Are ye still alive
Nice to find a copy of the book and enjoy the rarity of its place and presence!
from wiki on 'A New Kind of Science' #criticisms:
"In a 2002 review of NKS, the Nobel laureate and elementary particle physicist Steven Weinberg wrote, "Wolfram himself is a lapsed elementary particle physicist, and I suppose he can't resist trying to apply his experience with digital computer programs to the laws of nature. This has led him to the view (also considered in a 1981 paper by Richard Feynman) that nature is discrete rather than continuous. He suggests that space consists of a set of isolated points, like cells in a cellular automaton, and that even time flows in discrete steps. Following an idea of Edward Fredkin, he concludes that the universe itself would then be an automaton, like a giant computer. It's possible, but I can't see any motivation for these speculations, except that this is the sort of system that Wolfram and others have become used to in their work on computers. So might a carpenter, looking at the moon, suppose that it is made of wood."
Note: Weinberg is an atheist, criticizing another atheist for thinking everything is discrete. The Universe, and life itself, is not a Cellular Automaton, and I agree...though I much admire his Mathematica.
+Arthur Sulit I agree but I don't think it matters. If you grow up a carpenter, you see things as a carpenter. This surely doesn't automatically invalidate the claim that moon is made from wood. It might not make it particularly likely. But if look at plumbers, carpenters and all other tradesman, one of them is bound to be closest to a working theory. And Wolfram very well might be.
So investigating, validating or refuting, his ideas, instead of his persona or heritage, is surely more worthwhile.
lnternet RB I'm glad we might Agree on many points, but I think historically, most Ideas are inseparable, in fact incomprehensible, without an understanding of the Person(s) and historical context behind them. So why "limit" intellectual inquiry to just "ideas", as if the context and persons were not relevant? Wouldn't that be guilty of a certain level of anti-intellectualism or narrowness which fails to enrich and enliven the discussions? So shall we have a colorless "detached" debate, watered down to political correctness, and therefore, achieve no deeper understanding of other potentially hidden variables involved?
I am highly interested in Epistemology, and the interactions / environment / history of the persons involved. I am not one to naively rule out the possibility that he or she might have been influenced by positive or negative forces directly relevant to the idea (weather it be an abusive vs. a loving father, or internal "demons" like Freud's coming out in his so-called "scientific" ideas, etc.). Without story, drama and context, most people won't find it interesting, and therefore won't "get it". So in the end, it's all about people, inseparable from their ideas, which has the most potential to enlighten and reach the most people, yes?
In a Utopian world, one might "wish" that all people can remain "detached" from people and their ideas. But that is not reality. The reality is that people, mysteriously, like to read the Tabloids, or 'People' Magazine. They don't buy into purely "academic" dry discussions. They want drama. So if drama serves the interests of getting more people interested in Science, then that in itself, is a useful service, yes? In addition, it is scientific to do so, because it is an Affirmation, not a Utopian rejection, of human (and potentially spiritual) nature, which in the opinion of a few psychiatrists (like Dr. M. Scott Peck, 'People of the Lie')...deserve more scientific inquiry. If we start with a Premise, such as that the Ideas cannot be separable from the Soul (or Consciousness) which expressed them, then that Premise itself, fully deserves more rigorous and lively investigation. So rather than declare personalities "irrelevant", merely because it is now "Taboo" or "politically incorrect", I prefer to lift the implicit bans on free inquiry, from those who mistakenly try to suppress it. That to me is less narrow-minded approach, which enables richer more open-minded and rewarding, more memorable, and hence, more educational discussions...kind of like the William F. Buckley vs. Gore Vidal debates.
Sound reasonable?
