Dogma in Mainstream Science! | Stephen Wolfram
Вставка
- Опубліковано 28 вер 2024
- Listen on Spotify: open.spotify.c...
Main episode with Stephen Wolfram (February 2024): • Solving the Problem of...
Consider signing up for TOEmail at www.curtjaimun...
Support TOE:
- Patreon: / curtjaimungal (early access to ad-free audio episodes!)
- Crypto: tinyurl.com/cr...
- PayPal: tinyurl.com/pa...
- TOE Merch: tinyurl.com/TO...
Follow TOE:
- NEW Get my 'Top 10 TOEs' PDF + Weekly Personal Updates: www.curtjaimun...
- Instagram: / theoriesofeverythingpod
- TikTok: / theoriesofeverything_
- Twitter: / toewithcurt
- Discord Invite: / discord
- iTunes: podcasts.apple...
- Pandora: pdora.co/33b9lfP
- Spotify: open.spotify.c...
- Subreddit r/TheoriesOfEverything: / theoriesofeverything
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @theoriesofeverything
#science #physics
1. Listen on Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/4gL14b92xAErofYQA7bU4e
2. Main episode with Stephen Wolfram (February 2024): ua-cam.com/video/0YRlQQw0d-4/v-deo.html
3. Join TOEmail at www.curtjaimungal.org
A major breakthrough that I've recently figure it out is 100% factual is if you follow the logical progression of the spatial Dimensions infinite zero-dimensional existence can stack into any size one dimensional existence and infinite one dimensional existence can stack into any size two dimensional existence in infinite two dimensional existence can stack into any size three dimensional exist and so if we follow this pattern infinite three dimensional existence can stack into any size four dimensional existence so for spatial Dimension exist then an infinite three-dimensional Multiverse becomes 100% the case and if we live in a 3 + 1 System then we would expect to see the relative state or shape of the universe in a spherical or torval shape which we do not observe we observe it as flat this means that there is a higher spatial dimension of three-dimensional stacked Universal potentiality... 3d=♾️
@@AquarianSoulTimeTraveler That's a cool idea, sounds reasonable. Instead of stacking dimensions beyond 3, you really don't have at a specific point. 3d space and 1D time is enough, and the torus is a natural result of the path of least resistance. Where a much larger super conductive toroid builds up resistance, and that resistance is pushed out to form our universe (resistance is the locally intersecting motion flow direction differences in a system), no extra dimensions required (it may be even impossible to have a 4 dimensional space, but you still could have a curved 3d space within another 3d space, and that would be physically possible type of 4d like space, but really it just simplifies into 3d space with the curvature being a curvature of motion flow, not curvature in space).
@@NicholasWilliams-uk9xu yes, if 3d we live in is the fundamental dimension we should expect to see the realitivistic shape or state of the universe as evenly distributed in a 3d manner ie a sphere... The more we realize that Our universe is compressed into a flat disc because Of the existence of Fourth-Dimensional spatial potentiality like you talk about curvature on a four dimensional scale Allows for infinite Three-Dimensional Universals Potentiality to stack Just as Infinite two-dimensional planes can stack into any size three-dimensional object... infinite three-dimensional Universal potentiality can stack into any size four dimensional existence so that's why we see the relative state or shape of our universe as flat instead of spherical it's because we're not the fundamental highest spatial dimension... not a 3+1 system and so universe appears flat... if we were in a 4D system or a 4 + 1 System and the relative state or shape of the universe was a torrid or a sphere then this would mean that the fourth spatial Dimensions not the highest spatial Dimension either because this would be showing three-dimensional effects on four dimensional scale which would show that the 4th spatial Dimension isn't the fundamental spatial Dimension either...
I tead your comment, when Mr Curly here said, space is not continuous. I have serious issue with it - not with the continuous part, but that space exists att all. Space is a shadow. After effect. Like bs grabbity.
Tarantino's obsession is lil kids.
Scientism is a major threat to science itself.
Not at all, science isnt under threat, and the rate of breakthrough isnt at all guaranteed. The dogma matters when it changes the scientific method. Nothing of the sort has occurred. The MOND and string theorists are arguing for a different scientific method, both are failing at it. The scientific method always reasserts itself. Thats the genius of it.
