that's because knowing things like the ones discussed in these videos are impractical to 99.9% of people. don't be humbled, just learn something else instead that will be more useful to your life and the people around you. you would be better off learning how to smoke jerky to use in a survival situation than to learn what rulial space is...
@@mrglock2313 yeah, pretty much any ideas of infinity don't exactly compute with a binary computer, and especially not one with in a three-dimensional reality. Don't get me wrong, it can be computed out in binary as Infinity, but attempting to apply any sort of meaning for that, the same way we are used to applying meeting to the rest of our experience, is, in my opinion, at best, fruitless, because, conceptually, it is only really understood, in my best example, as what you remember, it's pure Orient really. You are always remembering things, pretty much continuously, so as far as your awareness is concerned, you have existed for the entirety of your existence, and that's essentially what Infinity is, except brought to that for this level of abstraction
@@sunkiss6727 I would say consciousness is the miracle. There’s always been life to some degree, yet consciousness is only exclusive to us (that we know of) I find that fascinating. Do tigers have that little voice in their head? Or a little tiger voice? Did dinosaurs? Very unlikely. And have we humans, always had consciousness? Or when did it “kick in” so to speak? Like I said, fascinating
@@LOSTBHOY88 you've never had a dog and it shows. I'm quite confident that animals are conscious, no firm reason to believe they aren't, many mammals show complex social behavior. I agree tho, consciousness is a huge miracle, for me the second biggest. Existence of anything is number 1. Life is 3rd, as it's impossible for DNA to produce itself in nature without parent DNA instruction, inserting a paradox.
@@MrFlameRad thanks for your reply! While I would say that most things are “conscious” to a certain degree, none have the self awareness consciousness that we have. Do dogs ponder their own existence? Maybe. We’ve no way of checking though. So that’s more of a personal belief and those are muddy waters to tread in. I agree with your number 1. How anything is here is the biggest mystery. How everything that currently is in existence across our universe came from something the size of a head of a pin makes no sense. How time itself began. How they say there was “no before” the Big Bang. There had to have been a catalyst for the bang. And if so, everything didn’t start at the Big Bang, as there had to be something happening behind the scenes prior, to cause the bang. That’s the thing that hurts my head (and heart) the most… because we will never know. Maybe we just have to accept this. My personal belief is that it’s a Big Bang in a long series of big bangs. The universe has always been there, and is vastly vastly larger than we can possibly fathom… it’s just that a bang occurred that filled up our “observable” universe. This could happen throughout the universe, and it does literally go on forever, with bangs happening everywhere when the conditions are right. What causes those bangs though… that’s the real question And round and round we go…
I am an old scientist. In my career when there were two competing theories, it was usually found that both were true. Stephen’s life-changing ideas miraculously seem to bring many of the traditional theories of physics into one theory of everything. It’s stupendously brilliant.
I thought this when they briefly spoke on threads of time. I can imagine a multiverse in which threads of time move together as cords. Cords of time which braid around each other, split off from each other, then braid around with other cords. And the same again for the cords. And, further iterated. Seems to me a interesting way to envision how conscious entities and groups of conscious entities traverse the many worlds. As the root of all things is vibrations and their specific relationships to one another. So, (assuming threads of time does describe reality) it's sensible that relationships between conscious entities is what entangles the threads together
Wolfram has a difficult time explaining in mathematical and computable terms what is relatively easy in evolutionary terms: that in a competition of all possible rules, only some small combination of compatible rules will survive by producing increases in compatibility we express as recombination of stable relations of what we call energy, eventually manifesting in mass.
Mathematically, it also wouldn't hurt for him to provide basic and simplistic examples, such as (x + 1) cancelling (x - 1). Saying "all possible rules exist" doesn't mean that the number of rules is beyond counting (figuratively speaking), since some rules would negate other rules. Also, this phenomenon of perceptional difference can manifest not just in one solar system verses a distant solar system...it can occur in the same room. Liberals and conservatives have vastly different perceptions of the world, which are so different that each views the other as almost an alien species.
There are finite truths within infinity. All of the above are attempts to explain our observations of the finite; though they are still trying to confine the infinite with a finite construct.
@@Echo-Magnus That's superstitious nonsense. There are no infinities. We can discover none that aren't empty verbalisms that mean nothing more than "I don't know" or "only in ideal context."
@@1guitar12 Of course, you're wrong that it's unproven conjecture. You're just stating that (a) you and your understanding is the measure anything other than you're ignorance of the extent of the body of knowledge, (b) that which is mathematically describable, that which is procedurally computable, and that which is operationally constructable in time, that which is decribable in ordinary language, that which is communicable in fiction and fictionalism, is all consist of nothing more than variations on the human use of language, and the permissible dimensions that each of those 'grammars' permit. They are just increasing the number of permissible dimensions in any term(references), phrase(states), sentence (transactions), or story(collection of transactions) using serial grammar: "continuous recursive disambiguation". So as Goedel illustrated somewhat abstractly language is infinite in recombinatory expression, and there are no limits to recombinatorics nor in the construct and transfer of meaning by continuous recursive disambiguation we call speech, which is just a language, which is what mathematics is - just a language. What wolfram is (badly) saying (and I say quite a bit better by the way) is that we cannot predict the combinations that will emerge in the future because of this infinite possibility of recombination. In other words, all existence follows the single rule from which everything in the universe came to be: Evolutionary computation by the incremental discovery (Random or purposeful) of stable relations of energy that do not dissipate or which dissipate very slowly over long periods of time. Or in basic logic 'there is no closure, there is no proof, there exists only falsification." Which is another way of saying that evolution is endless.
@@TheNaturalLawInstitute Holding a ruler to the sky and making specific sounds that define our measurements, doesn't explain away potential. We can still strive to have answers for what we can observe. This doesn't mean to imply those observations aren't truths -- but they are still finite truths. Superstition is a relative truth; one defined by the observer.
It take more intelligence, effort and mastery of the subject matter to relate in terms laymen can understand. What we witness is an incomplete conversation in S.Wolfram’s head.🙃
Play the video a little, pause it when unsure, research the terms etc., understand the terms/concepts and repeat. It is time consuming however part of self improvement. Cheers.
@@adams4244 me too im amazed lex is able to follow it so clarly, also this whole conversation made me kinda annoyed of his accent / cadence of speaking..
You mean you think he doesn’t understand or enjoy the conversations he has? Because it seems that he does to me. At least as much as the best of us could. Or do you mean that listening to these interviews makes you realize how much you don’t know about things that you thought you already knew or mostly took for granted? I can understand that.
@@ilikenicethings the second option!!! I am a huge fan of Lex, I aspire to be on his level. But until then, I must fight through the imposter syndrome!!
This man is definitely going down as a genius of our time. Such critical depth and breadth of understanding yet humble enough to say he doesn't know things but eloquent enough to explain topics without disregard for other views that have not yet been disproven or otherwise cannot be measured.
No its not likely true. Real physicists think its nonsense. It doesn't incorporate physics that's currently accepted and current understanding of physics does a better job. " Wolfram’s model has yet to even reproduce the most basic quantitative predictions of conventional physics. “The experimental predictions of [quantum physics and general relativity] have been confirmed to many decimal places-in some cases, to a precision of one part in [10 billion],” says Daniel Harlow, a physicist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. “So far I see no indication that this could be done using the simple kinds of [computational rules] advocated by Wolfram. "
@@martinw245 So, he's a fraud? Dang it! What a waste of our time. What about the other guy? Weinstein and his geometric unity? Is that bologna too? They both seem so accomplished. One is the Mathematica dude and the other is Thiel's hedgefund guy, or something like that. Plus they don't get dismissed by some of the physics foundations guys, ie the NON-shut-up-and-compute guys, eg Sean Carroll. On the no predictions yet point, Wolfram said this... . "And then there’ll be the physics experiments. If you’d asked me even a couple of months ago when we’d get anything experimentally testable from our models I would have said it was far away. And that it probably wouldn’t happen until we’d pretty much found the final rule. But it looks like I was wrong. And in fact we’ve already got some good hints of bizarre new things that might be out there to look for." So he's deluded? And Weinstein? Come to think about it, I've often felt that they smack a little of narcissism, but I guess I've always decided, "well deserved confidence." By no means is any of this a rigorous way to inform my credulity, but, as a non-expert just out here having fun, it's mostly all I got.
