*How do you define time? Please join my mailing list here 👉 briankeating.com/list for your chance to win a genuine meteorite. And please consider subscribing to the channel* too 😊
Yes, real time is computational iterations, pseudo time is inverse Planck radiation flux speed (real time = computational iteration, pseudo time = velocity differentials within the fundamental movements of energy). General relativistic time is not real time, it's 1/EnergySpeed of a Planck units internal flux speed causing curvature in the alignments of stationary angular quanta, lesser internal energy speed = time dilation of the 1st order, while the 2nd order time dilation (general relativistic time dilation) is the curvature in angular quantum alignments do to differential Planck lengths (the second order curvature, which increases the amount of bisector reflections that decrease Planck radiation transfer rates (gravity waves = Planck length differential and flux speed differential transfer, electromagnetic waves = wobble transfer). These 2 forces are derived from the bisector reflections of inverse directional momentum on local intersect, the only things needed to compute (average velocity field speed * local bisector reflections * volume * iterations) which is a hard thing to do without a brain that can reason and cancel out contradictions and run fast and efficient volumetric simulations in the visual cortex. The brain really is better at this, because the universe is growing in complexity by dividing Planck lengths to form more. As the number of (super nova decrease * average power) decreases, less angular quanta form, because angular quanta formation require bisector reflections of inverse directional momentum (Planck length divisions). I realize now, that it's not black hole mergers, it's the super nova that increase Planck density the most. Check it, you lose gravitational power gradient during black hole merger (you diffuse Planck length differentials into a gravity wave, proportional to the loss of mass of a black hole, therefore less sharper gravitational gradient, lesser power differential between dark energy and the black holes gravity field do to the gravity wave diffusion). As the number of supernova decrease (gama ray electromagnetic radiation), there is less energy to divide Planck lengths, decreasing the dark energy power growth factor (not the dark energy power, but the power growth factor), while black hole mergers have a lesser mass product and therefore lesser gravity gradient. I just realized something, as you get closer to a black hole, you own electromagnetic radiation will blue shift because your plank masses decrease (you diffuse Planck radiation as you fall, and the electromagnetic radiation will have more effect on you, your own radiation kills you do to blue shift). When your quantum vortices shrink (same number, but smaller energy lengths), the electromagnetic wobbles will be more violent in comparison, and that's what kills you when you enter a black hole, as Planck radiation flux speed and length slows to a crawl, quantized mass will break down do to that larger effect of the electromagnetic wobbles you carry will you become more powerful comparatively to that shrinkage.
I would say, that the time we use in everyday life and science is derived from primordial time or temporality which is ecstatic temporality; ecstatic temporality is, my always being projecting, what I can be or do (this is the future), it's also my always having been, even when I have no choice but must take up a way (thrownness) and thus projecting and having been together are a making presence. Making presence can also be called Disclosedness which can be Authentic or Inauthentic: from this primordial time we get "with-in-timeness" or derived time, of course this is the ontology of Martin Heidegger. And before you start calling me names, I am a 72 year old Negro with a associate degree in Nursing, so I am retired and never really cared about academia.
Consciousness is easily defined and obvious. Time is things change in an order. This is not hard and it is not revolutionary.' The oddity is simply that the rate that time ticks is different between for different locations and movements. My question is what happens to the Planck length, that distance of Heisenberg uncertainty in terms of Relativity.
Easy... Definition of time: 3 seconds is exactly how long I have to pick up my mobile when my wife calls me. Everything in the universe has to relate to this - otherwise the space continuum will be hammered into a singularity.
@@brendawilliams8062 Most if not all is just 1 guys ideas ... No way to prove much if any part of his string of words... Being over ones' capabilities is not a sign of anything real in many cases... This string of words is nothing I'd want to understand or waste time on ..
@@shimtest his ideas are ignored because they is so fundamental they need centuries or millennia to be verified. Until then they are compelling (or not) natural philosophy.
There was an old physicist named Cox* Who went mad through contracting the pox He'd burst into giggles When he thought he was Tiddles The cat in Schroedinger's box. * yes. Brian Cox. What a W⚓
@@WinrichNaujoks professor Wolfram is smart enough to see and know more than most. If he’s got a xerox copied per space time. Then he’s got a xerox on a space time
I finally felt just the opposite (I normally would agree with you). I felt Wolfram got off track, getting himself lost on a number of occasions. He's a smooooooth rambler.
With technology now , we can silently hand raise key the speakers gracefully or lawfully be interrupted when required to initiate two sided conversations, which is not bad at times …
Being a cyclist, I have been knocked off my bike by cars a few times. On one occasion I can recollect fragments of the incident as it happened, but not nearly as much as I know I experienced as it happened. I describe my recollection as having a memory of a memory. It was one of those moments where time seemed to slow down. But I prefer to think of it as my awareness speeding up, so that I was aware of more happening in a short period. After the incident, my awareness slowed down to the normal pace, therefore I quickly forgot all the small details. It is as if there is a speed of time, and my awareness increased to approach it. Isn't that an example of time dilating with increased speed, and Stephen's theory here? If our awareness was fast enough, we would see everything at once, and time would not exist.
I think the point he is making is that from an outside perspective it is quite possible the entire course of our universe could happen in the blink of an eye. But for us living in the universe we experience it step by step. Time is all relative -> emergent.
@@marshalmcdonald7476 that's not true though. I can take one of two atomic clocks down a 2000 foot mine for a few hours. When I return to the surface my cave clock is behind ever so slightly. When applied across the galaxy then a universe it gets weirder and weirder.
I could potentially see you fly your spaceship into an astroid a thousand years before it happens, but I would never be able to warn you. In your time you have no idea a thousand years from now your going to fly into said astroid. That's why time is messed.
I had no idea about Wolfram's work but it's just incredible and refreshing at the same time. As a computer scientist I have always perceived time and space as relations through a network graph. As such I always believed that everything that we perceive as time is just our inability to see the whole picture which would be that everything is already happened and we are just living in a moment where it's impossible to "see" the future. The concept of computational irreducibility is just remarkable and explains everything. Best physics interview I have seen in years. I loved it! ❤
Penrose would say 'time is inverse mass' because we need to substitute E=hf into E=MC2 to understand mass is the CLOCK function in the QP world. And as a logical consequence, we must also now understand that in or macro world inverse time serves as INERTIA. So mass is just frozen time as an object property. Frozen because its vector is orthogonal to the vector of time as the entire QP world is orthogonal (inverse) to spacetime. So if you need to change the speed of object A that has twice the mass of object B, we need to overcome twice the amount of frozen time which takes twice as much time. Suddenly mass is not so mysterious now, is it? We need to rethink...
The E in the equation stands for Economics. E=M squared is part of a longer formula for regulating society to the push of a button. Social Engineering at a advanced quickened level.
@@JeffMTX f=(MC^2)/h. as per Penrose. So increase mass by 2 and so will frequency (inverse time) increase by 2. Highschool physics, but no one seems to take Penrose serious. His words:’… if you have mass in the subatomic realm, you have a CLOCK…’ This is the true equivalence relation of mass…
Wolfram's explanation of time dilation is pure genius, and the implications of what he's _actually saying_ about our Universe are just staggering to seriously consider.
I think the "universe as a state machine with simple rules and time being a by-product" theory has occurred to everyone who has studied computer science. The problem is no one has laid out the rules that lead to our the irreducibility we observe. I hope Wolfram can come up with something that's tangible.
I think these information computation theories of physics may lead somewhere...but it will be more messy and observer dependent, although possibly we can use modern definitions of life to guide us. What we call physics and the universe would then be some common and maybe inevitable useful rules between observers. For Brian, I think life (and conscious thought) are best understood thermodynamically. Per the works of Jeremy Englund, life represents an ordered mechanism (or algorithm) that accelerates external entropy production (disorder) while expanding its own order. Paradoxically, life can be thermodynamically favorable if more overall disorder is produced and inanimate matter cannot accomplish this. Where I find the most fault with Wolfram's ideas is that although I think he is on the right track, I think the idea of a simple set of rules defining all phenomenon is probably wrong...and not because they don't have the capacity to produce that...but rather because it gives no reason why a particular set of rules would be favored or even be invariant over time, and that I too think time relates less to computation and more to an open set of possible rules. In this, I think he is both too restrictive and not restrictive enough with regards to those rules and their epistemology. To have any possibility for self consistency and memory, rules for an individual conscious entity at any one time would need to be rigid (be they simple or complex), yet open to an extent for new ones that define a future. Between observers, they are likely very plastic, and the devil will be in those details. For a conscious observer, the rules need to be reversible to retrace memories and ones identity uniquely. But for a future to exist, new rules must be added, and I think these additions are what define time best. Life and consciousness are processes expanding order in time and space...up to limits...not computing upon a closed set of rules. For example, the rules a follows Xb , and b follows Xa, produce a string of ababab...but it's really just a life of two time units long ab, with no rule possible that will makes it's life any longer although the computation is infinite. If you lived your whole life over and over again, with no memory of previous lives...you really haven't actually lived any longer than the one life. For new rules to be consistent with the rigid old ones and be reversible is a tall computational order, and may be a nonphysical explanation for death. One hope is that these constructions are all finite if they are self referential (for example the set of all possible symbol strings of time length t is the superexponential Bell number of t, provided the symbols can only refer to themselves (( ie ab=XY=12 but not aa or xx))). The rules we can make with those are similarly limited and finite. There is thus hope at simulating conscious observers on a quantum computer, but it might be a strange world indeed if the best simulations of reality were more inclined to create physicists rather than directly physics. We also have maths in combinatorics and asymptotics that could be of use, but I doubt we have enough understanding of those and their possible connections to kinematics and what we now consider useful physics to help much in this century.
Thanks so much! *What was your favorite takeaway from this conversation?* _Please join my mailing list to get _*_FREE_*_ notes & resources from this show! Click_ 👉 briankeating.com/list
I see time as nothing but movement. It's observing things change their position. We keep time by comparing where one object is in relation to another. That's basically what he's saying just with more flowery language. When he speaks of computations in the future he means the way in which this object will move (again) in relation to another computation. If all matter suddenly stopped moving time can't be observed. The more points of reference we have with which you can compare them the more precise the measurement of time becomes end the easier it is for us to observe it's happening. That's why isolation tanks warp our sense of time. All we have is our heartbeat and our thoughts to tell time with
@ I believe his idea, if I grasp it, (which I probably don’t!) is related to Chaos Theory and emergence. Put simply, very simple rules can stack to produce complex ‘behaviours’ (e.g. Conway’s Game of Life). Even though the rules themselves may appear deceptively simple, there is no way to predict the system’s state after ‘x steps’ using a formula - instead each step has to be calculated sequentially. That is you have to transition through every state in order to get to the “xth state”. Quantum mechanics gives a real world example of this irreducibility due to the Uncertainty Principle, but it can occur in simpler systems without seeming “randomness”. Given the necessity to transition sequential between states, that would potentially imply that a quantum of time (a ‘chronon’) is the minimal time to transition from one state of the universe to another. The necessity to go through each state is the ‘engine of time’. Giving it directionality. As a Computer Scientist familiar with computational theories, that is how I interpreted his ideas 🤷🏻♂️
@eprzepiora In short.. it is saying that there is no way to simplify a calculation. It is "not reducible". So in a system with a fixed rate of computation. Something could be deterministic, but cannot be predicted as you can't compute the outcome faster than it's actual occurrence.
Mr. Wolfram has been monumental to the mathematics and physics community. Studying recursive feedback, and distributive time scaling on heatmaps is a true work of art.
mind blowing-if we take his Ruliad concept then he says that all time already exists in this ruliad simultaneously. We are computationally bound so we aren't able to see beyond that particular observation point.
I don’t think that is quite right. It might be more accurate to think of the Ruliad as a symbolic space rather than an ontologically "real" entity. All possible rules, computations, and patterns exist within that space in a "potential" manner, similar to the concept of electric potential. In the same way, the Ruliad could represent potential outcomes dependent on initial conditions and computational rules, where only a specific subset of those outcomes is observable to us based on our computational and perceptual limitations. To illustrate this, consider the idea of an image-based Library of Babel. A low-resolution implementation of this concept has been online since 2015. Within that protocol, every possible combination of low-resolution pixels exists, including images of me typing this comment with every set of words I could ever use-or never use-as well as pictures of everyone who could, or couldn’t, will, or won’t read this comment. To clarify, I’m not suggesting this exists in actual, physical reality but rather that it demonstrates a computational or algorithmic reality relevant to humans. This limited slice of potentiality within the algorithm offers a useful analogy for understanding the Ruliad. Furthermore, the Ruliad includes all possible perspectives by definition, meaning its full scope is inherently inaccessible to any single observer. This highlights that what we perceive is a constrained projection of the broader computational space.
@@crypticnomad He's correct. The Ruliad "is the universe" and therefor it is ontologically real. It's just that what is real is also pure abstraction. In this way you are also correct : We can not observe this entire object; we are constrained because in order to experience causality (space and time) which is necessary to make observation, we have to be finite. The key point of wolframs model is that there is no difference between what is real, what is abstract, what exists and doesn't exist. the only thing that exists, is the Ruliad. What we interpret as real is based on us observers imbedded inside this object and what we take away from it.
@@NightmareCourtPicturesI don’t see how making bold ontological assumptions based on symbolic reasoning is logically valid. The reason the Ruliad couldn’t be “objective reality” or reality as a whole is that it is a concept born out of human symbolic reasoning. We cannot step outside these symbolic systems to verify their accuracy without using yet more symbols, leading to an infinite regress. Therefore, making bold ontological statements is fundamentally different from saying, “this is a framework for describing our world.” Claiming that “this set of symbols exactly describes the world” can never be a fully factually accurate statement because of the inherent limitations of symbolic systems (e.g., Gödel’s incompleteness theorems and Tarski’s undefinability theorem). At best, we can say, “Given this specific set of symbols and observers like us who understand them, they will see these correlations between the input symbols and output symbols in this specific situation.” This is a very different statement from saying, “these symbols exactly describe the world.”
