Timothy you are an excellent host for letting your guest speak their concept in a reasonable amount of time without interrupting them like most hosts do.
The question of who deserves credit for an idea is uninteresting to me. “A New Kind of Science” is an amazing book, not only because of the visualizations, but also because of its clear and thought provoking discussions of many, many different topics in a unified framework. My favorite is its discussion of “computational irreducibility,” a concept that is philosophically significant. This is to say nothing of the countless historical and technical discussions in its endnotes. No “tragedy” here; just a book that should be celebrated for discussions that can be explored or criticized. And if through criticizing one of its ideas, Scott hit upon some original ideas, that too speaks to the value of book, i.e., its potential to stimulate a scientific debate.
Wtf? You lost me at you philosophy. You have lots of words that illuminate nothing. You're in the wrong room. Theology class is down the hall and to the left.
Ah, and here my disinterest ends. I look around the world and wonder why people interject such emotion into societal questions we can reason through, but I must admit I like to mix great science ideas with the personalities of their discoverers. That's probably a failing of mine and I'm jealous of your ability to step back.
Awesome podcast I think Wolframs exploration is very different and lot more thought out than given credit. In my opinion it is what physics needs it is not necessarily a deep theory as yet but what is cool is that it is playing with graphs as a fundamental structure which is a really flexible yet tangible mathematical structure. Another interesting thing about the project is the parallel to computational category theory and computational chaos theory. I believe ultimately if the project does not further physics it will atleast further computational mathematics.
It's a lot of Jontan Gorard's work that have found mathematical way to get relativity and quantum physics out from Wolframs hypergrafs. I can't evaluate how good it is but the model is attractive in many ways. I agree that it's not probable that they have the right details in the model but that it can further the understanding and math either way. And we should also see string theory in a similar way. I am interested in the claims about quantum computing. I also reacted to when Wolfram spoke about quantum computing probably not being possible when others say they have working quantum computers... Erik Weinstein's comment on Wolfram physics project is also interesting. He said that it's getting to particles and the standard model of physics that is hard and that the Wolframs physics project haven't started with that, so it's not that interesting.
And yet, he hasn't made any predictions or new discoveries. Science usually starts with a conjecture about a new idea following by an explanation. All Wolfram seems to be doing is attempting to explain existing ideas with cellular automata.
@@snarkyboojum tbf neither has string theory. Theories at that scale, especially ones that try to unify qm and gr, simply aren't "practically" testable. Technically they are, but we can't build the tools. That doesn't mean the ideas aren't worth exploring.
Of course, explore all ideas - the good ones will naturally attract others to follow suit. The ideas with little merit (like String theory) will eventually die out. @@user-yo6xb6ud6d
@@user-yo6xb6ud6d I dont think lack of testable prediction is a good criticism for Quantum Gravity scale either What notable about Wolfram's theory which claims to be theory of everything is, for a theory with as much evidence as string theory, it doesn't even have a toy model that works like how string theory reduces to GR and QFT at long distance limit... And people (especially those with undergrad/high school level of understanding of physics) slandered String Theorists (even though no String Theorist claims they are the next Newton, creating "new" science, Witten explicitly said there are a lot of mysteries they don't understand at fundamental level) Physicists would take Wolfram's theory more seriously if it only claims to be a discrete model that reproduces some tiny aspect of gravity and some tiny aspect of quantum field. Many lay people probably already prefer Wolfram's "new" physics than other alternatives (That require understanding actual physics and see the difficulties with quantization of spacetime instead of playing with discrete rules) and ofc they readily tell physicists what to do :))
@2:35 This guy read and wrote a review of a massive physics book when he was 19 AND a he was grad student. I hate the fact that at that age I was just being a typical college kid. I didn't even know the beauty of physics and math until I was in my late 20's. Life isn't fair.
U can take comfort in the fact that, I had similar vision, but couldn't do anything cos I'm a brat with severely disorganised mind who started a lot of stuff but couldn't get anything done. So much so, that anyone will barely take me seriously anymore. Oh! I'm from a 3rd world nation on top of all these.
Wolfram seems to me to be incredibly intelligent and insightful. His conversation with Lee Smolin was amazing. The way he picked up what Lee was saying, and saying it back to him in his own language was amazing. He seems to me as competent as any other mathematical physicist
Stephen Wolfram is an absolute creative genius and very hard worker (a not to be underestimated quality). The fact he was able to snap out of the myopic pardigm that has dominated physics for the past 350+ years and, with the help of Jonathan Gorard, proposed a completely new way of looking at models for physics, inspired by his background in computer science, causal set theory, and with his concept of computational irreducibility in mind, is fantastic. Even if the paradigm of hypergraph rewriting rules fails to reproduce the adequate phenomena, it is still a step in the right direction by introducing this shocking new way of how to look at what the point of physics actually is; finding rules, as simple as possible, on data, such that it perfectly reproduces all the physical phenomena we care about. Whether that data might be discrete or continuous, or whatever is out there, and the rules applied to it simple differential equations or something else, doesn’t really matter too much. It might even be provably possible that the nature of those rules and the data it’s applied to might not even allow a physical observer to determine whether or not the underlying structure is discrete or continuous.
@@Ruktiet >shocking new way of how to look at what the point of physics actually is; finding rules, as simple as possible, on data, such that it perfectly reproduces all the physical phenomena we care about 😂 It's been done since Newton looking at Kepler's astronomy data and giant amount of unrelated observations of earthly objects and reduce them all to 3 simple rules. That's probably why Wolfram thought he's the next Newton 💀 Physicists haven't stopped doing it that way either, just that competent physicists who actually work out the details of their model and not just making big claims, will quickly realize, rules at least as simple as QR and QFT have so far produce huge gaps and inconsistencies (again, devil is in the details). Discretizing spacetime leads to breaking of Lorentz covariance and all kinds of mess. But of course you can wave it all away if you target different toy models My opinion on Wolfram would drastically improve if either 1. he works out his model in details to like 1% of String theory that can reproduce both Gravity and Quantum Field Theory at low energy (I'm not asking for any observable prediction) OR 2. His followers show some basic understanding of scientific method, physics, math
Wrong. The rules you are talking about, such as those of Kepler, still assume an underlying complex structure, as do the physicists you compare Stephen Wolfram to. The whole point of his ideas, which I find ground breaking, is to assume as little as possible, and find a structure which shows as much potential complexity as possible under that constraint, and then look for instantiations of that structure so that it shows all of the phenomena we observe in physics. For anyone who has read about his previous ideas from his “a new kind of science” book, the idea of simple rules which show complex behavior (sometimes computation) come to mind. Inspired by causal set theory and his background in computer science, a hypergraph rewriting system was chosen. The rules as well as initial conditions are parametrizable, and thus exhaustively searchable, even though the search space is immense, even for very small initial nodes and simple rules. Even if this approach does not lead to fruitful results, it is a very creative step in the right direction by at least challenging our anthropocentric assumptions. And to be honest, I don’t understand why you care about the competence in classical subjects of his followers. First of all, it’s not the followers who develop the theory, and second of all, the theory is so low-threshold that even a high schooler can grasp it. It probably even helps people develop an interest in physics where they didn’t before@@TensorLiquidExp
@@Ruktiet I suppose I wasn't clear, but what you alleged to, finding the simplest rule set that reproduces observed phenomena, was what Newton and other physicists do too. I'm not saying there is nothing new about Wolfram's approach i.e. I'm not saying Newton started from nothing but discrete rules. I will elaborate why Wolfram's approach only sounds simple to laymen, but actually aren't simple to serious physicists. Since you mention causal set, maybe by "underlying complex structure" you mean the background spacetime for events and interactions to happen, yes Newton and other physicists do assume that background exists and it's a continuum. That's how we do physics. Spacetime is not part of the "simple" rule system, the simple rules are what they created on top of it to describe data. Given the trouble with how gravity is baked into spacetime itself unlike other forces, the obvious idea to quantize gravity would be to quantize spacetime. That's where people get the idea that, maybe we start from nothing but discrete rules and let spacetime emerge from discrete structures. Wolfram's approach is in this group. (cont. below)
From wolframphyiscs: Q: How can your models be consistent with Bell’s theorem? A: Despite the deterministic nature of the Wolfram model, consistency with Bell’s theorem is actually a very natural consequence of the combinatorial structure of the multiway causal graph. By allowing for the existence of causal connections not only between updating events on the same branch of evolutionary history, but also between updating events on distinct branches of evolution history, one immediately obtains an explicitly nonlocal theory of multiway evolution. More precisely, one extends the notion of causal locality beyond mere spatial locality, since events that are branchlike-local will not, in general, also be spacelike-local. Therefore, one is able to prove violation of the Bell-CHSH inequality in much the same way as one does for standard deterministic and nonlocal interpretations of quantum mechanics, such as the de Broglie-Bohm or causal interpretation.
It sounds like the multiway model is a quantum version of cellular automata, with a dash of Many Worlds thrown in, which could be very interesting if they can get concrete predictions out of it and see if it makes different ones than standard QM.
The Fine Structure constant is the RATIO of Electron / Quantum Foam Terminal Velocity DIVIDED BY The Terminal Velocity of Photon Vacuum Terminal Velocity AKA FS == Ve/c. Wolfram is only half way there and therefor half wrong! Kaku and Carol are ELITIES THAT CENSOR THE TRUTH OF THE "VACUUM'S AMBIENT EM FIELD": @FiringRoom1 Cosmic Redshift is due to HAWKLING EVAPORATION OF PHOTONS PERIOD END OF STORY... WE KNEW THIS IN THE 1970s! Photons Redshift Via Hawking Evaporation of Not "Virtual" EM Field Inertial Dipole Planck Particles: th-cam.com/video/-fNdCKgmCZQ/w-d-xo.html
There is also the superdeterminism explanation which is what Gerard 't Hooft's hypothesis of "The Cellular Automaton Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics" uses. Of course superdeterminism is viewed unfavourably but it circumvents Bell's Theorem and it is up to physicists to disprove it, or live with it.
@@MightyDrunken It's true that superdeterminism is logically possible. But I read 't Hooft's book on his ideas for a superdeterminism form of quantum theory, but in it he states that he has no real mathematical theory that works (that can reproduce the predictions of QM). And it is not the case that physicists have to accept any idea or theory they can't disprove. An extreme example is - they can't disprove that a God exists, but that doesn't mean that according to physics they have to accept that one does exist. It's the other way around - Fermi or someone remarked that such ideas are "not even wrong" because they cannot be proven nor disproven (at least within current knowledge. of that that could change).
Stephen said plain and simple, you can literally go on his website and click the peer review button. He made you a button to click so you can _actually refute sections of his work_ . If you know what you’re talking about, anyway.
I was encouraged to hear Scott confirm in such a colorful way what is obvious to any self-respecting thinker, that even if your paper had been scrawled on a bathroom wall it, it clearly deserves to be taken seriously. I have not given up hope that he will come around and square his shoulders to talk to you. I think a lot of good can come of it.
Glad to see Scott acknowledging that Wolfram's recent theory is promising. Not sure why he spent so long refuting his old work which didn't involve multiway systems. They are entirely different beasts, and his original criticism does not apply to the newer formalism.
Hey Timothy, finally watched this video. A few comments: 1. One could argue that Wolfram does take too much credit for some ideas (such as the universe is computational in nature), but it is true that no one else has explored them to the depth that he has. 2. Aaronson is correct about the limitations of the ANKOS deterministic cellular automata model in describing quantum phenomena (such as the Bell inequality). 3. However, his "refutation" of the hypergraph model is disappointing: it's not much other than, "Well, I don't see how these low-level machine code could lead to the higher-level physics I am familiar with, so who cares?" Like I said above, I am not aware of a theory of everything that is as fundamentally computational as this one, and it is disappointing to see the current generation of physicists like Aaronson and Hossenfelder dismiss it so easily. 4. Your following observation is on point: even if Wolfram turns out to be wrong, he is willing to handle criticism, unlike Weinstein and Keating. IMHO, one is far more intellectually deep and honest than the other. The worst intellectual mistake to make is to even begin to compare Wolfram and Weinstein's theories of everything, which are not at all at the same level.
Hey Trishank. I have not spent time studying Wolfram's work so I can't comment on his work or Scott's criticism. And yes, Weinstein and Wolfram are not to be compared. This was simply an off the cuff conversation with Scott, who could comment on Wolfram, and myself who could comment on Weinstein.
@@TimothyNguyen I understand, but the title doesn't accurately reflect that. Anyway, hope you to get read up on Wolfram's work and interview him someday!
@Trishank Karthik Kuppusamy Just curious, what would you propose as a title? Also I invited Wolfram onto my podcast previously (which would motivate me to read up on his work) but it seems he's not interested.