I think it's more possible that what is being presented here, but Stephen is just working with the wrong mental tools to paint a comprehensible picture at that scale. Mathematics is intensely precise, and working with it is like working with an extremely sharp pencil (often it literally is). To paint a picture of the universe with it is like trying to build a skyscraper sized mural with that pencil. I think that mathematics is a way to outline the limiting structures, like outlining the different shapes you want to do in that mural. After it's been outlined, it's better to fill it in with broad strokes and lots of color to make a beautiful picture at a reasonable pace rather than scribbling it in with a pencil.
Fascinating as it was, that clip was a little longer than it needed to be. All we needed was the final 5s or so: ‘Why does the universe exist? It necessarily exists.’ 😮
Stephen leads beautifully into the realm of metaphors when he brings the immortal soul into the discussion. We need to understand that metaphorical representation is still the best way to include the eternal non concrete aspects of our existence into our existence. Wonderful discussion, our society depends on that balance of insight in order to survive. Possibly more than building a city on Mars, of course a city on Mars would be awesome.
The problem I see with everyone talking about colonizing Mars in any mass way, besides some kind of research station(s) at most, ala current day Antarctica within the lifetime of anyone currently alive, is that among so many other extremely hazardous things like background radiation, or extreme cold, is the rarely-mentioned reality that Mars has a gravity that's ~1/3rd of Earth's and only about twice that of the Moon: it'd literally never be like living on Earth and the human body (not to mention all life on Earth) evolved in 1G, not .3G. I think thanks to movie-portrayals of Mars, showing people moving around like on Earth, people don't realize humans will be bouncing/hopping around akin to the Apollo astronauts in the late 60s, just a bit less, lol. That's not even getting into the fact radiation is _thousands_ of times higher on the surface, owing to the lack of any real atmosphere on Mars to shield itself from it, compared to Earth. It does get up to like 60 or 70 degrees (F) near the Martian equator, but even there it still gets down to like -100+ (air temp - not even factoring in windchill) at night. I could go on, but Mars won't be habitable in any way outside of like, a tiny research outpost within the next century and even with terraforming, introducing an Earth-like atmosphere, etc., it'd still be way lower gravity than on Earth. Y faeah, I'm being a total downer, but it's just reality, so an major investment in colonizing Mars would kind of be a (massive) waste of resources, vs. just ensuring Earth is habitable past the end of this century (not looking great, right now, for multiple reasons).
In this model does our universe sit within a specific coordinate, does the universe overlay the rules, or possibly does the universe move through the rules.
Wolfram’s “ruliad” sounds like a similar abstraction to Eric Weinstein’s “observerse”. My impression of the difference is that the ruliad is the space of all possible combinations of transformation rules and starting conditions, while the observerse is the space of all possible temporal/spatial metrics in 14 dimensions. It’s interesting to consider how the two ideas might be related, or be special cases of an even higher level abstraction that could exist in both models.
There can never be an objective end, as the process of observation is as much creative as it is exploratory. And so, each new level of abstraction is a projection of measure, and a measure of measures produces 'rules' which govern future perception. What I'm saying is science is 'discovering' things into existence and the formalization of consensus perception creates a more concrete strata of conscious awareness. The only true statement that can be made is that the heart of existence is the expression of resolving the paradox of nothingness (void) and somethingness (form), connected by a gradient of partial expressions of each that is necessariliy infinite in nature. IE, between 0 and 1 are an infinite amount of numbers. Computing all these numbers necessariliy requires eternity, and gives rise to the finiteness of material reality between the states of void and totality.
No it didn't go over your head. This dude made no sense so you are good. All of these guys flip all over the place to avoid God. If you want your head to explode look up Christopher Langan. He's the smartest man on the planet and has created his own theory.
@@KiiishawnTv not even they do give me a break “It’s an object that has to exist” Okay now try this one there’s another set of all possible things it’s called God it’s like this guys idea but bigger and makes more sense
i agree with the rulial space example. i feel like i’ve thought of this characterization on my own, but Wolfram abstracted it in a somewhat “computer science” type of description. I don’t believe we’re in a simulation… btw.
So this doesn't really answer the question. The universe may be a certain perception of the evolution of rules but who or what is running this computation? Why is there matter at all? Something out of nothing? Why is there math and why does 2+2 = 4 regardless of time?
No one is running anything. Did you watch the interview? Reality exists because it had no choice but to exist. And that’s because it’s a mathematical structure. Mathematical structures are timeless abstractions. Meaning they exists as expressions of mathematical concepts , rather than in a time and space. We didn’t get something out of nothing because we technically still are nothing. Reality is abstract, meaning it isn’t physical. Energy and matter aren’t real. Just mathematical expressions. Why is there math? Math is timeless. It just is. No matter what reality that exists, physical or not, You cant get rid of math. And that’s because, to have a reality with structure and order, you need math. There is no way around it. 2+2=4 will always be that way because of logic. You cannot defeat logic.
@@JBSCORNERL8 I think you just defeated logic :) What you think may be illogical in our (meta?)verse may be completely logical somewhere else with different parameters. Logic isn't absolute. What differentiates something logical from something that's not? It's just a process to arrive from point A to point B.
@@achaiaha7136 yeah I’m not about to wonder about something illogical. All u need is math. What may see illogical to me can still be proven mathematically. My perception doesn’t matter in the end. You can try and fight it because it goes against everything you believe(and I did for awhile) but reality is math and will always be math
Actually this guy Wolfram’s idea of this rulead and Max Tegmark’s ideas of all mathematical structures necessarily existing, including ones that will have conscious beings experiencing them, are very similar.
For people saying this is too complicated/pseudoscience just think of it as an answer to the fine tuning argument, essentially what he's saying is that all possible computational ( which is a technical mostly uninteresting reatriction) rules must exist, I assume his only proof is that this is mathematically satisfying (as in no arbitrary choice of rules is made).
"Why does the universe exist" is the wrong question. It exists as perception within the structure of a Ruliad, just like addition exists as an equation within the structure of mathematics.
So let me get this straight. The "Rulio" idea is sort of like the multi universe except there aren't Multi Universes - just this one. But one with all possible computations, which converge - and of which we perceive only a slice. That about it ;)
Rulial* but yes I think that sums it up. If I'm not mistaken, he's kind of saying that the universe necessarily exists in the way that an equation in mathematics necessarily exists. It just so happens that 1+1=2; "why" 1+1=2 is the wrong question, because it's necessarily so, in that it is embedded within mathematics. It's implied that the universe exists within the structure of the Ruliad, in the same way that all the equations of mathematics exist within the structure of mathematics. Now, why is it all "necessary"? I don't know. I guess that's the deeper, underlying question. The Ruliad seems to just be describing the phenomena in and of itself, not the origin of the phenomena.
@@nototheilluminati some people can come up with amazing insights on their own without psychedelics. Probably just more glitchy in their perceptions than our flawless 4k visuals. Either way, important thing is that he gets it. It'd be a shame if such an accomplished person is not open about psychedelics.
Lex Fridman is clearly a government agent probably NASA here to bullshit us more about why earth "really isn't flat we swear" and how "we can really travel space we swear"
What is it like to be an atom? To be a hydrogen is like being a child, liked by everyone. To be a carbon is like being a woman, gentle yet firm. To be an oxygen is like being a man, rough and tough. To be a nitrogen is like being an old person, binding children, men and women together. To be a metal is like being a bee, and a halogen is like being a flower.
Around 18 mins in and I cannot, for the life of me, shake this feeling that we need another 'Good Friday Experiment' type event. You can really tell when some one these intellectual types have not touched psychedeliks whatsoever. Id say it would do them a great deal of good and lead to some amazing insights, possibly, allowing these guys to communicate their ideas better better the general public. But what do I know? I'm just an ant. 😉
18:58 I think you could take it to the planetary level if you consider life progression on the planet as a marker of the planetary consciousness, especially when things get extra-planetary and life from one planet begins to interact with other planets. Terraforming would definitely be considered a form of reproduction and evolution on this scale, too.
Hmmm, interesting way to visualize consciousness. Somewhat similarly to when you take it to the ant colony level; Collectively, you could consider, they make up a conscious colony mind, or hive mind …
This is a great way to think about the difference between mind and thought on a planetary scale that is analogous to our own. I understand thought as the constituents of a mind. So for example, our human mind as an organism is constituted by cells, which make up our thoughts through their interactions. Analogously, a planetary mind is constituted by organisms, the interaction of which make up its thoughts. The entangled conversations between human beings in a global society are therefore equivalent to the entangled conversations between neurons in the brain.
