Stephen Wolfram is easily one of the greatest scientific minds alive. I am personally thankful for his work. His wise thinking helps me clarify my own thinking.
3:47 From what I understand Wolfram is saying is: All that we know/experience is what there is. If there is computation such as basic mathematics, its apart of our consciousness's imagination, due to OUR interpretation of the universe. (from out point as humans) Well, maybe, a way to step out of this (a very small way) is to study other consciousnesses. Such as animals. Of course there isn't a whole lot to gain studying a goat. But if you can study something with a mental prowess that rivals that of a human. You can get a pretty interesting insight...Take a magpie, with its superior memory. Or even a chimp who has better short-term memory than most human adults. We really question what our own capabilities are... our intellect is top on this world. But there are animals who have better memory, better reactions, better problem solving. Better mental capacities in a lot of ways. Take an octopus who would lay eggs and may wait years just starving to death until the conditions in nature are perfect for the eggs. Risking all harm and death until they, who once hatch leave the mother nothing else to do but die in peace. That mental prowess is rarely witnessed in humans. A goat has a very small brain. It is know as one of the more stupid mammals of this earth as according to us humans. I myself made the connotation, saying little is learned from studying them. Yet a newborn goat is brought into the world with its food source being that of a pasture(after its rearing is finished). A pasture has many different plant species. Many of them are toxic. Some would easily kill a goat if it ate to much. Some even if it ate little. So tell me, how does a newborn goat, or any goat know exactly which plants are toxic and which are not. It knows which plants have more nutrients in general and will favor them. How is it that they know this? Instincts? Okay but put a human in a pasture and tell them this is all their source of food. That human dies quicker than a goat. What is intelligence worth, where instincts and heartiness easily compensate and then some. Goats have won a very very niche branch of this world's game. We humans are stuck on this intelligence path and we are burning in the late game... smh...
I've only watched the fist 7 min and will need to finish it later, but my first thought is that 'stuff' does have relationships to other 'stuff' and math is the language we created to describe relationships.
That’s the thing…the definition for what we think of as “stuff” to make relations is arbitrary. A good example he gave in another talk is the following: we can count sheep…dogs…bushes…we have some kind of notion that these are things we can count… however when we want to talk about gusts of wind…puddles of water…clouds…those things aren’t exactly bounded in a way we can typically think of as things to count, let alone make a relation. This arbitrariness is based on what we think of as being worthy of being counted…whereas say…ants might think that hills of dirt are discretely countable and relatable to other things. That’s where that whole idea of conscious bounded observation comes from. If you are the size of a planet, there will be laws of physics that you are sensitive to like relativity…where bacteria probably have no notion of relativity…let alone gravity.
There is the logical aspect and the quantitative aspect. Logic exists because people found that they needed a reliable framework with explanatory and elucidatory power when taking for object the universe as we experience it. Quantities exist because not everything is one, at least on the surface.
Fantastic interview, but I have the distinct impression that Lex isn't understanding what Wolfram is saying half the time--like when he says it seems like you should be able to "step outside the Ruliad." This indicates to me that he isn't correctly modeling this idea that "formal definition" and "actuality" are indistinguishable. I.E. If you can imagine something, it means it can be formally defined through some set of rules that construct it, because imagination itself is a form of computation. From there, we simply recognize that all of our experiences of the universe amount to imagination, which is why none of us can say that we aren't living in a simulation. Our reality boils down to the things we can perceive, whether externally or internally. That perception is a feature of the formal system, because the perception itself is a computational process that is embedded within the structure. It need not be "instantiated" anywhere for that relationship to exist. This instant you are experiencing right now could be sitting on a hard drive stored away in some alien's basement, and the next instant could be stored on another hard drive in some other universe. And it wouldn't actually matter if it was stored anywhere, just like both of those hard drives could store portions of the sequence of integers, but that sequence itself exists independent of any particular substrate that models it. It simply exists in the space of possibilities that emerge from formally definable rules--i.e. the Ruliad. We only perceive anything because portions of the Ruliad have the intrinsic property of self-reflectivity--just as some cosmologists have said: We are a way for the universe to reflect upon itself.