@@TimothyNguyen Maybe "Nguyen and Aaronson on why Wolfram's TOE is scientific even if wrong vs Weinstein's", but someone (or an LLM) needs to work on making it catchier
@@TimothyNguyen the problem with this computational theory is that it makes the claim that underlying computation gives rise to quantum mechanics and the observable universe. Another is that they admit it is fully deterministic. Quantum mechanics is observably probabilistic in nature. The third is the peer review aspect. It’s not much of a technical critique, but it’s one that needs to be noted, because you need to have people in the scientific community verifying its consistency with known physics. My takeaway from the whole thing (from some of his fans I talked to) is that they take a philosophical position (computational equivalence) and run with it as a physical truth. Basically like saying all 2s are identical. More specifically, just because I can implement a Turing Machine in the card game Magic the Gathering, and that that Turing machine is in some sense the same as one implemented on a computer, or in the game of life, that doesn't imply anything about the universe. Also, our universe is computable, but not in the sense that it is a simulation. You can simulate things about the universe on the computer, but that’s still taking a huge leap to saying the universe is some sort of computational system. As far as the views of Hossenfelder among physicists, she’s good at what she does, but her cellular automata theory with t’Hooft isn’t much better. One of the key things that’s wrong with it is the idea of superdeterminism which is unfalsifiable.
Hi wondering about how adult learners/mature students tend to do in physics programs. I went to UBC for biochem right after high school but dropped out after a year after some big family issues. I'm nearly 28 now and have been in plumbing/pipefitting ever since. I go through my old textbooks sometimes and do some basic problems, listen to science podcasts/talks, read scifi and generalist science books from rovelli, susskind and greene. No kids and wouldn't need student loans. Thinking of going to school for maybe mining engineering, geophysics or physics if there is a recession and im out of the job.
You’ll do great! It seems like you have the spark to learn. I’m a working engineer and I keep learning stuff, and I learn it a lot better than when I was in school. In fact, I would say that it makes more sense to go to college now.
You also have a much better appreciation for the world, and for the physical world as you work with your hands. This is underrated! So please figure out going back to school as you clearly have the love of learning in you.
dude, just do it. School is much easier than working life, particularly if you're interested and motivated. A degree in physics will get you work in basically any field, especially if you have nominal people skills and you're not a weirdo. As an adult learner, I've often felt like I had crazy advantages over my classmates who are 18 and 20. You'll understand what I'm talking about when you get in. In my view, there is no replacement for _doing_ the problems, struggling with them, and thinking them through. if you want a head start, get a textbook, and work through the chapters. MIT Open Courseware is great. I was a heroin addict throughout my late teens and young adult life. At 26, I got clean and started working in a rehab as a counselor. I went back to school at 30, originally planning to get a degree in psychology while I continued to work. Today, I'm 34, wrapping up Waves and Optics, majoring in Comp Sci, and I couldn't be happier. I have a 4.0 and transferring to a UC school. I never thought of myself as "math person" (still don't), and I didn't even _like_ math until Calc 2. If I could do it, anyone can.
@@wolfumz I LOVE this message. It’s totally true - this nonsense that we have in our society that you have to finish some thing by a certain age is rubbish. You can totally go to college in your 20s/30s and later and do fantastic!
If you've kept the "mathematics-knives" slightly sharp you ought to do just as fine on that part as you would've at 19. You will have a "slight" advantage in maturity, which should help you loads, not least with motivation and drive.
Gerard 't Hooft has a very similar theory to Stephen Wolfram's for quantum mechanics as a cellular automaton. He clearly shows how Bell's theorem does NOT rule out a local hidden variable theory of this type, because this theory is completely deterministic, and therefore the counterfactual logic used in discussions of Bell's theory are completely invalid. This has been termed "superdeterminism" of course, and even early on it was recognized by Clauser et al. as a loophole which was dismissed and termed a "conspiracy against the experimenter" back in the 1970s. One can even make the argument that the simplest interpretation of the Bell experiments is exactly the opposite of what most physicists think, and that is that the universe is simply perfectly deterministic, local, and causal.
This is what I thought also and I thought Aaronson would have mentioned this in passing at least. The more I think about superdeterminism the more I think it can't be dismissed. There is an underlying correlation or information imprinted on everything in the universe, that allows Bell's experiments to appear violate the Bell inequality. In other words it is not possible to get a purely random number to pick the orientation of the measurement device.
"That's kind of a detail for the technicians to work out". I think this is what is profoundly disturbing about Weinstein's work at least. He's outsourcing the responsibility of making this correct while taking on no professional risk himself. When someone did look at his work, voluntarily - that's you, Timothy - and they came up with results that were sub-optimal, he turned into a bully. It was quite grotesque. Why doesn't Weinstein just fund a research lab into alternative theories? It's the problem with these entrepreneurs playing scientist - even if they have a strong academic background, they get so used to being obeyed and said yes to that they lose the ability to take the scathing levels of criticism needed to do any real work in these fields.
so your upset that he is a theoretical physicist instead of an experimental one......... don't know why though. everyone acting like this is some big controversial thing. when this is very typical...... we need both, and many ideas was thought up long before they could be tested and proven! it doesn't mean all of those ideas was disturbing or nonsense just because the person couldn't or wouldn't test them at that time!! countless projects usually involve more than one person to test ideas. mainly being that just because you have an idea doesn't mean your the best choice to testing it out or tweaking it. therefore you build a team of many people from different fields and they come together and start testing it. its pretty fucking expensive to put a lot of these ideas through the ringer when you doing so on your own dime. this is the very reason Eric has teamed up with wolfram, they are still building their ideas. lets use Einstein as our last example. if he would have listened to his critics after his very first pass at his theory he never would have wrote another word on the subject because at the time it was wrong and most of his peers thought the ideas was nuts............. lol and for some of us still think its wrong.
By the way, Tim, if you and your colleague would have written a paper CONFIRMING the claims of Eric Weinstein regarding Geometric Unity, Eric's obdurate and absurd dismissal of the critique would disappear.
Scott is wrong about hidden variables, because he misinterprets cellular automata as a non-local theory. Wolfram's theory is consistent with both Bell inequality and special relativity, because it is *superdeterministic*, i.e. it violates statistical independence.
@@thatonegamer9547 according to Jonathan Gorard, this theory is consistent with Bell's theorem in the same way other deterministic theories featuring non-local hidden variables do. This was stated during the second wolfram physics project stream (technical q&a)
Lol him calling his theory superdeterministic basically is a cop-out for the failure of his theory to explain Bell's theorem. Superdeterminism is essentially like saying Bell's theorem is satisfied either by coincidence or divine intervention.
@@brothermine2292 Yes it does. The only other interpretation you can have is that QM, as currently formulated, is correct. But guess what, that's wrong, because QM is KNOWN to be internally inconsistent, due to the linearity of the Schrödinger equation contradicting the nonlinearity of the measurement process. Not to mention the other issues it fails to address including the measurement problem and the Heisenberg cut.
@@maxwelldillon4805 : It occurs to me that there's more than one way to express Bell's Theorem, so your phrase "the assumptions of Bell's Theorem" is ambiguous. It's doubly ambiguous, because you could also be referring to assumptions listed in the theorem's conclusion, such as assumptions x & y if the theorem is expressed as "if p & q, then either x is false or y is false." Why don't you name the assumptions of Bell's Theorem, to help clarify your claim?
@@brothermine2292 OP is right, it just isn't talked about. I'll tell you the exact assumption Bell made in a moment, which is from a semi-recent paper. And I don't mean what Sabine has going on with her far too philosophical idea of Superdeterminism (which is ironic given her arrogant disposition toward philosophy). Sabine's idea results from scrutiny and relaxation of the statistical independence assumption as another commenter pointed out. But we don't need to get philosophical about Free Will. The implicit assumption Bell made when deriving his inequalities is Ergodicity. Bell assumed that the stochastic processes induced by quantum measurements are Ergodic. There's a 2005 paper about this by Andrei Khrennikov about this called "Buonomano against Bell: non-ergodicity or non-locality?" In that paper, he shows that both non-locality and non-ergodicity would result from a violation of the Bell Inequalities. That means a violation of them produces two indistinguishable results. Until this is experimentally investigated by the quantum foundations folks, we cannot know for certain whether violations of the Bell Inequalities are due to non-locality or non-ergodicity.
What does Scott mean by "freshly generated randomness" when he says that's implied by Bell's theorem? Bell's theorem showed that local hidden variables can't explain entanglement correlations. But it doesn't imply the correlations cannot be explained by *nonlocal* hidden variables. I don't see why nonlocal hidden variables can't offer a deterministic quantum theory, in which "fresh" randomness is not fundamental randomness.
Yep. I don't know why he claimed it as a proof of randomness. It's not that at all. In fact "freshly generated randomness" seems a silly idea since on the average the results of this randomness converge to many decimal places to an exact value.
@Carl Hitchon : Why do you say the average converges to an exact value? That sounds very wrong, because probabilities are just probabilities and each trial is presumably independent of the other trials. Can you provide an example to illustrate what you mean?
@@brothermine2292 For example the experiment referred to in Bell's theorem. Each time the experiment is done, a "random" result is produced, however QM predicts the results of many, many tries to be an exact value. So the supposedly "freshly generated randomness" of each trial, isn't really random, it has a bias predicted by QM that in the long run converges to an exact value. In other words the "randomness" is smart, it knows how to produce exactly a certain ratio of results. Therefore calling this "pure randomness" is incorrect IMO.
@@carlhitchon1009 : That "convergence to an exact value" still sounds wrong. Like a random walk with exact 1/2 probability of stepping right or left, the expected value (after an even number of steps) may be exactly zero but the actual measured distance from zero after n steps has a standard deviation that _increases_ with n. Please be clearer about *which calculation* on Bell test measurements you believe converges to an exact value.
@@brothermine2292 Off hand I don't remember all the details, but in the entangled photons with polarizers experiment, which is similar to the magnet one Bell used, QM math produces exact values for the average number of coincidences of states of the photons depending on the angle between polarizers. The average number of coincidences is impossible to explain with local hidden variables. That is what Bell proved. Some non local conspiracy is at work. A random walk does not converge. But the behavior of photons does to a very high degree of precision. If we flip a "fair" coin long enough the ratio of heads and tails converges to precisely 1/2. The reason is obvious, the coin has no bias because it's symmetrical. We can calculate results with QM, but we really don't have a deep understanding of why it is the way it is. It seems to me that physicists are quite slow to accept what Bell demonstrated. Nature is non local.
I usually have something to say to videos like these but I can't find anything wrong with it or anything to add. I like to watch Brian Keating and he often has Eric as a guest, and, weirdly, when I mention you, many GU fans will claim that you never read Eric's Apr. 1, 2021 paper, even though on Apr. 2, 2021 you published a tweet stating that you had indeed read that paper and it answered not one of your concerns. Apparently the GU community never read your tweet and are still upset that you never read the 69-page paper that you called "a testament to perseverence". I am going to encourage Keating to have you on with Eric to discuss, not debate, the validity of his GU. You seem to be an expert about it.
@uncompetative See: ZeroOskul This I Believe You seem to have blocked me from replying to you. No competition, right? Quit competing. If you can't say it straight, you don't understand it. Quit it. Go do a video about how you love GU. I am not your audience.
@uncompetative Oh? So you can't go to a user page tap the dots and select "Block Account", and I have to indirectly reply to you or else my comment vanishes because of magic? Wow! Anyway: you don't understand GU. See that thing I previously mentioned. Ciao!
There's a difference between random and unpredictable. It has to do with the information entropy of the "signal". Cryptographically weak random numbers are mathematically predictable at least in volume. Cryptographically strong "random numbers" like what you get from quantum events in the same class as radioactive decay are unpredictable (the kind Helmut Schmidt used). What the Strong Fee Will Theorem is talking about is Choice which is unpredictable vs. deterministic and/or random which are predictable within bounds. The implication is when an experimenter chooses a setup for their experiment, the particles chooses their response. The particles response is as unpredictable as the experimenters choice. I think it was Conway who did a lecture on a Gedankenexperiment where you have a deterministic and a random universe and he showed how they are mathematically identical.
Being a bit of a naïf about all this, what are the most concrete predictions Weinstein's/Wolfram's TOEs make which are plausibly testable or outrageously intuitively compelling beyond where we are today?
I think Wolfram has proposed a few (mostly vague) consequences at this point, but one that stuck with me is that his formulation suggests that entanglement has a maximum speed like c, but larger. No idea if any thought has been put into how to test that.
Fascinating discussion. One aspect is the notion of indeterminate things (states, variables, properties, …), as though this must be different from mathematics. Well… maybe not. It turns out some of math is indeterminate too. Mathematicians don’t like to talk about it, because it directly confronts the mathematical conceit that math can figure out everything, but the sad truth is that some things are beyond determination. This hardly justifies a general disregard for mathematical precision. But it does suggest that there are limits.