@@off6848 I've always been interested in Jung, but tbh I haven't read him myself just saw videos. Is his idea of the collective unconscious similar to this?
@@liamlieblein6375 I would say that last part of what you wrote reminds me of how I was conceptualizing the collective unconscious years ago as I read his work
This clip made me realize that basically I am one of the things written into the universe itself. The way this whole universe is set up, will result in me living this life. Just like how the sun exists and the earth and all the stars, it will eventually get to my birth and life and death, then continue on with what the universe will do. But that means if there is a way to store everything the universe did, which is very likely in a higher realm of 'existence', my life will forever be stored along with the entire running of this universe.
Seems pretty liekly that I will exist more than once. If time is infinite there is no reason why this particular universe won't run again even after trillions of other universes running. I can't experience all that immense time. I can only experience when I finally am run again in this universe. Maybe it has already been trillions of universes since my last life. Maybe if my life runs again and again I might as well enjoy myself
@@markpecar6580 Yea if you think the universe is focused on one person's life when there are trillions of life forms all existing. The problem is that we think we're flawed but from the bigger perspective we're just small parts of the giant whole. There's been so many humans who have lived and died, and there are potentially other sentient beings across the universe, I doubt we would care about our one life when we die and become a part of the larger whole.
@@markpecar6580 Yea, that would suck. That's basically almost like hell too. And human's are designed to suffer as a default. We only noticed the things that aren't working, and I think 99.999% of people suffer their whole lives and the few "enlightened" people have found their form of bliss. But on the bright side is that each time we think its the first, instead of knowing its the same thing over and over. Who knows if its true or not though
You are not separate from the universe. You are a small piece of a huge thing, the only thing actually. It didn't create you, it rearranged itself so you could be.
For some reason this talk had me thinking about the whole thing with plants growing different if they are exposed to music, and just wondering how a plant is actually perceiving reality.
He is humble enough, much appreciated. Universe exists because it wants to know itself. This is not the only universe, it’s an infinite process. One understanding of reality, even if exquisite like Einstein’s, will eventually fall to the ground in the face of infinity. Infinity is not understandable by the human mind. It can only be perceived as unity, and being one is the one true nature of existence.
Dr. Conrad Zimsky : Yes, yes, yes, yes, and what if the core is made of cheese? This is all best guess commander. That's all science is, is best guess. Col. Robert Iverson : So my best guess is you don't know. - The Core movie
This talk is incredible. Wolfram and Lex make me think of two books by the same author that I've read and are worth the time, The Systems View of Life and The Tao of Physics, both by Fritjof Capra - Asian philosophy and deep ecology.
I remember reading Fritjof Capra's _The Tao of Physics_ back when I was only 22 and just starting my professional career as a scientist (molecular biologist), and thinking how it made complete sense to me at the time, and explained a lot of what I had also been thinking about prior to reading it.
Shoildve titled tjis one…”old possible rules in ways that the possible is always seems impossible but as long as you do it in certain ways the rules will always make the possible seem possible even though it may be impossible but just know its possible”
I like Wolfram. He understands that maths, physics, philosophy, and basically everything, is all in the context of human experience. Does mathematics exist outside of experience? He understands that it’s a moot point, and that all physical theories are just rationalisations of our experience and frames of reference. I’d love to talk to him about his views on the thread of time, as he mentioned.
Too much of a boomer for me. Brilliant guy, no doubt. Needs to get his ego in check tho. Be more open-minded. There is a world in which you are wrong sometimes :P
Mathematics is a tool invented by Humans to measure and quantify the existence. The Universe can always be calculated regardless if Humans are here or not.
I don't know if "WHY" is ever a question science has a place trying to answer. What, where, when and how are the domain of science, WHY is a question philosophy and religion have eminence over. I think here he is actually telling us HOW the universe exists, NOT why.
Well as I understand it, computers are not capable of being random, only being able to simulate randomness. All outcomes are in seeds, and when the computer is told to roll the dice, it looks at a giant table of possible outcomes, and based on certain conditions at the time of the command, the computer picks a specific seed and gives an outcome. And if you know what those conditions the computer is using to make decisions, you can always guarantee a specific outcome from a "random" result. I learned it from Tetris. The game runs at 60 frames per second. When you press start, blocks "randomly" start coming down, and each piece after is "random" too. But they aren't random, the game is picking a seed of predetermined blocks based on the frame (1/60th of a second) you pressed start, along with other factors such as how long has the Nintendo been turned on. If you keep the Nintendo on for exactly 3 minutes, and press start on the very first 1/60th of a second, you'll always get the same set of blocks, as the game looks at parameters and select the same seed every time.
I loved every word for the first four minutes. Then came the question "what is mathematics?" It's just representation. What we observe is a pattern, where our math is just a representation. Relationships are not math. They are relative patterns.
Steven Wolfram right at the end after a ton of bullshit “we don’t have to ask the question, why does it exist?” I know we don’t have to ask that question, STEVE, but we want to! If you can’t answer it, just say “I don’t know”!
Truly interesting. But "It's" . . . "running" . . . (I've only reached the 22 min mark. I hope he will say what "it" is and why/how it runs through rules.)
Either EVERYTHING should exist simultaneously, or nothing should. And we know its not nothing. Anything in between requires "rules" or "laws" that imply a "creator" and a simulation. That's how I looked at it like a little kid anyway. As I got older and got to explore quantum mechanics and the double split experiment - I lean heavily in favor of EVERYTHING exists simultaneously and the Many Worlds theory when consciousness acts as a kind of pointer, in comp sci terms.
@@teq8061 a creator implies a simulation, in which case, you can roll the question back to What created the creator? or What created the creator's world?
I just don't think its simultaneously. It's proven that stars and galaxies age and have a beginning. So there was clearly a starting point. And I just think the true answer probably isn't that simple. @@Scorch428
Everyone really needs to stop trying to derive complete understanding from little videos on UA-cam, it’s okay, please be humble and respect there’s things no one understands completely and any understanding is difficult to articulate - particularly to UA-cam audiences. If you put the general intelligence of the human race on a graph with Stephen wolfram, you’d be upset. Try explaining it to your cat
I think you're right Lex. The different points (of view) in rulial space seems akin to the different branches of many worlds. So individual universes as part of a multi-verse, which already implies a definition of universe in the sense you both noted at 8:50
Dear Lex! I really hope you will see this comment. You have just scraped the surface of “why the universe exists” question with Mr. Wolfram. Can you please make round 4? I humbly thank you for so much!
Today 2nd September 2024 I have found this interesting interview of Stephen Wolfram after 2year of its publication and 1.2 lakh viewership and 13.2 lakh of LEX CLIPS. Today on Monday I have enjoyed this clip from India near Kolkata. In many of the learned comments I found one where some one has this quest that it could be some one else idea. Not undermining the Prof. Wolfram I am telling all this viewers that yes I have developed the same not similar hypothesis during my student age more than 30 years ago. Not only I have jolted down my same space-time hypothesis but also I have open it to my department 2 decades ago and developed my theory of everything not mathematical but physics of creation not only law of physics but law of Nature. Yeah like Stephen I too find it very fruitful and deep and existing. Last one year I have engaged myself in my that theory and obtained very good results for recent experiments and observations. I could predict new physics and explain quantum to cosmos. Recently I am successfully unified quantum and gravity. My focus now is less new mathematical than physics. I am very happy that prof. Wolfram has included many recent departments in his TOE framework. I FOUND STEPHEN 'S EXPLANATIONS ARE GOOD ADVERTISEMENT for this hypothesis and theory. Good work though in this short video I found we are branching different domain of fundamental laws and formalism in our approach. Recently I have seen an interview of IVETTE FUENTES a Penrose team faculty. They have covered this new physics as interplay region , yes the same ideas were the immediate interpretation of my efforts too. I like both of you because Recently I have solved the MOND, quantum and gravity unification. UNCERTAINTY, Gravity waves , electron and protons mass ratio (by three different parameters of approach) . Origin and emergent properties and Plank's scale Origin 4D temperature. Just yesterday and today possible cause of infinite acceleration not by inflatone. Thanks a lot both of you and your channel.
@@dinomyte0899 every moment of every being in the universe ever we are a surveillance system recording every image with our conscience for the aliens civilisation that created us
@@chucklombardo8167 I’m interested, are there any videos on this? Could you expand? What would be the motivation behind creating carbon based life forms to do this… seems like overkill
If I understand correctly, he is trying to say that, the possible outcome of things is the only outcome posible, and that specific outcome is directly related or produced by our perception of things… but everything is possible only if you change the perception of things. Did I get it?
