👉 Want to stay fully informed on breaking news, compare coverage, and avoid media bias? Go to www.ground.news/drbrian and sign up through my link for 30% OFF unlimited access! 📰
I saw some model runners add new data to their models and not their data sets to make the model... once they added the new data to the initail model craetion... boom... they got excellent real results so things that seem right can be 100% wrong in methodology... I wonder which Steven does?
I saw some model runners add new data to their models and not their data sets to make the model... once they added the new data to the initial model creation... boom... they got excellent real results so things that seem right can be 100% wrong in methodology... I wonder which Steven does? Also it strikes me that when he mentions "possible histories" that literature has pioneered this . What is a book of fiction? There are millions of duplicate paradigms. The venturi effect is reproduced no matter what the material that flows . Space, and carburetors, black holes... ? Have that shape? The flow speeds up. Of course there are "possible" histories. Of course the flow of electrons, air, water, plasma speeds up when it is "venturied" lol. Scientists need more generalisation. His explanations of space and time are awesome.
Take care four this man. He no fareness four India. He fourget Martin Luther king dreams. My color good color. All color good color. No make race four man who look differencely four convenience and four huminatarian my dear. I am very very very sadness four you’re say. But you try you’re best you’re branes and even if no power four you’re neuron I hope you have gr8 mango.
Wow. This is the best physics interview-podcast I’ve seen since a long time. Happy to see Stephen is now translating his mathematical insights into unconventional physical interpretations. We badly need this, as our current 100-year old physical theories (GR, SR, QP) are based on mathematical correct approximations, but incorrect underlying equivalence relations. There are many things Stephen guesses correctly; such as dark matter actually being a yet unknown property of space. Bravo! Indeed. Finally someone who gets that we need to focus on the grid itself, not on some imaginary invisible mass. Actually the erratic erratic galactic rotation curves are the result of a LACK of spacetime in between our spiral arms. But again; happy at least the discussion is on the grid itself! We need these disruptive insights of top people! Another mathematician, Roger Penrose, made a similar deep remark, as he stresses time and again that mass fundamentally equals not energy but inverse time! In his words; ‘…If you have mass in the QP world, you have a CLOCK…’. He realises this by substituting Planck E=hf into E=MC2. To finish things off, Heisenberg already defined the other CORRECT inverse relation, namely Energy equals inverse space as per dXdP>=h/2, a polar notation constant. Do we know see what is going on? Why we fumbled for 100 years? If we take these two correct inverse equivalence relations, then Einstein’s SR now says that a speeding object contracts frontal space and time, resulting in an INCREASE in its energy (inverse space) and mass (inverse time). In in slightly different terms; the speeding object wraps continuous ST fieldlines around itself in a standing wave of a discrete quanta of inversed spacetime windings, giving the object potential and inertia. Now do we see that speed induced effects on spacetime on the one hand and energymass on the other all cancel out? Want more proof? Stephen wants to know where complex number come from in the QO world. Well, we must compensate [m/s] speed with its dual QP equivalent speed expression of [J/kg] or [J/kg=Nm/kg=m2/s2]. So, the only way m/s and m2/s2 cancel out is to use a prefix of i2=-1 at the QP side. So dual inverse physics requires math to have complex numbers. Do we now get it?
Some of his expositions and conjectures are far fetched, unsubstantiated, even misleading. What I do not see in his work is the abundance of rigorous analysis and general enough mathematical proofs in his papers.
first discoverded wolfram in grad school at osu in late 90s. had to use maple symbolic manipulator and dipped into mathmatica. what a powerful program. wolfram is such a fire eater and a workhorse. he never settles on status quo.
Wolfram is just amazing in that he can both brilliantly push the boundaries of scientific exploration AND explain what he is doing and thinking in the most clear and simple terms. My intuition is that people decades from now will still be discovering and acknowledging the brilliance of Wolfram's ideas.
While I have tremendous respect for Wolfram's many accomplishments, most of the ideas that he talks about here do not originate with him. By the way he talks about things, it's easy to mistakenly think it's mostly his work and ideas, rather than the collective work of generations of scientists. I wish he presented things a bit more modestly so that casual observers get a better perspective. In terms of his work on computational irreducibility, it is an interesting perspective, but these ideas can also be framed equally well in more traditional mathematical physics terms.
I always find Wolfram to be a most fascinating scholar. 6 books during the covid is just a simple example of his monumental intellect. His confidence in taking on the entire physics in a both macro and micro way is daring. I find him very genuine. I would love to see a few numerical calculations and values coming out of his computation.
Fascinating discussion with Dr. Stephen Wolfram! The insight into the computational nature of time and the second law is mind-boggling. The concept that you can't cheat the passage of time due to computational irreducibility adds a unique perspective. Looking forward to diving deeper into Wolfram Physics.
@@magnuslysfjord423it seems to me the Professor is looking at several components in accomplishing a monumental feat. Some of them aren’t triangle friendly
What prevents people from subscribing is reposting old videos as new ones. Every video I see now, I have no idea if it's new or not - weirdly, some trust has been broken.
10 min in: absolutely fascinating. not only does wolfram have the ability to talk at length, apparently entirely unscripted, and produce what qualifies as a brilliant piece of rhetoric, but ... there is a massive amount of information coming through ... and ... it remains almost fully accessible, even to people who know little physics. (i say this as someone who DOES know a fair bit of physics, and teaches the same) but while what he says is undeniably BRILLIANT, it isn't necessarily all CORRECT
@@slouch186 for example, the concept that ( i paraphrase) time is simply a result of successive computations. there are certain fundamental variables, all independent of each other: - 3 spatial dimensions - time - mass - electric charge etc. why do we need to introduce the concept that time is NOT fundamental? it's also problematic, because it implies that reality is fundamentally mathematical, as opposed to fundamentally physical. i consider the claim to be an unproved, and unnecessary, assertion
This is one of my top 5 channels I watch and has been inching its way closer to the top the more i watch. I don't work for free. And i dont expect others to work for free. I have happily subscribed. Its literally the least I could do for cutting edge info.
i am an artist and a game developer. It strikes my as incredible how many similarities there are between this description of the universe and the way I structure a game (albeit MUCH less complicated) in the open source engine I use - Godot. Its pretty crazy really.
It's not that amazing. It's not very different to painting a picture. Or taking a photograph, or recording a video. You are in some way copying the perceived world, albeit with more vectors and functions that a simple picture or short video capturing a moment.
@@DJWESG1 I am - originally a painter/ sculptor. I think it's fascinating that the more we learn about reality - the more it looks like a creative act. But I suppose you are postulating it's the other way around, which makes sense I suppose.
I’m so grateful to have access to conversations like this at my fingertips. Thank you both for your scientific contributions and even more for taking on the burden of being public intellectuals.
@@GoatOfTheWoods @GoatOfTheWoods StephenW is to the "average geniuses" what they are to the average brilliant, and what the brilliant are to the smart 🙌🤪
@@KenLieck Good question, reminds me of the “Reality Distortion Field” that Jobs was famous for is in play here. So where is Einstein on this scale or Eric Ross Weinstein who so frequently pontificates here on similar subjects. Between Eric & Stephen Wolfram both can’t be right, but both can be wrong. So who is the SUPREME UBER-GENIUS?
I missed the bit where he changed EVERYTHING. It doesn't surprise me that he has written so many books as he has a real talent for saying a lot without conveying any new information.
As Wolfram says “Whenever computational irreducibility exists in a system it means that in effect there can be no way to predict how the system will behave except by going through as many steps of computation as the evolution of the system itself.” Which is a completely ambiguous statement, and he provides no actual proof to back this up. So, I stand by my original statement. Have a lovely weekend 🍻
I have a question. Mr Wolfram states that temperature has nothing to do with the second law. The question is; How many possible configurations can a system have at 0 deg K? I will say only one. At 0 K all motion stop. If molecules move, they possess energy, kinetic energy. If they have energy, temperature must be higher than 0 K. So I can agree that second law have a boundary, but as I understand, it is related to temperature. Can someone help me out here?
Well I'm not him but I think I can take a stab. I think the point he's making is that they are only related in the fact that they are emergent properties of a system that has matter. Temperature doesn't make any sense outside of having matter interacting with other matter. While entropy itself is a much lower level conceptualization of there being states of the system that change over time and what the rules of those states tend towards. They aren't tightly coupled as concepts and it's not obvious that either one requires the other perhaps.
@@Gennys.. Hmmmm. Entropy don't happen on its own. Well, one might say it depends on the type of matter. Actinides decay that is true, but that is caused by them being created by interacting with other matter (neutrons) thus becoming radioactive. Trying to keep up with Mr Wolfram is hard. Maybe harder than the capability of my intellect, but I will give it a try. Entropy of matter can only be caused by two things. Chemically or kinetic interactions. The result is the same. Alteration in energy states that manifest into lower equilibrium. If this is true, then temperature is related. I have to confess that I am grappling here. Maybe I miss something. What role does photons play? Let's ask; Gamma radiation dependent on temperature? No. It moves in 0 K space. What happens when it hits matter? Energy transfer if it hits a nucleus. Result? Increase in temperature. Same with lower frequency radiation. EM radiation causes temperature increase and alpha/beta radiation does to. Am I in the woods here? I am sure that I am rambling & need help. Dependent on who you ask, some of them will say; yep, a lot😬, but I love to let my mind wonder.
Entropy is a higher level concept in itself caused by irreducibility. The farther away one is from the beginning of when the rules started; the more “encrypted” they are due to the complexity of the rules that have been applied over each iteration. Pseudo example For n in 100: If n modulus 3: 2+3^n Else: 2+ 3^n*2 Is less complex than For n in 1000 The reason why that causes more entropy is because there’s more information to unpack. Hence, the concept of “uncertainty” and “chaos” are historically used. Temperature is what we subjectively experience but it seems more like it’s related to the density of the functions that are being applied as entangled rules. The lower temperature indicates there’s less rules being applied to the system
@@magnuslysfjord423 .. Takk skal du ha Magnus. Men ingen ser ut til å vite svaret jeg spør om. Hvor mange molekylære konfigurasjoner kan et lukket system ha ved 0 grader K? Etter din forklaring må svaret bli mindre med temperaturen, men hva er grensen? Jeg prøver å forstå entropi. Jeg klarer ikke å se at fenomenet er adskilt fra materie, og dermed temperatur.
@@dumpsterplayer2700 .. Have you understood what Mr Wolfram is saying? My understanding is that he postulate that entropy is independent of temperature. My question can be rewritten to; How many subatomic configurations can a molecule have at 0 deg K? I will say 1. Do you have any problem with that? Surly you know of Bose-Einstein condensate?
18% of your viewers liking and subscribing is actually very good. You should know this. Congrats on that. If you want a higher percentage, maybe eliminate the imbedded ads. Definitely soils the enjoyment of the experience. People come to RUclips for very specific topics and dont like being railroaded.
So, you are saying you want to come to youtube for a very specific topic, thoughtfully and respectfully presented by some of the top minds in the world for free and you are... slightly annoyed by the occasional ad therefore you might not subscribe. Sorry buddy, I doubt if they even want you for a subscriber.
@@joeedgar634 and not only that, instead of taking 5 minutes to install an adblock, he asks Dr Keating to basically cut his entire youtube revenue. I will never get this entitlement
As someone who started watching this channel from close to the start, Dr Keating has really improved his interviewing skils a lot. Really fantastic interview and I hope you keep it up!
Which peers would provide an unbiased review? Seems like a tough choice when the ideas are so radical. Peer review would be more useful once there is a testable thesis, an experimental design, and some results. Before that, it's just an interesting framework that seems to have properties that could explain reality.