Tweakable mathematical models are not necessarily descriptive of mechanism. The standard of mathematical accuracy is an obstacle to understanding. The Copernican model was at first shabby at prediction compared to the epicyclic model. To gain a truer understanding of planetary motions, Copernicus escaped geocentricism. Those who want to understand the fundamental need to escape chronocentricism and atomism. Some masters of metaphysics and a few practitioners of high technology know … but physics may be lost in dogma for another century.
22:20: Scott: "I would think that, as an outsider to the area, clearly, clearly your paper deserved a thorough scientific response..." Tim: "Thank you, thank you..." Scott: "Regardless of, you know, if it had been scrawled in a bathroom urinal." I'm dead
Excuse my complete ignorance, but wasn't one of the crux of Wolframs theories is that some cellular automata algorithms exhibit what appears to be true randomness?
I don't think so. They exhibit pseudo randomness. Indistinguishable from true randomness. But entirely predictable (if you know the seed and the algorithm).
@@notlessgrossman163 If you didn't know the seed and algorithm, you wouldn't be able to predict the future. However, if you ran the 'simulation' over and over again (from the same initial conditions), you would get exactly the same result. So the 'simulation' is deterministic.
Last I seen, which was a while ago, I remember him mentioning they had created some Automata with rather basic rules which were shown to rather accurately model quantum mechanics and I personally with a little refinement could see this actually going somewhere. I forget what the name of it is but there is a similar way to simulate physics and QM using a three dimensional grid with energy potentials and the means of passing energy between each grid point is basic calculations yet can produce decent results. A theory like I seen from Wolfram could easily be envisions in which the big bang was the first "cell" in the simulations then all you see around us are simply emergent properties and such an idea would lend massive weight to the simulation hypothesis because we have ALREADY created such things. Just because they are simpler and do not run as long does not mean the walkers in The Game of Life are any less alive than you or I in that sense. Idk, I find it interesting.
@@audiodead7302 a simulation or for that matter, our universe being deterministic is a valid premise, .. in Wolframs theories he posits irreducible complexity, so your premise of a deterministic simulation would require running the simulation from the moment of creation, and QM would be on some level 'deterministic' as well. So yes the cellular automata algorithms seed may only simulate randomness but may be closer to the true nature of the universe. Eg. The measurement problem stems from trying to seperate the instrument from the subject.. just my layman's terms
Concerning the proof of stake that Ethereum has transitioned from Proof of work: It is totally an error, no matter how much money one has, the machines who does the mining can only be produced at most at a rate X owing to laws of nature, logistic, etc. On the other hand, proof of stake, costs basically nothing e someone with enough money could potentially buy the whole blockchain (let's say the government for instance, on purpose to break the system). And there are many many more problems.
the point is that most attempts to get a unified theory are done by approaching the subject from a quantum mechanics point of view trying to fit gravity into it by "quantising" something we do not have a well defined fundamental theory of besides GR which has a more stringent range of validity than quantum mechanics; yet it is not clear to me how far of those who proposed a unified theory of their own, have actually tried to find gravity within quantum mechanics, something which has been suggested by both Roger Penrose and Sean Carroll, where Roger Penrose talks about "gravitising quantum mechanics" rather than quantising gravity. However, I'd be curious to know how the here three suggested approaches would account for a suggested "gravitisation" of quantum mechanics, any thoughts?
Ah I see, I was confused for a while at the start b/c I didn't realize the multi-way thing was newer than your critique. As far as predictions go... string theory's predominance has really ruined at least the public's perception of physics: it kept on giving no testable predictions, and now every silly no-predictions theory can kinda be excused b/c "well, string theory was good enough". What weirds me out though, is that Wolfram is very clear that his graph rewriting is computationally irreducible, which like... so it could do anything if you program it right? That doesn't sound even in-pronciple-testable. It was a fun romp for me though on the foundations of computing side!
I revisited this and decided you can have a Theory of a Lot of Stuff, but not a Theory of Everything. That would violate Goedel's Theorem. Besides, it's obvious we don't understand everything or our technology would be much more advanced. We'd have nuclear fusion and antigravity, at the very least.
I think Scott should come up with a complexity-theoretic theory of everything and you can refute it on gauge-theoretic grounds, and then you should come up with a gauge-theoretic theory of everything and Scott can refute it on complexity grounds. That would be fun.
Please, please, please, everybody here, learn the difference between rebutting and refuting. That would not only be fun, it would upgrade the conversation and this site's credibility. A rebutted idea is still alive, possibly even kicking; a genuinely refuted one is as dead as yesterday. Whether the rebuttals made here qualify as a refutation is exactly what's at issue.
@@markkennedy5479 Very True. Rebuttals are what makes Science. I agree with Einstein 100% on Copenhagen Interpretation. But Bohr did an Masterclass job of taking every single one of Einstein's rebuttals and countering them. Such a good job that questioning it became dogma. Which is unfortunate because like I said I think Einstein is right. We just need better Technology. The advancement of knowledge is actually directly related to idea of Complexity. The Island of Knowledge. And the Shores of Ignorance. Our Island got so big that are Shores of Ignorance became such that we couldn't believe our own eyes.
i really don't understand why people seem to love wolfram's theory so much. not only its consistency with known physics is practically ignored, it's not even consistent with itself. its core assumption that the order of applying "transformation rules" does not matter is a very strong assumption (that is most likely simply wrong), yet he proposes it as an axiom.
Not defending his theory per se I’m just learning about it but I’m pretty sure he doesn’t say it “doesn’t matter” just that there is no way to tell the ways in which the order of transforms happens because any attempts to track that happen within that itself
@@Tardig he literally proposed this hypothesis that application order of the rules "averages out" over long time. this is a very convenient assumption because it allows him to calculate them in parallel much more efficiently than otherwise. however, that assumption is obviously false in many cases, it's trivial to find infinitely many counter examples.
@@Alexander_Sannikov You’re just slightly confused here about the model. QM an GR are inevitable consequences of the Hypergraph structure. That so long as there is a Hypergraph doing transformations, there will be QM and GR…since in every possible graph there are branching and merging of states. So those theories emerge in all possible physics (along with energy and a few other properties irrespective of the particular Hyper-graph) It’s pretty novel because it implies that space-time and quantum mechanics are universal features of systems…that in some sense all systems have some internal notion of spacetime relativity and notions of quantum mechanics. Idk if you ever heard Wolfram make jokes from time to time where he will mention some topic he is studying and then add -space as a suffix…like “and currency would be a feature of economic-space…” or another funny one is “invention-space” They aren’t actually jokes…but a forwarding of that idea that systems following rules create these emergent notions of space within that system. Emergence is necessary for any theory that is trying to unify any of these fundamental theories…and so this is where “averaging out” becomes important. Micro scale dynamics (the branching and merging going on in the Hypergraph) have to emerge macroscopic dynamics (space as we observe it) and so there really is no other way to do that…it’s also not strange considering that this is how physics typically works and it sounds like this is new news to people with regard to the wolfram model…like do you know what temperature is in thermodynamics? That is an emergent, approximation based notion of molecular movements.
Just discovering this now. Very interesting/entertaining. You and Scott are the right people for this dissection. But where's Eric to defend himself!? I fear he may remain a no show..
I think Wolfram is right about Graphs being at the root of things, but he's going in the wrong direction - to the submicroscopic. The truth is in the opposite direction.
Nah they are connected directly. Waves and Energy are somehow directly related to Black Holes. You explain a Black Hole you explain Quantum Mechanisms and also vice versa. Its like they both break opposite spectrums of how we view reality.
I agree. Wolfram has dedicated his life to learning mathematics and physics. I believe he has a pretty clear idea about what direction could be fruitful. He's probably wrong, but I think he'd rather know he's wrong if he is. Wolfram does what he does on his own dime and is trying to make a great advance in physical science. That's incredibly admirable.
Totally misunderstanding wolframs point of view. He isn’t proposing a theory of everything, he’s creating a new discipline that describes computational systems. It’s a platform, it’s a toolbox. His claims are that the universe appears to be computational, and computational systems have inherent properties that are described by exploring the domain of all possible computations. You failed to do justice to his explanation of entanglement coming from the hyper graph. You made a straw man.
The strength of the scientific method is also its weakness. Once non-locality was established in the 60s and 70s any model that contains an axiomatic space time is a clear dead end. But the scientific community keeps working on these models (GR, QM,...) because we have nothing else remotely solid to stand on. I'm not saying these two TOE are correct or even pointing in the right direction, but we can not refute them based on our accepted models, which are frankly house of cards right now. It seems Scott still believes we just need to tweak gravity a little to fit QM and we are done! And non-locality is just a quirk of space, with nothing much to see there.
It's incorrect to say the Locality axiom has been falsified (by entanglement experiments verifying violation of Bell's Inequality). But I prefer Nonlocality over the other two alternatives, which seem less plausible: Nonreality or Superdeterminism. Nonlocal phenomena seem much more plausible, given how poorly space & time are understood.
@@brothermine2292 how exactly is locality not violated by non local behaviour? When you can go from A to C without ever passing by B then all bets are off. The only reason we have been able to keep working on these models after tunneling, superposition, and entanglement were formalised is because none of these states are contagious to the rest of the system. Meaning they decay to classical states very quickly so it's easy to ignore. Space time needs to be an emergent property of any new serious theory, to be able to accommodate non locality.
@@simonlopes4301 : The premise of your question, "nonlocal behavior," is NOT proved by the violation of Bell's inequality. A lot of people lump together two axioms that are logically separable, calling the combination Local Realism if they're being precise, or Locality if they're sloppy. That combination is what has been disproved by the Bell inequality violation. (Except for the Superdeterminism loophole, which I think is an implausible way to hang on to Local Realism.) It's best to tease apart the two Local Realism axioms and recognize that either one can hold, but not both. You might want to search for the word "realism" in the Wikipedia page about Bell's Theorem.
@@brothermine2292 the axioms are the most vulnerable part of a model, if they aren't rock solid then the model has no hope. The fact that we have had to go back and put an asterisk next to them shows how fragile the whole thing is. IMHO all these brain gymnastics we have to do to square our observations with the axioms we are tied to are just patches to a sinking ship. All I am saying is that if we want a model that isn't faced with the measurement problem ( which is at the root of all non local behaviour ) then we necessarily have to go back and remove space, time, spacetime from the axiomatic foundation of the model. I understand why we keep kicking this dead cat, because there is nothing better to do, but every physicist deep down knows something is rotten in the state of Denmark. They just keep working to feed the applied science folk new data, so that the engineers dont go out of a job. But I believe GR and QM have given us all they can in the fundamental understanding of our universe
@@simonlopes4301 : Based on that non-answer to my question, I tentatively assume you can't identify any of "the assumptions in Bell's Theorem" that you claimed at least one must be wrong. Perhaps what you really meant in your original comment is that one of the assumptions in the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics (and in some other interpretations of quantum mechanics?) must be wrong. But Realism is NOT one of the assumptions in the Copenhagen interpretation. Bohr said particles don't have properties before the properties are observed. Personally, I kind of agree with you that something seems to be rotten in the foundations of QM, and that it's probably due to the Founders' firm belief in Locality (which Einstein called Separability) despite their not knowing much about the nature of space or time. I think Einstein overreached in 1905 when he said the photo-electric effect implies light is a particle, because it actually only implies the light is entirely absorbed (by an electron) when any portion of the light is absorbed. The belief in Locality -- "what happens at a location in spacetime is unaffected by everything outside the location's past lightcone" -- is what led Einstein to his "particle" conclusion, because if light is instead a wave, then a moment before the light wave is entirely absorbed by the electron, some of the wave was outside the past lightcone of the location where it is absorbed... contrary to Locality. Absorption of the entire wave, including its nonlocal portion, would solve the Measurement Problem. Collapse of the light's Schrodinger wavefunction would simply correspond to absorption of the entire wave at the electron's location. The principle should generalize to other kinds of interactions besides absorption: when part of a wave interacts at a location in spacetime, the entire quantum of the wave interacts at that location. Compton scattering was interpreted by the Founders of QM as confirmation that light is a particle. But it actually only confirmed that light isn't a *classical* wave. It didn't establish that light isn't a non-classical (quantum) wave. It's surprising to me that Einstein apparently didn't reconsider Locality and "particle or wave" after his 1935 paper on the Einstein-Rosen bridge (aka wormhole). Unfortunately, Einstein didn't live long enough to see Bell's Theorem and the experimental confirmation that nature violates Bell's inequality exactly as QM predicts. It shows that one of the axioms in the EPR Theorem must be wrong. The violation of Bell's inequality implies local hidden variable theories are wrong. But it does not imply QM is complete.
yt algorithm spun you up after listening to Randall Carlson & Graham Hancock on Joe Rogan. Go figure ;) Please continue sir. Every moment you are experiencing is a moment... only... for ... you.
15:28 Scott does not understand how physics progresses. Like jazzmen, physicists riff off the peers . Einstein was inspired by Langevin for the special relativity and other « technicians » such as Minkowski further elaborated the maths behind Einstein’s ideas. The maths concepts used were built by Poincaré. Breakthrough in science is never a lonely achievement even if history tries to assume do. Bell himself was unable to perform the physical experiments, other « technicians » such as Alain Aspect did , later awarded by Nobel prize.
