Main episode with Stephen Wolfram (February 2024): th-cam.com/video/0YRlQQw0d-4/w-d-xo.html As a listener of TOE, you can now enjoy full digital access to The Economist and all it has to offer. Get a 20% off discount by visiting: www.economist.com/toe
We have come to the point where we know we are not in a position to find out. We try to understand everything but ourselves. Knowledge is noise that interferes with intuition. Otherwise, there is only one dimension in which all known, unknown and unimaginable "particles" are found.
the best theory of everything i have ever heard - is the jerry wills ET case - happened in Peru. get him on for an interview. the ETs he encountered explained what earth is relative to dimensions. it explains all the loose ends of physics.
I love Stephen Wolfram... I like it when people can listen to my logical deduction and reasoning and start using terms like existence because it is the best term to use... I tried to use the best terms I can to explain things to people.
Wolfram here restates a lovely piece of perennialist wisdom, namely that "the mode of the knower conditions the mode of the known". Boethius, in the Consolation of Philosophy from the 5th century, puts it thus: "whatsoever we come to know, we do so not according to its power [to be known] but by the faculties of the knower"
This is another take on Douglas Adams quote… "Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, “This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!” You cannot perceive a system you’re not a part of (physical matter), and you can’t know what isn’t perceivable outside your system. Like Penrose says, all we see is the Interface and we’re assuming that’s real. It’s not. It’s the interface we’ve adapted to see.
I once though, that if the majority of developing civilizations were happen to appear in a southern hemisphere of the planet, we would have an upside down globes and maps, simply because we tend to correlate our anthropomorphic features with the world we live in
@@dmitrychirkov4206 That's probably correct. Direction is relative and the Pole Star would not have been known. If you wish to have an interesting perspective, read the first two chapters of Newton's book "The Principa."
omg this is key.. how EVERYTHING we understand is limited/distorted by our 5 senses. when we try to imagine a sense we don't possess.. we have to resort to the senses we do possess
Yep...I has this realization a long time ago....the people around me just got confused....but, everything we think we know is innately tethered to our limitations....and we can't even know the extent of those limitations because we can't see reality externally.
how would 2+2=4 be means dependent? Or F=ma? Let me ask, IF one standing on the tracks perceived a Freight Train hurling at him differently... is there any scenario where the outcome would vary? Show me an example how the means of knowledge could alter reality, please.
What is known is necessarily acquired through our senses and experience. The models we make describe things according to our means of perception and cognition. The existence of objects independant of human perception is a related, but different question.
Universe as computation - 21st century thinking (Wolfram) Universe as electromagnetic 19th century thinking (Maxwell) Universe as a mechanical engine - pre 19th century thinking (Newton)
the idea that all matter in the universe consists of some indivisible elementary particles is very ancient and originates from the philosophers of ancient Greece about 1500 BC, although their views on atoms were much different from Feynman's view who once said in 1950's "Everything is made of atoms" when asked to convey the most important scientific knowledge in a single sentence. then later on in 90-s this view was reformulated by John Wheeler who said his famous "It from bit" to convey the modern scientific knowledge in a single sentence. bit means computations and follows a deep logic from the development of modern fundamental science..
Humans experience reality in three dimensions due to the physical structure of our universe, which is defined by three spatial dimensions-length, width, and height. This dimensionality is rooted in the laws of physics and the nature of matter, allowing us to perceive and interact with the world around us. Our sensory systems, particularly vision, are adapted to navigate and interpret these dimensions, helping us to understand spatial relationships and depth. The concept of three-dimensional reality also ties into theories in physics, such as string theory, which suggests that our universe may have additional dimensions beyond the three we can perceive. However, these extra dimensions are typically compacted and not directly observable at human scales. The three-dimensional framework not only influences our daily experiences but also shapes our understanding of space, time, and gravity. Philosophically, this raises intriguing questions about the nature of reality and our place within it. Are our perceptions limited by our dimensionality, or is there more to existence that we have yet to uncover? Exploring these questions can lead to deeper insights into the universe and our relationship with it, prompting curiosity about the potential for higher-dimensional realities that may lie beyond our immediate experience.
This is a 3D ball pit we fell into. Once we stop flailing about, maybe we might stand up and see the rest of the arena. As its right alongside us all this time.
1:51 i would say this is a misunderstanding. We don’t compress. Light shares with us and we see the difference and become different expanding our range. Just like eating and how it breaks the food down and then shares the differences to expand the range of our body and not just size but like gas and how we can go further. The mind eats to see further. So a potential can be imagined and thought of as impossible but finding the between here and there, like finding the steps between can bring the Impossiblè out due to our connection to the infinite potential. What I mean is that our mind can show us stuff that is farther than the current because it’s crossing the differences to see farther into the dimensions. It’s like seeing hydrogen and two oxygens and electrons, it can be more than just water and can be constructed into other things. Like imagining the Big Bang and shifting some of the differences or measurements can predict other forms like other potential planets. If by some technology we could create a compressed area we could inception big bangs and then have them cycle like an engine and expand like foam from a soda but controlled or entangled or structured. It would be cyclical similar to magnetic fields flipping and flopping in metaphysics or like the rotation of the solar system locking each other in. My b, went into hypotheticals. Yeah i see what you’re saying but it’s not the only way, you don’t have to make equivalence, all you do is use words that call to others knowledge and if they don’t have it, you share as much as you can and then when they see it, it can call the info but the info isn’t all of it, just the same as earth isn’t all life so we think of others, our info isn’t absolute but shared by the differences. I don’t think our capacity is limited, only our beliefs limit us. It’s like this, i can’t deny because i am not the universe so i don’t know, none of us do and so we share to expand the knowledge we have. None of us have the capacity to say what is or isnt because we are not all of it and so the paths are hidden in plain sight between measurements. When we listen to the differences of the measurements then we can understand how but if we deny and believe limitations then we build walls and it’s hard to see through a wall, especially one placed by your own beliefs. I believe in infinity. What also funny is that people who believe in gods say that it’s infinite but then box it in for some reason and say it’s all good or something like that. Kinda funny because how is it infinite if it’s not bad as well? I don’t believe that god is a singular but everything/infinity is sharing, what that means is that we all have the options of potentials and will to share them into being, not just us but even the animals and winds but they aren’t as expanded as our form but we can entangle and share the words they whisper in our ears. Those words aren’t just theirs but the universes the same as our words and thoughts. Sorry went off the deep end for a second because it’s hard to share what i mean. Religion tried to do it and ended up twisting it.
My dissertation on assumptions of general relativity addresses this topic (why the world is 3+1-D) from a different POV. Callen, Moshe. Assumptions of General Relativity and Cosmology. DOI:10.13140/RG.2.2.31687.27048. [My dissertation]
Human consciousness does not reside in the deterministic universe of cause and effect, but at the higher 'Micro' dimension of the 'Universal Life Field' which permeates all dimensions and all levels of perception. The physical brain acts as a transducer of consciousness, enabling it to experience the 3-dimensional realm of matter through the five senses from the higher 'Micro' dimension of the 'Universal Life Field' in the same way that a virtual headset enables a person to experience the world of virtual reality; the person does not reside in the world of virtual reality, just as consciousness does not reside in the physical universe. The question is often asked, "Why is there something rather than nothing; why is there anything at all"? The simple answer is 'because the 3-dimensional universe provides consciousness with experience; for experience is the 'food' for consciousness'. To be conscious is to experience, and to experience is to be conscious; and you cannot experience anything from nothing. Even the size, colour, and texture of a grain of sand provides consciousness with experience...
I would love Wolfram to chat about phenomenology and the work of Husserl, Heidegger, Merleau-Ponty, etc. because all of phenomenology was to state: we can only see and understand the world through our senses, and even so, there is so much work being done behind the scenes by our subconscious that the reality we even see is a fabrication of sorts. They each approach a whole lot else, obviously, but that's the core of it, or the overlap with what he's talking about here, just from his own POV. Would love to hear him discuss this.
