Toward a Fundamental Theory of Physics (Stephen Wolfram) | AI Podcast Clips
Вставка
- Опубліковано 19 кві 2020
- Full episode with Stephen Wolfram (Apr 2020): • Stephen Wolfram: Cellu...
Clips channel (Lex Clips): / lexclips
Main channel (Lex Fridman): / lexfridman
(more links below)
Podcast full episodes playlist:
• Lex Fridman Podcast
Podcasts clips playlist:
• Lex Fridman Podcast Clips
Podcast website:
lexfridman.com/ai
Podcast on Apple Podcasts (iTunes):
apple.co/2lwqZIr
Podcast on Spotify:
spoti.fi/2nEwCF8
Podcast RSS:
lexfridman.com/category/ai/feed/
Stephen Wolfram is a computer scientist, mathematician, and theoretical physicist who is the founder and CEO of Wolfram Research, a company behind Mathematica, Wolfram Alpha, Wolfram Language, and the new Wolfram Physics project. He is the author of several books including A New Kind of Science, which on a personal note was one of the most influential books in my journey in computer science and artificial intelligence.
Subscribe to this UA-cam channel or connect on:
- Twitter: / lexfridman
- LinkedIn: / lexfridman
- Facebook: / lexfridman
- Instagram: / lexfridman
- Medium: / lexfridman
- Support on Patreon: / lexfridman - Наука та технологія
25:30 Wolfram's grin when Lex says, "there's no space and time?" And Wolfram goes, "that's correct"
The most interesting thing on UA-cam is watching and listening to an expert inform an interested party.
I used Wolfram Alpha off and on over the years, but I had no idea this guy could explain himself so clearly.
Many compliments to Lex for being so willing to listen without interrupting and for asking questions he actually wants to hear answered.
Must say, I'm very impressed by humble Stephen Wolfram,
much more than by Eric Weinstein who is acting out much more vanity being hurt by rejections of orthodox circles as by media and classical science. Think Wolfram is more driven by a childlike interest than speculating to get a Nobel Prize some day, and he is also not interested in trademarks and authorship of some banal wordings as Eric is, hammering them penetrantly into minds, so they keep on sticking and can be claimed as originated by a very special mind.
Being interested in physics since a long time, like Eric, detecting this immense void inside the nothingness-loudspeakers in physics, actually uninspired pea counters, not having achieved much I'd say for the last 50 years, Krauss, Tyson, Carroll etc, I started to see these emperors with no cloth. Whereas ordinary people get impressed by some equations and complexity-talk putting these loudspeakers on high pedestals they don't deserve, I had my aha moments already. So we see lots of pretenders and blinders in public with their nothing's. Shallow thinkers wanting to appear as new Einsteins.
I think Wolfram is different here, smart, humble, interest driven, and if someone I know has the substance to further Einsteins physics, its probably him and not the army of pea counters of orthodoxies.
Is that you Stephen Wolfram?
@@j.h252 Thank you, very well said! I had the exactly same feeling about SW. Especially after watching podcast with both (SW, EW). It is so refreshing to hear to SW. He even said somewhere, it that he worked very hard to simplify these concepts to be able to explain it even on high school. This is real trait of genius with curiosity. After watching this I will definitely order "New kind of science". SW = Von Neuman of Physics / Math / Computing
Wolfram has a clear perception of the fundamental difference between pure reason and reality. Many theoretical physicists and philosophers dont.
I really admire Dr. Wolfram's dedication to figuring out the truth.
*Says 23 minutes of completely mind-blowing ideas"
- "Now here's where it starts to get interesting"
This is one of the best interviews I've seen with Stephen Wolfram.
Sincere congrats to you and your team! You got that elaborated in a way I ever could get my mind around. I bet you're on the right track.
Stephen Wolfram is apparently known to be one of the most arrogant people in the computing industry, however, I failed to notice that in this absolutely wonderful conversation. Great work Lex! Please invite him over again!
Marcus Lager yeah, well... being the smartest person in the room is often interpreted as arrogance...
by all the other people in the room. Cheers!
