At last, how I experience the universe makes sense. I'm a follower of popular science and trying to merge quantum fields, time, choatic & emergent behaviour in simple ststems, DNA, nural networks, etc. in my head as MY universe is now making so much more sense! Thank you Stephen, you are right👍
I haven't read NKS but, does he say anything about Markov chains? That kind of math seems to dance in a similar area and people like Karl Friston and Donald Hoffman have made ample use of it both in considering evolutionary processes and disequilibrium systems and Friston's Markov blankets.
Amazing video. I'm also an unreal fan of Wolfram's because I see part of what he sees and how he discovered meta-science. (You may be interested in Terrance Mckenna's approach to the mystical.)
Putting Stephen Wolfram and Terence McKenna in the same sentence seems kind of ...unequal. I've listened to dozens of hours of McKenna and love the idea of the Stoned Ape. And I've read NKS and most of the Wolfram Physics papers, so I'm entitled to my opinion. Wolfram is at the very top level of abstract thinking, up there with Isaac Newton (see Michael Commons' Model of Hierarchical Complexity), while Terence is you or me or our next door neighbor on steroids. :)
Robert Krulwich is perhaps the worst choice to interview a scientist of the magnitude of Wolfram. The smarmy, sit-com responses he gives to Wolfram at 13:00 illustrate how outclassed he is. Wolfram's response is smooth and cool. Krulwich's "style" is that of the entertainment science mode, something we don't need more of these days.
Absolutely. Mocking and condescending toward someone whose ideas he has no grasp. I'm amazed at Wolfram's composure and resistance because Krulwich irritated me from the first.
That makes very much sense to me. It makes very much sense that everything is made from very simple things but the combination of those very simple things have become so complicated that we just can't find the initial structure. We keep working on some of the things that are already complicated and hope we can go backwards to find the simpler things. I think his thought is that we should try to make some simple rules and test to se if it can make complicated things as we see. With that I think we should start from EME and see what we can get out of that.
I studied complexity theory for a few years before hearing about Wolfram…and I had came almost to the exact same conclusions as him…only thing I was missing was thinking that computation was fundamental. This is why when I bumped into Wolframs Theory I knew he was right. I would argue that anyone who has studied complexity theory knows that Wolframs model must be right…the clues lead straight to it. Studied his theory for a year (From 2020 to now) and I perfectly understand how it works now and have modeled things already based on it. I’m probably one of his most devout followers and if he told me to die for this theory I would. Anyway it’s a matter of time before the world catches on I pray he lives long enough to finish his theory. I’m no where near smart enough to follow his steps but I will do what I can…and model as many systems as possible.
Thanks for the comment, the remark about being 'smart enough to follow' hits home because I truly believe its the main obstacle for scientific genius. Humanity stands to benefit from people like Wolfram but modeling systems is already outside most people's comfort zones... not to mention Einstein's relativity. I hope my channel can help improve that situation of course... please stay tuned for more ideas on how this can be brought about!
@@ScientificGenius I’ve done several recently with Mark Jeffery of The Last Theory channel. Most recent a couple of days ago with physicist Wolfgang Smith. I’d really enjoy especially exploring with you Wolfram’s theory of computational equivalence and its implications.
Came here because of your conversation with Karen on the Meaning Code. Thanks and great work. I've been skirting the edge of Wolfram for long enough... time to take the dive in haha. Btw, have you ever read C.S. Lewis 'The Discarded Image'? I'm curious if you have based on your Thesis work with Fludd.
Welcome! I only know Lewis' Narnia books but I'm aware that he wrote systematic works as well. Thanks for the recommendation! I'm hard at work on another Wolfram video, and he's definitely a thinker that requires taking a dive :)
universe is not computation, it's discrete robot and we can find the algorithms. Limited speed, discrete action - everything tells that something is executing algorithm down there.
Does the number 92 have significance in relation to ‘the onset of complexity’ issuing from a simple rule? De Idea Platonica quemadmodem Aristotelam intellexit! - John Milton (just to suggest qualification of any reliance on Aristotle for anything fundamental in the context of Pythagorean and Platonic number theorising - at base is Aristotle not essentially a categoriser? - I quote the title of Milton’s poem as possibly indicating the need for such qualification.) This video is really appreciated for what it has introduced - would I be right in assuming that you managed to see Fludd’s wonderful illustrations at the new faculty of Alchemical Studies at Amsterdam University. I have only recently heard of its existence and the idea brings joy as over thirty years ago it occurred to mind that ‘too many babies had been chucked out with the bath water’ in the Keplerian/Newtonian intellectual revolution. These days it is worth mentioning also the reevaluation of John Dee’s mathematical gift which can be appreciated in several y/t presentations made by Alexander Waugh and by Alan Green (alias ‘Bardcode’). Many thanks for this.