Mathematics is a language. Mathematicians understand the language and use it to describe phenomena. It is a condensed language; so for example the word 'plus' in english translates to + in maths.
I suggest to the esteemed interviewer and interviewee to read GODEL ,ESCHER ,BACH The meaning of the + sign stems from the fact that there is an isomorphism between its mathematical meaning and reality as we understand it.
I'm probably wrong, but I think there's a much simpler explanation for the invention of math. I think humans started to realize that there were plenty of recurring patterns in nature and also in human interaction. Therefore, humans needed a system of language that defines and records these recurring patterns. Hence, the creation of math. Of course, since it's inception humans have gotten really creative with math and have experimented with it and pushed it to learn all that it can do and it's limits, at the end of the day it started as a system of language to define and record recurring patterns.
You're not wrong. Wolfram is just arguing that those "recurring patterns" that we humans recognize are coarse-grained emergent phenomena from the underlying "molecular" structure of computation itself. All possible rules give rise to a space with an infinite and arbitrarily varied zoo of "recurring patterns" but at the bedrock of it are patterns of computation, the simplest of which is a binary distinction: is, or is not. It's just "it from bit" but with additional insights that clarify how and why this emerges into the particular universe we observe, and how it relates to mathematics.
If math didn't exist, the universe wouldn't be able to exist. But, if there is a place where math doesn't exist, physical existence itself would be impossible, so, life wouldn't develop, and there would be no conscious observers to see that there is no such thing as math. It might be a bit lazy of me, but if we apply the anthropic principle here, we can allow for a possibility for a reality without math, but in such a plane of existence, life would be impossible.
It's one thing to not see why their short comment is likely falling short - they fail to see the entirety of what the question implies. This is not just understandable, but expected, for 95% of people on this planet. What's not understandable is exactly what you wrote - clearly brilliant minds are struggling with the question; does that not hint to them that their single-paragraph explanation may not be correct/may be answering the wrong question? haha
That's because there's no answer to it, just discussions that gives different "answers", and those answers are bounded by other things that we do not have an answer for, lol
He may be a brilliant person, but he is not a great "listen", he goes off on so many tangents it's almost impossible to get anything of value from him. Brian Greene is able to kind of "dumb it down" for the average listener in a very effective way, this guy is literally all over the map, I had to give up on his interview about 20 minutes in, very frustrating to listen to. Not all brilliant people are great communicators, which is in and of itself an interesting phenomenon.
Seems like they're over thinking it. Math is a language that was invented by people to describe the universe. It doesn't exist in anything but people's thoughts. The universe doesn't use math to do what it does.
Right?!? 2 objects is twice as many as 1 object without any calculation having ever been made. All quantifiable relationships exist in the same way. I never understood the mystery about this.
I think you’re interpreting “exist” differently than is being used in the video. It seems clear to me, that by “exist” Lex isn’t referring to if there is some kind of math molecule, or atom. He is saying that, the rules of math reliably explain natural phenomena, and so math “exists”. He’s asking if, there is something about the universe that required math to seemingly accurately model It, or if it’s possible to have a universe where math can’t explain it at all. The answer given, is basically That it’s possible that, we only think math is accurate because we are viewing the universe from our perspective/time/space.
I don't think they're over thinking it, if anything they gave up on it pretty quickly. They talk about "why math exists" for the first ~five minutes, reforming the question into "are there things that we cant represent formally"? Then for the next 20 minutes they're talking understanding the space of all possible formal systems (metamathematics) which is theory that can help engineer tangible things like automated proof systems. Like how do u pick what path to go down in proof space? Why different areas of math map into the same thing? Can we translate a proof from one math into another? Proof equivalence? So in some sense related to the original question but they're not talking about the og for the majority.
