Why does complexity exist in nature? | Stephen Wolfram and Lex Fridman
Вставка
- Опубліковано 26 жов 2021
- Lex Fridman Podcast full episode: • Stephen Wolfram: Compl...
Please support this podcast by checking out our sponsors:
- ROKA: roka.com/ and use code LEX to get 20% off your first order
- FightCamp: joinfightcamp.com/lex to get free shipping
- Onnit: lexfridman.com/onnit to get up to 10% off
- Indeed: indeed.com/lex to get $75 credit
- Fundrise: fundrise.com/lex
GUEST BIO:
Stephen Wolfram is a computer scientist, mathematician, and theoretical physicist.
PODCAST INFO:
Podcast website: lexfridman.com/podcast
Apple Podcasts: apple.co/2lwqZIr
Spotify: spoti.fi/2nEwCF8
RSS: lexfridman.com/feed/podcast/
Full episodes playlist: • Lex Fridman Podcast
Clips playlist: • Lex Fridman Podcast Clips
SOCIAL:
- Twitter: / lexfridman
- LinkedIn: / lexfridman
- Facebook: / lexfridman
- Instagram: / lexfridman
- Medium: / lexfridman
- Reddit: / lexfridman
- Support on Patreon: / lexfridman - Наука та технологія
I’ve always wondered the same thing looking at the complexity of psychedelic hallucinations and the visible repetitive patterns.
@@2000demag1 my brain automatically put Terrance's voice while I read this.
Thank you for that, my friend!
There appears to be complexity because of your frame of reference. There is no empty space, only energy unexpressed. Knowing there is no such thing as "empty" or "void" you realize all the pieces fit because they have to fit. What you see are "expressed" patterns. Tesla said it in a way, everything is energy, there is no "nothing".
Doesn't that beg the question? Since the natural follow up question is: how are such complex beings possible who are able to perceive complexity as well as generate it.
@@kvaka009 there are no separate beings just complexity expressing and observing itself. Like the notion oft repeated that you yourself are merely the universe experiencing itself. A sort of dance of atomic pageantry.
@@compositestechbb9087 when you say "there are no separate beings" you are operating with a peculiar idea of reality. One that is not well articulated or justified. It's really a way of taking a very complex philosophical problem-- the relation of one and many-- and simply sweeping it under a rug. Besides a dubious concept of reality, you seem to also operate with an even more latent conception of illusion. A conception that opposes illusion to reality, or rather codefines the two in opposition, making it seem as if illusions aren't real and therefore don't require an ontological explanation. But illusions are a fact of our experience and therefore a fact of nature. The complexity of the universe is such that illusions about itself are part of itself.
In fact you contradict yourself when you say that the universe is "trying to understand itself". If the universe had no separable parts, then it couldn't try to understand itself because it couldn't fail to already understand itself. Your statement implies that the universe consists of a part of itself that isn't understood and a part that is trying to understand it.
I appreciate your metaphysic holism and agree, but it can't be as simple as you suggest.
Complexity, I measure the simplicity of the signal by measuring the peak autoregression coefficient for any lag possible given the data. Using dynamic time-warping you can measure the fractal complexity of the signal which I haven't implemented yet but there is multifractal analysis that goes in that direction.
It kind of seems like a pointless endeavor
aren't you measuring self-similarity in this case?
@@anders5611 yes, complexity in my book is the opposite of self-similarity.
I often think about no matter how far out or in we try to look there’s no end. Everything seems to be endless. We can’t see the whole universe and we definitely don’t what all the possibilities are. And if you look inward there’s an unexplainable realm (for now) with endless unexplainable abilities. Our existence is to complex to not have a creator yet there is no god to prove us wrong. The answers to nature and reality are a very interesting topic. But with the current “economic and political state of the world right now” there impossible to understand
Love listing to ste
jsnsndndjjdjdjsjs
Lex I love you! :)
🙂
Homeboy was google before google. I remember buying the app
Adding to comlexity isn't smart, timing to just being (not conforming) creates awereness.
if you think we are developing the current AIs without understanding it. Nobody knows what the AI will do after 1000 steps.