Gee, I don't know. I told and wrote that the real birthday was 9.2. Then I see a scuba boat burning off Santa Barbara behind my eyes. Then 9.2.2020. The scuba boat the Conception run by Truth Aquatics burned off Santa Barbara and killed 33.
@@markhughes7927 my first prescient vision behind my eyes was the B.P. oil spill 2010 months prior. The first of 11 to die on that rig was last name Jones. My son's father Randy Jones died Christmas Eve 2005 of ALS when our son was in first grade. Shalom.
It was a show with Walter Brennan from American TV in the 60s where Brennan would say, "No brag, just fact." If Wolfram said he was the smartest guy in the world, that would be no brag, just fact. :)
I think that's just the way he rolls. I don't think he thinks about this as bragging, just factual statements. What's surprising about this to me: Wolfram seems remarkably unaware that this kind of speaking comes across as profoundly egotistical. Would be an easy thing to fix if that were not the case. If you can get past this, he's really a national treasure -- and that's me speaking, not him.
I believe we contain a small bit of free will, that is able to decide. The direction as to what path to take is not something, obvious to the majority of us. All the choices we may take on our own can only lead to a deterministic fate. If only there where a bridge that gave us a way out of such a fate? If someone who was outside of our computation, entered into it, to teach us a Way out, would there be hope for us of getting out of this matrix! יְשׁוּעָה בְּיֵשׁוּעַ
If I'm understanding Rule 30 correctly it seems like it's a graphic representation of the rule generating the equivalent of an irrational number. Makes me wonder if the rules at the top can be somehow mathematically operated somehow to find more of these.
I believe that's a good way to think of Rule 30. We know how to arrive at irrational numbers (i.e. the rules that produce them) but once we 'have' them, they are beyond our grasp. I wonder what the difference is between studying the picture of Rule 30 and gazing into the Mandelbrot set. Fractal patterns seem more rational to me, perhaps because self-similarity is reassuring. With Rule 30, you never know what you're going to get!
@@reeb3687 when I was staring at Rule 30 it seems like it's due to an agnosticism as to how a given 3-part state was achieved, ie. there's no velocity, just simple handling of whatever's there. In a way it's data destruction / loss / mutation that seems to be driving it.
@@carbon1479 Like one of the seeds or multiple act as a sort of cancer slowly spreading throughout? I don’t think I completely follow but what you said makes more sense.
@@reeb3687 I think you're saying it right - ie. that it doesn't care about surrounding context other than the three blocks being assessed, and that lends the possibility for new dynamic threads to kick off.
Personally I'd like to see Wolfram and Dawkins have a wee bit of a natter about this. Two old Oxonians trying to come to some kind of synthesis. As for the interviewer…all I have to say is Wolfram doesn't have to be "right" (and how would we ever know?) to be interesting. EDIT: s/has/have/
13:26 The interviewer demonstrates the problem - snigger snigger you really think you have something bigger than Einstein? let me school you in modesty…..ugh! btw imho Fuller is the next full step beyond Newton for a ratiocinative construction of Nature. I notice the 2D nature of most of what Wolfram presents in his book from this initial exposure to it. 2D is in essence ‘symbolic’ for 3D is it not? - in the same way as ‘Special’ preceded ‘General’ in Albert’s theorising process? ‘Science’ one presumes is necessarily 3D because nothing physical exists without volumetric extension. This comment assumes that if Science and Computation are being used in the same breath then the theory of computation has what may be termed a ‘transitive’ relation to the actuality of physics. I wonder if Mr. Wolfram is aware of Fuller’s math/physics - if he isn’t and became so some almighty creative synthesis might result! (Later) Wolfram so on the ball! he is beginning to enter the world of nature telling us about herself as described by Jeremy Narby; and ‘mycal intelligence’ solving biological problems at speeds leaving world academia as a dot in the rear mirror! Just thoughts from a by-passing chap…..
Hey, thanks for posting. I think about the Wolfram/Bucky synthesis a lot, especially the potential of computational models for Synergetics. One major difference is that Fuller was willing to use the concept of God in a systematic way, as the zero-phase vector equilibrium. I haven't seen or heard Wolfram talk about God from a computational point of view yet. It definitely has something to do with the symbolism you mention, either between dimensions or as a transitive relation between ourselves and the world. Pass by anytime! Thanks for watching.
