The rules that created our universe | Stephen Wolfram and Lex Fridman
Вставка
- Опубліковано 19 вер 2020
- See full episode (Lex Fridman Podcast): • Stephen Wolfram: Funda...
PODCAST INFO:
Podcast website: lexfridman.com/podcast
Apple Podcasts: apple.co/2lwqZIr
Spotify: spoti.fi/2nEwCF8
RSS: lexfridman.com/feed/podcast/
Full episodes playlist: • Lex Fridman Podcast
Clips playlist: • Lex Fridman Podcast Clips
CONNECT:
- Subscribe to this UA-cam channel
- Twitter: / lexfridman
- LinkedIn: / lexfridman
- Facebook: / lexfridmanpage
- Instagram: / lexfridman
- Medium: / lexfridman
- Support on Patreon: / lexfridman - Наука та технологія
I feel like a dog watching television....I should just go eat a biscuit
Feeling exactly like that.
You've pretty much summed up what they are talking about. A dog could not explain television, and just because we're struggling to explain the universe does not mean the rules that govern it or put it into existence are complex. Our ability to explain it are limited by who we are.
greggie111 wow relativism summed up in a succinct UA-cam comment . Never thought it if it ,in such if all encompassing way. Perhaps it’s as easy as something like 2+2, but that’s only to a certain level of almost as deity level of intelligence and comprehension.
greggie111 how the universe works is very much complex, it is inconceivable to us because of this. It’s like everything came into existence from an intent so powerful that it was able to create space time and matter and all that comes with that. You could call this GOD if you will.
Yup exactly that 🙈
Love that lex closes his eyes when he thinks, I’m here because of rogan btw I know you read theses comments so I’m sending love your way !! sorry to hear about your nan nuff love from the uk
I always imagine that our 'complex' rules are just inelegant versions of simple rules we aren't using.... that's why I always love Mr. Wolfram having the curiousity and guts to explore even the rules that others would say are "too simple" for reality.
"There will be completely utterly incoherent descriptions of the Universe"
I love this! it describes a Universe that can only be 100% known if all possible observers shared their information in an understanding way to one another.
This video will age well
Always has been
... yes, definitely, according to your reference frame within your rulial space multiway universe...
This one is fascinating. Loved his comment about the speed of light being significantly more important to us if we were the size of planets💡
Yes, it's nice but an even better example would have been to say that if we were the size of elementary particles, quantum mechanics would matter (which normally doesn't for our regular size) and gravity doesn't.
Perhaps we are too small to see that there is an even greater level of macro physics. It’s one thing to be big. You can getting smaller coz it’s all right there. But what if you’re in the smaller space? Can you even sense something so much larger? If you run into a toe the size of the universe, how do you figure out it’s a toe?
"Oh no, don't tell me there's some kind of invariance", followed by a mix of awe, wonder, and vietnam flashbacks to grad school.
Clicking on full episode now. Thanks for this little teaser.
It's amazig we can know this much about the structure of reality without knowing the actual "rules" certainly.
Seems more that this is derived from mathematics and logical reasoning. Describing reality has having a structure is an artifact of our intellectual tools.
@@gblargg while structure is a concept, it would be interesting to know if it's just that, emergent or even inherent
our interpretation of reality may just be a "plane" or "slice" of the multigraph but that doesn't have to mean none of our concepts can apply to the whole, I think
@@krass76 I'd be skeptical that we can even grasp what reality is. Not that it's not worth endlessly trying. At the very least, the fruits of this possibly vain search are enlightening.
What he’s saying, our Universe works for us and we think our set of laws and rules are just perfect for life, but it’s only because we know this type of physics. There could be other Universes with different set of physics laws and have totally different physical properties which we cannot even imagine or comprehend but those Universes can still be having their own structure, life etc
Close but hes saying our view of the rules is colored by our reference frame , and frames can vary to such a degree as to be contradictory to our facts yet true from that of the frame. This implies that space itself is emergent from the things and their interactions not space containing things as the foundation.
Space is not what we think it is, or more specifically, the fabric of the universe may not be base level.
