What is a hypergraph in Wolfram Physics?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 14 вер 2022
- In previous episodes, I’ve been simulating Wolfram Physics using graphs.
But you may have come across simulations if Wolfram Physics using hypergraphs.
What’s the difference?
What is a hypergraph?
-
This episode refers to previous episodes on dimensionality:
• How to measure the dimensionality of the universe lasttheory.com/channel/009-ho...
• Are Wolfram’s graphs three‑dimensional? lasttheory.com/channel/010-ar...
• What are dimensions in Wolfram’s universe? lasttheory.com/channel/011-wh...
and previous episodes on space:
• What is space? the where and the how far lasttheory.com/channel/006-wh...
• The expanse: dimension, separation & explosion lasttheory.com/channel/007-th...
-
Prefer to listen to the audio? Search for The Last Theory in your podcast player, or listen at lasttheory.com/podcast/016-wh...
The full article is at lasttheory.com/article/what-i...
Kootenay Village Ventures Inc.
A thought. As lambda calculus, turing-machines, counter-machines, celullar automaton, conways' game of life... all of these models are computationally-equivalent; e.g., anything that can be computed with one model can be computed with any of these others. There's also a lot of other rewritting systems that are also turing-complete. So, how to distinguis between:
- Wolfram is reinventing physics.
- Wolfram is reinventing "maths".
In the sense that nowadays:
- Physics use formula-based models.
- These formula-based models can be encoded in a computer.
And the wolfram system is equivalent to:
- Change the computational model to encode physics from a von-neumann machine to a rewritting system.
- Make the computational-model be the physics model itself (once the traditional physics knowledge has been "stolen" and "stored" in the computational-model itself).
- Get rid of the traditional model completely.
But the "formulas" of the traditional model are still hidden in the computational model; they have just been merged with it, like hidden under the carpet (but still there...). That's possible because the wolfram model is turing-complete and can be used to encode anything you can think of, be it real or fictional.
How could you argue against the sentence: "the wolfram model doesn't offer more explanatory power than before; but make everything harder instead; it still up to the humans to discover new stuff, and once discovered, it can be mathematically represented without the need of the wolfram model"?. The wolfram model is much more elegant and more "intuitive" in a sense (I love the idea, honestly), but reality doesn't care about our sense of intuition and elegance.
That's a great question, thanks Aarón.
You're right, any Turing-complete model can be said to be computationally equivalent to any other. But I don't think that means that all such models are equally good.
Take Newton's and Einstein's theories of gravitation, for example. Either can be computed with a Turing machine. But Einstein's general relativity is better, for at least two reasons: 1. it predicts real phenomena, such as wobbles in Mercury's orbit, the curvature of light around massive objects, and the existence of black holes, that Newton's theory doesn't; 2. it has better explanatory power, i.e. it goes further towards an answer to the question _why_ do things fall by postulating the curvature of space-time.
So yes, you're right, reality doesn't care about our intuition, but that doesn't mean that our intuition can't lead us towards better accounts of reality.
So much more to say on this, I'll try to dig deeper into your question in a future video!
Amazing video. As a biologist with deep interest in computation, it's amazing to visualize simple local rules creating such complex self-built structures that "emerge" automatically. The ramified, almost "zoological" forms (in the words of Wolfram himself) presented in the video reminded me of the "biomorphs" created by Richard Dawkins through computer simulations back in his 1986 book, "The Blind Watchmaker". I believe a similar thought can be applied to embryonic development and the evolution of animal body plans too.
Yes, this really seems a promising line of research, doesn't it? Thanks for watching!
Great vid, as always! I'm sure these will be THE introduction to Wolfram Physics, as the field picks up steam
Thanks, Conor, I'll do my best to live up to that!
Thanks for the illuminating and accessible video. Really enjoyed it.
Thanks, Benjamin, I appreciate that!
Thank you for this great analysis
Thanks! Jonathan’s pretty brilliant at explaining these things, isn’t he?
Absolutely brilliant work !!!
Thanks so much! It really motivates me to hear these responses from you!
Thank you for your excellent video. You have finally accomplished what seemed impossible, to cut down a very complex concept into sufficiently small and simple thoughts that even an old and dumb person like me can understand. Blessings to you and your family
Thanks, I appreciate that!
Again, my intuition for describing/modelling such complexity tells me it’s going to be a mixture of all of them. Ultimately a dense filigree for visualisation?