@@chloe4587 My statement was oriented towards the sociological aspect of science. Science can refer to multiple things; an institution, a process of inquiry, and a body of accepted knowledge. Scientism harms public trust in all three.
In tech we trust, may the tech always be with you.
@@Archeidos-ArcanaWhat you say is correct. A bitter pill to swallow for some.
@Archeidos-Arcana public trust? Trust has been linked to literacy. Literacy is tied to public funding and accessability of education. Additionally, scientism as described here is "false promises based not on science but on the need for infinite growth under capitalistic mode of production." AI has been oversold, and the idea that computer scientists can solve every problem does not come from a computer scientist (who knows about complexity irreducability), but from their employer. I agree there is always an element of dogma in any institution, but science itself can often prove what it can not prove, it can say what it cannot say. I think you're victim to what Wolfram is saying - the details do matter, and I encourage you to find published research about trust erosion and scientific public communication. If you are unable to read I suggest Acollierastro's video about science communication and string theorists.
I dont know what if anyone saw Anton Petrov’s video yesterday, but it further adds to my opinion that physicalism seems to be dying more and more each day. The question is how long will it take before mainstream “scientists” jump off that train that is headed toward disaster.
Im glad Anton covered that topic but he missed a huge amount of research thats been published and presented showing experimental evidence supporting Penrose-Hameroffs theories i.e. tubulin subunits of microtubule polymers in fractal arrays of biological architectures. And that these form bio bit / qubits quantum superpositions and long EM waves creating computational, data storage & communication capability associated w/states of consciousness in humans. This is a biological quantum computer operating at 37C processing faster than instaneously, i.e. offering real time conscious perception.
That is what I call a smoke and mirrors conversation. More and more case studies are going into the quantum level when it comes to science. The title was pseudoscience. I think of it this way. To understand the quantum level, you have to be in a non-physical state. Quantum mechanics is physical because it is pen to paper. Particle physics is not entirely physical. The atomic level requires a powerful microscope to see that. Momentum is not physical. I throw a ball it moves in the air. The fields of gravity, centrifugal force, friction are not physical. Atomic level reactions. Not seen to the naked eye.
I wouldn't say physicalist is dying. I would say locality as a paradigm for understanding things is dying cause it really depends on how you define something as being physical.
Science is only a set of procedures for discovering the truth of physical reality (form a hypothesis, test it experimentally, publish the results, wait to see if others can duplicate your results). Science is, by its very nature, empirical. Going beyond physicalism will require a discipline that hasn't been developed yet. It won't be "science" anymore.
How is physicalism dying? It seems to have a pretty good track record. Any field of existence that is approached in study without invoking anything supernatural, we make great gains in scientific knowledge.
Thank you for promoting this man and Michael Levin!!!!!! They are going to change the world!!!!
The dogmatic scientists are never remembered fondly. More thinkers like you both! 👏❤
"i worked on some things in particle physics, but they were small"
lol
Time that is curvable is keeping us all back.
Great Talk!!!
Consider bringing Ken Wilber on regarding his new book 'Finding Radiant Wholeness'.
What integrally greater ...sense, science, and salience.... may come as our technological know how and technologically interconnecting advance ventures into what is ...true, truth and more truthful.... coming forth and going forward?
wow .. thank you for this
All the while I was listening to this I was just picturing how Walter Russel and Terrence Howard's theories get absolutely trashed because they go against the dogma.
The real geniuses like Wolfram are telling you to keep your mind open, the pseudointellectuals are telling you what to think unequivocally.
12:58 Ethics is as much a science as anyhing else if understood and explained in a structured way 😊😊
Mainstream physics says:
0D = not fundamental
Nonzero dimensions = fundamental
But here's what's actually true:
0D = fundamental
Nonzero dimensions: not fundamental
Remember that in geometry any new dimension has to contain within it all previous dimensions. Meaning that it's impossible for a 1D line to exist without being composed entirely of 0D points. No points, no line.
This geometric oversight has plagued physics since Euclid and only Leibniz recognized and tried to correct it with his logic, math and physics. Leibniz said "0D is necessary since it has no predecessor and 1D, 2D, 3D are contingent on their immediate predecessor".