All things possible are happening and we can perceive some stuff but not all the stuff
This gentleman should be awarded the Nobel Prize for sure
I like Wolfram cause (my interpretation) he's letting his intuition guide him. Generally, people can get to caught up in science as to belive that you have to have proof for everything before you have the permission to think out of the box. So yes, he may be un-scientific at times, but that's how science take huge leaps. Also, he's a bad ass mathematician so he can actually provide more value than just coming up with cool ideas. I didn't fully grasp this "every way, every rule"-thing, I mean if they were able to simulate such a model. But if, and if from what I understood that it was also not just random, then that's extremely valuable. Great clip! /A guy that bought a new kind of science when it first came out and thought of it to be too un-scientific but was still intrigued
In another part of the interview Wolfram mentions how Richard Feynman would solve difficult equations, that for him were easy enough to not bother mentioning, figure out what is going on from the solutions and only float his views without showing the work he carried out behind, and that would be seen as amazing intuition by others. Then Wolfram says that he would carry out simulations, figure out things and convey his ideas without being able to explain the simulations because, on the time, very few people were into computation, angering Feynman in the process which could not understand how Wolfram could have an intuition in such difficult problems.
Thank you so much. Best of luck moving the ball forward!
Lex, you need to include links to guests like Wolfram, particularly on topics like this. Wolfram has so much going on it's hard to find the right website to study the hypergraphs, etc.
I recommend you start from his general description of the entire idea, this is the best starting point as it gives a summary of what he is trying to do:
writings.stephenwolfram.com/2015/12/what-is-spacetime-really/
More in depth reading that guides you through the terminology and what they mean in his model of physics:
www.wolframphysics.org/technical-introduction/introduction/
He also live streams several times a week. I recommend you watch the live streams, as it allows you to witness the progress of his team and his guests from other fields on the fly, as they learn how to apply this kind of math in their own fields.
Example of live streams, one from May and the other from 15/Sep, I recommend watching the oldest one first:
ua-cam.com/video/Uj1vLMRkoDU/v-deo.html&lc
ua-cam.com/video/vbnI4fOSxVI/v-deo.html
You will also be able to use his software free of charge on the cloud by registering on his website (www.wolframcloud.com/) in order to run the code as they type the commands on the screen on the live streams, and start your own journey from there if you wish.
@@_John_P Thank you - very helpful.
May your podcast prosper, love it and you as host lex!
does this mean we can choose 2 dimensions as a reference point and explain the laws of the universe without having to deal with other dimensions due to causal invariance?
I have absolutely no idea what he is talking about in this clip. Others yes certainly. This one? Totally over my head!
Have you seen the Joscha Bach episode? It is extreme. I will have to watch it many times.
@@moonlitRandomness I've watched the same clip 20 minute clip from that podcast like 10 times and still barely understand
Everything moves at the speed of casuality (which also is why there is a speed limit in the universe). The only requirement for existence is that the speed of causality is not 0, beyond that, it's irrelevant what the 'value' is, as everything is perceived relative to that value. There is an existence, therefore everything is always changing. Causality is the only force there is or can be and the only real question is how does this one force apply to everything at all times to produce the complex existence we see? It's simple in a way, but very hard to understand.
I don't understand how Existence necessarily entails change for everything in 'it', but clearly not 'itself' (or else chaos could equal order or some other nonsense). What if 'speed of causality' is a cross-section of a complex parameter that regular human consciousness can only see as linear, zero-sum, causality or speed? If causality is a force, wouldn't that entail the universe 'platform' being memory-like? I understand the motivation to reduce the universe to simplex rules, but if consciousness is simply ignored as epiphenomenal, these basic metaphysical questions are unanswerable.
Watching this repeatedly with multiple google searches. My goal is to understand 10% of it by Christmas.
Perhaps if I play this recording a few more times, I'll begin to understand.
Love this content
I think I got that one part when he points out we’re not as big as planets. That part is reasonably intuitive. And what he said about hot chicks.