Again, thank you. Much appreciated.
Yes, I agree, all possible combinations of hyperedges is easier to accept than one particular -arity of hyperedge... because if it's one particular -arity, then the question remains, why _that_ -arity?
Thanks as ever for the comment!
This was a great explanation, Thanks!
Thanks! I enjoy doing these "What is..." explanations!
It's been fun working through your series, well done and thanks for creating it. Has Wolfram published anything recently?
Thanks Andy!
I don't think Stephen Wolfram has published a book since _A project to find the Fundamental Theory of Physics_ lasttheory.com/book/a-project-to-find-the-fundamental-theory-of-physics-by-stephen-wolfram
But he's prolific in his publication of (long!) videos. If you're interested in more, you should definitely subscribe to the Wolfram channel ua-cam.com/users/WolframResearch
nice video !
i remender asking myself the same kind of question ( your question at the end of the vid ) when i learned complexe number back to when i was in high shool; and yes i know it's the same.
Fantastic work. ty
Thanks for the video
Thanks Thomas!
Thanks for mentioning the higher dimensionality problem with the 2D graph. I was starting to question the entire conceptual understanding of dimensionality in physics, for a second there. 😄
Yep!
Have you read Schild's Ladder by Greg Egan? The way Egan describes the physics of the novo vacuum in the book reminds me of the Ruliad.
No, I've not read that! I should seek out a copy, thanks Kelly!
The nature of a graph must come from the fullness of chaos/order, where all options are possible. Our world is somewhere on the border between chaos and order, randomness and stagnation. Some type of edges contributes to the self-development of the graph better than others. If there is no Creator who chose the rules and the initial state, then there must be a completeness of all options in which some options, being isolated from others, can contain our world. By isolation, I mean a branch with a finite number of rules and edge type, applying other rules and boundary types will destabilize or stagnate the graph.
I think you have a good way into the order/chaos question in your other comment. Different ways of seeing could render the same reality in different ways: one way of seeing → order, a different way of seeing → chaos. _We_ pay attention to order because that's the kind of beings we are.
And the question of which rules to apply is an endlessly fascinating one. I want to experiment more with this: I share your hunch that applying certain rules will lead to destabilization or stagnation of the graph. But all the rules? Or certain rules depending on where you are in rulial space? There's a lot to wrap my head around here!
That concept is called the edge of chaos, in case you haven't heard of it. I personally think that everything that's interesting and beautiful in the natural world occur on the edge of chaos. When I see brief glimpses of order emerging out of chaotic systems, it always blows my mind. Strange attractors are a great example of this phenomenon.
@@russmbiz Thanks Russ. I'd like to look into this more deeply. So many directions to go here!
It seems to me that we can design a small amount of space and apply rules on it and then get some kind of simplified version of the standard model. This will make it possible to understand what is movement, the interaction of particles, decay and entanglement. In the future, we can complicate this model and try to bring it closer to the real one, as physicists do now using continuum mathematics. But there is a fear that we will not have enough computing power to get at least some satisfactory result.
Yes, that's a great summary of what might be possible here. I share your fear that there might not be enough computing power to work up from the scale of the graph to the scale at which we'd see particles and interactions. Computational irreducibility might prevent us from making any approximations along the way, so we might have to brute-force it, and that might not be possible!
@@lasttheory what about quantum computation?
@@philipm3173 Another great question.
Stephen Wolfram and Jonathan Gorard have found that quantum mechanics can be derived from the multiway graph in the same way that general relativity falls out of the hypergraph.
And from quantum mechanics, quantum computation follows. The multiway graph is a good way of visualizing quantum computing: a quantum computer determines which of the many possible paths through the multiway graph are realized as the result of the quantum computation.
I'll be getting into the multiway graph in upcoming episodes: much more to come on this.
I find some similarity between the ideas about the hypergraph and the holographic universe. Both ideas have the same basis - information that can be interpreted (rendered) in different ways. If you want to render a hypergraph two-dimensional, three-dimensional or something else, its behavior will remain the same.
Yes, this is fascinating. It's a powerful idea: seeing things differently allows the same reality to be interpreted (rendered) in different ways. I had no idea that this idea could be applied to physics, but now, with Wolfram Physics, I see it.
