This interview is several years old and Wolfram has changed his mind on finding “the one rule that runs the universe”. Instead, he has adopted an idea he calls the “ruliad”, which is essentially all possible rules running simultaneously. The conflicts and contradictions between the different rules are somehow supposed to be sorted out by considering how this ruliad would be perceived by an observer embedded inside it, who is limited in certain ways familiar to us (computationally bounded, meaning not all-knowing, and preserving a sense of continuity in time, for instance). If you want more details, google Wolfram’s physics project.
Ha, I do not know what that means. "Ruliad"? The whole premise in this interview is that from a simple concept, a rule if you will, some complexity emerges. And what is interesting to me is this complexity resulted in self awareness. I argue the universe is self aware. It boggles my mind.
@@Nobody-df4is the claim is formal : that even simple rules can produce complexity equivalent to that of a Turing universal machine (the ability to compute all computable functions). The second aspect of this is that rules are able to emulate each other behavior. In his work he colloquially proves the universality of the rule class, by showing how the rules emulated one another then showing the universality of rule 110…so in a transitive argument you could say that if you knew the right initial condition you can get any of the elementary ca’s to run rule 110, and rule 110 can then be used as a Turing universal machine to compute any rule. The property is called the principle of computational Equivalence. That all rules are equivalent to each other and equivalent to a Turing universal machine, such that any rule can be used to compute all computable rules. Ask now the question: that if all rules are equivalent then does it matter what rule is computing the universe…when any of them could be the rule computing the universe. Ask another question: the fact that it’s possible that we live in a universe where I can compute rule 30 AND rule 110 is not obvious. Why is it that we don’t live in a universe where I can only compute rule 30 and nothing else… In fact we live in the universe where Turing machines exist…so already we know that we can compute any computable function. Therefor we must live in a universe that runs all of these computable functions. The ruliad object is a bit deeper because what is also not obvious is what happens in a universe where all rules are being computed, where every system is considered a Turing machine…there’s a branching and merging phenomenon that governs the outcome of causal relationships to finite observers embedded in the object…it’s the observers perception of this branching and merging between causal events, that give rise to all physics that we understand. Relativity and QM come from the same thing: the relative observation of this branching and merging behavior. Long story short watch NKS series wolfram made if you want to understand why he shifted to this other more sensical view.
"Why" is a concept that only emerges at the level of explainations. Minds want to understand the "why" of things so they can better model the world they navigate within. Reality at its lowest level consists of "what" from "what" emerges rules, some imply causal links; and at that level you can have "why"s because you can have explainations.
"Why is it this rule and not some other rule" - Well if our rule exists, so can any other. Although it may be that rules need certain properties in order to form universes within which can emerge explainations and computation. It may also be that the realm or plane in which these rules exist (so I am talking outside of our universe here) only allows certain possible configurations - for example it could be a digital realm or something so all rules exist that can be described digitally somewhere in this plane. However the set of all possible rules and the set that give rise to universes that allow for things like computation to exist and people to one day live and ask questions, are vastly different with the latter being much smaller. "Why any rule at all?" The fact there is one must mean that rules that give rise to universes must exist. To imply that there can't be others would imply a needless extra constraint on the power / mechanism of creativity. I see this is a simple matter of constraints. At the base of my argument is at the lowest possible level there must be a way for things - and here I hazard "information" to come into being. Where it comes into being I am guessing is this infinite plane. If we want to limit what can come into being in this plane then we have to add extra dependencies.. and as soon as we do that we are left with the question - well why did those dependencies exist and put constraints on what is allowed to be? Once you accept that at a base level there must be some raw creative source of information, then a universe is simply something that sits on top of rules created by that source and to add other bits and pieces is bloatware.
@@Wouldntyouliketoknow2 "Why" is a question of motive. People often confuse the "Why" question with the "How" question. The "How" question needs to be answered before it can be known if the "Why" question even applies. As you alluded to in the first sentence of your OP.
No, CTT don't reveal the original interview date. Some are relatively recent, some are at least a decade old now. But there _is_ a timestamp of sorts - you can infer the vintage from Roberts hair!
Yes, Stephen, there is a universal general and simple dynamic that fully explains exhaustively everything about how, what, why, etc. You don't have to wait "a couple hundreds years" to understand it.
"why" intrinsically implies some degree of intentionality. "why" presupposes that there is a reason for things. just because there is some order and some rules that determine matter, motion, time, etc. does not mean there is a reason or a why.
*""why" intrinsically implies some degree of intentionality."* ... True. *""why" presupposes that there is a reason for things."* ... Also true. *"just because there is some order and some rules that determine matter, motion, time, etc. does not mean there is a reason or a why."* ... "Why" questions are everywhere, and we answer them all the time. If "why" questions can be applied to everything that followed the initial event, then _why_ should "why" be excluded from being asked about the initial event? ... Saying it doesn't apply results in "special pleading."
@@Sam-we7zj we are so small and insignificant , even randomness for billions of years can still create a pattern which might a rule for us but it would still be randomness.
@@ManiBalajiC in that picture there is increasing probability that physics and everything else will stop existing at any moment because there is no structure only randomness
The rule is maybe the collatz conjecture, I think. It’s simple, and it may describe how determinism or stability arises from probabilism or chaos. It also insinuates, in that context, that there are no infinities. Just loops.
But we will NEVER know. The problem is that the window of origins has closed. We can only theorize about it, and I think we're pretty close, but we can never MEASURE it.
I don't understand why there would be layers of rules. If there's a sinple rule for the entire universe, the things like gravity would be encompassed. So the things that seem to appear in his rule searching can't be real.