@@ScientificGenius Thanks! and for the reminder of the ‘divine conception’ of the zero-phase moment - I read the books in 1987 without math or physics competence as a basis to frame critical responses. Perhaps fortunate as I accepted fully what otherwise I may well have rejected through ‘small learning’. I remember thinking - regarding z-p - how like jesus and his passion - there, not there, and there again. I have a sense that possibly a human competency is evolving towards that of the first pyramid builders in which a synthesis is accomplished beyond that of these two seemingly essential elements: Carl Munck, Varda Sarnat, Wayne Herschel, Robert Edward Grant, are four who stand out to me - but there are a host of sacred sciencers and geometers with inputs - I like Mark Beeson. I also particularly appreciate Alan Green and I simply haven’t read John Dee but imagine that unique inputs would come from that quarter too! (One thing that might interest you that came out of my fuller reading was a discovery I was fortunate to make that the isocratic vector matrix can be realised through syncopating identical, mixed, and exotic elements - I posted on y/t - khatmatrix mark hughes - once there press on the icon to see more if interested.) cheers!
This video was kinda ridiculous. NKS is highly discredited. He spoke to congress against open source software. He makes money selling college kids a proprietary math tool.
At last, how I experience the universe makes sense. I'm a follower of popular science and trying to merge quantum fields, time, choatic & emergent behaviour in simple ststems, DNA, nural networks, etc. in my head as MY universe is now making so much more sense! Thank you Stephen, you are right👍
fascinating historic context. final interview was the perfect ending. great! thank you
If this guy read Kant he would have saved a lot of time
I haven't read NKS but, does he say anything about Markov chains? That kind of math seems to dance in a similar area and people like Karl Friston and Donald Hoffman have made ample use of it both in considering evolutionary processes and disequilibrium systems and Friston's Markov blankets.
Amazing video. I'm also an unreal fan of Wolfram's because I see part of what he sees and how he discovered meta-science. (You may be interested in Terrance Mckenna's approach to the mystical.)
Putting Stephen Wolfram and Terence McKenna in the same sentence seems kind of ...unequal. I've listened to dozens of hours of McKenna and love the idea of the Stoned Ape. And I've read NKS and most of the Wolfram Physics papers, so I'm entitled to my opinion. Wolfram is at the very top level of abstract thinking, up there with Isaac Newton (see Michael Commons' Model of Hierarchical Complexity), while Terence is you or me or our next door neighbor on steroids. :)
Robert Krulwich is perhaps the worst choice to interview a scientist of the magnitude of Wolfram. The smarmy, sit-com responses he gives to Wolfram at 13:00 illustrate how outclassed he is. Wolfram's response is smooth and cool. Krulwich's "style" is that of the entertainment science mode, something we don't need more of these days.
Absolutely. Mocking and condescending toward someone whose ideas he has no grasp. I'm amazed at Wolfram's composure and resistance because Krulwich irritated me from the first.
@@Ph4n_t0m Thanks for responding. Glad i'm not alone on this...
I didn't realize Wolfram was mentored by Feynman. Growing up, my father was always mentioning two names, Willie Mays and Feynman. :)
That makes very much sense to me. It makes very much sense that everything is made from very simple things but the combination of those very simple things have become so complicated that we just can't find the initial structure. We keep working on some of the things that are already complicated and hope we can go backwards to find the simpler things. I think his thought is that we should try to make some simple rules and test to se if it can make complicated things as we see. With that I think we should start from EME and see what we can get out of that.
I am glad the number thing is out. Thankyou.
Stephen Wolfram is a great human
I studied complexity theory for a few years before hearing about Wolfram…and I had came almost to the exact same conclusions as him…only thing I was missing was thinking that computation was fundamental. This is why when I bumped into Wolframs Theory I knew he was right. I would argue that anyone who has studied complexity theory knows that Wolframs model must be right…the clues
lead straight to it.
Studied his theory for a year (From 2020 to now) and I perfectly understand how it works now and have modeled things already based on it. I’m probably one of his most devout followers and if he told me to die for this theory I would.
Anyway it’s a matter of time before the world catches on I pray he lives long enough to finish his theory. I’m no where near smart enough to follow his steps but I will do what I can…and model as many systems as possible.
Thanks for the comment, the remark about being 'smart enough to follow' hits home because I truly believe its the main obstacle for scientific genius. Humanity stands to benefit from people like Wolfram but modeling systems is already outside most people's comfort zones... not to mention Einstein's relativity. I hope my channel can help improve that situation of course... please stay tuned for more ideas on how this can be brought about!
gibberish
This is pretty badass. Nice channel!!
