What We've Learned from NKS Chapter 1: The Foundations of a New Kind of Science
Вставка
- Опубліковано 5 тра 2024
- In this episode of "What We've Learned from NKS", Stephen Wolfram is counting down to the 20th anniversary of A New Kind of Science with [another] chapter retrospective. If you'd like to contribute to the discussion in future episodes, you can participate through this UA-cam channel or through the official Twitch channel of Stephen Wolfram here: / stephen_wolfram
Read all of NKS here: www.wolframscience.com/nks/
0:00 Start stream
0:15 SW goes live
14:38 Physics Project, role and place of mathematics in the structure of science
24:15 Chapter 9 is a special one
56:30 NKS is not computer science
1:01:35 Talk about AI
1:07:00 Two key ideas: metamodeling & ruliology
1:26:00 PontiusPirate: How has the last sentence held up since NKS was written?
1:31:40 After 20 years of development, and 20 years of reflection is there anything you would fine tune in the new edition?
1:40:05 Is there a formal notation system for the Ruliad, how are these simple programs represented?
1:40:55 Can you speak to transitioning the title of the book from it's original title?
1:48:00 Stephen shares scrapbook photos
1:50:12 Why is mathematics so effective for natural science? Is it because reality is fundamentally mathematical? (An idea along the lines of Max Tegmark) Or is it simply that we know mathematical objects so intimately that it serves best for us to understand/model reality? (A Platonistic insight)
1:54:45 Do you think that widely recognized term " theory of everything" overlap with your ideas?
1:56:45 What mathematical fields should one know/study to do research on specific Elementary Automaton rules and their behavior?
1:57:40 Can you think of any particular criticisms of the book that have been demolished in the interceding years?
2:05:50 Hypothetically if someone used the tools you developed and found a fundamental Theory of Physics, how would you feel? Excited? Disappointed? Thoughts?
2:10:15 How did/will NKS influence analog computing?
2:10:50 Who was your greatest influence or source of inspiration? What's your opinion of Benoit Mandelbrot's work?
2:20:14 Is deduction or induction more important in NKS? In what proportions?
2:21:40 Will you eventually continue trying to write fiction?
2:25:47 How do the ideas of NKS relate to Max Tegmark's "Our Mathematical Universe" idea?
2:26:23 Will neural networks and AI eventually tell you whether you're right or wrong about your computational universe theory?
2:28:37 What do you think about the book "A Nonlinear Dynamics Perspective of Wolfram's New Kind of Science"?
2:31:15 About the beautiful design of NKS: you mentioned you spent a lot of time on layout and formatting. Did you personally do layout? What program did you use to design the book (LaTeX/\[Ellipsis]?). Just wondering since so few technically sophisticated books are that well designed. Where do you think your aesthetic sense came from?
Follow us on our official social media channels.
Twitter: / wolframresearch
Facebook: / wolframresearch
Instagram: / wolframresearch
LinkedIn: / wolfram-research
Contribute to the official Wolfram Community: community.wolfram.com
Stay up-to-date on the latest interest at Wolfram Research through our blog: blog.wolfram.com
Follow Stephen Wolfram's life, interests, and what makes him tick on his blog: writings.stephenwolfram.com/ - Розваги
I purchased your NKS book immediately after it became available. It is literally the only book that I have kept within arms length for 20 years.
I'm looking forward to all of your upcoming videos discussing the NKS production details and the far reaching implications of its ideas.
Congratulations on such a seminal work!
In computer programming terms, Wolfram is sayin that the universe is running this gigantic program. So far we’ve only been using these really high level programming languages (i.e. math) to describe it’s behavior from what we have observed. He postulates though that these high level languages may not be getting at what the entire program is doing as a whole and is bounded in it’s expressiveness in someway to describe the entire system. So, he wants to reduce the program down to it’s assembly code (i.e. the basic rule space or ruliad) in order to be able to explore new spaces of the entire program in a language that can fully express it. The problem that I see though is that like assembly code, you pretty much always have to run it to see what it does. Hopefully, we can build new kinds of maths on top of it so that we don’t always have to “run the rules” in order to reason about it.
Thanks for it
Wolfram's whole point is that you have to run it to find out what it does. He repeatedly refers to "computaional irriducability" and it is his whole point.
@@MrCropper understood. I suppose I was getting at the idea that you may not always have the computational capacity to "run it", so it would be nice to have some way of being able to reason about the programs behavior per say.
@@bjk837 I have been developing a working parametrization of multi-computation; defining how to interface with computationally irreducible systems and exploit that to do useful things. It’s honestly very interesting and very promising.
I might idk…make a UA-cam channel lecture thingy like this when I get free time.
Interesting take! I see where you're coming from, but let's unpack this a bit. Comparing the universe to a complex program and suggesting that we've been using "high-level languages" like math to interpret it is a fascinating analogy. Stephen Wolfram's idea of digging deeper into the "assembly code" of the universe, or the basic rule space, is like trying to understand the fundamental building blocks of reality.
However, your concern about having to "run" the rules, like in assembly code, to see the outcomes, raises a valid point. In programming, assembly code is closer to machine language and is often run to understand its behavior due to its complexity and low-level nature. Applying this analogy to the universe, if we manage to decode its "assembly code," we might face similar challenges. It's not just about seeing the rules but understanding the implications of these rules in different scenarios.
On the flip side, the prospect of developing new kinds of mathematics to interpret these fundamental rules without always having to simulate them is a hopeful one. It aligns with how we've historically used math and physics to predict and explain phenomena without always conducting experiments or observations.
