I really enjoyed this conversation with Stephen. Here's the outline: 0:00 - Introduction 4:16 - Communicating with an alien intelligence 12:11 - Monolith in 2001: A Space Odyssey 29:06 - What is computation? 44:54 - Physics emerging from computation 1:14:10 - Simulation 1:19:23 - Fundamental theory of physics 1:28:01 - Richard Feynman 1:39:57 - Role of ego in science 1:47:21 - Cellular automata 2:15:08 - Wolfram language 2:55:14 - What is intelligence? 2:57:47 - Consciousness 3:02:36 - Mortality 3:05:47 - Meaning of life
Thank you for taking the time to put timestamps for future reference. The podcast has become one of my go to's for intellectually stimulating discussions on wide topics. Keep up the great work Lex 👌
@@bhuvaneshs.k638 I def think there's something to Wolfram's computational equivalence maybe there's some sort of hyperobject equivalence between the many ToE's out there...
@@CalvinHikes You are comparing this with Dave Rubin? You can't be serious. This show is about science, math, and computers. Rubin has no connection with any of that.
@@CalvinHikes Rubin can't keep up with his guests. Joe Rogan is the only one I've seen who isn't an academic conduct excellent interviews, that includes Eric Weinstein.
@@lailai6402 Yes, but Sigourney Weaver, Carrie Fisher, Jodi Foster, Milla Jojovich, Sandra Bullock, Natalie Portman, and Anne Hathaway all got into space without so much as a slide rule. And then what do you even talk about for a full hour?
This podcast is a heavyweight. I mean honestly this is some of the most crisp formatting I’ve ever seen. Succinct, to the point, cogent and inviting. The amount of respect and humility dripping off this podcast is astounding. Keep up the good work
Wow! Is there a guy sharper than him alive today? He is like how people used to describe Von Neumann. He instantly answers any question with extremely well formed and deep responses. Never misses a beat. What a pleasure to listen to this talk !
He's definitely brilliant. Mathematica is a marvellous achievement. BUT... this NKS stuff and the obsession with pushing cellular automata onto theoretical physics has some very serious problems. He talks a hot game, but he doesn't produce results. One would think that if he was one the verge of "the theory to unify everything", that there would be some examples that *actually* demonstrate that it sort-of works, a "proof of concept" if you like. I watched his 3 hour twitch broadcast, he mentioned black holes, quantum mechanics, information theory, super advanced stuff, all current research-grade problems. But what about a relatively simple "universe" -- like Classical Physics? Why isn't there a wolfram/hypergraph approach to classical physics? Why isn't there EVEN ONE damn worked correct example of basic physics described using this approach? We just get endless black and white pixel graphs and vague promises that they can apply to everything. A professor once told me something along the lines of "Alternative theories may be beautiful, but if at the end of the day, they don't produce the spectral lines of the Hydrogen atom, it's false."
@@spuriustadius5034 is it possible maybe to have Unified theory of everything that just has pathways or math that can link the classical with more complex problems? Or are u saying his approach can't be unified theory everything because it already fails to apply to classical physics?
@@Stacz_Dinero Wolfram is using fairly grandiose language for something that has analogies to physics and which, he claims, may provide a "theory of everything" that unifies general relativity and quantum mechanics. At a minimum, any such theory would have to be able to "reduce down" to the physics we know at various length/energy/mass scales. And in fact, Wolfram claims that these cellular automata (or hypergraphs) can build some notion of "a universe"-- like a universe building kit where some fundamental features your kit determine "the rules" of your theoretical universe. As such it should be possible to use his tools to create what we observe with, say, classical mechanics or any other physical theory (I keep mentioning classical mechanics because it is well understood, limited in scope, and perfect for a "toy" test-drive of a theory of everything). He doesn't do that, however. He makes hypergraph analogies to concepts in math and physics but never just buckles down and demonstrates how this can be used to create even a very limited theory that accurately reflects some aspect of observable reality. He seems to want that to be left as "an exercise for the reader" and goes on to talk about black holes, information theory, etc etc. Sabine Hossenfelder says it better than anyone: twitter.com/skdh/status/1258071337609891842
Wolfram's software has been helping high school and college students get through math churn for years... and now it may be solving the fundamental questions of our reality. Thank you Dr. Wolfram for your work.
Very underrated answer.. dont have time to listen to it all but has anyone heard of Bob Monroe ? TMI and the proven research and a growing product line and interesting way of connecting what is there, anyone can do experiments of consciousness that are subjectively just as much a science as medicine, an inexact science that can only be credited as significant under statistical evidence. Not clockwork, objective scientific method, does that make it wrong or worthless ? sure medicine is worthless too. Its a worse situation than I thought if its such a difficult thing to simply judge ones own experience and truthfully apply real logic and not concoct more assumptions when the old way breaks. If only there was a TOE, out of consciousness research itself - drug free altered states of consciousness that register clearly on EEG.. no radical ideas just very different and easy to misinterpret. We are happy to stay with what we think we know, the unknown is scary. Turns out that is the whole point.. MBT is so easy it is funny and.. incredible irony :) now we just need to make about 3 more steps to the big answers as an accepted easy working solution.. reboot science ? 2020 someone reboot science please :) I tried one chap I respected, his ignorance was just what we default to, the comfort zone. Radical ideas dont sit with us well without really applying ourselves or having predisposition to clarity, lucky one here who wasted so many younger and even older years immersed in online battle 50% of my life. Not on a console, not with a gamepad, and not playing games. QUAKE and the birth of deathmatch, the most unforgiving competitive environment that fed on itself and I craved the indescribable immersion and sense of power in control brought on by increasingly focused rituals of.. well mathematical abstractions and perception.. VR headsets at the fov and hz sweet spots or above automagically project you into a world of this immersion.. OG gamers simply produced it to varying degrees. I was lucky enough to have 0 outside influence from day 1 and a maths background to understand I could use repetition and logically apply drilling of my hypotheses, or maybe it was more intuited, sense of breaking the physics of the game. Circle jumping for example is based around continuous smooth x-axis mouse input eg left, at a linear rate. Obviously a curve has the mathematical properties and the game world has constraints of single or double precision and so on, and additional distance/momentum is the only way rounding can be resolved. Trickjumping quickly became a whole niche, along with more advanced techniques but to me it was all about the logic of input to get the resulting exploits and then drilling them. Even facing backwards at one point, when it became a viable challenge to either play eyes closed or backwards. All this one day became useful when digesting the MBT model of consciousness and interpreting my many other life experiences and perspectives in a whole new overly simplified look, the complexity is there, but anything but overthinkers dont even need it to use the practical advise and self help that automatically comes out of so much new perspective, self exploration and long long hard hours at times, if you seek some deep answers that you get addicted to clarifying.. the world is our oyster I guess ! all reality.. some beautiful truth and happy endings :) biology doesnt need to live forever, the rules can be bent but not broken ;) entropy is the only thing that can kill an information system. Back to work on me, waffling on is becoming too easy I must be old :) Oh ruclips.net/video/-kNtJ08a-ss/видео.html hope to see one or both of these great guys in a fireside chat or Q&A some day.. or maybe even near Cal Poly (?) sorry for not knowing but.. the experiments are being set up from scratch without experience in the process, so time could maybe be saved if Lex has knowledge of specific best practices for precision required.. its a learning process of course, well documented, time is aplenty but anyone capable of helping with the process.. I predict magnificent jarring results that force it to be repeated and debated on some sort of level, and more influential figures can look at the well established facts of how virtual worlds are created and perceived, the mechanics of the client-server architecture and "signatures" of a virtual reality, the door is open but hasn't been kicked in. For now the majority and the OBVIOUS answer is still particles.. or Newtonian bound thinking rather than the truth of information and the architecture and logic that cannot be any other way. The reality of concepts of data and information, determinism and rules of time.. all easily line up for me and further understanding of maths and its some limited role, and deeper concepts were quickly then very easy for me to digest and finally call it my own TOE, i think i have some extreme luck just the right amount of school and good teachers that kept me from becoming a copier and repeater, all through school maths was just stupid its obvious little things that just solve for me, it cant be any other way... maybe it was actually handling little blocks at super young age.. each different size 1-10 units of wood cubes, different colours.. before even preschoolers I had a set at home thanks mum lol.. this direct interacting with logic of quantity gave me grounded maths advantage and I cannot understand anyone arguing against the "logic of quantity" proposition Tom so apty gives. Thats it, maths has no magical fabric of reality musical fate.. its all the logic and mechanics of quantities, and only finite real mathematics is deterministic/real/truth.. we lost our way terribly with advanced mathematics, 0 was fine but infinity is not actually a thing, cheating to solve maths is still cheating and not reality just because maths can be created that fits the situation. Maths breaks as we know, defies logic and leaves us just hoping the foundations of physics that got us 99.99% of everything and some weird but ignorable problems ! lets consider maybe we goofed ? :) open letter to all, sorry OP i have flooded you to next week here.. just means a lot to me that we all be honest with ourself and concepts, how we limit progress with majority consensus and accepting knowledge as fact, our models as reality instead of models, (why the majority is always wrong, keep laughing when i think of this video and how simplistic but deep it is).. dismissive old bloke was repeating backwards logic makes me sad
Not sure if this was posted yet. Here is the link to the unified theory that Stephen was touching on. writings.stephenwolfram.com/2020/04/finally-we-may-have-a-path-to-the-fundamental-theory-of-physics-and-its-beautiful/
@@SUNSPYtm You didn't have time to listen to all of the conversation yet you had time to write this book of a comment? Alright good on ya lol I'm listening in chunks 30min here 30 min there. Have to stop just as the conversation switches topic of you get lost.