You are also kind of asking, what form of the universe models mathematic, rather than what form of mathematics best models the universe. Sounds like a tail wagging the dog argument to me. But that depends if you are looking for the best approximation, or believe that someone knocked up a specific mathemeical formula that everything was built upon.
if the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail. looking for 'rules' all the time makes me wonder if there is a category error here.
Does the simplicity of the rule reflect the filter through which the model of correspondence is viewed? Namely a human or even simpler, the human eye? The vastness compressed into a 'moment' yielding a simple model of the known complexity (bow tie effect)? which
Wolfram hits on the idea that there is something "behind" the universe we see and study that we do not understand and may not have access to. It gives rise to what we see and supports the many functions and processes that make the universe what it is. He calls it a "rule". It brings us back, again, to the ultimate question: God or no God. That's the question he had "nothing to say" about. I think he is moving in the right direction.
God or No God isn't the ultimate question. Having a spiritual awakening answers that question. There are more fundamental questions, such as: Is it Serious?
I agree, math definitely points to it. 1 + 1 is 2 in any universe that could possibly be stable. But it doesn’t have to be our universe. Which hints that math isn’t the language of the universe but that physics is the language of the universe, in that it’s the math specific to explaining our universe, and math, is the language of all *possible universes.
Rule #1 - learn to live in peace with your own kind Rule #2 - learn to live in peace with all other lifeforms Rule #3 - learn to live in peace with the inanimate world Rule #4 - after learning the first three rules, you can learn anything you wish :)
An integrally greater care of ...essence, existence, and experience.... in our explorations and experimentations coming forth and going forward will improve our discoverabilities and developmentabilities. 🙏🏼
The questions we are able to ask are the greatest indication of our progress. We can not ask why we are the most warrior oriented life forms in the universe? Other intelligent beings on other worlds may also be warrior oriented. We just don't know.
Use the fibonacci priniciple of PHI if you want to home in on a reason/answer. You flip between opposites, rule them out at the extreme/edges, narrow the scope as a consequence. Computer engineers used the concept of the binary chop for the same reason. Its an extremely efficient way to discard impossibilities. Much more efficient than innumerable shots in the dark. aka brute forcing it going through every conceivable possibility that takes everyones fancy.
@@realitycheck1231 Perhaps an imprecise fractal dualistic scope, is necessary to locate a precision point of unity. No different to a damping a suspension spring in that regard. Are we not left with the dualistic problem of the macroscopic vs microscopic physics even now ? Granted, the major problem with classical physics is that it is a short hand representation that eliminates all of the detail to draw its conclusions from. The quantum realm is the other extreme, trying to take every single detail as its source and reach a copromise that results in a short hand representation. 🤔😁
...Please allow me some time. I am amazed with Wonderment. In such a short span of time, mans knowledge has grown exponentially. We are observing backwards, from within. Born as empty vessels, yet we all have gifts, talents, & yes, even different fingerprints. My mind is blown. The Massive Complexity, & Elegant Simplicity. I think you might be thinking along similar lines. Please let us all keep open minds as we continue to study, create experiments, & add knowledge, respectfully, Chuck...captivus brevis...you tube...Blessings ..
Is there any reason to 'assume' that we have mono physics (Grand Unified Theory attemps) rather than multi level layered physics ? Here I am thinking along the 7 layer OSI network layer aspect, of dividing systems along functional lines, with which to isolate those specilist functions. You have a hardware abstraction layer and a logical layer superimposed upon it for instance. One of the reasons I was considering Neutrinos as a pixel substrate, that harmonised spacetime entities jump across.
Because there is an origin as we scale higher and higher in energies. The 4 forces. 3 have merged into one at high temperature. And we believe if we go higher, 4 forces become one. We placehold this name quantum gravity.
The number of describable rules is countably infinite. What if the true rule of the universe lies outside this set of describable rules? Then all we'll ever be able to do is to have approximate rules.
2:06 ... one of the things one has to realize is that it's very unlikely if the rule is simple it's very unlikely that it will be almost correct but not precisely correct that is that you know you'll have a rule that has you know three dimensions of space it's have electrons and muons and totons but it'll have just this one little weird bug out there on the side that's very unlikely to happen if there is a simple rule for the universe ou're either going to hit dead on or you're going to be way wrong. 2:33
Only humans and similar animals have "reasons" for what they do. We only exist because our ancestors survived and reproduced, which selected for traits that promote those cycles, so we have inherited the urge to accomplish goals. The universe doesn't have to worry about continuing itself, it just goes along without intentions plans or foresight.
Since you as the guest say that Darwin and others did not understand how the first piece of life arose so they invoke the God idea, do you now understand so as to explain how the first piece of life arose?
I think the rules is that nothing in our universe occurs in the same way as a whole for example me and a person could have taken the same route home and go to the places and eat the exact same thing but there’s asteroids moving and animals dying and even our thoughts would surely be different. Somehow when the Big Bang happened that rule was set in place and the fact that nothing will ever happen the same way in the universe is what keeps the universe ecosystem alive now I think this goes for all universes and I’m sure there has to be a way to find out how and why
Your textbook gave me order, meaning I had to conform to patience and kindness. It became an explicit right for me to endure and have control over how I define, describe, and identify if I want want to know complex topics.
@@francesco5581 All answers, so to speak, must be allowed. No exclusions. Infinite number of answers and one of it is ours. Does not mean the others don't exist, but just hidden for us.