@jay it actually feels that Wolfram is onto something, unlike Weinstein's ramblings
Yeah, he's suffering from delusions of grandeur. He thinks he is the next Einstein when all he's ever done that's of any significance is sell a computer algebra program.
I bet he's mellowed - he was a physics prodigy and rubbed a lot of people the wrong way back in the day. But he seems perfectly congenial in this interview. So maybe he's matured and gotten over all that.
my man!!! it's almost like i'm ordering my own episodes into existence. Great work Lex. Keep it up, comrade!
He needs to have David Deutsch on!
francescop1 yes please
Feynman and Wolfram had a very interesting relationship, two brilliant minds who have given us so much.
This guy is brilliant. Thanks for doing the interview!
Ohhh jeeze. This is intense, lol. Thanks for sharing this breakdown of the subject though.
How did I miss this, amazing stuff.
i never knew stephen wolfram was such a nice and inspiring guy .
excited about that social thing he is starting.
Yeah I am an admirer of his work but I always thought he would be a totally unforgiving jerk in person. But apparently I was way off.
Super interesting. Thank you Lex.
This is thrilling! I love to think of exchange nodes instead of rigid bodies with definite geometry.
Like this guys‘ stream
Wow, fascinating discussion! I don't yet understand hypergraphs very well, but it's pretty mind-blowing to imagine that the workings of the universe are built on them and that everything we're familiar with, including space and time, are just emergent properties of these hypergraphs. As for searching for the theory of everything, I don't know how we could ever know we've found it, since we're just part of this structure ourselves and as Wolfram said, the only way to check that we've found the right theory would be to just let its run its course. Perhaps intelligence involves the ability to recognize and utilize "pockets of reducibility", and that the key to finding a theory of everything requires that we're able to utilize the right pockets. I hope I'm making sense here! I'm pretty new to all this, but like I said, my mind is being blown by some of these ideas!
Casual Sunday.... Watching youtube trying to crack the universe. So awesome that knowledge is just there lying around, waiting to be found by those who seek it...
I like the idea of certain restraints. It makes sense to me. Thankyou
I like how Steven Wolfram's idea of how the universe works is suspiciously close to how the Wolfram language manipulates expressions.
Paradoxically Excellent - it’s not a conspiracy; same architect.
It's more that Stephen Wolfram (like everyone else) has a language for describing things, and he is applying it to this topic. There are an infinite number of analogies for any sufficiently generic idea. You if you were a pizza delivery guy I am sure you could describe exactly what he is in terms of pizza; but the underlying idea is not inherently dependent on either the pizza description, or the term-rewriting/computational analogy. They are just descriptive tools/toolsets.
Which is ironically/unironically a consequence of computational equivalence.
@@homelessrobot I'd like to order a Supreme Unification Theory, with extra leptons.
It sounds very soothing to be orthogonal to both determinism and randomness
I'm very encouraged by this hypothesis, as I would suspect that anything that was this fundamental to be unifying would have these profound paradigm shifts as an idiosyncratic "fingerprint" rather than work within commonplace notions of spatial dimensions. So many theories propose 4, 14, 26, or 248 dimensions as the heart of their model, so it is refreshing to hear one where the enumeration of the dimensions are not yet known as the method is too low level to have encountered what it would happen to be to support the universe with the features we recognise as familiar.
Perhaps therein lies the mystery of free will.
The special relativity bit is just brilliant. And everything boils down to be fundamentally just information, nothing else.
Does understanding parallax shed light on understanding relativity, special or otherwise?
@@toddmarshall7573 No, Relativity is way past parallax...It's a completely different notion.
Relativity is based on how two things need to be changed in order to keep something else constant. In the case of Space-Time...Space and time change in order to keep the speed of light constant...what happens when space and time change? You get a bunch of interesting behaviour...but that's all that's special about it...is just the interesting behaviour.
