Absolutely next level. Whether or not he's right - and I'm not saying he isn't - this is the sort of perspective we need to answer the deepest questions.
You guys MUST do a followup to this. So much more to explore. Would loved to hear more about testable predictions like the affect of dimensional cooling on the CMB! Awesome stuff.
If this isn’t a discussion about the fact that some mechanism of creation, some self simulating simulation, some God, some mathematical will, some asymmetric initial state that defies explanation . I don’t know what it is.
1:33:20 I love the analogy that trying to derive Einstein's equations from hypergraphs is like trying to derive fluid dynamics from molecular dynamics.
I remember seeing a demo of Mathematica in the early 90s. It seemed like magic. I could not believe they were doing what they were doing on the computer hardware they had to work with back then. It was mind blowing.
Very technical conversation that was difficult to follow at times, but it's good someone is thinking outside the box on something so fundamental. I hope Sean goes on Wolfram's podcast.
I am a researcher in theoretical physics and can tell you that most of it is vague word salad. No real content, despite Sean's heroic attempts at making the vague and huge claims somewhat concrete.
I’ve been catching up since 2020, it’s a lot. You can learn some interesting insights from Wolfram and his team. Watching those streams Stephen mentioned helps a lot. I would recommend getting deeper into computation, that’s my background and it helps more than any physics. Catch up on theory of graphs, operating systems, databases, instruction sets, and some scripting language (python, javascript…). Wolfram alpha is a great tool. There’s hundreds of functions you can actually try and they are being constantly implemented and documented.
@@element4element4Thanks for the heads-up, skipping then. I kinda hoped Carroll could tame him, but my bet was (after having listened to dozens of hours of Wolframiada in vain) that it's not really possible.
Been waiting for this episode for 9 months. I’m beyond grateful, Sean. I’ve only listened to it 4 times so far, hoping to reach 10x for full comprehension.
@@cademcmanus2865 If the goal is to learn physics, it's best to avoid the Wolfram word salad and look at real physics. His stuff sounds impressive for people that do not know much about modern physics. And working physicists are too polite to say anything publicly, and will just ignore it.
@@element4element4 What you call "real" physics is far too narrow if you aren't including computational models of physics, which is what Wolfram is doing. Also, the idea that "working physicists are too polite to say anything publicly" is just demonstrably false given all the flak he's gotten. Most of the flak is without substance or understanding in my observations--similar to your comment.
This episode would have really benifited from visuals as the whole idea of nodes, graphs, distances between nodes and ancestry in branchial space is very visual. The lack of visuals hindred the comprehension of Stephen's explanation.
Is the concept not unlike saying physical space is also information-space? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_space#:~:text=Information%20space%20is%20the%20set,the%20given%20rules%20and%20circumstances.
@@alexwilson8034 Yes. I have seen them and also watched videos :). What I meant was that while Stephen was describing his theory, he and all of us listening could have benifited by having accompanying visuals. But yes, thanks for reminding, people should check those out online. And Sean's podcast is audio only.
So, I've listened to all the episodes of the greatest ideas series, have spent hours on Wikipedia reading whatever I could understand and following links down rabbit holes. And more recently I've been trying to get a grasp on the concepts of category theory, type theory, lambda calculus, Compiler design, and graph visualization (motivated by being able to visualize the algebra over some types/functions in a program). I definitely got the basic gist of things, and I've got to say I like this theory more than I expected going in. While I couldn't even begin to work out any of the math involved here, I feel like I have a reasonably good sense of what this theory looks like conceptually. It's absolutely incredible to get such a long deep dive into the weeds on how things actually work in the theory rather than just glossing over the underlying mechanics.
A lot of that was way over my head, but 1:11:45 sounded like a very interesting possible defintion of observation. At least it made more sense that the QM explanations I've heard! It's also attractive to dismiss anthropicism as "too easy".
What's key to Stephen's physics model is that it has the potential to bridge QM and GR. They have deduced the Feynman path integral for branchial space (evolution graph of all possible hypergraphs updates - which is like quantum mechanics in that there are different probabilities for the for a certain group of updates to occur) and the geodesic path for linearly computational space (which is a specific rule applied once per update step).
Amazing conversation! As a software developer, the hypergraph -- being a collection of nodes and the relationships among them -- seems very familiar: it seems to be the same as the entity-relation (ER) diagrams we've used for decades in modeling data structures in all computing systems. On top of that he's layering on the set of all mathematically possible graph transformation rules and all permutations of their application. He thereby lands on the very large set of all possible hypergraphs. (Is that called the ruliad? Not sure if that's the right term.) Since anything can be modeled using entity-relation graphs, and since the ruliad is all possible graphs, you're guaranteed that physics is accurately modeled somewhere in that huge space. If we can reason about the ruliad as a whole and discover fundamental constraints that apply to it, then those constraints must also apply to physical reality. Heady stuff if I've understood correctly. I didn't understand why Wolfram considers the nodes in the hypergraph necessarily to be something that we would call "atoms of space." I don't see what that characterization adds. A single node shouldn't have any intrinsic meaning. All meaning should be conveyed by the shape of the structure. I missed where/why he started using the word, "quantum" as though it was established that certain features of branchial space are shown to equate to certain features of the quantum multiverse. I think at some point he started referring to superpositions of branches as though they're equivalent to superpositions in the quantum multiverse. I missed whatever authorized that wording change. Carroll deserves major kudos. He is the epitome of grace and collaboration. His lucidity and ability to clarify the world's most difficult subjects are without equal. I appreciate the opportunity to learn from these pillars of the community!
Very interesting podcast. Came across as flashes of extreme brilliance and sudden glossing over key ideas whose explanation is not taken to completion. To be fair these are hot off the press ideas. I like the bottom up approach though. But considering how the physics community has been made to be stuck in shutup and calculate school of thought and not making progress on actually trying to understand what happens with quantum systems and that string theory seems to have dead ended, I will applaud and support novel, seemingly concrete approach by SW. To be fair, I am sure people like Sean, Carlo, Tim M, David W. and David A. and others are ignoring shutup and calculate mentality and forging ahead with foundations of quantum physics.
agree the bottom up approach is quite exciting. Unfortunately the messenger (Wolfram) does not engage with the physics community in the way other scientists do, and is quite off-putting as a result. True that these ideas are a work in progress, however all the more reason why he should present these with less absolute certainty and more as a model that might be useful (for example de Sitter space).
One thing I don't understand about this is, if it's a bottom up approach then why does SW say he has reproduced GR or QFT and so on, before finding the TOE?
42:50 - brilliant perspective on ET! It’s everywhere. Question of whether we are sufficiently aligned with it. The very essence of an open minded perspective.
Plank energy is very small and big energy is needed to collapse all branches from it. So neat and interesting, also Plank length is not descret but a small branch of even smaller computations. Privileged to listen to Stephen.
Wolfram's ideas can sometimes feel a bit like "a solo mission diving down a rabbit hole"; but on the other hand, there are some quite attractive ideas mixed in. The idea of using the tools from theories of computation to reason about physics is somehow quite natural and has a nice "Occam's razor" feel to it, it feels like his guiding thought is "I should be able to write a program that describes the evolution of the universe, it should be a short one, and in fact that program is the best way to understand what the universe is doing"... Then again, perhaps I fully misunderstand :)
Ya that’s exactly right. Ive studied complexity theory for a while before reading Wolframs paper. Wolfram in my view has stumbled across the real theory of everything…mostly because everything makes sense with every single field, which a lot of current physics tends to ignore, like the lack of emergence, chaos and the other elusive fields that have yet to be described in a unified framework. Wolframs model is simple and from it emerges the complexity of the world…something the standard model simply doesn’t address and all those physicists know that a paradigm shift is required to unify gravity with the standard model.