He won't convince most people until he builds something new with these ideas.
He has. I don't understand. It's profound.
@@TheNaturalLawInstitute What's he built that hasn't been possible before?
@@redberries8039 You mean aside from Mathematica, Wolfram Alpha, and his New Physics? Or that one aspect of his new physics is an extension of the Goedel's incompleteness?
I think the problem here (in the comments) is that (a) Wolfram is oddly bad at communicating his ideas. (b) the public is not sufficiently knowledgeable to understand what he's saying even if he was. (c) in particular because we (fasely) based math on sets (language) rather than operations(computations) in the last century, and we're seeing the consequences in every field. Especially physics.
@@TheNaturalLawInstitute I mean he has to build some new technology.
@@TheNaturalLawInstitute I mean to overcome your point (b)
Re. (a) I thought he did a pretty good job.
On (c) I think this will be the hurdle for the scientific establishment who have invested decades of their lives into the math describing the computationally reducible slices of reality.
So nature was running a well thought out program.
@@vids595 His computer program analogy begs the question. You spent hours of time and loads of intelligence writing these programs to mimic nature. But nature is supposed to come to this complexity with no intelligence or direction. My imagination only goes so far. You might as well believe an old man in the sky said, Let there be light'.
"Any intelligent fool can make a thing bigger, more complex, more destructive. It takes an act of genius to work in the opposite direction." - Albert Einstein
I really think people really need to re-evaluate what intelligence fundamentally is, before they go off on these long-winded tangents based on the misconception of the role of complexity in nature and design. If you understand that intelligence is based on an obstacle-goal relationship, wherein the intelligence of the tested subject is demonstrated [not by the complexity of their solution] but rather [the simplicity of their solution with respect to the complexity of the obstacles], then people will stop being artificially fascinated by complexity.
Design is about simplicity, not complexity. The fact that nature is complex is simply the proof that it wasn't designed. It's not surprising, interesting, or counterintuitive, then, that nature is complicated. Complexity is just what happens when intelligence doesn't guide a thing. This guy is just spinning his wheels, when he could be doing more productive things with his appreciable intellect.
@-GinΠΓ Τάο > "However, the point is what is simple by one definition is complex by another."
This still misses the point. People's assessments of intelligence are based on an obstacle-goal relationship. Whether your chosen definition of "complexity" renders an analysis of a situation to either be simple or complex ...will still predictably determine whether you think the analyzed subject is smartly (or not smartly) designed.
A. Complex solution to a complex problem = smart
B. Simple solution to a complex problem = genius
C. Simple solution to a simple problem = smart
D. Complex solution to a simple problem = moronic
Solutions B and D have well-known proverbial exemplars, phrases, and scenarios:
B. Occam's Razor
.... "Two birds with one stone"
.... "Think smarter, not harder"
D. Chicken with its head cut off (running around, accomplishing nothing)
.... Over-engineered software that's difficult to read and maintain
.... "Hey, what's this I hear about you having a problem with your TPS reports?"
We often (falsely) perceive "design" in nature because of our inability to perceive how often life fails. We're looking at the "successes", while 99.99% of everything that has ever lived has gone extinct or died. The realization of this fact changes our universal understanding of life's "intelligence" from Scenario A (the creationist perspective) to Scenario D (the evolution perspective). As you say, the definition of complexity can change, but the result of changing the definition is that you change your assessment on the situation. The moronic solution is the least impressive one.
So, regardless of your definition for complexity, you're still using the same analysis within your conceived paradigm. And within that paradigm, complexity is always the bad thing that you're trying to avoid. The point of intelligence is to eliminate that complexity where possible.
> "you "believe" that your way of life has some validity to it and purpose"
I actually don't. I'm just here for the pizza.
> "Bio-Complexity has been exponentially decreasing since pointy sticks & fire."