Eric knows his theory is incomplete, it's at best a very imaginative conflation of spinners and Riemann geometric shapes. The theory is hollow, full of self induced inconsistencies to the point where Eric himself fumbles during his presentations. Perhaps this was just a sideways insight to the lack of imagination and stagnation in new physics.
Among fundamental mathematical physicists string theorists is putting up the so far and likely to remain the best fight against the possibility that it is an actually infinite and timelessly eternal energy patterning process that brought this universe and all us earthlings about.
Im not understanding the disconnect for Wolframs discrete theory and quantum entanglement. Both his theory and accepted theory use local realism in practice (we still believe and practically use the belief that the moon is there even if we arnt looking at it) and only apply entanglement in special situations...so it doesnt seem to be an argument specifically addressing his theory's problems without also turning a mirror to accepted dogma. Discrete v continuum is the real difference, and if anything it seems a discrete theory makes one less untestable and unobservable assumptions about the existence of an actual infinity. The later is always going to be easier to work with as a lot of equations simplify using calculus and infinitesimal quantities, but I worry we are mistaking convenience for truth. Ultimately, both theories are going to have to accept some kind of solipsm which is really not baked well into either.
Wolfram’s theory of everything is literally everything, what he is saying of all possible infinite universes ours is one of them, so his idea is to start from random basic state and random evolution rules and hit the jackpot of our universe, he is sort of brute forcing the problem and seems very unlikely we will end up with the right result even if he spends all the computational resources available for age of the universe. I don’t see quantum physics as refutation to his theory, the refutation to his theory is that it’s intractable because lot of physics we see seems like computational irreducible just like np complete problems, so you cannot analytically solve them hence good luck with deriving them from basics without actually simulating them, moreover what truly makes his efforts futile is that he is right but it’s useless because if infinite many universes can exist and ours is one of them then the theory of everything isn’t same as theory of our visible universe , our universe simply part of infinite set of universes, so as I said theory of everything is literally everything.
Neutron decay cosmology is inevitable. A definitive model for the universe is impossible. There are multiple models which each have their values and drawbacks. There are many ways to describe something, which is best for the conditions is the question.
I've always thought that the correlations produced in quantum entanglement experiments can be understood using classical concepts. For example, two particles interact and their subsequent momenta are related via classical conservation law. The relationship holds as long as the particles aren't disturbed during their trips to the filters and detectors, and it's the locally produced relationship between the entangled particles that determines the observed correlations. The precise mechanics of this is unknown. Will advances in instrumentation and detection reveal a more or a less classical understanding of quantum entanglement? I enjoyed this video. Thanks for your work. Thumbs up and subscribed.
I agree but I believe it will be similar to Wolfram's "Rules". Such that there is a certain geometry or structure or nature of the Universe such that Small Things or Energy or Maybe Information itself must act as waves to propagate. And this Rule Or Nature has to be connected to Black Holes. Its like taking a Derivative where you have limits and can get multiple answers from one Function. Or add two Water Waves together. We know they Molecules but they never act as single molecules. And furthermore understanding a single Water Molecule explains nothing about the Water wave. The Wave itself is just energy. You and I both agree with Einstein's OG problem with Quantum Mechanics. WHY? If we can figure out WHY Wave-Particle duality maybe revealed as 100% logical. In fact I think it will reveal a New Type of Logic.
Tim- what gets me about Eric Weinstein is his anger- he is always raging at "the community" as if there is a plot to exclude brilliant people and theories. Brian Keating seems very affable but has an underlying anger (Losing the Nobel Prize). Saw a Video with Fridman where Weinstein says he is too busy. to publish his recent update and it kind of seems like a poor excuse
To explain and unite entanglement, special relativity, and quantum mechanics, would not the solution be found to be outside all of these systems? It is this outside system that crushes them all into one?
Agree. I am an engineer. We solve contradictions all the time. Entanglement poses the contradiction "how can particles be local and non-local at the same time?'. One solution is that they are non-local in the three dimensions of space but local in another hidden dimension (as in string theory). Another solution is that all matter/energy in the universe was once concentrated in a single space (singularity/big bang) so even though it is not local today, it was local 14 billion years ago. An engineer would call this 'separation in time'.
@@audiodead7302 I agree and my understanding of the wave-particle duality is that a wave becomes a particle (quantum wave function) when the wave is disturbed. And according to QM, everything is a wave and when disturbed becomes what we observe as particle (an excitation of the quantum field) and loses its superposition and entanglement.
@@davidrandell2224 So then, if it is all outside, then something quite unusual, and would seem silly to us, like some Greek mythology, but be based on all scientific observations and equations. Science still do not know what the fabric of space is except it is dynamic.
12:00 Ethereum's switch to proof-of-stake is a disaster because only proof-of-work can protect decentralisation. The bit about proof-of-work "wasting energy" is an old FUD by now. The way that power grids work _in real life_ is quite counterintuitive, there are good descriptions and analyses of it available, ditto for the relevant energy use. Scott definitely knows his physics but he hasn't done his homework yet re. digital currencies.
How about CIG Theory? Click on the link above. Who knows... Maybe it's right. Even if partially correct, that would be awesome! Comments are appreciated. If it isn't correct, we are back to square 1.
Erics theory is an intenstional chimura.. a.liars paradox. The mere fact you are discussing it to shoot it down proves how solid it is. He is correct it will stand the test of time. Just like the liars paradox. 0:36
The bells experiment doesnt show the world as quantum. It shows energy that way. But that could be due to a lack of understanding of the fields in which energy travels. The word particle is kind of a misnomer when it comes to energy. To my knowledge we havent shown quantum entanglement on objects wifh mass? Am i incorrect about this ?
The problem with Weinstein's theory is that it can't predict anything - which is kind of a problem. The problem with Weinstein himself is his collosal ego - which is kind of a problem. (I was going to use "kinda" when I remembered I was among fellow nerds not in the Bro-sphere!)
I’d be more impressed if these guys produced what was necessary to make GU a more rigorous (colloquial) theory. Currently Eric is trying to softball the uap community into believing his theory is what is missing with regard to post einsteinian physics
I suggest a hydrodynamic model, with space a dielectric fluid of variable density from Lambda, to a bit past neutron. Charge is caused by the flow of the dielectric fluid of space, just like in any dielectric fluid. For example, a proton has mass, which causes a convergence of space, creating positive charge, which is convergence. And negative charge is divergence of flow. This makes room for curl being a of a fundamentally different level, the Aharonov Bohm effect. And neutrinos. Look up Hydrodynamic Solution to Schrodinger Equation on arxiv
Not, sure about the merit of Steven's ideas, but he seems to me to be an extremely brilliant man. Hes definitely no fool. He also seems to be extremely open minded. He seems to be really confident in his idea
What is the difference between Eric Weinstein's field of expertise and Timothy's? Have they both studied the same mathematical theories or is Eric's knowledge deeper in for example geometric mathematics? I ask this question because scientists will often have a hunch of what certain solutions could be before they get to prove it mathematically.
Wolfram, Weinstein, and similar people looking for greatness make the classical mistake of overestimating their reasoning abilities and underestimating the importance of listening to criticism.
We need people like this guy talking to the public. We keep ending up with pop sci communicators that spew BS to elevate their status and profile. Then they suffer from generating click bait videos on top of it and the next thing you know we’re getting even more BS.
There's a bit of a difference between making this and that simple program as a kid and publishing a rigorous work like A New Kind of Science. And it's not that Wolfram presents the fundamentals of that publication as something totally new and undiscovered - but again: Rigor is the key. In A New Kind of Science, Wolfram doesn't set out to come up with a new foundation for physics. Very, very far from it. At the very end of the book he ruminates about where the idea of computation might lead and there are very short chapters about biology, intelligence, physics and so on. To say that 'Aaronson's review of Wolfram's "New Kind of Science"' is very, very far off point.
At best we are probably explaining human perspective of the universe. Our own psyche. 😆 Our language is not random we definitely designed it numbers and math included to be an aproximinate instrument to use in studying our world and conveying it to others. Nothing about it is random or preferred by the universe. In fact if AI was sentient and able to Speak true universal language it would not use our language. if it did prefer our code over anything else that would indicate way more than evolutionary randomized views.
That's appealing to authority which I keep telling people that it isn't a fallacy if the people arguing are totally clueless. There are better more comprehensive proofs which would take years for us amateurs to fully understand.
@@5678plm sometimes logical fallacies are true. At least I conceptually understand Godel's theorem and appears to be a show stopper for TOE. Gage theory? not a clue.
@@5678plm sometimes logical fallacies are true. At least I conceptually understand Godel's theorem and appears to be a show stopper for TOE. Gage theory? not a clue.
@@jonathansachs1979 It is spelled "gauge theory". Also, Gödel's incompleteness theorem does not imply that a TOE can't be found in any possible universe. It is entirely possible to have a program produce a copy of its source code as part of the data it operates on. However, I wouldn't entirely rule out that the incompleteness theorems may, uh, well, point to a reason why it might be possible that it is impossible for us to find a TOE. So, it might be ("might be" as in, "as far as I know") that in some logically consistent hypothetical universes, that it isn't possible to discover (and demonstrate with high confidence) the exact laws of physics of that hypothetical universe within that hypothetical universe, and specifically that this being impossible could be due to incompleteness, or that the existence-as-a-possibile-hypothetical of such a hypothetical universe was in some other way a consequence of incompleteness. But, I'm pretty sure that isn't true of all logically consistent hypothetical universes in which questions of "what are the laws of physics?" could be formulated by entities within it. (And perhaps in the actual universe a TOE can't be found, but, we can't conclude that from incompleteness by itself, I think.)
5:25 Why are you contorting Wolfram's claims? Bell's inequality speaks about _local_ theories, and ruliad is not local. Moreover it is not based on cellular automata, they are there just as an example of how complex behavior may arise from simple rules. The theory is based upon graph rewritings, all possible rewritings in fact, which is in principle similar to many-worlds QM. Notice for instance the difference between simple non-qubit cellular automata and graphs: the first has built-in dimensionality of 1, and second's dimensionality is variable depending roughtly speaking on how fast the graph is growing at the moment of time.‼
Timothy you are an excellent host for letting your guest speak their concept in a reasonable amount of time without interrupting them like most hosts do.
A hypergraph and a shiab operator walk into a (h)bar...
The question of who deserves credit for an idea is uninteresting to me. “A New Kind of Science” is an amazing book, not only because of the visualizations, but also because of its clear and thought provoking discussions of many, many different topics in a unified framework. My favorite is its discussion of “computational irreducibility,” a concept that is philosophically significant. This is to say nothing of the countless historical and technical discussions in its endnotes. No “tragedy” here; just a book that should be celebrated for discussions that can be explored or criticized. And if through criticizing one of its ideas, Scott hit upon some original ideas, that too speaks to the value of book, i.e., its potential to stimulate a scientific debate.
Bought a new kind of science. Children's book masquerading as a serious one
Wtf? You lost me at you philosophy. You have lots of words that illuminate nothing. You're in the wrong room. Theology class is down the hall and to the left.
@@rajeevgangal542 You'd know.
@@rajeevgangal542 You must be a Particle Physicist.
Ah, and here my disinterest ends. I look around the world and wonder why people interject such emotion into societal questions we can reason through, but I must admit I like to mix great science ideas with the personalities of their discoverers. That's probably a failing of mine and I'm jealous of your ability to step back.
Awesome podcast I think Wolframs exploration is very different and lot more thought out than given credit. In my opinion it is what physics needs it is not necessarily a deep theory as yet but what is cool is that it is playing with graphs as a fundamental structure which is a really flexible yet tangible mathematical structure. Another interesting thing about the project is the parallel to computational category theory and computational chaos theory. I believe ultimately if the project does not further physics it will atleast further computational mathematics.
It's a lot of Jontan Gorard's work that have found mathematical way to get relativity and quantum physics out from Wolframs hypergrafs. I can't evaluate how good it is but the model is attractive in many ways. I agree that it's not probable that they have the right details in the model but that it can further the understanding and math either way. And we should also see string theory in a similar way.
I am interested in the claims about quantum computing. I also reacted to when Wolfram spoke about quantum computing probably not being possible when others say they have working quantum computers...
Erik Weinstein's comment on Wolfram physics project is also interesting. He said that it's getting to particles and the standard model of physics that is hard and that the Wolframs physics project haven't started with that, so it's not that interesting.
And yet, he hasn't made any predictions or new discoveries. Science usually starts with a conjecture about a new idea following by an explanation. All Wolfram seems to be doing is attempting to explain existing ideas with cellular automata.
@@snarkyboojum tbf neither has string theory. Theories at that scale, especially ones that try to unify qm and gr, simply aren't "practically" testable. Technically they are, but we can't build the tools. That doesn't mean the ideas aren't worth exploring.