@@enderminer206 I think one answer is at 5:03 (Our) Mathematics is a language suitable to formally describe our particular perception of the world out of an infinite number of interpretations
Math is the beginning and the end of all things. Math is the onl thing that is certain to exist. The real question is how, from the abyssal eternities of uncomputability, universes like us become possible
Formally, they are just words. It’s a semantic game. Math can’t be a subset of logic, since logic isn’t a set. I like the distinction that logic concerns itself with the rules of the construction of mathematics, and mathematics concerns itself with the applications and deviations of those rules. But, you can use the words to mean basically, whatever you want.
@@mikecare3116 "Within formal logic, mathematical logic studies the mathematical characteristics of logical systems" (Wikipedia) so math is indeed a subset of logic. Furthermore, why are you claiming that logic isn't a set eventought it is?
What that wiki page is saying, Is that mathematical logic is a kind of formal logic. Mathematical logic isn’t mathematics, it’s mathematical logic. You can make a set and call it logic, but logic, the field of study isn’t a set. A set is a construct that contains elements. What are the elements of logic? The entire field of study? There are constructions in logic that Known as classes, which are distinct from sets, so- how can logic itself be a set?
Butterfly effect. You remove elephants and you will impact a range of other species including animals and plant life. This would also impact humans living in these regions over generations.
"В начале было Слово, и Слово было с Богом, и Слово было Богом. Оно было в начале с Богом. Все, что существует, было сотворено через Него, и без Него ничто из того, что есть, не начало существовать." Lex, you really should have someone on the podcast who can talk knowledgeably about the religious implications of physics and math. At the core, the universe is just a set of abstract rules. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. "
I think it was "invented", not "discovered". It doesn't need to exist for the universe to exist, it's simply the best representation we have been able to come up with to describe many of it's complexities.
Dunning-Kruger hitting hard. Maybe take a second to consider why brilliant minds are struggling with the question, whilst you have it so quickly and simply figured out. You missed the question entirely and failed to understand any of the conversation, and it shows lol
@@onielrodriguez9194 true, true. But to be fair, no one can prove otherwise too, right? Maybe we can agree that there has to be some kind of an intelligent designer… I can’t get my head around a Big Bang explosion creating perfect order. Every explosion I know of causes chaos, not perfectly synchronised systems. Anyway. God bless, brother!
@@BretThomson the big bang was not an explosion (even though it appears as one when it's depicted in videos). Also disproving a negative is also impossible for other gods, i.e. disproving Zeus or Krishna is also impossible.
incredibly hard to follow mr. wolfram cuz in the middle of every sentence he interrupts himself and starts of smth else instead of completing the though
Is this not a waste of time, shouldn’t you be taking this moment to solve actual problems? So many resources are wasted in pointless pursuits and useless outlets
It’s definitely not a waste of time. In fact I’ve already been making tech based on Wolframs models. They are giving extraordinary results. There is actually not enough time I wish I had more of it so I can get out this tech faster…ground breaking stuff in all honesty.
@@vteknique Your not making any sense. Math is how we have created everything of value in the past 500 years. Understanding what math is, is fundamental to how to make things of value…which includes useful software.
to see the ideas begin to emerge during the first couple minutes is wonderful
Thank you so much, Lex and Stephen. This is what traditional tv failed to offer us.
Stephen Wolfram is easily one of the greatest scientific minds alive. I am personally thankful for his work. His wise thinking helps me clarify my own thinking.