So when I say Wienberg was an "atheist criticizing another atheist", perhaps that is what made you feel uncomfortable. Yet that point is highly relevant, because Darwin himself became an atheist, due to loss of his Daughter, now angry at God. Yet his theories were later invalidated in many cases, by his own fellow atheists (like Wolfram) later on. So theologians who are also scientists, do not need to resort to theological moral arguments to expose the (oft monstrous) scientific flaws of so many big name Atheists (such as how Darwinism led to the Holocaust, and to Eugenics). All they need to do, is study more carefully the population of other big-name Atheists, who will do their work for them, lol! i.e. Atheistic Science itself, is exposing the fallacies of its own most-revered Atheists like Darwinism, which is leading everyone to Question Atheism itself. Particularly their claim there are no souls, nor I.D. involved in anything. Well, that Question, deserves rigorous investigation, yes? It is not resolved, yes? Therefore it is highly relevant and enlightening, enriching, to discuss the Persons themselves, so we can train ourselves to think deeper, rather than just be satisfied with the superficial surface of things.
+Arthur Sulit I am glad that both Weinberg & Wolfram are atheists, but why did you bring that irrelevant fact up?
Why not mention whether they are American or German or vegan or socialist or communist or capitalist?
Yes, true, I accept your point which concedes that atheists are a divided bunch who do not agree with one another on science, economics, psychiatry, education, law, diet, et al. The only thing they "agree" on apparently is "no God". Beyond that, they (to our advantage) angrily assassinate one another, basically neutralizing each other's flawed world-view. It is highly relevant I bring this up, because their very premise "no God" leads to internal inconsistencies with reality, which in observable testable reality, end up nullifying one another as untrustworthy. I apologize for the blanket statement here, but it would take volumes. One place to start might be your online ID "The Ultimate Reductionist". Surely, that name betrays a person of at least some level of higher education, who is fully aware that the philosophy of Scientism / Reductionism / radical Empiricism is self contradictory, since it demands "proof" of everything else, yet fails to prove itself.
Are you aware of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem, which basically proves that not everything is formally provable, yet we still know large regions are true? (Starting with, "This statement is unprovable"). In short, the typical atheist prides himself or herself of being "free" of circular arguments, then has the nerve to accuse theists of being circular. Sorry, friend, all Language (spoken, mathematical, etc.) is self-referential (circular), and you / we cannot avoid it. We can only "choose", not "prove". So "Ultimate Reductionist" is a self-contradiction, for you cannot reduce your nature, as if you can describe yourself, without self-referring to many traits about yourself, which are themselves describable only by referencing themselves. For instance, "Pleasure is that which is pleasurable". You can kick and scream all you want that you aren't just as faith-based and ciruclar as theists, but the scientific and Linguistic evidence proves, all our arguments end up being circular upon Axioms we choose, not prove.
The difference, then, between an atheist and a theist (pun intended), is in precisely which Circular premise they choose: "I am that am" or "I ain't nothing but myself". Either way is Circular. Pick pill: red or blue?
Thanks, buddy (or bud-gal?), for the entertainment! Take care :-)
What remains when we do not and memories disappear like tears in the rain?
Love music on the end
Its not all that new but one should always listen to Wolfram because he is a deep and passionate thinker. The question he poses is whether the Universe is discreet or continuous or to put it into another way, are "real numbers" for real?
NKS was only published ~8 years ago. The seminal implications of Wolfram's thought have only begun to influence younger members of the CS community. Just a slight shift in technological focus will reveal the real - and surprisingly dramatic - impact of these concepts.
his mind is a good example that something supposedly simple can bring about something very complex, lol. But seriously, he's great explaining complexity. Am getting much out of this. It'll be interesting to see how the "time-constraint" of natural calculation will be explained. Thanks, Stephen
[Notas] 24:00 no hay necesidad de que lo aleatorio venga de las condiciones iniciales (teoría del caos) ni de afuera, puede ser INTRÍNSECO.
Don't think I've ever seen one video that's left me re-considering so many aspects of the universe. Human thought may be no more intrinsically complex than the patterns that form in rock. Woah. And, from what I gathered, there are many computations that we can never predict the outcome of, we just have to run the program and see what happens. Reminds me of planet Earth in Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy.
I'm not a math person but wasn't similar complex behaviour from a simple set of rules already known a long time ago (Lorentz attractors, the Mandelbrot set, etc.)?