We can think of locally real as necessary and "more real" whereas not locally real is contingent and "less real".
Subatomic = more real
Atomic = less real
If 0 = 0 + 0i then 0D = 0D + 0Di.
The one thing that is more noticeable today is that some ways to interpret theoretical
work is being challenged as an accurate and reliable process. For example, a fair amount of pushback has been seen with regards to the notion that if the mathematics is ok then a model describes something real in the universe……the multiverse anyone? Never mind experimental confirmation, which by the way sometimes it is simply not possible ! Some of the work in theoretical physics is perceived now with a high degree of skepticism because sometimes what takes place there is not really science. It is an exercise in overfitting data ( cosmic inflation) or really crazy delusional arguments of what might constitute evidence…..such as strange patterns in the CMB that supposedly are confirmation of universes beyond ours.
From being perceived in the last century as illuminating human understanding, some in the field of theoretical physics are now seen as priests who have drowned in stupid dogma….clowns playing with equations.
7:19 spirituality and science will converge and understand. Then creating a tradition to help every child that takes birth know and be in order.
What came first? Infinite or finite, which one caused the effect of the other? Look at the number line. Can you understand?
p is non p
1>, p is, non cell caused the p is non p effect of
2>, non p is, a cell
p is non p, creation must be the dogmatic absolute truth. No uncertainty period.
its physics, all the way down. and its through the social we come to know.
never say never.... rule #1
everything is possible someway rule #2
3:17 All axioms need to be open to be revalidation.. 😊😊
1:25 This!
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world. The unreasonable man attempts to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man"
That's a definition of psychopath. My little modification would be " the unreasonable attempts to adapt both himself/herself and the world to what is true. "
@@charowarhussain3012 the definition of a psychopath is someone who has no empathy. That has absolutely nothing to do with the quote. So saying that makes no sense. I am open to considering what you have to say if you would like to restate it in a way that makes more sense.
Yeah broski, when dogma comes full circle and you realise it’s the lias 25th of Decs that are scared of the real God….!
1:38 Doublethink is something that modern science should get rid of and evolve.
Skepticism is a twin edged irony.
Accepted norms and those adherent to that, or questioned norms, and those interested in that.. ?
Planets are older stars and stars are young planets. It is dogma that separates them, scientists don’t realize that stars cool, shrink and lose mass becoming “planets”. Stellar evolution is planet formation.
6:04 All that is there to know will get known😊😊
Scientific disciplines are riddled with dogma. I always say one needs to look for consensus in science, but one needs to be very wary of consensus. When everyone is saying the same thing, watch out, other forces are at work, sociological, as Pavel Kroupa calls them, or paradigms, per Thomas Kuhn, or groupthink. And this is made worse by funding and by pressure to fit in. (That happens in any academic discipline, not just science. One is told to pick an area of study that is the current trend and marketable, and that your dissertation advisor approves of, not something that ignites your interest.) New studies and information chip away at too readily accepted ideas, and scientists do their best to ignore this new information for as long as they can until something forces them to acknowledge the new ideas. I can more easily see this in medical science because it is easier for me to understand than physics. But I have my suspicions in physics, as well, from a lay perspective.
Moreover, there is a big, big problem in the way science is presented to laypeople. Too often it is presented as fact, and the public believes this when what really needs to be emphasized is the tentative, ever-changing nature of science. Everyone needs to be asking questions and keeping an open mind (including the scientists). Everyone needs to be asking: what is the evidence that supports this idea and how convincing is it? The general public needs to learn to stay away from sources that merely make claims and don't provide any evidence. The truth is we are all need to become critical consumers of all the information we come in contact with daily, not merely to be informed, but so we don't make massive medical mistakes, for example.
Another area people need to learn to question are assumptions (their own and those of others), rather than taking them for granted. I like what your speaker said. I am constantly looking for people who question assumptions in any area, and he brought up a number of them, calling them dogma (for example, objective measurement, which is why I am, at least, attracted to QBism).
