@@mitchtroumbly7056 Hey, Mitch, I've been releasing excerpts from this conversation every few weeks for the last year and a half. So yes, it has been slow, but I've put a lot of time and effort into editing them and adding information on-screen, so I think it has been worth the wait. Most of what Jonathan talks about in this interview is timeless.
@lasttheory While I don't disagree that his presentation of information has value, it is your job to post this in a timely fashion People's view and insights and opinions change and update over time and waiting so long means your post becomes irrelevant and old when there is other material of his out there. There are both reasonable and unreasonable amounts of time.. if he mightve been able to develop a whole new framework of thought in the time it tool to post... that is unreasonable. I suggest instead of trying to add value, next time just post the already valuable video Cheers and sorry for the harsh criticism But seriously! Think on it
This is the best interview with Jonathan out there. Watching it for the 5th time, still getting new knowledge out of it. Please, please try to arrange for a new interview each year, so we can hear about any further advances. - Thanks!
The physical computational correspondence clicked for me when I realized how distributed computing is inherently bound by special relativity, and you can directly observe the effects here (and you have to work around them).
sry for being so late, that one took me a while 😄 Great editing! 🤗 Can't imagine how many micro-decisions had to be made 🤭 I think subtitles would be great and make it much more accessible. Also chapter marks could help. All in all: A historic document, in my book 😍
Yep, it takes a while to get through the whole thing, but it's worth it! Running through the whole interview again to tweak the editing really cemented some of Jonathan's insights in my mind. Thanks, as ever, for the feedback and the support!
13:53 nine minutes of gold: on computationalism and constructivism “people confuse the substrate of a model for a statement about ontology” This reminded me of Joscha Bach talking about how “Correspondence Theories” are fundamentally flawed: it can’t be about setting individual pointers to reality right, because models can per definition only point (and talk) within themselves. ua-cam.com/video/XsGfCfMQgNs/v-deo.htmlsi=Y5kRvydF131HHinB 22:39 “… there are situations in which you can prove formally: No experiment that you can in principle do, could distinguish wether the universe is discrete or continuous”, “it keeps running away from you” 31:30 nine more minutes of pure gold: wanting rewriting rules that preserve distance in the causal structure (- otherwise you would lose a notion of locality) - the hypergraph is what drops out naturally / obviously 40:55 implementation: how to do the plumbing 46:44 Edit: I finally have time to continue with this video. 1:34:14 The multiverse is more trivial than the universe. - Intuition: There is some content to the universe. // In my own words: You have to have starting conditions; you can’t just start with rules and arrive at our universe; the rules have to act on something preexisting. You can have a multiverse from nothing, but you can’t have “our” universe from nothing. It’s like a (random number?) “seed” in a sandbox-(computer-)game, that distinguishes this universe from all possible universes. 1:39:01 Where to place the computational burden? Bottom Up, or Top Down? The role of the observer in “slicing the Ruliad”. 1:41:10 Being more realistic about the nature of the observer: GR and QM were a start, what’s the next logical step? The observer imposes a coarse graining / “fake rules”: the observer imposes causal invariance post-hoc. 1:50:13 getting QM for free (- I’ll have to rewatch that a few more times.) 2:10:47 GR is more generic / less “special” than one might have hoped for: it applies quite “naturally” to a large part of possible hypergraph rewriting rules; it doesn’t narrow down / pick out “our” universe; vice versa: our type of universe might not be uncommon in the hypothetical space of reasonably constructed universes. 2:12:58 particles
He must put an eye in holography and the information black hole lost paradox, the firewal vs complementaity and the deep black hole physics, looks like he is brilliant, maybe can find an interplay between the wolfram physics and the topcis of holography
Jonathan seemed to suggest that the presence of computational irreducibility of a phenomenon leads to the ability to coarse-grain the behavior of it. Is he suggesting that this is universally true? Would that mean that Rule 30 would also follow this behavior?