Yeah, I mean it's a great idea imo. The problem is computational power. If we want to compute recognizable chunks of the universe from simple rules, we're going to need to perform an insane number of computations--unless we can find pockets of "reducibility" that allow us to short-cut aspects of it. Advancements in computer science technology will enable us to get further, but the problem scales faster than any computing solution we could come up with in principle. This is one reason Stephen's coworker Jonathan Gorard says we'll need to combine a bottom-up and top-down approach. In theory, the top-down approach will let us use the pockets of reducibility we've already discovered (i.e. science as we currently understand it) to pre-filter branches of the multiway graph as it evolves, and then interpolating that we may just derive the rule that operates our universe...
Stephan Wolframs theory is basically a formalization of what’s generally known as Complexity Theory. In Complexity Theory you generally use network models to model things…Network models contain elements and relations that connect these elements together…Think about Facebook…You and five other friends are connected on Facebook…you would model this as a network model where you and your 5 friends are elements, and the friendship you maintain with these people are defined by the relation (which is typically just a line that connects these elements that shows the level of connectivity) Wolfram basically sets up physics as a network model where the elements are atoms of space whatever those atoms are…and relations between other atoms of space…just like your friends and the level of connectivity your friends have in your Facebook network. Now…start to imagine how such a network changes as it moves in time…you add a friend to your network…they live far away and they might be shy…or they might live far away but you become really good friends…that friend might introduce you to other friends that are shy or not shy…and you can see how as this network grows, the complexity of this network as a whole is growing in a way that’s not fully apparent. This is what complexity is and it arises in many many systems. As your friends become more and more connected with you and your other friends, you begin to develop emergent behaviors like creating businesses…going to parties…discord calls…attending protests…different macroscopic behaviors begin to manifest as a consequence of this network increasing in complexity. This is the fundamental driving idea behind the Wolfram model, where as time pushes forward the network of these elements of space are further increasing in complexity. When these macroscopic behaviors become complex enough they begin to manifest as a bounded object…think of bugs or schools of fishing acting like a swarm…they begin to take the shape of a bounded…tangible thing… electrons/protons/neutrons whatever particles can thus be though of as bounded emergent things arising from a network of these atoms of space…just like how many organic molecules make up cells…and how many cells make up organs and how many organs create organisms. At some point you realize that geometry (bounded objects like circles, squares, cubes) is thus an approximation of a network of unbounded things…this is called TOPOLOGY. Starting to see the connection here? Einstein Space time GEOMETRY is an approximation of NETWORK TOPOLOGY. Wolfram takes it a step further by deducing that computation is the driving force behind the creation of this network. Computational equivalence can roughly be summarized like this: take a bunch of particles and throw them into a dark place. You setup in this dark place a fence that takes the shape of a square. Let the particles you unleashed follow some laws of physics and those particles will eventually approximate the shape of that square…cool. But you realize that if some invisible gnomes placed other shapes like polygons inside that fence, those particles would approximate those polygons as well…and those polygons could have been exponentially more complicated than the square you originally wanted to approximate. This is what computational equivalence is. The particles you threw in the box are capable of approximating any shape…and thus all problems that are equivalently solvable can be solved using the same particles. Generally speaking computational equivalence is tied directly to computational complexity in that, any and all problems can be though of as a complex shape. The more complex the shape, the harder the problem is to solve…the more particles (or the more time you need) to approximate the area of the shape. I hope that helps with at least the basic understanding of Wolframs model. It is in my opinion a legitimate theory of everything and it’s an idea that shouldn’t be overlooked or ridiculed.
Stephen Wolfram has, in my opinion, the most consistent, and inclusive Fundamental Physics Model from our history. One of the most fascinating and powerfull aspects of it is the inclusion of the parameter of the human observer in its duality: as agent but also as entity that is embedded in the system. This makes his model stretch from physics and mathematics up to human sciences, opening a door for a holistic science of Tomorrow. We cannot understand Reality if we dont understand the way we are part of the Reality itself.
I'm curious about Stephen's disappointment (1:57:45) about the discovery of the Higgs particle and his statement that it looks like a hack. Where can I find out why he said that?
Just interjecting my own2¢ on this particular context, but I think it’s said by S.W. in a qualitative sense from a software developer jargon terminology background juxtaposing the formulaic Higgs construct to the empirical one. That abstraction didn’t have the algebraic qualities of being a “mathematically beautiful” one when it was all calculated out for validity.
@@JackAnton So, if I've understood correctly, he didn't question the conclusions drawn from the data but would have preferred a more elegant means of reaching them.
Here's the thing, it's not just him that thinks this, but a lot of physicists. Right now, physics has a big problem...which is that it's got two theories that do not in any way, agree with each other. Physicists are basically making refinements to both theories, by adding more and more complex explanations to how these mechanisms work. Higgs arose as a consequence of patching together the standard model, which implied that it should exist. Physicists call the standard model, a "particle zoo" because there are around I think 200 different particles? I don't remember the exact number but it's ludicrous the amount of particles there are and its such a complicated model, that is still an approximate theory that doesn't agree with Gravity...so Higgs further confirming the correctness of the standard model, is more or less a herring, that...we found more support for the standard model, rather than a deeper understanding of physics...so the higgs discovery says really nothing about why the standard model is so complicated, ugly and required to add even more math to it, to patch up all the infinities and inconsistencies that appear in it. Right now scientists just "deal" with the ugliness of the standard model.
Well if you noticed every time Sean tried to say something Stephen would just interrupt and not let him talk. I've never heard Sean have to be so loud and interruptive just to ask a simple question.. sheesh
Listened to part and didn’t understand any of it, granted I don’t have a strong physics background but has anyone else tried to give an overview of what Wolfram is doing and how it derives some actual results?
I find that I have to stop what I'm doing and pay 100% attention to what Sean Carroll and Stephen Wolfram are saying. I can't listen to them in the background wile doing something else, there is way too much going on in their discourse and it is extremely easy to get lost in an instant (which means replaying that portion a couple of times). Also, I'm a huge fan of both these guys, and count myself extremely lucky to be able to listen to what they have to say about anything in general.
Even though Stephen's work and Eric Weinstein's Geometric Unity theory are discussed similarly I do not think qualitatively they are similar, not even close. I think it is unfair to Stephen's work to be lumped together in same category with Geometric Unity theory.
They couldn't be more different. Wolfram's work is open and public for all to see. Weinstein has yet to produce anything of consequence, and is deliberately vague. Or worse, crudely manipulative ("I don't want to write a paper the video of my one lecture is online. People should watch that. And then people did, transcribed the entire lecture and then critiqued)
It's an incredible interesting episode. Thanks Sean for hosting it. I indeed hope that this topic does not go the way of string theory in sense that it cannot make a testable prediction. That's the only way to take it into the mainstream, instead being a fringe theory.
I am so overwhelmingly stupid... thank you for taking the time to share these ideas with all of us. I'm so grateful to be able to hear a conversation like this, even though it might take me a lifetime to begin to understand it, if I even manage that.
Hi sean What do you think would happen if Bose-Einstein condensate dynamics where using for instead of dark matter on computer simulations ? If that a thing possible humm
Maybe Space has variable viscosity. Might explain gravity at scales, ie; the quantum scale, the solar system scale, the inter-galactic scale. 🧐 Might explain some things.