3:47 From what I understand Wolfram is saying is: All that we know/experience is what there is. If there is computation such as basic mathematics, its apart of our consciousness's imagination, due to OUR interpretation of the universe. (from out point as humans) Well, maybe, a way to step out of this (a very small way) is to study other consciousnesses. Such as animals. Of course there isn't a whole lot to gain studying a goat. But if you can study something with a mental prowess that rivals that of a human. You can get a pretty interesting insight...Take a magpie, with its superior memory. Or even a chimp who has better short-term memory than most human adults. We really question what our own capabilities are... our intellect is top on this world. But there are animals who have better memory, better reactions, better problem solving. Better mental capacities in a lot of ways. Take an octopus who would lay eggs and may wait years just starving to death until the conditions in nature are perfect for the eggs. Risking all harm and death until they, who once hatch leave the mother nothing else to do but die in peace. That mental prowess is rarely witnessed in humans.
A goat has a very small brain. It is know as one of the more stupid mammals of this earth as according to us humans. I myself made the connotation, saying little is learned from studying them. Yet a newborn goat is brought into the world with its food source being that of a pasture(after its rearing is finished). A pasture has many different plant species. Many of them are toxic. Some would easily kill a goat if it ate to much. Some even if it ate little. So tell me, how does a newborn goat, or any goat know exactly which plants are toxic and which are not. It knows which plants have more nutrients in general and will favor them. How is it that they know this? Instincts?
Okay but put a human in a pasture and tell them this is all their source of food. That human dies quicker than a goat. What is intelligence worth, where instincts and heartiness easily compensate and then some. Goats have won a very very niche branch of this world's game. We humans are stuck on this intelligence path and we are burning in the late game... smh...
yeah but humans can google which plants are poisonous to them? can the goat do that?
@@arronomas795 you missed his point entirely. You're on venus with your comment
Put a goat in the ocean and tell them it is their only source of water.
In many animals, basic instincts and behaviors are encoded in the organism's DNA. The question is how do they get encoded into the DNA?
the aliens are laughing rpb at us
I feel so lucky to live in this amazing time! Such incredible ideas in my pocket!🤯😂
"...I'm happy! Feeling glad. I got sunshine, in a bag. I'm useless! but not for long... the future is comin' on"
this thumbnail wins life
Was me for like the first 13. Dude laid tracks in Stockholm and Miami getting to his point.
@Marta Nadege a Brazilian actress that photo is probably 30 years old
@Marta Nadege en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renata_Sorrah
I've only watched the fist 7 min and will need to finish it later, but my first thought is that 'stuff' does have relationships to other 'stuff' and math is the language we created to describe relationships.
That’s the thing…the definition for what we think of as “stuff” to make relations is arbitrary. A good example he gave in another talk is the following: we can count sheep…dogs…bushes…we have some kind of notion that these are things we can count… however when we want to talk about gusts of wind…puddles of water…clouds…those things aren’t exactly bounded in a way we can typically think of as things to count, let alone make a relation.
This arbitrariness is based on what we think of as being worthy of being counted…whereas say…ants might think that hills of dirt are discretely countable and relatable to other things. That’s where that whole idea of conscious bounded observation comes from.
If you are the size of a planet, there will be laws of physics that you are sensitive to like relativity…where bacteria probably have no notion of relativity…let alone gravity.
These are the questions whose answer I'm always searching for. Nice work Lex sir!
There is the logical aspect and the quantitative aspect. Logic exists because people found that they needed a reliable framework with explanatory and elucidatory power when taking for object the universe as we experience it. Quantities exist because not everything is one, at least on the surface.
Math exist in our minds and in our reality. So powerful yet eternally elusive.
