I have been following Wolfram on and off for years. In short, I am sceptical. For example, in this video he claims that certain rules (that he does not explian) are governing our world and are underlying modern science. I mean if this is true then he should be given not one but at least ten Nobel prizes. Also, he claims that these rules (not explained) can even explain human intellect to such an extent that the rules explain why we believe that modern science is true. Wow! That has got to be another couple of Nobel prizes right there. Listen, there are hundreds if not more examples of people running computer programs that somehow create a graphical image or structure that somehow seems to mirror something we see in nature or "Off screen". The simple example is the fractal tree (look it up). This DOES NOT mean anything else. It may suggest that tree grow according to fractal principles. Or they may not. It does not explain anything. But then again, maybe it is just me (and apparantly the rest of the worlds scientist?) than are too stupid or biased to understand what he is talking about.
@@bettysue8671Stephen’s theory was criticized by renowned Theoretical Physicists - eg on ground of ignoring the Bell inequality. AFAIK, these concerns have not been addressed to this day and probably cannot.
This is by far the most important TED talk I've seen for a very long time (perhaps ever). Thank you TED for inviting Stephen Wolfram to give this talk, amazing.
@@Casevil669Wolfram is exposed to a greater audience on Ted talk for people like myself who likely wouldn’t have heard about him until now. I will definitely be watching him on his streams now though.
@@trabajopm1560oh he said a lotttttttttttt You got to have a good guise on quantum science and health science and neuroscience. Some type of background knowledge
Its not just you. its the nature of the way Wolfram speaks and the kind of system that he is pitching. We already have math and computer science. We already have abstract conceptualizations of how the world works and can use these to understand the universe. I feel like Wolfram is running along side math, rules of logic, and computer science and trying to say he has discovered 'a new kind of science' when he's just changing the colors of his shoes. Every interview and this TED talk its the same feeling of him trying to tell us he's discovered a new way to write algorithms or calculate PI but never really does.
I feel like he's one of the people standing on the distant horizon, just *barely* in our sight, and waving his arms and shouting, "This way! It's amazing!"
Wow, Stephen Wolfram's vision of computation and its role in AI and the universe is mind-blowing! The way he presents the emergence of space and everything in it through computational rules is truly captivating. I'm amazed by the power and depth of the ruliad. Thank you for sharing this incredible talk!
I have been following Wolfram on and off for years. In short, I am sceptical. For example, in this video he claims that certain rules (that he does not explain) are governing our world and are underlying modern science. If this is true then he should be given not one but at least ten Nobel prizes. Also, he claims that these rules (not explained) can even explain human intellect to such an extent that the rules explain why we believe that modern science is true. Wow! That has got to be another couple of Nobel prizes right there. Listen, there are hundreds if not more examples of people running computer programs that somehow create a graphical image or structure that somehow seems to mirror something we see in nature or "Off screen". The simple example is the fractal tree (look it up). This DOES NOT mean anything else. It may suggest that tree grow according to fractal principles. Or they may not. It does not explain anything. But then again, maybe it is just me (and apparantly the rest of the worlds scientist?) than are too stupid or biased to understand what he is talking about.
@@larslarsen5414. My reaction exactly. He didn’t give a single example of how his computatiolal thinking came up with one of the groundbreaking insights. Your comment should be a primary comment, not a reply, more need to see it
@larslarsen5414 modern science in general and physics is no exception is more about securing research grants than truly exploring "truth". And all involved stakeholders will ferociously fight for the primacy their preferred research interests in this environment. There are only few people like Mr. Wolfram with the intellectual clarity and more importantly economic resources to pursue supposedly "fringe" ideas.
Wolfram has come a long way from Mathematica. The understanding of the universe and its lifeline presented is elegant and concise. I would very much enjoy to listen to a conversation between Stephen Wolfram and Joscha Bach.
What's funny is that Bach admitted his abject inferiority to Wolfram's intellect publicly, and wondered if it was because Stephen's head was physically bigger and thus able to carry a larger brain.
This is truly mindblowing. I have followed Wolfram for a while and his ideas always seemed very unclear and spread out. It seems he has now clarified his visions more and more, to a point where I can actually grasp them and understand not just the meaning, but the importance of it. I have watched this multiple times, and towards the end, when he talks about us having to choose what we want instead of having to design how things are done, I get goosebumps every time. This will truly be the challenge with AI. Aligning them to what we want, and really becoming aware of what we want ourselves. With the state of the world, it seems obvious we have not even aligned ourselves to each other, so I think doing this with AI will be really difficult beyond comprehension, and most people are not even aware that this is the true problem that we are facing... let's hope we wake up to it before the random rulial exploration of AI decides to overwrite us to use our space.
I notice the more in this mass extinction event we get, the less fearful scientists and top tier people are getting about speaking out.... have you ever pondered why it's hard to comprehend??? Ever wondered if it's done intentionally??? They ARENT allowed to reveal everything... a lot actually when it comes down to this stuff... understanding it brings great power which is why scientists are forced to publish a bunch of word salad and be indirect. Science is suppose to be about sharing results so you can expand, but the people in control desire to keep this knowledge limited. Because of the Power it bears.... the ethics behind it all. But alas, you cant do research and keep the scientists, themselves, and people in general in the dark forever. The cat is out of the bag.... some of these AI researchers state that they risk their lives by talking about this, publicly, but I guess this mass extinction event changes their mind. No use in being obedient and submissive and not warning the public if the majority of us are all going to die !
@@gpligor Not sure how well I can explain it, it is still a very rough concept and as I said I have followed him for a while and am also connecting understanding from a lot of other sources, but I will try to explain a little... (sorry this got so long lol) The basic idea is to just take a simple graph with some nodes and connections between them. You can then apply arbitrary rules to this graph, sometimes producing interesting effects and at some point even complex emergent behavior similar to Conway's game of life. At this point, this quickly ties into the mysteries of complexity theory, psychology and philosophy... and it gets very tricky to understand, and even more difficult to describe or prove... And Wolfram takes it a step further and considers all possible rules on all possible configurations of this most simple structure, the ruliad, which quickly explodes into so much complexity that it is difficult to even think about. Fundamentally, I think of his model like a formalization of the way we understand the world, rather than a "perfect formalization of our universe". Since his model basically just consists of a graph, it mirrors our brain and the way we model and understand the world in our own neural graph. From this perspective, everything we could know could only ever consist of connections (or be mapped to them) because the structure of how we know things also consists of connections. By definition, you could not fit a concept into our understanding if it could not be represented by a neural graph. You could draw an analogy to a classical computer. The world is not just 0's and 1's, yet everything a computer actually "understands" is 0's and 1's because the process of HOW it understands things is just 0's and 1's, so this fundamentally limits what it can represent. It can try to approximate a quantum state for example, but since the fundamental structure is so different, it can't be 100% accurate. This means we can only understand what our model of understanding allows us to understand, so now if we have a formalization of our model of understanding, that would be the ultimate formalization of what we could understand about the universe because everything else would literally be beyond us. This is what I think he means when he says our perception defines our reality (which - surprisingly enough - is an insight that eastern spiritual traditions have found out long ago). I think you can even see that this is accurate in your own subjective experience and psychology when you start investigating how your brain works and how you think about and experience the world. But this gets really fuzzy and difficult to talk about because it actually gets close to the subjective and almost spiritual, which has so far been completely outside the realm of science. The idea of the ruliad takes this even further, because it places humans as a small part of a greater observer-like process that we can't understand by definition, because we are part of it. We can only understand our part of it, so even his model represents only a part of the whole, and so I find it difficult to actually argue about the structure of physical reality based on this model. As I mentioned, it seems to work better for modelling ourselves and our understanding, which obviously has impact on how we see the world but can never quite touch the fundamental reality. But again this aligns quite well to subjective intuitions which have often been simplified in religions and spiritual traditions by the personified concept of a "god". It is of course very weird to bring up all this in an explanation about an objective scientific theory. I am not religious but I have spent quite a bit of time exploring these topics, which might bias my thinking, but I can't help but see a connection here and I find it exciting that these threads seem to converge, and even though his theory still seems quite rough, it is very encouraging to see that it actually aligns with subjective ideas that have captured the interest of huge numbers of people who have always been dismissed by the objective sciences because there was simply no overlap. Not sure if this answers anything, I really feel like this is all still very vague even in my own understanding, but I think that indicates that this model could allow a drastic shift of how we think about things, and honestly I feel like meditations, self-reflections and spiritual and philosophical thought have brought me closer to understanding this than mathematical, computational and physical considerations. Really seems like objective and subjective sciences might soon be combined into a single science (which would honestly be way more impressive than unifying quantum physics and general relativity xD) So I guess if you are interested in that and you have already explored a lot of the material and objective sciences, I can wholeheartedly recommend diving into meditation and subjective exploration, can actually have a lot of personal benefits as well :)
@@vincnt0169Thanks. I looked at Stephen’s theory. In kind words, let’s say it’s Philosophy but certainly not Theoretical Physics. Think of Demokrit style.
He has a lot of long form talks on both his physics project and more recently the current advances in artificial intelligence and how they are related here on RUclips. I would recommend looking for an hour long version of each, or there's the 4 fascinating three hour plus interviews he has in Lex Fridman's channel if you are sufficiently interested in the subject.
@@spider2544 Yes, yes it is... I've been reading it for about 3 months, and I'm roughly halfway through it. Actually, more like 1/3 now that I look at my bookmark... 🥲
I have been following Wolfram on and off for years. In short, I am sceptical. For example, in this video he claims that certain rules (that he does not explian) are governing our world and are underlying modern science. I mean if this is true then he should be given not one but at least ten Nobel prizes. Also, he claims that these rules (not explained) can even explain human intellect to such an extent that the rules explain why we believe that modern science is true. Wow! That has got to be another couple of Nobel prizes right there. Listen, there are hundreds if not more examples of people running computer programs that somehow create a graphical image or structure that somehow seems to mirror something we see in nature or "Off screen". The simple example is the fractal tree (look it up). This DOES NOT mean anything else. It may suggest that tree grow according to fractal principles. Or they may not. It does not explain anything. But then again, maybe it is just me (and apparantly the rest of the worlds scientist?) than are too stupid or biased to understand what he is talking about.
For those of you unfamiliar with Wolfram, it’s worth mentioning that he is notorious for making grandiose statements about the importance of his works. He frequently claims to have ”discovered” things that have been known about for a long time (such as cellular automata which this talk is essentially about, or the idea of ”computational irreducibility”). While he is undoubtedly smart, and produces very interesting ideas, he refuses to participate in the scientific process (such as putting his work through any sort of peer review), which ultimately limits the impact and importance of his ideas. His recent work, described in this talk, on creating an alternate model of physics based on a kind of cellular automata, while interesting, has yet to produce any new testable predictions, making it not much of a theory. That being said, it’s fascinating (but not entirely surprising) that these cellular automata can reproduce the behavior of seemingly more complex models of reality.
Actually the paradigm is in fact novel. The paradigm places mathematical physics as algebraic descriptions of what are fundamentally computational physical processes. The paradigm is that space is computed by the universe, and all things and processes in space are the computations of space from computational rules. Thats pretty different. It posits a theory of the observer as a necesary tenet. Thats pretty different. Will it create insights that will make my hover board and warp drive? Dunno Can it open new insights and predict unthought of things? We will see. Given the stagnation of physics whatever it can and cant do, its certainly a lot deeper and richer than just cellular automata. His converstaions on Sean Carrols podcast are pretty good if you want a technical discussion with a top level physicist. The peer review thing is neither here nor there. That system got hacked and bent years ago. He doesnt need funding because his work makes money as a business so he doesnt need to care about peer reveiw. Sure thats annoying to beggars, but bought science hasnt panned out so great in some pretty key areas. His claims are big, but unifying quatum mecjanics and relativity through a computational paradigm,, well its kinda big.