Could consciousness be a field in the same way the Higgs Boson is a field? Particles interact with the Higgs field and gain mass; perhaps in the same way matter interacts with a consciousness field and becomes real by becoming observable.
@@vids595 Not everything is possible, most things aren’t possible. I was pointing out an analogy between how the Higgs field gives mass to particles in the same way, perhaps, that consciousness awareness creates reality. Just an idea. If consciousness is fundamental and material then I would expect one could add a consciousness term to the lagrangian. And your last statement is annoying since while perhaps technically accurate I bet most particle physicists don’t exactly know what that means. What is a particle really? What is a wave? As far as we can tell they’re all just numbers.
Yes consciousness permeates throughout existence and beings filter it through their senses thereby gaining individuality of perception but also with many species the ability to link consciousness like ant colonies and myco colonies
Didn't really talk about the heart of the question. Whole conversation was explaining what the universe necessarily is. But not why it exists at all. The question isn't "does our universe exist in a rulliad", but rather, "Why does the ruliad exist rather than nothing at all?". If your answer is "because it is a concept and not a thing", then the next question is "Why do concepts exist?". It goes all the way down, and I feel like this talk just didn't really talk about that at all. Just talked about the set of all possible universe formations. Not about how that set of all possible universe formations could exist in the firstplace.
2+2 exists. Bad example I think. 2+2 is a tautology, just as 1 or any number mathematical expression is a tautology. That's why mathematics functions as a scale independent context independent system of measurement of any set of constant relations, but is insufficient for the expression of that which is computable, and what is computable is insufficient for the prediction of recombinations, requiring that we resort to simulations (unique constructions from first principles.
Is there such a thing as synthetic math? I'm a lay person here at best, but in my imagination when I see 2+2 I see a synthesis of whatever those 2s actually represent combing into multiple possible things which could be greater than or even lesser than 4.
@@kenboe3019 Hmmm.... math is a language like every other language, where a language consists of a series of terms that produce continuously recursive disambiguation into a testable transaction for meaning - it's just a language that has only one referent, one dimension, one operation, and one agreement: identity, positional name, add-subtract, and equality. It's the dumbest possible language for human beings to use. The virtue of this incredibly dumb language is that because it has only one dimension, is context-independent and scale-independent, and every reference is unique and infinitely precise, then, (a) you can describe any system of constant relations of any possible construction, and (b) it's impossible to engage in conflation, inflation, suggestion and misrepresentation, without easily exposing the 'error in the grammar' of the sentence (transaction.). Likewise, mathematics fails when the referent (identity) is variable - such as in economics, where for all intents and purposes (marginalism) every single transaction is unique, and therefore summarization into a generalization produces loss of information.
@@TheNaturalLawInstitute Thank you for your interesting reply. I'll be going back over that. I sometimes write poetry from these kinds of thoughts. A real gem would be "infinitely precise".
@@kenboe3019 "infinitely precise" would lead to diminishing returns once full ambiguity had been achieved. After that additional information can only add ambiguity, which is an interesting idea to explore. ;) cheers
I hope it’s just a game that we as a different entity play just to see how we turn out or how we do. And in that world it only takes few hours hours to play. So some people come out like dude I was a king and some come out like bro I didn’t even make it out of birth.
Not entirely sure the universe has meaning, im pretty sure reason is in the eyes of the beholder and perception is definitely partially physiological. Quite lofty to think theres a reason and even if there was we would have the ability to percieve it when we cant even precieve dark matter which most the universe is made of. :/
Feel free to debate please! But I’m lead to believe through my own experiences. Switching your perception is essentially the result of going up or down through dimensions or different parallels. In other words. All the dimensions run at once together but depending on what dimension your in determines your perspective..
Stephen at times is going into the same areas that Chris Langan is with his CTMU theory....it would be interesting to have Chris Langan on the podcast to explore his CTMU theory...
At the start of the video i was all like "what's this about" But by the end of the video i was like "what's this about"
🤣🤣🤣
Stephen makes the Universe more complicated than it probably is! 😄
dont worry its all gobbledegook.
LOL
and that's how the Ruliad Wants it...
Sometimes Lex sounds like an exhausted and slightly agitated drunk person who just wants to go to sleep 😂
He probably is, sometimes..😄
That's just the Russian accent 😂
The man cant possibly get enough sleep with all the shit he does....
Perfectly summed up lol
Actually he often mentions how he often goes 48 hours without sleep. In fact he talks about how he loves not sleeping. 🙃
Every-time I begin to think I’m a reasonably intelligent person I come across conversations like this and realize how limited I am…..really humbling
How did everything in space and all of the planets and suns start from the very beginning? It will fry your noodle.... 😂
that's because knowing things like the ones discussed in these videos are impractical to 99.9% of people. don't be humbled, just learn something else instead that will be more useful to your life and the people around you. you would be better off learning how to smoke jerky to use in a survival situation than to learn what rulial space is...
I'm not that smart.. but I bet there is things, that I can grasp and due better than him we all have are own
Watching the Tesla ai day 2022 made me feel this way.
@@mrglock2313 yeah, pretty much any ideas of infinity don't exactly compute with a binary computer, and especially not one with in a three-dimensional reality. Don't get me wrong, it can be computed out in binary as Infinity, but attempting to apply any sort of meaning for that, the same way we are used to applying meeting to the rest of our experience, is, in my opinion, at best, fruitless, because, conceptually, it is only really understood, in my best example, as what you remember, it's pure Orient really. You are always remembering things, pretty much continuously, so as far as your awareness is concerned, you have existed for the entirety of your existence, and that's essentially what Infinity is, except brought to that for this level of abstraction
"Science says, 'Just give us one free miracle, and we can explain everything else.'" -- Terrence McKenna on the "Big Bang" Theory
😂 funny but that’s the best one I’ve heard
life is the miracle
@@sunkiss6727 I would say consciousness is the miracle. There’s always been life to some degree, yet consciousness is only exclusive to us (that we know of)
I find that fascinating. Do tigers have that little voice in their head? Or a little tiger voice? Did dinosaurs? Very unlikely. And have we humans, always had consciousness? Or when did it “kick in” so to speak?
Like I said, fascinating
@@LOSTBHOY88 you've never had a dog and it shows. I'm quite confident that animals are conscious, no firm reason to believe they aren't, many mammals show complex social behavior. I agree tho, consciousness is a huge miracle, for me the second biggest. Existence of anything is number 1. Life is 3rd, as it's impossible for DNA to produce itself in nature without parent DNA instruction, inserting a paradox.
@@MrFlameRad thanks for your reply! While I would say that most things are “conscious” to a certain degree, none have the self awareness consciousness that we have. Do dogs ponder their own existence? Maybe. We’ve no way of checking though. So that’s more of a personal belief and those are muddy waters to tread in.
I agree with your number 1. How anything is here is the biggest mystery. How everything that currently is in existence across our universe came from something the size of a head of a pin makes no sense. How time itself began. How they say there was “no before” the Big Bang. There had to have been a catalyst for the bang. And if so, everything didn’t start at the Big Bang, as there had to be something happening behind the scenes prior, to cause the bang.
That’s the thing that hurts my head (and heart) the most… because we will never know. Maybe we just have to accept this.
My personal belief is that it’s a Big Bang in a long series of big bangs. The universe has always been there, and is vastly vastly larger than we can possibly fathom… it’s just that a bang occurred that filled up our “observable” universe. This could happen throughout the universe, and it does literally go on forever, with bangs happening everywhere when the conditions are right. What causes those bangs though… that’s the real question
And round and round we go…
I am an old scientist. In my career when there were two competing theories, it was usually found that both were true. Stephen’s life-changing ideas miraculously seem to bring many of the traditional theories of physics into one theory of everything. It’s stupendously brilliant.
I thought this when they briefly spoke on threads of time. I can imagine a multiverse in which threads of time move together as cords. Cords of time which braid around each other, split off from each other, then braid around with other cords. And the same again for the cords. And, further iterated.
Seems to me a interesting way to envision how conscious entities and groups of conscious entities traverse the many worlds.
As the root of all things is vibrations and their specific relationships to one another. So, (assuming threads of time does describe reality) it's sensible that relationships between conscious entities is what entangles the threads together
As a fellow scientist, I concur indubitably and posit therehence mutual consensus amongst my colleagues. On god frfr no cap
You can just say you're a scientist. I respect old ones and new ones alike..