As for AI, I am concerned about the ways it can stop critical thinking. AI currently can summarize an article better than a human can. It can paraphrase passages from sources. That means struggling students don't need to learn to read for understanding, AI can do the work for them. They don't need to learn to write, AI can do the work for them. They can press a button, and it will add appropriate transitions or examples. Used incorrectly, it can stop critical thought. And, in a way, it is already unpredictable and doing its own thing in that there are plenty of examples where it totally makes stuff up rather than researching articles. There are other examples I've read about but not experienced first-hand. I don't think we can stop it from doing its own thing.
p is non p
1>, p is, law of abiogenesis caused the p is non p effect of
2>, non p is, the law of biogenesis
This is p is non p.
This whole video seemed to be about dogpa's spouse to me..
Checking check check. One two, one two.
Science follows politics today, unfortunately.
The answer to your question of where are we being held back the most is from the government's not disclosing our relationships to UAP and extraterrestrial civilizations. Once we get that information out in the open there will be a massive amount of Revelations for Humanity and we will no longer be held back from our true potential😅
I eat dogma for lunch!
Bathroom break…..
Two dogma formulas from logic science 101 that you don't know how to use. p is non p is the law of contradiction, p isn't non p is the law of non contradiction. Plug data into these formulas and see the dogmatic results.
The problem lies as follows: Old people tend to be more closed minded than younger people. Scientists, tend to be older people, therefore scientists, tend to be close minded.
Young people tend to be impulsive and simple thinkers, therefore young people tend to not understand the complexities as well as nuances of both scientific and philosophical concerns.
Rietdijk-Putnam argument
Science is based on maths... don't get me wrong, I love science, but does anybody really believe we can ever find out why and where from our math based universe popped up in the big bang...sure we can make theories, but how to find out evidence to prove them...could it be we our universal language is not perfect...as a kid I thought all people speak finnish, but one day flying spaghett monster decided to bring a swedish talkin kid to our village...after 5 min we were already fighting...he beat me
btw...if you didn't see, check Curts own TOE...gave me inspiration to create my own, based on Pythagorean comma
science is based in philosophy and applied reasoning, understanding how ideas translate into understanding/knowing* is where math comes in.
The number line? Finite can never increase to infinite because there is always another number. So, finite can't cause the effect of infinite.
Smart Terrence Howard. 1 × computation = universe
Smart what? The sun poops planets?
Why life had to exist to cause the effect of life. Death can't increase to life, but life decreases to death. Hence, life was first and had to cause the effect of death. God absolutely must exist to cause the first life in the universe. 🎉🎉🎉🎉
Wrong is wrong and it’s acceptable. Wrong is as absolute as correct.
Babel tower îs not some kind of wrong theory of existence build în a ancient advanced civilisation? The metafore and self destruction în attend to thuch The sky?
Stephen Wolfram is quite dogmatic as well. Rules are different.
I shake my head at these Ziomist.
you are a gatekeeper
This Wolfram guy is deluded
Dogma is the real bitch, not Karma
Edgy.
What about dogpa??
@@Wstarlights already got one - it's called dogpooh, aka communism
I wanted to jump in at 8:55 and ask, How could we possibly constrain engineers into creating only constrained, "dumb" AIs? (Which wouldn't be AIs at all, but he said that later.) It seems to me we can't. There will always be a Doctor Moreau or several working on an island somewhere.
i absolutely loved this podcast. still one of the best !!!
I do not understand DOGMA. To me everything in Physics, Quantum Mechanics, Chemistry, the Periodic chart, has to be absolute. The sub-atomic particle is. Therefore absolute. The field of electromagnetism has properties, actual physical properties. Absolute. When those properties are defined. That will be absolute.
Either Evolution is true dogma or creationism is dogma. Logic Science is 100% a dogma argument.
p is non p, law of contradiction, is self evident dogma, absolute truth.
1>, p is, non life caused the p is non p impossible contradiction effect of
2>, non p is, life in the universe
p is non p a dogma Illogical impossible contradiction, evolution is false and only creationism can be true.
Is it OK for scientists to ignore Big Problems that obviously involve physics?
Is it OK for physicists to say nothing about the distribution of steel down the Twin Towers when it had to have something to do with the collapse time?
Is it OK for physicists to not talk about physics making consumer products wear out but allow economists to say nothing about the Depreciation of durable consumer goods? There were 200,000,000 motor vehicles in the US in 1995.
Where did the depreciation go?