2:15 that also another problem, your neurons aren’t just perceiving what’s in front of you, your neurons and systems are living and reflecting the differences shared. It’s not simple and the simple way of explaining is that you become a difference as you entangle and share with it. The universe is alive because it changes, humans are conscious because we reflect, we have identity before understanding. With understanding you can shed the identity but after shedding and understanding the differences, you kinda regrow into yourself and then understand how to share into a difference rather than trying to force the past into the future you. You already are you, just different than the past you, what you miss is easily brought back out but we box ourselves in by beliefs. So we aren’t just observing but becoming different when we share.
I have often wondered if our sensory apparatus (which to me is the entire system of tissues - I think it is a BIG mistake believing that consciousness resides in the mind and that perception is likewise a product of some process in a brain exclusively - brains do not exist without bodies - the sense of touch doesn’t exist without skin, receptor nerves in skin, nerves that flow through the body connecting to a brain - it’s a SYSTEM and none of it works without all elements functioning together. Consciousness is the product of the BODY of which a brain is a key element, but an element still) employs heuristics to narrow the bandwidth of perception. To see some grass in a field or clouds in the sky the heuristic of “grassiness” or “cloudiness” is employed. Not that we cannot perceive an individual blade of grass or cloud but that these perceptions are mediated through the neural/body pathways laid down as we mature from infancy where we learned what is grass, what is a cloud.
I disagree. And I do think that the study of Conscienceness will eventually show that the Brain is a receiver & Local expression of the mind. Of course, I could be wrong, but I believe Science will eventually invent the tools to discover this empirically. Unril then, for anyone willing to do a deep dive, there is an amazing amount of intriguing evidence (albeit mostly anecdotal) to support this.
Consciousness is too complex a system to be biologic. Consciousness is the observation of information. All this exists, but consciousness is a decryption method for that would be chaotic in a high entropy universe. Its not merely a chicken OR the egg, but its both the chicken and the egg, for this to exist the information has to be decoded. It does not mean consciousness is fundamental, but its fundamental for THIS perspective. It is the md5 hash equivalent to the universe. Each observer (maybe its all called consciousness, maybe thats just for us idk) has a different decoding method. It does not mean each of us creates A universe, it means each of us creates OUR universe, same universe but different decoding, maybe the pixel in my netflix stream dropped, and yours didnt. All we are doing is observing something thats already happened. Maybe the biologics of it allows us to remember this as a timeline, vs a point in the universe we see a point and a past and future. We are self thinking/self deducting biological robots. We have to stop thinking other life acts like this, this could very much be an Earth Bound system, animals exhibit this. Physics wont be the only thing to solve everything, they will solve the plumbing.
This is how God maintains an efficient mechanism for being. It doesn't need to generate the whole universe, it only needs to generate YOUR universe. Not that it needs to, because it is literally infinite, but it does this for your sake. In order to simultaneously compress and decompress this information for a finite being, it has to project itself into a "space". If you understand space-time as a static, eternal object, it doesn't need to generate all experience at once, it only needs to generate your experience as a separate entity, much like a video game, since time is relative to its observer. This is all compressed into your "lifetime", which has all, in actuality, happened In an infinitely compressable instant.
It may just be.....as we label it....energy. Most likely, electromagnetic/harmonics....our understanding seems to be based on the tools we use to measure what we understand.
If a particle has substance, then it can be divided into smaller amounts of the substance. Since this would lead to infinitely smaller amounts, it seems clear that a particle is not substantial. It is energy that looks substantial to us.
This interview reminds me of a Joe Rogan podcast about DMT which some have described as a molecular technology that allows the exploration of an alternate reality, a place more real than real.
I have several questions and arguments, if they can be addressed by Stephen that would be great: 1. Is establishing equivalences a property of the language (even the most universal language, math) has to define a label and boundary on what is being observed, and so it introduces this reductionism, or is equivalence a property of a physical law that only allows "observation" through coupling and interaction? so the universe in nature might be simply into equivalences. 2. I see a lot of mixing between language and reality here, as gas molecules, we can't deduce that entropy (which is global coupling) is increasing, but we would be able to tell that the rate of coupling and decoupling between us and other molecules within some distance is increasing. Information is fundamental beyond the reduction of our minds, whether we call it entropy or coupling rate. How do you think of information fundamentality? and I understand very well that information falls from "questions" bound by language, but I am talking here about something like gravity being an emergent property of a fundamental information attraction law. 3.Perceiving the laws is one thing and formulating "relevance" of scales is another thing, the only thing that changes between observation levels is the gradient of time, what is your comment on that? the gradient of time.
When Stephen talks about "...we have our laws of physics because of the way we are....", he is by definition using the "we" in general terms, not as us individuals. Therefore, idealists should not find a common cause with what Stephen is saying. He is not saying that each individual one of us creates (or sees) the universe and thus gives rise to laws of physics. He is saying our universe as a whole is a slice of Ruleiad. So, in that sense, he is calling of us as we. Which is why it is generally agreed that fundamental laws of physics are the same in our universe - everywhere. They are not different for different persons or different animals, or plants, or rocks, even - depending on the degree of perceptual sensitivities and consciousness. So, in some sense, he is envisioning a coexisting multiverse or whole universes with different laws of physics. Of course, different laws of physics are of specific interest to specific types of organisms. We as humans worry about air pressure, temperature, purity of air we breathe, strength of gravity, and so on. Fish worry about viscosity of water they swim in, clarity of the water, depth at which they swim. Some insects worry about surface tension of water. Sure. But that does not mean that the fundamental laws of physics are different for them in our universe. It is just that different organisms care about and are affected by different higher level physical phenomenon and the higher level (non fundamental) laws that govern them. I disagree with Stephen about his statement about "if weather has its own mind" - I think as long as the weather is in our universe, it has to follow the same fundamental laws of physics that are same in our slice of the universe. Similarly, any aliens - however far away they are from us in physical space and live on a different planet with very different ambient conditions - if they are in our universe - will discovers the same fundamental laws. Lastly, with our advanced technologies, we are no longer limited to our senses for what we perceive in the world - and yet none of this changes what the fundamental laws of physics are there in our universe. Based on this discussion it is not clear if we will be able to explore other slices of Ruleiad in a physical sense. Of course, we may be able to simulate it on our computers or be able to think/imagine about them, similar to the way we can think of 4 dimensional space and a Tesseract.
@@edblair5253 the criteria of "it is, because it is" isn't something I've come across, in fields of scientific study, often. Religion... yes. Zealotry... yes. But, with regard to science of any legitimate form, no. I can't imagine why you'd suggest it. Feels like apologetics. Am I wrong?
@@onlyonewhyphy it's falsifiable though, you are identifying two concepts and claiming they are equivalent (in this case the Anthropic principle formulated as observing laws as observed laws happens because of the type of observers we are) which can in principle be disputed.
The only level of organization at which "communication" of such information between beings that exist at that same level of organization might be possible would be the lowest levels of organization, such as quark or plank, in other words, pretty much the source level where differentiation is all but non-existent.
What if a particle's "identity" is tied to its superposition with its other "selves" across other "worlds"? There collective interference maintains a collective state. What if our neurons make use of this effect to make us an "observer". Take a look at the recent paper about superradiance and tryptophan.
He goes off his own path when he say finite mind. He already learned a lot and is studying a super observer thing beyond normal. Our minds are tuned into "what is" in most cases, but we can change that in an instant. People can go on some manager course in a weekend trip and come back and want to change everything.