@@FredPauling well he has a base theory, where he claimed he could rediscovee QM and he could not show the math. Thats not even review. Thats just people wanting to see the math and not the claims.
Hi Brian, this was a fantastic interview, thanks for doing it. Your knowledge and ability to push back and ask relevant deep technical questions made it all the better. If there were one suggestion to improve the format it would be to remove the time constraint, I think this interview could easily have played out for another hour or so. Appreciate it must be tough if not impossible with kids and a job! But yes, thanks again and looking forward to your future videos. 👍
I do not agree with removing the time constraint. I rarely have hours to listen to things like this. If it were another hour long, even though I love this, I would never touch it just because of time.
One thing i like about Wolfram is his breadth of knowledge when it comes to the history and provenance of science. His series on that stuff is great and it shows that he has a great idea of how scientific ideas fit with each other and which ones are important.
Please put all your ads at the start, its infuriating to have the train of thought be all of a sudden flooded by something that has NOTHING to do with the subject being discussed in the podcast. I imagine that that´s one of the causes so many people aren´t subscribed to your channel, maybe you need to rethink your capitalization strategy.
actually, put them at the end, they will be even less annoying, and yet, people will be more likely to watch them (people are going to skip them if they can anywhere ... at the end they often have nothing else to watch)
I am professor of advertisements regarding RUclips social media sites etc. I can conclude that this video could happily support 20% more adds and having them every ten minutes guarantees most people will fail to skip them. Feeding them relevant and helpful advice about products they may want in the future. Nothing to lose by doing this. Please remove your comment. (Sponsored by Namco - traditional arcade board specialists)
Wolfram is undoubtedly one of the most brilliant minds alive in the last few decades. His current slew of presentations are intriguing, but it would be nice to be shown some actual maths, algorithms, explanations, or (heaven forbid) testable predictions from his work. The fact that he's not tied to academia gives him a lot of freedom, but freedom to work also means freedom to utterly ignore the scientific process and just go on podcasts to claim he's solved all the problems without actually telling us HOW, in a way that can be understood, scrutinized and replicated.
For the ChatGPT points: It doesn't work... even at a quite basic logical level... for reasoning. I asked Chat to create a Venn Diagram for a categorical argument I knew to be invalid. It failed immediately, directing me to represent All S are P by placing a P circle inside an S circle, rather than the other way round. It only got worse from there. Pretty bad when an AI has no real I.
That is his stone old automaton model of the universe. I found it never convincing and reductionistic. There is a reason why not everyone is running around like he found God. 😂
Time is preservation of the order of operations. -me a non educated construction worker @24 years old. These guys are boring and take the long way to discover the obvious and people are look oooh so smart!
@@karlbarlow8040 Awesome, I mainly do roofing and always tell people i would not want to mess with a mason or a framer! We think about things out there whilst building. 💪
@jacobostapowicz8188 I think it's the 3D, real world, problem solving nature of the job that makes our minds agile and logical enough to get to grips with anything. Years ago, I got to know a guy who was bricklaying in the 1920's and he and his mates had just the same interest and deep appreciation of the wonders of the universe. I'm pretty sure you are sharper than I was when I was 24. It's good to know the tradition goes on 👍
The problem I have with this notion of "time is a computational process" is that the idea of a "process" is something that *unfolds in time*. So it's circular.
its not circular. Thats exactly what it means. Time, is the progression of a system changing states. when the system stops progressing, "time" stops. because the system is non-isolated, we dont notice this. say we have a system in front of us like particles in a box, and lets pretend we could stop all of its particles from moving. Well we observers of the system dont say time stops, because we humans as a system ourselves, has not stopped. The problem in defining time as existing independent of underlying processes, is a feature of us relying on us observing systems in isolation, which is not possible because we are part of the system. its a basic flaw in the assumptions of traditional physics, and also why theres an observer dependence in every major physics theory.
that is not necessarily the problem, you do spot a circularity but that is inherent in the English words we are using here. the trick is to see computation itself as a block world thing, i.e. as a graph (which sound profound but isn't - pretty much anything that is discrete mathematics can be though of as a graph - the real question to ask is: but it is profitable to do so?)
@@brandonlewis2599 It doesn’t unfold. It folds against constraints. Flip your view around. You aren’t watching the car go around the track from the stands. You’re in the driver’s seat. Are you steering? That’s up for debate.
Wolfram is always a good interview. This man shaped my entire understanding of the universe and introduced me to determinism without even muttering the word.
I find the mention of the engineering problem at the end (at about 1:32:30) is interesting to me. The type of thing he is talking about is routinely done. I was reviewing a multi-physics simulation product at one point. They had an optimization feature that does exactly what he says about the strut. In studying statistics, we often did massive numbers of simulations for a similar purpose (find the optimal parameters). What is interesting, in contrast to Wolfram's universe, is that these were not part of a framework about how to conceive the world, but something humans just did naturally. I am about four years older than Wolfram. I started studying physics. I was working in High Energy Physics on campus from my freshman year. In that job I learned to program and learned a lot about statistics, and particle physics. I eventually switched to computer science. That is a long complex story, but one of the things I found was that even then, in the early to mid 1970s there seemed to be a lessening of funding. There were few tenured slots and lots of openings for graduate assistantships and post-docs. These, of course, were much cheaper. Another thing that was interesting was that one of the co-heads of the HEP department had a joint appointment with the then brand-new Computer Science Department. He had an "experiment", that was fantastically expensive, in pattern recognition.
Yes and typing a reply is the same as publishing and getting likes is peer review. And if nobody acknowledged the reply it means my comment is 100% correct and it destroys everything in science.
I, for one, am a complete and utter science intellectual and yet here I am. Not feeling so hot about your hypothesis now huh, Mr. Big Shot? I have smitten down this demented bulwark of inferior cognition with the equivalence of a mental exhalation. My vastly superior inhalations would easily spell the end of you. Please refrain from being inferior in my presence in the future. It displeases me. If you wish to develop yourself and be more like me I suggest you do not attempt and give up proactively, because it is not possible. More people should proactively remove themselves from my presence in order to reduce my displeasure, but alas, while I harbor a great many skills and powers of grand importance and impact I have yet to acquire the ability to mentally control inferior humans. This is because it is only possible for me to control those who are equal to me, but there are none. This explains my lack of total mind control soundly and perfectly but I digress. Have an acceptable day, good sir.
interesting points... 15:14 what is time 20:30 temperature & heat 24:32 what is entropy 31:19 3 big theories of 1900s 50:03 neutrinos are dark matter 54:30 blackholes 58:01 if brain processing 1000x 1:05:08 space & time not same 1:06:47 qm magnitude & phase not same 1:10:30 time dilation
Just mind-blowing!! His explanation of time-dilation as a consequence of computational effort to move in space rather progressing through time just knocked me out.
I like to imagine what it would really be like if time "froze" or your body and brain are moving so fast that time appears to be frozen, what would the world actually look like then and how would your body react with it assuming your body moves normal relative to you. I image the air feeling empty, no gravity, heating and breaking things easily, seeing red and blue shift as you move, etc.
@@NeverTalkToCops1 What is obvious or not is observer dependent, I think. It wasn't so obvious to me before but now I can't help but see it as the most natural proposition ever! Obviously!
@@mkhosono1741 Right. This is why I love Shannon's information theory. He was the one who really discovered the ultimate meaning of Entropy and saw the connection between his theory and Boltzmann's entropy based on probability. Definitely a connection in between information in the universe and its probabilistic nature.
@@chemistchemist6438 In a communication system messages are predicted into existence according to Shannon's information theorem using the concept of probability. Predicting messages into existence is a syntropic process -- teleological. Entropy = average information. Syntropy = average mutual information. Sine is dual to cosine or dual sine -- the word co means mutual and implies duality. Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy). Certainty (predictability, syntropy) is dual to uncertainty (unpredictability, entropy) -- the Heisenberg certainty/uncertainty principle. Probability waves or electro magnetic waves, light require the receiver of a message to predict reality into existence -- syntropic. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Syntax is dual to semantics -- languages. If mathematics is a language then it is dual.
@1:10:26 Did he just say time dilation is essentially that, there is a certain bandwidth for processing movements (recreating yourself in another location) and the effect/passage of time, and if you move fast enough, you’re essentially causing more displacement calculations, taking bandwidth from time calculations, resulting in the dilation. Why was my first thought: “That’s exactly like setting off a bunch of TNT on a Minecraft server to tank the frame rate of the server, overload it with calculations so that as everyone else (the player observer) ages at the same rate, the server only processes a fraction of server time due to the explosion calculations”.
This is a hell of a boundary breaking interview. If Wolfram's findings find their way into mainstream science, the profoundly casual nature of this presentation is so ironic.
That is a fantastic idea that gravity is just the structure of or the fabric of space itself so if no matter existed just a uniform homogenous fundamental field of space gravity would be evenly distributed. As you introduce disturbances the gravity field with ripple and form troughs and ridges.
Great show, Brian. However, if I may, and with all due respect, I pay RUclips to skip the commercials. The messages about subscribing are too much. Best of luck
Im not a scientist and I probably had to listen to it 3 times, but Wolfram is a fascinating character. I believe I understood what he explained. It would explain a lot of mysteries, if true. As observers, we cant really get what we see. Maybe AI will someday.
...we can only consciously process about 2K bits of info each second...this is rather small...one part in 200 million is what we are aware of...we don't have a clue what reality is.
Wolfram is talking about computation and at the same time saying that entropy does not require for the concept of energy (24:35). Energy quantifies the system capacity to accomplish physical work. Without physical work, we cannot even know (compute) the entropy of the system! Entropy concept by itself only give us information about the current state of the system. However, what really matter is the entropy variation, which tells us about whether the system gain or loss information. To change the system information in just one bit, any computer machine must dissipate (at least) 2.9×10^−21 Joule of energy (at room temperature), which is called Landauer's principle (already verified with experiments) = k_B T ln 2, the Boltzmann constant by the system temperature by logarithm of 2.
These scientist, while brilliant, are often stuck in one way of thinking. he seems to think about reality as if it actually IS math and like a computer. Instead of the truth, that these are human constructs simply used to represent reality in an attempt at comprehension. calling space discreet, is just silly. same with anything "quantum" related. it's just brushing up against the limits of our tools or capacity to see, but does not necessarily have any relation to reality. scientist have been wrong about everything for as long as humanity has existed. after a while they develop new tools and make a new model. it's just funny knowing that, and yet each generation thinks they are somehow finally correct.
@@rokko_fable right, I agree although I think most scientists know that their theories are just descriptions of their interpretations of how they think the universe works but then they talk about it as if it's definite and direct like they are explaining how to make a cake. I think they need to emphasize the uncertainty aspect more and that it's just an attempt to explain one theory in terms people might comprehend
I think the implication is that entropy is a mathematical artifact of the statistical aggregate of the behaviours of the quantized fundumental constituents of the universe. He likens it to the gas laws, which while useful for calculating macroscopic events, doesn't really mean anything at a quantum/molecular scale.
No. He only pushes it back one level. He basically says (based on another interview I saw of him), that entropy increases due to "irreducible computational complexity". This might be true, sure, but another way to say "irreducible computational complexity" is that P (polynomial time complexity space) does not equal NP (non-deterministic polynomial time complexity space). So if he is saying entropy increases due to computational complexity, he is really saying entropy increases because P != NP, which, infamously, has yet to be proven. I don't necessarily disagree with him even - I myself have suspected a link between computational complexity and entropy , but he has not really solved the problem, just pushed it back one level. It is generally agreed that existing math (Set theory etc.) won't be able to solve P /= NP. I think homotopy type theory is promising for re-writing physics in one day, so maybe this will eventually shed light on computational complexity, but I'm not expert to be able to comment. So, basically, while it is clever suggestion that computational complexity explains why entropy increases, he (and nobody else either) cannot really explain computational complexity completely, because the mathematical tools are generally thought to not yet exist for that.