In Physics, you will find that relativity is not unique to just space time but can apply to literally anything that involves some kind of constant. In Wolfram's work on Rulial Space, he supposed that relationships and rules are themselves constant...and that merely our reference frame in rulial space is what changes in order for those rules in rulial space to remain constant. So what is the interesting behaviour as a consequence of that? It means that we can create different languages to describe the same thing...binary code, quantum mechanics, a pile of rocks...DNA. we can create languages to describe the same rules that exist in a constant rulial space, and therefor computation can be thought of as universal...that you can create a computer out of basically anything because the underlying rule exists as a constant in rulial space.
@@NightmareCourtPictures What if there is no space or time and only the speed of light? Well, 'speed of light' is a poor name and should probably be called 'speed of causality'. However, speed is a function of time and distance and both are fundamentally defined by regular atomic energy transitions. Since we are made of atoms and our perceptions of time and space are governed by atoms and their energetics, space and time are probably just mental constructs.
Sort of how our avatars are not actually separated by space when we play Halo but the screen displays a representation of how the avatars relate to each other in a way that has utility for predicting causality.
@@DylanMoss Honestly, I sort of agree with you in that something is up with the idea of energy... but the physics community won't really agree with you on it. I've posed the same argument and it's immediately dismissed as pseudo science.
If you think about how Energy works, you realize that, Anything that is moving relative to you, will appear to you as having energy. If that object is in the same inertial reference frame, then it appears to you to have no energy. So what does this say, when all things in the universe are moving with respect to each other? Then energy is thus just a relative...perception, just like space and time, and there is something much more fundamental about space/time/gravity/energy as being all perceptions and the only real thing seems to be light. The mainstream physics community doesn't want to think about it though unfortunately.
SW discusses microscopic rewrites. Does he have any explanation for larger causal patches? Yes, 'just information' but that information becomes super-determined for those in the past. If his goal is to model cellular automata, he's failed. A super-determined causal patch is not pancomputational. It is priority cosmopsychic and deist in nature because the graph becomes a mind, computing paths "for Godel Machines" (humans).
Thank you. Great to find more about what he means by that hipergraph. He mentioned it in another video and i could not understand wtheck.. how is the universe a graph. I still dont rely get it but at least is more aproachable. Also what is about us that while we are inside this structure.. we can build a representation about the structure itself. What that says about us.. the structure of what we are in particular? What other properties can be inferred by modeling ourselfs in this way. We might discover we have some more superpowers. We need more interviews with him 😁
@32:00 what he is talking about with hyper graphs is what Sean Carroll is selling with the many worlds theory. Its the wave function of the universe and us being part of the same wave function making an observation causing the wave to collapse and our world (observation) to split.
Isn't infinity necessary for a simple cellular computation? Other wise a finite limit would need to be built into the simple compute cell, hence complicating it?
Thank you Lex.
Oh my god, this idea of graph is genius and make so much sense😮
Sounded like he was talking about Pure Type Systems when he mentioned the generalization of graph theory.
This theory was already though, in some way, I will try to find the article was this person tried to describe something similar, and tried to explain reality as a feedback function, composition from outputs and inputs to the same function, and this is really similar to Wolfram's theory.
That is one happy man, I hope his theory is continuing to make good progress.
These guys need to drop a tab
Stephan Wolfram and Eric Weinstein have both proposed TOE candidates recently and both been on this podcast this month just wondering why Lex didn't ask either of them about the others work?
This interview was filmed in November 2019...
Relativity from graph theory? This is incredible! Does the observer then trigger the update? Its like the ZEN question about the tree in the woods...
A forward lying observer would cause an update superdetermining causal networks. This is not cellular automata (pancomputational). Rather it is very UWF/hypergraph being top down (priority cosmo-psychist). And that object would be Godel Machine, possibly Lobian as well.