@@DeltaParadoxLLC ya...he was controversial for different reasons. His theories were based on philosophies of Mach and Poincare. I don't know what u mean he wasn't philosophical
@@madhavestark3173 In my opinion, his theory has atleast proven to be "worth exploring" especially with a lot of the emergent behaviour and features that have come out of it since this interview
Only partway into this talk but it appears that something more fundamental than the point-based cellular automata is a Turing machine. It seems therefore that the fundamental of the universe by this approach is the Turing machine? Just a question at this point
I think SW’s model has, in a sense, a further generalization on Turing machines since Turing machines can be implemented in terms of rewriting systems. (A “universal computation” system is this more generic property) Rewriting systems in causal hypergraphs can only be approximated with Turing machines, though this separation is somewhat artificial if Turing machines are subsets of “universal computers” So I think you’re sort of right, but need to add the next lower-level abstraction which is universal computation (Another pitch for universal computation as a superset of Turing machines is that UC in SW’s models are directly tied to physics/explicit existential systems. Turing machines may simulate such interactions, but I think TM’s fundamental operation is at a higher level of abstraction {has more abstract prerequisites} than universal computation.) EDIT: Given further discussion in later comments, I should mention that I'm just a hobbyist that has been following the Wolfram project for a few months
A side effect of the UC interpretation is that you can have one UC system that doesn’t do anything interesting, but after enough “existing” it meets the conditions to emulate another UC system at a higher level of abstraction. So you can get UCs evolving naturally into new UCs in a fractal way, and while not all of these systems may be directly relatable to our reality, there’s certainty that at least at some point we do get to our reality (though this is just anthropic argument) We can argue about whether this specific model is exactly what the universe does, but it does seem sufficient to describe physical relationships in much deeper detail than we’ve had before. Similarly the standard model and QFT aren’t exact definitions of what reality is, just sufficient descriptions of the major parts.Yet another side effect of UC is that our math and physics systems aren’t entirely subjective to just “humans”, and even after SW’s model advances, we’re still likely to see old concepts and calculations still in use, and to see derivations from old approaches also holding up, since a UC can technically emulate any system. Wolfram model “plays nice” with many (if not all) other physical systems and can provide explicit/exact reconstructions of physical systems that we observe. In a sense the Wolfram model is “a” (maybe not “the only”) system that can be assumed as a superset of all possible theories (and a wolfram contributor once made the comment that, with that description, the “math” we recognize is a subset of physics) SW sort of kills off many worlds interpretation with determinism from causal invariance, but provides a very reasonable basis for a fractal view of the universe at all levels. Now the creation of our universe doesn’t depend on specific initial conditions, it’s instead naturally derived from higher and higher orders of emulated systems that naturally arise (similar to multiverse theory but with more tangible basis in “what can exist”) I think using this model to arrive at the culmination of our universe suggests that SW has the tough task of recognizing the various layers of the base rule leading to our universe.. or recognizing that some rule is at some level in the hierarchy leading to our apparent reality.. but it’s not obvious to figure out where a rule fits in the existential hierarchy, if at all That said, I agree with SW’s optimism for this model but there’s a lot of missing context that’s needed to understand all of these results. In particular I think his comments on consciousness (and a couple other things) are Ill-fated. Just business as usual for a brand new model Lots of interesting ideas (some are effectively reformulations of existing things) with a promising direction, but there’s a looot of work to do still
@@overreactengine Thanks for the very clear and engaging explanation. What I find compelling about this as a software person is that it affords a discrete model of the universe that is comprehensible in the sense that Quantum Computing is a tangible thing that takes the mystery out of QM and to some degree QFT (but I have not even tried doing the math for this so it is just a guess). I viscerally understand how DCTs work. It is still hard to envision Fourier transforms at the same level of granularity. The entire software development world is moving away from using Quaternions for 3d transformations for the same reason. They make it impossible to visualize and therefore they in effect become magical black boxes where things just pop in and out of existence (sound familiar?). Just the knowledge that all higher forms of continuous mathematics used in physics might be able to be deconstructed into discrete computation I find oddly comforting. Modeling is one thing, generation is very different. To quote one of the more famous Cal Tech professors: "What I cannot create, I do not understand"
Much stuff not so shocking! For 99,9% of humans that thought "molecules create stuff" though... Shocking for me was the unbelievable simplicity of structures that produce things like skeletons, angles, organs and scales of living things. But, you know, even with none of these realizations, still. Think math, not just particles.
Enthralling conversation - waded through Wolfram’s ‘New Kind of Science’ when first published and was struck by the fresh approach….the new project he is leading may be a way out of the ‘doldrums’ of current theoretical progress. Great podcast Seán as always!
37:00 “for a non computationally bounded observer the 2nd law of thermodynamics is not true” WHAT? But entropy is a frigging property you can tabulate. Would temperature be not true either? I don’t get what he means.
Wolfram's description of the 2nd law in this context is "typically things get more random as the molecules bounce around" If you're not computationally bounded then there's no effective randomness, since it could all be computed exactly
@@overreactengine hmmm… yes, it is true that there are multiple interpretations of entropy. The one I had in mind was the path integral of dQ/T, which even Laplace’s Demon would have to contend with. Thank you!
50:34 "operationally they will never merge" isn't this a statement that we can't achieve quantum computation? All quantum algorithms with actual quantum speedup have a collapse step where things do merge
If we model it will they come? If the same demand being applied to string theory was applied to Steven's models would he have to be in a position to make real world predictions? I get the sense that this is a much more dynamic project and that 'the model' will continuously evolve to fit the paradigm of the day. It could be a project with no end. Reminds me of my programming but much more ambitious of course.
Wolframs model makes predictions (but it’s not complete yet). It even had experiments already done (which was why he created his book, New Kind of Science, which is about his experiments he did on cellular automata and derived his principle of Computational Equivalence from those findings) , and his theory can be simulated since his theory is computational, you can *compute* the things claimed in the model. There’s a lot of issues with today’s physics and Carrol is the kind of obvious issue with it. He literally asked the same kinds of questions over and over ignoring the actual setup of the systems in the question (like Carrol phrasing questions that ignore the vacuum being made of stuff which is what the wolfram model claims is what everything is made out of : space) If I was wolfram I’d be pretty annoyed by the physics community too almost a waste of time. Don’t even get me started on String Theory…
Doesn't this idea of 'computational equivalence' open the door to plant, rock, table etc. consciousness and other such absurdities? How do we deal with parsing those frightening possibilities?
I understand this as being analogous to Turing completeness. Any system said to be classically Turing complete should in theory be able to do operations and computations of the same complexity as any other Turing complete machine. So, if you had a Turing complete computer, it would be impossible to create another computer capable of 'outthinking' it (although in practice you could create one that came to the same conclusion, but quicker). Similarly, any natural system that exhibits a certain level of complexity is in theory capable of the same level of computation as any other system that achieves that threshold of complexity. This might suggest that, for instance, a weather system could exist in an environment that it could experience consciousness of a similar nature to a human brain. Not that such a thing would be likely to occur, without the associated phenomena of biology, evolution, civilization, etc. If rocks were capable of the same developmental processes that have happened to biological creatures, then yes, maybe you could have rocks that 'think'. In fact, I'd say, what is a silicon-based cpu other than a particular type of rock capable of some manner of thought? Further development could lead them to capable of any manner of consciousness that the human brain is capable of now.
I think we trivialize consciousness a bit too much. We’re still nowhere near understanding the full physical basis of consciousness, and I think Wolfram is making a mistake trying to make any statements about it this early
After thinking about the model for a very long time, the answer is that yes…consciousness is universal. However…consciousness is not what we think it is. In this model, The world is fully computational…meaning consciousness is just a facet of computation…meaning human consciousness is not any more special than ant consciousness…or tree consciousness…they are all just different levels of computation. Everything is just “some filter” trying to process information, and humans are also just filters…meaning consciousness is not some singular thing, it is universal…and it’s just computation. It makes sense when you think of it as filtering a big ocean…an ocean of information…humans just process information just like everything else.
Just the idea to start from the minimum amount of structure to create something even resembling our physical world is worth more than 10^6 small physics results papers.