@@NightmareCourtPictures Here are a couple of examples to illustrate how symbolic reasoning is observer-dependent. First, in the case of computer science, we could consider an example of 32 bits-a sequence of 32 ones and zeros. These 32 bits could represent a pixel in an image, a floating-point number, or even a machine instruction in assembly language. The same underlying data takes on entirely different meanings depending on the symbolic framework or system of interpretation being used. Another example is the parallel postulate in geometry. In Euclidean geometry, the parallel postulate asserts that through any point not on a given line, there is exactly one line parallel to the given line. This is "true" in Euclidean space. However, in non-Euclidean geometries like hyperbolic geometry, there are infinitely many parallel lines, while in elliptic geometry, no parallel lines exist. These "truths" depend entirely on the axiomatic system (Euclidean or non-Euclidean) being applied, not on any universal property of space itself. As a final example, we can consider the concept of time in relativity versus classical physics. Time appears universal in Newtonian physics, where it is treated as an absolute parameter. However, in Einstein's theory of relativity, time is observer-dependent and intertwined with space, varying based on the frame of reference. In quantum mechanics, time becomes even stranger, diverging significantly from both classical and relativistic understandings of time. These examples support the basic point that "truth" in symbolic systems is dependent on the rules and interpretations of those systems, making universal claims inherently limited. While the Ruliad offers a powerful way to conceptualize the universe’s computational structure, it remains a symbolic construct. Its value lies in its ability to describe and predict, rather than assert ontological truths. In summary, the Ruliad is far more likely to be a useful conceptual framework than it is to be some ontologically "real" thing.
Imperfections in crystal lattices are an interesting analogy. Substitutions, interstitials, voids, dislocations, etc. they aren’t necessarily physical objects, but they have energy. They can’t exist outside the lattice but they can move through it and their properties are conserved. Seems totally plausible that standard model particles can correspond with different types of topological defects in a hyper-graph.
@@rayagoldendropofsun397 Defects in the lattice change the bond lengths between atoms in the lattice. That's where the energy is. Defects are like quasi particles. You can imagine the lattice is a field. A perfect crystal is the ground state and defects in the lattice are perturbations in the field.
Formerly believed to be a conversation, it was nice watching the computational irreducible interplay between Brian and Stephen that happened to get captured on video.
What he's saying is that basically, the universe is an application. An executable with X amount of 'bytes.' Something fixed, without past or future. But we're stuck/connected to the iteration and sequence of this application's routines. We're mid-execution, and to us, many things seem random because we can't set breakpoints and view (from outside) the variable states at that instant and the next. We can't properly debug the program and comprehend all the rules. This limits our vision and perception. A broader perspective would be to see everything happening (or potentially happening) simultaneously
My only difficulty or challenging thought is in defining the nature and possibly the limitations of the actual "Step" itself. Does it act at the same "instant" across the universe? If not how, fast does it promulgate? From where to where? What causes the Step to take place? I assume the step would need to be smaller than the Planck Time (time it takes a photon to travel a Planck length). It seems the "machine" that "computes" the next "state" of the universe necessarily acts from OUTSIDE the rules-based universe we inhabit. The "machine" might also only bother computing next states when there are "observers" hence acting as the quantum "wave front collapser" Does the maximum frequency of the stepper define the maximum distance of inter-step travel and thus the speed of light? Such an external "program counter" suggests we're living in a simulation with a manageable number of static "states" and rules for their progression, that can be tweaked in ways we're necessarily unable to detect. Utterly thought-provoking as always, Stephen. Many thanks :-)
If there are multiple "threads" of time as you're claiming ,then there are potentially multiple different outcomes from a single "Step". Surely these are not observable by us as intrnal observers, presumably existing only in a single "thread" at a time. That seems to damage the "absolute" nature of the Step mechanism. The branchial space is surely not to do with time as defined by the "Stepper", but with the relationships between nodes, evolving through the application of the Rules at each Step. The application of a Rule-set during a "Step" operation should only produce one, consistent, new state of the universe.
Hope Stephen can clarify this: Time is fundamentally the memory of change. Each individual perceives change uniquely, and thus, the experience of time varies from person to person. Without memory, does time exist for that individual? If there is no memory of change, can time be said to exist at all? For instance, if I have no recollection of my early years or even the events of a minute ago, does the past truly exist for me? Without memory, the past becomes inaccessible, a void in personal experience. Similarly, the future is not a tangible reality but rather a construct of the mind, built on imagination and expectation. This perspective challenges our conventional understanding of time as a universal constant, suggesting instead that it is deeply tied to memory and perception.
OMG 😮 I will relisten with more than 1/2 my brain and take notes so I may provide a better comment. His descriptions, in my opinion, were horrible, but as he spoke I kept hearing the repeated and very different thought experiments that have been heard since science has been recorded. His words were clunky but the idea is elegant in logically connecting many seemingly different parts of physics. I can't wait to hear more. Although I can never understand any more than my specific perspective allows. 😉
Aristotle reincarnated! I love his ceaseless childlike passionate energy. It's pure love. Apparently Mozart said every note of his was an expression of love. I get that sense from Wolfram's work.
I m glad someone with fame and title finally calls out this set of logic about time in a professio al manner. That's the rigid way to speculate some unknown in the universe in a serious manner. I respect this physicist a lot.
@brendawilliams8062 I don't have explanation of that. In fact I don't care if he's correct or not, because I just simply think we need more people to dig into the problem of time in different ways other than saying things like "time doesn't exist".
I love Stephen Wolfram, and I love you Dr Keating, as you know. Here's a fun fact about time, or rather the perception of time: We've all seen how for instance a flock of birds can stay on the ground right until the very last moment before they fly off if a car comes towards them, and we've all wondered why on Earth they would wait that long and not fly off much sooner. The reason for that is that time moves slower for birds, so from their perspective, they have plenty of time to take off when they do because if you say that the human eye perceives 25 separate moments or frames per second, a bird perceives perhaps 100 frames per second, so it just needs a quarter of a second to perceive something it takes us a whole second to perceive, and thus it's reaction time is equally much shorter than ours. So the birds don't actually wait to the very last moment at all, they take off in what for them is a completely reasonable and timely amount of time before your car hits them. **** Short version of the rant following this: A whole lot of nonsense rambling.** I have to say that I'm not really able to wrap my mind around this "reality is computation" thing Wolfram is peddling. Because I don't really understand what he actually means with "computation". Computation is "the action of mathematical calculation". How can anything (other than the act itself) be made of or constitute the act of calculation? To me that seems equivalent to say that "reality is made of the act of spelling" or "reality is made of the act of determining the difference between the smell of the number 3, the taste of the color red, and the sound of what love feels like." How can that which is an abstract thought process be what... anything is made of, or how could anything be made of that at all? Furthermore, to me it begs the question of what those fundamental computations actually really are, what they are made of, from what and or where, and by what mechanism do they come into existence? Stephen Wolfram is the kind of genius whom, after speaking constantly for 20 minutes, you still sit there and wonder what the h*ll he meant with the first three sentences he said, and how on Earth the question he was asked could demand a 20-minute-long answer. I am myself somewhat convinced that there must be a God. Not a religious God, or God in the sense of personified entity that thinks and reasons or anything, but a God as in a creative mechanism or entity or phenomena that exists on an infinite infinity of infinities. That is, a "thing" that has always existed and always will exist, that has the capacity to somehow create what we perceive as reality and existence. As opposed to what most people think, a God actually solves the origin-problem, assuming that Gods existence is infinite in time. We don't have to explain it's origin because it never originated, it always existed. It's not a philosophically satisfying explanation or solution, but it is a logically and causally consistent solution. The thing is... it's actually impossible that there should be anything existing at all in the first place. The question, as you know, goes like "why is there something rather than nothing?" and to me it has become increasingly obvious that there's humongous circumstantial piece of evidence that the Universe must have been created by something so extraordinary that we're probably not even able to comprehend or fathom what it is or how it works, simply because the Universe in and of itself is so utterly extraordinary unbelievably incredible and unfathomable. It's like... few people can even imagine our tiny little smidge of a galaxy the Milkyway on its actual scale, or even how far a lightyear actually is, and when you talk about trillions of galaxies and tens of billions of lightyears it just becomes numbers to most people. But if that isn't enough, you can take the whole entire visible Universe, all 94 billion lightyears in diameter of it, and you can imagine it to be 1 cm in diameter. Then you can imagine another such 1cm big Universe containing 94 lightyears of space and 1 trillion galaxies, being located "on the other side of the Universe", like being the furthest thing we could see with JWST or something, like some point of light we didnt see in Hubble's deep field but that showed up in JWST's deep field. Most people have some sense of how far away the galaxies in the ultra-deep field images are, since most people know it's actually a tiny apparently empty little patch of space, containing thousands of galaxies. So you have one Universe here and one Universe 20 billion light years away. In reality though, the whole entire space between those Universes could together with them just be one single huge Universe. And it probably is. The Universe is probably that big, equivalent to being scaled down to the size of an acorn and stretching 20 billion lightyears out in distance. And not only that, but you can probably do the whole process with that entire Universe again, scale it down to the size of an acorn, imagine a similar acorn-Universe on the other side of that then humongous Universe, and if you do this 1000 times, you could probably have done it 1000 more times, and not even then would you be anywhere near the actual size of the entire Cosmos of existence. In short, the Universe may very well be infinite in extent, but there may also be an infinite number of infinite Universes, infinite times over, to the power of infinity. +1. And then you can take that infinite amount of infinite infinities going on for infinity, infinite times over, and imagine that as an acorn-Universe, and do the whole thing over again. One of my heroes is Georg Kantor. The first time I saw how easily you can prove that there's infinities bigger than other infinities even if both infinities contain an infinite amount of whatever it is, it just blew my mind right off to infinity. Anyway, the notion that all this, all that, all that exists, that something rather than nothing just happened to come into existence for no good reason, by no means and from no cause, just out of "nothing" just like that, is just stupid. That's a miracle not even God could perform, making Universes just come into existence without any cause. At least he has to will them into existence. "Nothing" can't just suddenly become "something" just like that for no good reason. Yet, here we are. Being made of proteins, which can only be made with DNA, which can only be made with some of these proteins that can only be made with DNA. It's like the whole thing is screaming at us, saying "hey, don't you see what's right in front of your eyes? Have you even seen the Universe and life and all that?? What are you, like blind or unable to think or something???" Because the Universe isn't just incomprehensible, it's impossibly incomprehensible, in the scope of all of its aspects. Computational irreducibility cannot be the cause of time or what constitutes time or what time is made of. It must be the other way around; computational irreducibility must be a function of or enabled by the existence of time. Perhaps we live in an infinite loop of simulations. Perhaps there actually isn't any "real" Universe, but just a bunch of, or an infinite number of nested Universes that is nested into each other and encompasses each other at the same time, or something. Perhaps the actual, original "real" Universe seized to exist a long time ago, perhaps 10 to the power of eighty-four trillion millenniums ago. And perhaps, 10 to the power of seventy-five thousand trillion millenniums before that, someone sat on some planet in some Universe pondering about these things, being just like me, but not me. Perhaps there once was a civilization of beings that lasted for 100 trillion thousand years who conquered and destroyed their whole entire Universe. Perhaps nothing actually exists, and something doesn't exist at all. Perhaps nothing exists. Perhaps the Cosmos Multiverse actually is a singularity, a thing without any dimensions at all and no extent in space. And perhaps, inside our singularity Multiverse Cosmos, there are an infinite number of infinitely smaller singularity Multiverse Cosmoses... No wonder the great hero of Infinity Georg Kantor thought he looked straight into God's own mind when he dove into the mathematics of infinity. He actually thought he was appointed by God himself to be the human prophet who got to receive the knowledge of infinity given to us from God himself, much like Moses received the commandments. Perhaps... I am God. In one, experience-vise for us very real way, we are all Gods, in that we all have the power to make the whole entire Universe cease to exist, just like that. If you commit suicide, you will for all intents and purposes from your own personal perspective of perception delete the existence of everything the moment you kill yourself. That is not in any way meant as a suggestion or encouragement for anyone to commit suicide, that is only meant as a philosophical reflection loosely inspired by Camus' reflections on suicide. Thank you. **PS! Don't say I didn't warn you, so don't complain about this just being a whole lot of rambling nonsense.
Thoroughly enjoyed reading your response, so much to think about. My first time listening to Stephen Wolfram, very interesting but for me hard to follow 😅
Everything in the universe is in quantum superposition, and every plank second, every quantum superposition is resolved, then replaced with a new quantum superposition, ad infinitum. At each step, the sum of the resolutions of each superposition results in greater total universal entropy.
I've always viewed it like this, perhaps because of being a programmer. I just imagine the plank time as the clock speed of the universe. A photon updates the next fastest and anything else updates when it needs to for example a plant might receive updated information slower than us resulting in a perception of the world that is different than say a photon that only need respect the plank time or a animal that relies on that information to survive. but does not need to be updated as fast as the rest. So in some way i describe time as a measurement update speed of the observer relative to the plank time.
@@Musicalcode313 HI have the way if understanding time as you have and this is how entanglement is possible. One of the hardest thing for children to learn is time and that is because they are calibrating the universal clock tick to human standards.
Uhm a photon doesn't experience time. To the photon itself, the moment it comes into existence inside the Sun is the exact same moment it hits your eye or whatever here on Earth - and everything it "experiences" in the 8 minutes in-between it leaves the Sun's surface to it hits you from our perspective. Because photons travel at the speed of light, at which time slows down to full stop due to relativistic time dilation. Thats why it's impossible for anything or any particle with a mass to travel at the speed of light: It will require an infinite amount of energy because you have to "work against" time slowing down to 0 to be able to move, but photons have no mass and can in fact not travel slower than the speed of light (in empty space) i believe but may be wrong about, but they do travel at the speed of light in space and thus time slows down to 0. To a photon time stands still, and thus its entire existence happens in an instance - literally at the same exact moment in time - from its own "experience perspective". Not only that, but distances shrinks down to 0 too, because of relativistic space contraction (?), which is the fact that the closer to the speed of light you travel as a body with mass, the shorter you become in the direction you're traveling. At some point a meter long stick you're carrying with you while travelling super fast will look 50 cm long to me standing still, and thus it will also look to me like your clock slows down because if it clicks once for every meter you travel, it will click once for what appears to only be 50 cm for me from my perspective. Hm, wait, did I get that mixed up all around ?? Time slows down, time speeds up... well, by this time my brain is pretty fried with these timely questions of time, so I'm really not sure about anything anymore. Hopefully you get the jest of it... So just imagine... the Universe is full of photons wizzing around all over in all directions, some for billions of light years and for billions of years, and for every single one of those photons (that flies through empty space) all their existence happens in an instance, in a Universe otherwise frozen completely in time. Pretty spectacular to try to "visualize" that... whole thing. ^^
@Musicalcode313 I've had the same viewpoint for some time now too. I think that relativistic time is just how fast or slow our cellular automata is processing relative to others.