Isn't the hypergraph basically a field that allows non-locality ?
i think that the topology of a system (any one), gives it own possibilities of interacting in the main field against others systems. the capabilities to describe a system is limited by it own relation with the system it self ... so the manifestation in the "material world" isn't described by the matter, but by the relation observer (particular kind of conscious system) and object (perceived system), so this could be just a function implicit in the topology of the super system that contains both..., and the discrete vs continuous is given by the perception in different scales and it fractalized function that could give us more and more and more information about it...
consciousnesses could be a function of self preservation, so it tends to the infinitum, and make use of higher level functions as cognitive ones to compare, and discriminates information to feed it local system. as the field is just a dynamic sup in chaos, al the perceived systems in it are just and "illusion" from an upper view or from the super parent system point of view, 'cos occur in time and change, just continue in the system memory, but in the absolute present is just a ultra complex flux. sorry by my english here
There is a fantastic science fiction novel by Greg Egan that deals with a simulation universe (and lots of other fantastic ideas) and the inhabitants of it are able to access and alter the substrate of their universe... In a sense. Mind-bending stuff, and I highly recommend it, Lex.
EDIT: The name of the book is Permutation City!
memespace thanks! I’m going to seek that out. Have you seen the movie Dark City? It sounds like the screenplay may have been inspired by your recommendation.
It involves a population of humans living in a simulation, but it’s another force that manipulates the sim, with one exception: the protagonist. He acquires the ability to “tune” the simulation and thus poses a threat to the Archons who are programming this “world.”
Hi Lex, please have an interview with David Deutsch.
I would like to hear discussion of Google Quatuam computer!
A good simple example that produces infinite structure is the mandelbrodt an iterative quantisation pattern. The nature of the fractal iterative structure is that its self similar/bifurcating at different/all scales so its possible that the irreducibility may be reduced by an integration of the fundamental fractal math. On the flipside whats the lowewst derivative of everything? if you ask E Weinstein its 10! :-)
21:00
What does the seemingly infinite speed of gravity or the absence of aberration tell us about causality and the updating of the graph?
How come the universe seems to anticipate everything staying in motion as observed?
Gravitational effects propagate at the speed of light.
This conversation can be boiled down to the problems of inference. Can there be a computational structure that updates itself into complex systems which resemble observable reality?
WOW! This is the real deal!
@20:40 detailing evolution of states (giving a computational naturalness to SR).
The "order of the update is not defined". This would be discontinuous time (growing block).
This would not result in some people's future being a super-determined causal patch. A future lying observation would non-causally complete a causal network that you/present have not arrived at. SW accounts for small causal patches (microscopic "re-writes"). His hypergraph is 3n space, a Wave Function Realism.
SW's goal is to provide cellular automata as fundamental.
The computational burden placed upon the UWF in such a case for the "update" requires the UWF to be a Godel machine (universality) as it has completed non-causal paths for Godel machines (humans) without their local participation in that path.
SW is injecting his work with disembodied platonic mind which is not pancomputational.
Rather this model would be priority cosmo-psychist.
with respect to a formulating a computational framework that describes the universe and the issue of lumping all the things already know into it: What is it that all particles have in common? is it a the of energetic signature which can be seen in a behavior (for example attraction), degree of vibration, frequency of vibration; is it amounts of radiation, understanding why matter coalesces due to attraction rather than repels. Is the universe primarily made up of parts which move apart, repel while others attract.
Any plans to interview Robert Sapolsky?
Bloody Pommel Studios
That would be fan-fuckin-fantastic!
Bravo!!
When can we get Eric Weinstein and Stephen Wolfram together?
Why? They're both egomaniacs. It would be like trying to force two protons to come together. GOOD LUCK WITH THAT!
@@JohnVKaravitis I think you just made a pretty compelling case for why.
I would like to see Penrose in that room as well.
@@JohnVKaravitis I think you're the only one with the ego here xD
Pass me a pipe if they give it a go.
Take a shot every time you hear "well, that's an interesting question"
how is a hypergraph structurally different than a hierarchical network (grouping of nodes as a single node in a more macro-scale network).
It's not really different. It's totally hierarchical. In fact a lot of it is based on fully established complexity theory stuff... based on how macro scale networks are built from smaller subscale networks, and those subscale networks themselves are macroscale networks of even smaller subscale networks and so on into infinity.