Fantastic interview, but I have the distinct impression that Lex isn't understanding what Wolfram is saying half the time--like when he says it seems like you should be able to "step outside the Ruliad." This indicates to me that he isn't correctly modeling this idea that "formal definition" and "actuality" are indistinguishable. I.E. If you can imagine something, it means it can be formally defined through some set of rules that construct it, because imagination itself is a form of computation. From there, we simply recognize that all of our experiences of the universe amount to imagination, which is why none of us can say that we aren't living in a simulation. Our reality boils down to the things we can perceive, whether externally or internally. That perception is a feature of the formal system, because the perception itself is a computational process that is embedded within the structure. It need not be "instantiated" anywhere for that relationship to exist. This instant you are experiencing right now could be sitting on a hard drive stored away in some alien's basement, and the next instant could be stored on another hard drive in some other universe. And it wouldn't actually matter if it was stored anywhere, just like both of those hard drives could store portions of the sequence of integers, but that sequence itself exists independent of any particular substrate that models it. It simply exists in the space of possibilities that emerge from formally definable rules--i.e. the Ruliad. We only perceive anything because portions of the Ruliad have the intrinsic property of self-reflectivity--just as some cosmologists have said: We are a way for the universe to reflect upon itself.
Perfect thumbnail
been rewatching 1:30 to 3:20 over and over and i get glimpses
Mathematics is a language. Mathematicians understand the language and use it to describe phenomena. It is a condensed language; so for example the word 'plus' in english translates to + in maths.
I suggest to the esteemed interviewer and interviewee to read GODEL ,ESCHER ,BACH
The meaning of the + sign stems from the fact that there is an isomorphism between its mathematical meaning and reality as we understand it.
I'm probably wrong, but I think there's a much simpler explanation for the invention of math. I think humans started to realize that there were plenty of recurring patterns in nature and also in human interaction. Therefore, humans needed a system of language that defines and records these recurring patterns. Hence, the creation of math. Of course, since it's inception humans have gotten really creative with math and have experimented with it and pushed it to learn all that it can do and it's limits, at the end of the day it started as a system of language to define and record recurring patterns.
I don’t think you understand the convo. They know that, it about it existing outside of that…
You're not wrong. Wolfram is just arguing that those "recurring patterns" that we humans recognize are coarse-grained emergent phenomena from the underlying "molecular" structure of computation itself. All possible rules give rise to a space with an infinite and arbitrarily varied zoo of "recurring patterns" but at the bedrock of it are patterns of computation, the simplest of which is a binary distinction: is, or is not. It's just "it from bit" but with additional insights that clarify how and why this emerges into the particular universe we observe, and how it relates to mathematics.
Settle this in the Octagon….Wolfram v Fridman…Let’ssss Go!
That was truly enjoyable.
excellent thumbnail, kings
A grande Nazaré pensante!
Renata Sorrah atriz internacional hahahhaha!
hahaha
Pois é, toda vez que vejo esse meme na gringa, dá até um orgulho nacional. Logo, vou direto procurar o comentário de um brasileiro. kkkkkk
Sabia que tinha uns BR por aqui a gente tá em todo lugar
Hahahaha
@@devfromthefuture506 mais de um parece
só os br acompanhando o Lex por aqui 😂
brain hurty
Mr.Wolfram needs a course in logic and declamation--he obfuscates when it isn't necessary.
Math doesn't exist, but mathematics or maths does.
Fun conversation!!
0:03 me in math class be like
Why wouldn't it?
I think it started once we began living in larger and larger groups, over time. Naturally counting all your siblings, children, and neighbors.
New drinking game: Take a drink for everytime he says mathematics.
Tried to watch this during lunch, my brain hurt.
If math didn't exist, the universe wouldn't be able to exist.
But, if there is a place where math doesn't exist, physical existence itself would be impossible, so, life wouldn't develop, and there would be no conscious observers to see that there is no such thing as math.
It might be a bit lazy of me, but if we apply the anthropic principle here, we can allow for a possibility for a reality without math, but in such a plane of existence, life would be impossible.
Why do people keep answering questions like what is math in one short comment? Can't you clearly see that brilliant minds are struggling with it?