As soon as we can precisely answer the question "Why there is something rather than nothing", we will have discovered a theory of everything
that YES at the end concludes it all
Stephen Wolfram will be the first of our kind to travel across dimensions. He intuitively aims in understanding the universe through a causal invariant multiway graph instead of thinking abound dimensions.
In the post-stellar phase of the Universe, the ambient temperatures will be cold and computing will be very cheap. It seems like the rules wolfram talks about would be ideal and fertile places for exploration in a far distant future where a shining star is distant memory,
what if you had an (the) exact and impartial frame of reference? what would you then conclude about the "universal rule" you found?
This is a really good question I would love to know. My guess is you would simply be existing along a rulial slice which just happened to intersect with a maximally symmetrical balance or "simplistically presentable state" of all the rules, in whatever points they happen to be in that slice. I suppose the real question is whether one could have an impartial frame of reference at all, since existing within the space itself seems to be a requirement.
He could do voice acting. You know, something important.
Elder Scrolls 6
The Matrix has you
That's a way of putting it yes.
You have rules you exist, no rules you don't exist but at the same time you are all.
Simple as that.
Thats incredible
This one was pretty complex and began to hurt my brain!
8:23 the ping on the Internet depends way more on the computing speed of Internet servers than on the speed of light.
Order ( explicate order ) emerges from chaos ( implicate order ) but requires consciousness to differentiate the two.
does this have relevance to the anthropic principle?
Isn't it a big paradox that the reference frame we pick, to undestand the universe, gave rise to the "rule" of reference frame picking? Because in a reference frame of some aliens, this "rule" may not be true.
Stephen should drop turing machines and talk in terms of lambda calculus. That would make things much easier.
Oh, so you actually understand what he’s talking about. Must be nice. Lol
How much could an entity in Minecraft learn about our universe from within Minecraft?
Could they derive anything about reality from outside of the game? A little math? Some computation? What if it's us stuck in a game?
At most they could learn about the specs of the hardware, in their made up units, by purposely overloading the machine, analogous to a massive object being accelerated to the speed of light in our universe, but there would be no concept of electricity for instance. To be fair, characters in a game have no vision, no senses, no memory of their own...
I can almost understand... I'm really trying to understand what all this really means. Seems very important
I found this when looking up causal invariance: writings.stephenwolfram.com/2020/04/finally-we-may-have-a-path-to-the-fundamental-theory-of-physics-and-its-beautiful/
Where do these rules originate?
I am not half as smart as I need to be to understand a quarter of this discussion. however on the plus side it reminds me of joe pesci from the lethal weapons movies, so funny. lex if you can recreate that scene at the drive through with him I'll become a patreon supporter ; )
You wouldn’t want to put the universe in a tube...
2 x universe = tube
what a concept
Over my head!
To say there could be an infinite number of rule sets, doesnt seem to be a fact that is in evidence. It could be that at a critical size, any additional complexity to the rules is equivalent to a simpler set.
Well of course it isn't a fact in evidence, since he's talking about possibilities: It's possible that White Holes exist in the Universe, but it isn't an actual fact they do exist since there isn't evidence...
@@___Truth___ you dont seem to have understood anything
Is it just me or is this drifting heavily into philosophy
Fascinating, and reminds me of similar stuff going on with symmetry theory of valence
But "I" didn't "pick" any reference frame. It is forced to happen by, as far as can be most parsimoniously described, antecedent conditions that have no capacity to identify as "I"
So I don't understand what consciousness is in all this. It seems completely unnecessary. Any set of rules that (we suppose) produces it is not as efficient as rules which do not.
And why is experience so reliably mediated by physics if "frames of reference" are all that exists, ontologically?
Rule is for the rules to evolve while the system grow and eventually to support main rule for the system as it shrinks
Which language is this?
I watch Lex podcast in only understand about 15% of what I hear if I'm lucky. Lex you're a nerd. But keep it up and one day you will run Metropolis.
I have no idea what they talking about. But cool.
This is so simple and powerful.
For those lucky souls who can follow it!
How would you explain this to a child?
@@mozy106 with lego
A powerful open statement.
Is this interview being done in prison?