Hello. I think you have this slightly wrong: Computational Irreducibility is formally explicit; That the problem of knowing what a system is going to do, is equivalent to the problem space of solving the halting problem (formally undecidable) and by extension that problem space encompasses, the state-space of a Turing machine. What his other principle states (Principle of Computational Equivalence) is that all systems are computationally equivalent : That all systems share this same state space. Implicitly, it is a statement that at the some infinite limit, P = NP, and that computationally bounded observers can only sample from this space in a way such that P=/=NP. It is a joint union of the idea that If you were to have knowledge over all this statespace (similiar to a maxwell's demon)...then you would know what the universe does and that would be your "hyper computer." But it is a necessary consequence, that we that exist in the universe, are computationally bounded, finite parts of it, that course grain the complexity, losing information about that complexity in that process of course graining and thus problems decouple into a P=/=NP problem space. One such problem is of course entropy and why we believe it to be increasing.
The idea that the apparent level of entropy is relative to the computational capacity of the observer/system is absolutely fascinating. But also feels intuitively obvious in hindsight? Far beyond my ability to determine if it is correct though.
The Maxwell's Demon paradox that Dr. Wolfram mentioned was proposed in 1867 and basically resolved with the advent of information theory in the 1940s. I wish he'd commented on that part. Basically, computation has some minimum amount of energy associated with it, as does measurement. In theory, if you knew the position, velocity, etc. of every molecule in a box, then you could predict how it will change over time. However, you would create much more entropy (in the universe, just not the box) than you've reduced simply through the act of computation. And as the system grows, the amount of computation grows exponentially faster. You can build a Maxwell's demon for a quantum system made up of a few entangled particles today, granted it takes a lot more energy than you could recover. But we could reduce it someday to a negligible amount of energy. However, for something the size of a small box filled with room temperature air, even with the theoretical maximum efficiency in information storage and computation, your computer would collapse into a black hole many many orders of magnitude larger than the observable universe.
My thought on "dark matter" is somewhat similar. When we view the behavior of distant galaxies, we are looking back at times when the so-called gravitational "constant" was greater than it is here and now... as the universe was far less spread out than it is now.
Dark matter behaves very similarly for our own galaxy too. It behaves very similarly, despite how far it is, to galaxy and galaxy cluster. What's your take on that?
@aniksamiurrahman6365 All that dark matter seems to be, is a variable tossed into equations in order to make observations of distant events fit with our equations. We have this gravitational constant that seems to work great for predictions of all experiments done here on earth, but seems to fit less with observations of distant events of large bodies. I'd be more amenable to the possibility that we don't have a right understanding of gravity or time, or that we don't understand how large distances affect our observations of distant events in respect to time, or whatever, than that the bulk of the universe is made of some otherwise completely undetectable matter, that somehow amazingly seems to have no measurable effect on our experiments done here on earth. Most of the galaxy we live in is quite distant.
Brian knows more about the practical observations of dark matter than Stephen, and Stephen have an more theoretical and historical view. Observations of stuff like the bullet cluster is problematic with the view that dark matter is more that the physics is wrong than it being something like an particle. I don't know enough to say what view is wrong, only that they make sense form the different backgrounds of Brian and Stephen.
My little crazy idea of what dark matter is, was something Wolfram almost said. Namely that fluctuations in the dimentionallity of space is changing the inverse square law and thus the strength of gravity at bigger distances.
The phenomenon you're talking about is dark energy, not dark matter. The two concepts aren't actually strongly linked beyond the name. Secondly, the cosmological constant isn't thought to change over time as far as I know. Thirdly, I believe the concept of Dark Energy and the cosmological constant actually would work quite nicely with Dr. Wolfram's approach. I don't think he's trying to refute that. What he's trying to refute is that the universe is made up mostly of matter that can't interact with other matter except via gravity. He thinks that some fundamental process other than an undiscovered particle might be responsible for the odd behavior of galaxies. And he's extremely vague about what this might look like. I certainly wasn't very convinced from just this conversation.
Much of this discretization of space discussion reminds me of the work of Harold Aspden. I think his "G Frame" concept is an extremely simplistic view of what Wolfram is digging into.
I very deeply doubt. All what he is saying has been explored by others. Henceforth, either these theories failed to predict anything observable, or, for a very few cases, those prediction didn't bear out in reality.
0:59:51 that problem exists generally, even if you don't use Wolfram physics. Our regular atoms also change all the time, with every breath we change some of our atoms, everytime we eat or drink something we get new atoms and every time we go to the toilet we lose some atoms. After something like a year, almost no atom is the same. To say it dialectically I am the same and not the same as a year ago.
The way he thinks about computation being a limited resource rhymes with how I think about the speed of light being a hard limit on motion. A particle cannot move faster than with the speed of light because it runs out of time to move even more quickly. More generally, the speed of light is really the speed of causality, so it tells us how fast the process of applying the rules is running.
@1:11:10 He talks about "computational effort" as a limited resource to either move through space or move through time and he says that this is what leads to time dilation (preferring moving through space as opposed to moving through time). But what is limiting the computation effort? The matrix? (of course that's a joke but im intrigued as to what the real answer would be).
I’m a huge fan of Stephen Wolfram - had him on my podcast too this week - we discussed how to create more polymaths, entrepreneurship, working on long term innovation projects and reimagining education!
The entrepreneur aspect is by a million miles the lamest aspect of wolframs work, if he had no business success at all his ideas would be just as valid and wonderful
Wolfram description of motion made me think of: Akinetopsia (motion blindness) There are people that are not able to percieve motion. They see the world in freeze frames.
If I where going to pursue anything past what I know. It would be why can he get the right zeroes in his freezes. That would be the million dollar question. I’m not going to. It’s not a casual thing he’s accomplished
I think there's some incomplete reasoning going on here. Entropy is formally the log of microstates for a given macrostate. A higher entropy state therefore has more microstates. Since after any physical event the more probabilistic thing is the system acquiring a macro state with more microstates associated with it, entropy usually increases. For large number of particles, the number microstates of certain macrostates dwarf those associated by other more 'special' macrostates (think of a room with hot air on one side and freezing on the other) so much that the chance of entropy decreasing is infinitesimal. Probability seems to be a good enough reason why we don't have mixed freezing and hot rooms nor smoke combining with hot air and water vapor to become fuel. I don't see why the need to frame in terms of the computational boundedness of the observer. Even if we had perfect information about molecules we'd still see fuel turn to smoke and the temperature move from hot bodies to cold bodies for large objects. The second law is a probabilistic statement for which the macroscopic probability of violation is a limit tending to 0. When you have small enough systems you will see the other probabilities emerge.
@@DrBrianKeatingCool! Jonathan has a brain the size of a planet and you need to think really fast to follow him, but he actually tries to a bit harder to stick to the question, while Stephen tends to meander away on tangent after tangent. No offense to him, intended. Big fan of both guys.
Basically, laws can be broken depending on the way the observer sees the law. The universe has a self correcting system that is something breaks on one level can be corrected on the others to keep the entire system going. Thanks for sharing this as it is important for us to all move forward.
@@aniksamiurrahman6365 what's the point of commenting that if you don't offer an alternative? Genuine question, what even is your point in doing so? And please would you care to clarify then? Eager to hear another view point.
@@aniksamiurrahman6365 lol so you're one of those flies that spread all other RUclips contributing nothing but "you're wrong" or " go learn " types of comments. Ok then iif that's your kick, enjoy.
@@sunbeam9222 And u r one of those who's all talk and no walk. By ur reply alone I can see u know no physics at all. I can't take charge to educate illeterates from ground up.
My take on 2nd law: Imagine two particles next to each other.They only have three options: come closer, stay where they are, or move away from each other. If they repell each other by a force, they will forever move apart. If they attract, they will end up next to each other. If they attract and repell they will bounce forever. Since one of these options is infinite distance apart, the average of these options are that distance between stuff increases over time.
Unfortunately, my wife has four dogs that I have to walk every day. When I go out, I have all four of them nicely organized on their leashes. When I come back, they have braided their leads into a kind of plait. That's the second law of thermodynamics. There are always several ways to braid the lines further. But there is only ever one way to unbraid them. That is the reason why they must always end up entangled, or, in other words, move from order to disorder.
Matter & Energy feels like they might just be stable and unstable "structures" or "entities" made of "condensed multidimensionally curved space". Gravity is curved space and matter "generates" gravitational fields...and matter and enetgy are convertable. P.S.: Mathematica has been my main "Workspace" & also my "Playground" for decades. Thank You Wolfram.
The Second Law, like the First Law in their full generality are axioms of phyiscs. The conservation of energy is an axiom of physics. In its appearance in mechanics or in E&M, it may be "derived": energy is a constant of motion or an integral constant of a dynamical equation. That may be shown. Similarly, the Second Law may be shown for particular thermodynamic systems. But it is axiomatic in full generality.
Exactly. Our anthropocentric perspective has led to fundamental misunderstandings. The existence of time as part of four dimensional space-time, for example. Time t is a convenient shortcut for applied physics but believing in time is superstition.
As a layman, I am probably completely wrong, but it sounds like what you're saying is that physical space can be described using general relativity, and Time is described by quantum mechanics, and this is why we have had trouble making the 2 fit. We used to always say "space-time". But they actually are different which would mean we'd need 2 different sets if formulas to describe them.
I thinks it's more along the lines of general relativity is described by the spatial relationships of the "atoms of space" (a density of computation cause a deflection in the geodesic of causal progression of it), and that quantum mechanics is the same thing but across "branchial space" i.e. the graph of all the ways that computation can be applied. Or something like that. It's like they are different perspectives of the same "object" of the stuff of space
When the delivery is more important than the message, Wolfram rules! Lead the way, Steve!! I was willing to pay your organization for a project but you rejected my payment. Why not record this under water with UV light?
The part around 1:11:00 about time dilation being due to "consuming compute resources" by moving; reminds me of this vector-based "spacetime" explanation: You always move at the speed of light in spacetime. If you are stationary, your velocity is pointed completely in the direction of time. Whereas when you move spatially, some of your fixed speed is spent on moving through space, and the time component of your velocity vector is decreased. In this context, what is speed of light in Stephen's model? Is it essentially an expression of the unit of computation resources used by a node to compute one step?
The speed of light is probably the speed of computation in the model if I were to guess. I wonder why that would be the limit within this framework though? What dictates the amount of computation that can be done?
@@6ixpool520 If we take the analogy with the velocity vector in spacetime, it is not just the maximum limit of computation, it is THE amount of computation done in every step. You can't go higher, you can't go lower either. So it would essentially be a (universal? local?) constant, a quantum of computation. And speed of light in space would be derived from it, a mere emergent phenomenon.
That is a pretty good definition of time. From my physics, nuclear and mechanical e, background… I would say time is the change in relationship between physical things. This incorporates the computational steps Wolfram suggests but also includes the notion that if there was nothing physical in the universe, then we don’t have a universe and we don’t have time.. just having a potential energy of no form existing and not changing would be a state where time does not exist.. no one can know if that state ever existed before the Big Bang. 1/x^2 vs 1/x discussion.
Thanks so much! *What was your favorite takeaway from this conversation?* _Please join my mailing list to get _*_FREE_*_ notes & resources from this show! Click_ 👉 briankeating.com/list
Great episode! Stephen blew my mind like 3 times, something you and your guests do consistently on this show. Keep up the great work, ignore the haters.