In this conversation, the speaker discusses the challenges of understanding multi-way systems and their computational complexity. They mention the theory of local multi-way systems, which involves looking at a slice of a causal graph at a particular moment in time and examining the structure of space associated with those causal connections. The speaker introduces the concept of "multi-space," where every place in space has a stack of multi-way possibilities. The goal is to find a representation that combines locality in space and locality in branchial space. If successful, this representation could be used for numerical quantum field theory. The speaker also mentions the similarities between their models and other theories, such as causal set theory and higher category theory. They highlight the ability to apply mathematical results from these theories to their models. The speaker briefly touches on the question of why this universe exists and its connection to the infinity groupoid, a concept in abstract mathematics. They suggest that just as they are creating a foundational model for physics, they would like to create a foundational model for mathematics. They propose that if the universe exists, then mathematics must also exist in a similar way, and our study of mathematics is like carving out pieces of this mathematical structure. The speaker concludes by mentioning a podcast episode about the infinity groupoid and expressing their desire to develop a bulk theory of mathematics. Key themes: 1. Understanding multi-way systems and their computational complexity 2. The concept of "multi-space" and its potential applications in numerical quantum field theory 3. The connection between the universe and mathematics, and the desire to develop a foundational model for mathematics Suggested follow-up questions: 1. How does the theory of local multi-way systems differ from other approaches to understanding causal graphs and their associated structures? 2. Can you provide more examples of how mathematical results from theories like causal set theory and higher category theory can be applied to your models? 3. What are the potential implications of finding a representation that combines locality in space and locality in branchial space for numerical quantum field theory? 4. How does the concept of the infinity groupoid relate to the question of why this universe exists? 5. Can you elaborate on the idea of creating a foundational model for mathematics and how it would be similar to the foundational model for physics you are developing? 6. What are the challenges and potential benefits of developing a bulk theory of mathematics?
Have seen mr. Wolfram's work mentioned referenced and used in real time controls systems for decades and particularly in engineering and operator visualizations of extended processes. Just wow, and Thankyou but is he related to a mr. Fortran?
While I have a lot of respect for Wolfram’s project, it is necessary that he involve the physics community. This is best done by publishing bite sized chunks of incremental progress for peer review.
They have many papers out already on their website and have many videos on their RUclips channel discussing these topics with many different professionals in different fields of physics. They’ve also got their stuff on arxiv though that hardly counts It bothers me that they have so much out there but they’re seen as somehow isolating themselves. It doesn’t need to be in a journal for someone to provide a critique
a thing that has always puzzled me, why does Pi work in so many things? and likewise why does 2x or squaring have so many applications, i mean why isn't it E = mc times 1.99582? sometimes? it seems really tidy that it's the speed of light squared and not the speed of light times 1.9and a bit - if you see what i mean, squares seem to pop up so often in equations it's like there's a conspiracy... (i'm an artist so forgive me if i'm missing something really fundamental and obvious). other than that, brilliant episode.
There are some things that aren't so tidy, and they usually just give them a symbol. Gravitational constant equals 6.674*10^-11. There are a bunch more like this. The better question is why does the universe fine tune these constants that work out for human life to exist. Most use the anthropic principle to answer it. When it comes to squaring and stuff usually there's nothing too crazy. A lot of equations have a square because of the square inverse law which is pretty simple to grasp. I recommend just youtubing it. Last why does pi show up? I forgot who said it, but the quote is something like "if pi is in your equation there's a circle somewhere." Here is a cool example of that ruclips.net/video/jsYwFizhncE/видео.html
36:10 Q: What is the right idealization of the human observer? A: In order to get the laws of physics that we observe: 1. Observers must be computationally bounded. 2. Observers must have a single thread of experience through time.
I used to think that Sean Carroll and many worlds was the best hope to get a TOE. But after listening to hours of Steven Wolfram's theory I've changed my mind. I think if anybody has a shot it's Wolfram. If people like Sean, Nima Arkani-Hamed, Suskin, Penrose, etc., can put aside their biases and accept the fact and reality that everything is Observer dependent including all interpretations and measurements of any constant and join Wolfram's research we might actually get somewhere.
Im sorry but to understand this podcast, you need a PHD in theoretical physics, PHD in computer science, a PHD in mathematics and a PHD in fucking metaphysics. Even Sean was struggling.
I dunno, I get the sense that Wolfram is so down his own rabbit hole (which may be the correct one, may be not), that he fails in communicating his ideas clearly to physicists. I also feel that he has still a lot of work to do before he can be in a position to clearly describe his model/theory (and its subsequent description of physical reality) to satisfy conventional physicists.
I like that Wolfram ideas basically just come from our one assumption, that the universe is mechanistic. Otherwise it seems about like string theory: varying parameters through such a large space that you'll never find the version that matches our reality
I like that he doesn't apologize for his non-conventional approach. Standard approaches have not shown themselves to be successful, so I appreciate someone willing to step out and start a completely new paradigm. Fortunately he has the chops to pull it off and can get a new generation of brilliant minds to help him work on it.
Undoubtedly one of the most enlightening episodes. Possibly this was recorded earlier. In an online conversation with Jonathan Gorard, Dr. Wolfram actually did mention that the quantum mechanics from their models was quite similar to the version of Many Worlds Interpretation of the sort propounded by David Deutsch, where the parallel universes to an extent interact with each other causing interference.
Take a drink everytime Wolfram says "fuzzics" and by the end of this episode you will be a hypergraph.
🤣
Absolutely next level. Whether or not he's right - and I'm not saying he isn't - this is the sort of perspective we need to answer the deepest questions.
Great interview in that Sean Carroll is letting his guest speak, even when he might have his own ideas
You guys MUST do a followup to this. So much more to explore. Would loved to hear more about testable predictions like the affect of dimensional cooling on the CMB! Awesome stuff.
This is an excellent episode--no matter your position in branchial space.
*on/[in/on]
@@williamhcarlton are those your twitter pronouns?
@@DestroManiak yes, pls respect them tyvm
lol.. very good.
If this isn’t a discussion about the fact that some mechanism of creation, some self simulating simulation, some God, some mathematical will, some asymmetric initial state that defies explanation . I don’t know what it is.
Wow! This is a must-listen.
1:33:20 I love the analogy that trying to derive Einstein's equations from hypergraphs is like trying to derive fluid dynamics from molecular dynamics.
I remember seeing a demo of Mathematica in the early 90s. It seemed like magic. I could not believe they were doing what they were doing on the computer hardware they had to work with back then. It was mind blowing.
I’ve been waiting for this one!
God speed! You guys figured it out !!!
Very technical conversation that was difficult to follow at times, but it's good someone is thinking outside the box on something so fundamental. I hope Sean goes on Wolfram's podcast.
I didn't understand 90% of it but still found it enjoyable to try to understand
I am a researcher in theoretical physics and can tell you that most of it is vague word salad. No real content, despite Sean's heroic attempts at making the vague and huge claims somewhat concrete.
I’ve been catching up since 2020, it’s a lot.
You can learn some interesting insights from Wolfram and his team. Watching those streams Stephen mentioned helps a lot.
I would recommend getting deeper into computation, that’s my background and it helps more than any physics. Catch up on theory of graphs, operating systems, databases, instruction sets, and some scripting language (python, javascript…).
Wolfram alpha is a great tool. There’s hundreds of functions you can actually try and they are being constantly implemented and documented.
@@element4element4Thanks for the heads-up, skipping then. I kinda hoped Carroll could tame him, but my bet was (after having listened to dozens of hours of Wolframiada in vain) that it's not really possible.
Two of my favorite modern day physicists having a talk - really looking forward to this!
Oh boy, excited for this one.
Been waiting for this episode for 9 months. I’m beyond grateful, Sean. I’ve only listened to it 4 times so far, hoping to reach 10x for full comprehension.
better off reading what wolfram actually writes on his website. He isn't as skilled at verbal communication
@@cademcmanus2865 If the goal is to learn physics, it's best to avoid the Wolfram word salad and look at real physics. His stuff sounds impressive for people that do not know much about modern physics. And working physicists are too polite to say anything publicly, and will just ignore it.
34:21
@@element4element4 What you call "real" physics is far too narrow if you aren't including computational models of physics, which is what Wolfram is doing. Also, the idea that "working physicists are too polite to say anything publicly" is just demonstrably false given all the flak he's gotten. Most of the flak is without substance or understanding in my observations--similar to your comment.
@@Zeuts85 Computational models are very much part of real physics.
Between your lectures and Professor Wolfram’s Q&A’s I have learned so much! Thank you.
1:47:23 - A fascinating tale. ^.^
This is probably the best one yet. The development of of an SHO in a universe with closed time like curves sent chills down my spine.
SHO?
@@overreactengine simple harmonic oscillator
I have no clue what just happened!
This video made me reach the valley on the Dunning Kreuger graph
Thanks, Sean and Wolfram. I will have to watch this many times, to consume correctly.