This still does not mean that anyone from outside the science of specific area call something a dogma and we accept it with no question. One has to back it up with a solid alternative or correction. 1x1 is not equal to 2. Period (assuming the standard definition of the multiplication operator). Of course you can define a different meaning of the operator - it is a free world, but then we are not talking about the same thing. And especially because of the democratization of opinion due to social media there is a definite phenomenon, this definitely has become an issue. When any and every random person attacks the science by calling it a dogma, and exploiting the open-minded/close-minded card, they are definitely exploiting the social norms - who does not want to be open-minded and not be a close-minded person. But open-mindedness should definitely have a statute of limitation or expiry time - the demand for open-mindedness itself also should be looked at open-mindedly and if found bogus - rejected. I think just like opinion has been democratized by social media - so should the rejection of calls of dogma become democratized and not be stigmatized. Enough already!
The fundamental understanding of QM and rejection of "shut up and calculate" is an example of learned call for dogma - which in fact was overdue.
Also sometimes people want to cut in the line - even if they may a valid call - Eric Weinstein comes to mind.
Calling something Scientism or Woke are other tactics which in some cases should be pushed back on. We are in that meta meta stage now.
If science can explain everything why is being, a life form and or an action of past, present, and future? Being that science can explain everything.
It's our concept of intelligence. Levin makes the distinction between genetic hardware and competency such that the latter receives selective pressure primarily and the former, secondarily. But our concept of intelligence has this backwards since academic tradition favors the perfect and pristine brain. I am not saying, normatively, that you should setup academic endeavors to favor competency anymore than the movie, Moneyball, suggests that baseball is about money. But the insight is that if the Red Sox and the academy continues operate the game without the observers playing any role, the game eventually no longer interests the observers. Money is the role observers have in baseball, as so will it be in science once scientists start working with ai to solve energy generation and climate change. It won't be the pure physics and math brains doing this, necessary. It could look like the Oakland Athletics at 1st, and then later the Red Sox will just learn from their example to change their team too.
May i introduce you all to the term of the "glocal". From Becks risk society. its the understanding of how the global (the large) interrelates to the local (the small), and how they are caught in a merry dance over time, forever bound up in eachothers forces.
Why is AI a goal, constrained systems to facilitate the betterment of our lives is a far superior option.
Wolfman has an ego the size of the observable universe.
LARGEST MYTH 1: You will understand the universe without needing to understand the logical structures of backwards time. LARGEST MYTH 2: Backwards HOME POINT is 0, like our direction of time. LARGEST MYTH 3: We will get there with BRUTE STRENGTH while ignoring FLEXIBILITY! It's not hopeless. The Engineering Department of a Tech University in Mexico City just verified validity of the formula I unearthed that predicts quantum behavior. They are taking it to the Physics and Math department for further analysis, while you guys fumble your fingers ignoring every correspondence I brought forward. This is going to be fun.
Fractal dynamics explains this
4:22 The fundamental belief that everything is in order. Human beings not knowing that does not affect it .
Stephen, rule 30 is the answer. Simplicity, computationally leading to complexity, a portion of which humans can observe as order (left of the golden angle) while simultaneously thinking the other portion (right of the angle) is random chaos. There is no quantum, it is a fallacy in our comprehension. We also need to remove time as a meaningful variable in our current paradigm of physics.
I do like it when you ask these Questions Curt. Direct and to the point and helps weeds from the chaff
Terrence Howard liked this
Exciting!
Wow, he managed to talk for 4 minutes before he even began to answer the question. Amazing.
You win the gold star!
The gene centric view of evolution and life is such a dogma. It may be a major stumbling block in science since it is so pervasive. I'm thin and look young "all because of my genes", most people will say.
From wiki:
"To Gould, the fatal flaw was that "no matter how much power Dawkins wishes to assign to genes, there is one thing that he cannot give them - direct visibility to natural selection."[36] Rather, the unit of selection is the phenotype, not the genotype, because it is phenotypes that interact with the environment at the natural-selection interface."
The largest myth is the equivalence principle. It's held onto for dear life like a kid going 'nooooo it's miiine youuu can't take it from meeee! I love it soooo much!"
The number line? Infinite can decrease to finite starting at any number you like. Hence, infinite caused the effect of finite.