Stephen Wolfram: "Making Everything Computational-Including the Universe"
Вставка
- Опубліковано 28 лип 2022
- I present my emerging new foundational understanding of computation based on three large-scale projects: (1) Our recent Physics Project, which provides a fundamentally computational model for the low-level operation of our universe, (2) My long-time investigation of the typical behavior of simple programs (such as cellular automata, combinators, etc.) in the computational universe and (3) The long-time development of the Wolfram Language as a computational language to describe the world. I describe my emerging concept of the multicomputational paradigm---and some of its implications for science, distributed computing, language design and the foundations of computation and mathematics.
- Наука та технологія
How is it possible that this deeply profound and amazingly succinct and explanatory video has only had 2400 views in four months? Dr. Wolfram’s insights are a giant step in our understanding of the nature of the universe and what we call reality.
this is probably the biggest advancement in math ever... This is going to unlock the virtual layers secrets and explain entanglement finally. They just need to add virtual properties to this now and assume that particles in the real world have virtual properties that pair with a virtual layer.
Because it is rubbish. There is not a single new idea in what he says
@@GS-ec1yh go somewhere else dude
Best thing ever, we still early....
because he's full of shit
By the way, this can be generalized to the case where you're optimizing a set of n vectors under the constraint that they're orthonormal. Then you compute all the gradients, project the resulting search vector onto the tangent surface by orthogonalizing all the gradients to all the vectors, and then diagonalize the matrix of scalar products between pairs of the gradients to find a coordinate system in which the gradients pair up with the vectors to form n hyperplanes in which you can rotate while exactly satisfying the constraints and still travelling in the direction of maximal change to first order; the angles by which you rotate in the hyperplanes are multiples of a single parameter (with the multipliers determined by the eigenvalues), so this is again reduced to a one-dimensional search.
Makes a lot more sense to me than 'spooky (wave)balls floating around an empty box'
Do you mean strings, fields and those things?
If yes, I would assume that those emerge a "few levels" above, similarly to how living organisms emerge a "few levels" above atoms.
Makes more sense than a cat that is both dead and alive or 11 dimensional strings
It is amazing how simple and straight forward this is. Granted I still need to learn more about it to speak his language. But explaining the universe as a model of computation makes so much more sense, and aligns with other cosmologies so much easier then the standard model of physics. Using a model of computation allows to you to hold all models of human experience!
Deep respect!
Interesting. Definitely a genius. There must be a concept for computational restraints on the universe itself and as described it has to have something to do with C. That is one of the most amazing results of this experiment. The math seems to be hard to find right now, but hopefully that will change in the future. The emergent properties could simply be a byproduct of the assumption of space acting as particles. It is almost surely the case, or otherwise the old idea of ether would not be revisited. I think the math must prove sufficiently enough that the emergent properties related to qt and gr are not related to the basic geometry of the hyper-graph that results. Basically if I turn the cartesian coordinate system into a hyper graph, then I will have general relativity in there too. The geometry must be emergent itself. Cheers to this man that has strained his brain enough to model a system that I have always wanted to make for myself but did not have the technical requirements to do so.
Well, it really depends on your definition of "universe"; it can either refer to the actual content and the self-emergent restraints that apply to that content, in which case you're correct, such restraints must exist by definition, by sheer metaphysical necessity.
However, if you talk about the completely boundless state out of which everything emerges, which can also aptly be referred to by the term "universe", then it's incorrect, because that state by definition does not have any constraints whatsoever, it's essentially a state of pure potential where all possibilities exist no matter how contradictory; it's only upon the emergence of certain of those possibilities that the contradictory ones are precluded, in order to keep all content logically coherent.
Application of rewriting rule = renormalization group flow
Wild and exciting perspective. Mr Wolfram is onto something, but it appears we'll need new brains to work effectively in this new simplicity.
Speaking of talking and thinking about things...