Good question. Yes, I would suspect that this is universally true of computationally irreducible rules that give rise to chaotic behaviour. The idea here is that the chaotic behaviour arising from computationally irreducibility is effectively the same as randomness, and randomness, though it means we can't make fine-grained predictions, allows coarse-graining to arise. As for Rule 30, Stephen Wolfram _suspects_ that it's computational irreducible, but that hasn't been proved yet. He has offered a prize for proving that it is at www.rule30prize.org/ but I don't think anyone has won that prize yet. Thanks for the great questions!
Yes, it's from October 2022, so a year and a half ago now. I'd really like to get an update from Jonathan and dig deeper into some of the topics we discussed. I'll be reaching out to him again soon!
Yes, thanks Vlad, I really hope to have a second conversation with Jonathan. He's a hard guy to get hold of, but I'll be reaching out to him again shortly. In the meantime, if you're interested in where the computation is happening, check out my playlist _The computer that runs the universe_ ua-cam.com/play/PLVwcxwu8hWKng3gsKKzmSw56ehIjENyh9.html
@@lasttheory Sure, I've seen them before and I didn't mean an external computer. What I am interested in is the interplay between the observers and the Universe, or where you place the computational burden, as Jonathan mentions here: ua-cam.com/video/asCDGSYzwhw/v-deo.html
@@lasttheory Thanks, but I meant "where you place the computational burden" part of the interview from 1:38:40. I.e. the interplay between the universe and the observer.
@@VladislavGoryachev Ah, sorry, right, the extreme bottom-up view versus the extreme top-down view. I'd really like to ask Jonathan more about this. Definitely on my list of questions for the second interview.
Moin Moin. Dies anyone know a definition of causal edges. I am still struggling with the difference of causal to graph structure. My idea is, that the causal graph does correspond to spacetime, and the hypergraph to its Riemannian manifold. But I do not see, where the maps/Atlasses are coming from. Do your know a video exploring that. That would be great 🐯 . Tschüß, Michael Soliman.
Good question, thanks Michael. I haven't got there yet, but I'm going to be getting into causal edges and the causal graph over my next few episodes. So many graphs! As briefly as I can: - the _hypergraph_ is space (and the evolution of the hypergraph is time) - the _multiway graph_ is every possible evolution of the hypergraph (each node of the multiway graph is a hypergraph) - the _causal graph_ is the causal connections between the updating events on the hypergraph (each node of the causal graph is an updating event where a rule was applied to the hypergraph). Hope that helps! It'll get clearer in my next few videos.
Its far from a theory explaining nature. Its only a framework in which to frame such a theory. It really has no explanotory power, but it gives a way how theories can be formed outside of space time. And thats amazing. But, the question still remains, why universe exist and why it is this specific way.
Yes, absolutely, it's a framework. Why the universe exists is a question we may never be able to answer - though Stephen Wolfram _claims_ to have an answer. But why it is this specific way is a fascinating question which I'm hoping this framework will be able to shed more and more light on.
I was looking for the date or at least year of the interview, but instead discovered Los Alamos is run by "Triad National Security, LLC," which is both more personally relevant and something I should have known.
The date of the interview is 19 October 2022. And yes, I agree, Dess, that it's absurd that the lawyers at Los Alamos make me put that entire text in the description as a condition of using the photos of John von Neumann and Stanisław Ulam. They need to lighten up a little!
@@lasttheory Like everything else surrounding nukes, turns out Triad is headexplode.gif "Triad is made up of three members" except it also has "two integrated subcontractors" and "three small business contractors." Big laugh about how among many things, Triad handles "stockpile management" and "nuclear nonproliferation" but a couple paragraphs later one of these "integrated subcontractors" handles what could only be described as "proliferation." "Huntington Ingalls Industries provides personnel, systems, tools and corporate reachback in the areas of pit production, plutonium manufacturing, production scale-up and nuclear operations and manufacturing." I'm not talking UFOs, but I'm sure between this being private and the DoE's own classification system there's space for all sorts of interesting stuff to lurk.