wow, great job lex, i've been interested in stephen wolfram for a long time but this is the first time time i've seen him in an open ended conversation, another fantastic interview
Having seen Wolfram's second appearance on this podcast first and then coming to this... Man, it's so impressive how far he's come in essentially 10 months.
Stephen Wolfram's interview by Lex Fridman is the most engrossing conversation I got to listen to in a long time.! After publishing in 2002 "A new kind of science", a decade into making monumental 1200 pages book about his seminal work on the fundamental concept of computational irreducibility, Stephen Wolfram delights us with this interview explaining his transformative ideas about computation and its implications to humankind. A must listen to Podcast!
WolframAlpha is perhaps the most sophisticated math solver I have ever used. We have come a long way from Texas Instruments Derive software and basic solvers. The Wolfram website has taught me more about high level mathematics and geometry than all of my math professors combined, and this conversation has been an immensely interesting view into Stephen's thought process.
WolframAlpha is a really good tool. But don't forget about MATLAB. MATLAB is insane. If you want rocket science you use MATLAB. MATLAB comes from a very old programming language designed for calculation and engineering called Fortran. And it is used in classified biomedical research and advance rocket engine design. I just want to point out that there is no single piece of software to deal with advance engineering problems. We have Mathematica, WolframAlpha, MATLAB and others. This is great.
@@stephenmaloney7419 Yes i agree. Hypergraphs as well as higher order Fuzzy logic is more and more applied to complex problems (very advance machine learning). I see this generalization in computation as a quest of unification. Same is happening in physics (The unification of GR + QM). New tools are built for more powerful general computation. But i strongly believe that the term computer (that implies some sort of computation is wrong). Classical computers don't compute, they just move grains of sand in an artificial built structure made by us. You can build a giant computer using cities where you put the label computation into the traffic. Nature doesn't care about our beautiful artificial structure that we make. Mathematics is just a possibility to hack nature in order to do something that we think is useful. Applying mathematics to nature is an artificial constraint. General computation should have no constraint of any kind. And because we have no clear idea how to deal with something so wild we try and this is very important. I love computer bugs because they show how many ways we have not think about in our small constraint paradise.
@@robertboran6234 Mathematics is a best fit approximation that works amazingly well, if not perfect in some situations. Nature appears to be emergent from mathematical computation. We just don't have the full source code... so many aspects are still a black box. And will probably remain so forever even though progress will continue to be made by those that strive to understand.
@@justlikeyouful Our mathematics is an approximation, our consciousness interpretation of what is outside our brain. If you create a complex signal soup and you feed that into the brain you can artificially change the mathematics of what the brain is doing to figure it out what is its reality (brain in a vat). So i think that it is possible to have a very complex natural mathematics not invented but alive that is totally different from our artificial mathematics. So we are playing with a superficial mathematics but this one could be actually part of a natural mathematics that could be alive and so complex that our brain is struggling to make heads or tail out of it. If you cut the complex signal soup that feeds the brain you destroy the fabric of reality according to the brain, but at the same time the reality is there and not destroyed. "The final fundamental output of the brain is motion. Consciousness is just the feedback loop that colours the motion." Boran Robert.
@@robertboran6234 I like your third to last sentence.. You basically said god could pull the plug on you and it wouldn't make a difference to the rest of us. "Normal" people are not supposed to have these insights. Did you come up with this on your own? Reminds me of a video I saw on Salvia Divinorum. I agree, god can hide whatever he wants.
He feels disserviced. Rightly so. But, that's about it. Lack of humility is a recurring theme for him. Eric's brother, on the other hand, has too much of it. Wolfram has the track record to match his ego, so it's tolerable, even enjoyable.
Agreed 100%. This was a fascinating discussion, replete with research, work, conjecture. Wolfram has a huge body of accomplishment, and there was no self-pity expressed. The more I hear from Weinstein, the more it comes across as a person who has very little to show and blames the system for his dearth of presentable work. Wolfram was very refreshing.
@@Batman2StaticShock That sums up my feeling as well. I really want to like Eric, but the more I listen the more it seems I'm just listening to a bitter old crank complaining about all the reasons he hasn't accomplished more. Also, more listening to Weinstein seems to reveal less and less of his voice, and more and more of voices and ideas like Peter Thiel.
I would like to have been a fly on the wall when Wolfram met Feynman, first at Caltech and later at Thinking Machines, but with those two egos in the room, there would be no room for a fly, and even the walls would have been under quite a lot of strain.
Stephen Wolfram: "I'm trying to find a new fundamental theory of physics!" [takes a picture of himself] In[42] := ImageIdentify[StephenWolfram] Out[42] = Plunger :D
I mean, I could see it. With the metal band behind him as the handle. It worked better when he took a better picture. Said probably: person. Honestly, I’m kind of impressed by the abstract answer it came up with. It’s wrong, but in a neat way.
Volcanoes in Mississippi and Oklahoma? 2 in Texas, Houston area and in the panhandle?? New York area?? Im no wolfram with an inflated ego, but I call BS.. And I must point out the way he acted as if he’d never asked his little program about volcanoes going above and beyond to portray that it was a totally random thought. Individuals who think very highly of themselves see it as a fact that the people around them are imbeciles.
Lex just killed it with these Wolfram interviews. Incredibly profound, almost moment by moment. Coming in so well-prepared for such a complicated dialogue is his distinguishing advantage as a host.
Lex I really appreciate the way you interview, just so solid, great questions, recaps, and you keep people on track. and no annoying ego! thanks man!!!