You should start looking into the ctmu. Wolfram will need it
And love to have you on my channel to talk about this.
I'm just checking out your videos and would certainly like to participate at some point! I have more content on the way, thanks for reaching out.
@@ScientificGenius I’ve done several recently with Mark Jeffery of The Last Theory channel. Most recent a couple of days ago with physicist Wolfgang Smith. I’d really enjoy especially exploring with you Wolfram’s theory of computational equivalence and its implications.
Came here because of your conversation with Karen on the Meaning Code. Thanks and great work. I've been skirting the edge of Wolfram for long enough... time to take the dive in haha.
Btw, have you ever read C.S. Lewis 'The Discarded Image'? I'm curious if you have based on your Thesis work with Fludd.
Welcome! I only know Lewis' Narnia books but I'm aware that he wrote systematic works as well. Thanks for the recommendation! I'm hard at work on another Wolfram video, and he's definitely a thinker that requires taking a dive :)
Absolutely fucking brilliant, well done!
Appreciated! I'll be sharing a new 60 minute video a few days from now.
universe is not computation, it's discrete robot and we can find the algorithms. Limited speed, discrete action - everything tells that something is executing algorithm down there.
Does the number 92 have significance in relation to ‘the onset of complexity’ issuing from a simple rule?
De Idea Platonica quemadmodem Aristotelam intellexit! - John Milton (just to suggest qualification of any reliance on Aristotle for anything fundamental in the context of Pythagorean and Platonic number theorising - at base is Aristotle not essentially a categoriser? - I quote the title of Milton’s poem as possibly indicating the need for such qualification.)
This video is really appreciated for what it has introduced - would I be right in assuming that you managed to see Fludd’s wonderful illustrations at the new faculty of Alchemical Studies at Amsterdam University. I have only recently heard of its existence and the idea brings joy as over thirty years ago it occurred to mind that ‘too many babies had been chucked out with the bath water’ in the Keplerian/Newtonian intellectual revolution. These days it is worth mentioning also the reevaluation of John Dee’s mathematical gift which can be appreciated in several y/t presentations made by Alexander Waugh and by Alan Green (alias ‘Bardcode’). Many thanks for this.
Gee, I don't know. I told and wrote that the real birthday was 9.2. Then I see a scuba boat burning off Santa Barbara behind my eyes. Then 9.2.2020. The scuba boat the Conception run by Truth Aquatics burned off Santa Barbara and killed 33.
@@jacovawernett3077
request - a gentle explanation! thanks…
@@markhughes7927 my first prescient vision behind my eyes was the B.P. oil spill 2010 months prior. The first of 11 to die on that rig was last name Jones. My son's father Randy Jones died Christmas Eve 2005 of ALS when our son was in first grade. Shalom.
It was a show with Walter Brennan from American TV in the 60s where Brennan would say, "No brag, just fact." If Wolfram said he was the smartest guy in the world, that would be no brag, just fact. :)
I think that's just the way he rolls. I don't think he thinks about this as bragging, just factual
statements. What's surprising about this to me: Wolfram seems remarkably unaware that this kind of speaking comes across as profoundly egotistical. Would be an easy thing to fix if that were not the case. If you can get past this, he's really a national treasure -- and that's me speaking, not him.
Dude....this was AWESOME HOLLY SHIT KEEP IT UP!!! MIND BLOWN!
cheers brother! glad you enjoyed it. I've got more to say about Wolfram... stay tuned
Will do sir!
If this is the best explanation of his theory, it is not very convincing. Actually there is no real explanation in this video at all.
This is a great video, ty.
I love this so much, but please show your references
Thanks for the reminder, I've added three of the primary reference videos in the description.
This is so fucking awesome
Turing's Halting Problem ; Godel's IncompletenessTheorem; Wolfram's Computational Irreducibility - Decidability appears unequivocally equivocal.
The pockets of irreducibility suggest that decidability is always localized, just as all rationality is limited by faith.
Great video keep going
Thanks! Episode 2 is underway.
I suppose we're living in a rule 30 universe
Please share my two brief videos with other people. Thank you!
Kudos from 444 Gematria!
I believe we contain a small bit of free will, that is able to decide. The direction as to what path to take is not something, obvious to the majority of us. All the choices we may take on our own can only lead to a deterministic fate. If only there where a bridge that gave us a way out of such a fate? If someone who was outside of our computation, entered into it, to teach us a Way out, would there be hope for us of getting out of this matrix!