Yes. A mental concept is a multidimensional vector representing a consistent complex superposition of information (energy) that exists in a definite state within the universe. Biological neural network based brains can construct and interlink these vectors, and so can digital neural network based computer systems. These vectors are represented and exchanged by biological and digital brains through symbols and assemblies of symbols as language. Teuvo Kohonen was the real pioneer in this.
the self is the momentum through time, the ball progressing through the air, the historical 'arc', the thing that corresponds to a name, the thing that moves the same way unless acted upon by an outside force.
15:09 I think that in terms of balance that you could assign humanity to such computations.... But yeah I can see what he's saying that it would be pretty difficult in certain cases.... You would take what goes on within humanity and then see it relative to the balance of everything.... For example, you see groups emerge and one group's much bigger but then it splits and they all go relative to the same size. You could say there's your political parties... But yeah it would be difficult.
Objective physical reality can be perceived differently based on the objective physical makeup of the being doing the observing. I think that's rather intuitive and has been understood by zoologists and such for over a century.
the continuity of ourselves that is so obvious to us is not derived from experiences or atoms that are changing but from consciousness that is not changing
@@michaeljfigueroaThe indivisible unity of quantum consciousness steers the material ship through space-time and crashes somewhere on the hard edges of reality.
I think 3D is a misnomer. There aren’t three dimensions, as if a dimension is a thing. Try to imagine a 2D object. It doesn’t exist. As soon as you squeeze one ‘dimension’ to zero the object disappears. A dimension is a concept that we use to facilitate our math. I think there are not three dimensions. There is space.
Summary: With the allocation and understanding of the lack of understanding, we enter into a new era of science in which we feel nothing more than so much so, as to say that those within themselves, comporary or non-comporary, will figuratively figure into the folding of our non-understanding, and our partial understanding, to the networks of which we all draw our source and conclusions from.
I understand what's being said. The basic thought stays. We can increase with more familiarity. Like thinking of the complexity of the world. That would include topics and all our interest. instead at first we generalize. We don't stay very long with all topics. Looking at the world. We see much more than 3D complexity. I think it comes back to understanding our world by a 3D complexity.
Deadset, this is literally EXACTLY the concept i was thinking about & trying to explain to my partner ( not so well, cos of the words 😋) Literally everything he was talking about. I hope you have him on more . 😁☮️🌏
What he is looking for 1. a theory of observers and 2. Eastern philosophy is Yogacara Buddhism in string theory. Yogacara Buddhism is a pure idealism where everything is manifestation of mind or consciousness - from the observer point of view. We think we see an apple, or physicists are working on a physical theory including observation data from experimental data, ALL are illusions which are objects of mind of each observer which are each unique. Before string theory, the physical theory alluded to say that there are objective existence outside of our mind like particles, electrons, atoms, molecules, apples, bodies, and brains. But something string theorists don’t even notice is that in string theory, when strings which are extremely small are strongly interacting, they become branes that can be extremely large. There will then be open strings attached on these branes. String theorists as physicists naturally think that they are actually matter: particles, and etc. But these branes including the open strings are all in extra dimensions and superspaces, they are not matter but only look as though they are matter. This is exactly what Yogacara Buddhism is saying. When Seeds which are extremely small become activated, consciousness arises which can be as large as the universe (imagine an astronomer observing the universe). Consciousness naturally comes with 2 things” Visual Function which will interact with the Image Functions. The former are the branes and the latter are open strings on branes. What Yogacara Buddhism describes is a metaverse like reality. An apple in a metaverse only look like an apple but there is no apple. Physicists who are doing physics as though there are physics, particles, electrons, but there is no physics. All objects of our cognition, especially the physical objects are illusions, as though they exist but in reality they don’t as they are all illusions of objects of mind. th-cam.com/video/iT0vO1ZVYcc/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/Rb1qI8tz6mw/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/FPcfAbGfPD4/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/5trfcBMtqQM/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/CGgvPhLoMoc/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/kXMa3eF5qz0/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/6uKP8E4l0SU/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/3gnSpOwNzA4/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/DxbmRHo_BKQ/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/SHZeHHKNnSE/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/eChBvB1nI-Y/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/MJtkc7f3hXA/w-d-xo.html
The basic idea is; chaos is deterministic, it is just so difficult to calculate a snapshot of it's complexity that distilling the agent of change seems impossible. Yet we can still make predictions by grasping the trends without a thorough understanding of the underlying mechanics. The quantum realm is like Pandora's box, look deep enough and you will lose your corporeal individual identity, and be left with only hope!
A cosmos of infinite complexities can unfold vast photonic and molecular arrangements that give rise to an anthropos of finite sensibilities dynamically extracting multiple equivalences from various resemblances and differences. It can allows for unique observing humanities with ...curiosity, concern and care.... coming forth and going forward. Question: What computationally humanizing rules in The Ruliad will become part of a developing integral ...sense, science, and salience.... for Ruleology?
I love Kurt’s interviews. He speaks with people that answer the questions I would never have thought to ask. With that being said, the more I listen, the dumber I realize I am.
the last thing Stephen says, that (i) our mind computing the physics of the world and (ii) physics actually happening is computationally equivalent, seems to be the direct consequence of us experiencing the world in a certain way, because we are "observers like us". We can only compute, what we can compute - so to speak. I'm interested in other opinions. :)
coded a naïve information agnostic axiomatic abiogenesis simulation once, which surprisingly generated something that looked a bit like an inflationary cosmogenesis at particular coupling. Curiously the interface of inflating regions against the "outside", was a distinct three layered macroscopic information boundary with internally three layered horizons on the micro states. Always wonder if somehow abstractedly connected to the macroscopic 3d space projection and microscopic 3 generation fermion scenario of universes like our own...
We are not observers w/o fault. The current laws and theories we have may be incomplete or faulted, but history has clearly shown that there is a long timeline wall that prevents physicists from reexamining the current accepted dogma from the past and insures that the wrong path will be the direction taken for a long time into the future. Any questioning is dismissed if it comes from those outside the field and any change can only happen with the approval of the declared experts.
You don’t need to be an expert, but you do need to back up your claims with evidence, which you have not done. To be clear, scientists are not a monolith. Yes you have some at the top universities, at the top of their fields working for the mos innovative companies.. and amongst those, you will find examples of those dismissive close-minded, arrogant types. However, you’ll also find multitudes of us who are not like that. We chose fields in science bc we were driven to find answers and understanding. That’s who I’ve been since I was 5. I’ll listen to anyone with an alternative viewpoint or idea that is at least plausible. Dialogue is what we need, not egos (theirs, not yours).
@@dshepherd107 I am concerned about the process and focus of physicists. I thought this interview might shed some light on that. The past was centuries of the generation of ideas based on the philosopher physicists observation of the macro world. The conclusions of the Eddington solar eclipse and the Michelson/Morley experiment done with difficulty and poor technology many decades ago have not been revisited but accepted as the final word on the aether and special relativity. But I learned in my quest to understand the world via physics that there were more questions for me and, to my surprise, that there were even many physicists through the decades, even now, who had questions but were ignored. The recent fifty plus years have been a deeper and deeper approach on the micro world with the complex mathematical almost exclusive focus of String theory, or other abstract geometrical approach such as loop quantum gravity. Wolfram's work is highly mathematical. Now, observation of the macro world is the method used to dismiss theories predictions, if possible, not the means to generate new theory as was done by Newton. Many independent experiments have raised questions about the standard model. I have written, published in the GSJ, on ideas generated because of the inconsistencies I have observed. I am not a physicist.
What he is saying is that because we are an element within the model we are trying to understand, we cannot stand outside of that model and apprehend ourselves in totality, and therefore approach true objectivity.
Science fiction stuff ! Multiple conciousness in the same brain, different experience threads, different being at every moment. Wow!!! Someone please write a science fiction novel.
"Things get more random over time" is in contrast wtith the life. as life itself is putting order in a random wrld. the more the Life evolves the more order we take (as molecules order themseves incels those in proteins, than in tubulars etc etc... Would be good to know the Stephen;'s comment on that..