@@lasttheory I'm not familiar enough with Stephen's work to comment on it specifically, but you do realise that the entirety of your comment could just as easily describe *any* theory that incorporates a coordinate system, don't you?
@@simesaid Thanks Sime. I think Stephen Wolfram's ideas about ways of seeing go far deeper than that. He suggests that depending on where you are in rulial space, the way you interpret the universe, in terms of which rule or rules are being applied, is different. So in Wolfram's theory, different ways of seeing applies no just to the coordinate system, but to the laws of physics themselves.
@@lasttheory I saw an interview with stephen where he said something to the effect of "The reason that we observe the laws of physics we do is a consequence of us having consciousness the way we have consciousness." He was talking about how we tell ourselves a linear, narrative like story about what happens in the world, yet reality is actually constantly branching and recombining. Same for our minds. In the aggregate, this is what makes us able to derive all the physics we know of, from classical to quantum. It is especially relevant in quantum mechanics, because the probabilistic nature is a consequence of our branching mind observing a branching universe and creating a linear story about what happened.
@@russmbiz Yes, thanks Russ. This is one of the most fascinating of Stephen Wolfram's ideas. Branchial space allows for multiple timelines, but Wolfram suggests that consciousness consists in collapsing these into a single timeline. This could explain so much of quantum mechanics, and even consciousness itself. My next video, _What is the multiway graph in Wolfram Physics,_ will start down this path towards consciousness.
Yes, the graph is space, but its also non-dimensional space woven into relative dimensional spacetime.
Interesting, could you say more about that?
As an interested lay person I'm just trying to understand the concept of hypergraphs (having just listened to Stephen Wolfram on the latest episode of TOE) so I'll be watching more of your videos. Thanks for trying to make this stuff accessible to non-specialists.
My comment has nothing to do with the physics, but is just about making the videos even more accessible - is it possible for you to get an autocue if you are speaking directly int the camera and reading a script?
Yes, good suggestion about the autocue, thanks. My earlier videos, the autocue was way off from the line of sight to the camera. I've adjusted that since, so I hope it's a bit better in my later videos. I'm constantly trying to improve my setup!
Thanks for your comment and for watching!
Thank you for this! By the way, is a hypergrah very similar to a fractal? What are the differences? It seems the logic is the same but maybe the mathematics are a bit different?
Thanks Constantine. And yes, some hypergraphs are fractals, but not all!
Fractals have non-integer dimensions, and as I've explored (e.g. in ua-cam.com/video/-_bSU-tus0U/v-deo.html Are Wolfram's graphs three dimensional?) some graphs have non-integer dimensions. Others, however, have integer dimensions, and ultimately, our universe is three-dimensional at a large scale, so the graph is going to have to be three-dimensional, at least approximately.
I'm going to be exploring fractal-like graphs more in my next episode about beautiful, symmetrical universes. Hope you follow along, thanks for the comment!
@@lasttheory Have you thought much about entanglement fits into the hypergraph models? To me, it seems like all it would require is to have two nodes connected that are otherwise separated by a large spatial distance. I think this is a consequence of the dimensionality being fluid and ever changing. Nearby points in space are simply more closely connected, but if you're careful you can separate two pieces of space while keeping some connections intact, therefore explaining entanglement and instantaneous correlation across space.
@@russmbiz Yes, exactly. You put it well. There's so much here to work out, but you're right. Wolfram Physics _doesn't_ start with fixed, three-dimensional space; instead, it starts with the hypergraph, which allows for many connections between close regions of space, but also a few connections between distant regions of space. This makes quantum entanglement seem like it might emerge naturally from the hypergraph.
When did lines become edges?
An _edge_ is the technical term for a line in the hypergraph. So we can call them dots and lines if we want to use simple language, or nodes and edges if we want to be mathematically precise. Hope that helps!
Whwre do you answer those last questions? Or have they never been answered?
Thanks for the question. I did leave it hanging there, didn't I?
The brief answer to all those questions is: yes, we can use the most general form of a hypergraph, with any mix of edges with any number of nodes per edge.
I have follow-on videos where I go deeper into these questions. Take a look at my hypergraphs playlist to watch them in order: ua-cam.com/play/PLVwcxwu8hWKnSHMu_zmnTbuo0dzFyaGYP.html
What determines the length and angles of the lines? This is so confusing. What determines the number values in the the first place?
Sorry it's confusing!