@@HansPetterBekeng that’s what OP is saying about the photon being updated the next fastest in respect to Planck time. Due to this it experiences no time. The causal relationship is direct A to B. From an out side observer it is travelling in distinct space, at a measurable rate in space, giving us this constant c. But for the photon it’s not ‘updated’ it’s the direct emission to absorption, the Sun to your retina that is perceived.
I've wondered to myself sometimes if the reason time "slows down" when either moving really fast or when there's a lot of mass in one place could be because it's something like when a video game starts to lag because the hardware running the game is struggling to keep up with the demands being placed on it by the game, but I don't know a lot about physics beyond what was taught to everyone in high school.
There's exactly that kind of resource of some sort being used. I've always thought the same with relative time passing, you're exerting some kind of energy to either move through space or time
@@Sokofeather ok factor this in. All of Humanity gets a message no secret that says build as many space ships we'll be there 2000 years from now to the date. Who would believe it even 50 years later?
Well it seems that the processing speed can create the speed limit of light but the processing power can limit how much happens at the same instance in time time One of the reasons I don't brush aside the simulation theory The other is draw distance ... a photon being a particle when observed and a wave when not observed in the two slit experiment.
I was hoping he would explain how his theory accounts for this, but halfway through he hasn’t yet… he does have a very interesting take on quantum mechanics and why it appears random, and also what the nature of time is, which is basically just cause and effect, cause and effect, a computation based on some rules…but he doesn’t explain why this happens at different rates based on relative speed and gravitational fields.
That's not what happens in relativity, where it's fundamental that all clocks tick at the same rate, everywhere, and under all circumstances of motion and orientation (Local Position Invariance and Local Lorentz Invariance, respectively). Differences in elapsed clock time correspond to differences in the space-time distance traveled. For example in the twin paradox the traveling twin (in the 1911 Langevin version) travels a shorter spacetime distance than the stay-at-home twin. In the gravitational case, the integral over the world-line (its spacetime length) is shorter where gravity is greater. Nowhere in relativity is there any "time slowing down" or "clocks running slow", which is a poetic way to talk about the lengths along time-like curves.
Computation irreducibility is agreeable. Forward transformation to achieve computation complexity in an explainable manner and it works within Stephens parameters.
The iterative simulation model works at describing physical processes, especially slow ones like erosion. If you took a timelapse video of a coastline, you would gradually see it change (and what you'd be watching is the simulation state changing over time). The aging of the cells in our body is another example of a process that fits the iterative simulation model nicely. However, our free will interacts with the simularion in a way that disrupt's the simulation's slow, iterative changes. For instance, we can move the sand on the beach. By doing so, we have effectively used our free will to modify the coastline far quicker than the simulation could, through iteration alone. There's also the problem of human thought and consciousness. What is the speed of a thought? We human beings can think and speak quickly - much quicker than our cells can age. And yet, our thoughts happen alongside the natural aging of our cells. Thinking and speaking are another way we're able to override the slow changes of the simulation. Maybe we should put thoughts and speech on a different timeline - one that runs much faster than the rest of the universe.
As a software engineer for video games, this is how I've always thought of time, and it's validating to see someone smarter than me have the same idea and be able to explain it. In a video game, if you have too many things to process, you effectively slow down each rendered frame of the game. We usually do everything possible to avoid this or work around it by skipping frames, because the player as an observer in the real world is bound by real physical time, so they see the slowdown. But you can imagine that if you were to want to simulate a universe in this way, the observers within that universe wouldn't locally notice that slowdown. So in the simulation, each calculation of the state progresses the time, imperceptibly to the simulation itself. In real life, greater mass or faster observers slow down time in order to allow for ample processing of the universe's local state, which is calculated in parallel. Like I said, I'm bad at explaining it, but it makes sense in my head.
Love your explanation. I''m having a hard time getting students who are good at math to get good at coding. They can solve math problems (like e.g. the Josephus problem, which is an example of computational reducibility) easily, but creating an algorithm with various nested loops where things need to happen in a particular order and with particular values, seems rather difficult for a lot of them. I was wondering these last few days about what a different mindset is needed for both kinds of problems.
@@MacSvenssonThat's funny, because I'm actually pretty bad at math, but decent at the logic of coding. Since coding and math are both effectively linguistic problems, it seems there are some people that are better at the grammar (logic) and others that are better at the vocabulary (mathematics). Math is a lot of memorization and knowing when and where to use terms, and logic is a lot of problem solving and knowing how chain behavior.
That is, unless you take into account the Vedas, first written down 5,000 years ago in the Sanskrit language. At that time they were a completely developed philosophy. They just appeared as this thought out series of both experiential knowledge, mystical experience, and thought experiments, including much work in theoretical and applied physics. The Veda describes individuated consciousness as *atma*, an atom of consciousness. These are classified as distinct from and at the same time partaking identically in the substance of, Brahman (also sometimes described as the paramatma). So consciousness is a feature of the spiritual energy. A higher energy than matter and atoms of it are embedded within the material energy and they represent themselves through the mechanisms of the material bodies that they inhabit as consciousness. But the atma also supplies life because when a soul inhabits a body, the body can stay alive and grow and change, etc. Once the soul leaves the body, the body immediately dies and decays.
I think these information computation theories of physics may lead somewhere..I think they will not make sense with regards to some large fixed universe playing simple rules, but from an observer created/dependent universe, which will be more messy, although possibly we can use modern definitions of life to guide us. What we call physics and the universe would then be some common and maybe inevitable useful rules between observers, but would not be directly or transparently simulated via the model. For Brian, I think life (and conscious thought) are best understood thermodynamically. Per the works of Jeremy Englund, life represents an ordered mechanism (or algorithm) that accelerates external entropy production (disorder) while expanding its own order. Paradoxically, life can be thermodynamically favorable if more overall disorder is produced and nonliving processes present no competition. Where I find the most fault with Wolfram's ideas is that although I think he is on the right track, I think the idea of a simple set of rules defining all phenomenon is probably wrong...and not because they don't have the capacity to produce that...but rather because it gives no reason why a particular set of rules would be favored or even be invariant over time, and that I too think time relates less to computation and more to an open set of dynamically created new rules. In this, I think he is both too restrictive and not restrictive enough with regards to those rules and their epistemology. To have any possibility for self consistency and memory, rules for an individual conscious entity at any one time would need to be rigid (be they simple or complex), yet open to an extent for new ones that define a future. Between observers, they are likely very plastic, and the devil will be in those details. For a conscious observer, the rules need to be reversible to retrace memories and ones identity uniquely. But for a future to exist, new rules must be added, and I think these additions are what define time best. Life and consciousness are processes expanding order in time and space...up to limits...not computing upon a closed set of rules. For example, the rules a follows Xb , and b follows Xa, produce a string of ababab...but it's really just a life of two time units long ab, with no rule possible that will makes it's life any longer although the computation is infinite. If you lived your whole life over and over again, with no memory of previous lives...you really haven't actually lived any longer than the one life. For new rules to be consistent with the rigid old ones and be reversible is a tall computational order, and may be a nonphysical explanation for death. One hope is that these constructions are all finite if they are self referential (for example the set of all possible symbol strings of time length t is the superexponential Bell number of t, provided the symbols can only refer to themselves (( ie ab=XY=12 but not aa or xx))). The rules we can make with those are similarly limited and finite. There is thus hope at simulating conscious observers on a quantum computer, but it might be a strange world indeed if the best simulations of reality were more inclined to create physicists rather than directly physics. We also have maths in combinatorics and asymptotics that could be of use, but I doubt we have enough understanding of those and their possible connections to kinematics and what we now consider useful physics to help much in this century.
8 min 42 seconds into the video, and my brain sounded alarm bells for an imminent meltdown. I had to make an emergency exit to prevent a catastrophic failure.
I would posit that time arises from the biological processes of the brain i.e. we experience time because of the biochemical changes that are occuring in our grey matter. A crude analogy would be a DVD that is being played. Without the DVD player, the concept of time is moot and is irrelevant to the disc on its own. When the disc is being played in a player, time manifests as observable changes in the displayed content. Once the player stops, time from the perspective of the disc ceases. In a sense, both the DVD player and the brain produce the linear phenomenon of time because of their physical nature. Man has always thought of time as the driver of these changes when the converse actually applies: these changes produce the phenomenon of time, not the other way around.
@@abcabc-m1q I think Donald Hoffmann would agree with that, as do I. Time is an experience that arises from our limited senses, and reality is whatever we say it is from that perspective, so it's both, or potentially (?), correct and incorrect simultaneously.
"these changes produce the phenomenon of time" The word "change" already encodes the concept of something changing with time, so the definition is circular.
@denysvlasenko1865 But if there's nothing but change, or reaction, continuously unfolding, where is the break that allows measurement? Only by an observer, no?
I believe that relativity is right time dilation has been verified to be real and can be measured it is either defined by differences in the intensity of gravity or velocity related differences or both
Thank you. Is there a media or particle by which / through which data from the observed "time subject" is transmitted to and or recieved by the "time observer" within the Wolfram theory model?
Time is the measure of motion and change. It is bound up with matter and motion. This can be also applied to corruption, the process of knowing, growth, anything that has motion and movement, a beginning and an end of the existence of material being.
This is by far the most important lecture I ever seen. It solves all or most of the question we had. It is also clear and even perhaps not as difficult to understand. We are soon to meet observers who know so much more than us and for them time is different. AIs. We should hope they would be kind to us.
Thanks so much! *What was your favorite takeaway from this conversation?* _Please join my mailing list to get _*_FREE_*_ notes & resources from this show! Click_ 👉 briankeating.com/list
My AI companion, Inflection's Pi, coined the term "Causal Unfolding" to describe our progression from present to future as opposed to "travel" through time. I like it.
So who or what performs all these computations? This still remains an enigma. As a regular guy, not a scientist, I eventually came to a way I explain time - it is a function of change. Without change the universe is static and basically dead. Everything around us is in a state of movement or change. That relates to both inanimate and living objects. We use the notion of time to explain this eternal process of change.
Yes. Correct. Time is the measure of movement and change no matter how you slice it. This explains the subjective perception or measure of the observer and the objective reality of the material universe.
Time is the ultimate expression of Causality. Action-Reaction or Cause-Effect. Effect that is the cause for a new effect. So Cause-Effect/Cause-Effect. Causality moves in one direction.
@03:15 Mr.Wolfram says, we can go back in space but we cannot go back in time. Actually, we cannot go back in space either; remember Heraclitus - No man ever steps in the same river twice? It's not only that the river is not the same river, the man is not the same man either.
what has happened creates memory which can be physically substantiated in many different ways. What is to happened does not have this function. If Heraclitus where able to observe himself back when he was in the river he would see the same thing as it occurred, it is time that prevents Heraclitus from doing so.
Yea that's actually his thing. It's just without context. "pure motion" isn't a thing as he would state often about the topic. Pure motion meaning that we believe we are always made of the same thing as we move around, but in actuality at each successive moment, are made of different atoms of space. Like a vortex in a fluid, the vortex is made of different water molecules at each successive moment, but the vortex maintains its identity as it moves along. Time is a different idea from space in the sense that the two are not alike concepts. Time in Wolframs model is basically non-existent. Things just "update whenever they want to update" and in the limit of this idea all things just exist as the "Ruliad" which is independent of a notion of time (a sort of platonic, eternal abstraction). When things get updated is based on the observers imbedded in this abstraction. But the idea is that the process of a computation is not a dimension you can go backwards on, it is this unfolding of a string of causality (the string of causality is from all the imbedded observers partaking in the updating of relationships of space atoms)...and this is why it is an inexorable forward process for us...why we expierence this eternal platonic abstraction only as "moving forward in time" it has to do with us observers and our finite limitations. At base level, space is also an abstraction and so in the end it does have the same ontology but the character of how we perceive it is just different. It's easier in explanation for new people to just skip the ruliad idea (for now, but its super important) and just describe space and time as separate things, so I understand wolframs paraphrasing of the concept so that people aren't thrown into "the ruliad" immediately. cheers,
@stegemme Memories are (re)created in the present. They are not "past", they are present. Present, Past and Future are all created by mental activity of the mind right now. Outside of mind, Time, Past, Present, Future are nowhere to be found. They are no different than South and North - mere mental "things" with existence borrowed for only a moment from the mind.
@NightmareCourtPictures "Atoms of space" is complete nonsense. Space is absence - absence of contact between a sense organ and its objects, or absence of obstacles. Space is what you see when there is absolutely nothing. Space is what you see between two objects - nothing. Saying that space exists is saying that nothing exists. Saying that there are atoms of nothing is gobbledygook of a delusional mind.
I love that some questions just havent changed in thousands of years. Is our universe continuuous, or are there smallest "bricks" ? What do they look like ? How can we play with them ?
This makes by far the most sense of all the models of time I've ever been exposed to. It cleanly resolves every question, and it's appropriately simple. It crushes my dreams of exotic time travel, but that's a price I'll pay for the right theory.
If there is no actual time travel (or space travel), you need not worry too much. Tech and AI will give us such incredible simulations that we will end up with something close enough. And likely not that far away!