1. Who says we have finite mind? We know that everything breaks down to pure electricity, how is 'us' limited to purely the dimensions of our body? 2. Who says the photons are real? If they ever were, they stop existing when it hits our eyes cone rods, and is turned into electrical impulses. Also, aren't synapses weird when you really think about them.... 3. Who says we compute? Ahad Israfil and his severe head injury. Individuals suddenly acquiring complex skills after impactful events. Athletes mentally rehearsing an event having brain electrical pattern lighting up areas the same as the 'actual' doing. Cold War research into 'abilities' natural, after spiritual practice, or exotically induced . Many things in this world are showing that there is a non local element to our experience. Look at the unusual or essential that we do, to see how we can interact. - Pattern Matching - instead of pseudo scientifically dismissing ability to connect seemingly random events experienced. Consider maybe they are variations of the same repeating Above or Below? Something pointing somewhere. As natural selection exists, then perhaps patterns are very important. Seeing us in nature a la pareidolia could be very very important. - Why are we a living eco-system? Essentially requiring billions of other living creatures within us, for us to be alive. Maybe they provide more? Or not, it's just a gut feeling. - Why is us being anthropomorphic a thing? Do we see them like us, or us like them. Or both, as one if you will. - Why does our body contain and use DMT (start, MIDDLE, and end)? - We are a Perceiver who has trouble living in the 'now'. Yet the 'now' is the only time you can perform an action. Trapped in motion, missing the moment. Almost like a skill no longer practiced.
Very Kantian. I beg to differ about the "aggregate description of motion of molecules" not mattering in that they don't fit in our mind. Statistical thermodynamics is all about matching observable behavior from the theoretical properties of molecules. Can we say anything about the individual molecules from observable properties? Things like mean free path for a particle or the influence of polarity on observable properties, for instance.
Thanks 🙏 for mentioning about our observation being limited by our finite mind. No one so far dared to admit this limitation exists, and scientists need to take this fact into consideration when they go wild about their discoveries.
Many many many scientists and philosophers have conveyed this message for centuries if not eons. Currently we are going thru a period of misguided assuredness in people like Ed Whitten. The anti religion anti designer propaganda has also contributed to creating some very smug and condescending scientists. That's the view of an agnostic but spiritual objective common person.
@@edblair5253 what I am trying to say is not necessarily how you want to divert my statement to divinity. I’m trying to broaden the scientific understanding of the cosmos beyond our helplessly limiting boundaries and develop accordingly. If they can’t do that, at least refraining from making factually inconsistent scientific claims would be the best way to approach the inquisitive mind.
I used to get frustrated with Stephen. I thought he talked in circles. I stuck with him because I felt there was something I could learn. The more informed I became, the smarter I thought Stephen was 😘. He has a lot to tell me, I just need to get better at understanding him.
Go watch a video of Feynman. He can explain the most complex concepts clearly. The reason it sounds like Stephen is talking in circles is because he is. He has no idea what he’s talking about.
When Wolfram looked for an example of aliens with alternate identity memory. Like Momento or 50 Fist Date movies of short term memory in which some community of external reminders reconstructs who we realize we are each moment. But our predictive processing brains sort of do this from any one neural subsystem as a point of view reconstructing its identity from the relevant clues of its immediate neighbors and how it can adjust to them. This is an abstraction process necessarily.
But he gives the analogy of concept communication he needs a more accurate understanding of how that works. Karl Friston and friends are closer to the correct model for that. But if electron and atom identity emergence is more like enactive communication and predictive processing, that’s at least an analogy to explore. Chris Fields may be making those connections.
Man had these highly evolved mindsets and high levels of consciousness. History and archaeology proves this. A spiritual force ruined these abilities. An era of ruin mankind allowed over himself. But I think an era of recovery is arriving
This is not 3D, unless you've figured out how to stop time. Reality is 4D (time/space), without time there is no "frequency" to create energy and matter, time is all important.
Philosophers,(both east and west), have been saying things like this for thousands of years. My question is can this philosophical perspective of observer produced laws of physics, (partly produced seems more accurate, you need a world before you can observe one), advance standard physics? Not the philosophy of physics but standard physics. Maybe it can but I would like to see how it works.
As impressive as our mathematics are to describe the things we’re interested in, there are a virtually unlimited number of things we cannot describe or are not currently interested in describing mathematically. When we were learning about Schrodinger’s equation I kept hearing how it describes the evolution of a system. The system was typically a single electron. I couldn’t help but think of how much discussion there was of this system, what it takes to describe an electron, in our feeble attempts at scratching the surface of understanding. In “The unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics” the author says "the laws of nature are written in the language of mathematics”. Well, we have a language we use to describe the “laws” we study. I don’t think it means the laws are written in our language.
Well, as much as I admire him, as a person of science, let me just say he did a rather awful job at explaining it all, until towards the end, lol. Good grief. Sometime when you get experts that are very advanced in their prospective fields (particularly the Sciences), they forget how to teach or explain in simpler layman’s terms. Some just aren’t good at it. Curt is though.
Main episode with Stephen Wolfram (February 2024): th-cam.com/video/0YRlQQw0d-4/w-d-xo.html
As a listener of TOE, you can now enjoy full digital access to The Economist and all it has to offer. Get a 20% off discount by visiting: www.economist.com/toe
We are in three spacial dimensions but we live in 3 +1 dimensions three spacial dimensions and one temporarily dimension
Otomatik Türkçe altyazı için çok teşekkür ediyorum ❤
We have come to the point where we know we are not in a position to find out. We try to understand everything but ourselves. Knowledge is noise that interferes with intuition. Otherwise, there is only one dimension in which all known, unknown and unimaginable "particles" are found.
the best theory of everything i have ever heard - is the jerry wills ET case - happened in Peru. get him on for an interview. the ETs he encountered explained what earth is relative to dimensions. it explains all the loose ends of physics.
I love Stephen Wolfram... I like it when people can listen to my logical deduction and reasoning and start using terms like existence because it is the best term to use... I tried to use the best terms I can to explain things to people.
Wolfram here restates a lovely piece of perennialist wisdom, namely that "the mode of the knower conditions the mode of the known". Boethius, in the Consolation of Philosophy from the 5th century, puts it thus: "whatsoever we come to know, we do so not according to its power [to be known] but by the faculties of the knower"
This is another take on Douglas Adams quote… "Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, “This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!”
You cannot perceive a system you’re not a part of (physical matter), and you can’t know what isn’t perceivable outside your system.
Like Penrose says, all we see is the Interface and we’re assuming that’s real. It’s not. It’s the interface we’ve adapted to see.
This all goes back to the 1884 book, "Flatland"!
It's possible through imagination with following experimental verification.
Don Hoffman is the interface guy... Penrose says other things and he and Hoffman might be both correct.
I once though, that if the majority of developing civilizations were happen to appear in a southern hemisphere of the planet, we would have an upside down globes and maps, simply because we tend to correlate our anthropomorphic features with the world we live in
@@dmitrychirkov4206 That's probably correct. Direction is relative and the Pole Star would not have been known. If you wish to have an interesting perspective, read the first two chapters of Newton's book "The Principa."
omg this is key.. how EVERYTHING we understand is limited/distorted by our 5 senses.
when we try to imagine a sense we don't possess.. we have to resort to the senses we do possess
Yep...I has this realization a long time ago....the people around me just got confused....but, everything we think we know is innately tethered to our limitations....and we can't even know the extent of those limitations because we can't see reality externally.
also understand that this is reality at the same time, we are just observing and existing in this lens of it.
Are you saying 'thinking' and 'understanding' are senses? If not, then using them to imagine a new sense doesn't use any existing sense, does it?