I have a question, Dr. Keating, that I'd be most grateful if you were to ask Dr. Wolfram in a future interview. Feel free to ask it in your own manner: the gist of the question is this: "How in the universe did the profound works of Bach, Mozart, Beethoven et. al. come into existence?"
Wolfram is fascinating. The thing that impresses me every time is the amazing arc of his work. The best analogy I can make is of a man creating the tools to work stone to ultimately build a cathedral. The dogged pursuit of his vision of understanding reality in ways no one has done before is amazing. I do not begin to understand his work in a meaningful way, but I have to believe, that if he lives long enough, he will build that cathedral. If he succeeds the consequences for our understanding of reality are profound. If he fails, he will still learn amazing things.
I have a theory that we've overlooked something very fundamental in our model of the universe. I realize this may come off as an unstructured proof, but follow along... LIGO proved that gravity behaves like waves. There seems to be some missing mass in the universe. I think I know where it is. I think gravity not only propagates as waves but also reflects like waves. I was told that the mass of a spring changes with compression and expansion. Taking a step way back to my high school physics class and a demonstration of a very long spring that the teach plucked and we observed a wave propagate from one end to the wall, where it reflected back in the opposite direction. The next demonstration was constructive and destructive interference. Two waves traveling in opposite directions met in the middle and the amplitude was doubled momentary. Third demonstration was a positive pulse from one end and a negative pulse from the other end. The two pulses propagate and met in the middle and for the briefest of moments the waves disappear and the spring looks quiescent. This!, moment in time very significant I believe, because from apparent 'nothingness' waves of equal and opposite direction emerge. Looking at our galaxy and thinking about black holes, what I see is that the black hole is really a point of reflection in space and time. Mass being pulled in eventually reaches the speed of light and 'must' reflect. Our galaxy is in a constant loop, bouncing if you will. Not the big bang, but the big bounce. Thinking about planks constant, I feel like it is the shortest wavelength obtainable without exceeding the speed of C any higher frequency would violator this. 3Blue1Brown said something that made me think. C being the speed of causality. This propagation of cause and effect, is the calculation and iterations of law that S.W. is discussing here. Causality is what keeps us wondering what 'caused' the creation of the universe. I believe we will come to eventually consider not only causality in math but 'effectality'. Effectality can only happen when something is going faster than the speed of causality. There is no such thing as nothing and that is why we must exist. Well that's my rant. LIGO might prove me right. Love your talks.
Stephen Wolfram's answer to the question about whether or not AI will ever derive important solutions/theories was perfect. Paraphrasing his answer, ... Yes, if humans can clearly define a solution space, then AI should be able to do the grunt work of searching for the best answer.
Time is an unavoidable cost to computation. The question that implies is that there is a universal balance sheet, which, on one side lies the cost of progression. So what is that progression? Is it towards, away, or some other, unknown vector?
Interesting that Wolfram mentioned that temperature has nothing to do with entropy. Because by doing so, he distances his vision of entropy from the original formulation of entropy by Clausius. This takes a tool in the connection between thermodynamics and statistical mechanics. I also believe in the possibility that these two views of entropy are actually dealing with two distinct parameters.
Everyday experience is filled with evidence for the relationship between entropy and temperature. We can do fucking molecular dynamics and get very accurate results. If you propose temperature and entropy have nothing to do with each other, you are a clown.
What is the most amazing fact to me if Wolfram's theory is true is that a human being, having all those limitations in speed and scale, can still postulate the truths about structures that underline the universe to this extend.
Wow. This is the best physics interview-podcast I’ve seen since a long time. Happy to see Stephen is now translating his mathematical insights into unconventional physical interpretations. We badly need this, as our current 100-year old physical theories (GR, SR, QP) are based on mathematical correct approximations, but incorrect underlying equivalence relations. There are many things Stephen guesses correctly; such as dark matter actually being a yet unknown property of space. Bravo! Indeed. Finally someone who gets that we need to focus on the grid itself, not on some imaginary invisible mass. Actually the erratic erratic galactic rotation curves are the result of a LACK of spacetime in between our spiral arms. But again; happy at least the discussion is on the grid itself! We need these disruptive insights of top people! Another mathematician, Roger Penrose, made a similar deep remark, as he stresses time and again that mass fundamentally equals not energy but inverse time! In his words; ‘…If you have mass in the QP world, you have a CLOCK…’. He realises this by substituting Planck E=hf into E=MC2. To finish things off, Heisenberg already defined the other CORRECT inverse relation, namely Energy equals inverse space as per dXdP>=h/2, a polar notation constant. Do we know see what is going on? Why we fumbled for 100 years? If we take these two correct inverse equivalence relations, then Einstein’s SR now says that a speeding object contracts frontal space and time, resulting in an INCREASE in its energy (inverse space) and mass (inverse time). In in slightly different terms; the speeding object wraps continuous ST fieldlines around itself in a standing wave of a discrete quanta of inversed spacetime windings, giving the object potential and inertia. Now do we see that speed induced effects on spacetime on the one hand and energymass on the other all cancel out? Want more proof? Stephen wants to know where complex number come from in the QO world. Well, we must compensate [m/s] speed with its dual QP equivalent speed expression of [J/kg] or [J/kg=Nm/kg=m2/s2]. So, the only way m/s and m2/s2 cancel out is to use a prefix of i2=-1 at the QP side. So dual inverse physics requires math to have complex numbers. Do we now get it?
What is interesting is that in meta-spacetime there is no «distance», only relationships. Which is why entangled particles can have infinite distance but a simple relationship.
Time does not exist in the universe, we created the concept of time based on the movement of the planet around the sun. What really exists in the universe is the notion of periodicity which under our human intelligence we see as what we call time.
14:57 time is a measurement of events that can't emerge without space and matter simultaneously. If you have matter and time, where would you put it? If you had matter and space, when would you put it.
Thanks so much! *What was your favorite takeaway from this conversation?* _Please join my mailing list to get _*_FREE_*_ notes & resources from this show! Click_ 👉 briankeating.com/list
@DrBrianKeating My favorite part was when you got him to start listing some of the properties of physics that appeared in his computations. The idea of emerging complexity from some extremely simple property is a very interesting idea...
![What Is The Higgs Field? Matt Strassler [Ep. 460]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/s6XHHxwbqi4/mqdefault.jpg)
👉 Want to stay fully informed on breaking news, compare coverage, and avoid media bias? Go to www.ground.news/drbrian and sign up through my link for 30% OFF unlimited access! 📰
To discover god you have to discover everything else first, am sure the issue of irreducibility is embedded in primes
I saw some model runners add new data to their models and not their data sets to make the model... once they added the new data to the initail model craetion... boom... they got excellent real results so things that seem right can be 100% wrong in methodology... I wonder which Steven does?
I saw some model runners add new data to their models and not their data sets to make the model... once they added the new data to the initial model creation... boom... they got excellent real results so things that seem right can be 100% wrong in methodology... I wonder which Steven does? Also it strikes me that when he mentions "possible histories" that literature has pioneered this . What is a book of fiction? There are millions of duplicate paradigms. The venturi effect is reproduced no matter what the material that flows . Space, and carburetors, black holes... ? Have that shape? The flow speeds up. Of course there are "possible" histories. Of course the flow of electrons, air, water, plasma speeds up when it is "venturied" lol. Scientists need more generalisation. His explanations of space and time are awesome.
Take care four this man. He no fareness four India. He fourget Martin Luther king dreams. My color good color. All color good color.
No make race four man who look differencely four convenience and four huminatarian my dear.
I am very very very sadness four you’re say. But you try you’re best you’re branes and even if no power four you’re neuron I hope you have gr8 mango.
Wow. This is the best physics interview-podcast I’ve seen since a long time. Happy to see Stephen is now translating his mathematical insights into unconventional physical interpretations. We badly need this, as our current 100-year old physical theories (GR, SR, QP) are based on mathematical correct approximations, but incorrect underlying equivalence relations. There are many things Stephen guesses correctly; such as dark matter actually being a yet unknown property of space. Bravo! Indeed. Finally someone who gets that we need to focus on the grid itself, not on some imaginary invisible mass. Actually the erratic
erratic galactic rotation curves are the result of a LACK of spacetime in between our spiral arms. But again; happy at least the discussion is on the grid itself!
We need these disruptive insights of top people! Another mathematician, Roger Penrose, made a similar deep remark, as he stresses time and again that mass fundamentally equals not energy but inverse time! In his words; ‘…If you have mass in the QP world, you have a CLOCK…’. He realises this by substituting Planck E=hf into E=MC2. To finish things off, Heisenberg already defined the other CORRECT inverse relation, namely Energy equals inverse space as per dXdP>=h/2, a polar notation constant.
Do we know see what is going on? Why we fumbled for 100 years? If we take these two correct inverse equivalence relations, then Einstein’s SR now says that a speeding object contracts frontal space and time, resulting in an INCREASE in its energy (inverse space) and mass (inverse time). In in slightly different terms; the speeding object wraps continuous ST fieldlines around itself in a standing wave of a discrete quanta of inversed spacetime windings, giving the object potential and inertia. Now do we see that speed induced effects on spacetime on the one hand and energymass on the other all cancel out? Want more proof? Stephen wants to know where complex number come from in the QO world. Well, we must compensate [m/s] speed with its dual QP equivalent speed expression of [J/kg] or [J/kg=Nm/kg=m2/s2]. So, the only way m/s and m2/s2 cancel out is to use a prefix of i2=-1 at the QP side. So dual inverse physics requires math to have complex numbers. Do we now get it?
Wolfram impresses me more each year. His sense of adventure coupled with that intellect is formidable. I am excited to see where he may be going.
He’s a pretty cool Dude. 😎
He is more or less at the peak of his intellectual ability, but man.... What a peak it is
Some of his expositions and conjectures are far fetched, unsubstantiated, even misleading. What I do not see in his work is the abundance of rigorous analysis and general enough mathematical proofs in his papers.
His arrogance is a tad off putting.. bro we don’t care how many books you wrote 😂 Google works and I can type you condescending fk
His core ideas are **actually** based on mine, and he can't call me by my name. He continues repeating my words without realizing MORE.
It feels surreal to live in a time when you can listen&watch such amazing individuals, so casually. 🤔
@zornu Not exclusively.
@zornu you got a hard-on too?
Those who don’t embrace the internet will fall behind in evolution
@@markhuru without pants
@@KenLieck Not exclusively.
first discoverded wolfram in grad school at osu in late 90s. had to use maple symbolic manipulator and dipped into mathmatica. what a powerful program. wolfram is such a fire eater and a workhorse. he never settles on status quo.
It kills the MacBook lol
@@Blue_Azure101 skill issue
Wolfram is just amazing in that he can both brilliantly push the boundaries of scientific exploration AND explain what he is doing and thinking in the most clear and simple terms. My intuition is that people decades from now will still be discovering and acknowledging the brilliance of Wolfram's ideas.
and not a step on a "moon" or a "mars" lol while antarctica still hidden in plain site ... my ai iphone zombies....
While I have tremendous respect for Wolfram's many accomplishments, most of the ideas that he talks about here do not originate with him. By the way he talks about things, it's easy to mistakenly think it's mostly his work and ideas, rather than the collective work of generations of scientists. I wish he presented things a bit more modestly so that casual observers get a better perspective. In terms of his work on computational irreducibility, it is an interesting perspective, but these ideas can also be framed equally well in more traditional mathematical physics terms.