(6:10) *SW: **_"When we find the ultimate rule for our universe, I'm sure we will find a way to say this is the Only Rule it could possibly be."_* ... What an excellent way to put it! But this still begs the question, _"Is there a rule that resides below the rule for establishing the universe?"_ In other words, is there an even simpler rule that facilitates the _"ultimate rule for the universe?"_ There is a simple rule in the automotive industry today: _"Make cars that are safe, affordable, and don't harm the environment."_ But there is also a rule residing below that rule that's even simpler: _"Humans want to travel faster than what their feet can provide."_ ... That rule establishes the *reason* for why automobiles exist. ... Such is the same for "Existence." Sure, you can extrapolate a very simple rule for facilitating the cosmos, but just like with an automobile, there must be an underlying rule that necessitates the simple rule for the universe. But then again, you still have to figure out how to extrapolate that rule. ... My argument is that we can accomplish this via logic. "Logic" is *pure information* (mathematics, intelligence, reason, orchestration, etc). It requires no physical structure nor spatial presence, yet the universe is observably orchestrated via logic (mathematics). So, if you consider logic before you consider anything that's physical, then there must be a *logical reason* for generating the simple rule that facilitates the universe. If "Logic" is pure information, then it is equally logical that the underlying purpose of facilitating a physical universe is to generate *new information.* ... After all, that's what logic is: *information.* So, considering a simple rule that resides below the simple rule for the universe doesn't help you in extrapolating that simple rule for cosmos, ... but it can provide you with the reason "why" any rules exist at all.
@@christianrelloso2649 *"So we can understand simply that logic is a universal name that had a different Form."* ... I don't understand your point. *"At this point it seems appearing as semantic game."* ... I don't understand that either.
Do we need a new rule? No. Not at first. We won't find that new rule, till we have a new mathematics. The rule will come out of that. We have math wrong. My rule is: math is curved but infinite. Why? Reality is non-local, like a repeating Mandelbrot set. Infinity bends in, on itself. My guess is, there is no difference between infinity and zero, so my rule is: 1 = ♾= zero Don't ask me to prove it. I can't. Far above my pay grade....Just a wild guess.
Get to know our "bad desire@nafsu". It's the most real thing that we experienced and its mentioned repeatedly in Quran, Bible and Torah. Peace be upon us all and assalamualaiqum
I think that in the expandion phase of the early universe time and space was created but it was also stretched to its limit. Now time run back towards its own begining. We ecperience time as it passes us this i think explains quantem entanglement. Spooky faster than light action?
0 peak pressures in a nucleus = ((m_e c^2)/r_0^3) reasons with the cosmos that like fish in the sea there are more near the coast, yet atoms are closer to stars, planet's orbits, from the atmosphere, surface, to the core, and perhaps the truth.
Allah says in sura al-kahf (the cave): "I (Allah) made them not to witness the creation of the heavens and the earth and not (even) their own creation, nor was I (Allah) to take the misleaders as helpers."
Of course it has a purpose, eternal evolvement. As we humans are made of the same stuff as the stars, we too will be part of this eternal development, that's why we were gifted a soul. Difference between our life span and the stars, is ours come in approx 100 year instalments, and in different locations and ?beings, throughout the universe.
I wrote a bunch on this long ago, as we all know. Computationally bound, I don't think so really. Machines can only give answers to questions if the answers known. At this point not so much really I would surmise. But if you believe that who can argue. Goodluck. Peace ✌️ 😎.
Predict Universe It is inconsistency with physic proceendings. It raises questions about his Universe . First what is possible words in the Universe. He keep out how figure out Universe possible words . It means he doesnt know Universe. Second guys shows Universe is wortheless physic experiences. It is only abstracts ideia of Universe. Sorry but this Guys is completely stupid.
The scientific project is useless in regards to this question. However, other ways of knowing, I.e., mystical experience is seemingly the most fitting endeavor in regards to this matter.
I don't understand, I am incredibly incredulous and I don't have faith. I say unambiguously I have discovered God is necessary. I say unambiguously to end the war in Ukraine the discovery that atheism is a logical fallacy has to be news. What did you understand so far? I am not joking. God exists and life is not a joke. I am fond of the russsian language and I liked, past tense, ukrainians and russians, because they speak the language that I wanted to learn. I feel like crying inside. The war must stop. Emergency! Trust me. You choose. To not waste this loving poem I say atheism is a logical fallacy that assumes God is the religious idea of the creator of the creation to conclude wrongly no creator exists because a particular idea of God doesn’t exist. Thank you.
As long as we don't try to use plagiarism as our own train of thought, come on man. Jesus. Lol. I'm gonna write some more here shortly no worries. Peace ✌️ 😎. I like wolfram. Does he play cards. Prisoner of their times. I wrote that?
IF , we are all eternal beings , souls or whatever you call it , how would we face the PURE HORROR OF ETERNAL EXISTENCE . There is no way out . Forever and forever with no way out . This universe , this planet ,our lives and the millions of species of life here on earth . THIS IS WHERE ETERNITY SPENDS ETERNITY . Where else could eternal existence spend eternity !!!!! We would go crazy spending forever in Heaven or the garden of Eden .
*"IF , we are all eternal beings , souls or whatever you call it , how would we face the PURE HORROR OF ETERNAL EXISTENCE . There is no way out . Forever and forever with no way out"* ... That presupposes that you cannot end your own existence even if the offer is "eternal." But then the question would be if it is "logical" to willfully end one's own existence. If there is an option to end your own existence, then it would be "illogical" to execute that option. It's illogical, because you are choosing a state with _no options_ over a state with _options._ In most instances, having options is considered far better than having no options. *"We would go crazy spending forever in Heaven or the garden of Eden"* ... "Life" is pretty friggin' far from what most consider a "Garden of Eden," yet here you are "still alive" and posting comments. You have the ability to end it all today, but you haven't. If you are choosing to face another day in this crazy, unpredictable "life" scenario, ... then why do you think you wouldn't do the same while existing in a Heavenly paradise?