Nice try, Stephen.
Except that Big Bang Theory thing that was just devastated. There’s been very little original research since Einstein. Dogma is a Scientific Sin.
Wolfram has a difficult time explaining in mathematical and computable terms what is relatively easy in evolutionary terms: that in a competition of all possible rules, only some small combination of compatible rules will survive by producing increases in compatibility we express as recombination of stable relations of what we call energy, eventually manifesting in mass.
Mathematically, it also wouldn't hurt for him to provide basic and simplistic examples, such as (x + 1) cancelling (x - 1). Saying "all possible rules exist" doesn't mean that the number of rules is beyond counting (figuratively speaking), since some rules would negate other rules. Also, this phenomenon of perceptional difference can manifest not just in one solar system verses a distant solar system...it can occur in the same room. Liberals and conservatives have vastly different perceptions of the world, which are so different that each views the other as almost an alien species.
There are finite truths within infinity. All of the above are attempts to explain our observations of the finite; though they are still trying to confine the infinite with a finite construct.
@@Echo-Magnus That's superstitious nonsense. There are no infinities. We can discover none that aren't empty verbalisms that mean nothing more than "I don't know" or "only in ideal context."
@@1guitar12 Of course, you're wrong that it's unproven conjecture. You're just stating that (a) you and your understanding is the measure anything other than you're ignorance of the extent of the body of knowledge, (b) that which is mathematically describable, that which is procedurally computable, and that which is operationally constructable in time, that which is decribable in ordinary language, that which is communicable in fiction and fictionalism, is all consist of nothing more than variations on the human use of language, and the permissible dimensions that each of those 'grammars' permit.
They are just increasing the number of permissible dimensions in any term(references), phrase(states), sentence (transactions), or story(collection of transactions) using serial grammar: "continuous recursive disambiguation".
So as Goedel illustrated somewhat abstractly language is infinite in recombinatory expression, and there are no limits to recombinatorics nor in the construct and transfer of meaning by continuous recursive disambiguation we call speech, which is just a language, which is what mathematics is - just a language.
What wolfram is (badly) saying (and I say quite a bit better by the way) is that we cannot predict the combinations that will emerge in the future because of this infinite possibility of recombination. In other words, all existence follows the single rule from which everything in the universe came to be: Evolutionary computation by the incremental discovery (Random or purposeful) of stable relations of energy that do not dissipate or which dissipate very slowly over long periods of time.
Or in basic logic 'there is no closure, there is no proof, there exists only falsification." Which is another way of saying that evolution is endless.
@@TheNaturalLawInstitute Holding a ruler to the sky and making specific sounds that define our measurements, doesn't explain away potential.
We can still strive to have answers for what we can observe. This doesn't mean to imply those observations aren't truths -- but they are still finite truths.
Superstition is a relative truth; one defined by the observer.
This man can’t spit out one single fkin sentence that’s easy for me. It frustrates me, it impresses me. But mostly confuses me.
He's using some of his own made jargon which doesn't help
It take more intelligence, effort and mastery of the subject matter to relate in terms laymen can understand.
What we witness is an incomplete conversation in S.Wolfram’s head.🙃
Play the video a little, pause it when unsure, research the terms etc., understand the terms/concepts and repeat. It is time consuming however part of self improvement. Cheers.
so true ..
@@adams4244 me too im amazed lex is able to follow it so clarly, also this whole conversation made me kinda annoyed of his accent / cadence of speaking..
Love listening to these guys! They have no idea how or why the universe is here.
nobody does
@@neonblack211 ok Mr Obvious
I agree with you - but for me it was a pain listening to him half faffing the deep questions
@@numbercruncher6242 Im still trying to map your response bro 😂
@@edgarmurphy99 He asked him a specific question. "Why does the universe exist?" And then he goes on and on about the Ruliad. Dude, focus!
I get imposter syndrome just watching lex's interviews sometimes
You mean you think he doesn’t understand or enjoy the conversations he has? Because it seems that he does to me. At least as much as the best of us could. Or do you mean that listening to these interviews makes you realize how much you don’t know about things that you thought you already knew or mostly took for granted? I can understand that.
@@ilikenicethings the second option!!! I am a huge fan of Lex, I aspire to be on his level. But until then, I must fight through the imposter syndrome!!
This man has the greatest voice ever, so clear and cut its so nice listening to
The British accent?
he has cloven tone maybe because of a woman, nice
This man is definitely going down as a genius of our time. Such critical depth and breadth of understanding yet humble enough to say he doesn't know things but eloquent enough to explain topics without disregard for other views that have not yet been disproven or otherwise cannot be measured.
Isn't he already a living legend?
This is likely fascinating and true! We'll know after the English translation.
No its not likely true. Real physicists think its nonsense. It doesn't incorporate physics that's currently accepted and current understanding of physics does a better job.
" Wolfram’s model has yet to even reproduce the most basic quantitative predictions of conventional physics. “The experimental predictions of [quantum physics and general relativity] have been confirmed to many decimal places-in some cases, to a precision of one part in [10 billion],” says Daniel Harlow, a physicist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. “So far I see no indication that this could be done using the simple kinds of [computational rules] advocated by Wolfram. "
@@martinw245 So, he's a fraud? Dang it! What a waste of our time. What about the other guy? Weinstein and his geometric unity? Is that bologna too? They both seem so accomplished. One is the Mathematica dude and the other is Thiel's hedgefund guy, or something like that. Plus they don't get dismissed by some of the physics foundations guys, ie the NON-shut-up-and-compute guys, eg Sean Carroll. On the no predictions yet point, Wolfram said this...
.
"And then there’ll be the physics experiments. If you’d asked me even a couple of months ago when we’d get anything experimentally testable from our models I would have said it was far away. And that it probably wouldn’t happen until we’d pretty much found the final rule. But it looks like I was wrong. And in fact we’ve already got some good hints of bizarre new things that might be out there to look for."
So he's deluded? And Weinstein? Come to think about it, I've often felt that they smack a little of narcissism, but I guess I've always decided, "well deserved confidence." By no means is any of this a rigorous way to inform my credulity, but, as a non-expert just out here having fun, it's mostly all I got.
@drinkyscarecrow agreed. All this nonsense talk when we know this is really about poops and farts
It's impossible to speak in lay terms from his level. But hey I still love it even though he loses me after 2 seconds
Big Bang is a gaslight
I think it's more possible that what is being presented here, but Stephen is just working with the wrong mental tools to paint a comprehensible picture at that scale. Mathematics is intensely precise, and working with it is like working with an extremely sharp pencil (often it literally is). To paint a picture of the universe with it is like trying to build a skyscraper sized mural with that pencil. I think that mathematics is a way to outline the limiting structures, like outlining the different shapes you want to do in that mural. After it's been outlined, it's better to fill it in with broad strokes and lots of color to make a beautiful picture at a reasonable pace rather than scribbling it in with a pencil.
Nah it is. He just doesn't understand his own theory enough to explain it in a simple manner.
Good to know it's not just me
Fascinating as it was, that clip was a little longer than it needed to be. All we needed was the final 5s or so: ‘Why does the universe exist? It necessarily exists.’ 😮
Stephen leads beautifully into the realm of metaphors when he brings the immortal soul into the discussion. We need to understand that metaphorical representation is still the best way to include the eternal non concrete aspects of our existence into our existence. Wonderful discussion, our society depends on that balance of insight in order to survive. Possibly more than building a city on Mars, of course a city on Mars would be awesome.
The problem I see with everyone talking about colonizing Mars in any mass way, besides some kind of research station(s) at most, ala current day Antarctica within the lifetime of anyone currently alive, is that among so many other extremely hazardous things like background radiation, or extreme cold, is the rarely-mentioned reality that Mars has a gravity that's ~1/3rd of Earth's and only about twice that of the Moon: it'd literally never be like living on Earth and the human body (not to mention all life on Earth) evolved in 1G, not .3G. I think thanks to movie-portrayals of Mars, showing people moving around like on Earth, people don't realize humans will be bouncing/hopping around akin to the Apollo astronauts in the late 60s, just a bit less, lol.
That's not even getting into the fact radiation is _thousands_ of times higher on the surface, owing to the lack of any real atmosphere on Mars to shield itself from it, compared to Earth. It does get up to like 60 or 70 degrees (F) near the Martian equator, but even there it still gets down to like -100+ (air temp - not even factoring in windchill) at night. I could go on, but Mars won't be habitable in any way outside of like, a tiny research outpost within the next century and even with terraforming, introducing an Earth-like atmosphere, etc., it'd still be way lower gravity than on Earth. Y faeah, I'm being a total downer, but it's just reality, so an major investment in colonizing Mars would kind of be a (massive) waste of resources, vs. just ensuring Earth is habitable past the end of this century (not looking great, right now, for multiple reasons).