Yes, sorry, it's hard to fit timestamps, or much of anything else, into the details box, with all the legal nonsense the Los Alamos National Laboratory et al makes me put in there.
Timestamps now added! I've had to remove a bunch of the links to make room, but you can still find all the links at lasttheory.com/channel/059-jonathan-gorard-the-complete-first-interview
Pure gold. My favourite new generation scientist, J.G. Thanks for your effort, both.
Thanks Marko. I agree, Jonathan is incredible.
"Wake up kids, we have a Last Theory upload."
Simple awesome stuff. What a gift to the world!
👍 You had the best interview with Jonathan. I would love to hear another one
Thanks, I really appreciate that! And yes, I'd love to do another one. I'll be reaching out to Jonathan again shortly!
If it takes you 2 years to post it, don't bother
@@mitchtroumbly7056 Hey, Mitch, I've been releasing excerpts from this conversation every few weeks for the last year and a half. So yes, it has been slow, but I've put a lot of time and effort into editing them and adding information on-screen, so I think it has been worth the wait. Most of what Jonathan talks about in this interview is timeless.
@lasttheory
While I don't disagree that his presentation of information has value, it is your job to post this in a timely fashion
People's view and insights and opinions change and update over time and waiting so long means your post becomes irrelevant and old when there is other material of his out there.
There are both reasonable and unreasonable amounts of time.. if he mightve been able to develop a whole new framework of thought in the time it tool to post... that is unreasonable.
I suggest instead of trying to add value, next time just post the already valuable video
Cheers and sorry for the harsh criticism
But seriously!
Think on it
The new kid on the block for sure. Great times ahead. Seen him twice and sense greatness. Makes me want to take it serious.
Yes, Jonathan's so clear and incisive, someone to watch, for sure!
wish he was a stock so i could invest
@@Sam-we7zj Right, yes, I'd be doing so too!
Informative and candid interview! Well done 👏
Thanks Hank!
This is the best interview with Jonathan out there. Watching it for the 5th time, still getting new knowledge out of it. Please, please try to arrange for a new interview each year, so we can hear about any further advances. - Thanks!
Thanks, I really appreciate that! And yes, I'm working on getting Jonathan back for more. I have such a long list of questions to ask him!
Your perspectives and videos have been very helpful. Thank you.
Thank you so much, that means a lot to me!
Thank you so much for posting full length interviews vs the shorts.
No problem, it took me a while to edit, but I got there in the end. Glad you're enjoying the full interview, thanks Justin!
Yay finally get to see the whole thing. Thanks for interview.
Yes, I got there in the end! Thanks Jaime
A fantastic source of inspiration and thinking. Keep up the great work.
Thanks, Clive, I really appreciate it!
The physical computational correspondence clicked for me when I realized how distributed computing is inherently bound by special relativity, and you can directly observe the effects here (and you have to work around them).
Yes, thanks Jonathan. I find it takes a while for these ideas to click.
Loved this interview!
Thanks! He really is.
Great to hear an explanation of theoretical physics. Lots of complexity in how things have developed.
Yes, thanks. Complex, for sure!
sry for being so late, that one took me a while 😄
Great editing! 🤗 Can't imagine how many micro-decisions had to be made 🤭
I think subtitles would be great and make it much more accessible.
Also chapter marks could help.
All in all: A historic document, in my book 😍
Yep, it takes a while to get through the whole thing, but it's worth it! Running through the whole interview again to tweak the editing really cemented some of Jonathan's insights in my mind. Thanks, as ever, for the feedback and the support!