Of course, explore all ideas - the good ones will naturally attract others to follow suit. The ideas with little merit (like String theory) will eventually die out. @@user-yo6xb6ud6d
@@user-yo6xb6ud6d I dont think lack of testable prediction is a good criticism for Quantum Gravity scale either
What notable about Wolfram's theory which claims to be theory of everything is, for a theory with as much evidence as string theory, it doesn't even have a toy model that works like how string theory reduces to GR and QFT at long distance limit...
And people (especially those with undergrad/high school level of understanding of physics) slandered String Theorists (even though no String Theorist claims they are the next Newton, creating "new" science, Witten explicitly said there are a lot of mysteries they don't understand at fundamental level)
Physicists would take Wolfram's theory more seriously if it only claims to be a discrete model that reproduces some tiny aspect of gravity and some tiny aspect of quantum field.
Many lay people probably already prefer Wolfram's "new" physics than other alternatives (That require understanding actual physics and see the difficulties with quantization of spacetime instead of playing with discrete rules) and ofc they readily tell physicists what to do :))
@2:35 This guy read and wrote a review of a massive physics book when he was 19 AND a he was grad student. I hate the fact that at that age I was just being a typical college kid. I didn't even know the beauty of physics and math until I was in my late 20's. Life isn't fair.
Check out June Huh's biography for inspiration.
😱
U can take comfort in the fact that, I had similar vision, but couldn't do anything cos I'm a brat with severely disorganised mind who started a lot of stuff but couldn't get anything done. So much so, that anyone will barely take me seriously anymore.
Oh! I'm from a 3rd world nation on top of all these.
I wrote reviews of world literature in highschool.
Doesn't both me, guys like him just live on a different plane than I do.
Wolfram seems to me to be incredibly intelligent and insightful. His conversation with Lee Smolin was amazing. The way he picked up what Lee was saying, and saying it back to him in his own language was amazing. He seems to me as competent as any other mathematical physicist
Agreed, and it is not just him others are involved
Stephen Wolfram is an absolute creative genius and very hard worker (a not to be underestimated quality). The fact he was able to snap out of the myopic pardigm that has dominated physics for the past 350+ years and, with the help of Jonathan Gorard, proposed a completely new way of looking at models for physics, inspired by his background in computer science, causal set theory, and with his concept of computational irreducibility in mind, is fantastic. Even if the paradigm of hypergraph rewriting rules fails to reproduce the adequate phenomena, it is still a step in the right direction by introducing this shocking new way of how to look at what the point of physics actually is; finding rules, as simple as possible, on data, such that it perfectly reproduces all the physical phenomena we care about. Whether that data might be discrete or continuous, or whatever is out there, and the rules applied to it simple differential equations or something else, doesn’t really matter too much. It might even be provably possible that the nature of those rules and the data it’s applied to might not even allow a physical observer to determine whether or not the underlying structure is discrete or continuous.
@@Ruktiet >shocking new way of how to look at what the point of physics actually is; finding rules, as simple as possible, on data, such that it perfectly reproduces all the physical phenomena we care about
😂
It's been done since Newton looking at Kepler's astronomy data and giant amount of unrelated observations of earthly objects and reduce them all to 3 simple rules. That's probably why Wolfram thought he's the next Newton 💀
Physicists haven't stopped doing it that way either, just that competent physicists who actually work out the details of their model and not just making big claims, will quickly realize, rules at least as simple as QR and QFT have so far produce huge gaps and inconsistencies (again, devil is in the details). Discretizing spacetime leads to breaking of Lorentz covariance and all kinds of mess. But of course you can wave it all away if you target different toy models
My opinion on Wolfram would drastically improve if either
1. he works out his model in details to like 1% of String theory that can reproduce both Gravity and Quantum Field Theory at low energy (I'm not asking for any observable prediction)
OR
2. His followers show some basic understanding of scientific method, physics, math
Wrong. The rules you are talking about, such as those of Kepler, still assume an underlying complex structure, as do the physicists you compare Stephen Wolfram to. The whole point of his ideas, which I find ground breaking, is to assume as little as possible, and find a structure which shows as much potential complexity as possible under that constraint, and then look for instantiations of that structure so that it shows all of the phenomena we observe in physics. For anyone who has read about his previous ideas from his “a new kind of science” book, the idea of simple rules which show complex behavior (sometimes computation) come to mind.
Inspired by causal set theory and his background in computer science, a hypergraph rewriting system was chosen. The rules as well as initial conditions are parametrizable, and thus exhaustively searchable, even though the search space is immense, even for very small initial nodes and simple rules.
Even if this approach does not lead to fruitful results, it is a very creative step in the right direction by at least challenging our anthropocentric assumptions.
And to be honest, I don’t understand why you care about the competence in classical subjects of his followers. First of all, it’s not the followers who develop the theory, and second of all, the theory is so low-threshold that even a high schooler can grasp it. It probably even helps people develop an interest in physics where they didn’t before@@TensorLiquidExp
@@Ruktiet I suppose I wasn't clear, but what you alleged to, finding the simplest rule set that reproduces observed phenomena, was what Newton and other physicists do too. I'm not saying there is nothing new about Wolfram's approach i.e. I'm not saying Newton started from nothing but discrete rules. I will elaborate why Wolfram's approach only sounds simple to laymen, but actually aren't simple to serious physicists.
Since you mention causal set, maybe by "underlying complex structure" you mean the background spacetime for events and interactions to happen, yes Newton and other physicists do assume that background exists and it's a continuum. That's how we do physics. Spacetime is not part of the "simple" rule system, the simple rules are what they created on top of it to describe data.
Given the trouble with how gravity is baked into spacetime itself unlike other forces, the obvious idea to quantize gravity would be to quantize spacetime. That's where people get the idea that, maybe we start from nothing but discrete rules and let spacetime emerge from discrete structures. Wolfram's approach is in this group.
(cont. below)
From wolframphyiscs:
Q: How can your models be consistent with Bell’s theorem?
A: Despite the deterministic nature of the Wolfram model, consistency with Bell’s theorem is actually a very natural consequence of the combinatorial structure of the multiway causal graph. By allowing for the existence of causal connections not only between updating events on the same branch of evolutionary history, but also between updating events on distinct branches of evolution history, one immediately obtains an explicitly nonlocal theory of multiway evolution. More precisely, one extends the notion of causal locality beyond mere spatial locality, since events that are branchlike-local will not, in general, also be spacelike-local. Therefore, one is able to prove violation of the Bell-CHSH inequality in much the same way as one does for standard deterministic and nonlocal interpretations of quantum mechanics, such as the de Broglie-Bohm or causal interpretation.
Saving
It sounds like the multiway model is a quantum version of cellular automata, with a dash of Many Worlds thrown in, which could be very interesting if they can get concrete predictions out of it and see if it makes different ones than standard QM.
The Fine Structure constant is the RATIO of Electron / Quantum Foam Terminal Velocity DIVIDED BY The Terminal Velocity of Photon Vacuum Terminal Velocity AKA FS == Ve/c. Wolfram is only half way there and therefor half wrong! Kaku and Carol are ELITIES THAT CENSOR THE TRUTH OF THE "VACUUM'S AMBIENT EM FIELD": @FiringRoom1 Cosmic Redshift is due to HAWKLING EVAPORATION OF PHOTONS PERIOD END OF STORY... WE KNEW THIS IN THE 1970s! Photons Redshift Via Hawking Evaporation of Not "Virtual" EM Field Inertial Dipole Planck Particles: th-cam.com/video/-fNdCKgmCZQ/w-d-xo.html
There is also the superdeterminism explanation which is what Gerard 't Hooft's hypothesis of "The Cellular Automaton Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics" uses. Of course superdeterminism is viewed unfavourably but it circumvents Bell's Theorem and it is up to physicists to disprove it, or live with it.
@@MightyDrunken It's true that superdeterminism is logically possible. But I read 't Hooft's book on his ideas for a superdeterminism form of quantum theory, but in it he states that he has no real mathematical theory that works (that can reproduce the predictions of QM). And it is not the case that physicists have to accept any idea or theory they can't disprove. An extreme example is - they can't disprove that a God exists, but that doesn't mean that according to physics they have to accept that one does exist. It's the other way around - Fermi or someone remarked that such ideas are "not even wrong" because they cannot be proven nor disproven (at least within current knowledge. of that that could change).
Appreciate that both these men are focused on trying to determine the scientific truth and that its not about discrediting or mocking the other 2
I sensed at least a little bit of mocking.
When will the full episode be released? Thanks. 😃
Stephen said plain and simple, you can literally go on his website and click the peer review button. He made you a button to click so you can _actually refute sections of his work_ . If you know what you’re talking about, anyway.
This is awesome, Tim. I look forward to listening to this.
I was encouraged to hear Scott confirm in such a colorful way what is obvious to any self-respecting thinker, that even if your paper had been scrawled on a bathroom wall it, it clearly deserves to be taken seriously. I have not given up hope that he will come around and square his shoulders to talk to you. I think a lot of good can come of it.
Correction: bathroom urinal.
Just came across your podcast &this is exactly the content I've been looking for. Keep up the work, highly appreciate it!
Glad to see Scott acknowledging that Wolfram's recent theory is promising. Not sure why he spent so long refuting his old work which didn't involve multiway systems. They are entirely different beasts, and his original criticism does not apply to the newer formalism.
@17:32 basically making Wolfram sound like Terrance Howard with his pretty shapes lol
Hey Timothy, finally watched this video. A few comments:
1. One could argue that Wolfram does take too much credit for some ideas (such as the universe is computational in nature), but it is true that no one else has explored them to the depth that he has.
2. Aaronson is correct about the limitations of the ANKOS deterministic cellular automata model in describing quantum phenomena (such as the Bell inequality).
3. However, his "refutation" of the hypergraph model is disappointing: it's not much other than, "Well, I don't see how these low-level machine code could lead to the higher-level physics I am familiar with, so who cares?" Like I said above, I am not aware of a theory of everything that is as fundamentally computational as this one, and it is disappointing to see the current generation of physicists like Aaronson and Hossenfelder dismiss it so easily.
4. Your following observation is on point: even if Wolfram turns out to be wrong, he is willing to handle criticism, unlike Weinstein and Keating. IMHO, one is far more intellectually deep and honest than the other. The worst intellectual mistake to make is to even begin to compare Wolfram and Weinstein's theories of everything, which are not at all at the same level.
Hey Trishank. I have not spent time studying Wolfram's work so I can't comment on his work or Scott's criticism. And yes, Weinstein and Wolfram are not to be compared. This was simply an off the cuff conversation with Scott, who could comment on Wolfram, and myself who could comment on Weinstein.
@@TimothyNguyen I understand, but the title doesn't accurately reflect that. Anyway, hope you to get read up on Wolfram's work and interview him someday!
@Trishank Karthik Kuppusamy Just curious, what would you propose as a title? Also I invited Wolfram onto my podcast previously (which would motivate me to read up on his work) but it seems he's not interested.
@@TimothyNguyen Maybe "Nguyen and Aaronson on why Wolfram's TOE is scientific even if wrong vs Weinstein's", but someone (or an LLM) needs to work on making it catchier
@@TimothyNguyen the problem with this computational theory is that it makes the claim that underlying computation gives rise to quantum mechanics and the observable universe. Another is that they admit it is fully deterministic. Quantum mechanics is observably probabilistic in nature. The third is the peer review aspect. It’s not much of a technical critique, but it’s one that needs to be noted, because you need to have people in the scientific community verifying its consistency with known physics. My takeaway from the whole thing (from some of his fans I talked to) is that they take a philosophical position (computational equivalence) and run with it as a physical truth. Basically like saying all 2s are identical. More specifically, just because I can implement a Turing Machine in the card game Magic the Gathering, and that that Turing machine is in some sense the same as one implemented on a computer, or in the game of life, that doesn't imply anything about the universe.
Also, our universe is computable, but not in the sense that it is a simulation. You can simulate things about the universe on the computer, but that’s still taking a huge leap to saying the universe is some sort of computational system.
As far as the views of Hossenfelder among physicists, she’s good at what she does, but her cellular automata theory with t’Hooft isn’t much better. One of the key things that’s wrong with it is the idea of superdeterminism which is unfalsifiable.
Hi wondering about how adult learners/mature students tend to do in physics programs. I went to UBC for biochem right after high school but dropped out after a year after some big family issues. I'm nearly 28 now and have been in plumbing/pipefitting ever since. I go through my old textbooks sometimes and do some basic problems, listen to science podcasts/talks, read scifi and generalist science books from rovelli, susskind and greene. No kids and wouldn't need student loans. Thinking of going to school for maybe mining engineering, geophysics or physics if there is a recession and im out of the job.
You’ll do great! It seems like you have the spark to learn. I’m a working engineer and I keep learning stuff, and I learn it a lot better than when I was in school. In fact, I would say that it makes more sense to go to college now.