You're conflating bio-complexity with biodiversity. But the drive toward the simplicity you refer to... is being caused by active intelligences plying their trades. Not great minds, mind you, but capable minds nonetheless.
Not sure where you're going with the rest of that diatribe, but I wholly accept the findings of climate scientists and look forward to our species' self-imposed demise.
@-GinΠΓ Τάο Yeah, okay buddy. This is clearly not going to be a productive conversation. Cheers.
@-GinΠΓ Τάο I am not "resistant" to "actual physics". I literally split atoms for a living on trident ballistic missile submarines. There is no closer that you can get to "actual physics" than wrestling with one of the fundamental forces of nature (the strong nuclear, to be specific).
What is your "actual" point, though?
I have no idea what you're on about, or what it has to do with anything I said.
Albert Einstein was a brilliant man, very quotable. Another great one of his is:
"If you can't explain it in simple terms, then you don't understand it well enough".
You blasted me with dozens of links to support statements that are non-sequitur to any of mine, to propose arguments that you didn't concisely state.
State your thesis, in simple terms. You only do the complicated stuff when you need to justify your claims. If you lose your audience before you start, it doesn't matter how many links you copy and paste from your years of soap-boxing on the internet.
To what extent do you declare that the universe is non-material? Are you supporting mind-body dualism, or what? Are we talking angels and demons, or some version of string theory that you assume prescribes the existence of non-material things?
As far as your credibility, you lose me when you make grandiose claims about having access to a theory that's "orders of magnitude" superior and more accurate to anything that anyone is doing in climate science. You're talking millions of people, millions of studies published and reviewed by many more, over several decades. You're immediately disregarding everyone from chemistry to physics to mathematics (e.g. chaoticians), while at the same time pointing to hand-picked articles from those same departments to support an alternate position that hasn't been publicly made by anyone else. If your theory blows everyone else's out of the water, then why are you making your case to me? Publish your paper already and stop wasting your time on nobodies like me. I just boil water for a living.
@-GinΠΓ Τάο > "If you are claiming to be a physicist than you should have zero problems comprehending what i wrote."
Right, right, because when a mouse runs across a keyboard and scribbles gibberish on a screen, it's Einstein's fault if the message isn't understood.
That is absolutely not how anything works.
As far as your individual statements, I understood them when they were accurate. But making a cohesive sentence and making a coherent argument are two entirely different things. Here, watch:
Sky is blue.
Grass is green.
The earth is round.
Therefore I'm right about ghosts.
The first three sentences make sense, by themselves. Together, they are gibberish. You posted a series of correct statements, when they have virtually no relation to anything I said, or any central thesis you have kept in your head (because you didn't seem to want to write it down).
Nothing you've said, together, is coherent.
> "Further, an actual "physics" literate person would not waist their time and or mine with all the ad-hominem "advise" on how how much more simple the complex system should be presented as."
You clearly don't understand what ad-hominems are. Ad-hominems is when you declare that a person's argument is wrong because of something that has nothing to do with the argument, like your hair color. If I say, "You're wrong because you're a dirty ginger", that's an ad-hominem. If I say, "You're a fool because nothing you say makes sense", then I have now justified my reasoning with a position that is relevant to the facts at hand. Any insults I supply with that are just insults, not logical fallacies. I have insulted you, but I am not guilty of ad-homimen. Please update your understanding of the term and don't misuse it to evade scrutiny or self responsibility.
> "Which is by and large "the point" that you keep missing."
And you keep missing the point that you didn't understand my point in the first place. So any criticism of it is already misguided.
> "More logical fallacy without a shred of actual evidence of comprehension"
Which logical fallacy? Another one that you got wrong and don't use properly like ad-hominem? You're the only one who doesn't seem to grasp what's going on here.
"The people that don't tend to sound like idiots when responding to this outline tend to be actual physicists (like all the actual physicists that i have directly sent the whole thing to)."