I really do like that you humanize your guest after staying in the clouds on technical topic in AI with your 4 part heavy hitters: what is intelligence, what is consciousness, mortality, and what is the meaning of life. I think the ying and yang of those 2 really is your signature as a podcaster. Much respect, thanks for the guests, listening and digging deeper on every topic with them, and you get better every quarter honestly. Keep it up brother.
Lexs’ track record for acquiring insightful guests is absolutely phenomenal. The first episode I heard gave me such an indefinable impression of how he conducts these interviews, it’s quickly became my go to listen.
The juxtaposition was glorious. 2 hours of profound insights into mathematics and natural order, culminating in the answer "man = plunger". I can't remember the last time I've laughed that hard! May the universe bless you with the opportunity to conduct interviews for decades to come Lex, I love you!
Stephen is in the right path. most of the words we use in our daily language, we use loosely..like understanding, ethics, morality. When we think about them deeply we realize how shallow we are. It reminds me of a quote by yuval noah harari.. "No one was lying when, in 2011, the UN demanded that the Libyan government respect the human rights of its citizens, even though the UN, Libya, and human rights are all figments of our fertile imaginations."
Lex, Rogan and Patrick Bet-David have incredible guests on their podcasts and I have learned so much from these guys. I have 1 year of college at 21, and i out debate all of my friends and family on every social and political issue, well I used to anyway lol. As of recently, my over-educated and judgmental family now consider me on the same level, and stopped questioning my education and my opinions. You opened up a new world to me. Before i found podcasts i was a good for nothing drug dealer and a high school drop out. I'm now studying to be a psychiatrist and I'm a soldier now. Thank you Lex for showing me that the world is my library
I have sometimes had mixed reactions to a few of Lex's video discussions but this was great synergy because of an exceptional guest. Thanks very much for the effort and the long-form, open-ended chat. Sub'd to your channel.
Stephen wolfram (3:07:10) "I think I can't even find the ground truth for my life let alone suggest a ground truth for the AI ethics for the wholen civilization." That is a statement for a very humble person.
@@SerenityReceiver agree, I can't see them coming to a common playground, very different approaches. I was kind of disappointed with Eric's episode with Roger Penrose, seemed like a missed opportunity for a really deep dive.
I'm pretty sure that Eric and Stephen know each other quite well since Wolfram bought Weinstein's "world of mathematics" platform quite some time ago. Also if you check the 'Rule 30' demo notebook on the Wolfram website....Eric is the author :)
Would it? You forgot the second dimension of scientific reduction, applicability (not only general decidability but also effectivity to a reasonable degree)
I think there will be two rules that bootstrap each other into existence. The Universe of discourse includes the mathematical language used in most Theories of Everything so I don't see how a TOE can be written with mathematics. I would not expect four equations. I might accept a couple of rewrite rules that create something which does not rely on mathematics as mathematics is our observation of the Universe. It is like disassembling a videogame back into helpfully documented and structured C++ source code using only an observation of our interactions with the game's mechanics, dynamics, and aesthetics, with us inferring everything it is doing behind the scenes to render the feedback loop we are part of whilst we are a part of it, even though that C++ source lost all documentation and structure when it was put through an optimising compiler and linked to abstract libraries that its developer didn't even know the full ins-and-outs of.
I'm in awe at how Wolfram can give a long, detailed answer to a very tricky question, but the answer is still easy to follow, and comprises a single grammatically perfect sentence, down to the last conjuction.
@1:46:00 (to summarize) Naming the company after oneself is not ego, it is one taking full responsibility for his ideas. Right or wrong, you've placed your bet and laid it all on the line. Respect.
I had to pause this interview and look more things up than I did with most of the interviews I've seen on this terrific channel (or anywhere, really), but the quantity of interesting ideas and questions presented herein are worthy of close inspection and study. Thanks for the brain aches. Bravo!
Unfortunately it is a coincidence. He said this podcast was recorded in 2019, it's just now being released because the Wolfram Physics project wasn't ready to be public.
Encountering mathematica early in my math career was a milestone. It shaped my education for sure. He's a visionary for sure. Who cares if he has a big ego. He earned it
People talk about Wolfram's ego but I can't see it in his interviews at all...he doesn't keep throwing his judgements about people, name-dropping, just saying all the random facts he knows but really explains everything deeply and clearly, without referring to too much jargon, yet using it tastefully. Best part, he has NKS, and the Wolfram Project has 3 huge papers with a lot of detail. I don't get why he gets so much flak for his theory being a PR stunt especially by the likes of Eric Weinstein....who hasn't put out any material except his lecture and doesn't talk about anything more than his "6+4+4 football field rulers compasses". He can easily get a paper on arxiv cause he has tons of people vouching for him in the very community he passes his judgements on but he doesn't which is clearly weird. Wolfram rather than pitying himself put his stuff out there and actually has so much diverse research building up to this, published within the system. I can't get why so many people shit on him but not on Eric.
People just don't like feeling contained, with uncofortable precision, inside a conceptual box/framework - they like to think such things cannot be done because of the inherent beauty in complexity. When some guy starts telling people that he knows the face of the universe or spoke to god, people get mad.
He (Lex) teaches patience, which in my opinion is a good thing. And he thinks carefully how to verbalize what he’s saying as he says it. Although he isn’t the most eloquent of orators, the content of his thoughts are generally high quality, and he does a good job understanding enough of what his guests say to ask intelligent questions, but since he isn’t an expert in many of the fields of those he interviews, he understands what it’s like to be a non-expert listener, and helps prod out explanations for us that the guest might not have given otherwise, in a way that doesn’t insult our intelligence.
O man, o man. I am only in the first one hour of this podcast and I enjoy it so much. Stephen is the man, and you too young man Lex. Thank you. I was so upset and frustrated for wasting over two hours listening last night that quasi-scientist Weinstein, opening his mouth and each time saying absolutely nothing meaningful, I am at peace now. I discovered a true scientist and mathematician that kept me captivated with his words, and I believe him every word he said, they all made sense and opened my mind to further watch and listen. Thank you again, going back to the podcast now...
You introduce Wolfram as "having a big ego, which prevents some researchers from fully enjoying the content of his ideas". Um, where was this description for Weinstein?
Lex you are a rockstar dude. To be able to ask these questions and make your guests probe deeper into their explanations is truly a gift. Especially when the guests are all geniuses. I learn a ton with every video I watch
I knew this was coming, but I didn't know it would be so soon! I'm quite excited for this one. 3 hours too! I'm part of the club that made it through his entire book "A New Kind Of Science" ;)
Arguably the best conversation yet. He may yet be proven wrong about many things, he may have an ego, but I absolutely love the way this man thinks and communicates his thoughts. Contrary to some other, recent guests (wink wink), this man does not speak in riddles and muddled jargon. Instead, he radiates clarity and understanding. Respect Stephen ;)
This interview kept me from everything that I was supposed to be doing instead. It was worth it just to see Wolfram's own language identify him as a toilet plunger at 2:20:30. Priceless.
Lex had so many amazing interviews stockpiled! Almost as if he knew a pandemic is coming :p Love the podcast! Stay safe and cheers from Transylvania, Romania!