Our brains are wired to think of eternity as a time, not a place. I think when we return the energy we borrowed from the universe to formulate “a soul”, our consciousness gives it back by returning to eternity where it came from, hopefully richer and fuller. (Disclaimer; I’m not a religious person, but this makes sense to me)
One can't really learn to much of the core fundamental truths until they first analyze themselves; the ancient adage: Know Thyself. Asking a question has many incentives and projections behind them. Asking a 'why question' has too many variables and starting points. Is why 1st Alcibiades was always the first work of Plato's to study as preamble. The 'why' questions may only be conducive when one knows who and what is asking the question and why they're inquiring about it. If one is an atheist/nihilist, then it's over before it started and much serious mental work is there to be had. The mind can't quite penetrate God - this doesn't mean giving up. The greatest things attainable are always in great adversity. God isn't an answer, nor a question. Like: if the universe is the answer then what is the question? This is pretty cool ^ A 'why' posits need, therefore a lack of...in this case, of knowledge. I suppose the mind thinks God is like every material object, therefore knowledge concerning this Primordial Cause is to be sought out. Negative theology and retroduction( which follows the logic of negativa) is the method the ancients utilized. It's not taking away any of the power, energy, essence and such, but removing conditions, form, measure, time, division, duality, false notions away, even names and definitions away, because they're relative, while leaving there that which always was and always will be, what really is true and is substratum. Perhaps instead of asking why the cosmos, ask why this question, why this opinion, why this notion, why this feeling, why my attitude, why my beliefs, why I project, why do I do what I do, why do i think whwt i think, why this pattern, why this attitude, why this cleaving. Odd how everything concerning science is something always without or outside ourselves, while ourselves and are essence is over looked. Despite atoms, cells, etc. we don't really inquiry ourselves in a true scientific way. The Platonists really do go into amazing detail concerning God. Discussing the hyparxis the summits, the principles of, levels, essences, powers. Why the cosmos? Well, why does the question even matter?
Interesting point of simple rule? Yes, it is simple and described in the Quran i.e. the purpose of the creation of man as noted in 45:22. Those interested to know more, please read the book Islam: A challenge to religion by G.A. Parwez. Read with an inquisitive mind... all there to assimilate ... to get new life!!! Any question... leave a reply here...
@@subhrodiprakshit8923 I'm sorry that my logic doesn't agree with your religion. The universe is eternal. To say that God created it is an extra unnecessary step. However if you wanted to say that the universe is conscious I wouldn't argue with you.
Stephen is too full of himself. Great he has Mathematica which is great. The guy says he's the one that who understands QM, solved the puzzle of the second law of TM, realized GR and QM except that all has to make sense at 10^-100 m, right....a hot air ballon.
We are barely taking baby steps in our understanding of human consciousness, let alone the deeper secrets of the cosmos!
This interview is several years old and Wolfram has changed his mind on finding “the one rule that runs the universe”. Instead, he has adopted an idea he calls the “ruliad”, which is essentially all possible rules running simultaneously. The conflicts and contradictions between the different rules are somehow supposed to be sorted out by considering how this ruliad would be perceived by an observer embedded inside it, who is limited in certain ways familiar to us (computationally bounded, meaning not all-knowing, and preserving a sense of continuity in time, for instance). If you want more details, google Wolfram’s physics project.
Ha, I do not know what that means. "Ruliad"? The whole premise in this interview is that from a simple concept, a rule if you will, some complexity emerges.
And what is interesting to me is this complexity resulted in self awareness. I argue the universe is self aware. It boggles my mind.
good to hear, he got there in the end
@@haydenwalton2766 lol as if you know
@@JB_inks it was more of a joke than anything.
of course I don't know
@@Nobody-df4is the claim is formal : that even simple rules can produce complexity equivalent to that of a Turing universal machine (the ability to compute all computable functions).
The second aspect of this is that rules are able to emulate each other behavior. In his work he colloquially proves the universality of the rule class, by showing how the rules emulated one another then showing the universality of rule 110…so in a transitive argument you could say that if you knew the right initial condition you can get any of the elementary ca’s to run rule 110, and rule 110 can then be used as a Turing universal machine to compute any rule.
The property is called the principle of computational Equivalence. That all rules are equivalent to each other and equivalent to a Turing universal machine, such that any rule can be used to compute all computable rules.
Ask now the question: that if all rules are equivalent then does it matter what rule is computing the universe…when any of them could be the rule computing the universe.
Ask another question: the fact that it’s possible that we live in a universe where I can compute rule 30 AND rule 110 is not obvious. Why is it that we don’t live in a universe where I can only compute rule 30 and nothing else…
In fact we live in the universe where Turing machines exist…so already we know that we can compute any computable function. Therefor we must live in a universe that runs all of these computable functions.
The ruliad object is a bit deeper because what is also not obvious is what happens in a universe where all rules are being computed, where every system is considered a Turing machine…there’s a branching and merging phenomenon that governs the outcome of causal relationships to finite observers embedded in the object…it’s the observers perception of this branching and merging between causal events, that give rise to all physics that we understand. Relativity and QM come from the same thing: the relative observation of this branching and merging behavior.
Long story short watch NKS series wolfram made if you want to understand why he shifted to this other more sensical view.
Stephen Wolfram rules!
Yes he does
"Why" is a concept that only emerges at the level of explainations. Minds want to understand the "why" of things so they can better model the world they navigate within. Reality at its lowest level consists of "what" from "what" emerges rules, some imply causal links; and at that level you can have "why"s because you can have explainations.