You need to read more peer review articles, because he is behind making those 'agents' that are exploring the frontiers!!! He basically took genomes and made mathematical formulas out of genes to be able to artificially recreate in lab settings!!!
First: Wolfram did not claim to have discovered cellular automata, and the talk is not about cellular automata but the general class of computational systems of which cellular automata are a sub-class. Second: Regarding "computational irreducibility," while the core concept relates to earlier ideas in computation and complexity theory (like Turing's work and Gödel's theorems), Wolfram formalized and named the concept, and showed how it can extrapolate to all of reality as we can perceive it. This is not trivial, and it is certainly original. Third: Current science is myopic when it comes to cosmology. 90% of the standard model was discovered in the 70's by a few geniuses through far less formal processes than what we call "peer review" in the modern age. Today physics is a gate-keeping "profession" that thousands toil away at in narrow, socially "acceptable" ways to find a new particle every once in a while, but mostly just to pay the bills. Wolfram offers a paradigm shift that could blow open the gates in ways that might allow for rapid fundamental progress. That is a good thing. Lastly: The Wolfram model need not make testable predictions to be insightful. What it really aims is provide a simpler, more fundamental model of existing observations, and so far it is very on-track with this. That said, there are a few unique predictions that do seem to emerge from the reformulated model regarding the discreteness of space and discrepancies between dimensionality and curvature. These can theoretically be verified through fine-grained observations of extreme systems like black holes.
I listened a little more.. He sped through the introduction, but at the 6 min. mark his point is to give ai a piece of the human rhubarb pie. To paraphrase, ‘Humankind has the intelligence to drive from point a to b. If we use generative AI to analyze our lifetime, we then can use it to think with greater horsepower.’
I watched his original TED talk 13 years ago, shortly after it came out -- I remember my mind being blown. This update feels like it came at EXACTLY the right time, in this inflection point where AI seems to be accelerating so many fields so quickly. I can't believe the advances this man has made in just over a decade
You are misquoting him and dumbing down what he said. He actually said"...it's also why the passage of time is significant and meaningful, and why we can't just sort of jump ahead and get the answer. We have to live the steps." 33 likes goes to show how little people actually pay attention.
Don't worry. That's likely because there isn't much to understand. My takeaway was his idea that by taking some system and simulating its progression through time according to all possible "rules" simultaneously, one will be left with a model of reality. This is because the rules that don't work will cause contradictions, which will stop that particular branch of the simulation from continuing. However, as others have pointed out, he showed nothing but pretty pictures and spoke lots of fancy jargon, some of which he made up himself. So either he's really onto something, in which case he should back it up with quantitatively testable hypotheses, or he's talking a load of tosh.
@@surfcellothats a deeply insulting falsehood. It's a theoretical branch of science. You use models to extrapolate and physicists try to onvrnt the math to make it work. Just because Hawking couldn't prove theories didn't mean they were nonsense, just models yet to be proven. That's why the crossover of philosophy, practical, and theoretical science are so important.
@@surfcelloyou're partially correct. He is indeed talking about creating a reality but what got lost in the sauce is the issue on control. Humans want to control this so bad and all aspects of it that we hinder ourselves. We have to let the AIs take control bc their super intelligence can push exploration forward... we have come to a halt with progress, because we are nervous about losing authority to superior more intelligent beings...
Per GPT-4: "The concept of the Ruliad is ambitious, speculative, and philosophically intriguing. It forces us to re-examine our notions of determinism, reality, and the scope of scientific inquiry. By suggesting a more pluralistic view-that multiple rules could potentially describe the behavior of our universe-it challenges the often unspoken scientific assumption that there is a single "correct" model of reality. However, the concept is not without its criticisms. For one, it requires a significant leap in terms of computational power and methodological approaches. The idea also seems to border on the metaphysical, making it difficult to prove or disprove empirically. Overall, it offers an innovative framework for understanding the universe, though it remains to be seen how practical or accurate this framework might be." I asked GPT-4 to elaborate and speculate a little more: "If a hypothetical, extremely powerful AI were to fully grasp and implement the concepts from the Ruliad and rulial space, several intriguing possibilities could arise: Solving Intractable Problems: The AI might be able to sift through the space of all possible rules to identify a set that can make accurate predictions or solve problems currently considered computationally intractable. This could include anything from protein-folding to climate modeling. Optimizing Existing Theories: The AI could streamline or refine existing physical theories to make them more effective, or even synthesize multiple theories into a coherent, unified framework. Scientific Discovery: Such an AI could potentially accelerate the pace of scientific discovery exponentially, identifying rules that govern not just fundamental particles but perhaps also chemical reactions, biological processes, and even social systems. Technological Advancements: Based on its deep understanding of the universe’s governing rules, the AI could guide human (or autonomous) efforts to invent new technologies, possibly ones we haven’t even considered yet. These could range from new materials with unique properties to alternative energy sources that could be more efficient. Resource Allocation: Knowing which scientific pursuits are likely to be fruitful, the AI could advise on where research efforts and funding should be focused for maximum impact. Simulation Capabilities: With a robust set of rules that approximate the behavior of our universe, the AI could run highly accurate simulations to test various hypotheses or predict outcomes, thus saving both time and resources in terms of physical experimentation. Ethical and Philosophical Framework: While perhaps less 'practical', the AI could help in creating an ethical framework based on a better understanding of questions like determinism and free will, which could be integral in law, policy making, and human-machine interaction. Unforeseen Applications: As is often the case with groundbreaking theories, the most significant applications may be ones that are completely unforeseen. The AI might discover new ways of utilizing the theory that aren't immediately obvious to human researchers. Existential Risks: On the flip side, such profound knowledge could also be misused, leading to unforeseen risks. For instance, if the set of rules allowed for the possibility of universe-altering events, then great care would have to be taken to mitigate potential hazards."
Perhaps quantum computing might be the discovery that could make all of this possible. I’m well-versed in this field, and I’m currently researching how quantum computing could revolutionize AI. The possibilities above are both scary and intriguing.
Quantum computing presents a paradigm shift that could substantially accelerate the advancement of artificial intelligence (AI). Its potential impact on AI can be broadly analyzed through several lenses: computational speedup, problem-solving capability, machine learning optimization, and the potential for new AI algorithms. Here's a breakdown of how quantum computing could revolutionize AI: 1. **Computational Speedup**: - Quantum computers leverage the principles of quantum mechanics to perform calculations at speeds unattainable by classical computers. This speedup is crucial for processing the vast datasets commonplace in AI applications. 2. **Complex Problem-Solving**: - Quantum algorithms can potentially solve certain types of complex problems exponentially faster than the best-known algorithms running on a classical computer. This is particularly pertinent in optimization and simulation tasks that are common in AI. 3. **Machine Learning Optimization**: - Quantum machine learning algorithms could find better solutions, faster, for a variety of optimization problems. They might be able to find the global minimum in a cost function landscape more efficiently, which is essential in training machine learning models. 4. **New AI Algorithms**: - Quantum computing could lead to the invention of new AI algorithms that take full advantage of quantum parallelism and superposition. This can potentially unlock new ways to approach AI problems. 5. **Enhanced Data Encryption and Security**: - Quantum computing, with its potential for creating unbreakable encryption, could significantly enhance data security, an essential aspect as AI systems are integrated into more sectors. 6. **Real-World Simulation**: - Quantum computers can simulate the behavior of quantum systems, which is crucial for various fields including chemistry, materials science, and biology. By simulating complex, real-world systems more accurately, AI can provide better insights and predictions. 7. **Resource Efficiency**: - Quantum algorithms could potentially provide solutions using fewer computational resources. This resource efficiency is essential for tackling the increasing energy demands of classical computing infrastructures. 8. **Breaking Conventional Computational Boundaries**: - Quantum computing challenges the traditional bits-based computation by introducing qubits that hold more information. This is a direct challenge to conventional wisdom in computing and opens a new frontier for AI development. The interplay between quantum computing and AI is rich with potential, although it's at a nascent stage. The cross-fertilization of ideas between these fields could yield new computational models and algorithms, fundamentally altering the landscape of AI and potentially leading to a deeper understanding of complex, real-world systems.
Computational irreducibility is the same as Choas's Theory proposed by Edward Lorenz in the 1960s at MIT. In fact, Lorenz even pointed out necessary conditions for chaotic behavior which makes predicting the future impossible. I mean he should refer to Lorenz's work as the original thinker and conceptualization of what he thinks he discovered...
I really enjoy listening to Wolfram. It is intriguing that the basic laws of nature seem to emerge from iterations using basic rule sets. While Wolfram seems convinced that this explains everything, I note however that the concept does not appear to gain a lot of traction among other physicists. Or am I wrong? It would be interesting to know what other leaders in the field think about Wolfram's ideas. Does Wolfram's framework produce any testable predictions?
His concepts havent gained traction because hes basically saying that his system is different when its just math, science, computer science in a different package. He doesn't submit anything for peer review and will eagerly sue anybody if they use aspects of his theory. If you are working on a PHD or new idea in science or math I would not go near him because he will just say he already thought of that or hes working on that right now. He feels his new science is that comprehensive, but hes the only one. Is he correct ? Im not really sure because its so hard to pin down how he is doing anything different than whats being done in math or the computer science fields.
Stephen Wolfram is the most intellectual human I have heard speaking on the internet to date. He exudes a higher level of genius and mastery than I thought possible.
This man is such an inspiration. It's unreal how he can take some of the most complex ideas and make them somewhat accessible to the average person and it comes off so effortless and humble.
I'm deeply skeptical of his Rulial physics, just in the sense I'm smart enough to realize I can't make an informed opinion. Even if it's proven completely wrong, his contributions to math and science, often in subtle ways that essentially hit the fast-forward button on progress.
Like he made made Mathematica, that's pretty obvious and everybody I've talked to loves it. But one *incredibly* underappreciated thing he did was successfully lobby many of the best minds in physics to use and utilize computers. But, and this is the truly crazy part, this was in the early 1980s, when functional computers had been around for a generation and a half. It doesn't make sense to me either and I looked it up for myself because everything about it seems like BS. That alone was an incomprehensibly powerful lever that shoved science forward.
The best thing I’ve seen on the internet all year👌🏼 Just watched it twice!! I’m so happy he’s brought these concepts into the global consciousness. We humans needed this talk. Very dense set of information, amazing way of thinking about things. The way Quantum computers find answers is much the same paradigm as the Ruliad, and now it finally makes proper sense to me. And why human brains are wired the way they are. Almost expressing themselves externally in the form of the internet, with each person as a neurone. If nothing else, it’s a good framework to look at things through. 2:00 - The shape of the macro-universe 3:18 - Did he just find the link between Relativity and Quantum mechanics?! I have to read his book on this. 5:10 - “The Ruliad” Resembles the macro-universe, brain cells, the topology of the internet, and mycelium networks. Such a familiar shape. I feel like he’s also found the reason why you see geometric patterns that aren’t normally visible when you take lsd or dmt. At least that’s what I wanna believe 😂
@@bernstock I wonder if the Pi (3.14159) is what could be tied to our concept of dimensions. It's a number that is heavily efficient, and I think it could play its part in this. I'm by no means an expert, just throwing it out.