Kind of, Mandelbrot said "oh look at this cool pattern".
Wolfram said" Here is how this pattern applies to natural systems".
The difference is night and day.
Sum Arber Well Lorenz attractors were discovered from looking at natural systems.
***** True, but he's not talking behaviors of chaotic systems, per se. It touches on compute universality of cellular automata and axiomatic systems, how they related and can be seen in nature and how physical systems be reduced to specific, relatively simple rules of deterministic automata. Completely different idea.
Sum Arber Mandelbrot also got into how fractals can be used in science.
*****
Yes Dusan. This is known as 'emergent (patterns of) behaviour'
Good article here:- en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence; frequently using iteration.
It is not only a new kind of science, it is also a new kind of philosophy in some kind.
His brain works so fast he has to talk faster to get them all out😂 This is such a breath of fresh air compared to everything else in science.
This seems quite the program to sort out what McKenna refered as "Novelty". Is not about what things are made of, but what things that are already made could become.
As a non mathematician per se, to me the Mandelbort series seems to capture the same phenomena from a different angle, the expantion of theoretical sequences resembling what time does to matter from a central point, which could be related as the present we're living in as the Universe is. I can barely fathom what kind of things might be archivable by getting down one single and cohesive understanding of matter behavior in a constant state of presumable chaos.
15 minutes in and I'm thinking, "this guy has been seeking for 10 minutes just to tell me the same thing in like, 7 different ways." I get it. simple computations have complex results. honestly I feel like this isn't so spectacular like he builds it up to be.
except that he's developed systems based on 8 simple rules that show remarkable similarity to the way subatomic particles interact and how space time is shaped.
yeah, and space - time = )
8:47 that's not random, that's predictable, You set a limit for the resolution and when the resolution goes higher than the limit it will bunch up just as if you stretched a .jpg image larger than was. There is no truly randomness in computers unless you can get background noise from external sources and even then its based on your programing.
32:30
"To the man who only has a hammer in the toolkit, every problem looks like a nail."
Abraham Maslow,
or a thumb
At 24:09, aren't phenomena such as cellular automata (and, as Wolfram suggests, fluid turbulence) dependent on simple rules also dependent on initial conditions and therefore just as unrepeatable in the real world as other kinds of chaotic systems? Am I missing something?
Cellular automata are entirely repeatable.
david196609876 ...by a computer program, but in the real world (given they occur as Wolfram hypothesizes)? My point was that I'm not sure cellular automata are absolutely distinct from chaotic systems, and that therefore the same problems of repeatability don't apply (see definition of chaos theory).
Maurice Green What if the real world is a CA...
david196609876
Then all the same it's impossible to repeat exactly such initial conditions as, say, the positions of billions of water molecules, no?
Maurice Green depends on how much the system under observeration is isolated from disturbances from outside. the idea is that, as long as the rules stay the same and the system is not disturbed, its behaviour is perfectly determined (though not easily predicted, as you need to simulate the system step by step just like in chaos theory). if the rules prevent strong interaction between the parts of the system, most likely a repeating pattern will result. if strong interactions occur between the parts, more interesting behaviours emerge - of which some even appear completely random (although they are perfectly determined, just like the digits of pi).
in the real world there is no perfectly isolated system however, so the real question is how disturbances from the outside propagate within systems with different rules - and that's such a general question that solutions to that work on all scales and kinds of systems. depending on the rules of the system, a disturbance can be "forgotten" over time and the system may settle to a certain state again; or the disturbance might propagate in some fashion but without fundamentally changing the system; or actually the disturbance might, over time, change how the system "works" completely.
chaotic systems are a case of that latter class of systems where disturbances are not only propagated but may completely change the makeup of the system. within this class of systems, depending on how strongly the parts interact and whether there are mechanisms that modify/dampen/amplify the "impulse".
This sounds right on everything. Why have I not heard of this before?