"Why is it this rule and not some other rule" - Well if our rule exists, so can any other. Although it may be that rules need certain properties in order to form universes within which can emerge explainations and computation. It may also be that the realm or plane in which these rules exist (so I am talking outside of our universe here) only allows certain possible configurations - for example it could be a digital realm or something so all rules exist that can be described digitally somewhere in this plane. However the set of all possible rules and the set that give rise to universes that allow for things like computation to exist and people to one day live and ask questions, are vastly different with the latter being much smaller.
"Why any rule at all?"
The fact there is one must mean that rules that give rise to universes must exist. To imply that there can't be others would imply a needless extra constraint on the power / mechanism of creativity. I see this is a simple matter of constraints. At the base of my argument is at the lowest possible level there must be a way for things - and here I hazard "information" to come into being. Where it comes into being I am guessing is this infinite plane. If we want to limit what can come into being in this plane then we have to add extra dependencies.. and as soon as we do that we are left with the question - well why did those dependencies exist and put constraints on what is allowed to be?
Once you accept that at a base level there must be some raw creative source of information, then a universe is simply something that sits on top of rules created by that source and to add other bits and pieces is bloatware.
@@Wouldntyouliketoknow2 "Why" is a question of motive. People often confuse the "Why" question with the "How" question. The "How" question needs to be answered before it can be known if the "Why" question even applies. As you alluded to in the first sentence of your OP.
how do we know if this conversation is recent? is the date of this recording displayed anywhere?
No, CTT don't reveal the original interview date. Some are relatively recent, some are at least a decade old now. But there _is_ a timestamp of sorts - you can infer the vintage from Roberts hair!
most are old , but there isnt significant changes in the field to have a bad grasp of the what they talk about.
@simesaid, @ManiBalajiC ok, thanks guys!
Yes, Stephen, there is a universal general and simple dynamic that fully explains exhaustively everything about how, what, why, etc.
You don't have to wait "a couple hundreds years" to understand it.
"why" intrinsically implies some degree of intentionality. "why" presupposes that there is a reason for things. just because there is some order and some rules that determine matter, motion, time, etc. does not mean there is a reason or a why.
*""why" intrinsically implies some degree of intentionality."*
... True.
*""why" presupposes that there is a reason for things."*
... Also true.
*"just because there is some order and some rules that determine matter, motion, time, etc. does not mean there is a reason or a why."*
... "Why" questions are everywhere, and we answer them all the time. If "why" questions can be applied to everything that followed the initial event, then _why_ should "why" be excluded from being asked about the initial event? ... Saying it doesn't apply results in "special pleading."
ok but you can ask why rules?
@@Sam-we7zj we are so small and insignificant , even randomness for billions of years can still create a pattern which might a rule for us but it would still be randomness.
@@ManiBalajiC in that picture there is increasing probability that physics and everything else will stop existing at any moment because there is no structure only randomness
The rule is maybe the collatz conjecture, I think. It’s simple, and it may describe how determinism or stability arises from probabilism or chaos. It also insinuates, in that context, that there are no infinities. Just loops.
If there is a reason, then there is no conclusion because the reason must be infinite, if not then there is an actual conclusion to the universe.
But we will NEVER know. The problem is that the window of origins has closed. We can only theorize about it, and I think we're pretty close, but we can never MEASURE it.
Will scientists ever outgrow tiresome questions with unsatisfactory answers?
I don't understand why there would be layers of rules.
If there's a sinple rule for the entire universe, the things like gravity would be encompassed.
So the things that seem to appear in his rule searching can't be real.
You are also kind of asking, what form of the universe models mathematic, rather than what form of mathematics best models the universe.
Sounds like a tail wagging the dog argument to me.
But that depends if you are looking for the best approximation, or believe that someone knocked up a specific mathemeical formula that everything was built upon.
‘The mapper is the territory.’ Therefore, do “You” have meaning?
if the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail. looking for 'rules' all the time makes me wonder if there is a category error here.
One of the best interviews on CTT
Does the simplicity of the rule reflect the filter through which the model of correspondence is viewed? Namely a human or even simpler, the human eye?
The vastness compressed into a 'moment' yielding a simple model of the known complexity (bow tie effect)? which
Wolfram hits on the idea that there is something "behind" the universe we see and study that we do not understand and may not have access to. It gives rise to what we see and supports the many functions and processes that make the universe what it is. He calls it a "rule". It brings us back, again, to the ultimate question: God or no God. That's the question he had "nothing to say" about. I think he is moving in the right direction.
God or No God isn't the ultimate question. Having a spiritual awakening answers that question. There are more fundamental questions, such as: Is it Serious?
I agree, math definitely points to it. 1 + 1 is 2 in any universe that could possibly be stable. But it doesn’t have to be our universe. Which hints that math isn’t the language of the universe but that physics is the language of the universe, in that it’s the math specific to explaining our universe, and math, is the language of all *possible universes.
What you don’t understand is consciousness. The one thing behind all rules and “things”
Rule #1 - learn to live in peace with your own kind
Rule #2 - learn to live in peace with all other lifeforms
Rule #3 - learn to live in peace with the inanimate world
Rule #4 - after learning the first three rules, you can learn anything you wish :)
Is reason not within the cosmos already?
Yes, it does. To make each and everyone who have existed and exist to superhumans capable of developing this world and beyond.