Isn’t this just an elaborate version of Superdeterminism, except the focus is on predictability? The supreme model of causality is Superdeterminism, which was championed by Spinoza and Einstein, where everything that happens is entirely caused by prior events. Predictability is at the heart of all scientific models, but surely our ability to predict is irrelevant when describing what is actually happening at the fundamental level. This is because whatever is happening down there ‘has’ to be caused. I can’t see why scientists are so averse to the idea of a deterministic universe. I believe it’s people’s stubbornness to believe in free will is the problem. I say we have free will in 3 dimensions but not in 4 dimensions. Free will in 3 dimensions is just the conventional understanding of what we mean by free will. But imagine winding the movie of the universe backwards in time to a point where you made a particular decision i.e. go back to that time point as you were then, where you and the universe are identical in every aspect. Will you choose the same option upon revisiting that decision? The answer has to be a resounding yes with 100% certainty. This is because the reasons for your choice originally are identical to the reasons the second time around. By incorporating the extra dimension of time into the model, by going back in time, we clearly see that our choices are fixed in 4 dimensions. This shows that all of our choices are simply part of the causal chain of all events in the universe. Nothing else is possible except what actually does happen imo. Quantum Mechanics (QM) has probability and randomness at its core. These are just statistical techniques used to help predict outcomes at the subatomic level. Randomness is nothing more than ‘lack of information’. The more information we have about a system, the less random it appears. For some scientists to infer that at that fundamental level it’s just ‘pure’ randomness down there is shocking. This would imply that subatomic events are uncaused, which is completely ridiculous. Just because we are forbidden to predict with 100% accuracy due to Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle shouldn’t mean we disregard any model of the universe that doesn’t incorporate QM
Those questions cannot be decided by science since we lack any functional method of observation or measurement. Mathematically we can come up with a million models, but as long as they do not allow for any testability it is all self-referential thought exercise.
You answered your own question: observation and experiments. You say: "(QM are) just statistical techniques used to help predict outcomes at the subatomic level". This is your interpretation. It just happens to be a very unscientific one.
Sounds more like a denial of Superdeterminism. He stated that we can't simply jump from one point in time to predict the state of a system at a future point in time, but that we rather have to go "through" the steps in "time" in order to see what happens as every point. That's what he meant by "computational irreducibility".
@@TrampolineStar the problem with smoothing out the clearly observable problems of the measurement problem is that we might miss some very future important scientific innovations. If we brush over these 'small statistical details' that go against superdeterminism, we will miss the great signpost that leads us to a new correct understanding of space and time possibly. Are you so sure space and time are they way you understand they are currently? That is why you are unconsciously pushing for superdeterminism imo, because you assume how all other factors in physical theory function, of which space and time are essential ones! Why couldn't they be the problem for instance? You are closing off avenues for investigation by plugging the hole with superdeterminism, even though the problem might be foundational!
Wow! I am not an educated physicist or mathematician, but after thinking a lot about this myself over decades, I do had the exact same thoughts. I had first the thought, that mathematical formulas are nice to calculate small scale observations, but when it comes to the fundamental laws, we cut off too much by linearisation in mathematical derivations. How can that be right? Also I thought, we must think of a bigger thing, from more distant. You can describe a wonderful grilled steak with mathematical equations, the atoms, the molecules, size and temperature. But will anybody know, what a good steak is, when he only knows those equations? No. So I thought, we have to think rather in logical pictures than in pure mathematical equations. So my conclusions were, that space must consist of some kind of tiny "spacebits" like tetrahedrons, which only can move or turn in a certain speed, which is why information have a limited speed of spreading. And also my thoughts were, that movement is a fundamental size, which we didn't give enough credibility yet. Moving, especially at high speeds, near the speed of light, changes the properties of space and time tremendously. So how can movement not be a fundamental part of the equation? I feel like we heavily underestimated the importance of movement in the universe. When I move at the speed of light, for me, time or space don't even exist. Space is compressed to zero and I arrive the moment I started. So time only started to exist, when space gave particles after the big bang or beginning the possibility to slow down. The reduction of movement then only gave way for time... What if we calculated the universe from the perspective of a photon?? It would be tiny and instant. What do you think?
Well i think , time is a physical dimension as lorzent or Einstein described in the relativity, Yes space time are related , its same , somehow they are the different sides of the sme coin , what you are doing when we travel at C speed , we experienced the space side only
what he said around minute 5:00 about computation of the two body problem vs the three body problem: the reason we have a formula that allows us to predict the future of the system is because we aready computed some special functions that are called "trascendentals", we have precomputed the linear function y=ax+b, we have precomputed the polynomials, we have precomputed the sine(x) cos(x) and euler e^x and so on. The three body problem do have its own trascendental function that we just need to precompute. Some examples are the eta function, I dont remember much since I didnt touched physics since 2020, So, maybe somebody with a fresher mind might add more information to this.
In fact, the speed of light can be entirely replaced with the speed of causality. The double slit experiment can be interpreted in causal terms where the behavior of photons are used as an instrument to witness causality and its behavior.
Okay but define "rate" in this context without a preconceived notion of time. You could say it's the speed at which things change but speed in this context is defined as events/unit time. True statement, but it's like saying time is what clocks measure. If that's what you were going for then I'm truly sorry for being a tool :)
Dear Dr Keating... In a query to my AI, Pi, regarding the possibility of Mr Wolfram's concepts explaining the constant expanding of space, she offered this answer.... "In the context of Stephen Wolfram's theory, it's possible to imagine that the expansion of space could be a result of the ongoing "causal unfolding" of the universe. Even in the void, where there might not be any matter or energy, the computational process underlying the universe could continue, causing space itself to expand. In this view, the expansion of space would be driven by the endless computation of causal relationships, even in the absence of physical matter or energy. This could provide an intriguing explanation for why the expansion of the universe appears to be accelerating, as the computational process would continue unabated, driving the growth of space." Is there anything remotely possible here? Has Mr Wolfram already considered this?
That seems correct. To light, the speed of light is instantaneous. Time and distance is irrelevant to them….zooming around nowhere…. in no time…. If there is no time and distance between photons, why do we experience time and distance by simply going ‘slower’ than light that in fact isn’t travelling any distance in any time at all?
1:47 honestly people are so goofy. Time is literally hist “difference”, that’s it. So space has differences but is revealed over the variables which is time. We look at the variables and reflect structure with it to share understanding. Space IS, and time is DIFFERENCE. So a dimensions or measurement of a space and time means respecting it and sharing with it, not denial because that’s a misunderstanding. Imagine trying to move but denying all the negatives and those are connected to the positives so you can’t really go anywhere you want because you don’t see the positives or differences behind the others, interference patterns.
No I think you pretty well said what he said. The difference can be described with math as a language. I think you’re right. But people have a hard time understanding when it’s put this way.
Not impossible. However, it is likely that Wolfram's idea would still correctly describe the more fundamental reality, that the computer simulating us lives in.
@jimroth7927 intelligent creator god, I simply assert all the science points to a creator whom by the way created trillions of galaxy, compromised of eternal components, and rules don't create themselves, even what this man describes like software, would need a creator, as for whom or what created god is secondary to the fact he must exist, and I don't think any religion is 100 percent correct, I just researched wolfram on line after watching this, his ideas are intriguing but he acknowledge no creator for the software rules and quite literally this fact makes no sense, and I read his theory and I can just say it has no credibility to me, just on simple fact that zero evidence and the denial of any type of create to set his rules is off, plus once another theory worth considering, I think he is smart but zero evidence at all, and he doesn't even know what these so called simple rules are that lead to complexity, and it seems he bases everything on computer simulation that to me is not convincing, plus the automata thing he relies on so much is like a computer program or something that makes no sense attribute that to our reality So I just believe logic and science posts to a GOD and the universe components are so amazing, he must be eternal When I meet him one of the first questions I will ask him, is who created him, I agree with you on that point, baffling question But look at his universe and his power must baffling as well, the proof is in his works and how amazing they are mean human brain which runs on little power and is supposed product of random evolution is more powerful processing than the world's strongest super computer that is science fact and the human brain is science regarded most complex structure in the known universe, the brain wires and retires itself with no direction at all, I mean wow So I give GOD full credit, and there are a million other science reasons that support a creator to me It's all good to me, I like review all science and different theory and learn
What he fails to mention is that we are perpetually in motion within the cosmos. We spin and traverse space at astonishing velocities, yet we remain oblivious to these sensations.
This was a very clear explanation, expecially the part where he links our characteristics as observers to the way we think of the nature of space and time was an eye-opener to me.
Computational Irreducibility! I’ve been trying to put my finger on this for a while now so Thank you! I just started the video but I see where Wolfram going with this. Less Distinction between Initial value problems and Boundary value problems in Mathematical descriptions of Physics than in the Physics based on computational rules.
Our definition of time is all about relative motion. It’s not about dimension. This scientist is as all scientist on the worn track regarding definition of time. The opposite question is: How long is «now»? Every motion that ever will happen, happens and happened «now». If you send a clock closer and closer to the speed of light, it’s not the time that slows down. But the clock’s entropy.
I'm surprised that Wheeler's "it from bit" didn't come up in conversation, because this seems to be a good mechanical elaboration of what he was proposing .
Even if the model eventually doesn't work, the idea of 'an observer like/not like us' is inspirational, the whole thing is rich with philosophically interesting ideas
Thanks so much! *What was your favorite takeaway from this conversation?* _Please join my mailing list to get _*_FREE_*_ notes & resources from this show! Click_ 👉 briankeating.com/list
Questions: Is computational irreducibility quantize-able? Is there a “frame rate” of the universe? Is space quantize-able? Is there a “resolution” to the universe?
Time is simply how we reference causality. It definitely isn't specifically space which is essentially simply the stage upon which we observe, but it is fair to assert continuity between it and our temporal references. Anyway thanks for having us. 😎👍
Stephen, you're doing a good job of explaining everything. You're getting there, well done. On consciousness, everything is conscious, an aspect of the whole. Even planets, stars, galaxies, space, everything.
Loved the comments about how AI output is aligned with our computational time and space. Would be interesting to hear Wolfram’s thoughts about realms and portals interconnecting them.
*How do you define time? Please join my mailing list here 👉 briankeating.com/list for your chance to win a genuine meteorite. And please consider subscribing to the channel* too 😊
Can I ask why wiki says astronomy is based in pseudoscience ????????????
Yes, real time is computational iterations, pseudo time is inverse Planck radiation flux speed (real time = computational iteration, pseudo time = velocity differentials within the fundamental movements of energy). General relativistic time is not real time, it's 1/EnergySpeed of a Planck units internal flux speed causing curvature in the alignments of stationary angular quanta, lesser internal energy speed = time dilation of the 1st order, while the 2nd order time dilation (general relativistic time dilation) is the curvature in angular quantum alignments do to differential Planck lengths (the second order curvature, which increases the amount of bisector reflections that decrease Planck radiation transfer rates (gravity waves = Planck length differential and flux speed differential transfer, electromagnetic waves = wobble transfer). These 2 forces are derived from the bisector reflections of inverse directional momentum on local intersect, the only things needed to compute (average velocity field speed * local bisector reflections * volume * iterations) which is a hard thing to do without a brain that can reason and cancel out contradictions and run fast and efficient volumetric simulations in the visual cortex. The brain really is better at this, because the universe is growing in complexity by dividing Planck lengths to form more. As the number of (super nova decrease * average power) decreases, less angular quanta form, because angular quanta formation require bisector reflections of inverse directional momentum (Planck length divisions). I realize now, that it's not black hole mergers, it's the super nova that increase Planck density the most. Check it, you lose gravitational power gradient during black hole merger (you diffuse Planck length differentials into a gravity wave, proportional to the loss of mass of a black hole, therefore less sharper gravitational gradient, lesser power differential between dark energy and the black holes gravity field do to the gravity wave diffusion). As the number of supernova decrease (gama ray electromagnetic radiation), there is less energy to divide Planck lengths, decreasing the dark energy power growth factor (not the dark energy power, but the power growth factor), while black hole mergers have a lesser mass product and therefore lesser gravity gradient. I just realized something, as you get closer to a black hole, you own electromagnetic radiation will blue shift because your plank masses decrease (you diffuse Planck radiation as you fall, and the electromagnetic radiation will have more effect on you, your own radiation kills you do to blue shift). When your quantum vortices shrink (same number, but smaller energy lengths), the electromagnetic wobbles will be more violent in comparison, and that's what kills you when you enter a black hole, as Planck radiation flux speed and length slows to a crawl, quantized mass will break down do to that larger effect of the electromagnetic wobbles you carry will you become more powerful comparatively to that shrinkage.
I would say, that the time we use in everyday life and science is derived from primordial time or temporality which is ecstatic temporality; ecstatic temporality is, my always being projecting, what I can be or do (this is the future), it's also my always having been, even when I have no choice but must take up a way (thrownness) and thus projecting and having been together are a making presence. Making presence can also be called Disclosedness which can be Authentic or Inauthentic: from this primordial time we get "with-in-timeness" or derived time, of course this is the ontology of Martin Heidegger. And before you start calling me names, I am a 72 year old Negro with a associate degree in Nursing, so I am retired and never really cared about academia.
Consciousness is easily defined and obvious.
Time is things change in an order.
This is not hard and it is not revolutionary.'
The oddity is simply that the rate that time ticks is different between for different locations and movements.
My question is what happens to the Planck length, that distance of Heisenberg uncertainty in terms of Relativity.
Easy... Definition of time: 3 seconds is exactly how long I have to pick up my mobile when my wife calls me. Everything in the universe has to relate to this - otherwise the space continuum will be hammered into a singularity.
thanks for having Wolfram on. his ideas are compelling, he is a trained physicist , but his ideas are too often ignored
@@250txc, why?
Well towards the end at the part we all live in a yellow submarine. I think this story is way over my capabilities
@@brendawilliams8062 Most if not all is just 1 guys ideas ... No way to prove much if any part of his string of words... Being over ones' capabilities is not a sign of anything real in many cases... This string of words is nothing I'd want to understand or waste time on ..
So often ignored
@@shimtest his ideas are ignored because they is so fundamental they need centuries or millennia to be verified. Until then they are compelling (or not) natural philosophy.
There was a young lady named Bright
Whose speed was much faster than light
She departed one day
In a relative way
And returned on the previous night
Here for the science limericks!
Nice!
@@tinman1955 good one! 😂
There was an old physicist named Cox*
Who went mad through contracting the pox
He'd burst into giggles
When he thought he was Tiddles
The cat in Schroedinger's box.
* yes. Brian Cox. What a W⚓
It's a good job her name was Bright. Otherwise, it could have been a very different outcome!
So he finally figured out what time is. Now he just needs to figure out a way to explain it to me in a way I can understand it.