@ToddAndelin It actually is used in studying the brain. What one does in cognitive science is to look for patterns in the brain, and say that this particular pattern yields this particular behavior. The problem is that one does not find the underlying rules for why those patterns arise. The models of Wolfram can possibly provide patterns to compare with brain-scans and thus be able to find the underlying rules.
at time 1:11:13 mathematica is currently on version 9....so much of this is history, interesting listening to Wolfram predicting quantum computers 2-3 years before they were even envisioned...(about the time D-wave was forming up)
Quantum Computers were envisioned in the begining of the 1980s by physicists Yuri Manin and Richard Feynman...
dx dt
Mr. Wolfram attributes to himself lots of things which belong to other people. If someone is misinformed, someone simply "buy" that... better yet: buy his book! and buy his software!
a good idea has a thousand fathers...
All those information described by Sir Wolfram....what a wonderful world !
I wonder how far those ideas can be explored and twisted into the computer and what will emerge from all this complexity ... I suggest you people to read John D. Barrow's book The Grand Theory in which he discussed the computational irreducibility concept. Another point of view...
My question : how do arise physical constants through complexity emergence ?
this crunches my mind like a velvet sledgehammer.
So, the answer to everything is 30 and not 42? ^^
Joke aside, fascinating lecture.
Deep Thought was programmed in base 7 apparently...
This man is a wonderful human being, my favorite kind of person, a free thinker, and an innovator. I would love to be able to talk with him. Very interested to see if he's met and spoken with John Nash, or if he also appreciates the ideas of F. A. Hayek. I would like to see him design a robot with a brain that has a functional replica of every portion of the human brain, only optimized. The power is there RIGHT now. I would love to speak with him about the indicators, parallel projects.
Greatest thinker of our time.
They don't teach this stuff (cellular automata) in computer science courses. The fact that it's capable of universal computation is really significant.
Nor in electrical engineering. Evil able hardware is pretty damn significant
Better find a better computer science curriculum. Wolfram wrote "Universality and Complexity in Cellular Automata" in 1984. At U. Stonybrook, functional languages, Prolog, and lambda calculus were introduced year one as an undergrad. If I remember correctly, I had automata as a sophomore, or maybe a junior.
Did you not learn about finite automata and regular languages?
Studied physics but I kinda assumed that's the theoretical aspect of a Cs degree would cover it.
You can set a program to perform functions in a precise manner when having the correct mathematical computation. As said in this video, discovered a pattern by performing a function not discovered....and then eureka.... same is with computer programming. There is no spooky action about performing precise function input to get the desired results
Cool. I have a problem that I've had half solved for years. It fits right in with this. I'll dig into this a bit deeper.
+The Processionist What's the problem, and how's your progress?
Is is the primes thing? I discovered calculus at 17 through binomial expansions of infinite series, and I honestly think ideas like these connect abstract Ally the logic that binds science together. Madness/geniality is the glue binding knowledge and creativity together to form ideas
With cellular automata, does the size dimensions of which the cells are updated within, influence the "pattern" which results from the updates?
the real person to which the as yet to happen but arguably inevitable "singularity" should be attributed.
Primarily though, here is a great mind put to great action with a remarkable legacy already
@Uaz31 What is the definition of a "kind"?
wow... this lecture just blew my mind......
[Notas] 17:00 Secreto de la naturaleza -> ¿rule 30? Cosas más complejas que las de los humanos. La naturaleza sigue las reglas de programas simples.
@Uaz31 What do you mean by "macro-evolution"?
@Uaz31 "Oh I know very well what the terms mean." If you think that information theory makes any sort of trouble for evolutionary biology, or if you think that a cow (for example) is a "closed system", or that evolution means "one animal into another" we're already very much off track. (Not that there's anything wrong with that, these ideas can be challenging.)
Maybe we should start from the beginning, can you give us a brief explanation what you think biological evolution is?
I can't help wondering that the universe has re-written the rules after the big bang, and the initial conditions aren't part of our known universe.
It's a pity that the video quality so poor. Those diagrams really are beautiful in print. (but I guess that's why they did it - to sell his book)
One might say that this lecture is brilliant.