This episode would have really benifited from visuals as the whole idea of nodes, graphs, distances between nodes and ancestry in branchial space is very visual. The lack of visuals hindred the comprehension of Stephen's explanation.
Make some!
Is the concept not unlike saying physical space is also information-space?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_space#:~:text=Information%20space%20is%20the%20set,the%20given%20rules%20and%20circumstances.
Check out his recent Royal Institution lecture on RUclips
There are graphs all online for free
@@alexwilson8034 Yes. I have seen them and also watched videos
:). What I meant was that while Stephen was describing his theory, he and all of us listening could have benifited by having accompanying visuals. But yes, thanks for reminding, people should check those out online. And Sean's podcast is audio only.
Best episode I've listened to, bar none. On the bleeding edge, but not crazy. Many thanks.
So, I've listened to all the episodes of the greatest ideas series, have spent hours on Wikipedia reading whatever I could understand and following links down rabbit holes. And more recently I've been trying to get a grasp on the concepts of category theory, type theory, lambda calculus, Compiler design, and graph visualization (motivated by being able to visualize the algebra over some types/functions in a program).
I definitely got the basic gist of things, and I've got to say I like this theory more than I expected going in. While I couldn't even begin to work out any of the math involved here, I feel like I have a reasonably good sense of what this theory looks like conceptually.
It's absolutely incredible to get such a long deep dive into the weeds on how things actually work in the theory rather than just glossing over the underlying mechanics.
A lot of that was way over my head, but 1:11:45 sounded like a very interesting possible defintion of observation. At least it made more sense that the QM explanations I've heard! It's also attractive to dismiss anthropicism as "too easy".
What's key to Stephen's physics model is that it has the potential to bridge QM and GR. They have deduced the Feynman path integral for branchial space (evolution graph of all possible hypergraphs updates - which is like quantum mechanics in that there are different probabilities for the for a certain group of updates to occur) and the geodesic path for linearly computational space (which is a specific rule applied once per update step).
Amazing conversation! As a software developer, the hypergraph -- being a collection of nodes and the relationships among them -- seems very familiar: it seems to be the same as the entity-relation (ER) diagrams we've used for decades in modeling data structures in all computing systems. On top of that he's layering on the set of all mathematically possible graph transformation rules and all permutations of their application. He thereby lands on the very large set of all possible hypergraphs. (Is that called the ruliad? Not sure if that's the right term.) Since anything can be modeled using entity-relation graphs, and since the ruliad is all possible graphs, you're guaranteed that physics is accurately modeled somewhere in that huge space. If we can reason about the ruliad as a whole and discover fundamental constraints that apply to it, then those constraints must also apply to physical reality. Heady stuff if I've understood correctly.
I didn't understand why Wolfram considers the nodes in the hypergraph necessarily to be something that we would call "atoms of space." I don't see what that characterization adds. A single node shouldn't have any intrinsic meaning. All meaning should be conveyed by the shape of the structure.
I missed where/why he started using the word, "quantum" as though it was established that certain features of branchial space are shown to equate to certain features of the quantum multiverse. I think at some point he started referring to superpositions of branches as though they're equivalent to superpositions in the quantum multiverse. I missed whatever authorized that wording change.
Carroll deserves major kudos. He is the epitome of grace and collaboration. His lucidity and ability to clarify the world's most difficult subjects are without equal.
I appreciate the opportunity to learn from these pillars of the community!
Very interesting podcast. Came across as flashes of extreme brilliance and sudden glossing over key ideas whose explanation is not taken to completion. To be fair these are hot off the press ideas. I like the bottom up approach though. But considering how the physics community has been made to be stuck in shutup and calculate school of thought and not making progress on actually trying to understand what happens with quantum systems and that string theory seems to have dead ended, I will applaud and support novel, seemingly concrete approach by SW. To be fair, I am sure people like Sean, Carlo, Tim M, David W. and David A. and others are ignoring shutup and calculate mentality and forging ahead with foundations of quantum physics.
agree the bottom up approach is quite exciting. Unfortunately the messenger (Wolfram) does not engage with the physics community in the way other scientists do, and is quite off-putting as a result. True that these ideas are a work in progress, however all the more reason why he should present these with less absolute certainty and more as a model that might be useful (for example de Sitter space).
One thing I don't understand about this is, if it's a bottom up approach then why does SW say he has reproduced GR or QFT and so on, before finding the TOE?
Just realised that the background image for Sean Carroll’s podcast on RUclips looks like Wolfram’s hyper graph! Weird…
🌟 🌟🌟🌟🌟🌟🌟🌟🌟🌟🌟🌟
Mind thoroughly blown repeatedly. My favorite episode since Bostrom.
That was fun, good stuff. One of the best podcasts on the channel.
32:21 Hypergraph
„That was fun. Good stuff.“
42:50 - brilliant perspective on ET! It’s everywhere. Question of whether we are sufficiently aligned with it. The very essence of an open minded perspective.
Plank energy is very small and big energy is needed to collapse all branches from it. So neat and interesting, also Plank length is not descret but a small branch of even smaller computations. Privileged to listen to Stephen.
That was fun. Thanks for your restraint.
Wolfram's ideas can sometimes feel a bit like "a solo mission diving down a rabbit hole"; but on the other hand, there are some quite attractive ideas mixed in.
The idea of using the tools from theories of computation to reason about physics is somehow quite natural and has a nice "Occam's razor" feel to it,
it feels like his guiding thought is "I should be able to write a program that describes the evolution of the universe, it should be a short one, and in fact that program is the best way to understand what the universe is doing"... Then again, perhaps I fully misunderstand :)
Ya that’s exactly right.
Ive studied complexity theory for a while before reading Wolframs paper. Wolfram in my view has stumbled across the real theory of everything…mostly because everything makes sense with every single field, which a lot of current physics tends to ignore, like the lack of emergence, chaos and the other elusive fields that have yet to be described in a unified framework.
Wolframs model is simple and from it emerges the complexity of the world…something the standard model simply doesn’t address and all those physicists know that a paradigm shift is required to unify gravity with the standard model.
Yeah, I mean it's a great idea imo. The problem is computational power. If we want to compute recognizable chunks of the universe from simple rules, we're going to need to perform an insane number of computations--unless we can find pockets of "reducibility" that allow us to short-cut aspects of it. Advancements in computer science technology will enable us to get further, but the problem scales faster than any computing solution we could come up with in principle. This is one reason Stephen's coworker Jonathan Gorard says we'll need to combine a bottom-up and top-down approach. In theory, the top-down approach will let us use the pockets of reducibility we've already discovered (i.e. science as we currently understand it) to pre-filter branches of the multiway graph as it evolves, and then interpolating that we may just derive the rule that operates our universe...
@@NightmareCourtPictures Wolfram also accounts for the observer as being embedded in his models which is another interesting thing about it imo
Can someone pls explain the jist of this.
This is literally the only Mindscape episode I have no clue about.
Are u familiar with conways game of life? So I think wolframs graphs are complex versions of that
Basically simple computer programs that follow only a few rules may be able to produce physical laws.
Stephan Wolframs theory is basically a formalization of what’s generally known as Complexity Theory.
In Complexity Theory you generally use network models to model things…Network models contain elements and relations that connect these elements together…Think about Facebook…You and five other friends are connected on Facebook…you would model this as a network model where you and your 5 friends are elements, and the friendship you maintain with these people are defined by the relation (which is typically just a line that connects these elements that shows the level of connectivity)
Wolfram basically sets up physics as a network model where the elements are atoms of space whatever those atoms are…and relations between other atoms of space…just like your friends and the level of connectivity your friends have in your Facebook network.
Now…start to imagine how such a network changes as it moves in time…you add a friend to your network…they live far away and they might be shy…or they might live far away but you become really good friends…that friend might introduce you to other friends that are shy or not shy…and you can see how as this network grows, the complexity of this network as a whole is growing in a way that’s not fully apparent. This is what complexity is and it arises in many many systems. As your friends become more and more connected with you and your other friends, you begin to develop emergent behaviors like creating businesses…going to parties…discord calls…attending protests…different macroscopic behaviors begin to manifest as a consequence of this network increasing in complexity. This is the fundamental driving idea behind the Wolfram model, where as time pushes forward the network of these elements of space are further increasing in complexity.