This video has very little to do with senses
He's articulating what philosophers have long recognized;: What is known cannot be separated from the means by which it is known.
I think that is the theory
how would 2+2=4 be means dependent? Or F=ma? Let me ask, IF one standing on the tracks perceived a Freight Train hurling at him differently... is there any scenario where the outcome would vary? Show me an example how the means of knowledge could alter reality, please.
@@craftycri let's say that you have a decimal system and count to ten because you have ten fingers in your hands or hexadecimal if you use one hand.
@@lesguil4023 the result remains the same regardless of the base, a rose by another name doesn't change reality of roses.
What is known is necessarily acquired through our senses and experience. The models we make describe things according to our means of perception and cognition.
The existence of objects independant of human perception is a related, but different question.
I thoroughly enjoyed this Toe clipping
Universe as computation - 21st century thinking (Wolfram)
Universe as electromagnetic 19th century thinking (Maxwell)
Universe as a mechanical engine - pre 19th century thinking (Newton)
Universe and mind described by analogies to the latest technology
So it's going to described, in the next century, in terms of their most advanced understanding/ tech
This is actually something I think about a lot
the idea that all matter in the universe consists of some indivisible elementary particles is very ancient and originates from the philosophers of ancient Greece about 1500 BC, although their views on atoms were much different from Feynman's view who once said in 1950's "Everything is made of atoms" when asked to convey the most important scientific knowledge in a single sentence. then later on in 90-s this view was reformulated by John Wheeler who said his famous "It from bit" to convey the modern scientific knowledge in a single sentence. bit means computations and follows a deep logic from the development of modern fundamental science..
Wow what an interview! Congrats Curt on getting such a huge interview! ❤
"The electron is transporting its electron-ness through space and time" - Stephen Wolfram.
That's a brand new sentence the universe can be proud of.
Funny.
Fascinating talk. Wolfram always delivers.
Some people might not pick up on the sarcasm in this comment.
@@dinofx35 because they might not see him with your sarcastic eyes.
Humans experience reality in three dimensions due to the physical structure of our universe, which is defined by three spatial dimensions-length, width, and height. This dimensionality is rooted in the laws of physics and the nature of matter, allowing us to perceive and interact with the world around us. Our sensory systems, particularly vision, are adapted to navigate and interpret these dimensions, helping us to understand spatial relationships and depth. The concept of three-dimensional reality also ties into theories in physics, such as string theory, which suggests that our universe may have additional dimensions beyond the three we can perceive. However, these extra dimensions are typically compacted and not directly observable at human scales. The three-dimensional framework not only influences our daily experiences but also shapes our understanding of space, time, and gravity. Philosophically, this raises intriguing questions about the nature of reality and our place within it. Are our perceptions limited by our dimensionality, or is there more to existence that we have yet to uncover? Exploring these questions can lead to deeper insights into the universe and our relationship with it, prompting curiosity about the potential for higher-dimensional realities that may lie beyond our immediate experience.
This is a 3D ball pit we fell into. Once we stop flailing about, maybe we might stand up and see the rest of the arena. As its right alongside us all this time.
1:51 i would say this is a misunderstanding. We don’t compress. Light shares with us and we see the difference and become different expanding our range. Just like eating and how it breaks the food down and then shares the differences to expand the range of our body and not just size but like gas and how we can go further. The mind eats to see further. So a potential can be imagined and thought of as impossible but finding the between here and there, like finding the steps between can bring the Impossiblè out due to our connection to the infinite potential. What I mean is that our mind can show us stuff that is farther than the current because it’s crossing the differences to see farther into the dimensions. It’s like seeing hydrogen and two oxygens and electrons, it can be more than just water and can be constructed into other things. Like imagining the Big Bang and shifting some of the differences or measurements can predict other forms like other potential planets. If by some technology we could create a compressed area we could inception big bangs and then have them cycle like an engine and expand like foam from a soda but controlled or entangled or structured. It would be cyclical similar to magnetic fields flipping and flopping in metaphysics or like the rotation of the solar system locking each other in.
My b, went into hypotheticals. Yeah i see what you’re saying but it’s not the only way, you don’t have to make equivalence, all you do is use words that call to others knowledge and if they don’t have it, you share as much as you can and then when they see it, it can call the info but the info isn’t all of it, just the same as earth isn’t all life so we think of others, our info isn’t absolute but shared by the differences. I don’t think our capacity is limited, only our beliefs limit us. It’s like this, i can’t deny because i am not the universe so i don’t know, none of us do and so we share to expand the knowledge we have. None of us have the capacity to say what is or isnt because we are not all of it and so the paths are hidden in plain sight between measurements. When we listen to the differences of the measurements then we can understand how but if we deny and believe limitations then we build walls and it’s hard to see through a wall, especially one placed by your own beliefs. I believe in infinity.
What also funny is that people who believe in gods say that it’s infinite but then box it in for some reason and say it’s all good or something like that. Kinda funny because how is it infinite if it’s not bad as well? I don’t believe that god is a singular but everything/infinity is sharing, what that means is that we all have the options of potentials and will to share them into being, not just us but even the animals and winds but they aren’t as expanded as our form but we can entangle and share the words they whisper in our ears. Those words aren’t just theirs but the universes the same as our words and thoughts. Sorry went off the deep end for a second because it’s hard to share what i mean. Religion tried to do it and ended up twisting it.
My dissertation on assumptions of general relativity addresses this topic (why the world is 3+1-D) from a different POV.
Callen, Moshe. Assumptions of General Relativity and Cosmology. DOI:10.13140/RG.2.2.31687.27048. [My dissertation]
Is it worth reading? I mean in the context of this conversation? If so I will
Thanks, this probably nonsense
likely nonsense
You will win a Nobel Prize for this research. Good work 💪
@@quantumpotential7639 ?
It was amazing to hear such a brilliant guest talk about the nature of the universe!! Always grateful for you Curt 🥰
We don't see the world as it is. We see the world as we are.
🔥🔥 “What we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning.” - Werner Heisenberg,
Human consciousness does not reside in the deterministic universe of cause and effect, but at the higher 'Micro' dimension of the 'Universal Life Field' which permeates all dimensions and all levels of perception.
The physical brain acts as a transducer of consciousness, enabling it to experience the 3-dimensional realm of matter through the five senses from the higher 'Micro' dimension of the 'Universal Life Field' in the same way that a virtual headset enables a person to experience the world of virtual reality; the person does not reside in the world of virtual reality, just as consciousness does not reside in the physical universe.
The question is often asked, "Why is there something rather than nothing; why is there anything at all"? The simple answer is 'because the 3-dimensional universe provides consciousness with experience; for experience is the 'food' for consciousness'. To be conscious is to experience, and to experience is to be conscious; and you cannot experience anything from nothing.
Even the size, colour, and texture of a grain of sand provides consciousness with experience...
I would love Wolfram to chat about phenomenology and the work of Husserl, Heidegger, Merleau-Ponty, etc. because all of phenomenology was to state: we can only see and understand the world through our senses, and even so, there is so much work being done behind the scenes by our subconscious that the reality we even see is a fabrication of sorts.
They each approach a whole lot else, obviously, but that's the core of it, or the overlap with what he's talking about here, just from his own POV. Would love to hear him discuss this.
2:15 that also another problem, your neurons aren’t just perceiving what’s in front of you, your neurons and systems are living and reflecting the differences shared. It’s not simple and the simple way of explaining is that you become a difference as you entangle and share with it. The universe is alive because it changes, humans are conscious because we reflect, we have identity before understanding. With understanding you can shed the identity but after shedding and understanding the differences, you kinda regrow into yourself and then understand how to share into a difference rather than trying to force the past into the future you. You already are you, just different than the past you, what you miss is easily brought back out but we box ourselves in by beliefs. So we aren’t just observing but becoming different when we share.