It's one thing to not see why their short comment is likely falling short - they fail to see the entirety of what the question implies. This is not just understandable, but expected, for 95% of people on this planet. What's not understandable is exactly what you wrote - clearly brilliant minds are struggling with the question; does that not hint to them that their single-paragraph explanation may not be correct/may be answering the wrong question? haha
If there were no determinism (plus, zero, one, axioms) at all, then we certainly wouldn't exist to wonder about it.
lex i can tell you EXACTLY why math exists that you could not refute but you'll never see this
drink every time he saids mathematics 👀
🥂🍻🍺
We would probably die of intoxication lmao
No thanks. I like my liver.
They ask questions beyond my comprehension.
you would certainly comprehend that and things beyond.
Dig It
blackholes are a CPU crash in the simulation.
Not a bug is feature 🤩
Mathematics is a language to describe a subjective reality...
It's probably me being a bit thick, but I got the impression he struggled to answer this question.
That's because there's no answer to it, just discussions that gives different "answers", and those answers are bounded by other things that we do not have an answer for, lol
He may be a brilliant person, but he is not a great "listen", he goes off on so many tangents it's almost impossible to get anything of value from him. Brian Greene is able to kind of
"dumb it down" for the average listener in a very effective way, this guy is literally all over the map, I had to give up on his interview about 20 minutes in, very frustrating to listen to.
Not all brilliant people are great communicators, which is in and of itself an interesting phenomenon.
Math exist in our attempt to better understand the workings of our universe
0:16 - The moment I heard that statement, Godel's Incompleteness Theorems came to my mind. Am I the only one? Is there anyone that I can discuss this?
Dammmmm tou put Nazaré meme in the thumbnail :OoO
Seems like they're over thinking it. Math is a language that was invented by people to describe the universe. It doesn't exist in anything but people's thoughts. The universe doesn't use math to do what it does.
Right?!?
2 objects is twice as many as 1 object without any calculation having ever been made.
All quantifiable relationships exist in the same way.
I never understood the mystery about this.
I think you’re interpreting “exist” differently than is being used in the video.
It seems clear to me, that by “exist” Lex isn’t referring to if there is some kind of math molecule, or atom.
He is saying that, the rules of math reliably explain natural phenomena, and so math “exists”.
He’s asking if, there is something about the universe that required math to seemingly accurately model
It, or if it’s possible to have a universe where math can’t explain it at all.
The answer given, is basically That it’s possible that, we only think math is accurate because we are viewing the universe from our perspective/time/space.
I don't think they're over thinking it, if anything they gave up on it pretty quickly. They talk about "why math exists" for the first ~five minutes, reforming the question into "are there things that we cant represent formally"? Then for the next 20 minutes they're talking understanding the space of all possible formal systems (metamathematics) which is theory that can help engineer tangible things like automated proof systems. Like how do u pick what path to go down in proof space? Why different areas of math map into the same thing? Can we translate a proof from one math into another? Proof equivalence?
So in some sense related to the original question but they're not talking about the og for the majority.
Great comment
@@enderminer206 I think one answer is at 5:03 (Our) Mathematics is a language suitable to formally describe our particular perception of the world out of an infinite number of interpretations
This is how far a Brazilian meme can go...
kkkkkkkkk do nada né. Br é foda
Math is the beginning and the end of all things. Math is the onl thing that is certain to exist. The real question is how, from the abyssal eternities of uncomputability, universes like us become possible
No it’s not
I actually think the opposite. If mathematics exist, universe has to existm
What is the relation between math and logic? I tought math was a subset of logic but not a synonym; however, that might be untrue.
Formally, they are just words. It’s a semantic game.
Math can’t be a subset of logic, since logic isn’t a set.
I like the distinction that logic concerns itself with the rules of the construction of mathematics, and mathematics concerns itself with the applications and deviations of those rules.
But, you can use the words to mean basically, whatever you want.
@@mikecare3116 "Within formal logic, mathematical logic studies the mathematical characteristics of logical systems" (Wikipedia) so math is indeed a subset of logic. Furthermore, why are you claiming that logic isn't a set eventought it is?