You also have a much better appreciation for the world, and for the physical world as you work with your hands. This is underrated! So please figure out going back to school as you clearly have the love of learning in you.
dude, just do it. School is much easier than working life, particularly if you're interested and motivated. A degree in physics will get you work in basically any field, especially if you have nominal people skills and you're not a weirdo. As an adult learner, I've often felt like I had crazy advantages over my classmates who are 18 and 20. You'll understand what I'm talking about when you get in.
In my view, there is no replacement for _doing_ the problems, struggling with them, and thinking them through. if you want a head start, get a textbook, and work through the chapters. MIT Open Courseware is great.
I was a heroin addict throughout my late teens and young adult life. At 26, I got clean and started working in a rehab as a counselor. I went back to school at 30, originally planning to get a degree in psychology while I continued to work. Today, I'm 34, wrapping up Waves and Optics, majoring in Comp Sci, and I couldn't be happier. I have a 4.0 and transferring to a UC school. I never thought of myself as "math person" (still don't), and I didn't even _like_ math until Calc 2. If I could do it, anyone can.
@@wolfumz I LOVE this message. It’s totally true - this nonsense that we have in our society that you have to finish some thing by a certain age is rubbish. You can totally go to college in your 20s/30s and later and do fantastic!
If you've kept the "mathematics-knives" slightly sharp you ought to do just as fine on that part as you would've at 19. You will have a "slight" advantage in maturity, which should help you loads, not least with motivation and drive.
I don't think Stephen Wolfram has produced a model of the universe as yet the project is ongoing.
Gerard 't Hooft has a very similar theory to Stephen Wolfram's for quantum mechanics as a cellular automaton. He clearly shows how Bell's theorem does NOT rule out a local hidden variable theory of this type, because this theory is completely deterministic, and therefore the counterfactual logic used in discussions of Bell's theory are completely invalid. This has been termed "superdeterminism" of course, and even early on it was recognized by Clauser et al. as a loophole which was dismissed and termed a "conspiracy against the experimenter" back in the 1970s. One can even make the argument that the simplest interpretation of the Bell experiments is exactly the opposite of what most physicists think, and that is that the universe is simply perfectly deterministic, local, and causal.
This is what I thought also and I thought Aaronson would have mentioned this in passing at least. The more I think about superdeterminism the more I think it can't be dismissed. There is an underlying correlation or information imprinted on everything in the universe, that allows Bell's experiments to appear violate the Bell inequality.
In other words it is not possible to get a purely random number to pick the orientation of the measurement device.
Great, lively discussion.
"That's kind of a detail for the technicians to work out". I think this is what is profoundly disturbing about Weinstein's work at least. He's outsourcing the responsibility of making this correct while taking on no professional risk himself. When someone did look at his work, voluntarily - that's you, Timothy - and they came up with results that were sub-optimal, he turned into a bully. It was quite grotesque. Why doesn't Weinstein just fund a research lab into alternative theories? It's the problem with these entrepreneurs playing scientist - even if they have a strong academic background, they get so used to being obeyed and said yes to that they lose the ability to take the scathing levels of criticism needed to do any real work in these fields.
Hes a disturbed guy. Him and his brother have personality issues
Can you provide some evidence 9f weinstein acting like a bully?
so your upset that he is a theoretical physicist instead of an experimental one......... don't know why though. everyone acting like this is some big controversial thing. when this is very typical...... we need both, and many ideas was thought up long before they could be tested and proven! it doesn't mean all of those ideas was disturbing or nonsense just because the person couldn't or wouldn't test them at that time!!
countless projects usually involve more than one person to test ideas. mainly being that just because you have an idea doesn't mean your the best choice to testing it out or tweaking it. therefore you build a team of many people from different fields and they come together and start testing it. its pretty fucking expensive to put a lot of these ideas through the ringer when you doing so on your own dime. this is the very reason Eric has teamed up with wolfram, they are still building their ideas.
lets use Einstein as our last example. if he would have listened to his critics after his very first pass at his theory he never would have wrote another word on the subject because at the time it was wrong and most of his peers thought the ideas was nuts............. lol and for some of us still think its wrong.
@@KeCasgrimola
i beg to differ. they don't tell lies.
let's see your theories, or anything you have ever created.
By the way, Tim, if you and your colleague would have written a paper CONFIRMING the claims of Eric Weinstein regarding Geometric Unity, Eric's obdurate and absurd dismissal of the critique would disappear.
Scott is wrong about hidden variables, because he misinterprets cellular automata as a non-local theory. Wolfram's theory is consistent with both Bell inequality and special relativity, because it is *superdeterministic*, i.e. it violates statistical independence.
This is also what I got from Wolfram's description of it, glad it's not just me!
So is it superdeterministic? I keep getting mixed answers when I ask this question.
@@thatonegamer9547 according to Jonathan Gorard, this theory is consistent with Bell's theorem in the same way other deterministic theories featuring non-local hidden variables do. This was stated during the second wolfram physics project stream (technical q&a)
Lol him calling his theory superdeterministic basically is a cop-out for the failure of his theory to explain Bell's theorem. Superdeterminism is essentially like saying Bell's theorem is satisfied either by coincidence or divine intervention.
That’s even worse! 😂😂😂
Nice. Where's the full thing of this? Is it upcoming or already up somewhere?
Full episode coming out soon!
@Timothy Nguyen wicked. Always enjoy your vids!
@@TimothyNguyen why do you have on a politicised mental patient?
do you also prefer your presidents to be walking vegetables destroying the country?
Bell inequality violations just mean that at least one of the assumptions of Bell's Theorem is wrong.
No it doesn't.
@@brothermine2292 Yes it does. The only other interpretation you can have is that QM, as currently formulated, is correct. But guess what, that's wrong, because QM is KNOWN to be internally inconsistent, due to the linearity of the Schrödinger equation contradicting the nonlinearity of the measurement process. Not to mention the other issues it fails to address including the measurement problem and the Heisenberg cut.
@@maxwelldillon4805 : It occurs to me that there's more than one way to express Bell's Theorem, so your phrase "the assumptions of Bell's Theorem" is ambiguous. It's doubly ambiguous, because you could also be referring to assumptions listed in the theorem's conclusion, such as assumptions x & y if the theorem is expressed as "if p & q, then either x is false or y is false." Why don't you name the assumptions of Bell's Theorem, to help clarify your claim?
@@brothermine2292 look up statistical independence
Sabine Hossenfelder has a good video about this
@@brothermine2292
OP is right, it just isn't talked about. I'll tell you the exact assumption Bell made in a moment, which is from a semi-recent paper. And I don't mean what Sabine has going on with her far too philosophical idea of Superdeterminism (which is ironic given her arrogant disposition toward philosophy). Sabine's idea results from scrutiny and relaxation of the statistical independence assumption as another commenter pointed out. But we don't need to get philosophical about Free Will. The implicit assumption Bell made when deriving his inequalities is Ergodicity.
Bell assumed that the stochastic processes induced by quantum measurements are Ergodic. There's a 2005 paper about this by Andrei Khrennikov about this called "Buonomano against Bell: non-ergodicity or non-locality?"
In that paper, he shows that both non-locality and non-ergodicity would result from a violation of the Bell Inequalities. That means a violation of them produces two indistinguishable results. Until this is experimentally investigated by the quantum foundations folks, we cannot know for certain whether violations of the Bell Inequalities are due to non-locality or non-ergodicity.
What does Scott mean by "freshly generated randomness" when he says that's implied by Bell's theorem? Bell's theorem showed that local hidden variables can't explain entanglement correlations. But it doesn't imply the correlations cannot be explained by *nonlocal* hidden variables. I don't see why nonlocal hidden variables can't offer a deterministic quantum theory, in which "fresh" randomness is not fundamental randomness.
Yep. I don't know why he claimed it as a proof of randomness. It's not that at all. In fact "freshly generated randomness" seems a silly idea since on the average the results of this randomness converge to many decimal places to an exact value.
@Carl Hitchon : Why do you say the average converges to an exact value? That sounds very wrong, because probabilities are just probabilities and each trial is presumably independent of the other trials. Can you provide an example to illustrate what you mean?
@@brothermine2292 For example the experiment referred to in Bell's theorem. Each time the experiment is done, a "random" result is produced, however QM predicts the results of many, many tries to be an exact value. So the supposedly "freshly generated randomness" of each trial, isn't really random, it has a bias predicted by QM that in the long run converges to an exact value. In other words the "randomness" is smart, it knows how to produce exactly a certain ratio of results.
Therefore calling this "pure randomness" is incorrect IMO.
@@carlhitchon1009 : That "convergence to an exact value" still sounds wrong. Like a random walk with exact 1/2 probability of stepping right or left, the expected value (after an even number of steps) may be exactly zero but the actual measured distance from zero after n steps has a standard deviation that _increases_ with n. Please be clearer about *which calculation* on Bell test measurements you believe converges to an exact value.
@@brothermine2292 Off hand I don't remember all the details, but in the entangled photons with polarizers experiment, which is similar to the magnet one Bell used, QM math produces exact values for the average number of coincidences of states of the photons depending on the angle between polarizers.
The average number of coincidences is impossible to explain with local hidden variables. That is what Bell proved. Some non local conspiracy is at work.
A random walk does not converge. But the behavior of photons does to a very high degree of precision.
If we flip a "fair" coin long enough the ratio of heads and tails converges to precisely 1/2. The reason is obvious, the coin has no bias because it's symmetrical.
We can calculate results with QM, but we really don't have a deep understanding of why it is the way it is.
It seems to me that physicists are quite slow to accept what Bell demonstrated. Nature is non local.
Hey! You rock, man!
Excellent, thank you!
I usually have something to say to videos like these but I can't find anything wrong with it or anything to add.
I like to watch Brian Keating and he often has Eric as a guest, and, weirdly, when I mention you, many GU fans will claim that you never read Eric's Apr. 1, 2021 paper, even though on Apr. 2, 2021 you published a tweet stating that you had indeed read that paper and it answered not one of your concerns.
Apparently the GU community never read your tweet and are still upset that you never read the 69-page paper that you called "a testament to perseverence".
I am going to encourage Keating to have you on with Eric to discuss, not debate, the validity of his GU.
You seem to be an expert about it.
@uncompetative See: ZeroOskul This I Believe
You seem to have blocked me from replying to you.
No competition, right?
Quit competing.
If you can't say it straight, you don't understand it.
Quit it.
Go do a video about how you love GU.
I am not your audience.
@uncompetative Oh? So you can't go to a user page tap the dots and select "Block Account", and I have to indirectly reply to you or else my comment vanishes because of magic?
Wow!
Anyway: you don't understand GU.
See that thing I previously mentioned.
Ciao!
There's a difference between random and unpredictable. It has to do with the information entropy of the "signal". Cryptographically weak random numbers are mathematically predictable at least in volume. Cryptographically strong "random numbers" like what you get from quantum events in the same class as radioactive decay are unpredictable (the kind Helmut Schmidt used). What the Strong Fee Will Theorem is talking about is Choice which is unpredictable vs. deterministic and/or random which are predictable within bounds. The implication is when an experimenter chooses a setup for their experiment, the particles chooses their response. The particles response is as unpredictable as the experimenters choice. I think it was Conway who did a lecture on a Gedankenexperiment where you have a deterministic and a random universe and he showed how they are mathematically identical.
Scott Aaronson is my spirit animal
Being a bit of a naïf about all this, what are the most concrete predictions Weinstein's/Wolfram's TOEs make which are plausibly testable or outrageously intuitively compelling beyond where we are today?
I think Wolfram has proposed a few (mostly vague) consequences at this point, but one that stuck with me is that his formulation suggests that entanglement has a maximum speed like c, but larger. No idea if any thought has been put into how to test that.
@@phulcq6716Entanglement has a speed? Huh?
@@jay31415 it's not part of standard QM, but I believe it's one of the predictions of Wolfram's model.
Fascinating discussion. One aspect is the notion of indeterminate things (states, variables, properties, …), as though this must be different from mathematics. Well… maybe not. It turns out some of math is indeterminate too. Mathematicians don’t like to talk about it, because it directly confronts the mathematical conceit that math can figure out everything, but the sad truth is that some things are beyond determination. This hardly justifies a general disregard for mathematical precision. But it does suggest that there are limits.
Any mathematician worth their salt understands the implications of Goedel’s Incompleteness Theorem
Tweakable mathematical models are not necessarily descriptive of mechanism.
The standard of mathematical accuracy is an obstacle to understanding. The Copernican model was at first shabby at prediction compared to the epicyclic model.
To gain a truer understanding of planetary motions, Copernicus escaped geocentricism. Those who want to understand the fundamental need to escape chronocentricism and atomism.
Some masters of metaphysics and a few practitioners of high technology know … but physics may be lost in dogma for another century.
Loved what I saw so far, where is the rest of it?