13:53 nine minutes of gold: on computationalism and constructivism
“people confuse the substrate of a model for a statement about ontology”
This reminded me of Joscha Bach talking about how “Correspondence Theories” are fundamentally flawed: it can’t be about setting individual pointers to reality right, because models can per definition only point (and talk) within themselves. ua-cam.com/video/XsGfCfMQgNs/v-deo.htmlsi=Y5kRvydF131HHinB
22:39 “… there are situations in which you can prove formally: No experiment that you can in principle do, could distinguish wether the universe is discrete or continuous”, “it keeps running away from you”
31:30 nine more minutes of pure gold: wanting rewriting rules that preserve distance in the causal structure (- otherwise you would lose a notion of locality)
- the hypergraph is what drops out naturally / obviously
40:55 implementation: how to do the plumbing
46:44
Edit: I finally have time to continue with this video.
1:34:14 The multiverse is more trivial than the universe. - Intuition: There is some content to the universe. // In my own words: You have to have starting conditions; you can’t just start with rules and arrive at our universe; the rules have to act on something preexisting. You can have a multiverse from nothing, but you can’t have “our” universe from nothing. It’s like a (random number?) “seed” in a sandbox-(computer-)game, that distinguishes this universe from all possible universes.
1:39:01 Where to place the computational burden? Bottom Up, or Top Down? The role of the observer in “slicing the Ruliad”.
1:41:10 Being more realistic about the nature of the observer: GR and QM were a start, what’s the next logical step? The observer imposes a coarse graining / “fake rules”: the observer imposes causal invariance post-hoc.
1:50:13 getting QM for free (- I’ll have to rewatch that a few more times.)
2:10:47 GR is more generic / less “special” than one might have hoped for: it applies quite “naturally” to a large part of possible hypergraph rewriting rules; it doesn’t narrow down / pick out “our” universe; vice versa: our type of universe might not be uncommon in the hypothetical space of reasonably constructed universes.
2:12:58 particles
Thanks for these timestamps! And yes, Jonathan is extraordinarily clear both on the mathematics and on the philosophy.
@@lasttheory didn’t have time for watching the rest today; might continue tomorrow
@@Stadtpark90 Yes, it's a long one! Worth persisting for more brilliant insights from Jonathan. Anyway, thanks again for the timestamps!
Yeah, I had tears in my eyes.
He must put an eye in holography and the information black hole lost paradox, the firewal vs complementaity and the deep black hole physics, looks like he is brilliant, maybe can find an interplay between the wolfram physics and the topcis of holography
Settling in with the popcorn
Yes, thanks Sam, it's a long one... enjoy the popcorn with your hypergraphs!
literally the same. Got some fine toffee popcorn 😋
I knew, one day someone would explain whats going on.
I _hope_ this turns into a full explanation of what's going on! Thanks Dmitry.
Neat.
Jonathan seemed to suggest that the presence of computational irreducibility of a phenomenon leads to the ability to coarse-grain the behavior of it. Is he suggesting that this is universally true? Would that mean that Rule 30 would also follow this behavior?
Good question. Yes, I would suspect that this is universally true of computationally irreducible rules that give rise to chaotic behaviour.
The idea here is that the chaotic behaviour arising from computationally irreducibility is effectively the same as randomness, and randomness, though it means we can't make fine-grained predictions, allows coarse-graining to arise.
As for Rule 30, Stephen Wolfram _suspects_ that it's computational irreducible, but that hasn't been proved yet. He has offered a prize for proving that it is at www.rule30prize.org/ but I don't think anyone has won that prize yet.
Thanks for the great questions!
So this is the interview from last year?
From 2 years ago it would seem
Yes, it's from October 2022, so a year and a half ago now. I'd really like to get an update from Jonathan and dig deeper into some of the topics we discussed. I'll be reaching out to him again soon!
@@lasttheory
Excellent!
Is the second interview coming up, or this is the end of our journey? I am most interested in the topic of WHERE the computation is happening ))
Yes, thanks Vlad, I really hope to have a second conversation with Jonathan. He's a hard guy to get hold of, but I'll be reaching out to him again shortly. In the meantime, if you're interested in where the computation is happening, check out my playlist _The computer that runs the universe_ ua-cam.com/play/PLVwcxwu8hWKng3gsKKzmSw56ehIjENyh9.html
@@lasttheory Sure, I've seen them before and I didn't mean an external computer. What I am interested in is the interplay between the observers and the Universe, or where you place the computational burden, as Jonathan mentions here: ua-cam.com/video/asCDGSYzwhw/v-deo.html
@@lasttheory Thanks, but I meant "where you place the computational burden" part of the interview from 1:38:40. I.e. the interplay between the universe and the observer.