Hypergraph's is essentially just the tool used in order to get the most complex behavior. But the hypergraphs react the same as normal graphs, with just a bit more capability. These hypergraphs create complex structures from very simple and I mean SIMPLE fundamental constituents, and they follow the same hierarchical and invariant scaling you'd typically see in networks. From this he develops that quantum mechanics and spacetime are emergent properties of these simple relationships.
@@NightmareCourtPictures Ok, thanks, isn't it kind of obvious that the universe can be modeled by a hypergraph then? Certainly, that's not news (given that the brain is a network therefore everything must be able to be modeled as a network that we can conceive), Is Wolfram bringing a new language to the table, or just applying an existing way to describe hypergraphs to quantum physics?
@@JordanMiller333 Wolfram's work is not exactly new, as it's based mostly on already known aspects of complexity theory. Complexity Theory however had no rigours mathematical formalism or unified understanding until recent times, because for the most part, nobody really thought to see how important the distinction was between linear systems and chaotic systems, and that it was only until recently that it might be the critical component behind why linear systems don't truly describe the physical world. Most physics is based on upon the fact that we can linearize and idealize the systems we study.
Wolfram's contribution is that he's applied a rigorous mathematical structure to the complexity mechanism in it's fundamentality, which for a long time was very vague and very unknown quantity. So ya i think what Wolfram has really done as a contribution is create a kind of language for us to even talk about the subject which is great.
Leonard Susskind has been dabbling in the area of complexity science and has a series of interesting lectures on the subject called "Complexity and Gravity" I highly suggest watching this too as it gives insight into a real world applicability to how complexity arises in Black Hole physics.
@@NightmareCourtPictures cool thanks!
So it seems more fundamental to think of the new model in terms of what the universe does (verby) than what it is (nouny). As the latter definition (of what it is) only exists in that one particular state or in that single relativistic instance (which depends on the speed / position of the observers). So the propagation of the hyper-graph edges through abstract hyper-time are the more important constructions compared to the nodes (vertices) of the graph. So the pursuit of theory of EveryThing is futile, which are always 'local' and less fundamental. We should redefine the question as Theory of Global Dynamics.
Really interesting insight here and I agree, that the relationships on a graph are always more important then the elements themselves and that with Space-time propagation, perhaps current day physics has always been looking at the wrong thing (the nodes) when we should have been focusing on the relationships (the edges).
I think Global Dynamics is a good way to express this...because we really can't know everything, we just know what is fundamentally moving the system forward (basic computation)
George Costanza´s smart Brother
Lex ponele subtitulos en español por favor
Hey lex you should invite Dr. Nassim Haramein to your show. His theory is mind blowing
Around 21:40 Lex seems a little "woah"ed. He looks like a kid than glances at the camera. That's probably the same look I have during a lot of his interviews LOL
Wolfram did not "propose" the idea of computational irriducibility, that was done way before in chaos theory.
I've majored in computer science and never heard about computational irreducibility... I'm not saying it doesn't exist...
33:39
I am not sure if he can implement non locality and backwards in time causality of quantum mechanics in his theory
It is not proven that causality is time-symmetric. Large aggregates of matter (eg. cream and coffee) make the opposite apparent, in fact.
A few questions:
It's been a while but I read a good bit of Wolfram's "A New Kind of Science". The recurring theme throughout the book is that simple rules can result in complex behavior. For the moment forget that the terms "simple rules" and "complex behavior" are undefined. And let's take cellular automata as an example. Out of more than 100 "simple rules" only two rules result in "complex behavior". How are we supposed to believe that this is how the universe works?? The universe, almost literally, is a computational process governed by a simple rule that yields complex phenomenon. Why should we believe that the underlying rule is simple? Why should the universe "choose" the one simple rule that results in complex behavior from the many rules that result in a simple outcome?
An easy response to would be that in an unbounded search space, simple rules that generate/support complexity are more common than complex rules that do the same thing. Iterated across some abitrary collection, the anthropic principle describes how observers are more likely than not embedded in a universe with simple rules.