Wolfram Alpha is the greatest gift of all - Stephen should read ”44” by Thad Roberts which totally is researched using it and is much further ahead
That's a lot of nonsense.
😂
I always find Wolfram to be a most fascinating scholar. 6 books during the covid is just a simple example of his monumental intellect. His confidence in taking on the entire physics in a both macro and micro way is daring. I find him very genuine. I would love to see a few numerical calculations and values coming out of his computation.
Specifically it's his ability to speak simply that I deeply respect and appreciate
@@00jknight and humbly..
Wait, did he write 6 book in the span of 2 years?
Reminds me of Asimov
@@andrewradford3953Yeah, but way smarter. Asimov had trouble understanding "the golden rule"
Fascinating discussion with Dr. Stephen Wolfram! The insight into the computational nature of time and the second law is mind-boggling. The concept that you can't cheat the passage of time due to computational irreducibility adds a unique perspective. Looking forward to diving deeper into Wolfram Physics.
Oh yes! Wolfram is a mad man but that's absolutely not perjorative.
Is it that you can’t cheat it or that it’s incredibly computationally expensive to? As everything is incredibly entangled exponentially over time
@@magnuslysfjord423it seems to me the Professor is looking at several components in accomplishing a monumental feat. Some of them aren’t triangle friendly
What prevents people from subscribing is reposting old videos as new ones. Every video I see now, I have no idea if it's new or not - weirdly, some trust has been broken.
Just remembered why I unsubscribed lol yeah
10 min in:
absolutely fascinating.
not only does wolfram have the ability to talk at length, apparently entirely unscripted, and produce what qualifies as a brilliant piece of rhetoric, but ...
there is a massive amount of information coming through ... and ...
it remains almost fully accessible, even to people who know little physics.
(i say this as someone who DOES know a fair bit of physics, and teaches the same)
but while what he says is undeniably BRILLIANT, it isn't necessarily all CORRECT
You can't say something like that and not provide at least a few examples of what you're referring to. 😂 Please share!
@@TheKornfeld difficult to do, unless you specify WHICH part of my post you want me to provide details for
@@victorfinberg8595 What did he say that isn't necessarily correct?
@@slouch186 for example, the concept that ( i paraphrase) time is simply a result of successive computations.
there are certain fundamental variables, all independent of each other:
- 3 spatial dimensions
- time
- mass
- electric charge
etc.
why do we need to introduce the concept that time is NOT fundamental?
it's also problematic, because it implies that reality is fundamentally mathematical, as opposed to fundamentally physical.
i consider the claim to be an unproved, and unnecessary, assertion
This is one of my top 5 channels I watch and has been inching its way closer to the top the more i watch. I don't work for free. And i dont expect others to work for free. I have happily subscribed. Its literally the least I could do for cutting edge info.
Wow, thank you!
i am an artist and a game developer. It strikes my as incredible how many similarities there are between this description of the universe and the way I structure a game (albeit MUCH less complicated) in the open source engine I use - Godot. Its pretty crazy really.
Sounds like "we live in a simulation"
shhhhh@@pythagorasaurusrex9853
we've known that for a looong time! lol@XvonPocalypse
It's not that amazing. It's not very different to painting a picture. Or taking a photograph, or recording a video. You are in some way copying the perceived world, albeit with more vectors and functions that a simple picture or short video capturing a moment.
@@DJWESG1 I am - originally a painter/ sculptor. I think it's fascinating that the more we learn about reality - the more it looks like a creative act. But I suppose you are postulating it's the other way around, which makes sense I suppose.
I’m so grateful to have access to conversations like this at my fingertips. Thank you both for your scientific contributions and even more for taking on the burden of being public intellectuals.
Wolfram's life history is so fascinating and everything he does is so above the average genius..
agreed! and bonus points for using " average genius " and making it have sense.
@@GoatOfTheWoods @GoatOfTheWoods StephenW is to the "average geniuses" what they are to the average brilliant, and what the brilliant are to the smart 🙌🤪
@@v1kt0u5 Exactly
@@GoatOfTheWoods I was gonna ask "Just who *is* the average genius?" I'd love to see exactly how candidates for the title would be graded as well...
@@KenLieck
Good question, reminds me of the “Reality Distortion Field” that Jobs was famous for is in play here. So where is Einstein on this scale or Eric Ross Weinstein who so frequently pontificates here on similar subjects. Between Eric & Stephen Wolfram both can’t be right, but both can be wrong. So who is the SUPREME UBER-GENIUS?
I missed the bit where he changed EVERYTHING. It doesn't surprise me that he has written so many books as he has a real talent for saying a lot without conveying any new information.
He dumbed a thing the brightest 0.1% of humankind are struggling with down to a form that even you can (possibly) comprehend.
@leonidsawin4578 ah yes, the "thing" got it. Thanks for clearing that up.
@@DingbatToast The point he was trying to make must be computationaly irreducible
As Wolfram says “Whenever computational irreducibility exists in a system it means that in effect there can be no way to predict how the system will behave except by going through as many steps of computation as the evolution of the system itself.”
Which is a completely ambiguous statement, and he provides no actual proof to back this up. So, I stand by my original statement.
Have a lovely weekend 🍻
@@gordonfrimann246 precisely 😉
I have a question. Mr Wolfram states that temperature has nothing to do with the second law. The question is; How many possible configurations can a system have at 0 deg K? I will say only one. At 0 K all motion stop. If molecules move, they possess energy, kinetic energy. If they have energy, temperature must be higher than 0 K. So I can agree that second law have a boundary, but as I understand, it is related to temperature. Can someone help me out here?
Well I'm not him but I think I can take a stab. I think the point he's making is that they are only related in the fact that they are emergent properties of a system that has matter.
Temperature doesn't make any sense outside of having matter interacting with other matter. While entropy itself is a much lower level conceptualization of there being states of the system that change over time and what the rules of those states tend towards.
They aren't tightly coupled as concepts and it's not obvious that either one requires the other perhaps.
@@Gennys.. Hmmmm. Entropy don't happen on its own. Well, one might say it depends on the type of matter. Actinides decay that is true, but that is caused by them being created by interacting with other matter (neutrons) thus becoming radioactive. Trying to keep up with Mr Wolfram is hard. Maybe harder than the capability of my intellect, but I will give it a try.
Entropy of matter can only be caused by two things. Chemically or kinetic interactions. The result is the same. Alteration in energy states that manifest into lower equilibrium. If this is true, then temperature is related. I have to confess that I am grappling here. Maybe I miss something. What role does photons play? Let's ask; Gamma radiation dependent on temperature? No. It moves in 0 K space. What happens when it hits matter? Energy transfer if it hits a nucleus. Result? Increase in temperature. Same with lower frequency radiation. EM radiation causes temperature increase and alpha/beta radiation does to. Am I in the woods here?
I am sure that I am rambling & need help. Dependent on who you ask, some of them will say; yep, a lot😬, but I love to let my mind wonder.
Entropy is a higher level concept in itself caused by irreducibility.
The farther away one is from the beginning of when the rules started; the more “encrypted” they are due to the complexity of the rules that have been applied over each iteration.
Pseudo example
For n in 100:
If n modulus 3:
2+3^n
Else:
2+ 3^n*2
Is less complex than
For n in 1000
The reason why that causes more entropy is because there’s more information to unpack. Hence, the concept of “uncertainty” and “chaos” are historically used.
Temperature is what we subjectively experience but it seems more like it’s related to the density of the functions that are being applied as entangled rules.
The lower temperature indicates there’s less rules being applied to the system
@@magnuslysfjord423 .. Takk skal du ha Magnus. Men ingen ser ut til å vite svaret jeg spør om. Hvor mange molekylære konfigurasjoner kan et lukket system ha ved 0 grader K? Etter din forklaring må svaret bli mindre med temperaturen, men hva er grensen?
Jeg prøver å forstå entropi. Jeg klarer ikke å se at fenomenet er adskilt fra materie, og dermed temperatur.
@@dumpsterplayer2700 .. Have you understood what Mr Wolfram is saying? My understanding is that he postulate that entropy is independent of temperature. My question can be rewritten to; How many subatomic configurations can a molecule have at 0 deg K? I will say 1. Do you have any problem with that? Surly you know of Bose-Einstein condensate?
18% of your viewers liking and subscribing is actually very good. You should know this. Congrats on that. If you want a higher percentage, maybe eliminate the imbedded ads. Definitely soils the enjoyment of the experience. People come to RUclips for very specific topics and dont like being railroaded.
So, you are saying you want to come to youtube for a very specific topic, thoughtfully and respectfully presented by some of the top minds in the world for free and you are... slightly annoyed by the occasional ad therefore you might not subscribe.
Sorry buddy, I doubt if they even want you for a subscriber.
This time, the ads, made the video unwatchable. I HAD ADS EVERY 3 MINUTES! This is the first time I have had to watch so many ads in a video.
@@joeedgar634 and not only that, instead of taking 5 minutes to install an adblock, he asks Dr Keating to basically cut his entire youtube revenue. I will never get this entitlement
@@joeedgar634
>includes embedded ads
>still calls it free
your notion of 'free' is extraordinarily impoverished
@Hexaglyph your notion of language is extraordinarily diminished. But as long as you get to feel smart...
With all due respect, the title is too click baity and there's too many advertising interruptions that go on for too long.
I agree, despite the great guest and the exciting topic, this is almost unwatchable.
I can't remember how I found this interview, but it's life-changing for me and my obsession with entropy and elementary particles 🙌
Glad to hear that!
Literally same . So much food for thought
Epic performance by Stephen Wolfram, exactly as I expected. Thank you Brian!
Glad you enjoyed it!
As someone who started watching this channel from close to the start, Dr Keating has really improved his interviewing skils a lot. Really fantastic interview and I hope you keep it up!
Keating, don't fool yourself, ask Stephen to obtain peer review of his ideas. He started claiming to know QM and ended up claiming he doesn't.
Which peers would provide an unbiased review? Seems like a tough choice when the ideas are so radical. Peer review would be more useful once there is a testable thesis, an experimental design, and some results. Before that, it's just an interesting framework that seems to have properties that could explain reality.
@@FredPauling well he has a base theory, where he claimed he could rediscovee QM and he could not show the math. Thats not even review. Thats just people wanting to see the math and not the claims.
excellent point!! i think it would be easy to get unbiased judgements
Hi Brian, this was a fantastic interview, thanks for doing it. Your knowledge and ability to push back and ask relevant deep technical questions made it all the better. If there were one suggestion to improve the format it would be to remove the time constraint, I think this interview could easily have played out for another hour or so. Appreciate it must be tough if not impossible with kids and a job! But yes, thanks again and looking forward to your future videos. 👍
Glad you enjoyed it!
I do not agree with removing the time constraint. I rarely have hours to listen to things like this. If it were another hour long, even though I love this, I would never touch it just because of time.
I know I am very ignorant, but I missed the part where Wolfram proves entrophy...
Misleading title.. was hoping for a proof of the 2nd Law, and possible exceptions to it.
But you got a great bunch of well known historical snippets!
One thing i like about Wolfram is his breadth of knowledge when it comes to the history and provenance of science. His series on that stuff is great and it shows that he has a great idea of how scientific ideas fit with each other and which ones are important.
"his series on that stuff..."
Where?
Please put all your ads at the start, its infuriating to have the train of thought be all of a sudden flooded by something that has NOTHING to do with the subject being discussed in the podcast. I imagine that that´s one of the causes so many people aren´t subscribed to your channel, maybe you need to rethink your capitalization strategy.
actually, put them at the end, they will be even less annoying, and yet, people will be more likely to watch them (people are going to skip them if they can anywhere ... at the end they often have nothing else to watch)
@@lastadolkgGM get youtube premium and be engaged enough to skip forward through the other ads
@@lastadolkgGM not just the placement of Ads. This thing has way too many ads to make the video unwatchable.