Lex and Stephen, this interview was mind-altering beyond any drug that I can imagine. Thank you. My amateur comments: 1. The idea of computational contracts reminds me a bit of letters of credit, which are simple contracts where evidence of an event in the world triggers the right to payment. 2. Can we ever know the meaning of words in a legal context? We can create contracts where the parties agree on the computational meaning of the words, yet if one party does not want to perform the contract the question of a breach of contract will be interpreted by third party humans, including judges and perhaps juries, in a different time and place than the contract formation. 3. If we value freedom and individual rights, then the existence of AI with human-plus level intelligence would create the following questions, among others: a) if the AI were given the right to vote what happens to democracy when new voters can be created in a factory or by “cut and paste” procedures much faster than humans can biologically create new voters; b) can any human own an AI or would that be slavery; and c) can any AI or any human ever judge the other “species” since we believe, at least in the US as set forth in the Constitution, in jury trials by our peers? Thank you. William L. Ramseyer
@@CalvinHikes Cause some things he says are already somewhat outdated. for example, his physics project has come a long way since this was posted, he would have talked about it differently were the interview recorded today.
On behalf of computer science graduates everywhere, I'd like to extend a giant thank you to Dr. Wolfram for creating what may be one of, if not the most useful pieces of software in existence.
First reaction: "Stephen Wolfram? No way". Second: "Predictable Lex question: What is Mathematica?". Third: "Curious if you asked: Thoughts on Jupyter?" :) Time to watch.
Thanks Lex for having Stephen Wolfram on, and also thank you very much Stephen Wolfram for taking you time explaning this , your theory seems brilliant and you can derive so much physics from it that im very optimistic about your work and really just in awe. your mind has definitly influenced mine in the understanding of the universe
Pareidolia of Stephen Wolfram: To see a Theory of Everything of Physics in a graph whose edges are only really nonexistent arrows that only represent invented transformations between nodes that, in turn, are subgraphs whose nodes are only symbols that represent 'anything'.
This is my favourite interview I've seen from this podcast and that's saying a lot! The idea that the laws of physics may be computationally irreducible and the only way to test it is to run the universe itself means a lot to me and what I've been thinking about recently. So to speak
2:20:05 Best moment of the podcast. A picture of Wolfram is identified by Mathematica's AI as a plunger. I'm sure it's because of the whiteboard frame behind him but it's hilarious
Best Interview I have yet seen with Stephen Wolfram. He has a lot more of interest to say from his formidable experience and Lex draws him out so well. He seemed very happy at the end, think he'd definitely come back for more despite the demands on his time. Here is more about the launch of the Wolfram Physics Project: writings.stephenwolfram.com/2020/04/finally-we-may-have-a-path-to-the-fundamental-theory-of-physics-and-its-beautiful/ In the unfolding story of General AI, I believe that Wolfram and team's foundational work on computation primitives will feature very highly in the new paradigm. This stuff is truly revolutionary, it will take a new way of thinking for us to get to exploring the computational universes in a systematic way, a world far more abstract then our current Mathematics/Science methodology.. A New Kind of Science will one day be looked at in those terms. Lex is talking to all the right people for his own very ambitious startup goals. I sadly somehow feel we will soon lose this great access we have to him and guests in the form of this regular podcast for him to realise his plans. I hope he allows for transparency and communication when dedicating more time to his project as I think in this day and age that is important for truly ambitious projects that want to succeed in an accelerated time... this is one lesson I hope has come through strongly from speaking to inspirational people like Musk, Wolfram, Weinstein to name a few of the many...
Stephen Wolfram is such a polymath, and his ability to explain complex ideas and theories via a compelling clear narrative recalls Penrose, Feynman and Einstein. Over 3 hr episode and flowed so well: engaging, informative and entertaining. I was supposed to be at that Ai for Ethics/Good conference - sorry I missed it.
Yes, Wolfram can be a difficult character. But I think Lex brings out the best in him. I use Mathematica every day, but I find Wolfram difficult to deal with as a person.
Here's another one: "There's a tradition of scientists approaching senility to come up with grand, improbable theories. Wolfram is unusual in that he's doing this in his 40's." - Freeman Dyson. I appreciate Wolfram, but I also appreciate a good burn.
I came here some time ago from Joe Rogan, but I say, for these kinds of interviews, I prefer Lex Fridman. Some people call him boring, but at least he doesn't bring up his diet in every second sentence. He's just a bit more... cerebral.
I really enjoyed this conversation with Stephen. Here's the outline:
0:00 - Introduction
4:16 - Communicating with an alien intelligence
12:11 - Monolith in 2001: A Space Odyssey
29:06 - What is computation?
44:54 - Physics emerging from computation
1:14:10 - Simulation
1:19:23 - Fundamental theory of physics
1:28:01 - Richard Feynman
1:39:57 - Role of ego in science
1:47:21 - Cellular automata
2:15:08 - Wolfram language
2:55:14 - What is intelligence?
2:57:47 - Consciousness
3:02:36 - Mortality
3:05:47 - Meaning of life
Thank you for taking the time to put timestamps for future reference. The podcast has become one of my go to's for intellectually stimulating discussions on wide topics. Keep up the great work Lex 👌
I'm addicted to your podcasts! Keep being amazing Lex! 🔥
@@alexzandersamuelsson8994same!💯
Thanks Lex. Brilliant exchange of thought as always!
@@bhuvaneshs.k638 I def think there's something to Wolfram's computational equivalence maybe there's some sort of hyperobject equivalence between the many ToE's out there...
The quality of your guests is the best of any program I have ever heard of, let alone podcast.
@@CalvinHikes You are comparing this with Dave Rubin? You can't be serious. This show is about science, math, and computers. Rubin has no connection with any of that.
Yes and they are practically (if not completely) 100% male, so fresh meat for some feminist takeover
@@CalvinHikes Rubin can't keep up with his guests. Joe Rogan is the only one I've seen who isn't an academic conduct excellent interviews, that includes Eric Weinstein.
@@lailai6402 Yes, but Sigourney Weaver, Carrie Fisher, Jodi Foster, Milla Jojovich, Sandra Bullock, Natalie Portman, and Anne Hathaway all got into space without so much as a slide rule. And then what do you even talk about for a full hour?
Bret Weinstein's podcast is also pretty awesome in terms of scientific discussion.
This podcast is a heavyweight. I mean honestly this is some of the most crisp formatting I’ve ever seen. Succinct, to the point, cogent and inviting. The amount of respect and humility dripping off this podcast is astounding. Keep up the good work
Lex you should always ask about recommend books from your guests as it will help us to learn too. Pls!!!
Up up up!!!
Facts
Permutation City by Greg Egan
@@TheBackyardChemistthx will give it a try
why? he is a russian shill lol. how are americans so oblivious
Stephen Wolfram is definitely the smartest plunger that has ever lived
Steffen Wolfram is big brainy 👏
Haha 😂 2:20:00
no
wtf?
(ok, i shoulda listened to the podcast b4 replying, lol my bad!)
Wow! Is there a guy sharper than him alive today? He is like how people used to describe Von Neumann. He instantly answers any question with extremely well formed and deep responses. Never misses a beat. What a pleasure to listen to this talk !
He's definitely brilliant. Mathematica is a marvellous achievement. BUT... this NKS stuff and the obsession with pushing cellular automata onto theoretical physics has some very serious problems. He talks a hot game, but he doesn't produce results. One would think that if he was one the verge of "the theory to unify everything", that there would be some examples that *actually* demonstrate that it sort-of works, a "proof of concept" if you like. I watched his 3 hour twitch broadcast, he mentioned black holes, quantum mechanics, information theory, super advanced stuff, all current research-grade problems. But what about a relatively simple "universe" -- like Classical Physics? Why isn't there a wolfram/hypergraph approach to classical physics? Why isn't there EVEN ONE damn worked correct example of basic physics described using this approach? We just get endless black and white pixel graphs and vague promises that they can apply to everything. A professor once told me something along the lines of "Alternative theories may be beautiful, but if at the end of the day, they don't produce the spectral lines of the Hydrogen atom, it's false."