Speed of light matters to humans because it allows us to see into history when looking at the stars in the universe that are far away.
Maybe everyone is experiencing the universe differently to others even though the rules are the same?
Lex, do you think Stephen is on to something very fundamental and important with this?
Is 3d because of us, for example?
So just being conscious beings that maintain a stable reference frame has a certain inherent 'power' it seems. No matter the frame, just having one can help us assess reality. And also maybe we give our favorite rules too much importance for being 'special' in generalized scenarios when you could be 'playing' with any rules?! Lol this shit is better than sci fi...
You watch these clips and it may transfer to a Euraka moment later. When you can casually explain in layman's language one description of the 4th dimension. Or gravity as we know it. Keep exploring.
There is no universe it’s only a reflection on the question.
my brain is short-circuiting
The problem isn’t the rules themselves and why they are objectively constant. The problem is why is there an externally unchanging momentum that is complete and lacks nothing?? This question is valid because there is no such thing as “nothing”. Nothing describes what you don’t know and can’t comprehend. However just because I don’t know the complexities in the scientific methods that explain this reality, I do know that there must be an undeniable “Truth”. This must be a force so powerful that is can see the beginning in the end and the end from the beginning. What do we call this eternal force with the power to create momentum itself? Do we dare call it god?
There is no universe....we are just a dream god is having.
My take away: understanding how the universe works is relative to those doing the understanding. There is a lot fo scientific jargon but that seems to me to be the main crux of what he's saying.
I think there should be subtitles put in . Sounds like 2 people mumbling lol
We are like mold trying to comprehend the petri dish.
I think Wolfram is absolutely correct. I think his space of rules applies WITHIN our own species too. Both Newton and Einstein have described gravity with high accuracy with different equations. The reason the equations are different is exactly what Wolfram said, the sensory reference frame of Newton in 1600s vs. Einstein in 1900s. They had different amounts of observational data, accumulated knowledge and experimental equipment available in their eras.
Our ideas and mental world arise from and are a reflection of the material world/processes. The material world is primary. Karl Marx made this point over 170 years ago.
Invite David Deutsch
One invariance is love. Bootstrapped in humans via endorphins on childbirth.
Greedy algorithm vs a Genetic algorithm.
Rewatch now.
Lex seems like he knows he’s right but he trying to find a way to cloud his message
where is the best place to stand to observe the expansion of space?
Could you stand with a fishing pole with your line connected to a rock which is placed over the threshold of the expanding space and watch it go?
what grabs something why not others? Would your arm pull you if you placed it across the invisible line of expansion? Would you be stretched? What keeps expansion from happening locally? it seems insane. But it is true. Trust me. It is happening out there. Up in heaven don't ya know
We don't know the if the universe is infinite or not. So you can do your fish pole experiment(Theoretically speaking ofcourse, since you can't extend anything outside space, so fish pole will remain inside space and get curved) only when the universe is finite.
Fk knows what on about. But if I was to guess. Everyone is wrong
pffffffff. "Speed of the light can be infinite and it does not affect anything in our life". If he is talking about speed of causality, which is what really meant when some one talks about speed of light. It simply means that infinite speed of light would cause any cause and effect to be apart by infinite time. SO it realy does not matter what you do or what happens - nobody would know about it. I guess in that sense it really does not matter.
Makes duck sound.
What strikes me as incredible, as if on the verge of foolish stupidity, but I would graciously put in down to tunnel vision, is how genius mathematically minded persons fail to see their own human nature as the most wondrous creation in the universe, and they fixate over low order maths they can only imagine, subatomic physics they can't see, and cosmological problems they can't fathom that are incomparably more mundane than the human being himself, whom he does see as one to another.
If you can't know yourself, then what is the point of any other knowledge?
Here is a more profound question to ask oneself. If I look for a rule for the universe but exclude myself from it, is that a function of my furtive desire to control the universe as a god, which causes a myopia of tunnel vision, or something else?
What rule makes a man blind to his own self?
The hubris of power and control that maths, physics and engineering dangle before the narrow and closed mind indicates another rule at play.