I am professor of advertisements regarding RUclips social media sites etc. I can conclude that this video could happily support 20% more adds and having them every ten minutes guarantees most people will fail to skip them. Feeding them relevant and helpful advice about products they may want in the future. Nothing to lose by doing this. Please remove your comment. (Sponsored by Namco - traditional arcade board specialists)
@@deathorb
Wolfram is undoubtedly one of the most brilliant minds alive in the last few decades. His current slew of presentations are intriguing, but it would be nice to be shown some actual maths, algorithms, explanations, or (heaven forbid) testable predictions from his work. The fact that he's not tied to academia gives him a lot of freedom, but freedom to work also means freedom to utterly ignore the scientific process and just go on podcasts to claim he's solved all the problems without actually telling us HOW, in a way that can be understood, scrutinized and replicated.
yes
he's actually solved nothing here if it doesn't agree with experiment.
Writing a book while the podcast is going! I’m dyyyying 😂😂😂😂😂.
He was like 'shit he got me ' 😂
@@jimpim6454 😂
I wish you would follow Lexs format. Ads and such at the start and end of the video only! An no interruptions to the talk
I completely agree with this comment. Your interviews are great, but the interruptions by ads make them less attractive. This is my sincere opinion.
For the ChatGPT points: It doesn't work... even at a quite basic logical level... for reasoning. I asked Chat to create a Venn Diagram for a categorical argument I knew to be invalid. It failed immediately, directing me to represent All S are P by placing a P circle inside an S circle, rather than the other way round. It only got worse from there. Pretty bad when an AI has no real I.
Agree. AI trains on our garbage. Just wait till it starts training on its own garbage.
"Time is the inexorable progress of computation." That's succinct and profound.
That is his stone old automaton model of the universe. I found it never convincing and reductionistic. There is a reason why not everyone is running around like he found God. 😂
Time is preservation of the order of operations. -me a non educated construction worker @24 years old.
These guys are boring and take the long way to discover the obvious and people are look oooh so smart!
@jacobostapowicz8188 Ah! A brother in the craft. I'm a Bricklayer myself. Keep on keepin' on.
@@karlbarlow8040 Awesome, I mainly do roofing and always tell people i would not want to mess with a mason or a framer!
We think about things out there whilst building. 💪
@jacobostapowicz8188 I think it's the 3D, real world, problem solving nature of the job that makes our minds agile and logical enough to get to grips with anything. Years ago, I got to know a guy who was bricklaying in the 1920's and he and his mates had just the same interest and deep appreciation of the wonders of the universe. I'm pretty sure you are sharper than I was when I was 24. It's good to know the tradition goes on 👍
The problem I have with this notion of "time is a computational process" is that the idea of a "process" is something that *unfolds in time*. So it's circular.
its not circular. Thats exactly what it means. Time, is the progression of a system changing states. when the system stops progressing, "time" stops. because the system is non-isolated, we dont notice this. say we have a system in front of us like particles in a box, and lets pretend we could stop all of its particles from moving. Well we observers of the system dont say time stops, because we humans as a system ourselves, has not stopped.
The problem in defining time as existing independent of underlying processes, is a feature of us relying on us observing systems in isolation, which is not possible because we are part of the system. its a basic flaw in the assumptions of traditional physics, and also why theres an observer dependence in every major physics theory.
@@NightmareCourtPictures Very well stated.
that is not necessarily the problem, you do spot a circularity but that is inherent in the English words we are using here. the trick is to see computation itself as a block world thing, i.e. as a graph (which sound profound but isn't - pretty much anything that is discrete mathematics can be though of as a graph - the real question to ask is: but it is profitable to do so?)
@@Zeuts85 no, all of what he said was beside the point
@@brandonlewis2599 It doesn’t unfold. It folds against constraints.
Flip your view around.
You aren’t watching the car go around the track from the stands.
You’re in the driver’s seat.
Are you steering? That’s up for debate.
Wolfram is always a good interview. This man shaped my entire understanding of the universe and introduced me to determinism without even muttering the word.
One of the best interviews I have ever heard. Both men are amazing, thank you both
Wow, thank you!
I have a sense that Stephen's goodness has been the foundation of his work, the essence of mathematics is truth.
How so?
I find the mention of the engineering problem at the end (at about 1:32:30) is interesting to me. The type of thing he is talking about is routinely done. I was reviewing a multi-physics simulation product at one point. They had an optimization feature that does exactly what he says about the strut. In studying statistics, we often did massive numbers of simulations for a similar purpose (find the optimal parameters). What is interesting, in contrast to Wolfram's universe, is that these were not part of a framework about how to conceive the world, but something humans just did naturally.
I am about four years older than Wolfram. I started studying physics. I was working in High Energy Physics on campus from my freshman year. In that job I learned to program and learned a lot about statistics, and particle physics. I eventually switched to computer science. That is a long complex story, but one of the things I found was that even then, in the early to mid 1970s there seemed to be a lessening of funding. There were few tenured slots and lots of openings for graduate assistantships and post-docs. These, of course, were much cheaper. Another thing that was interesting was that one of the co-heads of the HEP department had a joint appointment with the then brand-new Computer Science Department. He had an "experiment", that was fantastically expensive, in pattern recognition.
The constant that is used would have to bounce off Moire in some form I’m assuming. I can’t imagine past that point.
this is the type of shit you watch when you want to seem like a man of science intellectual without ever having to actually crack open a textbook
Yes and typing a reply is the same as publishing and getting likes is peer review.
And if nobody acknowledged the reply it means my comment is 100% correct and it destroys everything in science.
@@dhardy6654 🤣🤣🤣
Agree! All this crap is to sell that stack of books. Addressed to amateurs and time loosers😢
I, for one, am a complete and utter science intellectual and yet here I am.
Not feeling so hot about your hypothesis now huh, Mr. Big Shot?
I have smitten down this demented bulwark of inferior cognition with the equivalence of a mental exhalation. My vastly superior inhalations would easily spell the end of you.
Please refrain from being inferior in my presence in the future. It displeases me. If you wish to develop yourself and be more like me I suggest you do not attempt and give up proactively, because it is not possible. More people should proactively remove themselves from my presence in order to reduce my displeasure, but alas, while I harbor a great many skills and powers of grand importance and impact I have yet to acquire the ability to mentally control inferior humans. This is because it is only possible for me to control those who are equal to me, but there are none. This explains my lack of total mind control soundly and perfectly but I digress. Have an acceptable day, good sir.
interesting points...
15:14 what is time
20:30 temperature & heat
24:32 what is entropy
31:19 3 big theories of 1900s
50:03 neutrinos are dark matter
54:30 blackholes
58:01 if brain processing 1000x
1:05:08 space & time not same
1:06:47 qm magnitude & phase not same
1:10:30 time dilation
Just mind-blowing!! His explanation of time-dilation as a consequence of computational effort to move in space rather progressing through time just knocked me out.
I like to imagine what it would really be like if time "froze" or your body and brain are moving so fast that time appears to be frozen, what would the world actually look like then and how would your body react with it assuming your body moves normal relative to you. I image the air feeling empty, no gravity, heating and breaking things easily, seeing red and blue shift as you move, etc.
I love his analogy of entropy and encryption!
Rather obvious, I'd say. Stronger encryption means higher entropy.
@@NeverTalkToCops1 What is obvious or not is observer dependent, I think. It wasn't so obvious to me before but now I can't help but see it as the most natural proposition ever! Obviously!
Bell labs, entropy, phones, and information share a common history.
@@mkhosono1741 Right. This is why I love Shannon's information theory. He was the one who really discovered the ultimate meaning of Entropy and saw the connection between his theory and Boltzmann's entropy based on probability. Definitely a connection in between information in the universe and its probabilistic nature.
@@chemistchemist6438 In a communication system messages are predicted into existence according to Shannon's information theorem using the concept of probability.
Predicting messages into existence is a syntropic process -- teleological.
Entropy = average information.
Syntropy = average mutual information.
Sine is dual to cosine or dual sine -- the word co means mutual and implies duality.
Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics!
Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy).
Certainty (predictability, syntropy) is dual to uncertainty (unpredictability, entropy) -- the Heisenberg certainty/uncertainty principle.
Probability waves or electro magnetic waves, light require the receiver of a message to predict reality into existence -- syntropic.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
Syntax is dual to semantics -- languages.
If mathematics is a language then it is dual.
Finding out about Wolfram physics has really rocked me to my core and I'm very grateful
@1:10:26
Did he just say time dilation is essentially that, there is a certain bandwidth for processing movements (recreating yourself in another location) and the effect/passage of time, and if you move fast enough, you’re essentially causing more displacement calculations, taking bandwidth from time calculations, resulting in the dilation.
Why was my first thought: “That’s exactly like setting off a bunch of TNT on a Minecraft server to tank the frame rate of the server, overload it with calculations so that as everyone else (the player observer) ages at the same rate, the server only processes a fraction of server time due to the explosion calculations”.
For me he lost some credibility there.
That was a very strange thing to say. It sounded like an analogy, but I had the impression he was serious.
For me he lost some credibility there.
That was a very strange thing to say. It sounded like an analogy, but I had the impression he was serious.
For me he lost some credibility there.
That was a very strange thing to say. It sounded like an analogy, but I had the impression he was serious.
For me he lost some credibility there.
That was a very strange thing to say. It sounded like an analogy, but I had the impression he was serious.
Oeps; quadruple post ;-)
Please so another interview instead of chopping this one over and over . Wolfram is a great man and a genius to be remembered for centuries
Superb. Stephen Wolfram is a REAL thinker. Much respect.
This is a hell of a boundary breaking interview. If Wolfram's findings find their way into mainstream science, the profoundly casual nature of this presentation is so ironic.
That is a fantastic idea that gravity is just the structure of or the fabric of space itself so if no matter existed just a uniform homogenous fundamental field of space gravity would be evenly distributed. As you introduce disturbances the gravity field with ripple and form troughs and ridges.
Great show, Brian. However, if I may, and with all due respect, I pay RUclips to skip the commercials. The messages about subscribing are too much.
Best of luck
I understand
Im not a scientist and I probably had to listen to it 3 times, but Wolfram is a fascinating character. I believe I understood what he explained. It would explain a lot of mysteries, if true. As observers, we cant really get what we see. Maybe AI will someday.
Wolfram also isn't a scientist!
...we can only consciously process about 2K bits of info each second...this is rather small...one part in 200 million is what we are aware of...we don't have a clue what reality is.
@@Prometheus4096 why not?
First Law: You can't win. Second Law: You can't even break even except at absolute zero. Third Law: There is no such thing as absolute zero.
Wolfram is talking about computation and at the same time saying that entropy does not require for the concept of energy (24:35). Energy quantifies the system capacity to accomplish physical work. Without physical work, we cannot even know (compute) the entropy of the system! Entropy concept by itself only give us information about the current state of the system. However, what really matter is the entropy variation, which tells us about whether the system gain or loss information. To change the system information in just one bit, any computer machine must dissipate (at least) 2.9×10^−21 Joule of energy (at room temperature), which is called Landauer's principle (already verified with experiments) = k_B T ln 2, the Boltzmann constant by the system temperature by logarithm of 2.