@@spuriustadius5034 is it possible maybe to have Unified theory of everything that just has pathways or math that can link the classical with more complex problems? Or are u saying his approach can't be unified theory everything because it already fails to apply to classical physics?
@@Stacz_Dinero Wolfram is using fairly grandiose language for something that has analogies to physics and which, he claims, may provide a "theory of everything" that unifies general relativity and quantum mechanics. At a minimum, any such theory would have to be able to "reduce down" to the physics we know at various length/energy/mass scales. And in fact, Wolfram claims that these cellular automata (or hypergraphs) can build some notion of "a universe"-- like a universe building kit where some fundamental features your kit determine "the rules" of your theoretical universe. As such it should be possible to use his tools to create what we observe with, say, classical mechanics or any other physical theory (I keep mentioning classical mechanics because it is well understood, limited in scope, and perfect for a "toy" test-drive of a theory of everything).
He doesn't do that, however. He makes hypergraph analogies to concepts in math and physics but never just buckles down and demonstrates how this can be used to create even a very limited theory that accurately reflects some aspect of observable reality. He seems to want that to be left as "an exercise for the reader" and goes on to talk about black holes, information theory, etc etc. Sabine Hossenfelder says it better than anyone: twitter.com/skdh/status/1258071337609891842
How much weed do you have to smoke to think this is a brilliant conversation? Not one fact, just Slightly Possible B.S. Maybe, Kinda, Sorta, ...
watch Episode #101
Wolfram's software has been helping high school and college students get through math churn for years... and now it may be solving the fundamental questions of our reality. Thank you Dr. Wolfram for your work.
"The universe is using you to figure out itself" - Lex Fridman
That also may have been the single best compliment you could have given Stephen.
Very underrated answer.. dont have time to listen to it all but has anyone heard of Bob Monroe ? TMI and the proven research and a growing product line and interesting way of connecting what is there, anyone can do experiments of consciousness that are subjectively just as much a science as medicine, an inexact science that can only be credited as significant under statistical evidence. Not clockwork, objective scientific method, does that make it wrong or worthless ? sure medicine is worthless too. Its a worse situation than I thought if its such a difficult thing to simply judge ones own experience and truthfully apply real logic and not concoct more assumptions when the old way breaks. If only there was a TOE, out of consciousness research itself - drug free altered states of consciousness that register clearly on EEG.. no radical ideas just very different and easy to misinterpret. We are happy to stay with what we think we know, the unknown is scary. Turns out that is the whole point.. MBT is so easy it is funny and.. incredible irony :) now we just need to make about 3 more steps to the big answers as an accepted easy working solution.. reboot science ? 2020 someone reboot science please :) I tried one chap I respected, his ignorance was just what we default to, the comfort zone. Radical ideas dont sit with us well without really applying ourselves or having predisposition to clarity, lucky one here who wasted so many younger and even older years immersed in online battle 50% of my life. Not on a console, not with a gamepad, and not playing games. QUAKE and the birth of deathmatch, the most unforgiving competitive environment that fed on itself and I craved the indescribable immersion and sense of power in control brought on by increasingly focused rituals of.. well mathematical abstractions and perception.. VR headsets at the fov and hz sweet spots or above automagically project you into a world of this immersion.. OG gamers simply produced it to varying degrees. I was lucky enough to have 0 outside influence from day 1 and a maths background to understand I could use repetition and logically apply drilling of my hypotheses, or maybe it was more intuited, sense of breaking the physics of the game. Circle jumping for example is based around continuous smooth x-axis mouse input eg left, at a linear rate. Obviously a curve has the mathematical properties and the game world has constraints of single or double precision and so on, and additional distance/momentum is the only way rounding can be resolved. Trickjumping quickly became a whole niche, along with more advanced techniques but to me it was all about the logic of input to get the resulting exploits and then drilling them. Even facing backwards at one point, when it became a viable challenge to either play eyes closed or backwards. All this one day became useful when digesting the MBT model of consciousness and interpreting my many other life experiences and perspectives in a whole new overly simplified look, the complexity is there, but anything but overthinkers dont even need it to use the practical advise and self help that automatically comes out of so much new perspective, self exploration and long long hard hours at times, if you seek some deep answers that you get addicted to clarifying.. the world is our oyster I guess ! all reality.. some beautiful truth and happy endings :) biology doesnt need to live forever, the rules can be bent but not broken ;) entropy is the only thing that can kill an information system. Back to work on me, waffling on is becoming too easy I must be old :)
Oh ruclips.net/video/-kNtJ08a-ss/видео.html hope to see one or both of these great guys in a fireside chat or Q&A some day.. or maybe even near Cal Poly (?) sorry for not knowing but.. the experiments are being set up from scratch without experience in the process, so time could maybe be saved if Lex has knowledge of specific best practices for precision required.. its a learning process of course, well documented, time is aplenty but anyone capable of helping with the process.. I predict magnificent jarring results that force it to be repeated and debated on some sort of level, and more influential figures can look at the well established facts of how virtual worlds are created and perceived, the mechanics of the client-server architecture and "signatures" of a virtual reality, the door is open but hasn't been kicked in. For now the majority and the OBVIOUS answer is still particles.. or Newtonian bound thinking rather than the truth of information and the architecture and logic that cannot be any other way. The reality of concepts of data and information, determinism and rules of time.. all easily line up for me and further understanding of maths and its some limited role, and deeper concepts were quickly then very easy for me to digest and finally call it my own TOE, i think i have some extreme luck just the right amount of school and good teachers that kept me from becoming a copier and repeater, all through school maths was just stupid its obvious little things that just solve for me, it cant be any other way... maybe it was actually handling little blocks at super young age.. each different size 1-10 units of wood cubes, different colours.. before even preschoolers I had a set at home thanks mum lol.. this direct interacting with logic of quantity gave me grounded maths advantage and I cannot understand anyone arguing against the "logic of quantity" proposition Tom so apty gives. Thats it, maths has no magical fabric of reality musical fate.. its all the logic and mechanics of quantities, and only finite real mathematics is deterministic/real/truth.. we lost our way terribly with advanced mathematics, 0 was fine but infinity is not actually a thing, cheating to solve maths is still cheating and not reality just because maths can be created that fits the situation. Maths breaks as we know, defies logic and leaves us just hoping the foundations of physics that got us 99.99% of everything and some weird but ignorable problems ! lets consider maybe we goofed ? :) open letter to all, sorry OP i have flooded you to next week here.. just means a lot to me that we all be honest with ourself and concepts, how we limit progress with majority consensus and accepting knowledge as fact, our models as reality instead of models, (why the majority is always wrong, keep laughing when i think of this video and how simplistic but deep it is).. dismissive old bloke was repeating backwards logic makes me sad
No you, sound pretty dumb. The universe is not conscious. Therefore it can’t figure out shit. It is non- living. Wow genius!
@@notionSlave Let's take it one step at a time for now and not get ahead of ourselves.
Not sure if this was posted yet. Here is the link to the unified theory that Stephen was touching on.
writings.stephenwolfram.com/2020/04/finally-we-may-have-a-path-to-the-fundamental-theory-of-physics-and-its-beautiful/
@@SUNSPYtm You didn't have time to listen to all of the conversation yet you had time to write this book of a comment? Alright good on ya lol I'm listening in chunks 30min here 30 min there. Have to stop just as the conversation switches topic of you get lost.
God, this is criminally underviewed
because it is all just so theoretical
@@brooksy3069 Often times, all we have is our "theories". A mind filled with wonder will never be driven asunder.
@@brooksy3069 Yeah well it’s a little harder to talk about specific lines of code then abstract ideas
1.2 million.