What that wiki page is saying,
Is that mathematical logic is a kind of formal logic.
Mathematical logic isn’t mathematics, it’s mathematical logic.
You can make a set and call it logic, but logic, the field of study isn’t a set.
A set is a construct that contains elements.
What are the elements of logic? The entire field of study? There are constructions in logic that Known as classes, which are distinct from sets, so- how can logic itself be a set?
This could be the fundamental foundation and natural theory of Fissucks
Elephants are NOT necessary objects
Butterfly effect. You remove elephants and you will impact a range of other species including animals and plant life. This would also impact humans living in these regions over generations.
mathematics
Mathematics
Mathematics
Mathematics
Mathematics
Reminds me of an Avril Lavine song.
Math is universal.
Why does math exist??? Easy. Blueprints to understand this thing we call universe
I think he means why is the universe rational
It exists because you have to do taxes every year.
Solved ages ago.
Lex 'that's what a human would say' Fridman
"В начале было Слово, и Слово было с Богом, и Слово было Богом. Оно было в начале с Богом. Все, что существует, было сотворено через Него, и без Него ничто из того, что есть, не начало существовать." Lex, you really should have someone on the podcast who can talk knowledgeably about the religious implications of physics and math. At the core, the universe is just a set of abstract rules.
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. "
Take a shot for every time we hear the word "mathematics".
Math is man made it's nothing but human expression same as time these two aspects are human constructs
I think it was "invented", not "discovered". It doesn't need to exist for the universe to exist, it's simply the best representation we have been able to come up with to
describe many of it's complexities.
Nazaré
Math is the stuff of nightmares lol
This recording studio is tribe members only
Math rules!
Is this guy a lawyer?
Why is math? Is my stripper name
Hahahaha what gets you excited dude haha!
Lol, math exists so humans can build things that work, that is why math exist 🤣 😄 😂, such a complex answer to answer a fundamental question
Math would exist without humans.
Dunning-Kruger hitting hard. Maybe take a second to consider why brilliant minds are struggling with the question, whilst you have it so quickly and simply figured out. You missed the question entirely and failed to understand any of the conversation, and it shows lol
Hahaha ape float on rock ahahahahaha
Yeah Mr.White.....Science!
Shorter answer: Mathematics shows us how God does things
You have not shown that a God "does things", much less that it even exists 😂😂😂
@@onielrodriguez9194 HEY! IT'S HE!!
@@onielrodriguez9194 true, true. But to be fair, no one can prove otherwise too, right? Maybe we can agree that there has to be some kind of an intelligent designer… I can’t get my head around a Big Bang explosion creating perfect order. Every explosion I know of causes chaos, not perfectly synchronised systems. Anyway. God bless, brother!
@@BretThomson the big bang was not an explosion (even though it appears as one when it's depicted in videos). Also disproving a negative is also impossible for other gods, i.e. disproving Zeus or Krishna is also impossible.
@@BretThomson Perfect order? The structures of the universe are fast and violent.
incredibly hard to follow mr. wolfram cuz in the middle of every sentence he interrupts himself and starts of smth else instead of completing the though
Not very original, nothing new
Is this not a waste of time, shouldn’t you be taking this moment to solve actual problems? So many resources are wasted in pointless pursuits and useless outlets
It’s definitely not a waste of time. In fact I’ve already been making tech based on Wolframs models. They are giving extraordinary results. There is actually not enough time I wish I had more of it so I can get out this tech faster…ground breaking stuff in all honesty.
@@NightmareCourtPictures I’m talking about the title of the video, not a software
@@vteknique Your not making any sense. Math is how we have created everything of value in the past 500 years. Understanding what math is, is fundamental to how to make things of value…which includes useful software.
I asked a question and stated a fact
@@vteknique actually you haven’t said anything. What is a fact is that you are literally wasting my time so…
lex i can tell you EXACTLY why math exists that you could not refute but you'll never see this