When these macroscopic behaviors become complex enough they begin to manifest as a bounded object…think of bugs or schools of fishing acting like a swarm…they begin to take the shape of a bounded…tangible thing… electrons/protons/neutrons whatever particles can thus be though of as bounded emergent things arising from a network of these atoms of space…just like how many organic molecules make up cells…and how many cells make up organs and how many organs create organisms.
At some point you realize that geometry (bounded objects like circles, squares, cubes) is thus an approximation of a network of unbounded things…this is called TOPOLOGY. Starting to see the connection here?
Einstein Space time GEOMETRY is an approximation of NETWORK TOPOLOGY.
Wolfram takes it a step further by deducing that computation is the driving force behind the creation of this network. Computational equivalence can roughly be summarized like this: take a bunch of particles and throw them into a dark place. You setup in this dark place a fence that takes the shape of a square. Let the particles you unleashed follow some laws of physics and those particles will eventually approximate the shape of that square…cool. But you realize that if some invisible gnomes placed other shapes like polygons inside that fence, those particles would approximate those polygons as well…and those polygons could have been exponentially more complicated than the square you originally wanted to approximate. This is what computational equivalence is. The particles you threw in the box are capable of approximating any shape…and thus all problems that are equivalently solvable can be solved using the same particles.
Generally speaking computational equivalence is tied directly to computational complexity in that, any and all problems can be though of as a complex shape. The more complex the shape, the harder the problem is to solve…the more particles (or the more time you need) to approximate the area of the shape.
I hope that helps with at least the basic understanding of Wolframs model. It is in my opinion a legitimate theory of everything and it’s an idea that shouldn’t be overlooked or ridiculed.
Stephen Wolfram has, in my opinion, the most consistent, and inclusive Fundamental Physics Model from our history. One of the most fascinating and powerfull aspects of it is the inclusion of the parameter of the human observer in its duality: as agent but also as entity that is embedded in the system. This makes his model stretch from physics and mathematics up to human sciences, opening a door for a holistic science of Tomorrow. We cannot understand Reality if we dont understand the way we are part of the Reality itself.
My mind felt completely splitted into different branchial spaces listening to Steven Wolfram
I'm curious about Stephen's disappointment (1:57:45) about the discovery of the Higgs particle and his statement that it looks like a hack. Where can I find out why he said that?
Just interjecting my own2¢ on this particular context, but I think it’s said by S.W. in a qualitative sense from a software developer jargon terminology background juxtaposing the formulaic Higgs construct to the empirical one. That abstraction didn’t have the algebraic qualities of being a “mathematically beautiful” one when it was all calculated out for validity.
@@JackAnton So, if I've understood correctly, he didn't question the conclusions drawn from the data but would have preferred a more elegant means of reaching them.
Here's the thing, it's not just him that thinks this, but a lot of physicists.
Right now, physics has a big problem...which is that it's got two theories that do not in any way, agree with each other. Physicists are basically making refinements to both theories, by adding more and more complex explanations to how these mechanisms work. Higgs arose as a consequence of patching together the standard model, which implied that it should exist.
Physicists call the standard model, a "particle zoo" because there are around I think 200 different particles? I don't remember the exact number but it's ludicrous the amount of particles there are and its such a complicated model, that is still an approximate theory that doesn't agree with Gravity...so Higgs further confirming the correctness of the standard model, is more or less a herring, that...we found more support for the standard model, rather than a deeper understanding of physics...so the higgs discovery says really nothing about why the standard model is so complicated, ugly and required to add even more math to it, to patch up all the infinities and inconsistencies that appear in it.
Right now scientists just "deal" with the ugliness of the standard model.
I clearly wasn't listening properly in school or I missed an important physics lesson.
I never heard Sean Carroll so quiet.
Well if you noticed every time Sean tried to say something Stephen would just interrupt and not let him talk.
I've never heard Sean have to be so loud and interruptive just to ask a simple question.. sheesh
I am an emergent property.
Listened to part and didn’t understand any of it, granted I don’t have a strong physics background but has anyone else tried to give an overview of what Wolfram is doing and how it derives some actual results?
I would like to hear Sean and Stephen explore Many Worlds for 2.5 hours. It surfaced a couple of times, but was somehow unsatisfying.
@@DeltaParadoxLLC agreed. videoless podcasts on youtube are frustrating.
This is such a treat! I was ecstatic when this popped up in my feed! woohoo!!
Super duper episode. Is the headache following listening to it fundamental or is it emerging? I am asking for a friend. Berry good.
I find that I have to stop what I'm doing and pay 100% attention to what Sean Carroll and Stephen Wolfram are saying. I can't listen to them in the background wile doing something else, there is way too much going on in their discourse and it is extremely easy to get lost in an instant (which means replaying that portion a couple of times). Also, I'm a huge fan of both these guys, and count myself extremely lucky to be able to listen to what they have to say about anything in general.
Even though Stephen's work and Eric Weinstein's Geometric Unity theory are discussed similarly I do not think qualitatively they are similar, not even close. I think it is unfair to Stephen's work to be lumped together in same category with Geometric Unity theory.
@@KCrimson00 EW reminds me of Deepak Chopra.
Weinstein is just capitalizing on Grothendieck’s work.
They couldn't be more different. Wolfram's work is open and public for all to see. Weinstein has yet to produce anything of consequence, and is deliberately vague. Or worse, crudely manipulative ("I don't want to write a paper the video of my one lecture is online. People should watch that. And then people did, transcribed the entire lecture and then critiqued)
This could be the new fundamental fussicks we have all been waiting for
🙏🙏🙏
Super interesting listen. Two great scientists talking it out! Great stuff!
Listening to Wolfram is like listening to a kid describing a book they didn’t read. I’m not buying what he’s selling.
It's an incredible interesting episode. Thanks Sean for hosting it.
I indeed hope that this topic does not go the way of string theory in sense that it cannot make a testable prediction. That's the only way to take it into the mainstream, instead being a fringe theory.
It's definitely not going mainstream in it's current state. And it's not really a "theory" either...
I am so overwhelmingly stupid... thank you for taking the time to share these ideas with all of us. I'm so grateful to be able to hear a conversation like this, even though it might take me a lifetime to begin to understand it, if I even manage that.
I doubt that you’re that stupid, you can tell he’s just a genius lol
Don't waste your time, there is exactly zero evidence for any of his ideas. Its not fact, only one guy's ideas.
outside of the system....answers to noone. This is the way to push the limits and think laterally.
Ah yes the billionaire is "outside the system" lol sheesh
My hypothesis is death is the equivalent of a black hole in rulial space. Would love to hear if this is possible or not.
2:08:00 ABSOLUTELY RIGHT ON POINT, no other model's legit
I read a lot. Hundreds of books in the last months. Best physicists on the absolute edge, from everywhere. I get stuff.
Are you pointing out fractional dimensionality here?
@@mgp5555 That I don't know. Still a weird notion for me. I'm pointing out how to think of particles.
@@mgp5555 RUclips bans too much, I can't explain a lot here
Jonathan Gorard next.
Hell yeah!!
Hi sean
What do you think would happen if Bose-Einstein condensate dynamics where using for instead of dark matter on computer simulations ?
If that a thing possible humm
sweet. i understood approximately (this is just a very rough guess) 0% of that. but still love you guys!
Maybe Space has variable viscosity. Might explain gravity at scales, ie; the quantum scale, the solar system scale, the inter-galactic scale. 🧐
Might explain some things.
Maybe that viscosity is what causes redshift as in tired light theory.
Hi Sean. Can you please do a mindscape about Donald Hoffmans anti Naturalism Theory. How do you answer him " there is no reality.
The enormous brainpower of Dr. Wolfram is only matched by his incredible productivity. A truly amazing human being.