So, while Wolfram's approach might initially require a lot of trial and error (like running assembly code), the long-term goal would be to build a comprehensive framework, much like how high-level programming languages have built-in functions that simplify complex operations. It's ambitious, but if successful, it could revolutionize our understanding of the universe, just as understanding assembly language can provide deep insights into computer operations.
Seriously speaking, I cannot understand why I can watch this intellectual gem completely for free. Brilliant work.
I read this at the time, from my local library, and finally got a hard copy just the other day, makes a lot more sense second time around
What a time to be alive! Having this direct connection with such magnificent mind.
I remember when I first casually perused this book. It was a chilling experience. I almost fell out of my chair. Wolfram for President!!
I feel in love with the idea presented in the book when I first got in contact with it some many years ago, unfortunately I didn't follow up on my reading and ended up forgetting about it. So glad that YT recommended me these recorded streams, it makes it even better when it's the author himself reading and commenting on the work. Amazing, Thanks Professor!
Thank you for this episode! Looking forward to the next chapter.
Great! I have only read some of NKS online and it will be interesting to get a more comprehensive presentation of the book by Stephen himself, together with new insights he might have gathered.
"The science of ruleology"! Exciting stuff, can't wait to hear more!
02230329_Wed::
This new knowledge of NKS will be very useful in the pursuit of technology.
I will strive to use it with diligence and humility.
Thank you, very much, Dr. Wolfram.
Mike Wagner , B. Engineering, (Electro-Mechanical), & M.S.C.S.
Stephen reading this classic is the highlight of my whole month. Really appreciate how much effort you put into trying to educate people on physics, programming, CEOing and so much more.
Alfred North Whitehead was a great thinker indeed. Much of his writing I found pretty tough going though.
Saving this one to my watch later
Many Kudos !!!!
my mind is melting now, thanks lol
Congratulations. YES, it a really hardcover!
Your enthusiasm & competence is inspiring but nullius-in-verba (aka we will see)
The simple to the complex from rules that are particularly simple. Particularly in terms of particle.
Fine. However given the complex is it possible to work back to the elements of particular simple?
Since the collection of particles that evolved from the simple have simple relations to other simple particles,they too will create complexity would they not?
So would it not be impossible to find the initial condition?
Stephen explain how simple things make complex things in a simple or complex way?
The people who said you didn't show more history probably meant that the history was not easily accessable,like in a popular science book. So they were referring to the layout of the book,not it's content. You interpreted their comment in a technical way but perhaps their comments were about a very simple graphic composition sense.
this sounds extremely interesting. I'm afraid I won't be able to keep up, since I have always had trouble with maths. but perhaps due to the nature of this new scienve being based on simple programs I might just be able to do it, I am an amateur programmer after all so let's see
Yea, trust me, it’s easy and intuitive. This book is especially easy to pick up because a lot of its proofs are visual, and testable yourself since they can be done on a computer.
Cheers,
No idea what this about never heard of it before the book the guy talking or anything 🤷🏻♀️ why would UA-cam recommend this for me 🫤 gonna save it maybe watch it some time in the future comments got me kinda interested 🤔🤓
I'm going to watch this whole video let's see what this is about and I'm looking forward to when I got out of it cool
I wish I was subscribed before.
"simple" programs are not in fact simple. They are written with deliberate intent which is hard to find in nature and is assumed to arise from random intent.
Not sure universe follows definite rules
This quantum thing
NKS is an acronym of?
Lol
@@bjk837 Thanks!
@@kipling1957 New Kind of Science, the title of Wolfram's book
@@Biedropegaz Thanks! I eventually figured it out. Had my stupid head on that day.
@@kipling1957 Stupid head happens everybody form time to time :D
34:54 Lex Fridman
❤🧡💛💚💙💜🤎🖤🤍❣❤🧡💛💚💙💜🤎🖤🤍❣❤🧡💛💚💜🤎💙🖤🤍❣💜💛💙❣
Kappa
"some books in 1910, or so"
Yeah, no biggie.
Earth is created. You'll never figure out how God did it.
God make us to explore how he creates the earth and heaven, by giving us signs and wonders. God wanna us to explore with his guidance and show the ready one the results, instead of directly telling us. God has structures, his creations have patterns.
ANYONE WHO READS THIS MESSAGE; "SAW THOTH"; YOULL KNOW WHAT THIS MEANS ON NEW EARTH!!!!! IT'S NEW EARTH TIME Y'ALL!!!! ♥🌚💫🌍🌈🌝💎✨
As in the Atlantian ?
💖💖💖💖💖💖💖🍌💖💖💖💖💖💖💖🎸💖💖💖💖💖💖💖🍀💖💖💖💖💖💖💖🐇💖💖💖💖💖💖💖🍌💖💖💖💖💖💖💖🎸💖💖💖💖💖💖💖🎶💖💖💖💖💖💖🍌🛬🛬🛬🛬🛬🛬🛬🍌💖💖💖💖💖💖💖🎸💖💖💖💖💖💖💖🍌🛬🛬🛬🛬🛬🛬🍌💖💖💖💖💖. 😍😍
I totally passed out and woke up to this. 🥲
Started off w/ some gold: "available at massive(?) book stores" and "they're convenient for bookends."
Computational irreducibility is the answer I needed when Yaron Brook finally took up a free will vs determinism tweet.
41:00 a Forth?
The New Kind of Dilemma: sure it's computable all the way down, but is it a computer?
...as it was put: is it all/the math?
Hmm: 2 is green...green+red=yellow, green+blue=cyan,green+green=green 🤔 might be something there to mixing categories.