22:20:
Scott: "I would think that, as an outsider to the area, clearly, clearly your paper deserved a thorough scientific response..."
Tim: "Thank you, thank you..."
Scott: "Regardless of, you know, if it had been scrawled in a bathroom urinal."
I'm dead
Keep up the good work, Tim!
Excuse my complete ignorance, but wasn't one of the crux of Wolframs theories is that some cellular automata algorithms exhibit what appears to be true randomness?
I don't think so. They exhibit pseudo randomness. Indistinguishable from true randomness. But entirely predictable (if you know the seed and the algorithm).
@@audiodead7302 ok but, bear with me, if the 'genesis' seed of a simulated universe was unknown would that predictability, you claim, still exist?
@@notlessgrossman163 If you didn't know the seed and algorithm, you wouldn't be able to predict the future. However, if you ran the 'simulation' over and over again (from the same initial conditions), you would get exactly the same result. So the 'simulation' is deterministic.
Last I seen, which was a while ago, I remember him mentioning they had created some Automata with rather basic rules which were shown to rather accurately model quantum mechanics and I personally with a little refinement could see this actually going somewhere. I forget what the name of it is but there is a similar way to simulate physics and QM using a three dimensional grid with energy potentials and the means of passing energy between each grid point is basic calculations yet can produce decent results. A theory like I seen from Wolfram could easily be envisions in which the big bang was the first "cell" in the simulations then all you see around us are simply emergent properties and such an idea would lend massive weight to the simulation hypothesis because we have ALREADY created such things. Just because they are simpler and do not run as long does not mean the walkers in The Game of Life are any less alive than you or I in that sense. Idk, I find it interesting.
@@audiodead7302 a simulation or for that matter, our universe being deterministic is a valid premise, .. in Wolframs theories he posits irreducible complexity, so your premise of a deterministic simulation would require running the simulation from the moment of creation, and QM would be on some level 'deterministic' as well. So yes the cellular automata algorithms seed may only simulate randomness but may be closer to the true nature of the universe. Eg. The measurement problem stems from trying to seperate the instrument from the subject.. just my layman's terms
Concerning the proof of stake that Ethereum has transitioned from Proof of work: It is totally an error, no matter how much money one has, the machines who does the mining can only be produced at most at a rate X owing to laws of nature, logistic, etc.
On the other hand, proof of stake, costs basically nothing e someone with enough money could potentially buy the whole blockchain (let's say the government for instance, on purpose to break the system). And there are many many more problems.
the point is that most attempts to get a unified theory are done by approaching the subject from a quantum mechanics point of view trying to fit gravity into it by "quantising" something we do not have a well defined fundamental theory of besides GR which has a more stringent range of validity than quantum mechanics; yet it is not clear to me how far of those who proposed a unified theory of their own, have actually tried to find gravity within quantum mechanics, something which has been suggested by both Roger Penrose and Sean Carroll, where Roger Penrose talks about "gravitising quantum mechanics" rather than quantising gravity. However, I'd be curious to know how the here three suggested approaches would account for a suggested "gravitisation" of quantum mechanics, any thoughts?
this was great 👍
Thank you
Ah I see, I was confused for a while at the start b/c I didn't realize the multi-way thing was newer than your critique.
As far as predictions go... string theory's predominance has really ruined at least the public's perception of physics: it kept on giving no testable predictions, and now every silly no-predictions theory can kinda be excused b/c "well, string theory was good enough".
What weirds me out though, is that Wolfram is very clear that his graph rewriting is computationally irreducible, which like... so it could do anything if you program it right? That doesn't sound even in-pronciple-testable. It was a fun romp for me though on the foundations of computing side!
I revisited this and decided you can have a Theory of a Lot of Stuff, but not a Theory of Everything. That would violate Goedel's Theorem. Besides, it's obvious we don't understand everything or our technology would be much more advanced. We'd have nuclear fusion and antigravity, at the very least.
Thanks!
Thank you!
I think Scott should come up with a complexity-theoretic theory of everything and you can refute it on gauge-theoretic grounds, and then you should come up with a gauge-theoretic theory of everything and Scott can refute it on complexity grounds. That would be fun.
Please, please, please, everybody here, learn the difference between rebutting and refuting. That would not only be fun, it would upgrade the conversation and this site's credibility. A rebutted idea is still alive, possibly even kicking; a genuinely refuted one is as dead as yesterday. Whether the rebuttals made here qualify as a refutation is exactly what's at issue.
@@markkennedy5479 Very True. Rebuttals are what makes Science. I agree with Einstein 100% on Copenhagen Interpretation. But Bohr did an Masterclass job of taking every single one of Einstein's rebuttals and countering them. Such a good job that questioning it became dogma. Which is unfortunate because like I said I think Einstein is right. We just need better Technology. The advancement of knowledge is actually directly related to idea of Complexity. The Island of Knowledge. And the Shores of Ignorance. Our Island got so big that are Shores of Ignorance became such that we couldn't believe our own eyes.
I noted many times that if a guy is so much convinced of what he’s doing is right (like Wolfram), he most certaintly is wrong.
this was so refreshing to watch; i love the convo! I dont know much about quantum, specifically, but I enjoyed listening to y’all two! Go tritons
i really don't understand why people seem to love wolfram's theory so much. not only its consistency with known physics is practically ignored, it's not even consistent with itself. its core assumption that the order of applying "transformation rules" does not matter is a very strong assumption (that is most likely simply wrong), yet he proposes it as an axiom.
Not defending his theory per se I’m just learning about it but I’m pretty sure he doesn’t say it “doesn’t matter” just that there is no way to tell the ways in which the order of transforms happens because any attempts to track that happen within that itself
@@Tardig he literally proposed this hypothesis that application order of the rules "averages out" over long time. this is a very convenient assumption because it allows him to calculate them in parallel much more efficiently than otherwise. however, that assumption is obviously false in many cases, it's trivial to find infinitely many counter examples.
@@Alexander_Sannikov You’re just slightly confused here about the model. QM an GR are inevitable consequences of the Hypergraph structure. That so long as there is a Hypergraph doing transformations, there will be QM and GR…since in every possible graph there are branching and merging of states.
So those theories emerge in all possible physics (along with energy and a few other properties irrespective of the particular Hyper-graph)
It’s pretty novel because it implies that space-time and quantum mechanics are universal features of systems…that in some sense all systems have some internal notion of spacetime relativity and notions of quantum mechanics. Idk if you ever heard Wolfram make jokes from time to time where he will mention some topic he is studying and then add -space as a suffix…like “and currency would be a feature of economic-space…” or another funny one is “invention-space”
They aren’t actually jokes…but a forwarding of that idea that systems following rules create these emergent notions of space within that system.
Emergence is necessary for any theory that is trying to unify any of these fundamental theories…and so this is where “averaging out” becomes important. Micro scale dynamics (the branching and merging going on in the Hypergraph) have to emerge macroscopic dynamics (space as we observe it) and so there really is no other way to do that…it’s also not strange considering that this is how physics typically works and it sounds like this is new news to people with regard to the wolfram model…like do you know what temperature is in thermodynamics? That is an emergent, approximation based notion of molecular movements.
Just discovering this now. Very interesting/entertaining. You and Scott are the right people for this dissection. But where's Eric to defend himself!? I fear he may remain a no show..
i'm sure tim can ask him for a chat anytime he likes.
I think Wolfram is right about Graphs being at the root of things, but he's going in the wrong direction - to the submicroscopic. The truth is in the opposite direction.
Nah they are connected directly. Waves and Energy are somehow directly related to Black Holes. You explain a Black Hole you explain Quantum Mechanisms and also vice versa. Its like they both break opposite spectrums of how we view reality.
Wat
Strong claim yet unfair from Scott about free will in connection with the Bell inequality violation. Free will is not ruled out by the latter.
Comparing wolfram and weinstein is rather unfair to the former.. weinstein is a… ‘public intellectual’
I agree. Wolfram has dedicated his life to learning mathematics and physics. I believe he has a pretty clear idea about what direction could be fruitful. He's probably wrong, but I think he'd rather know he's wrong if he is. Wolfram does what he does on his own dime and is trying to make a great advance in physical science. That's incredibly admirable.
Cooool! Nice debating
Totally misunderstanding wolframs point of view. He isn’t proposing a theory of everything, he’s creating a new discipline that describes computational systems. It’s a platform, it’s a toolbox. His claims are that the universe appears to be computational, and computational systems have inherent properties that are described by exploring the domain of all possible computations. You failed to do justice to his explanation of entanglement coming from the hyper graph. You made a straw man.
The strength of the scientific method is also its weakness. Once non-locality was established in the 60s and 70s any model that contains an axiomatic space time is a clear dead end. But the scientific community keeps working on these models (GR, QM,...) because we have nothing else remotely solid to stand on.
I'm not saying these two TOE are correct or even pointing in the right direction, but we can not refute them based on our accepted models, which are frankly house of cards right now.
It seems Scott still believes we just need to tweak gravity a little to fit QM and we are done! And non-locality is just a quirk of space, with nothing much to see there.
It's incorrect to say the Locality axiom has been falsified (by entanglement experiments verifying violation of Bell's Inequality). But I prefer Nonlocality over the other two alternatives, which seem less plausible: Nonreality or Superdeterminism. Nonlocal phenomena seem much more plausible, given how poorly space & time are understood.
@@brothermine2292 how exactly is locality not violated by non local behaviour? When you can go from A to C without ever passing by B then all bets are off. The only reason we have been able to keep working on these models after tunneling, superposition, and entanglement were formalised is because none of these states are contagious to the rest of the system. Meaning they decay to classical states very quickly so it's easy to ignore.
Space time needs to be an emergent property of any new serious theory, to be able to accommodate non locality.
@@simonlopes4301 : The premise of your question, "nonlocal behavior," is NOT proved by the violation of Bell's inequality. A lot of people lump together two axioms that are logically separable, calling the combination Local Realism if they're being precise, or Locality if they're sloppy. That combination is what has been disproved by the Bell inequality violation. (Except for the Superdeterminism loophole, which I think is an implausible way to hang on to Local Realism.) It's best to tease apart the two Local Realism axioms and recognize that either one can hold, but not both. You might want to search for the word "realism" in the Wikipedia page about Bell's Theorem.
@@brothermine2292 the axioms are the most vulnerable part of a model, if they aren't rock solid then the model has no hope. The fact that we have had to go back and put an asterisk next to them shows how fragile the whole thing is.
IMHO all these brain gymnastics we have to do to square our observations with the axioms we are tied to are just patches to a sinking ship.
All I am saying is that if we want a model that isn't faced with the measurement problem ( which is at the root of all non local behaviour ) then we necessarily have to go back and remove space, time, spacetime from the axiomatic foundation of the model.
I understand why we keep kicking this dead cat, because there is nothing better to do, but every physicist deep down knows something is rotten in the state of Denmark. They just keep working to feed the applied science folk new data, so that the engineers dont go out of a job.
But I believe GR and QM have given us all they can in the fundamental understanding of our universe
@@simonlopes4301 : Based on that non-answer to my question, I tentatively assume you can't identify any of "the assumptions in Bell's Theorem" that you claimed at least one must be wrong. Perhaps what you really meant in your original comment is that one of the assumptions in the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics (and in some other interpretations of quantum mechanics?) must be wrong.
But Realism is NOT one of the assumptions in the Copenhagen interpretation. Bohr said particles don't have properties before the properties are observed.
Personally, I kind of agree with you that something seems to be rotten in the foundations of QM, and that it's probably due to the Founders' firm belief in Locality (which Einstein called Separability) despite their not knowing much about the nature of space or time. I think Einstein overreached in 1905 when he said the photo-electric effect implies light is a particle, because it actually only implies the light is entirely absorbed (by an electron) when any portion of the light is absorbed. The belief in Locality -- "what happens at a location in spacetime is unaffected by everything outside the location's past lightcone" -- is what led Einstein to his "particle" conclusion, because if light is instead a wave, then a moment before the light wave is entirely absorbed by the electron, some of the wave was outside the past lightcone of the location where it is absorbed... contrary to Locality.
Absorption of the entire wave, including its nonlocal portion, would solve the Measurement Problem. Collapse of the light's Schrodinger wavefunction would simply correspond to absorption of the entire wave at the electron's location. The principle should generalize to other kinds of interactions besides absorption: when part of a wave interacts at a location in spacetime, the entire quantum of the wave interacts at that location.
Compton scattering was interpreted by the Founders of QM as confirmation that light is a particle. But it actually only confirmed that light isn't a *classical* wave. It didn't establish that light isn't a non-classical (quantum) wave.
It's surprising to me that Einstein apparently didn't reconsider Locality and "particle or wave" after his 1935 paper on the Einstein-Rosen bridge (aka wormhole).