I love how relentlessly Wolfram pursues explaining the ruliad.
In this model does our universe sit within a specific coordinate, does the universe overlay the rules, or possibly does the universe move through the rules.
they have no idea, they are just making up words.
Abstractions on top of abstractions? From Lex and Stephen? No one could've guessed.
Twenty minutes later (listened on 1.75 speed), I can't help thinking this convo could have been completed in 5 minutes.
Well, do it then...
Wow! you're so awesome and smart haha we are all stupid compared to you!
Exactly.
would be great to get someone to illustrate this convo
Wolfram’s “ruliad” sounds like a similar abstraction to Eric Weinstein’s “observerse”. My impression of the difference is that the ruliad is the space of all possible combinations of transformation rules and starting conditions, while the observerse is the space of all possible temporal/spatial metrics in 14 dimensions. It’s interesting to consider how the two ideas might be related, or be special cases of an even higher level abstraction that could exist in both models.
He needs to have this gentleman in The Portal
There can never be an objective end, as the process of observation is as much creative as it is exploratory. And so, each new level of abstraction is a projection of measure, and a measure of measures produces 'rules' which govern future perception. What I'm saying is science is 'discovering' things into existence and the formalization of consensus perception creates a more concrete strata of conscious awareness. The only true statement that can be made is that the heart of existence is the expression of resolving the paradox of nothingness (void) and somethingness (form), connected by a gradient of partial expressions of each that is necessariliy infinite in nature. IE, between 0 and 1 are an infinite amount of numbers. Computing all these numbers necessariliy requires eternity, and gives rise to the finiteness of material reality between the states of void and totality.
@@markpecar6580 We are reality talking to itself.
Such a humble man for how brilliant he is.
I took physics in college and I thought I was fairly intelligent, but this conversation went WAY over my head. Lol.
It’s just drivel
No it didn't go over your head. This dude made no sense so you are good. All of these guys flip all over the place to avoid God. If you want your head to explode look up Christopher Langan. He's the smartest man on the planet and has created his own theory.
Should have cheated. All the smarties just Lie Cheat and Steal
These Stephen Wolfram episodes are my favorite by far.
I love a bit of philosophizing in the morning
"let's ignore that... It's already abstract enough..." At 25:15 ...might as well apply to this entire conversation 🤣
this is the most inspiring shit i have ever seen.
I have been looking for this interpretation for a long time.
thank you very much
This is by far the greatest conversation of 2021.
I’m beyond amazed by the insight & understanding. Thank you
Dude you don't understand a thing they are talking about
@@BobbyGeneric145 if you listen close enough you might too
@@KiiishawnTv not even they do give me a break
“It’s an object that has to exist”
Okay now try this one there’s another set of all possible things it’s called God it’s like this guys idea but bigger and makes more sense
i agree with the rulial space example. i feel like i’ve thought of this characterization on my own, but Wolfram abstracted it in a somewhat “computer science” type of description. I don’t believe we’re in a simulation… btw.
If we're in a simulation, that's one powerful computer...
@@forthehomies7043 powerful compared to what its simulating
if all possible rules are running then its running on what? where is the computer on which this rules are running?
So this doesn't really answer the question. The universe may be a certain perception of the evolution of rules but who or what is running this computation? Why is there matter at all? Something out of nothing? Why is there math and why does 2+2 = 4 regardless of time?
if w understand what-who is runnin the computation all the others guestions wil be answered
No one is running anything. Did you watch the interview? Reality exists because it had no choice but to exist. And that’s because it’s a mathematical structure. Mathematical structures are timeless abstractions. Meaning they exists as expressions of mathematical concepts , rather than in a time and space.
We didn’t get something out of nothing because we technically still are nothing. Reality is abstract, meaning it isn’t physical. Energy and matter aren’t real. Just mathematical expressions.
Why is there math? Math is timeless. It just is. No matter what reality that exists, physical or not, You cant get rid of math. And that’s because, to have a reality with structure and order, you need math. There is no way around it. 2+2=4 will always be that way because of logic. You cannot defeat logic.
@@JBSCORNERL8 I think you just defeated logic :) What you think may be illogical in our (meta?)verse may be completely logical somewhere else with different parameters. Logic isn't absolute. What differentiates something logical from something that's not? It's just a process to arrive from point A to point B.
@@achaiaha7136 yeah I’m not about to wonder about something illogical. All u need is math. What may see illogical to me can still be proven mathematically. My perception doesn’t matter in the end. You can try and fight it because it goes against everything you believe(and I did for awhile) but reality is math and will always be math
Or is math just one type of being's very elaborate coincidence where the "rulial" is the mapping of that coincidence, which is this very math itself?
I would LOVE if Lex had David Deutsche on his podcast. Some of this reminded me of his work. Anyways great clip at tackling the big questions!
In the beginning god said "Let there be formal systems"
This conversation is amazing.
Actually this guy Wolfram’s idea of this rulead and Max Tegmark’s ideas of all mathematical structures necessarily existing, including ones that will have conscious beings experiencing them, are very similar.
Didn’t understand one word! However enjoyed listening to it! Dose that make sense????
For people saying this is too complicated/pseudoscience just think of it as an answer to the fine tuning argument, essentially what he's saying is that all possible computational ( which is a technical mostly uninteresting reatriction) rules must exist, I assume his only proof is that this is mathematically satisfying (as in no arbitrary choice of rules is made).
Indeed! A most astute analysis, I also felt something was special about this location in my first playthrough.
Keep up the grind.
"Why does the universe exist" is the wrong question. It exists as perception within the structure of a Ruliad, just like addition exists as an equation within the structure of mathematics.
Your comment makes zero sense.
@@coppersky explain what part of it doesn’t make sense to you? That’s literally how Wolfram described it, as an analog to math.
So let me get this straight. The "Rulio" idea is sort of like the multi universe except there aren't Multi Universes - just this one. But one with all possible computations, which converge - and of which we perceive only a slice. That about it ;)
Rulio 🤣
Rulial* but yes I think that sums it up.
If I'm not mistaken, he's kind of saying that the universe necessarily exists in the way that an equation in mathematics necessarily exists. It just so happens that 1+1=2; "why" 1+1=2 is the wrong question, because it's necessarily so, in that it is embedded within mathematics. It's implied that the universe exists within the structure of the Ruliad, in the same way that all the equations of mathematics exist within the structure of mathematics.
Now, why is it all "necessary"? I don't know. I guess that's the deeper, underlying question. The Ruliad seems to just be describing the phenomena in and of itself, not the origin of the phenomena.
Maybe just as ridiculous as believing the earth is the center of the universe or just that it isn’t.
@@FreshaDenaMofo Thank you Lansana, finally something I can understand
Another way to think about it (as is with most scientific theories): “give me one miracle and I’ll explain the rest”.
He clearly needs DMT to understand infinite perceptions he's trying to make sense of.
You think he got to this point sober??
@@nototheilluminati some people can come up with amazing insights on their own without psychedelics. Probably just more glitchy in their perceptions than our flawless 4k visuals. Either way, important thing is that he gets it. It'd be a shame if such an accomplished person is not open about psychedelics.
He’s definitely onto “understanding” infinity
Lex Fridman is clearly a government agent probably NASA here to bullshit us more about why earth "really isn't flat we swear" and how "we can really travel space we swear"
He making perfect sense. He’s saying what reality actually is. DMT is only going to give you a subjective human meaning to reality.
This is just a rough estimate but Stephan Wolfram’s head is about 7 percent too big for his body
Lex listens very closely to what his guests say. He would be a good prosecutor.
What is it like to be an atom? To be a hydrogen is like being a child, liked by everyone. To be a carbon is like being a woman, gentle yet firm. To be an oxygen is like being a man, rough and tough. To be a nitrogen is like being an old person, binding children, men and women together. To be a metal is like being a bee, and a halogen is like being a flower.
It's so hard from a human perspective how limited we are to grasp outside of our comfort zone of perception.
Yes, it's like a dog understanding calculus x 1000000000000000000000000
the background feels like you are talking in space
Around 18 mins in and I cannot, for the life of me, shake this feeling that we need another 'Good Friday Experiment' type event. You can really tell when some one these intellectual types have not touched psychedeliks whatsoever.