I have often wondered if our sensory apparatus (which to me is the entire system of tissues - I think it is a BIG mistake believing that consciousness resides in the mind and that perception is likewise a product of some process in a brain exclusively - brains do not exist without bodies - the sense of touch doesn’t exist without skin, receptor nerves in skin, nerves that flow through the body connecting to a brain - it’s a SYSTEM and none of it works without all elements functioning together. Consciousness is the product of the BODY of which a brain is a key element, but an element still) employs heuristics to narrow the bandwidth of perception. To see some grass in a field or clouds in the sky the heuristic of “grassiness” or “cloudiness” is employed. Not that we cannot perceive an individual blade of grass or cloud but that these perceptions are mediated through the neural/body pathways laid down as we mature from infancy where we learned what is grass, what is a cloud.
I disagree. And I do think that the study of Conscienceness will eventually show that the Brain is a receiver & Local expression of the mind. Of course, I could be wrong, but I believe Science will eventually invent the tools to discover this empirically. Unril then, for anyone willing to do a deep dive, there is an amazing amount of intriguing evidence (albeit mostly anecdotal) to support this.
Consciousness is too complex a system to be biologic. Consciousness is the observation of information. All this exists, but consciousness is a decryption method for that would be chaotic in a high entropy universe. Its not merely a chicken OR the egg, but its both the chicken and the egg, for this to exist the information has to be decoded. It does not mean consciousness is fundamental, but its fundamental for THIS perspective. It is the md5 hash equivalent to the universe. Each observer (maybe its all called consciousness, maybe thats just for us idk) has a different decoding method.
It does not mean each of us creates A universe, it means each of us creates OUR universe, same universe but different decoding, maybe the pixel in my netflix stream dropped, and yours didnt. All we are doing is observing something thats already happened. Maybe the biologics of it allows us to remember this as a timeline, vs a point in the universe we see a point and a past and future. We are self thinking/self deducting biological robots. We have to stop thinking other life acts like this, this could very much be an Earth Bound system, animals exhibit this. Physics wont be the only thing to solve everything, they will solve the plumbing.
This is how God maintains an efficient mechanism for being. It doesn't need to generate the whole universe, it only needs to generate YOUR universe. Not that it needs to, because it is literally infinite, but it does this for your sake. In order to simultaneously compress and decompress this information for a finite being, it has to project itself into a "space". If you understand space-time as a static, eternal object, it doesn't need to generate all experience at once, it only needs to generate your experience as a separate entity, much like a video game, since time is relative to its observer. This is all compressed into your "lifetime", which has all, in actuality, happened In an infinitely compressable instant.
I learned about clouds in 3rd grade. Very exciting.
It may just be.....as we label it....energy.
Most likely, electromagnetic/harmonics....our understanding seems to be based on the tools we use to measure what we understand.
If a particle has substance, then it can be divided into smaller amounts of the substance. Since this would lead to infinitely smaller amounts, it seems clear that a particle is not substantial. It is energy that looks substantial to us.
This interview reminds me of a Joe Rogan podcast about DMT which some have described as a molecular technology that allows the exploration of an alternate reality, a place more real than real.
I think that’s accurate
It's something you have to experience, it's definitely an eye opener
As above so below.
The mapped neuro net resembles the plasma web of our known universe.
We just cant explain it....much less understand in totality.
Agony of bodies in eternal fusion.
I have several questions and arguments, if they can be addressed by Stephen that would be great:
1. Is establishing equivalences a property of the language (even the most universal language, math) has to define a label and boundary on what is being observed, and so it introduces this reductionism, or is equivalence a property of a physical law that only allows "observation" through coupling and interaction? so the universe in nature might be simply into equivalences.
2. I see a lot of mixing between language and reality here, as gas molecules, we can't deduce that entropy (which is global coupling) is increasing, but we would be able to tell that the rate of coupling and decoupling between us and other molecules within some distance is increasing. Information is fundamental beyond the reduction of our minds, whether we call it entropy or coupling rate. How do you think of information fundamentality? and I understand very well that information falls from "questions" bound by language, but I am talking here about something like gravity being an emergent property of a fundamental information attraction law.
3.Perceiving the laws is one thing and formulating "relevance" of scales is another thing, the only thing that changes between observation levels is the gradient of time, what is your comment on that? the gradient of time.
This is on point!
We can only make sense of what we can perceive. And then try to explain what we can observe.
When Stephen talks about "...we have our laws of physics because of the way we are....", he is by definition using the "we" in general terms, not as us individuals. Therefore, idealists should not find a common cause with what Stephen is saying. He is not saying that each individual one of us creates (or sees) the universe and thus gives rise to laws of physics. He is saying our universe as a whole is a slice of Ruleiad. So, in that sense, he is calling of us as we. Which is why it is generally agreed that fundamental laws of physics are the same in our universe - everywhere. They are not different for different persons or different animals, or plants, or rocks, even - depending on the degree of perceptual sensitivities and consciousness. So, in some sense, he is envisioning a coexisting multiverse or whole universes with different laws of physics. Of course, different laws of physics are of specific interest to specific types of organisms. We as humans worry about air pressure, temperature, purity of air we breathe, strength of gravity, and so on. Fish worry about viscosity of water they swim in, clarity of the water, depth at which they swim. Some insects worry about surface tension of water. Sure. But that does not mean that the fundamental laws of physics are different for them in our universe. It is just that different organisms care about and are affected by different higher level physical phenomenon and the higher level (non fundamental) laws that govern them. I disagree with Stephen about his statement about "if weather has its own mind" - I think as long as the weather is in our universe, it has to follow the same fundamental laws of physics that are same in our slice of the universe. Similarly, any aliens - however far away they are from us in physical space and live on a different planet with very different ambient conditions - if they are in our universe - will discovers the same fundamental laws. Lastly, with our advanced technologies, we are no longer limited to our senses for what we perceive in the world - and yet none of this changes what the fundamental laws of physics are there in our universe. Based on this discussion it is not clear if we will be able to explore other slices of Ruleiad in a physical sense. Of course, we may be able to simulate it on our computers or be able to think/imagine about them, similar to the way we can think of 4 dimensional space and a Tesseract.
0:49 - Sounds like circular reasoning.
It is, and it's right.
@@wwkk4964 all the rational of a religious Zealot
Doesn't literally everything seem like a circular argument?
Abortion for example.
@@edblair5253 the criteria of "it is, because it is" isn't something I've come across, in fields of scientific study, often. Religion... yes. Zealotry... yes.
But, with regard to science of any legitimate form, no.
I can't imagine why you'd suggest it.
Feels like apologetics. Am I wrong?
@@onlyonewhyphy it's falsifiable though, you are identifying two concepts and claiming they are equivalent (in this case the Anthropic principle formulated as observing laws as observed laws happens because of the type of observers we are) which can in principle be disputed.
The only level of organization at which "communication" of such information between beings that exist at that same level of organization might be possible would be the lowest levels of organization, such as quark or plank, in other words, pretty much the source level where differentiation is all but non-existent.
🤘🤘🤘
Quantum effects were quite real for our Last Universal Common Ancestor (LUCA).
Hoo boy. This conversation is enough to get you a wee bit twisted. So enjoyable
What if a particle's "identity" is tied to its superposition with its other "selves" across other "worlds"? There collective interference maintains a collective state. What if our neurons make use of this effect to make us an "observer". Take a look at the recent paper about superradiance and tryptophan.
I love these kinds of anthropic discussions. It’s so cool! No surprise that the laws of physics are consistent with our existence. And yet!
He goes off his own path when he say finite mind. He already learned a lot and is studying a super observer thing beyond normal. Our minds are tuned into "what is" in most cases, but we can change that in an instant. People can go on some manager course in a weekend trip and come back and want to change everything.
Observational perspective = limited observation
Excellent.... thanks 🙏.