Sadly, this offers no explanation for the mechanism of a structure that would generate such a collection of universes, so I'm not sure how satisfying it is.
It probably aligns better with our deepest concious intuitions to say that is was a design intention. The motivation might be authored by something orthogonal to determinism and randomness!
Perhaps an entity of free will generated a rule set that could a) itself support entities of free will and b) be appreciated by entities embedded within it. Perhaps that is only achievable with this type of rule set (simple -> complex).
Lex, you need to brush up on QM interpretations and the role of the observer (there is none as even a rock that interacts with the entangled system is considered an observer).
This just sounds like a lot of cool ideas he'd LIKE to be true.
Exactly; it's all just ideas; but very clever ideas; and perhaps some of it might be useful; very unlikely any of it is true in any ultimate sense.
Stephen Wolfram is a genius
Yeah people like him have an alien IQ
Wolfram is absolutely correct. he takes the basic computations and instead of extrapolating the core math to encompass all aspects of reality, he runs the scientific method in REVERSE by challenging everyone's mathematical interpretation of the other aspects of reality, finding the inconsistencies and in doing so, fitting all of the other aspects of reality into his framework with a core process. in other words, the core math is correct per Wolfram but the math which explains other aspects of reality is in fact flawed and his rules are correct.
Haven’t watched yet, Lex- but does this fit in with any of Weinstein’s ‘theory of everything’ work? Keep up the good work, I have learned a LOT since I subscribed a couple of weeks ago!
These aren't theories of everthing in the same way putting chess pieces and checkers pieces on the same board does unify the games, but it's a start.
@@sadface7457 cheers. I'll watch in full. I'm just beginning to understand the basics over the past few months, and really interested in more.
They're completely different approaches and moreover it's impossible to say because neither theory has been articulated (to be fair at least Wolfram has *something* to show). I am getting kind of tired of these "outsider" physicists. There's a serious lack of communication here.
So far Wolfram has some technical materials (www.wolframphysics.org/technical-documents/) a lot of which seems to reference his "New Kind of Science" book-- it all looks very impressive, but FFS, it's STILL not at all clear nor widely understood AFAIK how to apply hypergraphs to even simple physics. One should expect that a theory of everything should be applicable to, you know, everything. I'd like to see how this stuff applies to basic, well understood physics. Unfortunately, that doesn't stop Wolfram from going at 100 mph talking about connections to quantum field theory, black holes, general relativity and unifying everything.The reluctance to FIRST address SIMPLE STUFF is disturbing and makes me not trust his pedagogical approach. I am still trying to use the smaller papers to see how to apply hypergraphs but they're very difficult (I admit that could be my own limitations).
Weinstein has NOTHING so far other than his word and some "front-matter" in the form of a very confusing lecture and podcasts that he has been delivering to the general public inappropriately using very heavy jargon while going off on bizzare tangents. Weinstein has some very legit friends, maybe he's on to something, but one of the characteristics of the physics community (which Weinstein complains about for having "sharp elbows") is that YOU HAVE TO "SHOW YOUR WORK". It's super distasteful to go off to the general public to market a theory without first getting at least some buy in from the community.
If you want to see how a physicist should communicate to the general public, watch Lex's interview with Jim Gates. He's a super-symmetry theorist that carefully explains the nature of his work to the general public in a way that is understandable by almost any one who is interested enough to listen. There's some really strange results too, but Gates is careful to not overstate nor speculate too much about the meaning of the strange results (I'm talking about the discovery of ECC codes within the mathematics of the theory). These other guys don't seem to have that discipline.
Im studying computer science and I dont get how I am supossed reach the next level, that being machine learning and AI. I feel like all the online resources are just 5% of the domain, and for the first time in my life i feel like the internet cant help me anymore.
All speed and power to Dr. Wolfram. I only ask as a layman sci-fi fan with a midget brain that he propose a theory which embraces FTL travel. And don't dawdle; I don't have that many years left to wait!