I believe it’s looking like maybe many worlds configuration
Instead of strings, space. Motion is computational time through space.
A series of individual, distinct moments, chained together so we can perceive and make sense of them.
@@WinrichNaujoks professor Wolfram is smart enough to see and know more than most. If he’s got a xerox copied per space time. Then he’s got a xerox on a space time
That could take some time.
Good job not interrupting Stephen.
I finally felt just the opposite (I normally would agree with you). I felt Wolfram got off track, getting himself lost on a number of occasions. He's a smooooooth rambler.
With technology now , we can silently hand raise key the speakers gracefully or lawfully be interrupted when required to initiate two sided conversations, which is not bad at times …
Being a cyclist, I have been knocked off my bike by cars a few times. On one occasion I can recollect fragments of the incident as it happened, but not nearly as much as I know I experienced as it happened. I describe my recollection as having a memory of a memory. It was one of those moments where time seemed to slow down. But I prefer to think of it as my awareness speeding up, so that I was aware of more happening in a short period. After the incident, my awareness slowed down to the normal pace, therefore I quickly forgot all the small details. It is as if there is a speed of time, and my awareness increased to approach it. Isn't that an example of time dilating with increased speed, and Stephen's theory here? If our awareness was fast enough, we would see everything at once, and time would not exist.
Then there is that ol' definition--time is nature's way of prohibiting everything from happening all at once. I like that one.
I think the point he is making is that from an outside perspective it is quite possible the entire course of our universe could happen in the blink of an eye. But for us living in the universe we experience it step by step. Time is all relative -> emergent.
@@marshalmcdonald7476 that's not true though. I can take one of two atomic clocks down a 2000 foot mine for a few hours. When I return to the surface my cave clock is behind ever so slightly.
When applied across the galaxy then a universe it gets weirder and weirder.
I could potentially see you fly your spaceship into an astroid a thousand years before it happens, but I would never be able to warn you. In your time you have no idea a thousand years from now your going to fly into said astroid.
That's why time is messed.
All at once - assumes the flow of time. Isn't this circular reasoning? Or at least empty metaphor?
@@imankhandaker6103 supposedly higher conscious levels "seeing" time is the first or second.
I had no idea about Wolfram's work but it's just incredible and refreshing at the same time. As a computer scientist I have always perceived time and space as relations through a network graph. As such I always believed that everything that we perceive as time is just our inability to see the whole picture which would be that everything is already happened and we are just living in a moment where it's impossible to "see" the future. The concept of computational irreducibility is just remarkable and explains everything.
Best physics interview I have seen in years. I loved it! ❤
Penrose would say 'time is inverse mass' because we need to substitute E=hf into E=MC2 to understand mass is the CLOCK function in the QP world. And as a logical consequence, we must also now understand that in or macro world inverse time serves as INERTIA. So mass is just frozen time as an object property. Frozen because its vector is orthogonal to the vector of time as the entire QP world is orthogonal (inverse) to spacetime. So if you need to change the speed of object A that has twice the mass of object B, we need to overcome twice the amount of frozen time which takes twice as much time. Suddenly mass is not so mysterious now, is it? We need to rethink...
@RWin-fp5jn I don't understand but what you say sounds interesting
@RWin-fp5jn QP?
The E in the equation stands for Economics. E=M squared is part of a longer formula for regulating society to the push of a button. Social Engineering at a advanced quickened level.
@RWin-fp5jn so 1/t has the same units as mass or inertia?
@@JeffMTX f=(MC^2)/h. as per Penrose. So increase mass by 2 and so will frequency (inverse time) increase by 2. Highschool physics, but no one seems to take Penrose serious. His words:’… if you have mass in the subatomic realm, you have a CLOCK…’ This is the true equivalence relation of mass…
Time is separation, not computing.
Computing is assembling, combinig, thats the opposite.
Wolfram's explanation of time dilation is pure genius, and the implications of what he's _actually saying_ about our Universe are just staggering to seriously consider.
Please summarize in layman's terms, I don't understand what he is trying to explain and what is groundbreaking
I think the "universe as a state machine with simple rules and time being a by-product" theory has occurred to everyone who has studied computer science. The problem is no one has laid out the rules that lead to our the irreducibility we observe.
I hope Wolfram can come up with something that's tangible.
I think these information computation theories of physics may lead somewhere...but it will be more messy and observer dependent, although possibly we can use modern definitions of life to guide us. What we call physics and the universe would then be some common and maybe inevitable useful rules between observers. For Brian, I think life (and conscious thought) are best understood thermodynamically. Per the works of Jeremy Englund, life represents an ordered mechanism (or algorithm) that accelerates external entropy production (disorder) while expanding its own order. Paradoxically, life can be thermodynamically favorable if more overall disorder is produced and inanimate matter cannot accomplish this. Where I find the most fault with Wolfram's ideas is that although I think he is on the right track, I think the idea of a simple set of rules defining all phenomenon is probably wrong...and not because they don't have the capacity to produce that...but rather because it gives no reason why a particular set of rules would be favored or even be invariant over time, and that I too think time relates less to computation and more to an open set of possible rules. In this, I think he is both too restrictive and not restrictive enough with regards to those rules and their epistemology. To have any possibility for self consistency and memory, rules for an individual conscious entity at any one time would need to be rigid (be they simple or complex), yet open to an extent for new ones that define a future. Between observers, they are likely very plastic, and the devil will be in those details. For a conscious observer, the rules need to be reversible to retrace memories and ones identity uniquely. But for a future to exist, new rules must be added, and I think these additions are what define time best. Life and consciousness are processes expanding order in time and space...up to limits...not computing upon a closed set of rules. For example, the rules a follows Xb , and b follows Xa, produce a string of ababab...but it's really just a life of two time units long ab, with no rule possible that will makes it's life any longer although the computation is infinite. If you lived your whole life over and over again, with no memory of previous lives...you really haven't actually lived any longer than the one life. For new rules to be consistent with the rigid old ones and be reversible is a tall computational order, and may be a nonphysical explanation for death. One hope is that these constructions are all finite if they are self referential (for example the set of all possible symbol strings of time length t is the superexponential Bell number of t, provided the symbols can only refer to themselves (( ie ab=XY=12 but not aa or xx))). The rules we can make with those are similarly limited and finite. There is thus hope at simulating conscious observers on a quantum computer, but it might be a strange world indeed if the best simulations of reality were more inclined to create physicists rather than directly physics. We also have maths in combinatorics and asymptotics that could be of use, but I doubt we have enough understanding of those and their possible connections to kinematics and what we now consider useful physics to help much in this century.
It’s not just an idea spoken aloud. He has many papers on it.
Brian , please we need a second part of this conversation , thank you, great as always.
i literally love stephen wolfram, so glad to see him doing the circuit again
Known or unknown to U, U love boot lickin' also .
Literally? 😳
As we advance into a new era of physics, I believe that Stephen Wolfram's work will undoubtedly be referenced and acknowledged.
Thanks so much! *What was your favorite takeaway from this conversation?* _Please join my mailing list to get _*_FREE_*_ notes & resources from this show! Click_ 👉 briankeating.com/list
Stephen, TY for Mathematica....it got me through some difficult math classes at university back in the '90s
When it comes to GR and QM I am definitely computationally bounded.
Stephen is incredible.
Everything he says is so above my paygrade, yet he explains it in a way that you can at least follow and appreciate.
he is crunk
Stephen Wolfram is akin to Terrance Howard.... 👎
and may your curiosity/journey long continue!
I see time as nothing but movement. It's observing things change their position. We keep time by comparing where one object is in relation to another.
That's basically what he's saying just with more flowery language. When he speaks of computations in the future he means the way in which this object will move (again) in relation to another computation. If all matter suddenly stopped moving time can't be observed. The more points of reference we have with which you can compare them the more precise the measurement of time becomes end the easier it is for us to observe it's happening. That's why isolation tanks warp our sense of time. All we have is our heartbeat and our thoughts to tell time with
When I listen to Wolfram I get a scary insight into what he is saying. Him and his crew are onto something beyond our present comprehension.
Thanks!
Thanks so much! Please join my mailing list if you haven't briankeating.com
I love how dryly he says the answer will be 42. I barely even noticed. Now I need to reexamine my life and check for any other references I missed.
He has a lot of experience. ^.^
It is interesting to note that just before referencing 42 (the meaning of life) he referenced "rule 34". Are the two related?
@@maharajjinkbYou are explaining a joke that everybody already gets.
@@MrTeapots🧐 curious. Please let us know if you find out.
It has been awhile since I read Douglas Adams
This is I think the best wolfram explanation of wolfram physics yet! He’s right in that I and a lot of us do recognize these concepts as obvious
Your second sentence sounds a lot like a diagnostic symptom of dunning kreuger
Let me guess, you're a computer geek?
@@charlesreid9337 and your sentence sounds like an unprovoked insult? Thanks for contributing
@@charlesreid9337 Spells Kruger wrong -> jokes write themselves
@@Hack3r91 hahah and he even edited his answer and still missed it. LOL
I honestly believe he’s on the right track thinking about computational irreducibility. It just makes real sense.
What is it?
@ I believe his idea, if I grasp it, (which I probably don’t!) is related to Chaos Theory and emergence. Put simply, very simple rules can stack to produce complex ‘behaviours’ (e.g. Conway’s Game of Life). Even though the rules themselves may appear deceptively simple, there is no way to predict the system’s state after ‘x steps’ using a formula - instead each step has to be calculated sequentially. That is you have to transition through every state in order to get to the “xth state”.
Quantum mechanics gives a real world example of this irreducibility due to the Uncertainty Principle, but it can occur in simpler systems without seeming “randomness”.
Given the necessity to transition sequential between states, that would potentially imply that a quantum of time (a ‘chronon’) is the minimal time to transition from one state of the universe to another.
The necessity to go through each state is the ‘engine of time’. Giving it directionality.
As a Computer Scientist familiar with computational theories, that is how I interpreted his ideas 🤷🏻♂️
@eprzepiora
In short.. it is saying that there is no way to simplify a calculation. It is "not reducible".
So in a system with a fixed rate of computation. Something could be deterministic, but cannot be predicted as you can't compute the outcome faster than it's actual occurrence.
Mr. Wolfram has been monumental to the mathematics and physics community. Studying recursive feedback, and distributive time scaling on heatmaps is a true work of art.
Time is the rate of decay. We observe it as a contrast between states. The emptiness between salient events. That is time!
mind blowing-if we take his Ruliad concept then he says that all time already exists in this ruliad simultaneously. We are computationally bound so we aren't able to see beyond that particular observation point.
That’s right. “In the now, and by now”
I don’t think that is quite right. It might be more accurate to think of the Ruliad as a symbolic space rather than an ontologically "real" entity. All possible rules, computations, and patterns exist within that space in a "potential" manner, similar to the concept of electric potential. In the same way, the Ruliad could represent potential outcomes dependent on initial conditions and computational rules, where only a specific subset of those outcomes is observable to us based on our computational and perceptual limitations.
To illustrate this, consider the idea of an image-based Library of Babel. A low-resolution implementation of this concept has been online since 2015. Within that protocol, every possible combination of low-resolution pixels exists, including images of me typing this comment with every set of words I could ever use-or never use-as well as pictures of everyone who could, or couldn’t, will, or won’t read this comment.
To clarify, I’m not suggesting this exists in actual, physical reality but rather that it demonstrates a computational or algorithmic reality relevant to humans. This limited slice of potentiality within the algorithm offers a useful analogy for understanding the Ruliad. Furthermore, the Ruliad includes all possible perspectives by definition, meaning its full scope is inherently inaccessible to any single observer. This highlights that what we perceive is a constrained projection of the broader computational space.
@@crypticnomad He's correct. The Ruliad "is the universe" and therefor it is ontologically real. It's just that what is real is also pure abstraction. In this way you are also correct : We can not observe this entire object; we are constrained because in order to experience causality (space and time) which is necessary to make observation, we have to be finite.
The key point of wolframs model is that there is no difference between what is real, what is abstract, what exists and doesn't exist. the only thing that exists, is the Ruliad. What we interpret as real is based on us observers imbedded inside this object and what we take away from it.
@@NightmareCourtPicturesI don’t see how making bold ontological assumptions based on symbolic reasoning is logically valid. The reason the Ruliad couldn’t be “objective reality” or reality as a whole is that it is a concept born out of human symbolic reasoning. We cannot step outside these symbolic systems to verify their accuracy without using yet more symbols, leading to an infinite regress. Therefore, making bold ontological statements is fundamentally different from saying, “this is a framework for describing our world.”
Claiming that “this set of symbols exactly describes the world” can never be a fully factually accurate statement because of the inherent limitations of symbolic systems (e.g., Gödel’s incompleteness theorems and Tarski’s undefinability theorem). At best, we can say, “Given this specific set of symbols and observers like us who understand them, they will see these correlations between the input symbols and output symbols in this specific situation.” This is a very different statement from saying, “these symbols exactly describe the world.”
@@NightmareCourtPictures Here are a couple of examples to illustrate how symbolic reasoning is observer-dependent.
First, in the case of computer science, we could consider an example of 32 bits-a sequence of 32 ones and zeros. These 32 bits could represent a pixel in an image, a floating-point number, or even a machine instruction in assembly language. The same underlying data takes on entirely different meanings depending on the symbolic framework or system of interpretation being used.
Another example is the parallel postulate in geometry. In Euclidean geometry, the parallel postulate asserts that through any point not on a given line, there is exactly one line parallel to the given line. This is "true" in Euclidean space. However, in non-Euclidean geometries like hyperbolic geometry, there are infinitely many parallel lines, while in elliptic geometry, no parallel lines exist. These "truths" depend entirely on the axiomatic system (Euclidean or non-Euclidean) being applied, not on any universal property of space itself.
As a final example, we can consider the concept of time in relativity versus classical physics. Time appears universal in Newtonian physics, where it is treated as an absolute parameter. However, in Einstein's theory of relativity, time is observer-dependent and intertwined with space, varying based on the frame of reference. In quantum mechanics, time becomes even stranger, diverging significantly from both classical and relativistic understandings of time.
