The Ruliad: An Explanation | Stephen Wolfram at The UIUC Talkshow

Поділитися
Вставка
  • Опубліковано 23 січ 2023
  • UIUC Talkshow Full Episode: • Stephen Wolfram: Colle...
    GUEST BIO:
    Stephen Wolfram is the founder and CEO of Wolfram Research, the company behind the revolutionary Mathematica, Wolfram Alpha (the revolutionary computational search engine), Wolfram Language, and the new Wolfram Physics project. He is also the author of several books, including 'A New Kind of Science'.
    Subscribe to The UIUC Talkshow Main Channel ( / @uiuctalkshow )
    SOCIAL:
    Instagram: / uiuctalkshow
    Twitter: / uiuctalkshow
    TikTok: / uiuctalkshow
    Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/3ezoc4x...
    Apple Podcasts: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...
    Full episodes playlist: • Episodes
    Clips playlist: • Clips
    What is the UIUC Talkshow?
    Our goal with this show is to introduce you to the most interesting people with the most interesting ideas from the UIUC campus.
    Learn more about Juan David & Aaryaman:
    Aaryaman
    / aaryaman-patel-779437205
    Juan David
    Website: www.juandavidcampolargo.com/
    Twitter: / jdcampolargo
    LinkedIn: / jdcampolargo
    Instagram: / jdcampolargo

КОМЕНТАРІ • 34

  • @santiagoarango3968
    @santiagoarango3968 Рік тому +12

    I actually think he has a picture in his mind thats very hard to explain. I think iI get the idea he's trying to express but I'm not sure how should it be explained. Still Wolfram is an OG

    • @GDMartin
      @GDMartin Рік тому +4

      Needs more than 6 minutes. Go check out him on lex Friedman for explanation further.
      Also look into Donald Hoffman’s idea on the universe

    • @SawYouDie
      @SawYouDie Рік тому

      Look into Wholography another theory of everything

    • @nsambataufeeq1748
      @nsambataufeeq1748 3 місяці тому

      Trippy stuff

    • @dylanpaul7371
      @dylanpaul7371 Місяць тому

      He's basically found a way to research and investigate the structure of the universe by researching and investigating a computer-made representation of the most fundamental causal network possible.

  • @lanecrum7010
    @lanecrum7010 7 місяців тому +5

    If you get to a place where you understand everything you neve longer exist, I vibe with that.

    • @jimbojimbo6873
      @jimbojimbo6873 6 місяців тому

      Same

    • @homelessrobot
      @homelessrobot 5 місяців тому +2

      I don't think its that you no longer exist, its that you exist in a way that is incompatible with seperating yourself from the rest of the universe. Sounds a lot like Buddhism

    • @dylanpaul7371
      @dylanpaul7371 Місяць тому

      Wolfram posits that it is impossible to "know everything" because to know "everything" would at the very least mean experiencing the universe till its very end. Wolfram's concept of computational irreducibility means there are always going to be components of the universe that are not understandable no matter what our technology level is.

  • @CalvinHikes
    @CalvinHikes 8 місяців тому

    It's similar to conversations about dimensions. I'm sure that's not what he means but it's like our little piece of the ruliad is at a right angle to other pieces. Other "dimensions."

  • @jacksonvaldez5911
    @jacksonvaldez5911 4 місяці тому

    This is what a theory of everything will look like. It will be some object that contains all possible realities, and this model is for some reason concious. A theory of everything wont be a single equation

  • @jimbojimbo6873
    @jimbojimbo6873 6 місяців тому +1

    So the ruliad as I understand it is every possible rule/path/decision point In existence. Everything that happens and will happens falls into a slice of that gran tree so to speak.
    Makes me wonder whether there is any free will, can’t see how there is

    • @homelessrobot
      @homelessrobot 5 місяців тому

      you'd have to define free will in a physical context to even really ask the question in ernest. Otherwise you are comparing incomparable things and any intuition you have about the comparison is not well informed. But also consider other things that 'don't exist' in this context: motion, gravity, time, electromagnetism, space. According to this theory it all emerges out of this simpler structure, and none of it is baked in.

    • @mkhosono1741
      @mkhosono1741 3 місяці тому +2

      Wolfram describes it in other interviews as " we don't have free will but you can't plug in an equation and get the output immediately. You must unfold each rule before you can see it's result."