An integrally greater care of ...essence, existence, and experience.... in our explorations and experimentations coming forth and going forward will improve our discoverabilities and developmentabilities. 🙏🏼
Existence is a brute fact but change has a reason. Thus the cosmos has a reason for change
The questions we are able to ask are the greatest indication of our progress. We can not ask why we are the most warrior oriented life forms in the universe? Other intelligent beings on other worlds may also be warrior oriented. We just don't know.
Use the fibonacci priniciple of PHI if you want to home in on a reason/answer.
You flip between opposites, rule them out at the extreme/edges, narrow the scope as a consequence.
Computer engineers used the concept of the binary chop for the same reason.
Its an extremely efficient way to discard impossibilities.
Much more efficient than innumerable shots in the dark.
aka brute forcing it going through every conceivable possibility that takes everyones fancy.
Interesting post. I think that maybe the "rules" are binary. The universe is in opposition to the underlying "rule". But, maybe you are correct.
@@realitycheck1231 Perhaps an imprecise fractal dualistic scope, is necessary to locate a precision point of unity.
No different to a damping a suspension spring in that regard.
Are we not left with the dualistic problem of the macroscopic vs microscopic physics even now ?
Granted, the major problem with classical physics is that it is a short hand representation that eliminates all of the detail to draw its conclusions from.
The quantum realm is the other extreme, trying to take every single detail as its source and reach a copromise that results in a short hand representation.
🤔😁
The universe simply exists. It doesn't need a reason. Assigning a human reason is a teleological exercise without objective validity.
One is the number and object. Make me at one with the Cosmos .
Stephen Wolfram hits it dead in the centre.
Perhaps Stephen’s new mathematical software can give some insight to this Calculus?…
...Please allow me some time. I am amazed with Wonderment. In such a short span of time, mans knowledge has grown exponentially. We are observing backwards, from within. Born as empty vessels, yet we all have gifts, talents, & yes, even different fingerprints. My mind is blown. The Massive Complexity, & Elegant Simplicity. I think you might be thinking along similar lines. Please let us all keep open minds as we continue to study, create experiments, & add knowledge, respectfully, Chuck...captivus brevis...you tube...Blessings
..
Kuhn's Lifelong Quest To Escape God!😂
Cosmos has many reasons.
Is there any reason to 'assume' that we have mono physics (Grand Unified Theory attemps) rather than multi level layered physics ?
Here I am thinking along the 7 layer OSI network layer aspect, of dividing systems along functional lines, with which to isolate those specilist functions.
You have a hardware abstraction layer and a logical layer superimposed upon it for instance.
One of the reasons I was considering Neutrinos as a pixel substrate, that harmonised spacetime entities jump across.
Because there is an origin as we scale higher and higher in energies. The 4 forces. 3 have merged into one at high temperature. And we believe if we go higher, 4 forces become one. We placehold this name quantum gravity.
@@crazieeez But I guess you will have to exit reality to achieve such conditions.
The number of describable rules is countably infinite. What if the true rule of the universe lies outside this set of describable rules? Then all we'll ever be able to do is to have approximate rules.
Where do the rules come from?
2:06 ... one of the things one has to realize is that it's very unlikely if the rule is simple it's very unlikely that it will be almost correct but not precisely correct that is that you know you'll have a rule that has you know three dimensions of space it's have electrons and muons and totons but it'll have just this one little weird bug out there on the side that's very unlikely to happen if there is a simple rule for the universe ou're either going to hit dead on or you're going to be way wrong. 2:33
Only humans and similar animals have "reasons" for what they do. We only exist because our ancestors survived and reproduced, which selected for traits that promote those cycles, so we have inherited the urge to accomplish goals. The universe doesn't have to worry about continuing itself, it just goes along without intentions plans or foresight.
Since you as the guest say that Darwin and others did not understand how the first piece of life arose so they invoke the God idea, do you now understand so as to explain how the first piece of life arose?
I think the rules is that nothing in our universe occurs in the same way as a whole for example me and a person could have taken the same route home and go to the places and eat the exact same thing but there’s asteroids moving and animals dying and even our thoughts would surely be different. Somehow when the Big Bang happened that rule was set in place and the fact that nothing will ever happen the same way in the universe is what keeps the universe ecosystem alive now I think this goes for all universes and I’m sure there has to be a way to find out how and why
One step at a time. I just have to obey my father endurance and mother self-control.
more is involved coming forth and going forward
Your textbook gave me order, meaning I had to conform to patience and kindness. It became an explicit right for me to endure and have control over how I define, describe, and identify if I want want to know complex topics.
New science by him
Thank you
No, the universe exists because it must. Nothing is not an alternative.
The toplevel view of the world must not contain "why". Otherwise it is not the toplevel.
but what answer the "why" IS the top-level
You're right. Because the one remains. There's no interstice for the why to belong there. Why questions arise from the levels of multiplicity.
@@francesco5581 All answers, so to speak, must be allowed. No exclusions. Infinite number of answers and one of it is ours. Does not mean the others don't exist, but just hidden for us.
@@dieterbaecher2975 but on the top level there must be ONE answer ... otherwise will be pure solipsism (maybe !!)
(6:10) *SW: **_"When we find the ultimate rule for our universe, I'm sure we will find a way to say this is the Only Rule it could possibly be."_* ... What an excellent way to put it! But this still begs the question, _"Is there a rule that resides below the rule for establishing the universe?"_ In other words, is there an even simpler rule that facilitates the _"ultimate rule for the universe?"_
There is a simple rule in the automotive industry today: _"Make cars that are safe, affordable, and don't harm the environment."_ But there is also a rule residing below that rule that's even simpler: _"Humans want to travel faster than what their feet can provide."_ ... That rule establishes the *reason* for why automobiles exist.
... Such is the same for "Existence."