Decent.
wow, great job lex, i've been interested in stephen wolfram for a long time but this is the first time time i've seen him in an open ended conversation, another fantastic interview
Having seen Wolfram's second appearance on this podcast first and then coming to this... Man, it's so impressive how far he's come in essentially 10 months.
Stephen Wolfram's interview by Lex Fridman is the most engrossing conversation I got to listen to in a long time.! After publishing in 2002 "A new kind of science", a decade into making monumental 1200 pages book about his seminal work on the fundamental concept of computational irreducibility, Stephen Wolfram delights us with this interview explaining his transformative ideas about computation and its implications to humankind. A must listen to Podcast!
WolframAlpha is perhaps the most sophisticated math solver I have ever used. We have come a long way from Texas Instruments Derive software and basic solvers. The Wolfram website has taught me more about high level mathematics and geometry than all of my math professors combined, and this conversation has been an immensely interesting view into Stephen's thought process.
WolframAlpha is a really good tool. But don't forget about MATLAB. MATLAB is insane. If you want rocket science you use MATLAB. MATLAB comes from a very old programming language designed for calculation and engineering called Fortran. And it is used in classified biomedical research and advance rocket engine design. I just want to point out that there is no single piece of software to deal with advance engineering problems. We have Mathematica, WolframAlpha, MATLAB and others. This is great.
@@stephenmaloney7419 Yes i agree. Hypergraphs as well as higher order Fuzzy logic is more and more applied to complex problems (very advance machine learning). I see this generalization in computation as a quest of unification. Same is happening in physics (The unification of GR + QM). New tools are built for more powerful general computation. But i strongly believe that the term computer (that implies some sort of computation is wrong). Classical computers don't compute, they just move grains of sand in an artificial built structure made by us. You can build a giant computer using cities where you put the label computation into the traffic. Nature doesn't care about our beautiful artificial structure that we make. Mathematics is just a possibility to hack nature in order to do something that we think is useful. Applying mathematics to nature is an artificial constraint. General computation should have no constraint of any kind. And because we have no clear idea how to deal with something so wild we try and this is very important. I love computer bugs because they show how many ways we have not think about in our small constraint paradise.
@@robertboran6234 Mathematics is a best fit approximation that works amazingly well, if not perfect in some situations. Nature appears to be emergent from mathematical computation. We just don't have the full source code... so many aspects are still a black box. And will probably remain so forever even though progress will continue to be made by those that strive to understand.
@@justlikeyouful Our mathematics is an approximation, our consciousness interpretation of what is outside our brain. If you create a complex signal soup and you feed that into the brain you can artificially change the mathematics of what the brain is doing to figure it out what is its reality (brain in a vat). So i think that it is possible to have a very complex natural mathematics not invented but alive that is totally different from our artificial mathematics. So we are playing with a superficial mathematics but this one could be actually part of a natural mathematics that could be alive and so complex that our brain is struggling to make heads or tail out of it. If you cut the complex signal soup that feeds the brain you destroy the fabric of reality according to the brain, but at the same time the reality is there and not destroyed. "The final fundamental output of the brain is motion. Consciousness is just the feedback loop that colours the motion." Boran Robert.
@@robertboran6234 I like your third to last sentence.. You basically said god could pull the plug on you and it wouldn't make a difference to the rest of us.
"Normal" people are not supposed to have these insights. Did you come up with this on your own? Reminds me of a video I saw on Salvia Divinorum.
I agree, god can hide whatever he wants.
Appreciate the effort of using simple language by Mr. Wolfram.
I'm so happy this was a longer interview. He's so good at articulating his thoughts to a layman.
Unlike Eric Weinstein...
He is sharp as a tack especially for his age.
I think the “ego” talk was more appropriate with the Eric Weinstein podcast.
Facts
He feels disserviced. Rightly so. But, that's about it. Lack of humility is a recurring theme for him. Eric's brother, on the other hand, has too much of it. Wolfram has the track record to match his ego, so it's tolerable, even enjoyable.
Agreed 100%. This was a fascinating discussion, replete with research, work, conjecture. Wolfram has a huge body of accomplishment, and there was no self-pity expressed. The more I hear from Weinstein, the more it comes across as a person who has very little to show and blames the system for his dearth of presentable work. Wolfram was very refreshing.
@@Batman2StaticShock That sums up my feeling as well. I really want to like Eric, but the more I listen the more it seems I'm just listening to a bitter old crank complaining about all the reasons he hasn't accomplished more. Also, more listening to Weinstein seems to reveal less and less of his voice, and more and more of voices and ideas like Peter Thiel.
I would like to have been a fly on the wall when Wolfram met Feynman, first at Caltech and later at Thinking Machines, but with those two egos in the room, there would be no room for a fly, and even the walls would have been under quite a lot of strain.
Stephen Wolfram: "I'm trying to find a new fundamental theory of physics!"
[takes a picture of himself]
In[42] := ImageIdentify[StephenWolfram]
Out[42] = Plunger
:D
I mean, I could see it. With the metal band behind him as the handle. It worked better when he took a better picture. Said probably: person. Honestly, I’m kind of impressed by the abstract answer it came up with. It’s wrong, but in a neat way.
Volcanoes in Mississippi and Oklahoma? 2 in Texas, Houston area and in the panhandle?? New York area?? Im no wolfram with an inflated ego, but I call BS..
And I must point out the way he acted as if he’d never asked his little program about volcanoes going above and beyond to portray that it was a totally random thought.
Individuals who think very highly of themselves see it as a fact that the people around them are imbeciles.
Lex just killed it with these Wolfram interviews. Incredibly profound, almost moment by moment. Coming in so well-prepared for such a complicated dialogue is his distinguishing advantage as a host.
Lex I really appreciate the way you interview, just so solid, great questions, recaps, and you keep people on track. and no annoying ego! thanks man!!!
77777887
I really do like that you humanize your guest after staying in the clouds on technical topic in AI with your 4 part heavy hitters: what is intelligence, what is consciousness, mortality, and what is the meaning of life. I think the ying and yang of those 2 really is your signature as a podcaster. Much respect, thanks for the guests, listening and digging deeper on every topic with them, and you get better every quarter honestly. Keep it up brother.
“This was great! You did very well!!” LOVED this final comment from Stephen. Thanks Lex!! Amazing as always!!
About 50 more hours of this, please.
Lexs’ track record for acquiring insightful guests is absolutely phenomenal. The first episode I heard gave me such an indefinable impression of how he conducts these interviews, it’s quickly became my go to listen.
Your podcast is quickly becoming one of my favorites. Keep up the good work!
The juxtaposition was glorious. 2 hours of profound insights into mathematics and natural order, culminating in the answer "man = plunger".
I can't remember the last time I've laughed that hard!
May the universe bless you with the opportunity to conduct interviews for decades to come Lex, I love you!
Stephen is in the right path. most of the words we use in our daily language, we use loosely..like understanding, ethics, morality. When we think about them deeply we realize how shallow we are. It reminds me of a quote by yuval noah harari..
"No one was lying when, in 2011, the UN demanded that the Libyan government respect the human rights of its citizens, even though the UN, Libya, and human rights are all figments of our fertile imaginations."
This is my favourite podcast of all time
Lex, Rogan and Patrick Bet-David have incredible guests on their podcasts and I have learned so much from these guys. I have 1 year of college at 21, and i out debate all of my friends and family on every social and political issue, well I used to anyway lol. As of recently, my over-educated and judgmental family now consider me on the same level, and stopped questioning my education and my opinions. You opened up a new world to me. Before i found podcasts i was a good for nothing drug dealer and a high school drop out. I'm now studying to be a psychiatrist and I'm a soldier now. Thank you Lex for showing me that the world is my library
so glad this came out after reading all about the Wolfram Physics Project, and glad you got the chance to interview him again. Thanks Lex!