The lengths and angles of the edges are completely arbritrary. I've written software to lay them out with lengths and angles that makes the hypergraph easy to see on your screen, but I could have laid them out very differently, and it'd still be the same hypergraph. What matters is _which_ nodes are connected by _which_ edges.
And the numbers of nodes and edges? And the relationships between them? That's determined by the repeated applications of the rules.
For an introduction to all this, take a look at my video _Nodes, edges, graphs & rules: the basic concepts of Wolfram Physics_ ua-cam.com/video/oikIXQ8eJws/v-deo.html
Hope that helps!
you should use an infinity mirror simulation
All extensions to a hypergraph can be represented as a DAG. It seems to me like a DAG is the true structure, as it can represent both graphs and (hyper)hypergraphs. Of course, a DAG itself is a graph.
I've heard Stephen Wolfram, too, hint that hypergraphs might not be necessary for his physics, graphs might be sufficient. I need to do more investigation here!
This is what I've thought too, but I haven't tried proving it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you saying that a hyperedge like {1,2,3} could be represented by a collection of normal edges? Would you need to add in extra nodes to make the connections the same? Also, how would that affect the rule that's applied to the structure?
@@russmbiz Yes, you may need to add new nodes which can be done with reification. The rule would have to change in practice but it would keep the same semantics as the original rule. There is a correspondence between a certain class of DAG and a normal hypergraph.
So what does it mean? Well, since with Wolfram Physics we talk about all possible rules, it probably doesn’t matter so much whether we use graphs, hypergraphs, or DAGs. They all suit the needs of being able to be computed on while allowing arbitrary structure.
The universe is the universe breaking it up in any kind of graph is just like when people broke up a circle into more and more slices to find pi 3.1415. It is interesting that this graph is the concept someone is trying to use to describe how space is created or expanding but the truth is that space being the area that contains all matter is only as large and gets larger by the radiation of energy and light into it so around much brighter and stronger electro magnetic out lying objects the space if one found the center would be if possible to draw the boundaries of space would be further out than less bright less electro magnetic objects. Also space can be defined as the solar system or as the galaxy and in reality the space between these spaces are the product of energy between the space the galaxies take up. So the more galaxies die the smaller space becomes.
The hypergraphs look like "quantum spin foam "
Yes, spin foam involves graphs like Feynmann Diagrams. The underlying physics is very different, though.
1:45 Using set notation is quite confusing, since in sets the order of elements by default does not matter
Yes, it _is_ a little confusing.
Sometimes ordered sets are shown with regular brackets *(1, 2, 3)* rather than curly brackets *{1, 2, 3}* to indicate that the order matters.
However, for better or worse, I've followed Stephen Wolfram, who always uses curly brackets for hypergraph edges.
I like the idea of viewing reality as the result of an intense calculation. But my immediate question is : what does the calculating?
You should use Clifford Algebra and Geometric Algebra for everything.
So the operation have almost a matrix geometry but are only local, not global transformations?
That's a great question.
I don't think I'd characterize this as matrix geometry: matrices are a powerful way to manipulate continuous space / fields, but the hypergraph is discrete, and the applications of the rules are more like a list of discrete instructions.
The local v global question is crucial. The way I'm applying rules in my simulations is certainly local. (And by that, I mean local to the hypergraph, not necessarily local in space.) But it _is_ possible to apply rules globally. That's a lot more complicated, but it's possible.
My video "Where to apply Wolfram's rules?" ua-cam.com/video/kW-nr7ehVlM/v-deo.html goes into this question of whether to apply a rule locally (to a single match) or globally (to all possible matches).
But your question inspires me to make a video more specifically on your local v global question. It'll get into quantum entanglement... so many interesting questions here!
well, if you are a visual thinker you would think about organizing the graph in a hypergraph multiple other stuff
Yes, it's interesting how the hypergraph can be represented in two completely different ways: numerically {1, 2, 3} or visually. I'll keep showing the visual representation: I think most of us are visual thinkers to a degree! Thanks for the comment!
This is how the universe was made.
Yes, it might just be...
“ I’ve made some far more pernicious decisions than that “ If I had a dime for every time I’ve said that.😂
I hesitate to ask what _your_ pernicious decisions have been ;-)
I agree that humans have incredible ingenuity. Some one always will have the final graph of all graphs. It’s the human condition.