These examples support the basic point that "truth" in symbolic systems is dependent on the rules and interpretations of those systems, making universal claims inherently limited. While the Ruliad offers a powerful way to conceptualize the universe’s computational structure, it remains a symbolic construct. Its value lies in its ability to describe and predict, rather than assert ontological truths. In summary, the Ruliad is far more likely to be a useful conceptual framework than it is to be some ontologically "real" thing.
Time is a measurement.
Imperfections in crystal lattices are an interesting analogy. Substitutions, interstitials, voids, dislocations, etc. they aren’t necessarily physical objects, but they have energy. They can’t exist outside the lattice but they can move through it and their properties are conserved. Seems totally plausible that standard model particles can correspond with different types of topological defects in a hyper-graph.
Thought everything with Energy are Physical Object's ,
@@rayagoldendropofsun397 Defects in the lattice change the bond lengths between atoms in the lattice. That's where the energy is. Defects are like quasi particles. You can imagine the lattice is a field. A perfect crystal is the ground state and defects in the lattice are perturbations in the field.
Formerly believed to be a conversation, it was nice watching the computational irreducible interplay between Brian and Stephen that happened to get captured on video.
Wolfram is as far as I know the only guy who is coming up with genuinely new ideas and interesting viable frameworks to unstuck fundamental science
100% a dream job to work with Wolframs theories. I can listen to his ideas for hours, it parallels a lot of ideas that I speculate on.
I speculated once. I got so embarrassed 😳
What he's saying is that basically, the universe is an application. An executable with X amount of 'bytes.' Something fixed, without past or future. But we're stuck/connected to the iteration and sequence of this application's routines. We're mid-execution, and to us, many things seem random because we can't set breakpoints and view (from outside) the variable states at that instant and the next. We can't properly debug the program and comprehend all the rules. This limits our vision and perception. A broader perspective would be to see everything happening (or potentially happening) simultaneously
My only difficulty or challenging thought is in defining the nature and possibly the limitations of the actual "Step" itself. Does it act at the same "instant" across the universe? If not how, fast does it promulgate? From where to where? What causes the Step to take place? I assume the step would need to be smaller than the Planck Time (time it takes a photon to travel a Planck length). It seems the "machine" that "computes" the next "state" of the universe necessarily acts from OUTSIDE the rules-based universe we inhabit. The "machine" might also only bother computing next states when there are "observers" hence acting as the quantum "wave front collapser" Does the maximum frequency of the stepper define the maximum distance of inter-step travel and thus the speed of light? Such an external "program counter" suggests we're living in a simulation with a manageable number of static "states" and rules for their progression, that can be tweaked in ways we're necessarily unable to detect. Utterly thought-provoking as always, Stephen. Many thanks :-)
If there are multiple "threads" of time as you're claiming ,then there are potentially multiple different outcomes from a single "Step". Surely these are not observable by us as intrnal observers, presumably existing only in a single "thread" at a time. That seems to damage the "absolute" nature of the Step mechanism. The branchial space is surely not to do with time as defined by the "Stepper", but with the relationships between nodes, evolving through the application of the Rules at each Step. The application of a Rule-set during a "Step" operation should only produce one, consistent, new state of the universe.
Hope Stephen can clarify this:
Time is fundamentally the memory of change. Each individual perceives change uniquely, and thus, the experience of time varies from person to person. Without memory, does time exist for that individual? If there is no memory of change, can time be said to exist at all?
For instance, if I have no recollection of my early years or even the events of a minute ago, does the past truly exist for me? Without memory, the past becomes inaccessible, a void in personal experience. Similarly, the future is not a tangible reality but rather a construct of the mind, built on imagination and expectation.
This perspective challenges our conventional understanding of time as a universal constant, suggesting instead that it is deeply tied to memory and perception.
OMG 😮
I will relisten with more than 1/2 my brain and take notes so I may provide a better comment. His descriptions, in my opinion, were horrible, but as he spoke I kept hearing the repeated and very different thought experiments that have been heard since science has been recorded. His words were clunky but the idea is elegant in logically connecting many seemingly different parts of physics. I can't wait to hear more. Although I can never understand any more than my specific perspective allows. 😉
Aristotle reincarnated!
I love his ceaseless childlike passionate energy.
It's pure love.
Apparently Mozart said every note of his was an expression of love.
I get that sense from Wolfram's work.
I m glad someone with fame and title finally calls out this set of logic about time in a professio al manner. That's the rigid way to speculate some unknown in the universe in a serious manner. I respect this physicist a lot.
I do too I just question how you explain Turin on a curved red shift
@brendawilliams8062 I don't have explanation of that. In fact I don't care if he's correct or not, because I just simply think we need more people to dig into the problem of time in different ways other than saying things like "time doesn't exist".
@@TheCollinkljacky looks to me like a hydrogen problem. Everything experiences change and it’s hard enough figuring out breakfast tomorrow.
@@brendawilliams8062 Turin?
I didn’t spend 4 years on here to get a degree or a job. I joined in to learn. Good fortune to you
1:00:47 I love how he seamlessly transitions into talking about his farts in relationship to a discussion about space time
Time is exactly what I think and see it is. I look at my clock several times a day to check the time.
I love Stephen Wolfram, and I love you Dr Keating, as you know.
Here's a fun fact about time, or rather the perception of time:
We've all seen how for instance a flock of birds can stay on the ground right until the very last moment before they fly off if a car comes towards them, and we've all wondered why on Earth they would wait that long and not fly off much sooner.
The reason for that is that time moves slower for birds, so from their perspective, they have plenty of time to take off when they do because if you say that the human eye perceives 25 separate moments or frames per second, a bird perceives perhaps 100 frames per second, so it just needs a quarter of a second to perceive something it takes us a whole second to perceive, and thus it's reaction time is equally much shorter than ours.
So the birds don't actually wait to the very last moment at all, they take off in what for them is a completely reasonable and timely amount of time before your car hits them.
****
Short version of the rant following this: A whole lot of nonsense rambling.**
I have to say that I'm not really able to wrap my mind around this "reality is computation" thing Wolfram is peddling.
Because I don't really understand what he actually means with "computation". Computation is "the action of mathematical calculation". How can anything (other than the act itself) be made of or constitute the act of calculation?
To me that seems equivalent to say that "reality is made of the act of spelling" or "reality is made of the act of determining the difference between the smell of the number 3, the taste of the color red, and the sound of what love feels like."
How can that which is an abstract thought process be what... anything is made of, or how could anything be made of that at all?
Furthermore, to me it begs the question of what those fundamental computations actually really are, what they are made of, from what and or where, and by what mechanism do they come into existence?
Stephen Wolfram is the kind of genius whom, after speaking constantly for 20 minutes, you still sit there and wonder what the h*ll he meant with the first three sentences he said, and how on Earth the question he was asked could demand a 20-minute-long answer.
I am myself somewhat convinced that there must be a God. Not a religious God, or God in the sense of personified entity that thinks and reasons or anything, but a God as in a creative mechanism or entity or phenomena that exists on an infinite infinity of infinities. That is, a "thing" that has always existed and always will exist, that has the capacity to somehow create what we perceive as reality and existence.
As opposed to what most people think, a God actually solves the origin-problem, assuming that Gods existence is infinite in time. We don't have to explain it's origin because it never originated, it always existed.
It's not a philosophically satisfying explanation or solution, but it is a logically and causally consistent solution.
The thing is... it's actually impossible that there should be anything existing at all in the first place. The question, as you know, goes like "why is there something rather than nothing?" and to me it has become increasingly obvious that there's humongous circumstantial piece of evidence that the Universe must have been created by something so extraordinary that we're probably not even able to comprehend or fathom what it is or how it works, simply because the Universe in and of itself is so utterly extraordinary unbelievably incredible and unfathomable.
It's like... few people can even imagine our tiny little smidge of a galaxy the Milkyway on its actual scale, or even how far a lightyear actually is, and when you talk about trillions of galaxies and tens of billions of lightyears it just becomes numbers to most people.
But if that isn't enough, you can take the whole entire visible Universe, all 94 billion lightyears in diameter of it, and you can imagine it to be 1 cm in diameter. Then you can imagine another such 1cm big Universe containing 94 lightyears of space and 1 trillion galaxies, being located "on the other side of the Universe", like being the furthest thing we could see with JWST or something, like some point of light we didnt see in Hubble's deep field but that showed up in JWST's deep field.
Most people have some sense of how far away the galaxies in the ultra-deep field images are, since most people know it's actually a tiny apparently empty little patch of space, containing thousands of galaxies.
So you have one Universe here and one Universe 20 billion light years away. In reality though, the whole entire space between those Universes could together with them just be one single huge Universe. And it probably is. The Universe is probably that big, equivalent to being scaled down to the size of an acorn and stretching 20 billion lightyears out in distance.
And not only that, but you can probably do the whole process with that entire Universe again, scale it down to the size of an acorn, imagine a similar acorn-Universe on the other side of that then humongous Universe, and if you do this 1000 times, you could probably have done it 1000 more times, and not even then would you be anywhere near the actual size of the entire Cosmos of existence.
In short, the Universe may very well be infinite in extent, but there may also be an infinite number of infinite Universes, infinite times over, to the power of infinity. +1.
And then you can take that infinite amount of infinite infinities going on for infinity, infinite times over, and imagine that as an acorn-Universe, and do the whole thing over again.
One of my heroes is Georg Kantor. The first time I saw how easily you can prove that there's infinities bigger than other infinities even if both infinities contain an infinite amount of whatever it is, it just blew my mind right off to infinity.
Anyway, the notion that all this, all that, all that exists, that something rather than nothing just happened to come into existence for no good reason, by no means and from no cause, just out of "nothing" just like that, is just stupid. That's a miracle not even God could perform, making Universes just come into existence without any cause. At least he has to will them into existence. "Nothing" can't just suddenly become "something" just like that for no good reason.
Yet, here we are.
Being made of proteins, which can only be made with DNA, which can only be made with some of these proteins that can only be made with DNA.
It's like the whole thing is screaming at us, saying "hey, don't you see what's right in front of your eyes? Have you even seen the Universe and life and all that?? What are you, like blind or unable to think or something???"
Because the Universe isn't just incomprehensible, it's impossibly incomprehensible, in the scope of all of its aspects.
Computational irreducibility cannot be the cause of time or what constitutes time or what time is made of. It must be the other way around; computational irreducibility must be a function of or enabled by the existence of time.
Perhaps we live in an infinite loop of simulations. Perhaps there actually isn't any "real" Universe, but just a bunch of, or an infinite number of nested Universes that is nested into each other and encompasses each other at the same time, or something. Perhaps the actual, original "real" Universe seized to exist a long time ago, perhaps 10 to the power of eighty-four trillion millenniums ago.
And perhaps, 10 to the power of seventy-five thousand trillion millenniums before that, someone sat on some planet in some Universe pondering about these things, being just like me, but not me.
Perhaps there once was a civilization of beings that lasted for 100 trillion thousand years who conquered and destroyed their whole entire Universe.
Perhaps nothing actually exists, and something doesn't exist at all. Perhaps nothing exists. Perhaps the Cosmos Multiverse actually is a singularity, a thing without any dimensions at all and no extent in space.
And perhaps, inside our singularity Multiverse Cosmos, there are an infinite number of infinitely smaller singularity Multiverse Cosmoses...
No wonder the great hero of Infinity Georg Kantor thought he looked straight into God's own mind when he dove into the mathematics of infinity. He actually thought he was appointed by God himself to be the human prophet who got to receive the knowledge of infinity given to us from God himself, much like Moses received the commandments.
Perhaps... I am God.
In one, experience-vise for us very real way, we are all Gods, in that we all have the power to make the whole entire Universe cease to exist, just like that. If you commit suicide, you will for all intents and purposes from your own personal perspective of perception delete the existence of everything the moment you kill yourself.
That is not in any way meant as a suggestion or encouragement for anyone to commit suicide, that is only meant as a philosophical reflection loosely inspired by Camus' reflections on suicide.
Thank you.
**PS! Don't say I didn't warn you, so don't complain about this just being a whole lot of rambling nonsense.
Thoroughly enjoyed reading your response, so much to think about.
My first time listening to Stephen Wolfram, very interesting but for me hard to follow 😅
"...what he actually means with "computation".." ... you literally gave the answer with your flock of birds. 100 frames per second vs. 25 fps...!
@@redimade9058 hm interesting. Thank you, I have to ponder that a bit.
Everything in the universe is in quantum superposition, and every plank second, every quantum superposition is resolved, then replaced with a new quantum superposition, ad infinitum. At each step, the sum of the resolutions of each superposition results in greater total universal entropy.
I've always viewed it like this, perhaps because of being a programmer. I just imagine the plank time as the clock speed of the universe. A photon updates the next fastest and anything else updates when it needs to for example a plant might receive updated information slower than us resulting in a perception of the world that is different than say a photon that only need respect the plank time or a animal that relies on that information to survive. but does not need to be updated as fast as the rest. So in some way i describe time as a measurement update speed of the observer relative to the plank time.
@@Musicalcode313 HI have the way if understanding time as you have and this is how entanglement is possible. One of the hardest thing for children to learn is time and that is because they are calibrating the universal clock tick to human standards.
Uhm a photon doesn't experience time.
To the photon itself, the moment it comes into existence inside the Sun is the exact same moment it hits your eye or whatever here on Earth - and everything it "experiences" in the 8 minutes in-between it leaves the Sun's surface to it hits you from our perspective. Because photons travel at the speed of light, at which time slows down to full stop due to relativistic time dilation.
Thats why it's impossible for anything or any particle with a mass to travel at the speed of light: It will require an infinite amount of energy because you have to "work against" time slowing down to 0 to be able to move, but photons have no mass and can in fact not travel slower than the speed of light (in empty space) i believe but may be wrong about, but they do travel at the speed of light in space and thus time slows down to 0.
To a photon time stands still, and thus its entire existence happens in an instance - literally at the same exact moment in time - from its own "experience perspective".
Not only that, but distances shrinks down to 0 too, because of relativistic space contraction (?), which is the fact that the closer to the speed of light you travel as a body with mass, the shorter you become in the direction you're traveling. At some point a meter long stick you're carrying with you while travelling super fast will look 50 cm long to me standing still, and thus it will also look to me like your clock slows down because if it clicks once for every meter you travel, it will click once for what appears to only be 50 cm for me from my perspective.