"This was great! You did very well 👍👍" has me 💀💀💀💀
How many more times can lex surprise me with the quality and stature of his guests? Really knocking it out of the park Lex.
This guy is brilliant and well-spoken.
So to speak
I have sometimes had mixed reactions to a few of Lex's video discussions but this was great synergy because of an exceptional guest. Thanks very much for the effort and the long-form, open-ended chat. Sub'd to your channel.
Stephen wolfram (3:07:10) "I think I can't even find the ground truth for my life let alone suggest a ground truth for the AI ethics for the wholen civilization." That is a statement for a very humble person.
@@coenraadloubser5768 pff. Hmm. Nah....
Listening to this podcast makes me wish I was smart. But it makes me feel happy there are others who can understand our world at a deeper level.
what they talk about is not that hard to figure out tbh
@@Uvisir If it wasn't that hard to figure out a theory of everything for physics, then someone would have already done it by now.
@@Uvisir for you? Because you're still in school? Or you do this stuff for a living?
I suspect you mean you were able to follow. Not figure it out.
Dude lex needs to interview brian coxx asap.
Same.
I would love to see Eric Weinstein and Stephen Wolfram having a conversation about each of their own theory of everything...
There's a place for such conversation, it's called The Portal.
They have an opposite way of talking...
@@SerenityReceiver agree, I can't see them coming to a common playground, very different approaches. I was kind of disappointed with Eric's episode with Roger Penrose, seemed like a missed opportunity for a really deep dive.
I'm pretty sure that Eric and Stephen know each other quite well since Wolfram bought Weinstein's "world of mathematics" platform quite some time ago. Also if you check the 'Rule 30' demo notebook on the Wolfram website....Eric is the author :)
Here: ruclips.net/video/OI0AZ4Y4Ip4/видео.html
To live in a lifetime when the rule for the universe was discovered would be quite something
Would it? You forgot the second dimension of scientific reduction, applicability (not only general decidability but also effectivity to a reasonable degree)
I think there will be two rules that bootstrap each other into existence. The Universe of discourse includes the mathematical language used in most Theories of Everything so I don't see how a TOE can be written with mathematics.
I would not expect four equations.
I might accept a couple of rewrite rules that create something which does not rely on mathematics as mathematics is our observation of the Universe. It is like disassembling a videogame back into helpfully documented and structured C++ source code using only an observation of our interactions with the game's mechanics, dynamics, and aesthetics, with us inferring everything it is doing behind the scenes to render the feedback loop we are part of whilst we are a part of it, even though that C++ source lost all documentation and structure when it was put through an optimising compiler and linked to abstract libraries that its developer didn't even know the full ins-and-outs of.
@@____uncompetative interesting. But computer code and Formulae are the same in many ways. Category theory!!!
Amazing guest list as usual, Lex! Can we please have Glen Shotwell, Bret Weinstein, Andrej Karpathy as well?!
Love, logic, humanism... Precisely what we need.
I'm in awe at how Wolfram can give a long, detailed answer to a very tricky question, but the answer is still easy to follow, and comprises a single grammatically perfect sentence, down to the last conjuction.
Thanks Lex. Brilliant exchange of thought as always! Looking forward to Round 2
@1:46:00
(to summarize)
Naming the company after oneself is not ego, it is one taking full responsibility for his ideas.
Right or wrong, you've placed your bet and laid it all on the line.
Respect.
What about Bill Gates or Elon Musk? You think that they don't take responsibility for their ideas?
I love your podcast Lex. Thank you for making them free and offering the time stamps. You're awesome!
I had to pause this interview and look more things up than I did with most of the interviews I've seen on this terrific channel (or anywhere, really), but the quantity of interesting ideas and questions presented herein are worthy of close inspection and study. Thanks for the brain aches. Bravo!
The half hour spent discussing physics emerging from computation was honestly amazing.
This is probably the best interview Lex had so far.
The name "John" (Conway) on the Coke bottle by Lex's side can't be a coincidence.
RIP 🙏🏼
Brilliant. RIP John Conway. One of the greatest mathematicians ever.
@@lexfridman John Conway: I don't want to say anything bad about Stephen Wolfram so I'll just shut up.
Unfortunately it is a coincidence. He said this podcast was recorded in 2019, it's just now being released because the Wolfram Physics project wasn't ready to be public.
Sure, but how do U explain the blatant Dunkin' D SPAM :P
Aw crap, I had no idea. Gutted. That really is too sad.
Encountering mathematica early in my math career was a milestone. It shaped my education for sure. He's a visionary for sure. Who cares if he has a big ego. He earned it
People talk about Wolfram's ego but I can't see it in his interviews at all...he doesn't keep throwing his judgements about people, name-dropping, just saying all the random facts he knows but really explains everything deeply and clearly, without referring to too much jargon, yet using it tastefully. Best part, he has NKS, and the Wolfram Project has 3 huge papers with a lot of detail. I don't get why he gets so much flak for his theory being a PR stunt especially by the likes of Eric Weinstein....who hasn't put out any material except his lecture and doesn't talk about anything more than his "6+4+4 football field rulers compasses". He can easily get a paper on arxiv cause he has tons of people vouching for him in the very community he passes his judgements on but he doesn't which is clearly weird.
Wolfram rather than pitying himself put his stuff out there and actually has so much diverse research building up to this, published within the system. I can't get why so many people shit on him but not on Eric.
Everyone shits on everyone lol
People just don't like feeling contained, with uncofortable precision, inside a conceptual box/framework - they like to think such things cannot be done because of the inherent beauty in complexity. When some guy starts telling people that he knows the face of the universe or spoke to god, people get mad.
Stephen "The Plunger" Wolfram. this guy always expands what and how to think. always a joy to listen to.
I started out not liking Lex and now I love his talks!
Kind of the Inverse of my Relationships...
He (Lex) teaches patience, which in my opinion is a good thing. And he thinks carefully how to verbalize what he’s saying as he says it. Although he isn’t the most eloquent of orators, the content of his thoughts are generally high quality, and he does a good job understanding enough of what his guests say to ask intelligent questions, but since he isn’t an expert in many of the fields of those he interviews, he understands what it’s like to be a non-expert listener, and helps prod out explanations for us that the guest might not have given otherwise, in a way that doesn’t insult our intelligence.
O man, o man. I am only in the first one hour of this podcast and I enjoy it so much. Stephen is the man, and you too young man Lex. Thank you. I was so upset and frustrated for wasting over two hours listening last night that quasi-scientist Weinstein, opening his mouth and each time saying absolutely nothing meaningful, I am at peace now. I discovered a true scientist and mathematician that kept me captivated with his words, and I believe him every word he said, they all made sense and opened my mind to further watch and listen. Thank you again, going back to the podcast now...
Next up: Lex interviews superintelligent agent from the future
that is me
I downloaded Cash app because of Lex Fridman its a wonderful app thank you!
His contribution (Mathematica) consumes most of my waking hours (I use it a lot).
It’s such an intriguing conversation, I listened to it twice. Thank you Lex for helping spread ground breaking ideas! 💡
You introduce Wolfram as "having a big ego, which prevents some researchers from fully enjoying the content of his ideas". Um, where was this description for Weinstein?
@Pat McCann That guy's ego is bigger than the stratosphere, his brother on the other hand is very humble and way more pleasant to listen too
No ego, just aptly placed respect for his work
Wow over 3 hours of goodness! I'm really excited
My 3rd visit to this podcast. One of the best conversations on this podcast for me.