11:11 And what, exactly, is an "atom of space"?
Logical!!!
Dziękuję ❤
Yes. A mental concept is a multidimensional vector representing a consistent complex superposition of information (energy) that exists in a definite state within the universe. Biological neural network based brains can construct and interlink these vectors, and so can digital neural network based computer systems. These vectors are represented and exchanged by biological and digital brains through symbols and assemblies of symbols as language. Teuvo Kohonen was the real pioneer in this.
Enthralling clip. Thank you!
great talk.
the self is the momentum through time, the ball progressing through the air, the historical 'arc', the thing that corresponds to a name, the thing that moves the same way unless acted upon by an outside force.
15:09 I think that in terms of balance that you could assign humanity to such computations.... But yeah I can see what he's saying that it would be pretty difficult in certain cases....
You would take what goes on within humanity and then see it relative to the balance of everything....
For example, you see groups emerge and one group's much bigger but then it splits and they all go relative to the same size. You could say there's your political parties... But yeah it would be difficult.
Objective physical reality can be perceived differently based on the objective physical makeup of the being doing the observing. I think that's rather intuitive and has been understood by zoologists and such for over a century.
the continuity of ourselves that is so obvious to us is not derived from experiences or atoms that are changing but from consciousness that is not changing
10:58 What exactly is Theseus' ship?
Pardon me if I misread your question. I think who's on board the ship is the real question. I have no idea
It is a paradox about identity. Look it up.
@@michaeljfigueroaThe indivisible unity of quantum consciousness steers the material ship through space-time and crashes somewhere on the hard edges of reality.
So why are we in 3D and not 2D or 4D or some non-integer dimension of a fractal? Why do we percieve, phenomena, leading to noumena, in 3D?
I think 3D is a misnomer. There aren’t three dimensions, as if a dimension is a thing. Try to imagine a 2D object. It doesn’t exist. As soon as you squeeze one ‘dimension’ to zero the object disappears.
A dimension is a concept that we use to facilitate our math. I think there are not three dimensions. There is space.
Summary: With the allocation and understanding of the lack of understanding, we enter into a new era of science in which we feel nothing more than so much so, as to say that those within themselves, comporary or non-comporary, will figuratively figure into the folding of our non-understanding, and our partial understanding, to the networks of which we all draw our source and conclusions from.
I understand what's being said. The basic thought stays. We can increase with more familiarity. Like thinking of the complexity of the world. That would include topics and all our interest. instead at first we generalize. We don't stay very long with all topics. Looking at the world. We see much more than 3D complexity. I think it comes back to understanding our world by a 3D complexity.
Deadset, this is literally EXACTLY the concept i was thinking about & trying to explain to my partner ( not so well, cos of the words 😋)
Literally everything he was talking about.
I hope you have him on more .
😁☮️🌏
What he is looking for 1. a theory of observers and 2. Eastern philosophy is Yogacara Buddhism in string theory. Yogacara Buddhism is a pure idealism where everything is manifestation of mind or consciousness - from the observer point of view.
We think we see an apple, or physicists are working on a physical theory including observation data from experimental data, ALL are illusions which are objects of mind of each observer which are each unique.
Before string theory, the physical theory alluded to say that there are objective existence outside of our mind like particles, electrons, atoms, molecules, apples, bodies, and brains.
But something string theorists don’t even notice is that in string theory, when strings which are extremely small are strongly interacting, they become branes that can be extremely large. There will then be open strings attached on these branes. String theorists as physicists naturally think that they are actually matter: particles, and etc.
But these branes including the open strings are all in extra dimensions and superspaces, they are not matter but only look as though they are matter.
This is exactly what Yogacara Buddhism is saying. When Seeds which are extremely small become activated, consciousness arises which can be as large as the universe (imagine an astronomer observing the universe). Consciousness naturally comes with 2 things” Visual Function which will interact with the Image Functions. The former are the branes and the latter are open strings on branes.
What Yogacara Buddhism describes is a metaverse like reality. An apple in a metaverse only look like an apple but there is no apple. Physicists who are doing physics as though there are physics, particles, electrons, but there is no physics. All objects of our cognition, especially the physical objects are illusions, as though they exist but in reality they don’t as they are all illusions of objects of mind.
th-cam.com/video/iT0vO1ZVYcc/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/Rb1qI8tz6mw/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/FPcfAbGfPD4/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/5trfcBMtqQM/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/CGgvPhLoMoc/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/kXMa3eF5qz0/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/6uKP8E4l0SU/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/3gnSpOwNzA4/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/DxbmRHo_BKQ/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/SHZeHHKNnSE/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/eChBvB1nI-Y/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/MJtkc7f3hXA/w-d-xo.html
The basic idea is; chaos is deterministic, it is just so difficult to calculate a snapshot of it's complexity that distilling the agent of change seems impossible. Yet we can still make predictions by grasping the trends without a thorough understanding of the underlying mechanics. The quantum realm is like Pandora's box, look deep enough and you will lose your corporeal individual identity, and be left with only hope!
Amazing content!
Voice sounds like that of Robert Edward Grant's
Woooohooooo, new shirt 😂😂
Fascinating
Who observe the observer.
Who gatekeep the gatekeeper
Sharing through one infinite lense..
Sun and Moon is an observer
I AM
A god without free will?
Incorrect the brain is finite. The mind is infinite.
A cosmos of infinite complexities can unfold vast photonic and molecular arrangements that give rise to an anthropos of finite sensibilities dynamically extracting multiple equivalences from various resemblances and differences.
It can allows for unique observing humanities with ...curiosity, concern and care.... coming forth and going forward.
Question:
What computationally humanizing rules in The Ruliad will become part of a developing integral ...sense, science, and salience.... for Ruleology?
I love Kurt’s interviews. He speaks with people that answer the questions I would never have thought to ask. With that being said, the more I listen, the dumber I realize I am.
Good listener
1:31 the observer is listening and sharing.
Just pay attention to what you are experiencing. Keep your perception unbiased and undisturbed.
the last thing Stephen says, that (i) our mind computing the physics of the world and (ii) physics actually happening is computationally equivalent, seems to be the direct consequence of us experiencing the world in a certain way, because we are "observers like us". We can only compute, what we can compute - so to speak. I'm interested in other opinions. :)
This is the anthropic principle but stated with more precision.
universe makes sense to me much better with a glass of bo urb0n
There are constraints on what observers can be, thus Wolfram's claim that we are what we are ... is not a vicious cycle.
We keep changing in minor ways... Imperceptible changes as we march forward in time, makes us think we don't change.
👍
Ancestral knowledge?
coded a naïve information agnostic axiomatic abiogenesis simulation once, which surprisingly generated something that looked a bit like an inflationary cosmogenesis at particular coupling. Curiously the interface of inflating regions against the "outside", was a distinct three layered macroscopic information boundary with internally three layered horizons on the micro states. Always wonder if somehow abstractedly connected to the macroscopic 3d space projection and microscopic 3 generation fermion scenario of universes like our own...
We are not observers w/o fault. The current laws and theories we have may be incomplete or faulted, but history has clearly shown that there is a long timeline wall that prevents physicists from reexamining the current accepted dogma from the past and insures that the wrong path will be the direction taken for a long time into the future. Any questioning is dismissed if it comes from those outside the field and any change can only happen with the approval of the declared experts.
You don’t need to be an expert, but you do need to back up your claims with evidence, which you have not done. To be clear, scientists are not a monolith. Yes you have some at the top universities, at the top of their fields working for the mos innovative companies.. and amongst those, you will find examples of those dismissive close-minded, arrogant types.
However, you’ll also find multitudes of us who are not like that. We chose fields in science bc we were driven to find answers and understanding. That’s who I’ve been since I was 5. I’ll listen to anyone with an alternative viewpoint or idea that is at least plausible. Dialogue is what we need, not egos (theirs, not yours).