Did he said that they will risk it and give AI it's potential, and we need to find a why to live with it, like we do with nature? Isn't this dangerous to humanity (how they're adding that blue times SO I can add when he talked about it)
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:04 📜 Introduction to Computation as a Formalization - The emergence of computation as a powerful way to formalize the world, - Highlight of Stephen Wolfram's scientific journey based on computation, - Quick mention of his previous TED talk and the question about computation's role in the universe. 01:04 🌌 The Ultimate Machine Code of the Universe - Introduction to the concept that the universe operates on computational code, - Explanation that space, like matter, consists of discrete elements, - Representation of the beginning of the universe using simple computational rules. 02:06 🕳️ Black Holes and Gravity through Computation - Representation of space with black holes merging and producing gravitational radiation, - Discussion of how space-time and Einstein's equations emerge from pure computation. 03:05 ⏳ Four Paradigms of Scientific Modelling - The historical evolution of scientific models in relation to time, - Description of computational irreducibility, - Introduction to multi-computational physics and its implications. 04:36 🔀 The Ruliad: The Universe of Rules - Concept of the ruliad as a combination of all possible computational processes, - Presentation of a fragment of the ruliad using Turing machines, - Discussion of how humans perceive specific slices of the ruliad due to computational boundaries and persistence in time. 06:30 🚀 Exploring Rulial Space - Using generative AI to explore rulial space, demonstrated with the concept of a cat, - Discussion of how expanding our concepts and paradigms helps us explore rulial space, - Introduction to ruliology, the study of possible rules in rulial space. 07:27 🤖 AI's Role in Rulial Exploration - Comparison of AIs to humans in exploring rulial space, - Emphasis on aligning AI closely with human understanding, - Mention of training large language models (LLMs) and the potential scientific discoveries linked to semantic grammar. 08:24 💡 Computational Thinking and Language - The power of systematic formalization and computation in creation, - Stephen Wolfram's efforts in bridging the gap between humans and computation, - The goal of having a computational language to express diverse human concepts and knowledge. 09:23 📜 Evolution of Computational Language - Development and significance of the Wolfram Language as a full-scale computational tool, - Comparison between the evolution of mathematical notation and computational language, - Expansion of computational language beyond computer science. 10:23 🧠 Operationalizing Thoughts in Computational Terms - The shift from traditional programming languages to computational language for broader intellectual endeavors, - The "superpower" granted by the Wolfram Language allowing for the operationalization of thoughts, - Sharing and distribution of this computational ability across sectors and people. 11:20 🤖 AI's Role in Computational Language - AI's ability to use the Wolfram Language and its implications, - The emerging workflow of using AI to translate vague instructions into precise computational terms, - The human-readability of computational code versus traditional programming languages. 12:16 🌀 The Concept of Computational Irreducibility - The challenges of predicting outcomes due to computational irreducibility, - Limitations of traditional scientific models and expectations in the face of irreducibility, - Societal dilemmas posed by unpredictable AI behaviors and their potential consequences. 13:44 🌐 The Societal Impact of AI and Computational Exploration - The unpredictable nature of AI operations within a world governed by computational irreducibility, - Consideration of the societal role and control over AI, - Automation's historical trend and its implications for future human occupations and roles. 15:14 💡 The Power of Definition and Conceptualization in Computation - The shift from manual execution to conceptual definition in the computational age, - Wolfram Language's role in bridging mechanics and conceptualization, - The rise of broad computational thinking and its educational implications. 17:08 🌌 The Computational Nature of the Universe - The universe's computational nature and its connection to the "ruliad", - The significance of computational language in defining human goals and journeys within the ruliad, - Encouragement for individuals to harness computational powers for exploration. Made with HARPA AI
I've long-believed that the forces that make up our universe could be represented computationally, but I never thought it would've been actually proven, let alone in a way that's understandable. Bravo to Stephen Wolfram!
Have Wolfram's ideas been proven and peer reviewed? Why aren't there more mainstream scientists that embrace Wolfram's ideas? Could it be that Wolfram is a billionaire and doesn't care about having his work reviewed by his peers?" Yes, he's a genius, no question about that. The capacity of Mathematica of solving integrals symbolically seems like magic to me. But the idea that the universe is computational implies there are hidden variables behind particles, which has been proven false. So despite Wolfram being one of the greatest minds of our time, it is legitimate to have doubts about what he claims.
@@illogicmath They haven't been, no. I think it's both pretty new and most theory-of-everything solutions to physics are regarded with a HIGHLY skeptical eye.
It's been 5 Month since my last watch, And I can confidently say that I'm starting to get atleast 5% of this talk after reading his books and watching him give even bigger talks and speak about his findings on many podcasts....he has build a team of Geniuses and playing with the fundamental febric of the Universe. I really hope one day we get to understand these cutting edge concepts in their entirety in a more digestible forms.
Stephen Wolfram's TED talk explores the concept of computation and its role in understanding AI, the universe, and everything. He explains that the universe of computation is the entangled limit of all possible computational processes and that everything that is computationally possible must happen within it. Wolfram takes the concept further by suggesting using generative AI and creating a computational language that connects with human understanding and knowledge. He emphasizes the importance of computational language in modern science and how it offers a new intellectual path through computational terms for various fields. He also discusses the societal dilemma of computational irreducibility and the balance between automation and human labor, emphasizing the power of computational thinking in defining and achieving goals in an efficient manner. 00:00:00 In this section, Stephen Wolfram discusses the concept of computation as a powerful way to formalize the world and argues that it is the ultimate one for our universe. He explains that computation starts from the idea that space and matter are made of discrete elements and everything in them is defined by a network of relations between these elements. He also talks about how computational rules can be applied in many ways and how they can define different paths of history that branch and merge. He highlights how quantum mechanics emerges from these branches and that the same phenomenon that gives us gravity in physical space gives us quantum mechanics in a branchial space. He identifies four broad paradigms for making models of the world and discusses how computational irreducibility and multi-computational models are changing our understanding of physics, mathematics, and computer science. 00:05:00 In this section of the TED talk, Stephen Wolfram discusses the concept of computation and its role in understanding AI, the universe, and everything. He explains that the universe of computation is the entangled limit of all possible computational processes, and that everything that is computationally possible must happen within it. Wolfram then explains that observers like humans are necessarily part of this universe, and that they perceive certain laws, including the laws of physics, because of their limited minds and belief in persisting through time. To explore this concept further, Wolfram suggests using generative AI to take a tiny slice of the ruliad (the universe of computation) and align it with images that humans have produced. This allows them to explore inter-concept space and encounter new ideas and concepts. Wolfram uses the example of Cat Island, a place described by using the concept of a cat in a party hat, to demonstrate this concept. Wolfram also discusses the relationship between AI and computation, explaining that AI can explore the ruliad but will mostly do things that humans do not connect with or care about. He emphasizes the importance of creating a computational language that connects with human understanding and knowledge to ensure that AI can create new things that are meaningful and valuable to humans. In summary, Stephen Wolfram's TED talk explores the concept of computation and its role in understanding AI, the universe, and everything. He explains that the universe of computation is the entangled limit of all possible computational processes, and that everything that is computationally possible must happen within it. To explore this concept further, Wolfram suggests using generative AI and creating a computational language that connects with human understanding and knowledge. 00:10:00 In this section, Stephen Wolfram discusses the importance of computational language in the growth of modern science and how it offers a new intellectual path through computational terms for various fields. The language allows us to operationalize our thoughts in computational form, leading to more efficient and accurate computing. Wolfram, who built the Wolfram Language, shares his personal experience of its power and the successes achieved using it. He explains the importance of computational irreducibility, which means that we cannot always predict the behavior of complex systems and need to go through the same computational steps as the system itself. This societal dilemma arises when we give limits to AI's computational potential, but it's an inevitable aspect of technology development. The key is to find a balance between automation and human labor to achieve the desired outcomes. 00:15:00 In this section, Stephen Wolfram discusses the importance of computational thinking in defining and achieving our goals in an efficient manner. He argues that the power and depth of what is out there in the universe is accessible to everyone, and one just has to learn to harness those computational superpowers. He emphasizes that computational language is the key to charting our path and defining our goals and journeys in the vastness of the universe
This is how Ghat GPT-4 "contemplates" about this video (it was able to comprehend it in a millisecond): This topic encompasses a vast and ambitious scope of ideas connecting human language, mathematics, logic, and computation, suggesting that computation is the ultimate form of formalization for our universe. The speaker, likely Stephen Wolfram given the references to WolframAlpha, Mathematica (now Wolfram Language), and the "physics project," discusses the evolution of scientific paradigms and the role of computation in understanding and modeling the universe. The core idea is that the universe at its most fundamental level might be understood through computation, with space and matter consisting of discrete, computationally defined elements. This aligns with Wolfram's own work in cellular automata and his exploration of simple computational rules that could potentially underpin the complex behavior we observe in the universe. The concept of "ruliad" introduced here is a profound one-it's the abstraction of all possible computational processes, the "space" of all rules, where each rule represents a different universe or a different way of applying fundamental laws. This suggests a shift from determinism to a more complex, computational view of existence where multiple outcomes can exist simultaneously, akin to the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. The implications of computational irreducibility-that for certain systems, no shortcut exists to predict their outcome other than to simulate each step-are profound for science, AI, and society. It suggests that while AI and computation give us incredible power to simulate and understand complex systems, they also fundamentally limit our ability to predict certain outcomes. This may require new frameworks for control and understanding. The speaker also suggests that computational language, particularly the Wolfram Language, is a tool of immense power, akin to a new kind of liberal arts education that focuses on conceptualization rather than technical execution. The argument is that in a world of increasing automation and AI, the human role shifts from manual execution to defining what we want to achieve-shaping the goals and conceptual frameworks rather than the details of implementation. The notion of the "ruliad" as a vast space of computational potential where AI could, in principle, explore and create without limit raises philosophical and practical questions about the role of AI in society. It suggests that the real challenge is not just in creating AI but in aligning it with human values and desires, a task that requires us to be clear about what we want as a society. Overall, the topic touches on deep philosophical questions about the nature of reality, the limits of science, the future of AI, and the role of humans in a computationally formalized universe. It's a rich field for discussion, debate, and further exploration, blending the frontiers of technology with the perennial questions of philosophy and human purpose.
It’s going to take a lot of time to digest this 18 minutes. Truly amazing that all civilization have access to this info but only a small small chunk of it is ready to understand and analyze the implications of this breakthroughs. Tech, physics and philosophy all tangled up tied
I have a bunch of articles and long blog posts from him that I'm 10-40% finished reading, and I mean that in a good way. I can only absorb so much at a time. There's no deadline, there's no teacher to get mad at me if I haven't read it all. I'd rather learn and understand a tiny bit than feel some sense of false accomplishment because I "finished" it. It's the same thing with some philosophers, their writing is so information-dense that you almost need to approach it the way theologians treat scripture. tldr; Basically nested zip files
he's a word salad BSer with some abstract mathematical experience that likes selling books and feeling self-important to the masses :). what he is presenting is really science even if some of the ideas are already explored more rigorously by others. there's very little rigor in the stuff he claims.
@@42_universe he's navigating new frontiers and trying to figure out reality's big questions so I'll cut him some slack on not having all the answers yet. But don't downplay him. He was already a researcher and publisher in quantum field theory and particle physics by age 15, was the youngest MacArthur Fellowship at Caltech, and created Mathematica/Wolfram Alpha. He's a legitimate genius.