יְשׁוּעָה בְּיֵשׁוּעַ
If I'm understanding Rule 30 correctly it seems like it's a graphic representation of the rule generating the equivalent of an irrational number. Makes me wonder if the rules at the top can be somehow mathematically operated somehow to find more of these.
I believe that's a good way to think of Rule 30. We know how to arrive at irrational numbers (i.e. the rules that produce them) but once we 'have' them, they are beyond our grasp. I wonder what the difference is between studying the picture of Rule 30 and gazing into the Mandelbrot set. Fractal patterns seem more rational to me, perhaps because self-similarity is reassuring. With Rule 30, you never know what you're going to get!
does the complexity emerge from the lack of symmetry in the inputs?
@@reeb3687 when I was staring at Rule 30 it seems like it's due to an agnosticism as to how a given 3-part state was achieved, ie. there's no velocity, just simple handling of whatever's there. In a way it's data destruction / loss / mutation that seems to be driving it.
@@carbon1479 Like one of the seeds or multiple act as a sort of cancer slowly spreading throughout? I don’t think I completely follow but what you said makes more sense.
@@reeb3687 I think you're saying it right - ie. that it doesn't care about surrounding context other than the three blocks being assessed, and that lends the possibility for new dynamic threads to kick off.
This shit slaps
Tungsten's other name
#GroundhogDay
👍🏼
This interviewer is good but i have never seen him before since.
en français svp !
Personally I'd like to see Wolfram and Dawkins have a wee bit of a natter about this. Two old Oxonians trying to come to some kind of synthesis.
As for the interviewer…all I have to say is Wolfram doesn't have to be "right" (and how would we ever know?) to be interesting.
EDIT: s/has/have/
rule 30
gibberish
13:26
The interviewer demonstrates the problem - snigger snigger you really think you have something bigger than Einstein? let me school you in modesty…..ugh!
btw imho Fuller is the next full step beyond Newton for a ratiocinative construction of Nature. I notice the 2D nature of most of what Wolfram presents in his book from this initial exposure to it. 2D is in essence ‘symbolic’ for 3D is it not? - in the same way as ‘Special’ preceded ‘General’ in Albert’s theorising process? ‘Science’ one presumes is necessarily 3D because nothing physical exists without volumetric extension. This comment assumes that if Science and Computation are being used in the same breath then the theory of computation has what may be termed a ‘transitive’ relation to the actuality of physics. I wonder if Mr. Wolfram is aware of Fuller’s math/physics - if he isn’t and became so some almighty creative synthesis might result! (Later) Wolfram so on the ball! he is beginning to enter the world of nature telling us about herself as described by Jeremy Narby; and ‘mycal intelligence’ solving biological problems at speeds leaving world academia as a dot in the rear mirror!
Just thoughts from a by-passing chap…..
Hey, thanks for posting. I think about the Wolfram/Bucky synthesis a lot, especially the potential of computational models for Synergetics. One major difference is that Fuller was willing to use the concept of God in a systematic way, as the zero-phase vector equilibrium. I haven't seen or heard Wolfram talk about God from a computational point of view yet. It definitely has something to do with the symbolism you mention, either between dimensions or as a transitive relation between ourselves and the world.
Pass by anytime! Thanks for watching.
@@ScientificGenius
Thanks! and for the reminder of the ‘divine conception’ of the zero-phase moment - I read the books in 1987 without math or physics competence as a basis to frame critical responses. Perhaps fortunate as I accepted fully what otherwise I may well have rejected through ‘small learning’. I remember thinking - regarding z-p - how like jesus and his passion - there, not there, and there again. I have a sense that possibly a human competency is evolving towards that of the first pyramid builders in which a synthesis is accomplished beyond that of these two seemingly essential elements: Carl Munck, Varda Sarnat, Wayne Herschel, Robert Edward Grant, are four who stand out to me - but there are a host of sacred sciencers and geometers with inputs - I like Mark Beeson. I also particularly appreciate Alan Green and I simply haven’t read John Dee but imagine that unique inputs would come from that quarter too! (One thing that might interest you that came out of my fuller reading was a discovery I was fortunate to make that the isocratic vector matrix can be realised through syncopating identical, mixed, and exotic elements - I posted on y/t - khatmatrix mark hughes - once there press on the icon to see more if interested.) cheers!
This video was kinda ridiculous. NKS is highly discredited. He spoke to congress against open source software. He makes money selling college kids a proprietary math tool.
please don't add religious dogma into these videos it ruins them
Semaphore Alert!