Even Newton said he stands on the shoulder of the giants.
The game of life is very simple and would produce a pretty simple pattern (immediate isappearence) if, like in Wolframs examples, you woul start out with just one cell. If you choose different starting states employing Wolframs CA, you can get event more complexity. But the very point of this presentation is to show that with minimal complexity in the initial conditions and the rules you get a lot of complex output, so making the initial conditions more complex would miss the point.
I reproduced this program in 2 hours, very easy to program.
Who the funk is ringing right now, Stephen giving them the death glance enlightenment to shut it off. Never stopped spitting truth about reality, the most fundamental Abstraction we have to that reality and how our intuitions and pure luck allow us to arrive to these truths in our minds.
My gut feeling is this will revolutionize R&D and exponentially increase the rate of technological breakthroughs.
give it a few decades...society is really really slower than technology in changing
The main problem is, that cells of cellular automates have discrete states (black, white, etc.).
Elementary particles have uncertain states 60%black and 40%white.
Usually, they are in superposition of several states with several probabilities.
So, this new kind of science can discribe our world only roughly, but not exactly.
Because, it's a "classical" theory.
Emergence Emergence Emergence!!!
These remind me of fractals. Does the universe use fractals and we are starting to find this out?
We have known for a while now. But we are beginning to make the connections
YesEsS
No and yes. The universe is based on 3 states of being. Positive, negative, and neutral. Its like a computer language (see videos on Professor James Gates) except instead of binary its 1, 0, -1. Everything we can think of either comes together or moves apart because of this. All of chemistry and therefore life is about the bonding of atoms and the "need" to balance forces. Where fractalization comes in is on both the macro and micro realms.
They have imaged and plotted a lot of galaxies and when viewed from a great distance they form patterns just like electrical discharges. See (Thunderbolts Project).
You may also be interested in videos on Cymatics.
@Uaz31 The axiom of your conclusion, is that the genome is what you call a closed system. This is new to me, and I hope you can link me to some creditable source. If not, then this discussion will reach an early end, as we might as well wish new laws of nature into existence. Why do we asume the genome to be plastic? Because we have observed relatively large changes within species, over short periods of time. We can also follow trails of evolution back through history. Examples?
@Uaz31 I'll make this as absolutely simple as I possibly can: How are you deciding what animals belong to a "kind"?
I love the Mathematica plugs throughout.
British Mathematician John Conway's "Game of Life" work on cellular automata preceded Wolframs' work by a few decades.
I find them far more interesting than a Sierpinski Triangle.
Some patterns resemble bacterial colonies both in structure and movement.
Search wikipedia and TH-cam for "Conways Game of Life"
Most interesting ! Thanks for posting !
43:06 my first wow moment since I'd heard of this before and messed around a bit, idk just a cool simple calculation done in a new kind of way.
46:30 is where I get the idea that all complex things can be done more simply, like how sin(x) or cos(x) are pretty funky equations that are sometimes very difficult to do by hand, but by representing them as a series (simple rules of computing), we arrive to the same values. This might not scale up more, this is just the speculation of someone not quite in college yet.
seems to me the whole mathematica principle is more to break down the seeming exponential growth of our existence into recognizable patterns in an effort to see the underlying principles of the universe but how can you quantify and qualify the mathematical formula used in a way that removes the "randomness" and allows us to see the patterns in the "chaos".... I say exponential growth because of the seemingly increasing complexity of life that we are able to recognize and categorize
7:50 Triforces? Nice patterns, truly beautiful AND scientific.
I really don't understand his characterization of fractals as they are not merely "self similar" repeating patterns, but instead can exhibit any shape possible. How is that different from what he supposedly discovered with respect to rule 30?
AWESOME - this is the FUTURE !
The only intuit and mathematically conistent EXPLANATORY idea for relativity and QM !
QM IS GR, Leonard Susskind and Maldacena are working on complexity too.