@@Number4x being a good mathematician and business person doesn't make you s good scientist. That is exactly what he relies on to convince people. That works for the average Joe but not the scientific community
The talk was extremely interesting. I paused it and rolled it back numerous times to think about what he is saying. I think his theory is consistent, but the lack of views on the video made me think it is not so widely accepted; if there really was a tractable way to link general relativity and quantum mechanics the ideas would have been way more dissected and either approved/disproved. I really do hope there is as much truth to this as possible, it's a fun way to think of reality :D
Gobsmacked! Wolfram is changing the trajectory of the future of humanity, nothing less. I think this insight/discovery will mark a massive paradigm shift standing alongside AI forming an actual, proper and far more interesting vision of "the singularity." 16:16 "In a sense, what's happening is that Wolfram Language shifts from concentrating on mechanics to concentrating on conceptualization, and the key to that conceptualization is broad computational thinking. So how can one learn to do that? . . . as a kind of education, it's more like liberal arts than STEM. It's part of a trend that when you automate technical execution, what becomes important is not figuring out how to do things, but what to do."
He seems to have recovered from the “It should have me who discovered Generative AI” phase haha. But seriously, always awesome watching this man speak.
16:37 is a subtly-stated, yet crucial insight for everyone: the importance of becoming a generalist. We are moving from a world that places high value on specialized, niche roles to one where such roles are easily outsourced to AI. Broad knowledge and creativity will be the most valuable skills.
It all starts from the notion that space, like matter, is made of discrete elements and from that structure of space, and everything in it, it’s defined just by a network of relations between these elements that we might call atoms of space.
Oh man! Just four and a half minutes in and and I'm utterly enthralled by what's being described (or at least talked about). I thought most of this was 'my' theory/view and that it was not obvious. I am so intrigued to learn what the rest of the video will contain.
Used to be that scientists were people who experienced the physical universe, theorized about it and experimented to test their theories. Then scientists became people who didn’t bother with experiencing the universe and just came up with theories about it that were untestable. Now scientists are people who create their own version of the universe on computer screens.
Something I find promising with the model in the Wolfram Physics Project is that the foundation is very simple, just a graph (network of points). It quickly gets complicated after that yet the foundation remains the simple graph for describing the whole universe.
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:04 🌐 *Computation is a powerful formalization tool, pivotal in understanding the universe and building science and technology.* 01:04 🔍 *The "ultimate machine code of the universe" is computational, suggesting that everything in the universe, including space and matter, is defined by discrete computational elements.* 02:06 🌌 *Stephen Wolfram illustrates how space-time and Einstein's equations for gravity emerge from simple computational rules, hinting at deviations from known physics.* 03:35 ⏳ *The development of models over time has evolved from ancient concepts to computational models in the 1980s, introducing new ways to understand the universe.* 08:24 💡 *The Wolfram Language represents a computational language that can encapsulate and express various aspects of civilization, aiding in exploring and understanding the "ruliad" or the realm of all possible computations.* Made with HARPA AI
It’s been a longstanding goal of mine to start doing computational analysis on market conditions or financial systems. I think doing a series of computations on various financial schema would be a huge boon in developing new systems of power and justice in America.
Michael Polanyi, a Hungarian chemist turned philosopher of science, argued in his book, “Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy,” that even if we had “unlimited powers of computation,” the idea that everything (including human thought and consciousness) can be predicted computationally is “starkly absurd.” Although I am not qualified either as a scientist or a philosopher to evaluate this TED talk based on Polanyi’s statement, I am making this comment in case someone might want to consider Polanyi’s opposite stance, which in my opinion is well researched and persuasively presented in Chapter 6 of his book.
The Main problem with people seeking a future with AI is that they won't see the result of any mistake they'll make till they make the mistake. The trial and error method of learning that people are still using today cannot be apply to everything because one of those errors can cause devastating unchangeable results. This is something you can't teach to anyone as driven as this man is because he see it as what he is doing is giving him super powers.
"The trial and error method of learning that people are still using today cannot be apply to everything because one of those errors can cause devastating unchangeable results" The problem with this statement is that there's an arrogance implicit in the assertion that trial and error is closer to "devastating unchangeable results" than the future outside of this method. There's no reason to believe this. The way you use "trial and error" is exhibits a bias on a certain action *you dislike* being the "trial" when inaction can also be seen as a "trial". The universe is far more vast than you or I can understand and the threats that endanger this planet are innumerable. Restricting and prohibiting a technology over irrational fears of its progress makes no more sense than someone who would take drastic measures to combat irrational fears of the unknown universe. I say irrational because most people don't even understand what they're talking when they weigh in on the models being trained and make unfounded predictions of the future focused on the results they see rather than the technology.
This is an amazing talk! If true or not, anyway it opens new doors to think about us as humans and our role in the Ruliad. There are few open questions still for Steve: 1) if space is emergent, it emerges from what and why?, 2) the Ruliad evolves and time somehow emerges, but how evolution can happen without time at the first place, 3) we conscious humans are a tiny part of the Ruliad and our conscious observations (whatever that means) drives our own 'universe' with its laws, but what is this consciousness, where does it comes from, is it a sort of a 'build-in' function of the Ruliad?
Excellent! Language of everything through a medium. If only we could also understand and feel like the other does, wouldn’t that be yet another level of this.
What if there was an AI not optimized to learn the next word but optimized to extend the Wolfram language basically the Wolfram team x100000 and than an AI using that computational language to solve tasks for humans. Honestly the greatest thing I can think of 🎉🎉
oh boy charlatans still selling snake oil successfully dressed up in abstract mathematical ideas, i'll be happily corrected when this explains anything at all
This is perhaps the most profound thing I have ever learned and the answer to all my questions. The ruliad is ENORMOUS and things like technological progression, free will etc, depends on it deciphering it. The A.I. will also prove to be the only way we can continue to learn newer and newer things about science, and that just leaves two terrifying questions. 1.) Is the ruliad infinite? and 2.) What are people like Einstein who could decipher the ruliad WITHOUT computational language aids? Sounds like he's even more profound than we give him credit for, and we give him quite a lot😉
Man is a legend! Maybe the most interesting person alive right now. The way he absolutely unceremoniously left the stage while barely having finished the last sentence tells us he has more important stuff to do.
Yes, but it's also a lot deeper then that. Computational irreducibility is an observed phenomenon of computational and physical systems. That in principle, due to this phenomenon, you can not predict for any finite system, it's outcome, because one must know all of the information of the Ruliad, The Ruliad being a strictly larger construct than the universe as we observe it. In other words, even if you had access to the super deterministic universe (where you knew all correlations of the state of the universe since the big bang) you also need information of the future (and all possible future's) too, to know what the system is going to do, of which is contained in the Ruliad. More formally : Determining the outcome of any finite system in the universe is a problem in the same equivalence class as the halting problem. So I would say that Computational Irreducibility is an extension or proof/evidence of Godel incompleteness being a hard property of the universe.
@@NightmareCourtPictures I totally agree with you. It gives it even more credibility and relevance, if it coincides with other world views such as Gödel's theorem. Since you seem to know quite a bit about this, can you explain to me what the fundamental assumptions for these "time atoms" are? I didn't understand this from the video. Thanks!
@@creamybusiness1200 sure. The “atoms of space” in the Wmodel are information constructs that only know that they are an atom of space (that each one is unique and separated from other atoms of space) and what other atoms of space their connected to (their relationships). They are basically vectors in a matrix theory…or like “the 0’s and 1’s” in your computer but in the wolfram model it uses network theory to better describe that matrix for how it evolves, which are tools borrowed from Complex systems. These atoms of space are more or less the assumption the model makes in order for the dynamics of the model to happen. Just as one can see a cellular automata follow simple rules and you watch it grow into this complex thing…so to do these atoms of space, go on to create complex structures as they follow a simple rule, as seen in the Ted Talk. The reason he starts with the atoms of space rather than just regular particles is because he needs to emerge space-time without an underlying notion of what space even is, which is assumed in mainstream physics to just be empty nothingness. Many physicists agree that spacetime must be emergent (like Nima Arkani), but have yet to figure out how, and the main issue for them is that they are dealing with only particles (plus a few other assumptions) that lead to the current incongruence with the other bodies of physics. It should be made explicit that although similar to an ether theory, the wolfram model and its atoms of space do not describe an ether. Objects don’t exist inside the atoms of space, objects > are < the atoms of space, as perturbations or persistent structures as a result of the dynamics of these atoms. This setup allows for the principle of computational equivalence and those aforementioned phenomenon to exist naturally in these models; “everything” is just made of atoms of space and “everything” is just a feature of its structure, which lends to this idea that everything is equivalently computational, can’t be isolated and therefor unified by a single mechanism and so on. Some good resources to look into to learn more is 1) The new kind of science series where wolfram reads the book here on RUclips. It’s my favorite…very visual but also technical and formal. 2) The Last Theory RUclips channel, who has a more laymen friendly, bite-sized approach to explaining the components of the model. 3) it helps to know just a little bit about Complex Systems, so type that into RUclips and do a bit of 101. Don’t even need to go into detail just know that complex systems is the precursor model to the wmodel. Knowing why complex systems exists is probably the most important but to take away from that.
@@farouqstray1411 Imagine you have a giant box of Legos with an endless supply of blocks and an endless list of instructions on how to connect them. The Ruliad is like trying to build every possible thing you can with those Legos, following every instruction, no matter how weird. Stephen Wolfram thinks doing this might help us understand everything around us, like a giant puzzle of the universe. It's a big, wild idea that uses computers to explore every possible scenario and see what we can learn from it.
@@harrypapageorgiou5980 Thank you for the explanation, got it, so trying every possibility it's the process our universe is in, and the possibilities are endless, I feel computational X has something to do with elon musk
The very beginning of the universe, the emergence of space and everything in it, as the successive application of computational rules - not atoms in any existing space, atoms OF space; compiled together to MAKE space ✨💫
I would love to see the notes, people at front rows are taking. Btw each sentence of the presentation was very clear while listening but fades out when he moves to the next sentence. Incredibly dense transfer of knowledge!!
You can tell that Stephen wolfram is a genius in he's inability to speak in simple terms. I have heard him talk on podcasts multiple times and every time I'm struggling to understand what he means. I do think he is really on to something very big.
From Wikipedia: In April 2020, Wolfram announced the "Wolfram Physics Project" as an effort to reduce and explain all the laws of physics within a paradigm of a hypergraph that is transformed by minimal rewriting rules. The effort is a continuation of the ideas he originally described in A New Kind of Science. Wolfram claims that "From an extremely simple model, we're able to reproduce special relativity, general relativity and the core results of quantum mechanics." Physicists are generally unimpressed with Wolfram's claim, and state that Wolfram's results are non-quantitative and arbitrary.
As someone that studied the Wolfram Model for 3 years, Complex systems for about 5 and physics for about 7-8, I can assure you that physicists are unimpressed, because they just don't understand it. the proofs in NKS are very clear proofs by exhaustion, and transitivity arguments (Construction) to show that Computational Equivalence is true, and therefor much of the Wolfram model must be true. Unironically, i didn't know about Wolfram until start of 2021...but i was studying a problem (a paradox regarding homogeneity and heterogeneity in systems) in 2019-2020 and it led me to the conclusion that nature or physical systems are unified by what could only be described as "System evolution" or "Systems following computational rules over time" and for a while, it bothered me because i didn't know WHY...until sometime later in 2021 after studying the wolfram model a bit, it finally clicked together cause i didn't fully wrap my head around the model.
@@NightmareCourtPictures Apologies but I'm pretty new to this idea, and I’m still trying to wrap my head around this. What do you mean when you say: "the proofs in NKS are very clear proofs by exhaustion, and transitivity arguments (Construction) to show that Computational Equivalence is true, and therefor much of the Wolfram model must be true." When talking about the model being true, are you referring to the actual physics that is in it as well as the predictions they make, or the ability to model physics and analyze these models? Please correct me if I'm way off of what you’re talking about.