Linguists talk about "computations". Can these formulas show us the mathematics of language?
edit
Would love to see a long conversation between Wolfram and Chomsky.
i can compute the amplitude of the probably of a result in the center column
I think you should base your computations on spherical 4πr² symmetry forming and breaking, this can form statistical entropy with the possibility for greater complexity to arise. Light photon ∆E=hf energy is continuously transforming potential energy into the kinetic Eₖ=½mv² energy of matter, in the form of electrons. Kinetic energy is the energy of what is actually ‘happening’. The dynamic geometry of this process forms an uncertain ∆×∆pᵪ≥h/4π probabilistic future continuously unfolding relative to the electron probability cloud of the atoms and the wavelength of the light. The wave particle duality of light and matter (electrons) is forming a blank canvas that we interact with relative to the energy and momentum of our actions. This forms a constant of action in space and time that we see mathematically as the Planck constant h/2π.
Also space is and only does increase in size as it goes from all the light electro magnetic radiation objects radiate from them I'm certain you will find if ever able to pinpoint the center or find an edge that objects emitting more radiation of any form that space increases more in that part then those of less radiation and space will decrease more and more as these objects die and quit radiating till no more space.
i think the better way to explain it is the basic construct that is used in lambda calculus can be used as key tool where the basic propositional calculus or predicate calculus where logic can be used as an computation where and and nand and xnor gate can be used to compute any thing from strings or numbers or anything but the basic construct which is not being any of the wolfram video please tell it in another video if iam wrong be kind and correct me where the schools teach computers as pure number system but functional programming and cellular automata tells that gates and every thing used in computation is a function but dont even try to open the mathematical portal from here because the inversion is not allowed as function in lambda calculus but in group theory it does switching a number and getting a answer is thought in many schools but composition of function which does the magic makes Turing complete from gta to arithmetic and even word-processing is done by considering everything and a function and construct are developed and a higher grammar is used in computation even 1 2 3 and even everything is an function from true and false are also function which are developed but how the cellular automata is related the rules are related to lambda calculus and physics the rules emanate from simple rules but not hard encoded or is inside the code and after the graphs develop emanate and develop the computational algorithm and theory is enumerated no video in you tube tells this basic information correctly i guess if i am wrong please correct me i never shy away to learn even i fail
Please use punctuation lol
I will try that's why I said correct me if iam wrong thankyou . But not the way you corrected but please correct me in what context I was talking because if you can understand the context please enlighten me with your knowledge
My brother communicates exactly thus way. It takes a while to deconstruct the thought.
@@OGMann so he use construct just as functional programming am I correct
True, this is a much better way to explain it 😄
The future God King of the new universe
God emperor indeed)
Not a new idea, but I think a very compelling one. To dismiss it is to admit to not knowing, imo. I consider it a chicken and egg problem. If we take something as conceptually simple as magnetic force, attraction and repulsion, we can inquire as to the origin of the rule. It seems counterintuitive to believe the rules of organization arose from a chaos of charged and neutral particles. To posit the rules that govern the organization of atomic and molecular structures from a chaos of particles could be seen to hint at the scientific blasphemy of design.
Serious shortcoming in this discussion. To quote R. Penrose, "Consciousness is non computational". A donkey can be categorized as something in physical space. We can approach our knowledge of the donkey only in increments lasting an infinity of time since the entire universe is embedded in any part within it. Thus, we are looking for an object "in-itself", but there's only one way to reach the limit of "turtles-all-the-way-down" (by tapping into and merging with Pure Consciousness Itself Without-an-Object). This can be done by transcending the realm of computation and thought. Access "Mahamritunjaya mantra - Sacred Choir" and listen to it for 5 min per day for at least two weeks. This is a door between physical and branching space that takes us beyond the realm of both. In that realm, you will realize the ultimate Substance of the universe: Pure Consciousness or Brahman. The whole universe is That Ground of Pure Being, Sat-Chit-Ananda..
This seems a little handwavy imho.
all rules are the same in that way
same as bollocks
it's an algorithmic rule that defines it's own geometry, it doesn't necessarily have a geometric solution, ok, i shut up now :)
shut it