    • @memegazer
      @memegazer Місяць тому

      That doesn't make sense to me.
      I suppose the way I view the ruliad is that it is literally everything that is possible.
      That is not determinism necessarily.
      It may very well be possible rules sets exist, and some include free will.
      The trouble at this point with the ruliad, is it is easy to imagine the concept, it is an entirely different thing to actually arrive at the fundamental rule set of our universe.
      And even then assuming that rule set has infinite variablity, you would still be left with the problem of knowing the exact random seed that produced our current configuration.
      At any rate, doesn't make much sense that evolution would naturally select for an "illusion of choice"
      If there was no degree of freedo that actually existed, then there would be no survival benefit it seems to me the would be no need for the "illusion".
      I honestly don't think brains would have ever evolved if you were just as likely to survive without one bc any benefit was just an illusion, it doesn't make sense to me how there could be any selection pressure for brains considering they are not cheap in the biomechanical sense.

    • @memegazer
      @memegazer Місяць тому

      @@mkhosono1741
      I suppose that depends on how one thinks about time.

  • @donaldstrubler3870
    @donaldstrubler3870 Рік тому

    TL;DR: if you were to model reality fully in a representative way like computation, and dedupe it, it is the totality of what that could be

  • @AeonMusicRecord
    @AeonMusicRecord 2 місяці тому

    what he is calling "Ruliad" is called "Brahman" in Vedanta. It is the exact same "thing", except its not a "thing" in traditional sense

  • @hobocraft0
    @hobocraft0 Місяць тому

    Bro loves his fucking automata.

  • @StuartHollingsead
    @StuartHollingsead 3 місяці тому +1

    The ruliad must exist? Why?
    Is it to explain why our universe has certain rules and not others?
    I can think of a different reason. The universe was designed.
    Surely you can classify parts of reality that demand a designer.

    • @dylanpaul7371
      @dylanpaul7371 Місяць тому

      The ruliad exists regardless of anything. It is a conceptual model that maps all possible permutations of possibility. You can create a "ruliad" that maps an ATM machine or an ant colony. Whether the "universal ruliad" is physically actualized in some sort of fundamental process or underlying system I think is probably up for debate?

  • @FixingPhysics
    @FixingPhysics 8 місяців тому +3

    Ruliad is just another name for "God" that is palatable to "Atheists" to compete with the other great prophet of another "Atheist" religion ... Ray Kurzweil with his AI "Singularity"

    • @DrWhom
      @DrWhom 7 місяців тому +1

      no

    • @JwalinBhatt
      @JwalinBhatt 7 місяців тому

      @@DrWhom I think science differs from religion/god in one aspect, which is that it has no say on morality. Science does not say it is ok to take people as slaves, god/religion does.

    • @homelessrobot
      @homelessrobot 5 місяців тому

      If you play this game long enough everything is god and nothing is god and the concept of god is entirely meaningless. Which isn't actually the case, but its where grandiose generalization usually lead people.

    • @hobocraft0
      @hobocraft0 Місяць тому

      Agree, the universe from a computer's perspective.

  • @crawkn
    @crawkn 3 місяці тому

    Okay fine, so everything is subjective. But being that we are humans, what does the whole thing mean, subjectively, to us? If the answer to everything is that we are just too human to understand anything, given that it is humans you are "explaining" things to, you are just talking over our heads. Maybe instead of telling us we are too human to understand, you should be learning how to communicate with humans.

    • @dylanpaul7371
      @dylanpaul7371 Місяць тому

      The purpose of the ruliad and Wolfram's other computer science related endeavours is to explore the universe through computation rather than through physical observation. It's that simple. That's all it is.

    • @crawkn
      @crawkn Місяць тому

      @@dylanpaul7371 Wolfram at least makes a pretense of relating the ruliad to physics, i.e. physical reality. If it is a purely mathematical construct, with no intentions of modeling reality, and he understands that, then his claims of application to physics are disingenuous. What you refer to as "explor[ing] the universe through computation rather than through observation" misses the purpose of observation. Observation is not a standalone method of exploration, it is an initial data-gathering step, necessary to accurately model that which is observed. You can't ask a child who has never observed a giraffe to draw one, recommending a process of drawing all imaginable animals. It would be rather inefficient, and success highly improbable.

  • @kapenakanaiaupuni5816
    @kapenakanaiaupuni5816 3 місяці тому

    All of it is Bull shit .nobody knows anything for a fact .

    • @nsambataufeeq1748
      @nsambataufeeq1748 3 місяці тому +1

      Doesnt hurt to try

    • @dylanpaul7371
      @dylanpaul7371 Місяць тому

      It's a fact that you can map any system, including a universe, using a conceptual structure like the ruliad. No ifs, ands, or buts about it.