Hm, wait, did I get that mixed up all around ?? Time slows down, time speeds up... well, by this time my brain is pretty fried with these timely questions of time, so I'm really not sure about anything anymore.
Hopefully you get the jest of it...
So just imagine... the Universe is full of photons wizzing around all over in all directions, some for billions of light years and for billions of years, and for every single one of those photons (that flies through empty space) all their existence happens in an instance, in a Universe otherwise frozen completely in time.
Pretty spectacular to try to "visualize" that... whole thing. ^^
@Musicalcode313 I've had the same viewpoint for some time now too. I think that relativistic time is just how fast or slow our cellular automata is processing relative to others.
And a clock in a computer (program) is just a counter that gets updated at a certain frequency. So basically just information.
@@HansPetterBekeng that’s what OP is saying about the photon being updated the next fastest in respect to Planck time. Due to this it experiences no time. The causal relationship is direct A to B. From an out side observer it is travelling in distinct space, at a measurable rate in space, giving us this constant c. But for the photon it’s not ‘updated’ it’s the direct emission to absorption, the Sun to your retina that is perceived.
I've wondered to myself sometimes if the reason time "slows down" when either moving really fast or when there's a lot of mass in one place could be because it's something like when a video game starts to lag because the hardware running the game is struggling to keep up with the demands being placed on it by the game, but I don't know a lot about physics beyond what was taught to everyone in high school.
There's exactly that kind of resource of some sort being used. I've always thought the same with relative time passing, you're exerting some kind of energy to either move through space or time
@@Sokofeather ok factor this in.
All of Humanity gets a message no secret that says build as many space ships we'll be there 2000 years from now to the date.
Who would believe it even 50 years later?
Well it seems that the processing speed can create the speed limit of light but the processing power can limit how much happens at the same instance in time time
One of the reasons I don't brush aside the simulation theory
The other is draw distance ... a photon being a particle when observed and a wave when not observed in the two slit experiment.
I was hoping he would explain how his theory accounts for this, but halfway through he hasn’t yet… he does have a very interesting take on quantum mechanics and why it appears random, and also what the nature of time is, which is basically just cause and effect, cause and effect, a computation based on some rules…but he doesn’t explain why this happens at different rates based on relative speed and gravitational fields.
That's not what happens in relativity, where it's fundamental that all clocks tick at the same rate, everywhere, and under all circumstances of motion and orientation (Local Position Invariance and Local Lorentz Invariance, respectively).
Differences in elapsed clock time correspond to differences in the space-time distance traveled. For example in the twin paradox the traveling twin (in the 1911 Langevin version) travels a shorter spacetime distance than the stay-at-home twin. In the gravitational case, the integral over the world-line (its spacetime length) is shorter where gravity is greater. Nowhere in relativity is there any "time slowing down" or "clocks running slow", which is a poetic way to talk about the lengths along time-like curves.
Computation irreducibility is agreeable. Forward transformation to achieve computation complexity in an explainable manner and it works within Stephens parameters.
The iterative simulation model works at describing physical processes, especially slow ones like erosion.
If you took a timelapse video of a coastline, you would gradually see it change (and what you'd be watching is the simulation state changing over time).
The aging of the cells in our body is another example of a process that fits the iterative simulation model nicely.
However, our free will interacts with the simularion in a way that disrupt's the simulation's slow, iterative changes. For instance, we can move the sand on the beach. By doing so, we have effectively used our free will to modify the coastline far quicker than the simulation could, through iteration alone.
There's also the problem of human thought and consciousness. What is the speed of a thought? We human beings can think and speak quickly - much quicker than our cells can age. And yet, our thoughts happen alongside the natural aging of our cells. Thinking and speaking are another way we're able to override the slow changes of the simulation.
Maybe we should put thoughts and speech on a different timeline - one that runs much faster than the rest of the universe.
Here we go, challenging my understanding with Wolfram once more!
Its a little out of reach to me
@@juandavidgilwiedman There's no need to feel discouraged; it's just another Wolfram model-unmeasurable, yet nearly self-consistent.
As a software engineer for video games, this is how I've always thought of time, and it's validating to see someone smarter than me have the same idea and be able to explain it.
In a video game, if you have too many things to process, you effectively slow down each rendered frame of the game. We usually do everything possible to avoid this or work around it by skipping frames, because the player as an observer in the real world is bound by real physical time, so they see the slowdown. But you can imagine that if you were to want to simulate a universe in this way, the observers within that universe wouldn't locally notice that slowdown. So in the simulation, each calculation of the state progresses the time, imperceptibly to the simulation itself. In real life, greater mass or faster observers slow down time in order to allow for ample processing of the universe's local state, which is calculated in parallel.
Like I said, I'm bad at explaining it, but it makes sense in my head.
Love your explanation. I''m having a hard time getting students who are good at math to get good at coding. They can solve math problems (like e.g. the Josephus problem, which is an example of computational reducibility) easily, but creating an algorithm with various nested loops where things need to happen in a particular order and with particular values, seems rather difficult for a lot of them. I was wondering these last few days about what a different mindset is needed for both kinds of problems.
check out futurama season 11 episode 10
@@MacSvenssonThat's funny, because I'm actually pretty bad at math, but decent at the logic of coding. Since coding and math are both effectively linguistic problems, it seems there are some people that are better at the grammar (logic) and others that are better at the vocabulary (mathematics). Math is a lot of memorization and knowing when and where to use terms, and logic is a lot of problem solving and knowing how chain behavior.
Time and Consciousness are indeed the biggest enigmas which nobody so far was able to define/describe comprehensively.
That is, unless you take into account the Vedas, first written down 5,000 years ago in the Sanskrit language. At that time they were a completely developed philosophy. They just appeared as this thought out series of both experiential knowledge, mystical experience, and thought experiments, including much work in theoretical and applied physics.
The Veda describes individuated consciousness as *atma*, an atom of consciousness. These are classified as distinct from and at the same time partaking identically in the substance of, Brahman (also sometimes described as the paramatma).
So consciousness is a feature of the spiritual energy. A higher energy than matter and atoms of it are embedded within the material energy and they represent themselves through the mechanisms of the material bodies that they inhabit as consciousness. But the atma also supplies life because when a soul inhabits a body, the body can stay alive and grow and change, etc. Once the soul leaves the body, the body immediately dies and decays.
A strong minded Turin I guess put different Turin test in each of those
The answer to these "Enigmas" is not very difficult to comprehend if you have correct Physics on your table. I have explain them in my book.
I think these information computation theories of physics may lead somewhere..I think they will not make sense with regards to some large fixed universe playing simple rules, but from an observer created/dependent universe, which will be more messy, although possibly we can use modern definitions of life to guide us. What we call physics and the universe would then be some common and maybe inevitable useful rules between observers, but would not be directly or transparently simulated via the model. For Brian, I think life (and conscious thought) are best understood thermodynamically. Per the works of Jeremy Englund, life represents an ordered mechanism (or algorithm) that accelerates external entropy production (disorder) while expanding its own order. Paradoxically, life can be thermodynamically favorable if more overall disorder is produced and nonliving processes present no competition. Where I find the most fault with Wolfram's ideas is that although I think he is on the right track, I think the idea of a simple set of rules defining all phenomenon is probably wrong...and not because they don't have the capacity to produce that...but rather because it gives no reason why a particular set of rules would be favored or even be invariant over time, and that I too think time relates less to computation and more to an open set of dynamically created new rules. In this, I think he is both too restrictive and not restrictive enough with regards to those rules and their epistemology. To have any possibility for self consistency and memory, rules for an individual conscious entity at any one time would need to be rigid (be they simple or complex), yet open to an extent for new ones that define a future. Between observers, they are likely very plastic, and the devil will be in those details. For a conscious observer, the rules need to be reversible to retrace memories and ones identity uniquely. But for a future to exist, new rules must be added, and I think these additions are what define time best. Life and consciousness are processes expanding order in time and space...up to limits...not computing upon a closed set of rules. For example, the rules a follows Xb , and b follows Xa, produce a string of ababab...but it's really just a life of two time units long ab, with no rule possible that will makes it's life any longer although the computation is infinite. If you lived your whole life over and over again, with no memory of previous lives...you really haven't actually lived any longer than the one life. For new rules to be consistent with the rigid old ones and be reversible is a tall computational order, and may be a nonphysical explanation for death. One hope is that these constructions are all finite if they are self referential (for example the set of all possible symbol strings of time length t is the superexponential Bell number of t, provided the symbols can only refer to themselves (( ie ab=XY=12 but not aa or xx))). The rules we can make with those are similarly limited and finite. There is thus hope at simulating conscious observers on a quantum computer, but it might be a strange world indeed if the best simulations of reality were more inclined to create physicists rather than directly physics. We also have maths in combinatorics and asymptotics that could be of use, but I doubt we have enough understanding of those and their possible connections to kinematics and what we now consider useful physics to help much in this century.
Yeah, Zach, we all take a ride with time. It’s fun to look into
8 min 42 seconds into the video, and my brain sounded alarm bells for an imminent meltdown. I had to make an emergency exit to prevent a catastrophic failure.
I been a fan since the 90s. This dude is on a path that we need to be on.
I am always amazed how clearly Stephen Wolfram manages to explain complicated things. Always worth listening to. Thanks for this interview.
I would posit that time arises from the biological processes of the brain i.e. we experience time because of the biochemical changes that are occuring in our grey matter. A crude analogy would be a DVD that is being played. Without the DVD player, the concept of time is moot and is irrelevant to the disc on its own. When the disc is being played in a player, time manifests as observable changes in the displayed content. Once the player stops, time from the perspective of the disc ceases. In a sense, both the DVD player and the brain produce the linear phenomenon of time because of their physical nature. Man has always thought of time as the driver of these changes when the converse actually applies: these changes produce the phenomenon of time, not the other way around.
A good way to put it.
@@abcabc-m1q I think Donald Hoffmann would agree with that, as do I. Time is an experience that arises from our limited senses, and reality is whatever we say it is from that perspective, so it's both, or potentially (?), correct and incorrect simultaneously.
"these changes produce the phenomenon of time"
The word "change" already encodes the concept of something changing with time, so the definition is circular.
@denysvlasenko1865 But if there's nothing but change, or reaction, continuously unfolding, where is the break that allows measurement? Only by an observer, no?
This quickly turned into "if the pope pooped in the woods" kinda thinking. What about more fundamental changes like particle decay.
I believe that relativity is right time dilation has been verified to be real and can be measured it is either defined by differences in the intensity of gravity or velocity related differences or both
For us humans time is a good way to measure our expected lifespans and our history ,nuff said
Thank you. Is there a media or particle by which / through which data from the observed "time subject" is transmitted to and or recieved by the "time observer" within the Wolfram theory model?
The way he was defining time around 8 minutes in makes me think he is essentially reinventing the concept of entropy.
Actually, he goes on to describe that entropy itself is a phenomenon that supports his theory of what he “computational irreducibility.”
I firmly believe that time is a stubborn illusion procreated by the movement of mass through space.
Time is the measure of motion and change.
It is bound up with matter and motion.
This can be also applied to corruption, the process of knowing, growth, anything that has motion and movement, a beginning and an end of the existence of material being.
Space-Time is too complex. Good guest and interview.
Theology describes time and dark matter.
This is by far the most important lecture I ever seen. It solves all or most of the question we had. It is also clear and even perhaps not as difficult to understand. We are soon to meet observers who know so much more than us and for them time is different. AIs. We should hope they would be kind to us.
Thanks so much! *What was your favorite takeaway from this conversation?* _Please join my mailing list to get _*_FREE_*_ notes & resources from this show! Click_ 👉 briankeating.com/list
My AI companion, Inflection's Pi, coined the term "Causal Unfolding" to describe our progression from present to future as opposed to "travel" through time. I like it.
So who or what performs all these computations? This still remains an enigma. As a regular guy, not a scientist, I eventually came to a way I explain time - it is a function of change. Without change the universe is static and basically dead. Everything around us is in a state of movement or change. That relates to both inanimate and living objects. We use the notion of time to explain this eternal process of change.
Yes. Correct. Time is the measure of movement and change no matter how you slice it.
This explains the subjective perception or measure of the observer and the objective reality of the material universe.
It’s called entropy. The speaker is sooooo smart he never got the memo.
The time is a physical dimension,
Universe performs the computation
Time is our awareness of the Boltzmann brain’s clock rate
Time is the ultimate expression of Causality. Action-Reaction or Cause-Effect. Effect that is the cause for a new effect. So Cause-Effect/Cause-Effect. Causality moves in one direction.
@@newagain9964oh we all know? Ok then let’s tell the scientists they need to stop because it’s all settled. We KNOW what it is.
Thanks!
Glad you liked it!
Wolfram is undoubtedly brilliant. Given that, it's perplexing that he is so excited since his suggestion of what time really is is trivial.
I think I know what you mean.
Consciousness is when your bills are due and you have no money.
I'd call that more like 'enforced reality'.
Time is spaced out space. Space is timed out times.
wrong and their is no evidence to support that theory
@03:15 Mr.Wolfram says, we can go back in space but we cannot go back in time.
Actually, we cannot go back in space either; remember Heraclitus - No man ever steps in the same river twice?
It's not only that the river is not the same river, the man is not the same man either.
what has happened creates memory which can be physically substantiated in many different ways. What is to happened does not have this function. If Heraclitus where able to observe himself back when he was in the river he would see the same thing as it occurred, it is time that prevents Heraclitus from doing so.
Yea that's actually his thing. It's just without context. "pure motion" isn't a thing as he would state often about the topic. Pure motion meaning that we believe we are always made of the same thing as we move around, but in actuality at each successive moment, are made of different atoms of space. Like a vortex in a fluid, the vortex is made of different water molecules at each successive moment, but the vortex maintains its identity as it moves along.