These scientist, while brilliant, are often stuck in one way of thinking. he seems to think about reality as if it actually IS math and like a computer. Instead of the truth, that these are human constructs simply used to represent reality in an attempt at comprehension.
calling space discreet, is just silly. same with anything "quantum" related. it's just brushing up against the limits of our tools or capacity to see, but does not necessarily have any relation to reality.
scientist have been wrong about everything for as long as humanity has existed. after a while they develop new tools and make a new model. it's just funny knowing that, and yet each generation thinks they are somehow finally correct.
@@rokko_fable right, I agree although I think most scientists know that their theories are just descriptions of their interpretations of how they think the universe works but then they talk about it as if it's definite and direct like they are explaining how to make a cake. I think they need to emphasize the uncertainty aspect more and that it's just an attempt to explain one theory in terms people might comprehend
I think the implication is that entropy is a mathematical artifact of the statistical aggregate of the behaviours of the quantized fundumental constituents of the universe. He likens it to the gas laws, which while useful for calculating macroscopic events, doesn't really mean anything at a quantum/molecular scale.
@@rokko_fable.. My thoughts too. Question asked in my separate post are not answered.
No. He only pushes it back one level. He basically says (based on another interview I saw of him), that entropy increases due to "irreducible computational complexity". This might be true, sure, but another way to say "irreducible computational complexity" is that P (polynomial time complexity space) does not equal NP (non-deterministic polynomial time complexity space). So if he is saying entropy increases due to computational complexity, he is really saying entropy increases because P != NP, which, infamously, has yet to be proven. I don't necessarily disagree with him even - I myself have suspected a link between computational complexity and entropy , but he has not really solved the problem, just pushed it back one level. It is generally agreed that existing math (Set theory etc.) won't be able to solve P /= NP. I think homotopy type theory is promising for re-writing physics in one day, so maybe this will eventually shed light on computational complexity, but I'm not expert to be able to comment. So, basically, while it is clever suggestion that computational complexity explains why entropy increases, he (and nobody else either) cannot really explain computational complexity completely, because the mathematical tools are generally thought to not yet exist for that.
Hello. I think you have this slightly wrong: Computational Irreducibility is formally explicit; That the problem of knowing what a system is going to do, is equivalent to the problem space of solving the halting problem (formally undecidable) and by extension that problem space encompasses, the state-space of a Turing machine.
What his other principle states (Principle of Computational Equivalence) is that all systems are computationally equivalent : That all systems share this same state space.
Implicitly, it is a statement that at the some infinite limit, P = NP, and that computationally bounded observers can only sample from this space in a way such that P=/=NP. It is a joint union of the idea that If you were to have knowledge over all this statespace (similiar to a maxwell's demon)...then you would know what the universe does and that would be your "hyper computer." But it is a necessary consequence, that we that exist in the universe, are computationally bounded, finite parts of it, that course grain the complexity, losing information about that complexity in that process of course graining and thus problems decouple into a P=/=NP problem space. One such problem is of course entropy and why we believe it to be increasing.
The idea that the apparent level of entropy is relative to the computational capacity of the observer/system is absolutely fascinating. But also feels intuitively obvious in hindsight? Far beyond my ability to determine if it is correct though.
The Maxwell's Demon paradox that Dr. Wolfram mentioned was proposed in 1867 and basically resolved with the advent of information theory in the 1940s. I wish he'd commented on that part. Basically, computation has some minimum amount of energy associated with it, as does measurement. In theory, if you knew the position, velocity, etc. of every molecule in a box, then you could predict how it will change over time. However, you would create much more entropy (in the universe, just not the box) than you've reduced simply through the act of computation. And as the system grows, the amount of computation grows exponentially faster.
You can build a Maxwell's demon for a quantum system made up of a few entangled particles today, granted it takes a lot more energy than you could recover. But we could reduce it someday to a negligible amount of energy. However, for something the size of a small box filled with room temperature air, even with the theoretical maximum efficiency in information storage and computation, your computer would collapse into a black hole many many orders of magnitude larger than the observable universe.
And does it add anything? Or is it more of a truism?
to the extent that it is correct, it is obvious and not novel
to the extent that it is not correct, it is original with this genius
Richard Feynman said that if someone says they understand QM, then they haven't really begun ....
My thought on "dark matter" is somewhat similar.
When we view the behavior of distant galaxies, we are looking back at times when the so-called gravitational "constant" was greater than it is here and now... as the universe was far less spread out than it is now.
Dark matter behaves very similarly for our own galaxy too. It behaves very similarly, despite how far it is, to galaxy and galaxy cluster. What's your take on that?
@aniksamiurrahman6365 All that dark matter seems to be, is a variable tossed into equations in order to make observations of distant events fit with our equations.
We have this gravitational constant that seems to work great for predictions of all experiments done here on earth, but seems to fit less with observations of distant events of large bodies. I'd be more amenable to the possibility that we don't have a right understanding of gravity or time, or that we don't understand how large distances affect our observations of distant events in respect to time, or whatever, than that the bulk of the universe is made of some otherwise completely undetectable matter, that somehow amazingly seems to have no measurable effect on our experiments done here on earth. Most of the galaxy we live in is quite distant.
Brian knows more about the practical observations of dark matter than Stephen, and Stephen have an more theoretical and historical view. Observations of stuff like the bullet cluster is problematic with the view that dark matter is more that the physics is wrong than it being something like an particle.
I don't know enough to say what view is wrong, only that they make sense form the different backgrounds of Brian and Stephen.
My little crazy idea of what dark matter is, was something Wolfram almost said. Namely that fluctuations in the dimentionallity of space is changing the inverse square law and thus the strength of gravity at bigger distances.
The phenomenon you're talking about is dark energy, not dark matter. The two concepts aren't actually strongly linked beyond the name. Secondly, the cosmological constant isn't thought to change over time as far as I know. Thirdly, I believe the concept of Dark Energy and the cosmological constant actually would work quite nicely with Dr. Wolfram's approach. I don't think he's trying to refute that.
What he's trying to refute is that the universe is made up mostly of matter that can't interact with other matter except via gravity. He thinks that some fundamental process other than an undiscovered particle might be responsible for the odd behavior of galaxies. And he's extremely vague about what this might look like. I certainly wasn't very convinced from just this conversation.
Much of this discretization of space discussion reminds me of the work of Harold Aspden. I think his "G Frame" concept is an extremely simplistic view of what Wolfram is digging into.
Stephen Wolfram may be on to something that will hopefully course correct modern physics and quantum mechanics. Great podcast, @DrBrianKeating
I very deeply doubt. All what he is saying has been explored by others. Henceforth, either these theories failed to predict anything observable, or, for a very few cases, those prediction didn't bear out in reality.
0:59:51 that problem exists generally, even if you don't use Wolfram physics. Our regular atoms also change all the time, with every breath we change some of our atoms, everytime we eat or drink something we get new atoms and every time we go to the toilet we lose some atoms. After something like a year, almost no atom is the same. To say it dialectically I am the same and not the same as a year ago.
The Ship of Theseus.
"Depending on the study, most of the atoms in our human body are replaced every 5-7 years."
The way he thinks about computation being a limited resource rhymes with how I think about the speed of light being a hard limit on motion. A particle cannot move faster than with the speed of light because it runs out of time to move even more quickly. More generally, the speed of light is really the speed of causality, so it tells us how fast the process of applying the rules is running.
Thanks for this. I like how you framed it. Maybe it being the limit will tell us much about the fundamental substrate of reality eventually.
It's also more accurately known as "the speed of information."
And a Planck Length is the resolution (or, the smallest storable value. aka, epsilon) :D
Coolcat, i like the way you think. Leave me a comment on the video, "the physical reason time slows at the speed of light".
I think you'll like it.
@@immrsv i would argue the smallest unit of length is also the smallest unit of time and at that point they become the same dimensional thing.
@1:11:10 He talks about "computational effort" as a limited resource to either move through space or move through time and he says that this is what leads to time dilation (preferring moving through space as opposed to moving through time). But what is limiting the computation effort? The matrix? (of course that's a joke but im intrigued as to what the real answer would be).
I’m a huge fan of Stephen Wolfram - had him on my podcast too this week - we discussed how to create more polymaths, entrepreneurship, working on long term innovation projects and reimagining education!
The entrepreneur aspect is by a million miles the lamest aspect of wolframs work, if he had no business success at all his ideas would be just as valid and wonderful
Thanks. I'll tune it.. didn't know about you before
@@m1ar1vin Thanks - hope you enjoy it
@@xmathmanx It's unlikely he'd be able to pursue his ideas to the extent he does without the freedom granted him from his business success :/
@@sunnyinvladivostok nope, almost every great thinker, scientist, philosopher etc etc was not very rich
Wolfram description of motion made me think of:
Akinetopsia (motion blindness)
There are people that are not able to percieve motion. They see the world in freeze frames.
If I where going to pursue anything past what I know. It would be why can he get the right zeroes in his freezes. That would be the million dollar question. I’m not going to. It’s not a casual thing he’s accomplished
I think there's some incomplete reasoning going on here. Entropy is formally the log of microstates for a given macrostate. A higher entropy state therefore has more microstates. Since after any physical event the more probabilistic thing is the system acquiring a macro state with more microstates associated with it, entropy usually increases. For large number of particles, the number microstates of certain macrostates dwarf those associated by other more 'special' macrostates (think of a room with hot air on one side and freezing on the other) so much that the chance of entropy decreasing is infinitesimal. Probability seems to be a good enough reason why we don't have mixed freezing and hot rooms nor smoke combining with hot air and water vapor to become fuel. I don't see why the need to frame in terms of the computational boundedness of the observer. Even if we had perfect information about molecules we'd still see fuel turn to smoke and the temperature move from hot bodies to cold bodies for large objects. The second law is a probabilistic statement for which the macroscopic probability of violation is a limit tending to 0. When you have small enough systems you will see the other probabilities emerge.
Well said
Yes. What he said.
The absolute of space is infinity, the absolute of time is eternity, so space and time has no origin or ending
You're a good dude Dr. Keating. Thank you for your channel :) Dr. Wolfram is a super cool dude too! :D
Super cool Brainiac! ;D
Why is Brian reading while Stephen is explaining stuff? His eyes just go left to right repeatedly. 🤔
Brilliant. I’m so glad Wolfram had time to figure this all out between books. -He’d be impressed how long it took me to write this
Thanks for this, Brian. Please also try to get Jonathan for an interview.
Noted!
@@DrBrianKeatingCool! Jonathan has a brain the size of a planet and you need to think really fast to follow him, but he actually tries to a bit harder to stick to the question, while Stephen tends to meander away on tangent after tangent. No offense to him, intended. Big fan of both guys.
Basically, laws can be broken depending on the way the observer sees the law. The universe has a self correcting system that is something breaks on one level can be corrected on the others to keep the entire system going. Thanks for sharing this as it is important for us to all move forward.
I don't think you got it right.
@@aniksamiurrahman6365 what's the point of commenting that if you don't offer an alternative? Genuine question, what even is your point in doing so? And please would you care to clarify then? Eager to hear another view point.
@@sunbeam9222 Ever heard of a little activity called "learning physics"? Try that first, aye?
@@aniksamiurrahman6365 lol so you're one of those flies that spread all other RUclips contributing nothing but "you're wrong" or " go learn " types of comments. Ok then iif that's your kick, enjoy.
@@sunbeam9222 And u r one of those who's all talk and no walk. By ur reply alone I can see u know no physics at all. I can't take charge to educate illeterates from ground up.
My take on 2nd law:
Imagine two particles next to each other.They only have three options: come closer, stay where they are, or move away from each other.
If they repell each other by a force, they will forever move apart. If they attract, they will end up next to each other. If they attract and repell they will bounce forever.