Intuition and abstraction lead to psychedelic mathematics, the wildest way to think about maths and at the same time the most trivial and intuitive.
Topology, geometry and abstraction instead of numbers and paper logical machinery
Wolfram is absolutely NOT implying that a higher power is necessary- He is explaining exactly why you do not need intelligence to create complicated structures. Emergence is the answer to the "If you find a watch, there must be a watchmaker" argument for the existence of God.
Penrose quasi-crystal tile patterns that "almost" repeat using only a few tile shapes are similar to many of these cellular automata results. Pi-like unending and non-repeating fractional numbers that are in-between the countable infinite numbers (not 1, 2, 3, 5/33, etc.) also should be able to be handled by these systems if they are to be universal in their application.
Amazing!
can anyone explane please, can we solve CFD, electromagnetics or heat problems with cellular automata? what is the benefits or disadvantages of CA according to FDTD, FEM etc.
@Uaz31
You point out lingual restrictions, not flaws in evolutionary theory. We cathegorize in order to "stack" information, allowing our short term memory to be more effective, and to enable ourselves to communicate more in less time. However, our cathegories will always remain inaccurate, rather than clearly defined by nature.
What exactly are you arguing? That the theory of evolution is false?
Do you deny that certain traits are heritable, and that evolution is a necessary result of this?
"Self-aggrandizement is so set in"... what a travesty, that a man who has spent 25yrs of his life on a project is proud that the fruits are finally starting to bear. Why don't we have the self effacing, shy, coy, timid genius who doesn't intimidate our ego and remind as to how little we have achieved ourselves.
Hell he worked for it, he focused on it, he got good results, its not perfect but its a success... and he should be proud of himself and say so publicly. The world belongs to the bold.
Where have you read similar concepts before? Can you cite your sources ?thx.
Coming up with this idea too I can cite him, Leonard Susskind, Juan Maldacena, Robert Sapolski, Elon musk or someone in neuralink, Isaac Arthur....
Each and every human's ideas are connected culturally.
We must find the connections and rationally build a better world through manipulation of this knowledge
Extremely simple rules can produce incredibly complicated behavior. That is his entire thesis, which he actually thinks he invented. God, look at him in the beginning holding his book up in the air, then awkwardly handling it, before just putting it on the stand next to him. You can tell he thinks its like the bible or something, he holds it up for all of us to see its depth. He thinks its needs its own stand really, that's what he wishes he had. Very smart man. Really smart, in fact. Unfortunately, totally self obsessed
He got his nose so deep up in his ass, he’s discovering science 😮
i consider it an absolute that this is the basis of the eventual view our decendants will hold of the physical universe we find ourselves contained within ..as it is certain to be the view of other beings who have preceded our evolution throughout the stars and galaxies.. galaxies that themselves, may someday be 'explorable' by extension of these very models aplied to the physical phenomenon currently refered to as reality
This is not particularly original. The over-arching term is 'Emergent phenomena' pioneered by such folks as: Linda Werner, Jill Denner, Shannon, and Weaver, Titsche, Campe, Damon Chizuru and others. This is a little naughty on Stephen Wolfram's part. I think you can still download Shannon and Weavers small computer programs that let you run this stuff yourself.
Adam Mangler Oh, you might also be interested to know that the computability of a system really started with Alan Turin in a paper he wrote during WWII.:-
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church%E2%80%93Turing_thesis
+Adam Mangler Also Dr John Conway worked on this
I'm so glad the Toobeyoo has put their little blue box under the video telling us what the bureaucrats at the UN and our talking head politicians think is true. They are so much smarter than Stephen Wolfram and I am so grateful for their input.
Non the less every serious math student is entitled to their heroes
@@brendawilliams8062 My comment was in regard to the blue box TH-cam put below the video, but as now has removed, telling us what the UN and the governing class wants us to think about very complicated systems such as Stephen Wolfram describes. I agree with you, he is a hero and a turning point in science.
@@pixelpatter01 everyone of us has a vote. That vote reflects personal environment, cultural and landscape beliefs. Vote