Sure, you can extrapolate a very simple rule for facilitating the cosmos, but just like with an automobile, there must be an underlying rule that necessitates the simple rule for the universe. But then again, you still have to figure out how to extrapolate that rule.
... My argument is that we can accomplish this via logic.
"Logic" is *pure information* (mathematics, intelligence, reason, orchestration, etc). It requires no physical structure nor spatial presence, yet the universe is observably orchestrated via logic (mathematics). So, if you consider logic before you consider anything that's physical, then there must be a *logical reason* for generating the simple rule that facilitates the universe. If "Logic" is pure information, then it is equally logical that the underlying purpose of facilitating a physical universe is to generate *new information.* ... After all, that's what logic is: *information.*
So, considering a simple rule that resides below the simple rule for the universe doesn't help you in extrapolating that simple rule for cosmos, ... but it can provide you with the reason "why" any rules exist at all.
So we can understand simply that logic is a universal name that had a different Form.
At this point it seems appearing as semantic game.
@@christianrelloso2649 *"So we can understand simply that logic is a universal name that had a different Form."*
... I don't understand your point.
*"At this point it seems appearing as semantic game."*
... I don't understand that either.
Do we need a new rule? No. Not at first. We won't find that new rule, till we have a new mathematics. The rule will come out of that. We have math wrong. My rule is: math is curved but infinite. Why? Reality is non-local, like a repeating Mandelbrot set. Infinity bends in, on itself. My guess is, there is no difference between infinity and zero, so my rule is: 1 = ♾= zero
Don't ask me to prove it. I can't. Far above my pay grade....Just a wild guess.
Get to know our "bad desire@nafsu". It's the most real thing that we experienced and its mentioned repeatedly in Quran, Bible and Torah. Peace be upon us all and assalamualaiqum
The cosmos IS the reason
Time is inherently teleological.
I think that in the expandion phase of the early universe time and space was created but it was also stretched to its limit. Now time run back towards its own begining. We ecperience time as it passes us this i think explains quantem entanglement. Spooky faster than light action?
0 peak pressures in a nucleus = ((m_e c^2)/r_0^3) reasons with the cosmos that like fish in the sea there are more near the coast, yet atoms are closer to stars, planet's orbits, from the atmosphere, surface, to the core, and perhaps the truth.
No!!! What possible reason could an inanimate construct possibly have?
Seriously, these questions are getting utterly ridiculous. The Cosmos exists, at this moment it’s a brute fact.
4real
I asked and the Cosmos said it doesn't have any particular agenda.
Because it s there
These people have no idea what they are talking about. Its just jibber jabber.
Allah says in sura al-kahf (the cave): "I (Allah) made them not to witness the creation of the heavens and the earth and not (even) their own creation, nor was I (Allah) to take the misleaders as helpers."
Yes, because we have it.
5:39
I am, therefore I think.
Of course it has a purpose, eternal evolvement. As we humans are made of the same stuff as the stars, we too will be part of this eternal development, that's why we were gifted a soul. Difference between our life span and the stars, is ours come in approx 100 year instalments, and in different locations and ?beings, throughout the universe.
No evidence of souls.
@@markb3786our existence and experience itself is the evidence of soul which is immaterial..
I wrote a bunch on this long ago, as we all know. Computationally bound, I don't think so really. Machines can only give answers to questions if the answers known. At this point not so much really I would surmise. But if you believe that who can argue. Goodluck. Peace ✌️ 😎.
Cosmos is born from natural parents,
do Kuhn, and Wolfram have a reason ?
The cosmos is reasonable.
Stephen Wolfram has lots of poker chips.
Better yet. Does the universe know it exists.
All smoke and mirrors.
The unanswerable question
That's what they said about many things before Einstein
@@internationalpolkaband8472 true. I just mean that answers tend to just always lead to more questions.
*"The unanswerable question"*
... All questions are answerable.
Predict Universe It is inconsistency with physic proceendings. It raises questions about his Universe . First what is possible words in the Universe. He keep out how figure out Universe possible words . It means he doesnt know Universe. Second guys shows Universe is wortheless physic experiences. It is only abstracts ideia of Universe. Sorry but this Guys is completely stupid.
So you're basically saying you haven't a clue
Yeas, it's alive and have reason.
The scientific project is useless in regards to this question. However, other ways of knowing, I.e., mystical experience is seemingly the most fitting endeavor in regards to this matter.
Mystical experience fits in the toilet. Its epistemic potential is zero. Facts do not emerge from witchcraft or hallucinations of astral projection.
why God, is God?
"why Am I God?"
has God ever asked himself about it, I wonder?
What does your gut say? Go with that because it’s the only thing that matters.
dont dance around intelligent design,
why is not something science can answer
nah
I don't understand, I am incredibly incredulous and I don't have faith. I say unambiguously I have discovered God is necessary. I say unambiguously to end the war in Ukraine the discovery that atheism is a logical fallacy has to be news. What did you understand so far? I am not joking. God exists and life is not a joke. I am fond of the russsian language and I liked, past tense, ukrainians and russians, because they speak the language that I wanted to learn. I feel like crying inside. The war must stop. Emergency! Trust me. You choose. To not waste this loving poem I say atheism is a logical fallacy that assumes God is the religious idea of the creator of the creation to conclude wrongly no creator exists because a particular idea of God doesn’t exist. Thank you.
Get the help that you desperately need.
No one knows including Stephen.
As long as we don't try to use plagiarism as our own train of thought, come on man. Jesus. Lol. I'm gonna write some more here shortly no worries. Peace ✌️ 😎. I like wolfram. Does he play cards. Prisoner of their times. I wrote that?