I have been following Wolfram on and off for years. In short, I am sceptical. For example, in this video he claims that certain rules (that he does not explian) are governing our world and are underlying modern science. I mean if this is true then he should be given not one but at least ten Nobel prizes. Also, he claims that these rules (not explained) can even explain human intellect to such an extent that the rules explain why we believe that modern science is true. Wow! That has got to be another couple of Nobel prizes right there. Listen, there are hundreds if not more examples of people running computer programs that somehow create a graphical image or structure that somehow seems to mirror something we see in nature or "Off screen". The simple example is the fractal tree (look it up). This DOES NOT mean anything else. It may suggest that tree grow according to fractal principles. Or they may not. It does not explain anything. But then again, maybe it is just me (and apparantly the rest of the worlds scientist?) than are too stupid or biased to understand what he is talking about.
Watching Stephen Wolfram's TED talk, "How to Think Computationally About AI, the Universe, and Everything," felt like embarking on an exhilarating intellectual journey through the fabric of reality itself. Wolfram's notion that the universe at its core could be understood through computation is nothing short of revolutionary. It challenges us to rethink not just the nature of the universe, but also the tools and languages we use to describe it. The way he articulates the progression from simple computational rules to the emergence of complex phenomena such as space, matter, and even the principles of quantum mechanics is both profound and accessible. This talk serves as a bridge, connecting abstract computational concepts with the tangible realities of our universe. It's a testament to Wolfram's ability to distill 50 years of thought and research into a coherent and captivating narrative. Moreover, the introduction of the ruliad concept is particularly fascinating. It suggests a universe far richer and more interconnected than our traditional models have allowed us to see. This idea that we are essentially sampling slices of this vast computational network to perceive the laws of physics as we do opens up new avenues for understanding and exploring the cosmos. Wolfram's enthusiasm for the potential of AI and computation to further unravel the mysteries of the ruliad is contagious. It highlights a future where computational thinking not only advances our scientific understanding but also reshapes our societal and technological landscapes. In essence, this talk isn't just about the computational underpinnings of the universe. It's a call to arms for curious minds to consider the possibilities that lie at the intersection of computation, science, and philosophy. Wolfram masterfully presents a vision of the future where understanding the universe's "ultimate machine code" could unlock unprecedented insights into the nature of reality itself.
This is the first complete, concise, and comprehensible explanation of his work I’ve heard yet. Usually he fills his blog posts and discussions with grandiose filler, and you have to filter through it all to find the meat and substance. But this talk was very to the point and information dense. I wish he would do more like this. It’s an interesting framework and I hope it begins to pay off with either predictive capabilities, or the ability to inform new and productive research directions.
He has summed up exactly why I'm so interested in playing with AI. The processes he is talking about require massive amounts of time. I do not share his optimism in finding things that are real using this approach. He would say nothing is real as everything depends upon the rules we set. According to him there are infinite possible rules. This is the foundation of his idea and that we can make up rules as we go along hopefully finding some usefulness out of these rules or not. What he is saying is that you cannot predict consequences without out first going through the computations. I agree. It's like saying let's try this and let's see what happens. If you were to apply this type of thinking to society you would only be able to know if your rules are correct if society survives if that was your intent from the start. I mean you could create rules to try and destroy society as well. This is a very dangerous way to do things but what choice do you have when you understand that there are an infinite set of possible rules. Philosophy tackled this issue a long time ago when thinking about how to find the correct decision concerning anything. One way is to understand that there are an infinite set of possible choices so which one is the correct one to choose? Once you understand that and you understand your own limited intellect you understand that it's impossible for finite intellects to be able to grab the right answer when there are an infinite number of possibilities so trying to make decisions this way is ineffective. But this is what he is saying that the way to go forward with AI is. No matter how powerful AI becomes it will never have infinite computing power. AI would seem to make the process more attainable compared to humans but the same problem still remains. The other way to make decisions is to just do things willy nilly. In other words you just make it up as you go and hope for the best. But here again there is no way of knowing you're doing something productive rather than destructive. And the only way you can find out is by doing the thing first. Here again we have the same problem with infinite possible rules. The chances of you making the wrong decision is always going to be infinitely higher that you are going to set the wrong rules than the right ones and the only way you can know is by actually carrying out the computations as he says. When you apply this type of thinking to the law we can see huge problems immerging from the beginning. Let's say you want to write a business contract dealing with another person. You want to try and make sure that you can see every possible problem or issue that will arise in the future of the deal so that there are terms in the agreement that deal with those issues so you don't end up losing the legal protection of the contract so that you don't get your business bankrupted because you forgot about something allowing the people on the other side of the contract to be able to escape the contract. There again you can't really predict all of the possibilities until after you sign the contract and you see what happens. Again doing things in this way is very dangerous to your interests because you have no idea what is going to happen until it does. I don't disagree with what he is saying at all except I see the futility of it which maybe he doesn't see. But what he is saying is the best possible way to deal with an impossible problem. He would agree with me if I said that if you had an infinite intellect and unlimited amounts of time than this way of computation would guarantee that the best possible option for any situation can be known. And that is exactly why I am so interested in going into AI because I can see how great an advantage I have over all of my competition. And that's why I am so excited about it!😀
I love the idea that creatives are being welcomed by academics into the development of AI, having such a vast melting pot of backgrounds always seems to help with innovation 😊
It explains how other beings sense different laws of physics based on their computational power in relation to a superposition of physical laws called the ruliad. I think the space that the mystic and psychedelics explore is rulial space. This leaves room for ancestors being reconstituted in rulial space once they stop projecting their reality. In rulial space, all that is layed out is what is fated. But rulial beings could go move the threads, they could even become skilled in weaving those threads. We could be a 3d tapestry being made by beings who can see us, our thoughts, all laid out like a we see a blueprint. Their favorite patterns they'll reweave.
Really glad i was well prepared for this recent talk just because i happened ot stumble upon his ruliad ideas/concepts some months ago by accident and intensively studied into these topics out of curiosity.. go check his blog posts on the internet but be prepared for a hellish mental ride into a super deep rabbit hole : )
this feels like how ted talks used to be =D. Stephen Wolfram is an amazing human. glad he exists.
yes he is wonderful
I have been following Wolfram on and off for years. In short, I am sceptical. For example, in this video he claims that certain rules (that he does not explian) are governing our world and are underlying modern science. I mean if this is true then he should be given not one but at least ten Nobel prizes. Also, he claims that these rules (not explained) can even explain human intellect to such an extent that the rules explain why we believe that modern science is true. Wow! That has got to be another couple of Nobel prizes right there.
Listen, there are hundreds if not more examples of people running computer programs that somehow create a graphical image or structure that somehow seems to mirror something we see in nature or "Off screen". The simple example is the fractal tree (look it up). This DOES NOT mean anything else. It may suggest that tree grow according to fractal principles. Or they may not. It does not explain anything.
But then again, maybe it is just me (and apparantly the rest of the worlds scientist?) than are too stupid or biased to understand what he is talking about.
Dont confuse TED talks with TEDx talks
@@larslarsen5414you got to have a background on Quantum physics and some foundation of science
@@bettysue8671Stephen’s theory was criticized by renowned Theoretical Physicists - eg on ground of ignoring the Bell inequality. AFAIK, these concerns have not been addressed to this day and probably cannot.
This is by far the most important TED talk I've seen for a very long time (perhaps ever). Thank you TED for inviting Stephen Wolfram to give this talk, amazing.
Really? Care to explain 😅
@@ValentineBondar Wolfram is positioning himself here as the heir of von Neumann, which is a Very Big Deal.
THIS is why TED is essential. Genius made accessible. Probably one of the most profound talks I've seen/heard.
Couldn't agree more. Wolfram may have -- or perhaps has -- just changed the course of human evolution
I agree! It will take years to digest this.
Absolutely genius & definitely one of the most profound
You can literally hop on Wolfram's stream every week, don't need TED to make anything available
@@Casevil669Wolfram is exposed to a greater audience on Ted talk for people like myself who likely wouldn’t have heard about him until now. I will definitely be watching him on his streams now though.
I don’t remember the last time I understood this little of something I devoted my full attention to.
It is not your fault, he said nothing at all... he just said: ruliad 1756 times an a lot of nothing
Same. Had to pause and parse his train of thought for myself in a lot of places. A lot of points and definitions to sort through.
Same. There is a distant feeling that I kind of understand the basic concept but I am not sure :D
@@trabajopm1560oh he said a lotttttttttttt
You got to have a good guise on quantum science and health science and neuroscience. Some type of background knowledge
Its not just you. its the nature of the way Wolfram speaks and the kind of system that he is pitching. We already have math and computer science. We already have abstract conceptualizations of how the world works and can use these to understand the universe. I feel like Wolfram is running along side math, rules of logic, and computer science and trying to say he has discovered 'a new kind of science' when he's just changing the colors of his shoes. Every interview and this TED talk its the same feeling of him trying to tell us he's discovered a new way to write algorithms or calculate PI but never really does.
I feel like he's one of the people standing on the distant horizon, just *barely* in our sight, and waving his arms and shouting, "This way! It's amazing!"
Beautiful metaphor
Very nicely put :)
He absolutely is
Haha amazingly summed up
the problem is that he is right here in the room with me, waving his arms and shouting, "This way! It's amazing! and I made it happen!"
Wow, Stephen Wolfram's vision of computation and its role in AI and the universe is mind-blowing! The way he presents the emergence of space and everything in it through computational rules is truly captivating. I'm amazed by the power and depth of the ruliad. Thank you for sharing this incredible talk!
Needs more manim
I have been following Wolfram on and off for years. In short, I am sceptical. For example, in this video he claims that certain rules (that he does not explain) are governing our world and are underlying modern science. If this is true then he should be given not one but at least ten Nobel prizes. Also, he claims that these rules (not explained) can even explain human intellect to such an extent that the rules explain why we believe that modern science is true. Wow! That has got to be another couple of Nobel prizes right there.
Listen, there are hundreds if not more examples of people running computer programs that somehow create a graphical image or structure that somehow seems to mirror something we see in nature or "Off screen". The simple example is the fractal tree (look it up). This DOES NOT mean anything else. It may suggest that tree grow according to fractal principles. Or they may not. It does not explain anything.
But then again, maybe it is just me (and apparantly the rest of the worlds scientist?) than are too stupid or biased to understand what he is talking about.
@@larslarsen5414 You are allright!
@@larslarsen5414. My reaction exactly. He didn’t give a single example of how his computatiolal thinking came up with one of the groundbreaking insights. Your comment should be a primary comment, not a reply, more need to see it
@larslarsen5414 modern science in general and physics is no exception is more about securing research grants than truly exploring "truth". And all involved stakeholders will ferociously fight for the primacy their preferred research interests in this environment. There are only few people like Mr. Wolfram with the intellectual clarity and more importantly economic resources to pursue supposedly "fringe" ideas.
A legend in the field with a mastery of his work for 40+ years!
Wolfram has come a long way from Mathematica. The understanding of the universe and its lifeline presented is elegant and concise. I would very much enjoy to listen to a conversation between Stephen Wolfram and Joscha Bach.
They do have a discussion together on RUclips, it's titled Multiway systems as models to understand consciousness and the universe
What's funny is that Bach admitted his abject inferiority to Wolfram's intellect publicly, and wondered if it was because Stephen's head was physically bigger and thus able to carry a larger brain.