Unfortunately, Einstein didn't live long enough to see Bell's Theorem and the experimental confirmation that nature violates Bell's inequality exactly as QM predicts. It shows that one of the axioms in the EPR Theorem must be wrong. The violation of Bell's inequality implies local hidden variable theories are wrong. But it does not imply QM is complete.
yt algorithm spun you up after listening to Randall Carlson & Graham Hancock on Joe Rogan. Go figure ;) Please continue sir. Every moment you are experiencing is a moment... only... for ... you.
15:28 Scott does not understand how physics progresses. Like jazzmen, physicists riff off the peers . Einstein was inspired by Langevin for the special relativity and other « technicians » such as Minkowski further elaborated the maths behind Einstein’s ideas. The maths concepts used were built by Poincaré. Breakthrough in science is never a lonely achievement even if history tries to assume do. Bell himself was unable to perform the physical experiments, other « technicians » such as Alain Aspect did , later awarded by Nobel prize.
Eric knows his theory is incomplete, it's at best a very imaginative conflation of spinners and Riemann geometric shapes. The theory is hollow, full of self induced inconsistencies to the point where Eric himself fumbles during his presentations.
Perhaps this was just a sideways insight to the lack of imagination and stagnation in new physics.
Among fundamental mathematical physicists string theorists is putting up the so far and likely to remain the best fight against the possibility that it is an actually infinite and timelessly eternal energy patterning process that brought this universe and all us earthlings about.
Tim, I was a Long-Horn undergraduate and love this speaker (a UT man). Your AZN bro.
Im not understanding the disconnect for Wolframs discrete theory and quantum entanglement. Both his theory and accepted theory use local realism in practice (we still believe and practically use the belief that the moon is there even if we arnt looking at it) and only apply entanglement in special situations...so it doesnt seem to be an argument specifically addressing his theory's problems without also turning a mirror to accepted dogma. Discrete v continuum is the real difference, and if anything it seems a discrete theory makes one less untestable and unobservable assumptions about the existence of an actual infinity. The later is always going to be easier to work with as a lot of equations simplify using calculus and infinitesimal quantities, but I worry we are mistaking convenience for truth. Ultimately, both theories are going to have to accept some kind of solipsm which is really not baked well into either.
i guess that diminishing wolfram's points laughing at them with you know ^n is very limited.
Wolfram’s theory of everything is literally everything, what he is saying of all possible infinite universes ours is one of them, so his idea is to start from random basic state and random evolution rules and hit the jackpot of our universe, he is sort of brute forcing the problem and seems very unlikely we will end up with the right result even if he spends all the computational resources available for age of the universe. I don’t see quantum physics as refutation to his theory, the refutation to his theory is that it’s intractable because lot of physics we see seems like computational irreducible just like np complete problems, so you cannot analytically solve them hence good luck with deriving them from basics without actually simulating them, moreover what truly makes his efforts futile is that he is right but it’s useless because if infinite many universes can exist and ours is one of them then the theory of everything isn’t same as theory of our visible universe , our universe simply part of infinite set of universes, so as I said theory of everything is literally everything.
I’ll give aaronsen this: he is very entertaining.
Neutron decay cosmology is inevitable.
A definitive model for the universe is impossible. There are multiple models which each have their values and drawbacks. There are many ways to describe something, which is best for the conditions is the question.
I dare you all to try and prove Salvatore Pais theory wrong through test.
I've always thought that the correlations produced in quantum entanglement experiments can be understood using classical concepts. For example, two particles interact and their subsequent momenta are related via classical conservation law. The relationship holds as long as the particles aren't disturbed during their trips to the filters and detectors, and it's the locally produced relationship between the entangled particles that determines the observed correlations. The precise mechanics of this is unknown. Will advances in instrumentation and detection reveal a more or a less classical understanding of quantum entanglement? I enjoyed this video. Thanks for your work. Thumbs up and subscribed.
I agree but I believe it will be similar to Wolfram's "Rules". Such that there is a certain geometry or structure or nature of the Universe such that Small Things or Energy or Maybe Information itself must act as waves to propagate. And this Rule Or Nature has to be connected to Black Holes. Its like taking a Derivative where you have limits and can get multiple answers from one Function. Or add two Water Waves together. We know they Molecules but they never act as single molecules. And furthermore understanding a single Water Molecule explains nothing about the Water wave. The Wave itself is just energy.
You and I both agree with Einstein's OG problem with Quantum Mechanics. WHY? If we can figure out WHY Wave-Particle duality maybe revealed as 100% logical. In fact I think it will reveal a New Type of Logic.
@@ExecutiveChefLance What's "Einstein's OG problem with Quantum Mechanics"? Thanks.
Tim- what gets me about Eric Weinstein is his anger- he is always raging at "the community" as if there is a plot to exclude brilliant people and theories. Brian Keating seems very affable but has an underlying anger (Losing the Nobel Prize). Saw a Video with Fridman where Weinstein says he is too busy. to publish his recent update and it kind of seems like a poor excuse
To explain and unite entanglement, special relativity, and quantum mechanics, would not the solution be found to be outside all of these systems? It is this outside system that crushes them all into one?
Agree. I am an engineer. We solve contradictions all the time. Entanglement poses the contradiction "how can particles be local and non-local at the same time?'. One solution is that they are non-local in the three dimensions of space but local in another hidden dimension (as in string theory). Another solution is that all matter/energy in the universe was once concentrated in a single space (singularity/big bang) so even though it is not local today, it was local 14 billion years ago. An engineer would call this 'separation in time'.
@@audiodead7302 I agree and my understanding of the wave-particle duality is that a wave becomes a particle (quantum wave function) when the wave is disturbed. And according to QM, everything is a wave and when disturbed becomes what we observe as particle (an excitation of the quantum field) and loses its superposition and entanglement.
@@stridedeck ya!
@@audiodead7302 just use superdeterminism. Bell inequality are irrelevant for superdeterministic universe, and there are no freedom of experiment.
@@davidrandell2224 So then, if it is all outside, then something quite unusual, and would seem silly to us, like some Greek mythology, but be based on all scientific observations and equations. Science still do not know what the fabric of space is except it is dynamic.
12:00 Ethereum's switch to proof-of-stake is a disaster because only proof-of-work can protect decentralisation. The bit about proof-of-work "wasting energy" is an old FUD by now. The way that power grids work _in real life_ is quite counterintuitive, there are good descriptions and analyses of it available, ditto for the relevant energy use. Scott definitely knows his physics but he hasn't done his homework yet re. digital currencies.
Hey Jan I would like to hear your thoughts on digital currencies ,and how they relate to universally existence I noticed it at about 13 minutes?
Guy on the left sounds like Vitalik
How about CIG Theory? Click on the link above. Who knows... Maybe it's right. Even if partially correct, that would be awesome! Comments are appreciated. If it isn't correct, we are back to square 1.
Erics theory is an intenstional chimura.. a.liars paradox. The mere fact you are discussing it to shoot it down proves how solid it is. He is correct it will stand the test of time. Just like the liars paradox. 0:36
The bells experiment doesnt show the world as quantum. It shows energy that way. But that could be due to a lack of understanding of the fields in which energy travels. The word particle is kind of a misnomer when it comes to energy. To my knowledge we havent shown quantum entanglement on objects wifh mass? Am i incorrect about this ?
The problem with Weinstein's theory is that it can't predict anything - which is kind of a problem.
The problem with Weinstein himself is his collosal ego - which is kind of a problem.
(I was going to use "kinda" when I remembered I was among fellow nerds not in the Bro-sphere!)
I’d be more impressed if these guys produced what was necessary to make GU a more rigorous (colloquial) theory.
Currently Eric is trying to softball the uap community into believing his theory is what is missing with regard to post einsteinian physics
I do "know" Scott...
Why would you use external sources of randomness for blockchains? You have pseudo randomness everywhere built into the construction
What's the point of theories of everything anyway.
What's the point of any theory?
To become gods in their own minds. It's seems really arrogant to me to think you could actually create a theory of everything.
to create anything you can think of
Eric read something somewhere (not his thoughts) only thy the owner of the thoughts can explain them (human thoughts never come from nothing!)
When two slap each other on the back
"I have a theory of everything and academia won't take it seriously so academia has failed " is such a classic "crackpot" trope. 😂
I suggest a hydrodynamic model, with space a dielectric fluid of variable density from Lambda, to a bit past neutron. Charge is caused by the flow of the dielectric fluid of space, just like in any dielectric fluid. For example, a proton has mass, which causes a convergence of space, creating positive charge, which is convergence. And negative charge is divergence of flow.
This makes room for curl being a of a fundamentally different level, the Aharonov Bohm effect.
And neutrinos.
Look up Hydrodynamic Solution to Schrodinger Equation on arxiv
Not, sure about the merit of Steven's ideas, but he seems to me to be an extremely brilliant man. Hes definitely no fool. He also seems to be extremely open minded. He seems to be really confident in his idea
What is the difference between Eric Weinstein's field of expertise and Timothy's? Have they both studied the same mathematical theories or is Eric's knowledge deeper in for example geometric mathematics? I ask this question because scientists will often have a hunch of what certain solutions could be before they get to prove it mathematically.
Wolfram, Weinstein, and similar people looking for greatness make the classical mistake of overestimating their reasoning abilities and underestimating the importance of listening to criticism.
it's better than to do nothing. Criticism is easy, but useless. It does not produce anything.
One human being summoning another, is just gross. Scott seems like a really cool guy.
What? He is the Wolf man!
This isnt actually a meaningful critique. Sorry guys. Disappointing.
We need people like this guy talking to the public. We keep ending up with pop sci communicators that spew BS to elevate their status and profile. Then they suffer from generating click bait videos on top of it and the next thing you know we’re getting even more BS.
There's a bit of a difference between making this and that simple program as a kid and publishing a rigorous work like A New Kind of Science.
And it's not that Wolfram presents the fundamentals of that publication as something totally new and undiscovered - but again: Rigor is the key. In A New Kind of Science, Wolfram doesn't set out to come up with a new foundation for physics. Very, very far from it.
At the very end of the book he ruminates about where the idea of computation might lead and there are very short chapters about biology, intelligence, physics and so on.
To say that 'Aaronson's review of Wolfram's "New Kind of Science"' is very, very far off point.
At best we are probably explaining human perspective of the universe. Our own psyche. 😆
Our language is not random we definitely designed it numbers and math included to be an aproximinate instrument to use in studying our world and conveying it to others. Nothing about it is random or preferred by the universe.
In fact if AI was sentient and able to Speak true universal language it would not use our language. if it did prefer our code over anything else that would indicate way more than evolutionary randomized views.
The examples in a new kind of science are fun and exciting but the book is so grandiose its hard to take seriously lol
You did not even come close to refuting virtually any of Stephen Wolfram's work.
godel's incompleteness theorem was good enough for Hawking, so its good enough for me.
That's appealing to authority which I keep telling people that it isn't a fallacy if the people arguing are totally clueless. There are better more comprehensive proofs which would take years for us amateurs to fully understand.
@@5678plm sometimes logical fallacies are true. At least I conceptually understand Godel's theorem and appears to be a show stopper for TOE. Gage theory? not a clue.
@@5678plm sometimes logical fallacies are true. At least I conceptually understand Godel's theorem and appears to be a show stopper for TOE. Gage theory? not a clue.
@@jonathansachs1979 It is spelled "gauge theory".
Also, Gödel's incompleteness theorem does not imply that a TOE can't be found in any possible universe. It is entirely possible to have a program produce a copy of its source code as part of the data it operates on.
However, I wouldn't entirely rule out that the incompleteness theorems may, uh, well, point to a reason why it might be possible that it is impossible for us to find a TOE.
So, it might be ("might be" as in, "as far as I know") that in some logically consistent hypothetical universes, that it isn't possible to discover (and demonstrate with high confidence) the exact laws of physics of that hypothetical universe within that hypothetical universe, and specifically that this being impossible could be due to incompleteness, or that the existence-as-a-possibile-hypothetical of such a hypothetical universe was in some other way a consequence of incompleteness.
But, I'm pretty sure that isn't true of all logically consistent hypothetical universes in which questions of "what are the laws of physics?" could be formulated by entities within it.
(And perhaps in the actual universe a TOE can't be found, but, we can't conclude that from incompleteness by itself, I think.)
@@jonathansachs1979 why would Godel be a showstopper for any TOE?
Reinvent physics.
Who else thought Scott Aaronson had lost an arm?
5:25 Why are you contorting Wolfram's claims? Bell's inequality speaks about _local_ theories, and ruliad is not local. Moreover it is not based on cellular automata, they are there just as an example of how complex behavior may arise from simple rules. The theory is based upon graph rewritings, all possible rewritings in fact, which is in principle similar to many-worlds QM. Notice for instance the difference between simple non-qubit cellular automata and graphs: the first has built-in dimensionality of 1, and second's dimensionality is variable depending roughtly speaking on how fast the graph is growing at the moment of time.‼
Theories are symplifications and they can't cover everything
Whats so special about bells theorem classic polarized light behaves the exact same way