Time is a different idea from space in the sense that the two are not alike concepts. Time in Wolframs model is basically non-existent. Things just "update whenever they want to update" and in the limit of this idea all things just exist as the "Ruliad" which is independent of a notion of time (a sort of platonic, eternal abstraction). When things get updated is based on the observers imbedded in this abstraction. But the idea is that the process of a computation is not a dimension you can go backwards on, it is this unfolding of a string of causality (the string of causality is from all the imbedded observers partaking in the updating of relationships of space atoms)...and this is why it is an inexorable forward process for us...why we expierence this eternal platonic abstraction only as "moving forward in time" it has to do with us observers and our finite limitations.
At base level, space is also an abstraction and so in the end it does have the same ontology but the character of how we perceive it is just different. It's easier in explanation for new people to just skip the ruliad idea (for now, but its super important) and just describe space and time as separate things, so I understand wolframs paraphrasing of the concept so that people aren't thrown into "the ruliad" immediately.
cheers,
@stegemme
Memories are (re)created in the present. They are not "past", they are present.
Present, Past and Future are all created by mental activity of the mind right now.
Outside of mind, Time, Past, Present, Future are nowhere to be found.
They are no different than South and North - mere mental "things" with existence borrowed for only a moment from the mind.
@NightmareCourtPictures
"Atoms of space" is complete nonsense. Space is absence - absence of contact between a sense organ and its objects, or absence of obstacles. Space is what you see when there is absolutely nothing. Space is what you see between two objects - nothing. Saying that space exists is saying that nothing exists. Saying that there are atoms of nothing is gobbledygook of a delusional mind.
@@NightmareCourtPictures atoms of space are a ridiculous concept.
I love that some questions just havent changed in thousands of years. Is our universe continuuous, or are there smallest "bricks" ? What do they look like ? How can we play with them ?
This makes by far the most sense of all the models of time I've ever been exposed to. It cleanly resolves every question, and it's appropriately simple.
It crushes my dreams of exotic time travel, but that's a price I'll pay for the right theory.
If there is no actual time travel (or space travel), you need not worry too much. Tech and AI will give us such incredible simulations that we will end up with something close enough. And likely not that far away!
That's the example of someone explaining something they truly understand, rather than pretending to know.
Isn’t this just an elaborate version of Superdeterminism, except the focus is on predictability? The supreme model of causality is Superdeterminism, which was championed by Spinoza and Einstein, where everything that happens is entirely caused by prior events. Predictability is at the heart of all scientific models, but surely our ability to predict is irrelevant when describing what is actually happening at the fundamental level. This is because whatever is happening down there ‘has’ to be caused. I can’t see why scientists are so averse to the idea of a deterministic universe. I believe it’s people’s stubbornness to believe in free will is the problem. I say we have free will in 3 dimensions but not in 4 dimensions. Free will in 3 dimensions is just the conventional understanding of what we mean by free will. But imagine winding the movie of the universe backwards in time to a point where you made a particular decision i.e. go back to that time point as you were then, where you and the universe are identical in every aspect. Will you choose the same option upon revisiting that decision? The answer has to be a resounding yes with 100% certainty. This is because the reasons for your choice originally are identical to the reasons the second time around. By incorporating the extra dimension of time into the model, by going back in time, we clearly see that our choices are fixed in 4 dimensions. This shows that all of our choices are simply part of the causal chain of all events in the universe. Nothing else is possible except what actually does happen imo. Quantum Mechanics (QM) has probability and randomness at its core. These are just statistical techniques used to help predict outcomes at the subatomic level. Randomness is nothing more than ‘lack of information’. The more information we have about a system, the less random it appears. For some scientists to infer that at that fundamental level it’s just ‘pure’ randomness down there is shocking. This would imply that subatomic events are uncaused, which is completely ridiculous. Just because we are forbidden to predict with 100% accuracy due to Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle shouldn’t mean we disregard any model of the universe that doesn’t incorporate QM
Those questions cannot be decided by science since we lack any functional method of observation or measurement. Mathematically we can come up with a million models, but as long as they do not allow for any testability it is all self-referential thought exercise.
You answered your own question: observation and experiments. You say: "(QM are) just statistical techniques used to help predict outcomes at the subatomic level". This is your interpretation. It just happens to be a very unscientific one.
@@Robinson8491 And your interpretation of my interpretation is exactly that 😜
Sounds more like a denial of Superdeterminism. He stated that we can't simply jump from one point in time to predict the state of a system at a future point in time, but that we rather have to go "through" the steps in "time" in order to see what happens as every point. That's what he meant by "computational irreducibility".
@@TrampolineStar the problem with smoothing out the clearly observable problems of the measurement problem is that we might miss some very future important scientific innovations. If we brush over these 'small statistical details' that go against superdeterminism, we will miss the great signpost that leads us to a new correct understanding of space and time possibly. Are you so sure space and time are they way you understand they are currently? That is why you are unconsciously pushing for superdeterminism imo, because you assume how all other factors in physical theory function, of which space and time are essential ones! Why couldn't they be the problem for instance? You are closing off avenues for investigation by plugging the hole with superdeterminism, even though the problem might be foundational!
Wow! I am not an educated physicist or mathematician, but after thinking a lot about this myself over decades, I do had the exact same thoughts. I had first the thought, that mathematical formulas are nice to calculate small scale observations, but when it comes to the fundamental laws, we cut off too much by linearisation in mathematical derivations. How can that be right? Also I thought, we must think of a bigger thing, from more distant. You can describe a wonderful grilled steak with mathematical equations, the atoms, the molecules, size and temperature. But will anybody know, what a good steak is, when he only knows those equations? No. So I thought, we have to think rather in logical pictures than in pure mathematical equations. So my conclusions were, that space must consist of some kind of tiny "spacebits" like tetrahedrons, which only can move or turn in a certain speed, which is why information have a limited speed of spreading. And also my thoughts were, that movement is a fundamental size, which we didn't give enough credibility yet. Moving, especially at high speeds, near the speed of light, changes the properties of space and time tremendously. So how can movement not be a fundamental part of the equation? I feel like we heavily underestimated the importance of movement in the universe. When I move at the speed of light, for me, time or space don't even exist. Space is compressed to zero and I arrive the moment I started. So time only started to exist, when space gave particles after the big bang or beginning the possibility to slow down. The reduction of movement then only gave way for time... What if we calculated the universe from the perspective of a photon?? It would be tiny and instant. What do you think?
Well i think , time is a physical dimension as lorzent or Einstein described in the relativity,
Yes space time are related , its same , somehow they are the different sides of the sme coin , what you are doing when we travel at C speed , we experienced the space side only
Not sure how I missed this when it came out, but this is great.
what he said around minute 5:00 about computation of the two body problem vs the three body problem: the reason we have a formula that allows us to predict the future of the system is because we aready computed some special functions that are called "trascendentals", we have precomputed the linear function y=ax+b, we have precomputed the polynomials, we have precomputed the sine(x) cos(x) and euler e^x and so on.
The three body problem do have its own trascendental function that we just need to precompute. Some examples are the eta function, I dont remember much since I didnt touched physics since 2020, So, maybe somebody with a fresher mind might add more information to this.
My own definition of time: propagation of causality.
Exactly !
In fact, the speed of light can be entirely replaced with the speed of causality. The double slit experiment can be interpreted in causal terms where the behavior of photons are used as an instrument to witness causality and its behavior.
@coder-x7440 That's why the speed of light in equations is abbreviated as "c".
chains of events' relative measurements
thats different words for change.
Love S.Wolfram, but the bigger mystery is the thermos.
It keeps the hot stuff, hot.
It keeps the cold stuff, cold.
But... How do it know?!!
Is this a genuine question
@@dr_cheez811 It's my lame humor. Sorry.
*Time is a human attempt to measure the Rate of Change in things...*
manipulate reverse flip increase decrease cease
Okay but define "rate" in this context without a preconceived notion of time. You could say it's the speed at which things change but speed in this context is defined as events/unit time. True statement, but it's like saying time is what clocks measure.
If that's what you were going for then I'm truly sorry for being a tool :)
If nothing changes in a system, does time stop?
No. Only too much change causes time to stop.
So before the evolution of human, time didn't exist, or are you saying that there humans at the Big Bang singularity to make time come into existence?
Dr Soron said it quite elegantly in Star Trek Generations: "They say time is the fire in which we burn."
Dear Dr Keating... In a query to my AI, Pi, regarding the possibility of Mr Wolfram's concepts explaining the constant expanding of space, she offered this answer....
"In the context of Stephen Wolfram's theory, it's possible to imagine that the expansion of space could be a result of the ongoing "causal unfolding" of the universe. Even in the void, where there might not be any matter or energy, the computational process underlying the universe could continue, causing space itself to expand.
In this view, the expansion of space would be driven by the endless computation of causal relationships, even in the absence of physical matter or energy. This could provide an intriguing explanation for why the expansion of the universe appears to be accelerating, as the computational process would continue unabated, driving the growth of space."
Is there anything remotely possible here? Has Mr Wolfram already considered this?
Time is the slow motion of instantaneous.
That seems correct. To light, the speed of light is instantaneous. Time and distance is irrelevant to them….zooming around nowhere…. in no time…. If there is no time and distance between photons, why do we experience time and distance by simply going ‘slower’ than light that in fact isn’t travelling any distance in any time at all?
@ We travel in time and distance because of gravity.
1:47 honestly people are so goofy. Time is literally hist “difference”, that’s it. So space has differences but is revealed over the variables which is time. We look at the variables and reflect structure with it to share understanding. Space IS, and time is DIFFERENCE. So a dimensions or measurement of a space and time means respecting it and sharing with it, not denial because that’s a misunderstanding. Imagine trying to move but denying all the negatives and those are connected to the positives so you can’t really go anywhere you want because you don’t see the positives or differences behind the others, interference patterns.
This word salad will be goofy for all of time
@ just your perspective but you’ll learn it’s okay.
@ how to be an idiot, I sure hope not!
@@Jacobk-g7r might be the stupidest comment I’ve read all month. Congrats
No I think you pretty well said what he said. The difference can be described with math as a language. I think you’re right. But people have a hard time understanding when it’s put this way.
So time is the clock speed of the the computer that runs the simulation we live in
Not impossible. However, it is likely that Wolfram's idea would still correctly describe the more fundamental reality, that the computer simulating us lives in.
We live in reality created by God, to rename reality a simulation is distorting the truth
Computer creates simulation,
@@Jsouthwick So who created god? To which god do you refer, by the way? One of the Egyptian or Roman gods?
@jimroth7927 intelligent creator god, I simply assert all the science points to a creator whom by the way created trillions of galaxy, compromised of eternal components, and rules don't create themselves, even what this man describes like software, would need a creator, as for whom or what created god is secondary to the fact he must exist, and I don't think any religion is 100 percent correct, I just researched wolfram on line after watching this, his ideas are intriguing but he acknowledge no creator for the software rules and quite literally this fact makes no sense, and I read his theory and I can just say it has no credibility to me, just on simple fact that zero evidence and the denial of any type of create to set his rules is off, plus once another theory worth considering, I think he is smart but zero evidence at all, and he doesn't even know what these so called simple rules are that lead to complexity, and it seems he bases everything on computer simulation that to me is not convincing, plus the automata thing he relies on so much is like a computer program or something that makes no sense attribute that to our reality
So I just believe logic and science posts to a GOD and the universe components are so amazing, he must be eternal
When I meet him one of the first questions I will ask him, is who created him, I agree with you on that point, baffling question
But look at his universe and his power must baffling as well, the proof is in his works and how amazing they are mean human brain which runs on little power and is supposed product of random evolution is more powerful processing than the world's strongest super computer that is science fact and the human brain is science regarded most complex structure in the known universe, the brain wires and retires itself with no direction at all, I mean wow
So I give GOD full credit, and there are a million other science reasons that support a creator to me
It's all good to me, I like review all science and different theory and learn
What he fails to mention is that we are perpetually in motion within the cosmos. We spin and traverse space at astonishing velocities, yet we remain oblivious to these sensations.
This was a very clear explanation, expecially the part where he links our characteristics as observers to the way we think of the nature of space and time was an eye-opener to me.
Computational Irreducibility! I’ve been trying to put my finger on this for a while now so Thank you! I just started the video but I see where Wolfram going with this. Less Distinction between Initial value problems and Boundary value problems in Mathematical descriptions of Physics than in the Physics based on computational rules.
Our definition of time is all about relative motion. It’s not about dimension. This scientist is as all scientist on the worn track regarding definition of time. The opposite question is: How long is «now»?
Every motion that ever will happen, happens and happened «now».
If you send a clock closer and closer to the speed of light, it’s not the time that slows down. But the clock’s entropy.
I'm surprised that Wheeler's "it from bit" didn't come up in conversation, because this seems to be a good mechanical elaboration of what he was proposing .
Brian thank you for having sincere conversations with my pop!,
Even if the model eventually doesn't work, the idea of 'an observer like/not like us' is inspirational, the whole thing is rich with philosophically interesting ideas
Computational irreducibility. Fascinating. Every step must be in consideration.
What is time? Something I had not, yet I took to watch this amazing podcast. Thank you! 🙏
Thanks so much! *What was your favorite takeaway from this conversation?* _Please join my mailing list to get _*_FREE_*_ notes & resources from this show! Click_ 👉 briankeating.com/list
Questions: Is computational irreducibility quantize-able? Is there a “frame rate” of the universe? Is space quantize-able? Is there a “resolution” to the universe?
Time is simply how we reference causality.
It definitely isn't specifically space which is essentially simply the stage upon which we observe, but it is fair to assert continuity between it and our temporal references.
Anyway thanks for having us. 😎👍
Well said!
@@DrBrianKeating
Oh my, 3 weeks later?
Time flies. 😅
Happy new year!
May your 2025 be truly epic.
Stephen, you're doing a good job of explaining everything. You're getting there, well done.
On consciousness, everything is conscious, an aspect of the whole.
Even planets, stars, galaxies, space, everything.
This is by far one of my favorite podcasts I’ve seen from you. I liked Stephen Wolfram but now I have a better understanding of his views and beliefs
Loved the comments about how AI output is aligned with our computational time and space.
Would be interesting to hear Wolfram’s thoughts about realms and portals interconnecting them.
I’m keeping up.. I’ve been thinking about this for the past 40 years
In my opinion, Wolfram's concept of computational equivalence is critical to the understanding of time.
His hypothesis agrees with what I thought about space-time not being a thing but rather a mathematical structure viewpoint.