1:32:00 "it's a lot easier to have good intuition when you know what the answer is"
Lex you are a rockstar dude. To be able to ask these questions and make your guests probe deeper into their explanations is truly a gift. Especially when the guests are all geniuses. I learn a ton with every video I watch
I knew this was coming, but I didn't know it would be so soon! I'm quite excited for this one. 3 hours too! I'm part of the club that made it through his entire book "A New Kind Of Science" ;)
Arguably the best conversation yet. He may yet be proven wrong about many things, he may have an ego, but I absolutely love the way this man thinks and communicates his thoughts. Contrary to some other, recent guests (wink wink), this man does not speak in riddles and muddled jargon. Instead, he radiates clarity and understanding. Respect Stephen ;)
Damn, George Costanza really leveled up.
Does leveling up necessarily include turning British?
He was in the poool!
of course!! absolute ZERO!!..
Abstinence is a beautiful thing.
Wolfram Alpha blew my mind in middle school inspired a decade and counting of problem solving thank you 🙏
This interview kept me from everything that I was supposed to be doing instead. It was worth it just to see Wolfram's own language identify him as a toilet plunger at 2:20:30. Priceless.
Came here to post this. After all the waxing eloquent about computation driving reality, that moment was pure poetic justice 🤣
Thanks Lex for bringing this amazing guest
Lex had so many amazing interviews stockpiled! Almost as if he knew a pandemic is coming :p Love the podcast! Stay safe and cheers from Transylvania, Romania!
He used AI to predict that the advent of the pandemic and successfully piled up some good interviews to get more views
Lex and Stephen, this interview was mind-altering beyond any drug that I can imagine. Thank you. My amateur comments:
1. The idea of computational contracts reminds me a bit of letters of credit, which are simple contracts where evidence of an event in the world triggers the right to payment.
2. Can we ever know the meaning of words in a legal context? We can create contracts where the parties agree on the computational meaning of the words, yet if one party does not want to perform the contract the question of a breach of contract will be interpreted by third party humans, including judges and perhaps juries, in a different time and place than the contract formation.
3. If we value freedom and individual rights, then the existence of AI with human-plus level intelligence would create the following questions, among others: a) if the AI were given the right to vote what happens to democracy when new voters can be created in a factory or by “cut and paste” procedures much faster than humans can biologically create new voters; b) can any human own an AI or would that be slavery; and c) can any AI or any human ever judge the other “species” since we believe, at least in the US as set forth in the Constitution, in jury trials by our peers?
Thank you. William L. Ramseyer
keep in mind this was recorded about 6 months ago (in November)
Why?
What are you implying? That by now Wolfram may have definitively solved the theory of everything and hacked the universe or something???
@@CalvinHikes Cause some things he says are already somewhat outdated. for example, his physics project has come a long way since this was posted, he would have talked about it differently were the interview recorded today.
On behalf of computer science graduates everywhere, I'd like to extend a giant thank you to Dr. Wolfram for creating what may be one of, if not the most useful pieces of software in existence.
First reaction: "Stephen Wolfram? No way". Second: "Predictable Lex question: What is Mathematica?". Third: "Curious if you asked: Thoughts on Jupyter?" :) Time to watch.
Mesmerizing podcast episode. Please have Wolfram back asap.
An alien stole my baby
Call 911
Thanks Lex for having Stephen Wolfram on, and also thank you very much Stephen Wolfram for taking you time explaning this , your theory seems brilliant and you can derive so much physics from it that im very optimistic about your work and really just in awe. your mind has definitly influenced mine in the understanding of the universe
Please have an interview with David Deutsch
Maybe the best guest you’ve had so far :) thank you lex!
This man helped me get my masters in engineering lol!
Why do you laugh a lot?
Real engineers don't use Wolfram Alpha. They use slide rules.
Well, this was expected. Amazing Lex!
Thankyou Stephen and Lex... a wider horizon of thinking about the universe.
Pareidolia of Stephen Wolfram:
To see a Theory of Everything of Physics in a graph whose edges are only really nonexistent arrows that only represent invented transformations between nodes that, in turn, are subgraphs whose nodes are only symbols that represent 'anything'.
That seems very abstract and dense. Is it like a way to explain/describe the "unactivated activator" existencial thing?
This Podcast is one of the greatest things on youtube
Intelligence: the ability to predict the future.
Consciousness: the assertion of sovereignty.
very xen
Is that Consciousness or Ego?
Daniel Walker what about the experience of being conscious. “The hard problem of consciousness “
This is my favourite interview I've seen from this podcast and that's saying a lot! The idea that the laws of physics may be computationally irreducible and the only way to test it is to run the universe itself means a lot to me and what I've been thinking about recently.
So to speak
2:20:05 Best moment of the podcast. A picture of Wolfram is identified by Mathematica's AI as a plunger.
I'm sure it's because of the whiteboard frame behind him but it's hilarious
Love to Lex, Wolfram, and anyone reading this comment
Best Interview I have yet seen with Stephen Wolfram. He has a lot more of interest to say from his formidable experience and Lex draws him out so well. He seemed very happy at the end, think he'd definitely come back for more despite the demands on his time. Here is more about the launch of the Wolfram Physics Project: writings.stephenwolfram.com/2020/04/finally-we-may-have-a-path-to-the-fundamental-theory-of-physics-and-its-beautiful/
In the unfolding story of General AI, I believe that Wolfram and team's foundational work on computation primitives will feature very highly in the new paradigm. This stuff is truly revolutionary, it will take a new way of thinking for us to get to exploring the computational universes in a systematic way, a world far more abstract then our current Mathematics/Science methodology.. A New Kind of Science will one day be looked at in those terms.
Lex is talking to all the right people for his own very ambitious startup goals. I sadly somehow feel we will soon lose this great access we have to him and guests in the form of this regular podcast for him to realise his plans. I hope he allows for transparency and communication when dedicating more time to his project as I think in this day and age that is important for truly ambitious projects that want to succeed in an accelerated time... this is one lesson I hope has come through strongly from speaking to inspirational people like Musk, Wolfram, Weinstein to name a few of the many...
Stephen Wolfram is such a polymath, and his ability to explain complex ideas and theories via a compelling clear narrative recalls Penrose, Feynman and Einstein. Over 3 hr episode and flowed so well: engaging, informative and entertaining. I was supposed to be at that Ai for Ethics/Good conference - sorry I missed it.
I agree with Stephen, "You did very well"
Thank you for taking the time to time stamp the timeline. A fascinating conversation.
"I strongly expect..." may well be the definition of intuition.
I'd just like to thank Mr Wolfram for getting me through high school/university with Wolfram Alpha
One of our greatest minds
Can't remember the origin, but: "It is unclear which will achieve self-awareness first, Wolfram Alpha or Stephen Wolfram"
Yes, Wolfram can be a difficult character. But I think Lex brings out the best in him.
I use Mathematica every day, but I find Wolfram difficult to deal with as a person.
Here's another one: "There's a tradition of scientists approaching senility to come up with grand, improbable theories. Wolfram is unusual in that he's doing this in his 40's." - Freeman Dyson. I appreciate Wolfram, but I also appreciate a good burn.
I really like this guy. His energy is spot on
Just hitting passed hour two, I am riveted. Good interview.
I came here some time ago from Joe Rogan, but I say, for these kinds of interviews, I prefer Lex Fridman. Some people call him boring, but at least he doesn't bring up his diet in every second sentence. He's just a bit more... cerebral.
To be honest on an interpersonal level and from what I have whitnessed in this conversation I don't find him to be full of ego in any way.
Lex thank you for making these podcasts happening, tremendously grateful!