Id say it would do them a great deal of good and lead to some amazing insights, possibly, allowing these guys to communicate their ideas better better the general public.
But what do I know? I'm just an ant. 😉
Your smugness is palpable
@@Insomble I am but a mirrror.
30 minutes later i have no idea what i was listening to, wolfram needs to dumb it down a lot more
wow. i quit 4 minutes in.
18:58 I think you could take it to the planetary level if you consider life progression on the planet as a marker of the planetary consciousness, especially when things get extra-planetary and life from one planet begins to interact with other planets. Terraforming would definitely be considered a form of reproduction and evolution on this scale, too.
Hmmm, interesting way to visualize consciousness. Somewhat similarly to when you take it to the ant colony level; Collectively, you could consider, they make up a conscious colony mind, or hive mind …
This is a great way to think about the difference between mind and thought on a planetary scale that is analogous to our own. I understand thought as the constituents of a mind. So for example, our human mind as an organism is constituted by cells, which make up our thoughts through their interactions. Analogously, a planetary mind is constituted by organisms, the interaction of which make up its thoughts. The entangled conversations between human beings in a global society are therefore equivalent to the entangled conversations between neurons in the brain.
@@liamlieblein6375 aaaaaaand Carl Jung
@@off6848 I've always been interested in Jung, but tbh I haven't read him myself just saw videos. Is his idea of the collective unconscious similar to this?
@@liamlieblein6375 I would say that last part of what you wrote reminds me of how I was conceptualizing the collective unconscious years ago as I read his work
I feel like a gecko trying to understand the moon
This clip made me realize that basically I am one of the things written into the universe itself. The way this whole universe is set up, will result in me living this life. Just like how the sun exists and the earth and all the stars, it will eventually get to my birth and life and death, then continue on with what the universe will do.
But that means if there is a way to store everything the universe did, which is very likely in a higher realm of 'existence', my life will forever be stored along with the entire running of this universe.
Seems pretty liekly that I will exist more than once. If time is infinite there is no reason why this particular universe won't run again even after trillions of other universes running. I can't experience all that immense time. I can only experience when I finally am run again in this universe. Maybe it has already been trillions of universes since my last life. Maybe if my life runs again and again I might as well enjoy myself
@@50kT Your idea is known in physics as “Universal Consciousness”, you might want to look into it.
@@markpecar6580 Yea if you think the universe is focused on one person's life when there are trillions of life forms all existing. The problem is that we think we're flawed but from the bigger perspective we're just small parts of the giant whole. There's been so many humans who have lived and died, and there are potentially other sentient beings across the universe, I doubt we would care about our one life when we die and become a part of the larger whole.
@@markpecar6580 Yea, that would suck. That's basically almost like hell too. And human's are designed to suffer as a default. We only noticed the things that aren't working, and I think 99.999% of people suffer their whole lives and the few "enlightened" people have found their form of bliss. But on the bright side is that each time we think its the first, instead of knowing its the same thing over and over. Who knows if its true or not though
You are not separate from the universe. You are a small piece of a huge thing, the only thing actually. It didn't create you, it rearranged itself so you could be.
For some reason this talk had me thinking about the whole thing with plants growing different if they are exposed to music, and just wondering how a plant is actually perceiving reality.
He is humble enough, much appreciated. Universe exists because it wants to know itself. This is not the only universe, it’s an infinite process. One understanding of reality, even if exquisite like Einstein’s, will eventually fall to the ground in the face of infinity. Infinity is not understandable by the human mind. It can only be perceived as unity, and being one is the one true nature of existence.
I feel this is presenting itself to an unusual amount of people in recent time. Something is happening collectively.
Dr. Conrad Zimsky : Yes, yes, yes, yes, and what if the core is made of cheese? This is all best guess commander. That's all science is, is best guess.
Col. Robert Iverson : So my best guess is you don't know.
- The Core movie
This talk is incredible. Wolfram and Lex make me think of two books by the same author that I've read and are worth the time, The Systems View of Life and The Tao of Physics, both by Fritjof Capra - Asian philosophy and deep ecology.
I remember reading Fritjof Capra's _The Tao of Physics_ back when I was only 22 and just starting my professional career as a scientist (molecular biologist), and thinking how it made complete sense to me at the time, and explained a lot of what I had also been thinking about prior to reading it.
Wow, so rare to find another person who had read Capra! Great stuff!
@ballbustinbandit3558 No, people are not being cloned.
I'm so lost watching this but I keep watching, I can't stop🤔
Shoildve titled tjis one…”old possible rules in ways that the possible is always seems impossible but as long as you do it in certain ways the rules will always make the possible seem possible even though it may be impossible but just know its possible”
Possibly…
I like Wolfram. He understands that maths, physics, philosophy, and basically everything, is all in the context of human experience. Does mathematics exist outside of experience? He understands that it’s a moot point, and that all physical theories are just rationalisations of our experience and frames of reference. I’d love to talk to him about his views on the thread of time, as he mentioned.
Too much of a boomer for me. Brilliant guy, no doubt. Needs to get his ego in check tho. Be more open-minded. There is a world in which you are wrong sometimes :P
Yes just rationalized human experience. However regardless if humans exists the universe would still be there just no entity to observe it
Mathematics is a tool invented by Humans to measure and quantify the existence. The Universe can always be calculated regardless if Humans are here or not.
This entire conversation was exhilarating.
Sure it was
I don't know if "WHY" is ever a question science has a place trying to answer. What, where, when and how are the domain of science, WHY is a question philosophy and religion have eminence over. I think here he is actually telling us HOW the universe exists, NOT why.
- "Why does the universe exist?"
(28 minutes later)
- "It exists because it has to."
Brilliant.
Sounds like a bishop explaining what god is
Big fan Wolfram and Friedman, I really enjoyed this episode!
Is great to see that some of the most brilliant minds alive today are thinking about this with openness and scientific rigor.
Asked answered and solved for all time. And so succinctly Great work bravo.
For causality, how do you explain the "guessing" of a computers RNG data output before it has even rolled or selected the output?
Well as I understand it, computers are not capable of being random, only being able to simulate randomness. All outcomes are in seeds, and when the computer is told to roll the dice, it looks at a giant table of possible outcomes, and based on certain conditions at the time of the command, the computer picks a specific seed and gives an outcome. And if you know what those conditions the computer is using to make decisions, you can always guarantee a specific outcome from a "random" result.
I learned it from Tetris. The game runs at 60 frames per second. When you press start, blocks "randomly" start coming down, and each piece after is "random" too. But they aren't random, the game is picking a seed of predetermined blocks based on the frame (1/60th of a second) you pressed start, along with other factors such as how long has the Nintendo been turned on. If you keep the Nintendo on for exactly 3 minutes, and press start on the very first 1/60th of a second, you'll always get the same set of blocks, as the game looks at parameters and select the same seed every time.
I loved every word for the first four minutes. Then came the question "what is mathematics?" It's just representation. What we observe is a pattern, where our math is just a representation. Relationships are not math. They are relative patterns.
Steven Wolfram right at the end after a ton of bullshit “we don’t have to ask the question, why does it exist?”
I know we don’t have to ask that question, STEVE, but we want to! If you can’t answer it, just say “I don’t know”!
Perhaps the clearest and most accessible explanation as to why the universe exists and why farts are still funny
Awesome discussion and awesome findings. Love this content
Truly interesting. But "It's" . . . "running" . . . (I've only reached the 22 min mark. I hope he will say what "it" is and why/how it runs through rules.)
Either EVERYTHING should exist simultaneously, or nothing should.
And we know its not nothing.
Anything in between requires "rules" or "laws" that imply a "creator" and a simulation.
That's how I looked at it like a little kid anyway.
As I got older and got to explore quantum mechanics and the double split experiment - I lean heavily in favor of EVERYTHING exists simultaneously and the Many Worlds theory when consciousness acts as a kind of pointer, in comp sci terms.
and by "everything", I mean literally everything you can imagine and all that you cant, and all variations of it. Literally everything.
@@Scorch428 Definitely has to be a creator. Something with some sort of consciousness way above ours.
@@teq8061 a creator implies a simulation, in which case, you can roll the question back to What created the creator? or What created the creator's world?
I just don't think its simultaneously. It's proven that stars and galaxies age and have a beginning. So there was clearly a starting point. And I just think the true answer probably isn't that simple. @@Scorch428
I'm glad lex checked Wolfram on conflating his metaphysics and epistemology
Don't worry guys, you didn't miss the answer to the question. He just never answered the question.