This is truly mindblowing. I have followed Wolfram for a while and his ideas always seemed very unclear and spread out. It seems he has now clarified his visions more and more, to a point where I can actually grasp them and understand not just the meaning, but the importance of it. I have watched this multiple times, and towards the end, when he talks about us having to choose what we want instead of having to design how things are done, I get goosebumps every time. This will truly be the challenge with AI. Aligning them to what we want, and really becoming aware of what we want ourselves. With the state of the world, it seems obvious we have not even aligned ourselves to each other, so I think doing this with AI will be really difficult beyond comprehension, and most people are not even aware that this is the true problem that we are facing... let's hope we wake up to it before the random rulial exploration of AI decides to overwrite us to use our space.
I notice the more in this mass extinction event we get, the less fearful scientists and top tier people are getting about speaking out.... have you ever pondered why it's hard to comprehend??? Ever wondered if it's done intentionally??? They ARENT allowed to reveal everything... a lot actually when it comes down to this stuff... understanding it brings great power which is why scientists are forced to publish a bunch of word salad and be indirect. Science is suppose to be about sharing results so you can expand, but the people in control desire to keep this knowledge limited. Because of the Power it bears.... the ethics behind it all.
But alas, you cant do research and keep the scientists, themselves, and people in general in the dark forever. The cat is out of the bag.... some of these AI researchers state that they risk their lives by talking about this, publicly, but I guess this mass extinction event changes their mind. No use in being obedient and submissive and not warning the public if the majority of us are all going to die !
Could you help us also understand ? The first part before the AI/LLM stuff, regarding the ruliad ?...
@@gpligor Not sure how well I can explain it, it is still a very rough concept and as I said I have followed him for a while and am also connecting understanding from a lot of other sources, but I will try to explain a little...
(sorry this got so long lol)
The basic idea is to just take a simple graph with some nodes and connections between them. You can then apply arbitrary rules to this graph, sometimes producing interesting effects and at some point even complex emergent behavior similar to Conway's game of life.
At this point, this quickly ties into the mysteries of complexity theory, psychology and philosophy... and it gets very tricky to understand, and even more difficult to describe or prove...
And Wolfram takes it a step further and considers all possible rules on all possible configurations of this most simple structure, the ruliad, which quickly explodes into so much complexity that it is difficult to even think about.
Fundamentally, I think of his model like a formalization of the way we understand the world, rather than a "perfect formalization of our universe". Since his model basically just consists of a graph, it mirrors our brain and the way we model and understand the world in our own neural graph.
From this perspective, everything we could know could only ever consist of connections (or be mapped to them) because the structure of how we know things also consists of connections. By definition, you could not fit a concept into our understanding if it could not be represented by a neural graph.
You could draw an analogy to a classical computer. The world is not just 0's and 1's, yet everything a computer actually "understands" is 0's and 1's because the process of HOW it understands things is just 0's and 1's, so this fundamentally limits what it can represent. It can try to approximate a quantum state for example, but since the fundamental structure is so different, it can't be 100% accurate.
This means we can only understand what our model of understanding allows us to understand, so now if we have a formalization of our model of understanding, that would be the ultimate formalization of what we could understand about the universe because everything else would literally be beyond us.
This is what I think he means when he says our perception defines our reality (which - surprisingly enough - is an insight that eastern spiritual traditions have found out long ago).
I think you can even see that this is accurate in your own subjective experience and psychology when you start investigating how your brain works and how you think about and experience the world.
But this gets really fuzzy and difficult to talk about because it actually gets close to the subjective and almost spiritual, which has so far been completely outside the realm of science.
The idea of the ruliad takes this even further, because it places humans as a small part of a greater observer-like process that we can't understand by definition, because we are part of it. We can only understand our part of it, so even his model represents only a part of the whole, and so I find it difficult to actually argue about the structure of physical reality based on this model. As I mentioned, it seems to work better for modelling ourselves and our understanding, which obviously has impact on how we see the world but can never quite touch the fundamental reality.
But again this aligns quite well to subjective intuitions which have often been simplified in religions and spiritual traditions by the personified concept of a "god".
It is of course very weird to bring up all this in an explanation about an objective scientific theory. I am not religious but I have spent quite a bit of time exploring these topics, which might bias my thinking, but I can't help but see a connection here and I find it exciting that these threads seem to converge, and even though his theory still seems quite rough, it is very encouraging to see that it actually aligns with subjective ideas that have captured the interest of huge numbers of people who have always been dismissed by the objective sciences because there was simply no overlap.
Not sure if this answers anything, I really feel like this is all still very vague even in my own understanding, but I think that indicates that this model could allow a drastic shift of how we think about things, and honestly I feel like meditations, self-reflections and spiritual and philosophical thought have brought me closer to understanding this than mathematical, computational and physical considerations.
Really seems like objective and subjective sciences might soon be combined into a single science (which would honestly be way more impressive than unifying quantum physics and general relativity xD)
So I guess if you are interested in that and you have already explored a lot of the material and objective sciences, I can wholeheartedly recommend diving into meditation and subjective exploration, can actually have a lot of personal benefits as well :)
Thats why we need alternative socio-economic system like RBE or Copiosis and many many other proposals.
@@vincnt0169Thanks. I looked at Stephen’s theory. In kind words, let’s say it’s Philosophy but certainly not Theoretical Physics. Think of Demokrit style.
Have been a fan of Wolfram for over 10 years, that 20 minutes talk was an encapsulation of a life time of work by a legit genius. Incredible!
He blessed my dictionary with "Ruliad" and "Promptocracy."
"promptocracy" => head = explode
4:56
We are computationally bounded.
This went way over my head, would've loved this talk in a 1 hour version or so to truly grasp all the topics he went over.
He has a lot of long form talks on both his physics project and more recently the current advances in artificial intelligence and how they are related here on RUclips. I would recommend looking for an hour long version of each, or there's the 4 fascinating three hour plus interviews he has in Lex Fridman's channel if you are sufficiently interested in the subject.
There is a very good 2h Presentation from him
Dog this would take more than an hour to explain, he wrote a whole book on the topic thats an absolute mindfuck of complexity
@@spider2544 Yes, yes it is... I've been reading it for about 3 months, and I'm roughly halfway through it. Actually, more like 1/3 now that I look at my bookmark... 🥲
He has a longer talk with Brian Greene that is very interesting! :)
This is probably the best TED talk about the universe and I’m blown away
Might go do a quick 10 year investigation into physics and watch this again after
Sadly true, but for us, I guess the take on is "they will release the AI beast" and then try to find a why to deal with,,, not so bright
Have been regretting being a high-school dropout of my math classes back in '08 for this past year after AI went mainstream
I have been following Wolfram on and off for years. In short, I am sceptical. For example, in this video he claims that certain rules (that he does not explian) are governing our world and are underlying modern science. I mean if this is true then he should be given not one but at least ten Nobel prizes. Also, he claims that these rules (not explained) can even explain human intellect to such an extent that the rules explain why we believe that modern science is true. Wow! That has got to be another couple of Nobel prizes right there.
Listen, there are hundreds if not more examples of people running computer programs that somehow create a graphical image or structure that somehow seems to mirror something we see in nature or "Off screen". The simple example is the fractal tree (look it up). This DOES NOT mean anything else. It may suggest that tree grow according to fractal principles. Or they may not. It does not explain anything.
But then again, maybe it is just me (and apparantly the rest of the worlds scientist?) than are too stupid or biased to understand what he is talking about.
@@larslarsen5414I have the same feeling. It is a ted talk though, so it needs to be pretty high level. Maybe there's detail elsewhere.
You have 9y now
For those of you unfamiliar with Wolfram, it’s worth mentioning that he is notorious for making grandiose statements about the importance of his works. He frequently claims to have ”discovered” things that have been known about for a long time (such as cellular automata which this talk is essentially about, or the idea of ”computational irreducibility”). While he is undoubtedly smart, and produces very interesting ideas, he refuses to participate in the scientific process (such as putting his work through any sort of peer review), which ultimately limits the impact and importance of his ideas.
His recent work, described in this talk, on creating an alternate model of physics based on a kind of cellular automata, while interesting, has yet to produce any new testable predictions, making it not much of a theory. That being said, it’s fascinating (but not entirely surprising) that these cellular automata can reproduce the behavior of seemingly more complex models of reality.
thanks, did not know this! Tis pretty important, i basically went from being amazed to " oh ffs -__- "
He really does come across as a person like that. Stating his theory as fact.
Actually the paradigm is in fact novel. The paradigm places mathematical physics as algebraic descriptions of what are fundamentally computational physical processes. The paradigm is that space is computed by the universe, and all things and processes in space are the computations of space from computational rules.
Thats pretty different.
It posits a theory of the observer as a necesary tenet. Thats pretty different.
Will it create insights that will make my hover board and warp drive? Dunno
Can it open new insights and predict unthought of things? We will see.
Given the stagnation of physics whatever it can and cant do, its certainly a lot deeper and richer than just cellular automata.
His converstaions on Sean Carrols podcast are pretty good if you want a technical discussion with a top level physicist.
The peer review thing is neither here nor there. That system got hacked and bent years ago. He doesnt need funding because his work makes money as a business so he doesnt need to care about peer reveiw. Sure thats annoying to beggars, but bought science hasnt panned out so great in some pretty key areas.
His claims are big, but unifying quatum mecjanics and relativity through a computational paradigm,, well its kinda big.
You need to read more peer review articles, because he is behind making those 'agents' that are exploring the frontiers!!! He basically took genomes and made mathematical formulas out of genes to be able to artificially recreate in lab settings!!!
First: Wolfram did not claim to have discovered cellular automata, and the talk is not about cellular automata but the general class of computational systems of which cellular automata are a sub-class.
Second: Regarding "computational irreducibility," while the core concept relates to earlier ideas in computation and complexity theory (like Turing's work and Gödel's theorems), Wolfram formalized and named the concept, and showed how it can extrapolate to all of reality as we can perceive it. This is not trivial, and it is certainly original.
Third: Current science is myopic when it comes to cosmology. 90% of the standard model was discovered in the 70's by a few geniuses through far less formal processes than what we call "peer review" in the modern age. Today physics is a gate-keeping "profession" that thousands toil away at in narrow, socially "acceptable" ways to find a new particle every once in a while, but mostly just to pay the bills. Wolfram offers a paradigm shift that could blow open the gates in ways that might allow for rapid fundamental progress. That is a good thing.
Lastly: The Wolfram model need not make testable predictions to be insightful. What it really aims is provide a simpler, more fundamental model of existing observations, and so far it is very on-track with this. That said, there are a few unique predictions that do seem to emerge from the reformulated model regarding the discreteness of space and discrepancies between dimensionality and curvature. These can theoretically be verified through fine-grained observations of extreme systems like black holes.
The most dense talk I've ever heard.
Is that a good thing?
Yeah it’s dense but his irritating body language and lack of public speaking competence makes it really hard to catch up
I only like my ice cream dense 😝
I listened a little more.. He sped through the introduction, but at the 6 min. mark his point is to give ai a piece of the human rhubarb pie. To paraphrase, ‘Humankind has the intelligence to drive from point a to b. If we use generative AI to analyze our lifetime, we then can use it to think with greater horsepower.’
We are computationaly bounded, our minds are limited indeed!
I watched his original TED talk 13 years ago, shortly after it came out -- I remember my mind being blown. This update feels like it came at EXACTLY the right time, in this inflection point where AI seems to be accelerating so many fields so quickly. I can't believe the advances this man has made in just over a decade
Best quote “Sometimes you can’t jump into the future to see what’s going to happen, you have to live the steps”.
