Presentation | Stephen Wolfram | Computational Foundations of Physics, Biology, and Mathematics
Вставка
- Опубліковано 7 лют 2025
- Stephen Wolfram provides an update on some of the research happening at the Wolfram Institute for Computational Foundations of Science during an event hosted at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics.
Participants:
Stephen Wolfram, James Wiles, Achim Kempf.
References:
wolframinstitu...
writings.steph...
writings.steph...
writings.steph...
Materials:
Keywords:
I wish I could say I'm impressed, but he states at 8:32 the following:
"... One of our projects is to construct what we call infergeometry, which is geometry where you're starting not with a manifold, where ultimately you're dealing with Euclidean patches of Euclidean Space, but rather from a hypergraph..."
I want to respect this man, but he has no idea how Euclidean Geometry works. He's thinking of the 1901 paper by the Swedish mathematician, Ludwig Schläfli, who ultimately "redefined" Euclidean Geometry based on work composed by Jean le Rond d'Alembert in 1754, who, himself, got his ideas from René Descartes who composed the concepts of the "cartesian" graph.
It's called "cartesian" because it's "Des-cartes-ian" in origin. It's a concept he, Descartes, developed. And his work was intended to bridge the gap between classical Euclidean Geometry and algebra. The concepts of a dimension or axis are entirely Descartes' concepts. And Jean is the one responsible for taking this idea out of context, probably because never read The Elements, the work compiled by Euclid, in the first place. He was just toying around with Descartes' ideas.
Meanwhile, glory-hogging fools lined up, one after another, and "rewrote the book" on Euclidean Geometry without ever actually reading Euclid's work on geometry.
Wolfram is specifically referencing the concepts of "modern Euclidean Geometry" which is fundamentally "not Euclidean Geometry". It's technically cartesian geometry.
The whole idea of a manifold is a cartesian concept. But Euclidean Geometry, the real deal, actually can be used to describe a hypergraph.
I don't have the background to catch him on ZoneFlood like what you are pointing out, but I can affirm I have found him shell-gaming with words so fast that it is hard to realize he doesn't understand some things. His "black hole model" in A New Kind of Physics is nothing like a black hole, and would not allow the gravity signal to get out of the black hole past the event horizon. I suspect discretized space is the correct model. If so, he's pointing everyone else to the right way, but he himself is verbally shuck-jiving too much to be credible.
The goal of infrageometry is to give a different computational foundation to geometry, either Euclidian, Cartesian or Modern (Differential, Synthetic...). We hope to get the systems of hypergraph rewriting to work towards an implementation of conventional geometric theories but also many other intermediate phenomena such as rational dimension or partial algebras.
Thanks for a better explanation
Every day I look for a new Wolfram drop 🗡
hmmm, this seems like it would only be a mere tiny quasi platonic subset of my axiomatically non computational information substrate agnostic model for general abiogenesis and symbiotic cosmogenesis, which crudely implies a dimensionless GUT information coupling parameter around ~1/24 by monte carlo analysis which optimizes inflationary transitions within gaussian patches of the grander auto compactifying and evolving implicit latent self representation
What do you think of Laws of Form? Some-thing from No-thing: G. Spencer-brown's Laws of Form
You were in town and I missed it?
We were visiting Perimeter Institute in Waterloo.
@wolframinstitute Beautiful grounds..... much better in June.
Computationally bounded observers experience entropy increasing.... I guess I would prefer to avoid computationally bounded observations, then
326