@@VladislavGoryachev Ah, sorry, right, the extreme bottom-up view versus the extreme top-down view. I'd really like to ask Jonathan more about this. Definitely on my list of questions for the second interview.
Moin Moin.
Dies anyone know a definition of causal edges.
I am still struggling with the difference of causal to graph structure.
My idea is, that the causal graph does correspond to spacetime, and the hypergraph to its Riemannian manifold.
But I do not see, where the maps/Atlasses are coming from.
Do your know a video exploring that.
That would be great 🐯
.
Tschüß, Michael Soliman.
Good question, thanks Michael. I haven't got there yet, but I'm going to be getting into causal edges and the causal graph over my next few episodes.
So many graphs! As briefly as I can:
- the _hypergraph_ is space (and the evolution of the hypergraph is time)
- the _multiway graph_ is every possible evolution of the hypergraph (each node of the multiway graph is a hypergraph)
- the _causal graph_ is the causal connections between the updating events on the hypergraph (each node of the causal graph is an updating event where a rule was applied to the hypergraph).
Hope that helps! It'll get clearer in my next few videos.
Its far from a theory explaining nature. Its only a framework in which to frame such a theory. It really has no explanotory power, but it gives a way how theories can be formed outside of space time. And thats amazing. But, the question still remains, why universe exist and why it is this specific way.
Yes, absolutely, it's a framework. Why the universe exists is a question we may never be able to answer - though Stephen Wolfram _claims_ to have an answer. But why it is this specific way is a fascinating question which I'm hoping this framework will be able to shed more and more light on.
A recent video with Stephen Wolfram on the physics project: ua-cam.com/video/T0s_H9c2O28/v-deo.html
Thanks, I'll take a look!
I promise you: We are cartoons drawing cartoon tools.
The theory of the mule and the cockroach!
Planet of the apes is planet of endless wonders!
someone buy this gentleman a strap for his glasses
I was looking for the date or at least year of the interview, but instead discovered Los Alamos is run by "Triad National Security, LLC," which is both more personally relevant and something I should have known.
The date of the interview is 19 October 2022. And yes, I agree, Dess, that it's absurd that the lawyers at Los Alamos make me put that entire text in the description as a condition of using the photos of John von Neumann and Stanisław Ulam. They need to lighten up a little!
@@lasttheory Like everything else surrounding nukes, turns out Triad is headexplode.gif
"Triad is made up of three members" except it also has "two integrated subcontractors" and "three small business contractors." Big laugh about how among many things, Triad handles "stockpile management" and "nuclear nonproliferation" but a couple paragraphs later one of these "integrated subcontractors" handles what could only be described as "proliferation."
"Huntington Ingalls Industries provides personnel, systems, tools and corporate reachback in the areas of pit production, plutonium manufacturing, production scale-up and nuclear operations and manufacturing."
I'm not talking UFOs, but I'm sure between this being private and the DoE's own classification system there's space for all sorts of interesting stuff to lurk.
🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🐸😊
uploading a 3 hour video with no timestamps is very unethical
Yes, sorry, it's hard to fit timestamps, or much of anything else, into the details box, with all the legal nonsense the Los Alamos National Laboratory et al makes me put in there.
Timestamps now added! I've had to remove a bunch of the links to make room, but you can still find all the links at lasttheory.com/channel/059-jonathan-gorard-the-complete-first-interview
@@lasttheoryI believe you can put them into a comment and pin the comment to the top.
@@scenFor109 Ah, I did wonder about that! I've made room for them in the description this time, but I'll try that trick next time, thanks!
@@lasttheory Thank you