Ya...if you ignore this far fetched physical theory
@@madhavestark3173 funny, but true!
@@DeltaParadoxLLC No... his theories are not based on fundamental philosophical arguements and empirical truths....unlike Einstein's
@@DeltaParadoxLLC ya...he was controversial for different reasons. His theories were based on philosophies of Mach and Poincare. I don't know what u mean he wasn't philosophical
@@madhavestark3173 In my opinion, his theory has atleast proven to be "worth exploring" especially with a lot of the emergent behaviour and features that have come out of it since this interview
Ooooh, this should be good, Sean Carroll right up there with Joscha Bach in saliency. Who better to interview Wolfram?
Only partway into this talk but it appears that something more fundamental than the point-based cellular automata is a Turing machine. It seems therefore that the fundamental of the universe by this approach is the Turing machine? Just a question at this point
*Alan Turing's Turing Machine, not turning
@@MikeOfNight my bad... the downside of Grammarly :)
I think SW’s model has, in a sense, a further generalization on Turing machines since Turing machines can be implemented in terms of rewriting systems. (A “universal computation” system is this more generic property)
Rewriting systems in causal hypergraphs can only be approximated with Turing machines, though this separation is somewhat artificial if Turing machines are subsets of “universal computers”
So I think you’re sort of right, but need to add the next lower-level abstraction which is universal computation
(Another pitch for universal computation as a superset of Turing machines is that UC in SW’s models are directly tied to physics/explicit existential systems. Turing machines may simulate such interactions, but I think TM’s fundamental operation is at a higher level of abstraction {has more abstract prerequisites} than universal computation.)
EDIT: Given further discussion in later comments, I should mention that I'm just a hobbyist that has been following the Wolfram project for a few months
A side effect of the UC interpretation is that you can have one UC system that doesn’t do anything interesting, but after enough “existing” it meets the conditions to emulate another UC system at a higher level of abstraction. So you can get UCs evolving naturally into new UCs in a fractal way, and while not all of these systems may be directly relatable to our reality, there’s certainty that at least at some point we do get to our reality (though this is just anthropic argument)
We can argue about whether this specific model is exactly what the universe does, but it does seem sufficient to describe physical relationships in much deeper detail than we’ve had before. Similarly the standard model and QFT aren’t exact definitions of what reality is, just sufficient descriptions of the major parts.Yet another side effect of UC is that our math and physics systems aren’t entirely subjective to just “humans”, and even after SW’s model advances, we’re still likely to see old concepts and calculations still in use, and to see derivations from old approaches also holding up, since a UC can technically emulate any system. Wolfram model “plays nice” with many (if not all) other physical systems and can provide explicit/exact reconstructions of physical systems that we observe. In a sense the Wolfram model is “a” (maybe not “the only”) system that can be assumed as a superset of all possible theories (and a wolfram contributor once made the comment that, with that description, the “math” we recognize is a subset of physics)
SW sort of kills off many worlds interpretation with determinism from causal invariance, but provides a very reasonable basis for a fractal view of the universe at all levels. Now the creation of our universe doesn’t depend on specific initial conditions, it’s instead naturally derived from higher and higher orders of emulated systems that naturally arise (similar to multiverse theory but with more tangible basis in “what can exist”)
I think using this model to arrive at the culmination of our universe suggests that SW has the tough task of recognizing the various layers of the base rule leading to our universe.. or recognizing that some rule is at some level in the hierarchy leading to our apparent reality.. but it’s not obvious to figure out where a rule fits in the existential hierarchy, if at all
That said, I agree with SW’s optimism for this model but there’s a lot of missing context that’s needed to understand all of these results. In particular I think his comments on consciousness (and a couple other things) are Ill-fated. Just business as usual for a brand new model
Lots of interesting ideas (some are effectively reformulations of existing things) with a promising direction, but there’s a looot of work to do still
@@overreactengine Thanks for the very clear and engaging explanation. What I find compelling about this as a software person is that it affords a discrete model of the universe that is comprehensible in the sense that Quantum Computing is a tangible thing that takes the mystery out of QM and to some degree QFT (but I have not even tried doing the math for this so it is just a guess).
I viscerally understand how DCTs work. It is still hard to envision Fourier transforms at the same level of granularity. The entire software development world is moving away from using Quaternions for 3d transformations for the same reason. They make it impossible to visualize and therefore they in effect become magical black boxes where things just pop in and out of existence (sound familiar?).
Just the knowledge that all higher forms of continuous mathematics used in physics might be able to be deconstructed into discrete computation I find oddly comforting. Modeling is one thing, generation is very different.
To quote one of the more famous Cal Tech professors: "What I cannot create, I do not understand"
Wonderful!
I humbly endorse this theory! Just wanted that on record.
And i am here to say that i am in agreement with to you in case people are wondering.
Much stuff not so shocking! For 99,9% of humans that thought "molecules create stuff" though... Shocking for me was the unbelievable simplicity of structures that produce things like skeletons, angles, organs and scales of living things. But, you know, even with none of these realizations, still. Think math, not just particles.
Great episode! Thanks Sean.
fascinating conversation.
Enthralling conversation - waded through Wolfram’s ‘New Kind of Science’ when first published and was struck by the fresh approach….the new project he is leading may be a way out of the ‘doldrums’ of current theoretical progress. Great podcast Seán as always!
20:50 - The Hyperbolic Figure 8 Knot and it’s compliment may help. ^.^
37:00 “for a non computationally bounded observer the 2nd law of thermodynamics is not true”
WHAT? But entropy is a frigging property you can tabulate. Would temperature be not true either? I don’t get what he means.
Wolfram's description of the 2nd law in this context is "typically things get more random as the molecules bounce around"
If you're not computationally bounded then there's no effective randomness, since it could all be computed exactly
@@overreactengine hmmm… yes, it is true that there are multiple interpretations of entropy. The one I had in mind was the path integral of dQ/T, which even Laplace’s Demon would have to contend with.
Thank you!
50:34 "operationally they will never merge" isn't this a statement that we can't achieve quantum computation? All quantum algorithms with actual quantum speedup have a collapse step where things do merge
I don’t know if this is the reason, but I do recall Steven having doubts about quantum computers ever working.
Yeah.... I'm less convinced than I was a year ago of the practical value of the Wolfram Physics Project.
I think of it as a sandbox where we can play around to better understand our own universe
If we model it will they come? If the same demand being applied to string theory was applied to Steven's models would he have to be in a position to make real world predictions? I get the sense that this is a much more dynamic project and that 'the model' will continuously evolve to fit the paradigm of the day. It could be a project with no end. Reminds me of my programming but much more ambitious of course.
Wolframs model makes predictions (but it’s not complete yet). It even had experiments already done (which was why he created his book, New Kind of Science, which is about his experiments he did on cellular automata and derived his principle of Computational Equivalence from those findings) , and his theory can be simulated since his theory is computational, you can *compute* the things claimed in the model.
There’s a lot of issues with today’s physics and Carrol is the kind of obvious issue with it. He literally asked the same kinds of questions over and over ignoring the actual setup of the systems in the question (like Carrol phrasing questions that ignore the vacuum being made of stuff which is what the wolfram model claims is what everything is made out of : space)
If I was wolfram I’d be pretty annoyed by the physics community too almost a waste of time. Don’t even get me started on String Theory…
Multidimensional brilliance
Doesn't this idea of 'computational equivalence' open the door to plant, rock, table etc. consciousness and other such absurdities? How do we deal with parsing those frightening possibilities?
I understand this as being analogous to Turing completeness. Any system said to be classically Turing complete should in theory be able to do operations and computations of the same complexity as any other Turing complete machine. So, if you had a Turing complete computer, it would be impossible to create another computer capable of 'outthinking' it (although in practice you could create one that came to the same conclusion, but quicker). Similarly, any natural system that exhibits a certain level of complexity is in theory capable of the same level of computation as any other system that achieves that threshold of complexity.