@@dshepherd107 I am concerned about the process and focus of physicists. I thought this interview might shed some light on that. The past was centuries of the generation of ideas based on the philosopher physicists observation of the macro world. The conclusions of the Eddington solar eclipse and the Michelson/Morley experiment done with difficulty and poor technology many decades ago have not been revisited but accepted as the final word on the aether and special relativity.
But I learned in my quest to understand the world via physics that there were more questions for me and, to my surprise, that there were even many physicists through the decades, even now, who had questions but were ignored. The recent fifty plus years have been a deeper and deeper approach on the micro world with the complex mathematical almost exclusive focus of String theory, or other abstract geometrical approach such as loop quantum gravity. Wolfram's work is highly mathematical.
Now, observation of the macro world is the method used to dismiss theories predictions, if possible, not the means to generate new theory as was done by Newton. Many independent experiments have raised questions about the standard model. I have written, published in the GSJ, on ideas generated because of the inconsistencies I have observed. I am not a physicist.
memory updated
Electron is not a thing that consists of ‘atoms of space’. It is ‘doing’, pattern
What he is saying is that because we are an element within the model we are trying to understand, we cannot stand outside of that model and apprehend ourselves in totality, and therefore approach true objectivity.
A lot of people could use that concept but for themselves ...aka self awareness and reality lol
Science fiction stuff ! Multiple conciousness in the same brain, different experience threads, different being at every moment. Wow!!! Someone please write a science fiction novel.
"Things get more random over time" is in contrast wtith the life. as life itself is putting order in a random wrld. the more the Life evolves the more order we take (as molecules order themseves incels those in proteins, than in tubulars etc etc... Would be good to know the Stephen;'s comment on that..
If you tryy to measure a point rolling around on a sphere is it analogous to extracting a point from infinity?
This is the first thing I’ve ever heard that made sense to me
❤CURT❤
Stephen always reminds me of talking to Jauffre from Oblivion.
Sometimes I worry that the universe is just a "hypnotic circle" optical illusion
1. Who says we have finite mind? We know that everything breaks down to pure electricity, how is 'us' limited to purely the dimensions of our body?
2. Who says the photons are real? If they ever were, they stop existing when it hits our eyes cone rods, and is turned into electrical impulses. Also, aren't synapses weird when you really think about them....
3. Who says we compute? Ahad Israfil and his severe head injury. Individuals suddenly acquiring complex skills after impactful events. Athletes mentally rehearsing an event having brain electrical pattern lighting up areas the same as the 'actual' doing. Cold War research into 'abilities' natural, after spiritual practice, or exotically induced . Many things in this world are showing that there is a non local element to our experience.
Look at the unusual or essential that we do, to see how we can interact.
- Pattern Matching - instead of pseudo scientifically dismissing ability to connect seemingly random events experienced. Consider maybe they are variations of the same repeating Above or Below? Something pointing somewhere. As natural selection exists, then perhaps patterns are very important. Seeing us in nature a la pareidolia could be very very important.
- Why are we a living eco-system? Essentially requiring billions of other living creatures within us, for us to be alive. Maybe they provide more? Or not, it's just a gut feeling.
- Why is us being anthropomorphic a thing? Do we see them like us, or us like them. Or both, as one if you will.
- Why does our body contain and use DMT (start, MIDDLE, and end)?
- We are a Perceiver who has trouble living in the 'now'. Yet the 'now' is the only time you can perform an action. Trapped in motion, missing the moment. Almost like a skill no longer practiced.
what is said about each individual molecule at minutes 7,8 is correct.. there is nothing "random".
Very Kantian. I beg to differ about the "aggregate description of motion of molecules" not mattering in that they don't fit in our mind. Statistical thermodynamics is all about matching observable behavior from the theoretical properties of molecules. Can we say anything about the individual molecules from observable properties? Things like mean free path for a particle or the influence of polarity on observable properties, for instance.
Thanks 🙏 for mentioning about our observation being limited by our finite mind. No one so far dared to admit this limitation exists, and scientists need to take this fact into consideration when they go wild about their discoveries.
Many many many scientists and philosophers have conveyed this message for centuries if not eons.
Currently we are going thru a period of misguided assuredness in people like Ed Whitten.
The anti religion anti designer propaganda has also contributed to creating some very smug and condescending scientists.
That's the view of an agnostic but spiritual objective common person.
@@edblair5253 what I am trying to say is not necessarily how you want to divert my statement to divinity. I’m trying to broaden the scientific understanding of the cosmos beyond our helplessly limiting boundaries and develop accordingly. If they can’t do that, at least refraining from making factually inconsistent scientific claims would be the best way to approach the inquisitive mind.
Wolfram is a leader for an ideology free zone.
I used to get frustrated with Stephen. I thought he talked in circles. I stuck with him because I felt there was something I could learn. The more informed I became, the smarter I thought Stephen was 😘. He has a lot to tell me, I just need to get better at understanding him.
Go watch a video of Feynman. He can explain the most complex concepts clearly. The reason it sounds like Stephen is talking in circles is because he is. He has no idea what he’s talking about.
Only through genetic engineering of better bodies could we be on our way, at an intuitive level, to comprehend nature at all perspectives.
When Wolfram looked for an example of aliens with alternate identity memory. Like Momento or 50 Fist Date movies of short term memory in which some community of external reminders reconstructs who we realize we are each moment. But our predictive processing brains sort of do this from any one neural subsystem as a point of view reconstructing its identity from the relevant clues of its immediate neighbors and how it can adjust to them. This is an abstraction process necessarily.
But he gives the analogy of concept communication he needs a more accurate understanding of how that works. Karl Friston and friends are closer to the correct model for that. But if electron and atom identity emergence is more like enactive communication and predictive processing, that’s at least an analogy to explore. Chris Fields may be making those connections.
Fantastic person to have on TOE. This conversation/subject matter is one of my favorites. Well done, as always, Curt!
Man had these highly evolved mindsets and high levels of consciousness. History and archaeology proves this. A spiritual force ruined these abilities. An era of ruin mankind allowed over himself. But I think an era of recovery is arriving
This is not 3D, unless you've figured out how to stop time. Reality is 4D (time/space), without time there is no "frequency" to create energy and matter, time is all important.
Philosophers,(both east and west), have been saying things like this for thousands of years. My question is can this philosophical perspective of observer produced laws of physics, (partly produced seems more accurate, you need a world before you can observe one), advance standard physics? Not the philosophy of physics but standard physics. Maybe it can but I would like to see how it works.
All physics are happening at the same time, we see our observation as our reality. It’s a multidimensional singularity.
As impressive as our mathematics are to describe the things we’re interested in, there are a virtually unlimited number of things we cannot describe or are not currently interested in describing mathematically.
When we were learning about Schrodinger’s equation I kept hearing how it describes the evolution of a system. The system was typically a single electron. I couldn’t help but think of how much discussion there was of this system, what it takes to describe an electron, in our feeble attempts at scratching the surface of understanding.
In “The unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics” the author says "the laws of nature are written in the language of mathematics”. Well, we have a language we use to describe the “laws” we study. I don’t think it means the laws are written in our language.
Why doesn't he ring Chris Langan and ask him for the answers he didn't get from reading Chris' CTMU?
This all goes back to the 1884 book, "Flatland"
The author Carlos Castaneda describes these altering Awarenesses which can be described as "here and here".
i wish i was smart enough to understand stephen more ...
Well, as much as I admire him, as a person of science, let me just say he did a rather awful job at explaining it all, until towards the end, lol. Good grief. Sometime when you get experts that are very advanced in their prospective fields (particularly the Sciences), they forget how to teach or explain in simpler layman’s terms. Some just aren’t good at it. Curt is though.
He just said that mind is fundamental.