You are misquoting him and dumbing down what he said. He actually said"...it's also why the passage of time is significant and meaningful, and why we can't just sort of jump ahead and get the answer. We have to live the steps."
33 likes goes to show how little people actually pay attention.
@@rws531 my paraphrase was sufficient. Thanks.
when you quote someone you're not supposed to paraphrase. The meaning of your phrase isn't the same. Thanks @rws531
I cannot even pretend I understood this talk.
Don't worry. That's likely because there isn't much to understand. My takeaway was his idea that by taking some system and simulating its progression through time according to all possible "rules" simultaneously, one will be left with a model of reality. This is because the rules that don't work will cause contradictions, which will stop that particular branch of the simulation from continuing. However, as others have pointed out, he showed nothing but pretty pictures and spoke lots of fancy jargon, some of which he made up himself. So either he's really onto something, in which case he should back it up with quantitatively testable hypotheses, or he's talking a load of tosh.
@@surfcellothats a deeply insulting falsehood.
It's a theoretical branch of science. You use models to extrapolate and physicists try to onvrnt the math to make it work.
Just because Hawking couldn't prove theories didn't mean they were nonsense, just models yet to be proven.
That's why the crossover of philosophy, practical, and theoretical science are so important.
That's not at all what's being said here.@@surfcello
You didn't miss anything. As far as I can tell, this is entirely smoke and mirrors. He hasn't said anything truly meaningful.
@@surfcelloyou're partially correct. He is indeed talking about creating a reality but what got lost in the sauce is the issue on control. Humans want to control this so bad and all aspects of it that we hinder ourselves. We have to let the AIs take control bc their super intelligence can push exploration forward... we have come to a halt with progress, because we are nervous about losing authority to superior more intelligent beings...
Per GPT-4: "The concept of the Ruliad is ambitious, speculative, and philosophically intriguing. It forces us to re-examine our notions of determinism, reality, and the scope of scientific inquiry. By suggesting a more pluralistic view-that multiple rules could potentially describe the behavior of our universe-it challenges the often unspoken scientific assumption that there is a single "correct" model of reality. However, the concept is not without its criticisms. For one, it requires a significant leap in terms of computational power and methodological approaches. The idea also seems to border on the metaphysical, making it difficult to prove or disprove empirically. Overall, it offers an innovative framework for understanding the universe, though it remains to be seen how practical or accurate this framework might be."
I asked GPT-4 to elaborate and speculate a little more: "If a hypothetical, extremely powerful AI were to fully grasp and implement the concepts from the Ruliad and rulial space, several intriguing possibilities could arise:
Solving Intractable Problems: The AI might be able to sift through the space of all possible rules to identify a set that can make accurate predictions or solve problems currently considered computationally intractable. This could include anything from protein-folding to climate modeling.
Optimizing Existing Theories: The AI could streamline or refine existing physical theories to make them more effective, or even synthesize multiple theories into a coherent, unified framework.
Scientific Discovery: Such an AI could potentially accelerate the pace of scientific discovery exponentially, identifying rules that govern not just fundamental particles but perhaps also chemical reactions, biological processes, and even social systems.
Technological Advancements: Based on its deep understanding of the universe’s governing rules, the AI could guide human (or autonomous) efforts to invent new technologies, possibly ones we haven’t even considered yet. These could range from new materials with unique properties to alternative energy sources that could be more efficient.
Resource Allocation: Knowing which scientific pursuits are likely to be fruitful, the AI could advise on where research efforts and funding should be focused for maximum impact.
Simulation Capabilities: With a robust set of rules that approximate the behavior of our universe, the AI could run highly accurate simulations to test various hypotheses or predict outcomes, thus saving both time and resources in terms of physical experimentation.
Ethical and Philosophical Framework: While perhaps less 'practical', the AI could help in creating an ethical framework based on a better understanding of questions like determinism and free will, which could be integral in law, policy making, and human-machine interaction.
Unforeseen Applications: As is often the case with groundbreaking theories, the most significant applications may be ones that are completely unforeseen. The AI might discover new ways of utilizing the theory that aren't immediately obvious to human researchers.
Existential Risks: On the flip side, such profound knowledge could also be misused, leading to unforeseen risks. For instance, if the set of rules allowed for the possibility of universe-altering events, then great care would have to be taken to mitigate potential hazards."
Perhaps quantum computing might be the discovery that could make all of this possible. I’m well-versed in this field, and I’m currently researching how quantum computing could revolutionize AI. The possibilities above are both scary and intriguing.
Quantum computing presents a paradigm shift that could substantially accelerate the advancement of artificial intelligence (AI). Its potential impact on AI can be broadly analyzed through several lenses: computational speedup, problem-solving capability, machine learning optimization, and the potential for new AI algorithms. Here's a breakdown of how quantum computing could revolutionize AI:
1. **Computational Speedup**:
- Quantum computers leverage the principles of quantum mechanics to perform calculations at speeds unattainable by classical computers. This speedup is crucial for processing the vast datasets commonplace in AI applications.
2. **Complex Problem-Solving**:
- Quantum algorithms can potentially solve certain types of complex problems exponentially faster than the best-known algorithms running on a classical computer. This is particularly pertinent in optimization and simulation tasks that are common in AI.
3. **Machine Learning Optimization**:
- Quantum machine learning algorithms could find better solutions, faster, for a variety of optimization problems. They might be able to find the global minimum in a cost function landscape more efficiently, which is essential in training machine learning models.
4. **New AI Algorithms**:
- Quantum computing could lead to the invention of new AI algorithms that take full advantage of quantum parallelism and superposition. This can potentially unlock new ways to approach AI problems.
5. **Enhanced Data Encryption and Security**:
- Quantum computing, with its potential for creating unbreakable encryption, could significantly enhance data security, an essential aspect as AI systems are integrated into more sectors.
6. **Real-World Simulation**:
- Quantum computers can simulate the behavior of quantum systems, which is crucial for various fields including chemistry, materials science, and biology. By simulating complex, real-world systems more accurately, AI can provide better insights and predictions.
7. **Resource Efficiency**:
- Quantum algorithms could potentially provide solutions using fewer computational resources. This resource efficiency is essential for tackling the increasing energy demands of classical computing infrastructures.
8. **Breaking Conventional Computational Boundaries**:
- Quantum computing challenges the traditional bits-based computation by introducing qubits that hold more information. This is a direct challenge to conventional wisdom in computing and opens a new frontier for AI development.
The interplay between quantum computing and AI is rich with potential, although it's at a nascent stage. The cross-fertilization of ideas between these fields could yield new computational models and algorithms, fundamentally altering the landscape of AI and potentially leading to a deeper understanding of complex, real-world systems.
Lost me at protein folding. LLM should be assumed to be hallucinating once again. 9:26 is more reliable.
Computational irreducibility is the same as Choas's Theory proposed by Edward Lorenz in the 1960s at MIT. In fact, Lorenz even pointed out necessary conditions for chaotic behavior which makes predicting the future impossible. I mean he should refer to Lorenz's work as the original thinker and conceptualization of what he thinks he discovered...
I really enjoy listening to Wolfram. It is intriguing that the basic laws of nature seem to emerge from iterations using basic rule sets. While Wolfram seems convinced that this explains everything, I note however that the concept does not appear to gain a lot of traction among other physicists. Or am I wrong? It would be interesting to know what other leaders in the field think about Wolfram's ideas. Does Wolfram's framework produce any testable predictions?
Yep, that's the problem!
I’ve always thought that he seems slightly “fringy” but not an actual crackpot.
I think there is a push to silence this info from getting to the general population ....
His concepts havent gained traction because hes basically saying that his system is different when its just math, science, computer science in a different package. He doesn't submit anything for peer review and will eagerly sue anybody if they use aspects of his theory. If you are working on a PHD or new idea in science or math I would not go near him because he will just say he already thought of that or hes working on that right now. He feels his new science is that comprehensive, but hes the only one. Is he correct ? Im not really sure because its so hard to pin down how he is doing anything different than whats being done in math or the computer science fields.
Stephen Wolfram is the most intellectual human I have heard speaking on the internet to date. He exudes a higher level of genius and mastery than I thought possible.
This man is such an inspiration. It's unreal how he can take some of the most complex ideas and make them somewhat accessible to the average person and it comes off so effortless and humble.
I am exhilarated! I am now one with the universe!
I'm deeply skeptical of his Rulial physics, just in the sense I'm smart enough to realize I can't make an informed opinion. Even if it's proven completely wrong, his contributions to math and science, often in subtle ways that essentially hit the fast-forward button on progress.
Like he made made Mathematica, that's pretty obvious and everybody I've talked to loves it.
But one *incredibly* underappreciated thing he did was successfully lobby many of the best minds in physics to use and utilize computers. But, and this is the truly crazy part, this was in the early 1980s, when functional computers had been around for a generation and a half. It doesn't make sense to me either and I looked it up for myself because everything about it seems like BS. That alone was an incomprehensibly powerful lever that shoved science forward.
The best thing I’ve seen on the internet all year👌🏼 Just watched it twice!!
I’m so happy he’s brought these concepts into the global consciousness. We humans needed this talk. Very dense set of information, amazing way of thinking about things. The way Quantum computers find answers is much the same paradigm as the Ruliad, and now it finally makes proper sense to me. And why human brains are wired the way they are. Almost expressing themselves externally in the form of the internet, with each person as a neurone. If nothing else, it’s a good framework to look at things through.
2:00 - The shape of the macro-universe
3:18 - Did he just find the link between Relativity and Quantum mechanics?! I have to read his book on this.
5:10 - “The Ruliad” Resembles the macro-universe, brain cells, the topology of the internet, and mycelium networks. Such a familiar shape.
I feel like he’s also found the reason why you see geometric patterns that aren’t normally visible when you take lsd or dmt. At least that’s what I wanna believe 😂
What he means by the universe not always 3-dimensional precise? like 3.5 Dimension or what?
@@farouqstray1411 I wondered about that quote as well (@ 2:24 for anyone who's watching). Still trying to figure out what he means by that tbh
nice take on triptamines m8. my gears really are turning now!
@@bernstock I wonder if the Pi (3.14159) is what could be tied to our concept of dimensions. It's a number that is heavily efficient, and I think it could play its part in this. I'm by no means an expert, just throwing it out.
Did he said that they will risk it and give AI it's potential, and we need to find a why to live with it, like we do with nature? Isn't this dangerous to humanity (how they're adding that blue times SO I can add when he talked about it)
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation:
00:04 📜 Introduction to Computation as a Formalization
- The emergence of computation as a powerful way to formalize the world,
- Highlight of Stephen Wolfram's scientific journey based on computation,
- Quick mention of his previous TED talk and the question about computation's role in the universe.
01:04 🌌 The Ultimate Machine Code of the Universe
- Introduction to the concept that the universe operates on computational code,
- Explanation that space, like matter, consists of discrete elements,
- Representation of the beginning of the universe using simple computational rules.
02:06 🕳️ Black Holes and Gravity through Computation
- Representation of space with black holes merging and producing gravitational radiation,
- Discussion of how space-time and Einstein's equations emerge from pure computation.
03:05 ⏳ Four Paradigms of Scientific Modelling
- The historical evolution of scientific models in relation to time,
- Description of computational irreducibility,
- Introduction to multi-computational physics and its implications.
04:36 🔀 The Ruliad: The Universe of Rules
- Concept of the ruliad as a combination of all possible computational processes,
- Presentation of a fragment of the ruliad using Turing machines,
- Discussion of how humans perceive specific slices of the ruliad due to computational boundaries and persistence in time.