If the universe was built from a graph or pattern would the pattern be at the Planck scale or smaller
I still cannot imagine space when I look at a graph
Great question.
The graph is at a _much_ smaller scale than the Planck length.
This means we'll never be able to see the graph directly, but it also means that we have a _lot_ of wiggle room to construct three-dimensional space from the graph.
I agree, it's still difficult to see exactly how three-dimensional space is constructed from the graph.
My hunch is that all the complexities of the graph, at this much smaller scale than three-dimensional space, are like tiny, local knots in a fishing net. Look closely, and you see all those tiny knots, but zoom out and all you see is the two-dimensionality of the fishing net.
Same with the universe: look closely and you see all the complexities of the graph, but zoom out and all you see is the three-dimensionality of space. I have work to do here to demonstrate how this might look!
Thanks for the question, it really helps me work out what I need to investigate further and explain better!
@@lasttheory Pretty sure that the graph is at the Hubble scale, i.e. = 1.08×10^-95 m during the transient equilibrium about 6 Gya and now at about 1.5×10^-95 m, it strated at the Planck scale during the Big Bang and will move up again as time goes to infinity. The mechanism behind growth of space is simply the multiplication of the orders of the 26 sporadic groups. Our observable universe, at maximum, held 1/2 of the total order (~ 2.333×10^365) spatial points and the number is falling down again.
There's quite a bit of evidence behind the sporadic group/Hubble scale thing. I'll write more soon. The planck scale is almost an axis between the graph scale and the observable universe!
@@kontrolafaktu2760 Thanks, this is awesome. I've been using 10^-100 m as the scale of the graph and 10^400 as the number of points, because I'm a close-enough kind of a guy. Do you have a source for your numbers? I'd love to dig into this further.
@@kontrolafaktu2760 And yes, the Planck scale as a pivot point between the scale of the graph and the size of the universe is a wonderful way to look at it. It's almost too perfectly half way from one to the other!
i think the only way we'll ever find out what rule makes our universe is if we decide on a mechanism of consciousness and find a rule that generates it
Yes, it's odd, I always used to think that consciousness was too high-level a phenomenon to have any relevance in physics, but now I tend to agree with you: an understanding of consciousness is crucial to an understanding of physics.
@@lasttheory Wolfram has released some videos on the relation of Wolfram Physics to consciousness. My simple summary would be that consciousness and life itself emerges as an exploitation of the spaces in the hypergraph where there is computational reducibilty. That effectively means spaces where an organism can predict ahead of time what is more likely to happen, and so increase the chances of its survival beyond random chance, and then we get evolution and escalating complexity.
@@WerdnaGninwod Yes, thanks Andrew. I particularly like Stephen Wolfram's idea that consciousness is closely related to the reduction of the multiway graph to a single timeline. This is fascinating stuff, and I'll certainly be making videos about it, as soon as I understand it better myself!
There is no chaos or order those are concepts we use to catoregize things we know about (order) and things that we don't know about (chaos). What everyone forgets or never puts thought to is that only human beings with consciousness, curiousness, self preservation, and greed care about what the universe is doing and why when the universe doesn't care it just is and happens. Also numbers math and these concepts we created the universe would exist and continue on without ever there being any attention they are not the fundamental reason it is they are the way we have devised for us to manipulate it.
Isn't this just computer science? You can write a programme for machines to knit wool jumpers. I can't see how or why the Universe could have been "knitted". I can understand how fungi can spread, or trees can grow as fractals but this likely by regular changes in cell morphology - square cells regularly producing triangular shaped cells - and governed by gene expression.
Yes, it's difficult to wrap one's mind around how a universe could be created from the laws of physics! But that's true whether the universe is mathematical or computational. It's like asking: I can understand how a mathematician can apply calculus to the laws of motion to calculate that the path of the Earth around the Sun is elliptical, but how do mathematical physical laws actually produce that orbit? My best answer is that the laws of physics are a _model._ No one's suggesting that there's a celestial mathematician or a computer that actually calculates or computes the universe. For more on this fascinating question, take a look at my video _Where's the computer that runs the universe?_ ua-cam.com/video/m6pI9ndsEK8/v-deo.html Thanks for the comment!
I observe this looks very much like a neural network.
And in a neural network the key to creating the detail is FFT….
Yes, absolutely, hypergraphs ↔ neural networks ↔ neurons.