Okay, so you email a physicist to ask if the sky is blue, and if they say yes, then you add their TED talks to your list of links, to justify your position... that you can't clearly state anywhere in text in 5 sentences or less? The only fraud here is you. You don't even understand how backwards your approach to this whole conversation is.
> "Your world is ending.
Civilization is it's cause. No physicist argues with what i wrote."
Hahaha. I say the sky is blue. You disagree with me, by saying the sky is blue. As your justification, you say "Scientists agree with me!" to which I said, "Yes, I agree with climate scientists, too."
Then you say, "Climate scientists are all wrong! The sky is blue!"
"And you're wrong, too, because the sky is blue and scientists agree with me!"
You're absolutely insane. You don't even realize that the scientists you use in your statements are PART OF CLIMATE SCIENCE you dolt (insult, not ad-hominem). That's why THEY AGREE the world is ending and that WE are its cause. Jesus. Get a fucking grip and figure out which side everyone in this debate is on! YES the sky is blue. No one disagrees with you when you say it, because we said it FIRST. That still doesn't mean you've made a larger cohesive argument. Because you haven't.
I am happily blocking you because I have no qualms ignoring crazy people who need professional supervision in a psychiatric ward.
(P.S. I said I split atoms on military submarines. Reactor operators are operators, not scientists. Scientists generally work above ground, or ride non-military vessels when they need to. But there also isn't much nuclear science to do under water)
This is an interesting perspective.
Wolfram alpha can't do Inverse Laplace Transform for initial Value problems. 😏Was pissed during my maths test.
A cognitive digestive system. Input,output. It would be ideal for mathematicians to train their senses to see nature patterns. Water for example is more than enough of a realm to learn cognitive yoga. In one second of a sight, dozens of dynamic patterns are expressed. This is the universe-city that all the visionary seeds opened up across history leading to the present applications of knowledge.
I didn’t understand a thing
There wasn't much to understand. He's confused a bout why complexity is a requisite for functional systems, so he's over-thinking himself in circles. He's looking at it all backwards, like a theologian repeating Paley's watch argument, but without the god part. Both believers and non-believers commonly make the association fallacy that complexity implies design, and so he's enamored with the existence of complexity, because he thinks he'll find design (or some natural mimicry of it).
Design is about simplicity, not complexity. The fact that the universe moves in the direction of complexity (instead of simplicity) is exactly how we know the universe wasn't designed. Complexity exists, and comes from, the fact that there's no one at the wheel. It's just the natural consequence of the absence of an underlying intelligence. Not interesting or counterintuitive in the slightest.
@@extantsanity I fully agree, thanks!
@@extantsanity not necessarily a phone is complex a plane is complex if the program fail to detect the altitude and the speed of the plane it is fucked it crash complexity and simplicity are man made concept they can neither proof or disprove a creator and I say that as an atheist
@@vickmalham8191 The point is that complexity is not the goal. We don't make spaceships complicated because we want to, we make spaceships complicated because nothing simpler will get the job done. It's *_physics_* that's inherently complicated, and *_that's_* what causes spaceships to be complicated. Because evading earth's gravity is a difficult thing to do.
If flying through the solar system required nothing more than a red cape and spandex, we'd all be fulfilling the Star Trek mission statement by the age of 5. The universe doesn't work like that, and that's why only astronauts have the privilege of first-hand witnessing what a sun rising over an atmospheric globe looks like from space.
Well...yeah!
Duh
First comment! Pointless, but first 😂
I love how scientists try and discover how God made everything
Hey @@vids595 - I understand your point. I kinda think our curious minds would always try and work things out anyway, so science will always have a place.
There are plenty of scientists who believe in a God or higher intelligence.
Science is super necessary and fascinating. But so many of us ‘believers’ have had an undeniable (and often indescribable) experience / encounter that leads us to be convinced of a higher power.
Makes us sound a bit crazy to those who have never experienced that.
I know this to be true because I had no grid for such talk for 43 years. But now I can’t deny it, man. God bless, brother!