No
IF , we are all eternal beings , souls or whatever you call it , how would we face the PURE HORROR OF ETERNAL EXISTENCE . There is no way out . Forever and forever with no way out . This universe , this planet ,our lives and the millions of species of life here on earth . THIS IS WHERE ETERNITY SPENDS ETERNITY . Where else could eternal existence spend eternity !!!!! We would go crazy spending forever in Heaven or the garden of Eden .
*"IF , we are all eternal beings , souls or whatever you call it , how would we face the PURE HORROR OF ETERNAL EXISTENCE . There is no way out . Forever and forever with no way out"*
... That presupposes that you cannot end your own existence even if the offer is "eternal." But then the question would be if it is "logical" to willfully end one's own existence. If there is an option to end your own existence, then it would be "illogical" to execute that option. It's illogical, because you are choosing a state with _no options_ over a state with _options._
In most instances, having options is considered far better than having no options.
*"We would go crazy spending forever in Heaven or the garden of Eden"*
... "Life" is pretty friggin' far from what most consider a "Garden of Eden," yet here you are "still alive" and posting comments. You have the ability to end it all today, but you haven't. If you are choosing to face another day in this crazy, unpredictable "life" scenario, ... then why do you think you wouldn't do the same while existing in a Heavenly paradise?
Only mystics can answer your question. I suggest you read Osho.
I wouldn’t like eating bacon and eggs forever ♾
@@giuseppeLizzi-rj3er *"I wouldn’t like eating bacon and eggs forever"*
... I'd prefer a bacon-wrapped heaven rather than golden gates.
Our brains are wired to think of eternity as a time, not a place. I think when we return the energy we borrowed from the universe to formulate “a soul”, our consciousness gives it back by returning to eternity where it came from, hopefully richer and fuller. (Disclaimer; I’m not a religious person, but this makes sense to me)
One can't really learn to much of the core fundamental truths until they first analyze themselves; the ancient adage: Know Thyself. Asking a question has many incentives and projections behind them. Asking a 'why question' has too many variables and starting points. Is why 1st Alcibiades was always the first work of Plato's to study as preamble. The 'why' questions may only be conducive when one knows who and what is asking the question and why they're inquiring about it. If one is an atheist/nihilist, then it's over before it started and much serious mental work is there to be had.
The mind can't quite penetrate God - this doesn't mean giving up. The greatest things attainable are always in great adversity.
God isn't an answer, nor a question. Like: if the universe is the answer then what is the question? This is pretty cool ^
A 'why' posits need, therefore a lack of...in this case, of knowledge. I suppose the mind thinks God is like every material object, therefore knowledge concerning this Primordial Cause is to be sought out. Negative theology and retroduction( which follows the logic of negativa) is the method the ancients utilized. It's not taking away any of the power, energy, essence and such, but removing conditions, form, measure, time, division, duality, false notions away, even names and definitions away, because they're relative, while leaving there that which always was and always will be, what really is true and is substratum. Perhaps instead of asking why the cosmos, ask why this question, why this opinion, why this notion, why this feeling, why my attitude, why my beliefs, why I project, why do I do what I do, why do i think whwt i think, why this pattern, why this attitude, why this cleaving.
Odd how everything concerning science is something always without or outside ourselves, while ourselves and are essence is over looked. Despite atoms, cells, etc. we don't really inquiry ourselves in a true scientific way.
The Platonists really do go into amazing detail concerning God. Discussing the hyparxis the summits, the principles of, levels, essences, powers.
Why the cosmos? Well, why does the question even matter?
Will you allow my impatient, unending non-enduring and uncontrollable self to teach you maths or neuroscience?
Non, does the cosmos has a recycle bin, yes all the idiots will be recycled
The fundamental computational local transform mechanic = true motion operation and conductivity behavior.
Interesting point of simple rule? Yes, it is simple and described in the Quran i.e. the purpose of the creation of man as noted in 45:22. Those interested to know more, please read the book Islam: A challenge to religion by G.A. Parwez. Read with an inquisitive mind... all there to assimilate ... to get new life!!! Any question... leave a reply here...
If there is a law,
must be a legislator.
Serve as a manifestation of divine will and as a testing ground for souls.
Nope.
Unfolding Natural Laws of ...Chaos, Order, and Telos.... exhibit ...Harmonics, Heuristics and Hierarchics.... coming forth and going forward.
sincerely
Transcendentally Progressive Naturalism
I know where this is going.
"Why this rule, rather than some other rule ?"
God invented the rule for his own pleasure !
The Cosmos just is.
No rhyme or reason is required.
Yes it requires as it is related to its existence and formation..
The cosmos just is - is the most intellectually lazy hollow statement...
@@subhrodiprakshit8923 I'm sorry that my logic doesn't agree with your religion. The universe is eternal. To say that God created it is an extra unnecessary step. However if you wanted to say that the universe is conscious I wouldn't argue with you.
Stephen is too full of himself. Great he has Mathematica which is great. The guy says he's the one that who understands QM, solved the puzzle of the second law of TM, realized GR and QM except that all has to make sense at 10^-100 m, right....a hot air ballon.
He might be right and he addresses quite a bit of the current problems with the existing physics
Cosmos is random chance, it does not have purpose in its mind.
come on ....
Cost most => cosmos.... 😂😂😂
Robert, "god" did it.
"god", the answer to every why question.
why God, is God?
"why Am I God?"
has God ever asked himself about it, I wonder?
You will never find any rule outside The Creator, Allah. When the truth doesn't suit your belief you just ignore it..
Mediaeval mindset.
When the truth didn't suit their beliefs the Church tortured and burned scientists and philosophers.