What about frequencies of light--is such infinite?
No, merely unbounded.
@@DylanMoss Difference...?
If it can really be mathematically demonstrated that special relativity is an emergent phenomenon of hypergraphs, then I think Wolfram is onto something!
Need anything was truly infinite and not just infinite reductions of fidelity nothing would interact with anything you wouldn't have a structure at all. Everything exists because everything else is telling it it can't be anything but what it is
Lex how about: causal sets.
Hey Fridman, get Erix Drexler on!
I doubt the underlying nature and structure of space is computational. Relying on technological metaphors is tempting but ultimately historically and intellectually limiting. My best guess is the Aether theory was partly or intuitionally correct; except it is not that space is filled with a subtle substance, but rather space is a substance. Space is stuff; not empty; in fact space is a plenitude. Matter is ultimately emergent from the substance of space; and for some reason I think of matter more as a descent or condensation than a building up or construction. What seems to us the densest matter or mass is actually less or a diminution in spacial plenitude terms. Metaphorically it's like a photographic negative. Not sure if any of this makes any sense.
What is the utility in supposing that density is inverse to the traditional convention? Aren't you just making a symantic alteration instead of an actual conceptual distinction?
@@DylanMoss
Yes I do realize my thought is vague and counter to common-sense. I am reaching for something for which there is presently no context or language; and which may not have any objective reality. I'm fully aware of all that.
@@david8157 They were good faith questions and I'm curious how you'd answer.
@@DylanMoss
Your questions were reasonable. When I first had this thought some years ago the metaphor which came to mind was a photographic negative.
Y’all never heard of Klee Irwin ?? Quantum Gravity Research
I love watching scientists!
What is it with this black suit and tie?
The assumption of a computation is a gigantic one..
Por favor alguien que traduzca esta entrevista al español.
Yo estoy igual jaja
It's turtles all the way down.
This sounds like the Theory of Causal Sets...
It definitely seems analogous to it doesnt it? This interview is just great.
@@jingalls9142 I've heard criticism that Wolfram is just throwing ideas out hoping to catch publicity, but IMO he's expanding meaningfully on the ideas from John Conway's game of life
trying to visualize a structuralist computational structure under space time has me bk to simulation theory and its all zeros and 1`s
En español ?
so he's saying the universe is like my monitor?
no.
My brain hurts because I'm trying to find a correlation between this and Eric W.'s. I enjoy the pain
The simplest particle that makes up all the other fundamental forces of causality in our known universe, is a symmetric minimal abstract, pair of points. They orbit each other, probably spin, in wierd ways. The simplest point might even be the big bang who knows. It assumes that transformations into the observable universe depend on the the variations in differences between the two points, their total measurement, determines how it creates the starting point for universe evolving. Its a brand new way of thinking sooo its catching on.
Mathematics is not the language of physics math can describe but physics is all about rational explanation of how the mother nature works sharply.
Must say, I'm very impressed by humble Stephen Wolfram,
much more than by Eric Weinstein who is acting out much more vanity being hurt by rejections of orthodox circles as by media and classical science.
Think Wolfram is more driven by a childlike interest than speculating to get a Nobel Prize some day, and he is also not interested in trademarks and authorship of some banal wordings as Eric is, hammering them penetrantly into minds, so they keep on sticking and can be claimed as originated by a very special mind. Being interested in physics since a long time, like Eric, detecting this immense void inside the nothingness-loudspeakers in physics, actually uninspired pea counters, not having achieved much I'd say for the last 50 years, Krauss, Tyson, Carroll etc, I started to see these emperors with no cloth. Whereas ordinary people get impressed by some equations and complexity-talk putting these loudspeakers on high pedestals they don't deserve, I had my aha moments already.
So we see lots of pretenders and blinders in public with their nothing's. Shallow thinkers wanting to appear as new Einsteins. I think Wolfram is different here, smart, humble, interest driven, and if someone I know has the substance to further Einsteins physics, its probably him and not the army of pea counters of orthodoxies.