@@lasttheory so are you using FFTs to improve the detail of the model?
@@jameshancock No, right now I'm just doing the simple thing, applying rules to hypergraphs and seeing how the universe evolves. I don't know if you'd call FFTs a shortcut, but I confess I'm skeptical of all shortcuts, given that computational irreducibility suggests that, in general, such shortcuts can't work.
@@lasttheory it’s more that FFT does the fit for you by optimizing the curves. Given that FFT is in almost everything I’d suggest that it may be a natural part of the universe.
And from that comes at least an algorithm. AI researchers never bother to capture it because it isn’t important, only the end result is, but it’s there and usable.
@@jameshancock Ah, got it, thanks for explaining, James. I haven't ventured into this territory at all: I leave it to Jonathan Gorard to match the hypergraph to the realities of general relativity and quantum mechanics!
I started thinking I'm watching Numberphile
But in seriousness, I came here from Sabine Hossenfelder's video on emergent time ( ua-cam.com/video/PdL8CudJTcs/v-deo.html ) and I can see how this hypergraph concept shows possible emergence of space from nodes and relationships between nodes, which resembles the concept of quantum foam's virtual particles. Very interesting stuff.
Thanks! And yes, I think this model has real potential.
Using graphs to represent the universe seems a bit like using strings I get the feeling this theory will also go the way of string theory
From now on, only toad and snake graphs will be accepted for publcation
Yes, exactly! Wouldn't that make mathematicians' and physicists' papers more fun?
What is a hypergraph in Wolfram Physics?
Short answer BS
Long answer?
You
This just looks like any old arbitrary rule to generate a fractal, why is this one special?
Right, good question: which rule should we be looking at? or which set of rules? There are many answers to this question: we might want rules that generate a _three-dimensional_ space, or rules that generate a _local_ space, or rules that are causally invariant. Bit ultimately, this question remains unanswered… for now!
I visualise the internet like that.
This reminds me of why I hate mathematics. I kept waiting for the “why” but none was given. It all seems made up and therefore irrelevant.
Ah, the "why" is the big question! Here's why this is so interesting. It might be that our universe _is_ a hypergraph. In other words, everything in our universe, from space itself to all the matter within it, can be modelled by a hypergraph. This new idea, which I'm calling Wolfram Physics, has the potential to revolutionize physics. Take a look at the other videos in my channel for more on how the hypergraph might model our universe!
Physics has no content. Consider instead an investment bank, a trading bank and a credit union. The investment bank funds the trading bank and the trading bank funds the credit union. That is a relation in axiological hyperspace (as possessive relations do not exist in physical space). Broaden your mind - study accounting, banking and insurance. They could well hold the secrets of the universe.
Sir the Universe is not to be understood as graphs
as a fata architect, this hiperedge thing is not nice, ypu should use a proper datamodel to that
Looks like soap bubble math, or fractals. Has no intrinsic value or so-called hidden variables. Just a goddamn fabric.
You might be right, but, well, you _can_ derive Einstein's equations and aspects of quantum mechanics from it, so it does seem worth looking into, at least.
Wow, so slow
Trouble is the universe did not evolve just like life did not evolve, this is a dead end idea.
The way you’re over-explaining this, I have to wonder who the intended audience is. Who are these people interested in theoretical physics who need to be told in five different ways that a representation is not the same thing as the thing being represented? Absolutely bizarre.
Hey, Brian, thanks for the feedback. Sorry if this is too much explanation for you!
I find it really good to see how many people without any background in theoretical physics are interested in Wolfram Physics. They tend to like this level of explanation for such core concepts as the hypergraph, but I know it's not for everyone.
I get into more advanced concepts in later videos, such as my one on the multiway graph ua-cam.com/video/QncEB6i2nUY/v-deo.html And I'll be moving on to branchial space, causal invariance, computational irreducibility, and the ruliad. I hope these more advanced topics will appeal to you more.
Thanks for watching!
I'm the audience lol
Not everybody interested in theoretical physics is a professional theoretical physicist. After all, this is a UA-cam video for a general audience, not a lecture in university.
It is for people like me. 😄 I never studied physics but I would love to understand as much as possible from Wolframs mindblowing project
It's not 'absolutely bizarre', it's just someone explaining something. Sure some flab could be cut out from the explanation, but there's nothing bizarre going on here.