This might suggest that, for instance, a weather system could exist in an environment that it could experience consciousness of a similar nature to a human brain. Not that such a thing would be likely to occur, without the associated phenomena of biology, evolution, civilization, etc. If rocks were capable of the same developmental processes that have happened to biological creatures, then yes, maybe you could have rocks that 'think'. In fact, I'd say, what is a silicon-based cpu other than a particular type of rock capable of some manner of thought? Further development could lead them to capable of any manner of consciousness that the human brain is capable of now.
I think we trivialize consciousness a bit too much. We’re still nowhere near understanding the full physical basis of consciousness, and I think Wolfram is making a mistake trying to make any statements about it this early
After thinking about the model for a very long time, the answer is that yes…consciousness is universal.
However…consciousness is not what we think it is. In this model, The world is fully computational…meaning consciousness is just a facet of computation…meaning human consciousness is not any more special than ant consciousness…or tree consciousness…they are all just different levels of computation. Everything is just “some filter” trying to process information, and humans are also just filters…meaning consciousness is not some singular thing, it is universal…and it’s just computation.
It makes sense when you think of it as filtering a big ocean…an ocean of information…humans just process information just like everything else.
Good stuff
Thank you very much, this is good!
To learn more Wolfram thoughts on about college, AI, and the Computational Universe. Watch our interview with him.
Just the idea to start from the minimum amount of structure to create something even resembling our physical world is worth more than 10^6 small physics results papers.
I new it would happen eventually. Thanks!
I'm pissed off at the species. It is making me want to sit still and do nothing. What do I do about it?
Well, this totally went over my head. Good episode though, I think. Lol
Only Sean Caroll had a fighting chance to understand this one.
In this conversation, the speaker discusses the challenges of understanding multi-way systems and their computational complexity. They mention the theory of local multi-way systems, which involves looking at a slice of a causal graph at a particular moment in time and examining the structure of space associated with those causal connections. The speaker introduces the concept of "multi-space," where every place in space has a stack of multi-way possibilities. The goal is to find a representation that combines locality in space and locality in branchial space. If successful, this representation could be used for numerical quantum field theory. The speaker also mentions the similarities between their models and other theories, such as causal set theory and higher category theory. They highlight the ability to apply mathematical results from these theories to their models. The speaker briefly touches on the question of why this universe exists and its connection to the infinity groupoid, a concept in abstract mathematics. They suggest that just as they are creating a foundational model for physics, they would like to create a foundational model for mathematics. They propose that if the universe exists, then mathematics must also exist in a similar way, and our study of mathematics is like carving out pieces of this mathematical structure. The speaker concludes by mentioning a podcast episode about the infinity groupoid and expressing their desire to develop a bulk theory of mathematics.
Key themes:
1. Understanding multi-way systems and their computational complexity
2. The concept of "multi-space" and its potential applications in numerical quantum field theory
3. The connection between the universe and mathematics, and the desire to develop a foundational model for mathematics
Suggested follow-up questions:
1. How does the theory of local multi-way systems differ from other approaches to understanding causal graphs and their associated structures?
2. Can you provide more examples of how mathematical results from theories like causal set theory and higher category theory can be applied to your models?
3. What are the potential implications of finding a representation that combines locality in space and locality in branchial space for numerical quantum field theory?
4. How does the concept of the infinity groupoid relate to the question of why this universe exists?
5. Can you elaborate on the idea of creating a foundational model for mathematics and how it would be similar to the foundational model for physics you are developing?
6. What are the challenges and potential benefits of developing a bulk theory of mathematics?
Have seen mr. Wolfram's work mentioned referenced and used in real time controls systems for decades and particularly in engineering and operator visualizations of extended processes. Just wow, and Thankyou but is he related to a mr. Fortran?
infinity groupoids, 0 's & 1's ?
While I have a lot of respect for Wolfram’s project, it is necessary that he involve the physics community. This is best done by publishing bite sized chunks of incremental progress for peer review.
Peer review doesn't work when you're questioning the assumptions of the authorised sources
They have many papers out already on their website and have many videos on their RUclips channel discussing these topics with many different professionals in different fields of physics. They’ve also got their stuff on arxiv though that hardly counts
It bothers me that they have so much out there but they’re seen as somehow isolating themselves. It doesn’t need to be in a journal for someone to provide a critique
a thing that has always puzzled me, why does Pi work in so many things? and likewise why does 2x or squaring have so many applications, i mean why isn't it E = mc times 1.99582? sometimes? it seems really tidy that it's the speed of light squared and not the speed of light times 1.9and a bit - if you see what i mean, squares seem to pop up so often in equations it's like there's a conspiracy... (i'm an artist so forgive me if i'm missing something really fundamental and obvious). other than that, brilliant episode.
Wow, i had the exact same thought a few weeks ago
There are some things that aren't so tidy, and they usually just give them a symbol. Gravitational constant equals 6.674*10^-11. There are a bunch more like this. The better question is why does the universe fine tune these constants that work out for human life to exist. Most use the anthropic principle to answer it. When it comes to squaring and stuff usually there's nothing too crazy. A lot of equations have a square because of the square inverse law which is pretty simple to grasp. I recommend just youtubing it. Last why does pi show up? I forgot who said it, but the quote is something like "if pi is in your equation there's a circle somewhere." Here is a cool example of that ruclips.net/video/jsYwFizhncE/видео.html
Pi appearing a lot is a concequence of waves and unity circles being involved in our models and interpretations, I think.
36:10
Q: What is the right idealization of the human observer?
A: In order to get the laws of physics that we observe:
1. Observers must be computationally bounded.
2. Observers must have a single thread of experience through time.
I used to think that Sean Carroll and many worlds was the best hope to get a TOE. But after listening to hours of Steven Wolfram's theory I've changed my mind. I think if anybody has a shot it's Wolfram. If people like Sean, Nima Arkani-Hamed, Suskin, Penrose, etc., can put aside their biases and accept the fact and reality that everything is Observer dependent including all interpretations and measurements of any constant and join Wolfram's research we might actually get somewhere.
Im sorry but to understand this podcast, you need a PHD in theoretical physics, PHD in computer science, a PHD in mathematics and a PHD in fucking metaphysics. Even Sean was struggling.
Mr Wolfram only has one
I dunno, I get the sense that Wolfram is so down his own rabbit hole (which may be the correct one, may be not), that he fails in communicating his ideas clearly to physicists. I also feel that he has still a lot of work to do before he can be in a position to clearly describe his model/theory (and its subsequent description of physical reality) to satisfy conventional physicists.
@@OneFinalTipple you and I get the same feeling!
I like that Wolfram ideas basically just come from our one assumption, that the universe is mechanistic.
Otherwise it seems about like string theory: varying parameters through such a large space that you'll never find the version that matches our reality
I like that he doesn't apologize for his non-conventional approach. Standard approaches have not shown themselves to be successful, so I appreciate someone willing to step out and start a completely new paradigm. Fortunately he has the chops to pull it off and can get a new generation of brilliant minds to help him work on it.
He hasn't done anything except beg other scientists to do the hard work for him lol (but don't forget to give him credit in the end)
I've been skeptical of quantum computing for a while now. I'm glad to hear that Stephen shares this view, at least based on his model.
Been waiting a long time for this one!
Good Guest
This work is fascinating and beautiful but it's unclear how scientifically rigorous it is, from the interview at least.
Great content
Undoubtedly one of the most enlightening episodes. Possibly this was recorded earlier. In an online conversation with Jonathan Gorard, Dr. Wolfram actually did mention that the quantum mechanics from their models was quite similar to the version of Many Worlds Interpretation of the sort propounded by David Deutsch, where the parallel universes to an extent interact with each other causing interference.
Watching cellular graphics it makes sense how they are all entangled they all feed off each other to know what to do next..
How can you have any pudding if you don't eat your meat
I like how Sean pulls up his guests on behalf of us dumdums, so we don't go from thinking "I like science" to shouting "WITCHCRAFT!"
A hypergraph with a rule that generates the perception of its self.
Is this not non-materialists physicalism, effectively physicalist panpsychism?