Well said.
I would appretiate sutitles to follow better the conversation, thanks, :).
We need new maths to solve the dynamics of the quantum space. Like where the hell does vacuum energy comes from?
A Dyson lithium ion battery
Here Now is all we have. , enjoy the present moment , stay out of your mind, , thoughts distort
reality
That are toughts..
Is this guy from eastern Europe? The dude in the suit and tie?
I think he is Russian and Ukrainian
Seems to me that even if we figure out HOW the universe works, we will still spend eternity wondering WHY.
the WHY is the creativeness capabilities of the conscious creatures (isn't a why--> just possibilities)
Lex is a young Joe Rogan!
It's not even the Real numbers that are the problem, it is the uncomputable members of the set of transcendental non algorithmic Reals. The other problem is that we are stuck using mathematics that operates on a transfinite grid (because it is especially well-behaved) to model a universe we know is restricted to a (Planck-scale) grid.
in layman's english?
Keylanos Lokj - we try and use our hammers on everything as if they are all nails.
Meh, these are non issues. Why do you use words you don't seem to understand? Obscurantism isn't a cool thing since the medieval times my dude
This is nonsense.
Space Matter and Time comes from the Primordial --no Space No Matter No Time
Space is dual to time -- Einstein
Principle of duality:- Points are dual to lines.
Space is dual, it is defined by two dual points, left is dual to right, up is dual to down, vectors are dual.
Time is dual, the future is dual to the past, old is dual to new, we remember the past and predict the future.
Space duality is dual to time duality, duality within duality or hyperduality!
Thesis is dual to anti-thesis, the time independent Hegelian dialectic.
Poles (eigenvalues) are dual to zeroes in optimized control theory
Infinity is dual to zero!
Quite interesting but my response is the same to everyone who comes up with their own crazy theory of everything, get it peer reviewed, work with the physics community to show that it can do better than string theory.
Just showing that there is a way to think of a hypergraph having curveture is not the same as deriving general relativity. Showing that hypergraphs can split under certain rules is not the same as finding blackholes etc...
By circumventing the peer review process, self publishing a huge 500 page document and going on a self publicity tour on popular science podcasts pretty much guarantees that the people best equipped to advance his work will ignore it.
Eh, I think you're wrong on that. Everyone is looking into Complexity theory right now, Including Susskind...Wolfram's thing is so exotic that there might not even be a way to test it yet...so rather then hiding it for 30 years until it gets a test (For which he might be dead by then), he'd rather just release the information publicly right now to get the science community at least queued into the idea of complexity theory being an option for the TOE, which i actually agree with. Right now people are stuck in the standard model...which is perfectly okay but there are HUGE problems with the standard model and everyone knows it. I think it was always his plan to self-publish this information so that people just know that complexity theory exists and that it could be a TOE.
Now, Wolfram's idea isn't as exotic as I pointed out...it's just exotic with respect to the standard model. Wolfram's Hypergraph is just a rigorous mathematical extrapolation of current day, well established Complexity Theory. I read his 500 page document. It mathematically shows the emergence of today's physics...it's no joke and it's real math. This guy Wolfram is also the guy who publishes all our high school math text books. He's not some average shmoe with an Ether theory.
String has amounted to nothing. It's a metatheory with no working theory to produce the standard model and no physical evidence for supersymmetry.
Wolfram has published papers on this.
Funny how mathematically complex you can get just trying to say "You need a good foundation to build on."
Is he talking about e8 lattice?
No. That's group theory
No actual evidence yet as to whether quantum fields are discreet or fluid. So he has a belief which affects how he views physics. He understands this because he confirms that he could wrong. A good presentation.
You can't start with math, you have to start with logic. How does this explain the reason for existence, this is a bit like starting with a simple creator, without knowing how, requiring a simpler creator.
But who knows, this might be the bridge between top-down view of physics and bottom-top view of logic, but still with a gap between logic and math as of yet. (and math and physics)
I LOVE YOU ALL !!!!!!!❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️