Since one of these options is infinite distance apart, the average of these options are that distance between stuff increases over time.
especially in steal at room temp
Unfortunately, my wife has four dogs that I have to walk every day. When I go out, I have all four of them nicely organized on their leashes. When I come back, they have braided their leads into a kind of plait. That's the second law of thermodynamics. There are always several ways to braid the lines further. But there is only ever one way to unbraid them. That is the reason why they must always end up entangled, or, in other words, move from order to disorder.
That's not how physics works and this has nothing to do with the 2nd law.
@@Prometheus4096 Tell that someone who has a MD in theoretical physics since 40 years.
@@minimal3734 I just did.
When you are a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
(when you are a mathematician, everything looks like a computation)
Matter & Energy feels like they might just be stable and unstable "structures" or "entities" made of "condensed multidimensionally curved space". Gravity is curved space and matter "generates" gravitational fields...and matter and enetgy are convertable.
P.S.: Mathematica has been my main "Workspace" & also my "Playground" for decades. Thank You Wolfram.
That "open the pod bay doors!" always gets me unprepared! :D
"Time is this computational process of the progression of the universe applying these rules to see what comes next" Deep!
Around 1:21:00 the way he words our relation to time is so profound.
Sounds like genuine schizobabble to a neanderthal with no physics knowledge such as myself
The Second Law, like the First Law in their full generality are axioms of phyiscs. The conservation of energy is an axiom of physics. In its appearance in mechanics or in E&M, it may be "derived": energy is a constant of motion or an integral constant of a dynamical equation. That may be shown. Similarly, the Second Law may be shown for particular thermodynamic systems. But it is axiomatic in full generality.
nope
Exactly. Our anthropocentric perspective has led to fundamental misunderstandings. The existence of time as part of four dimensional space-time, for example. Time t is a convenient shortcut for applied physics but believing in time is superstition.
As a layman, I am probably completely wrong, but it sounds like what you're saying is that physical space can be described using general relativity, and Time is described by quantum mechanics, and this is why we have had trouble making the 2 fit. We used to always say "space-time". But they actually are different which would mean we'd need 2 different sets if formulas to describe them.
I thinks it's more along the lines of general relativity is described by the spatial relationships of the "atoms of space" (a density of computation cause a deflection in the geodesic of causal progression of it), and that quantum mechanics is the same thing but across "branchial space" i.e. the graph of all the ways that computation can be applied. Or something like that. It's like they are different perspectives of the same "object" of the stuff of space
no, that's not what he's saying
@@HarryHab-w9k oh cool. Thanks.
From philosophy and observation to mathematics. Fascinating
When the delivery is more important than the message, Wolfram rules! Lead the way, Steve!! I was willing to pay your organization for a project but you rejected my payment. Why not record this under water with UV light?
The part around 1:11:00 about time dilation being due to "consuming compute resources" by moving; reminds me of this vector-based "spacetime" explanation: You always move at the speed of light in spacetime. If you are stationary, your velocity is pointed completely in the direction of time. Whereas when you move spatially, some of your fixed speed is spent on moving through space, and the time component of your velocity vector is decreased.
In this context, what is speed of light in Stephen's model? Is it essentially an expression of the unit of computation resources used by a node to compute one step?
The speed of light is probably the speed of computation in the model if I were to guess. I wonder why that would be the limit within this framework though? What dictates the amount of computation that can be done?
@@6ixpool520 If we take the analogy with the velocity vector in spacetime, it is not just the maximum limit of computation, it is THE amount of computation done in every step. You can't go higher, you can't go lower either. So it would essentially be a (universal? local?) constant, a quantum of computation. And speed of light in space would be derived from it, a mere emergent phenomenon.
Watch the video, "the physical reason time slows at the speed of light". It's 2 minutes that explains everything.
Been at quantum physics for most of my life. Understudied with Michio. Trust me, none of us get it. We never really will.
That is a pretty good definition of time. From my physics, nuclear and mechanical e, background… I would say time is the change in relationship between physical things. This incorporates the computational steps Wolfram suggests but also includes the notion that if there was nothing physical in the universe, then we don’t have a universe and we don’t have time.. just having a potential energy of no form existing and not changing would be a state where time does not exist.. no one can know if that state ever existed before the Big Bang. 1/x^2 vs 1/x discussion.
How does the Lorentz symmetry arise?
Thank you both!
Thanks so much! *What was your favorite takeaway from this conversation?* _Please join my mailing list to get _*_FREE_*_ notes & resources from this show! Click_ 👉 briankeating.com/list
Great episode! Stephen blew my mind like 3 times, something you and your guests do consistently on this show. Keep up the great work, ignore the haters.
Thanks! Will do!
Ignore the Big Bang Theory!!! 😊
I have a question, Dr. Keating, that I'd be most grateful if you were to ask Dr. Wolfram in a future interview. Feel free to ask it in your own manner: the gist of the question is this: "How in the universe did the profound works of Bach, Mozart, Beethoven et. al. come into existence?"
Wolfram is fascinating. The thing that impresses me every time is the amazing arc of his work. The best analogy I can make is of a man creating the tools to work stone to ultimately build a cathedral. The dogged pursuit of his vision of understanding reality in ways no one has done before is amazing. I do not begin to understand his work in a meaningful way, but I have to believe, that if he lives long enough, he will build that cathedral. If he succeeds the consequences for our understanding of reality are profound. If he fails, he will still learn amazing things.
Thanks for the video, but can someone please summarize the main points b/c I don’t have time to watch the whole thing.
Richard Feynman once said: "If you think you understand quantum mechanics, then you don't understand quantum mechanics."
I understand QM without thinking it.
I love it, @@drgetwrekt869 !
@@drgetwrekt869 you had to think it to type it lol
maybe yes, maybe not@@alexbenzie6585
I have a theory that we've overlooked something very fundamental in our model of the universe. I realize this may come off as an unstructured proof, but follow along...
LIGO proved that gravity behaves like waves.
There seems to be some missing mass in the universe. I think I know where it is.
I think gravity not only propagates as waves but also reflects like waves.
I was told that the mass of a spring changes with compression and expansion.
Taking a step way back to my high school physics class and a demonstration of a very long spring that the teach plucked and we observed a wave propagate from one end to the wall, where it reflected back in the opposite direction. The next demonstration was constructive and destructive interference. Two waves traveling in opposite directions met in the middle and the amplitude was doubled momentary. Third demonstration was a positive pulse from one end and a negative pulse from the other end. The two pulses propagate and met in the middle and for the briefest of moments the waves disappear and the spring looks quiescent. This!, moment in time very significant I believe, because from apparent 'nothingness' waves of equal and opposite direction emerge. Looking at our galaxy and thinking about black holes, what I see is that the black hole is really a point of reflection in space and time. Mass being pulled in eventually reaches the speed of light and 'must' reflect. Our galaxy is in a constant loop, bouncing if you will. Not the big bang, but the big bounce.
Thinking about planks constant, I feel like it is the shortest wavelength obtainable without exceeding the speed of C any higher frequency would violator this.
3Blue1Brown said something that made me think. C being the speed of causality. This propagation of cause and effect, is the calculation and iterations of law that S.W. is discussing here.
Causality is what keeps us wondering what 'caused' the creation of the universe. I believe we will come to eventually consider not only causality in math but 'effectality'. Effectality can only happen when something is going faster than the speed of causality.
There is no such thing as nothing and that is why we must exist.
Well that's my rant. LIGO might prove me right.
Love your talks.
Stephen Wolfram's answer to the question about whether or not AI will ever derive important solutions/theories was perfect. Paraphrasing his answer, ...
Yes, if humans can clearly define a solution space, then AI should be able to do the grunt work of searching for the best answer.
that's not an answer, that merely a convenient definition of what it means to "clearly define a solution space"
"if humans can clearly define a solution space"
That's a mighty fine "if" you are carrying there, son.
That sounds like somebody confused between the meanings of "a computer" and "AI".
Time is an unavoidable cost to computation. The question that implies is that there is a universal balance sheet, which, on one side lies the cost of progression. So what is that progression? Is it towards, away, or some other, unknown vector?
Interesting that Wolfram mentioned that temperature has nothing to do with entropy. Because by doing so, he distances his vision of entropy from the original formulation of entropy by Clausius. This takes a tool in the connection between thermodynamics and statistical mechanics. I also believe in the possibility that these two views of entropy are actually dealing with two distinct parameters.
Everyday experience is filled with evidence for the relationship between entropy and temperature. We can do fucking molecular dynamics and get very accurate results. If you propose temperature and entropy have nothing to do with each other, you are a clown.
What is the most amazing fact to me if Wolfram's theory is true is that a human being, having all those limitations in speed and scale, can still postulate the truths about structures that underline the universe to this extend.
Wow. This is the best physics interview-podcast I’ve seen since a long time. Happy to see Stephen is now translating his mathematical insights into unconventional physical interpretations. We badly need this, as our current 100-year old physical theories (GR, SR, QP) are based on mathematical correct approximations, but incorrect underlying equivalence relations. There are many things Stephen guesses correctly; such as dark matter actually being a yet unknown property of space. Bravo! Indeed. Finally someone who gets that we need to focus on the grid itself, not on some imaginary invisible mass. Actually the erratic
erratic galactic rotation curves are the result of a LACK of spacetime in between our spiral arms. But again; happy at least the discussion is on the grid itself!
We need these disruptive insights of top people! Another mathematician, Roger Penrose, made a similar deep remark, as he stresses time and again that mass fundamentally equals not energy but inverse time! In his words; ‘…If you have mass in the QP world, you have a CLOCK…’. He realises this by substituting Planck E=hf into E=MC2. To finish things off, Heisenberg already defined the other CORRECT inverse relation, namely Energy equals inverse space as per dXdP>=h/2, a polar notation constant.
Do we know see what is going on? Why we fumbled for 100 years? If we take these two correct inverse equivalence relations, then Einstein’s SR now says that a speeding object contracts frontal space and time, resulting in an INCREASE in its energy (inverse space) and mass (inverse time). In in slightly different terms; the speeding object wraps continuous ST fieldlines around itself in a standing wave of a discrete quanta of inversed spacetime windings, giving the object potential and inertia. Now do we see that speed induced effects on spacetime on the one hand and energymass on the other all cancel out? Want more proof? Stephen wants to know where complex number come from in the QO world. Well, we must compensate [m/s] speed with its dual QP equivalent speed expression of [J/kg] or [J/kg=Nm/kg=m2/s2]. So, the only way m/s and m2/s2 cancel out is to use a prefix of i2=-1 at the QP side. So dual inverse physics requires math to have complex numbers. Do we now get it?
What is interesting is that in meta-spacetime there is no «distance», only relationships. Which is why entangled particles can have infinite distance but a simple relationship.
I wonder if any of these hot new ideas managed to suggest any testable hypothesis and how they turned out to be.
Time does not exist in the universe, we created the concept of time based on the movement of the planet around the sun. What really exists in the universe is the notion of periodicity which under our human intelligence we see as what we call time.
Precisely. Thank you.
I agree that time is an artifact. But I think without it there is also no periodicity. Just pure geometry remaining.
14:57 time is a measurement of events that can't emerge without space and matter simultaneously. If you have matter and time, where would you put it? If you had matter and space, when would you put it.
It sounds like Wolfram is talking about the photon when he talks about energy momentum.
Awesome guest!
Thanks so much! *What was your favorite takeaway from this conversation?* _Please join my mailing list to get _*_FREE_*_ notes & resources from this show! Click_ 👉 briankeating.com/list
@DrBrianKeating My favorite part was when you got him to start listing some of the properties of physics that appeared in his computations. The idea of emerging complexity from some extremely simple property is a very interesting idea...