Emergence and the Role of Observeres in Coarse-Graining | Sean Carroll, Stephen Wolfram
Вставка
- Опубліковано 18 гру 2024
- Extract from "How Universal Is the Idea of Numbers?" kindly contributed by Stephen Wolfram in SEMF's 2021 Numerous Numerosity: semf.org.es/nu...
Full talk: • Stephen Wolfram | How ...
SEAN CARROLL
Caltech Profile: pma.caltech.ed...
Blog: www.prepostero...
Twitter: se...
ResearchGate: www.researchga...
Wikipedia article: en.wikipedia.o...
LinkedIn: / seanmcarroll
STEPHEN WOLFRAM
Wolfram Research: www.wolfram.com/
Personal website: www.stephenwol...
Wikipedia article: en.wikipedia.o...
ResearchGate: www.researchga...
Facebook: www.facebook.c...
LinkedIn: / stephenwolfram
UA-cam channel: / @wolframresearch
SEMF NETWORKS
Website: semf.org.es
Twitter: / semf_nexus
LinkedIn: / semf-nexus
Instagram: / semf.nexus
Facebook: / semf.nexus
It's cool watching such a smart-but-traditional physics expert like Dr. Sean Carrol getting involved and participate to such a game-changing theory such as the Dr. Wolfram one.
This is precisely what SEMF is all about! We seek the intersection of minds and mindsets.
Would love a follow up conversation between these two! Thank you for posting this!
We are working on organizing future events where this can happen!
Frame of reference in consciousness ! That's a good one.
Interesting thought: what is the analogue of an inertial reference frame for consciousness?
As Hermes wrote in The Emerald Tablets of Thoth, the universe is mental, the all is mind. Can't get much more scientific than that :) Joke aside, consciousness/observer seems to play an interesting role is so many things like in QM with collapsing of the wave function etc, and if the universe has some form of mental structure based on pure information, its not hard to imagine how that information could interact with biological systems, indeed it could contain the the fingerprints of all that exists.
good to see agreement. on what i have no idea but it sounds special. :)
Computation and Coarse Graining, very interesting. I hadn't heard of this one yet. Another really interesting idea to hear from Stephen Wolfram, about the validity or the nature of coarse graining and its dependence on computational boundedness or capacity of the observer. With the classical view of computation, it's really difficult to even simulate some number of particles with coarse graining techniques even from just ordinary theories like plasma dynamics or few state condensed matter systems; and astronomical scale of the data seems quite demotivating. And then ideas about computation as an important or central aspect of the universe, sort of give you a way to make sense of this constraint in some way and is quite motivating too and very interesting. And an interesting example by Sean Carroll on the AdS/CFT.
It's very rare you'll hear top scientists telling Sean Carroll he's wrong. He's the Boss.
Open conversation is what we strive for at SEMF :)
Unfortunately, Steven seems to not get it. He sais that a not computationally bound observer should be UNABLE to derive the laws of fluid dynamics, but that makes no sense. This observer is more powerful than we, so can do all we can do.
@@TheOneMaddin i think youre right in principal but the idea is fluid dynamics rely on boundedness. so you cant just say discreet molecules create fluid. discreet molecules create a system which if you ignore a lot of information about that system gives you fluid
7:33
It seems like this is how all of science is done, except philosophy. No human has observed whats happening at the smallest unit of space (atoms of space). Also we dont fully understand conciousness, or why there is something rather than nothing, which may explain everything.
That's an important open question!
What about the uncertainty principle? Computationally bounded doesn't matter if you can only observe one of momentum or position. Thermodynamics still arises with computationally unbounded observers due to that right?
Topic is of the immense importance. I would say the role of observers in coarse-graining is primary. Observers define coarse-graining.
It seems, that Lagrangian mechanics appears because of the coarse-graining. And possibly the path integral formulation of QM too.
Absolutely. We will be covering these topics in future SEMF events.
@@SEMF I'm looking forward to it.
@@SEMF when this problem is solved will my tea still taste the same?
@@HarryNicNicholas As far as the current models of physics predict, yes it will :)
As I understand it, causality is closely linked with the lorentz symmetry and the speed of light. But in condensed matter systems there can be an emergent Lorentz symmetry and speed of sound, instead of light. Therefore, there is an effective causality, with the critical speed of sound. As the speeds are very different, i expect this to be the result of coarse graning(preferred frame of reference). Different observers will use different speed of sound/light to probe the universe(coarse graning). Sonic relativity - ua-cam.com/video/BJXaYW_juyw/v-deo.html
how can time's arrow be governed by causally connected events and entropy at the same time? which one is it?
Those are mutually reinforcing processes.
I was about to say the same thing, but what physicality restricts an observer to only being able to perceive the irreducibility of a course grain universe? Thats what I was stuck on, maybe it is the nano microtubules in our brain? maybe it is literally a physical limit of information processing. A creature with a more refined perception may see the finer grains of the universe. This is all based upon the assumption that the universe is granular in the first place. I think Wolfram, Gorard et.al pretty much show this. Wolfram has made a wonderful breakthrough in theoretical physics, the new enlightenment. It can almost be described in terms as an organic growth, encompassing , maths, physics and philosophy. How can we bridge the gap between, objective reality, ( the realms of incomplete perception, and subjective reality the realm of the imagination and models, I think the fulcrum is ANALOGY, I think Aristotle was right, "ALL IS ANALOGY",. it is the only possible bridge connecting subjectivity, with objectivity. So A is not = to A, but it is close by using the hack of ANALOGY it is good enough for us to overcome the dialectic.
Thanks for the detailed thoughts @gregory powell. These are themes that we plan to explore further at SEMF!
@@SEMF Yes, it is all out there for us to discover, thanks for your work, imagination is our only limitation.
Of course I meant coarse grain.
Observer consiesness is necessary in quantum mechanics sir ?
Consciousness has nothing to do with QM, that is just an unfortunately popular misinterpretation of the obsolete Copenhagen interpretation of QM (which isn't actually an interpretation of QM but an algorithm to compute results of quantum interactions.)
Ok so I understand that the world only works in certain ways because that's how we observe it, and you can only derive certain statistical mechanical laws if you define the observer, but these truths are only true if a system exists at all. If there were no fundamental rule(s) for the universe, what exactly is being observed? Basically the question "why is there something rather than nothing"
That's a question that will likely remain unanswered forever...
Nothing is a highly questionable theoretical concept
When do molecules of H2O become wet?
When they are a liquid?
"Wet" is a coarse grained statenent
There is no such thing as objective truth