😊 what did you want?
Everyone really needs to stop trying to derive complete understanding from little videos on UA-cam, it’s okay, please be humble and respect there’s things no one understands completely and any understanding is difficult to articulate - particularly to UA-cam audiences. If you put the general intelligence of the human race on a graph with Stephen wolfram, you’d be upset. Try explaining it to your cat
Actually, in the clip of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, he suggested that all the evidence and rules aim to a Creator.
I think you're right Lex. The different points (of view) in rulial space seems akin to the different branches of many worlds. So individual universes as part of a multi-verse, which already implies a definition of universe in the sense you both noted at 8:50
“Spacetime is not fundamental but consciousness is” the great Dr.Donald Hoffman ! Please have him on your podcast like yesterday, goodnight.
Dear Lex! I really hope you will see this comment. You have just scraped the surface of “why the universe exists” question with Mr. Wolfram. Can you please make round 4? I humbly thank you for so much!
So profound. If we change our perception, we change the universe we live in.
No wonder I feel more alone the more I know
the same is true for many mathematical spaces
I think you missed the point. The universe doesn’t change, the point in ruliad space changes. The universe includes all of these points.
Today 2nd September 2024 I have found this interesting interview of Stephen Wolfram after 2year of its publication and 1.2 lakh viewership and 13.2 lakh of LEX CLIPS.
Today on Monday I have enjoyed this clip from India near Kolkata.
In many of the learned comments I found one where some one has this quest that it could be some one else idea. Not undermining the Prof. Wolfram I am telling all this viewers that yes I have developed the same not similar hypothesis during my student age more than 30 years ago. Not only I have jolted down my same space-time hypothesis but also I have open it to my department 2 decades ago and developed my theory of everything not mathematical but physics of creation not only law of physics but law of Nature.
Yeah like Stephen I too find it very fruitful and deep and existing. Last one year I have engaged myself in my that theory and obtained very good results for recent experiments and observations. I could predict new physics and explain quantum to cosmos.
Recently I am successfully unified quantum and gravity. My focus now is less new mathematical than physics. I am very happy that prof. Wolfram has included many recent departments in his TOE framework. I FOUND STEPHEN 'S EXPLANATIONS ARE GOOD ADVERTISEMENT for this hypothesis and theory. Good work though in this short video I found we are branching different domain of fundamental laws and formalism in our approach. Recently I have seen an interview of IVETTE FUENTES a Penrose team faculty. They have covered this new physics as interplay region , yes the same ideas were the immediate interpretation of my efforts too.
I like both of you because Recently I have solved the MOND, quantum and gravity unification. UNCERTAINTY, Gravity waves , electron and protons mass ratio (by three different parameters of approach) . Origin and emergent properties and Plank's scale Origin
4D temperature. Just yesterday and today possible cause of infinite acceleration not by inflatone.
Thanks a lot both of you and your channel.
Wolfram is a highly successful science fiction writer.
What’s the difference between what’s he is saying and dimensions?
I believe that every moment of our lives is recorded in the universe
Rercorded as in?
Rercorded as in?u
Akashic records
@@dinomyte0899 every moment of every being in the universe ever we are a surveillance system recording every image with our conscience for the aliens civilisation that created us
@@chucklombardo8167 I’m interested, are there any videos on this? Could you expand? What would be the motivation behind creating carbon based life forms to do this… seems like overkill
Stephen Wolfram is bloody legend
Hearing this guy say he doesn't fully understand something, theres hope for the rest of us
Thank you!
I love Stephen Wolfram. Alpha blew my mind in high school. He also looks like Joe Rogan if he spec'd into intellect instead of strength.
Lol
If I understand correctly, he is trying to say that, the possible outcome of things is the only outcome posible, and that specific outcome is directly related or produced by our perception of things… but everything is possible only if you change the perception of things. Did I get it?
Could consciousness be a field in the same way the Higgs Boson is a field? Particles interact with the Higgs field and gain mass; perhaps in the same way matter interacts with a consciousness field and becomes real by becoming observable.
@@vids595 Not everything is possible, most things aren’t possible. I was pointing out an analogy between how the Higgs field gives mass to particles in the same way, perhaps, that consciousness awareness creates reality. Just an idea. If consciousness is fundamental and material then I would expect one could add a consciousness term to the lagrangian. And your last statement is annoying since while perhaps technically accurate I bet most particle physicists don’t exactly know what that means. What is a particle really? What is a wave? As far as we can tell they’re all just numbers.
Yes consciousness permeates throughout existence and beings filter it through their senses thereby gaining individuality of perception but also with many species the ability to link consciousness like ant colonies and myco colonies
This convo has triggered a flashback 😵💫
no idea what hes on about. but it helps me sleep at night
Didn't really talk about the heart of the question. Whole conversation was explaining what the universe necessarily is. But not why it exists at all. The question isn't "does our universe exist in a rulliad", but rather, "Why does the ruliad exist rather than nothing at all?". If your answer is "because it is a concept and not a thing", then the next question is "Why do concepts exist?". It goes all the way down, and I feel like this talk just didn't really talk about that at all. Just talked about the set of all possible universe formations. Not about how that set of all possible universe formations could exist in the firstplace.
2+2 exists. Bad example I think. 2+2 is a tautology, just as 1 or any number mathematical expression is a tautology. That's why mathematics functions as a scale independent context independent system of measurement of any set of constant relations, but is insufficient for the expression of that which is computable, and what is computable is insufficient for the prediction of recombinations, requiring that we resort to simulations (unique constructions from first principles.
I think he's saying that the existence of the universe is a mathematical tautology in exactly the same way 2+2=4
Is there such a thing as synthetic math? I'm a lay person here at best, but in my imagination when I see 2+2 I see a synthesis of whatever those 2s actually represent combing into multiple possible things which could be greater than or even lesser than 4.
@@kenboe3019 Hmmm.... math is a language like every other language, where a language consists of a series of terms that produce continuously recursive disambiguation into a testable transaction for meaning - it's just a language that has only one referent, one dimension, one operation, and one agreement: identity, positional name, add-subtract, and equality. It's the dumbest possible language for human beings to use. The virtue of this incredibly dumb language is that because it has only one dimension, is context-independent and scale-independent, and every reference is unique and infinitely precise, then, (a) you can describe any system of constant relations of any possible construction, and (b) it's impossible to engage in conflation, inflation, suggestion and misrepresentation, without easily exposing the 'error in the grammar' of the sentence (transaction.). Likewise, mathematics fails when the referent (identity) is variable - such as in economics, where for all intents and purposes (marginalism) every single transaction is unique, and therefore summarization into a generalization produces loss of information.
@@TheNaturalLawInstitute Thank you for your interesting reply. I'll be going back over that. I sometimes write poetry from these kinds of thoughts. A real gem would be "infinitely precise".
@@kenboe3019 "infinitely precise" would lead to diminishing returns once full ambiguity had been achieved. After that additional information can only add ambiguity, which is an interesting idea to explore. ;) cheers
In the thumbnail it looks like Stephen wolfram is teaching Lex how to form a kamehameha wave
Spoiler Alert: He doesn't know😂
Bruhh
What was the middle part again?
The universe exist so we can suffer through it
haha, so emo
I hope it’s just a game that we as a different entity play just to see how we turn out or how we do. And in that world it only takes few hours hours to play. So some people come out like dude I was a king and some come out like bro I didn’t even make it out of birth.
@@Whataboutitdoubtit if you still have that hope, you haven't seen the bad part yet
Clearly this is everything but a game
So where did they cover why the universe exists?
Not entirely sure the universe has meaning, im pretty sure reason is in the eyes of the beholder and perception is definitely partially physiological. Quite lofty to think theres a reason and even if there was we would have the ability to percieve it when we cant even precieve dark matter which most the universe is made of.
:/
Pretty funny when people type paragraphs upon paragraphs of text on the miracles of consciousness and awareness without showing humility or modesty.
Feel free to debate please!
But I’m lead to believe through my own experiences. Switching your perception is essentially the result of going up or down through dimensions or different parallels.
In other words. All the dimensions run at once together but depending on what dimension your in determines your perspective..
Stephen at times is going into the same areas that Chris Langan is with his CTMU theory....it would be interesting to have Chris Langan on the podcast to explore his CTMU theory...
not even half way through this video and i love stephen looool, hes very well spoken and super sweet