Is the ideal human a sociopath governed alone by the maths and physics he ascribes to a universe he wishes to control, but he can't control himself, or does he pay lip service to his rational religion, when in reality he recognises the divine power of love?
How is it you can have two inconsistent rules at play: the mechanistic sociopathic machine and the loving human god?
Which is it? Is your ideal principle to be a sociopath or a loving godlike being?
This inconsistency of separating power and authority from the virtue of love, and reason and belief from the same virtue has no resolution, only two inconsistent principles of an inconsistent Scholastic Western ideology.
Where is the belief system that is consistent for human beings?
You can't precisely predict the weather in a location a year from now. You can't predict the exact position of several double pendulums a year from now due to chaos theory. You can't predict the exact path of a water molecule swirling in a stream. Yet, despite this obvious lack of measureable success, you have the intellectual confidence to believe you know the ancient past from the beginning up until the present, or the distant future until the end, all of which you cannot test like the weather, a pendulum and a stream.
What does that tell me about the tunnel vision of a genius?
Is he a deluded god, who has yet to learn his lesson of humility, if he ever will like Socrates did, while distracting himself with intellectual games which prop up inconsistent secular philosophy?
What role does humility have to play in acquiring and sustaining knowledge?
What role does self control have to play in directing one's desires?
What role does patience have to play in fulfilling one's emotions?
What role do the virtues play in the reason for the universe and, above all, man in creation?
What is a man? Is he a god or dust?
If he is a god, is he not infinitely more meaningful than dust?
Why do you exclude what your mathematical intellect cannot explain, and thus ignores, and think you are anywhere near meaningful knowledge?
Humanity is at the heart of the universe.
Yet, if man is no more than gas and dust as a natural part of some arbitrary solar system, then how does the collapsed gas and dust cloud that constitutes the sun and its solar system in a gravitational well escape that well, defying the very gravity god by which it invents itself.
How could man imagine that he can go to the stars and leave his gravity well together with other matter he gathers from his planet, when the gas and dust trapped in the gravity of the solar system could not by natural physics do so (or leave his planet), unless the sun were to explode and scatter the embers?
With a wave of the arms, the impossible becomes reality, because he likes it that way.
Science fiction. Star Trek. Fantasy with a dash of realism for intellectuals.
That's what passes for knowledge nowadays, because self reflection is to look the wrong way.
Which way are you looking?
Atheistic materialism seems less and less tenable all the time.
Dang. Just when I was gettin my place lookin real nice, too. >:/
All I know is I’m gonna rot in the ground one day.
It's Christopher langan all over again
The people that disliked realized how uncertain are our lives and how worthless we are
Huh?
We didn't get the easy one we got all of them you're just cognizant of the one that worked out there's also you somewhere asking why we got the shitty rule you just can't know his thoughts both of those are true
Interesting watching a left handed man gesture it seems odd.
The map is not the territory. Such extraordinary claims should come with a plan to test them. Einstein made testable predictions. Not seeing these here. Made else where?
This is nonsense. God created the universe. Please read the Bible if you would like to know more about creation!
No that is nonsense. Oden slayed the giant Ymir and fashioned the earth from his flesh and bones!
Lies, we are but the dream of a dozing elephant.
Lex, please eat some carbs. You look like you're going to faint.
I think Wolfram is a simple headed undergraduate dropout.
And I think comments like these expose arrogance.
Frankly I find the host kinda annoying. He's trying to understand from his POV. A good host thinks about the audience more than himself. Maybe he should do a pre-interview to understand whatever he needs to, and then do a proper interview to bridge the gap in knowledge of the audience and the expert. Right now he just comes across as interrupting buffoon who neither adds any quality questions (like wtf is invariance), nor lets the expert finish his thought.
The rule that created our universe? Really?..There is only one rule and that rule is The Father of Lights, I Am, He created all things whether invisible, visible. The universe maker. No other is like He.
Truth Betold65 lol
@@chiphill4856 (?)
yikes
@@dillonroller May Yahweh bless you. In Yashauwahs Holy name. Amen.
@JT Raven aaaw I hurt your feelings, God invented science and you.