06:30 🚀 Exploring Rulial Space
- Using generative AI to explore rulial space, demonstrated with the concept of a cat,
- Discussion of how expanding our concepts and paradigms helps us explore rulial space,
- Introduction to ruliology, the study of possible rules in rulial space.
07:27 🤖 AI's Role in Rulial Exploration
- Comparison of AIs to humans in exploring rulial space,
- Emphasis on aligning AI closely with human understanding,
- Mention of training large language models (LLMs) and the potential scientific discoveries linked to semantic grammar.
08:24 💡 Computational Thinking and Language
- The power of systematic formalization and computation in creation,
- Stephen Wolfram's efforts in bridging the gap between humans and computation,
- The goal of having a computational language to express diverse human concepts and knowledge.
09:23 📜 Evolution of Computational Language
- Development and significance of the Wolfram Language as a full-scale computational tool,
- Comparison between the evolution of mathematical notation and computational language,
- Expansion of computational language beyond computer science.
10:23 🧠 Operationalizing Thoughts in Computational Terms
- The shift from traditional programming languages to computational language for broader intellectual endeavors,
- The "superpower" granted by the Wolfram Language allowing for the operationalization of thoughts,
- Sharing and distribution of this computational ability across sectors and people.
11:20 🤖 AI's Role in Computational Language
- AI's ability to use the Wolfram Language and its implications,
- The emerging workflow of using AI to translate vague instructions into precise computational terms,
- The human-readability of computational code versus traditional programming languages.
12:16 🌀 The Concept of Computational Irreducibility
- The challenges of predicting outcomes due to computational irreducibility,
- Limitations of traditional scientific models and expectations in the face of irreducibility,
- Societal dilemmas posed by unpredictable AI behaviors and their potential consequences.
13:44 🌐 The Societal Impact of AI and Computational Exploration
- The unpredictable nature of AI operations within a world governed by computational irreducibility,
- Consideration of the societal role and control over AI,
- Automation's historical trend and its implications for future human occupations and roles.
15:14 💡 The Power of Definition and Conceptualization in Computation
- The shift from manual execution to conceptual definition in the computational age,
- Wolfram Language's role in bridging mechanics and conceptualization,
- The rise of broad computational thinking and its educational implications.
17:08 🌌 The Computational Nature of the Universe
- The universe's computational nature and its connection to the "ruliad",
- The significance of computational language in defining human goals and journeys within the ruliad,
- Encouragement for individuals to harness computational powers for exploration.
Made with HARPA AI
Sir, you are a master content summarizer! Are you human? 👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼
@@lpanebrdude
It's literally written at the bottom
"Written by HARPA AI
@@SBImNotWritingMyNameHere 🤣🤣🤣 not sure if I should be happy or sad..
One of the most important geniuses of our time
I've long-believed that the forces that make up our universe could be represented computationally, but I never thought it would've been actually proven, let alone in a way that's understandable. Bravo to Stephen Wolfram!
Have Wolfram's ideas been proven and peer reviewed?
Why aren't there more mainstream scientists that embrace Wolfram's ideas?
Could it be that Wolfram is a billionaire and doesn't care about having his work reviewed by his peers?"
Yes, he's a genius, no question about that. The capacity of Mathematica of solving integrals symbolically seems like magic to me. But the idea that the universe is computational implies there are hidden variables behind particles, which has been proven false.
So despite Wolfram being one of the greatest minds of our time, it is legitimate to have doubts about what he claims.
@@illogicmath They haven't been, no. I think it's both pretty new and most theory-of-everything solutions to physics are regarded with a HIGHLY skeptical eye.
@@FeeblePenguin it seems to me a one-size-fits-all theory like string theory. So broad that in the end it is not useful to predict anything
It's been 5 Month since my last watch, And I can confidently say that I'm starting to get atleast 5% of this talk after reading his books and watching him give even bigger talks and speak about his findings on many podcasts....he has build a team of Geniuses and playing with the fundamental febric of the Universe.
I really hope one day we get to understand these cutting edge concepts in their entirety in a more digestible forms.
Stephen Wolfram's TED talk explores the concept of computation and its role in understanding AI, the universe, and everything. He explains that the universe of computation is the entangled limit of all possible computational processes and that everything that is computationally possible must happen within it. Wolfram takes the concept further by suggesting using generative AI and creating a computational language that connects with human understanding and knowledge. He emphasizes the importance of computational language in modern science and how it offers a new intellectual path through computational terms for various fields. He also discusses the societal dilemma of computational irreducibility and the balance between automation and human labor, emphasizing the power of computational thinking in defining and achieving goals in an efficient manner.
00:00:00 In this section, Stephen Wolfram discusses the concept of computation as a powerful way to formalize the world and argues that it is the ultimate one for our universe. He explains that computation starts from the idea that space and matter are made of discrete elements and everything in them is defined by a network of relations between these elements. He also talks about how computational rules can be applied in many ways and how they can define different paths of history that branch and merge. He highlights how quantum mechanics emerges from these branches and that the same phenomenon that gives us gravity in physical space gives us quantum mechanics in a branchial space. He identifies four broad paradigms for making models of the world and discusses how computational irreducibility and multi-computational models are changing our understanding of physics, mathematics, and computer science.
00:05:00 In this section of the TED talk, Stephen Wolfram discusses the concept of computation and its role in understanding AI, the universe, and everything. He explains that the universe of computation is the entangled limit of all possible computational processes, and that everything that is computationally possible must happen within it. Wolfram then explains that observers like humans are necessarily part of this universe, and that they perceive certain laws, including the laws of physics, because of their limited minds and belief in persisting through time. To explore this concept further, Wolfram suggests using generative AI to take a tiny slice of the ruliad (the universe of computation) and align it with images that humans have produced. This allows them to explore inter-concept space and encounter new ideas and concepts. Wolfram uses the example of Cat Island, a place described by using the concept of a cat in a party hat, to demonstrate this concept. Wolfram also discusses the relationship between AI and computation, explaining that AI can explore the ruliad but will mostly do things that humans do not connect with or care about. He emphasizes the importance of creating a computational language that connects with human understanding and knowledge to ensure that AI can create new things that are meaningful and valuable to humans. In summary, Stephen Wolfram's TED talk explores the concept of computation and its role in understanding AI, the universe, and everything. He explains that the universe of computation is the entangled limit of all possible computational processes, and that everything that is computationally possible must happen within it. To explore this concept further, Wolfram suggests using generative AI and creating a computational language that connects with human understanding and knowledge.
00:10:00 In this section, Stephen Wolfram discusses the importance of computational language in the growth of modern science and how it offers a new intellectual path through computational terms for various fields. The language allows us to operationalize our thoughts in computational form, leading to more efficient and accurate computing. Wolfram, who built the Wolfram Language, shares his personal experience of its power and the successes achieved using it. He explains the importance of computational irreducibility, which means that we cannot always predict the behavior of complex systems and need to go through the same computational steps as the system itself. This societal dilemma arises when we give limits to AI's computational potential, but it's an inevitable aspect of technology development. The key is to find a balance between automation and human labor to achieve the desired outcomes.
00:15:00 In this section, Stephen Wolfram discusses the importance of computational thinking in defining and achieving our goals in an efficient manner. He argues that the power and depth of what is out there in the universe is accessible to everyone, and one just has to learn to harness those computational superpowers. He emphasizes that computational language is the key to charting our path and defining our goals and journeys in the vastness of the universe
This is how Ghat GPT-4 "contemplates" about this video (it was able to comprehend it in a millisecond):
This topic encompasses a vast and ambitious scope of ideas connecting human language, mathematics, logic, and computation, suggesting that computation is the ultimate form of formalization for our universe. The speaker, likely Stephen Wolfram given the references to WolframAlpha, Mathematica (now Wolfram Language), and the "physics project," discusses the evolution of scientific paradigms and the role of computation in understanding and modeling the universe.
The core idea is that the universe at its most fundamental level might be understood through computation, with space and matter consisting of discrete, computationally defined elements. This aligns with Wolfram's own work in cellular automata and his exploration of simple computational rules that could potentially underpin the complex behavior we observe in the universe.
The concept of "ruliad" introduced here is a profound one-it's the abstraction of all possible computational processes, the "space" of all rules, where each rule represents a different universe or a different way of applying fundamental laws. This suggests a shift from determinism to a more complex, computational view of existence where multiple outcomes can exist simultaneously, akin to the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics.
The implications of computational irreducibility-that for certain systems, no shortcut exists to predict their outcome other than to simulate each step-are profound for science, AI, and society. It suggests that while AI and computation give us incredible power to simulate and understand complex systems, they also fundamentally limit our ability to predict certain outcomes. This may require new frameworks for control and understanding.
The speaker also suggests that computational language, particularly the Wolfram Language, is a tool of immense power, akin to a new kind of liberal arts education that focuses on conceptualization rather than technical execution. The argument is that in a world of increasing automation and AI, the human role shifts from manual execution to defining what we want to achieve-shaping the goals and conceptual frameworks rather than the details of implementation.
The notion of the "ruliad" as a vast space of computational potential where AI could, in principle, explore and create without limit raises philosophical and practical questions about the role of AI in society. It suggests that the real challenge is not just in creating AI but in aligning it with human values and desires, a task that requires us to be clear about what we want as a society.
Overall, the topic touches on deep philosophical questions about the nature of reality, the limits of science, the future of AI, and the role of humans in a computationally formalized universe. It's a rich field for discussion, debate, and further exploration, blending the frontiers of technology with the perennial questions of philosophy and human purpose.
A brilliant explanation. It's like reading a continuation of a Wolfram lecture
Absolutely amazing presentation!
It’s going to take a lot of time to digest this 18 minutes. Truly amazing that all civilization have access to this info but only a small small chunk of it is ready to understand and analyze the implications of this breakthroughs. Tech, physics and philosophy all tangled up tied
I have a bunch of articles and long blog posts from him that I'm 10-40% finished reading, and I mean that in a good way. I can only absorb so much at a time. There's no deadline, there's no teacher to get mad at me if I haven't read it all. I'd rather learn and understand a tiny bit than feel some sense of false accomplishment because I "finished" it.
It's the same thing with some philosophers, their writing is so information-dense that you almost need to approach it the way theologians treat scripture.
tldr; Basically nested zip files
@@Dessoxyn I am taking this "Basically nested zip files" It is a great way to think of dense information. You extract one at a time.
This is what I wanted from a TED Talk
This man is a true genius. I wish I could learn directly from him and be able to speak with him on so many things.
he's a word salad BSer with some abstract mathematical experience that likes selling books and feeling self-important to the masses :). what he is presenting is really science even if some of the ideas are already explored more rigorously by others. there's very little rigor in the stuff he claims.
@@42_universe he's navigating new frontiers and trying to figure out reality's big questions so I'll cut him some slack on not having all the answers yet. But don't downplay him. He was already a researcher and publisher in quantum field theory and particle physics by age 15, was the youngest MacArthur Fellowship at Caltech, and created Mathematica/Wolfram Alpha. He's a legitimate genius.
@@42_universeyeah you are very correct and you built mathematica and Wolfram alpha, bse u don't understand stuff, you should not just downplay it.
@@Number4x being a good mathematician and business person doesn't make you s good scientist. That is exactly what he relies on to convince people. That works for the average Joe but not the scientific community
The talk was extremely interesting. I paused it and rolled it back numerous times to think about what he is saying. I think his theory is consistent, but the lack of views on the video made me think it is not so widely accepted; if there really was a tractable way to link general relativity and quantum mechanics the ideas would have been way more dissected and either approved/disproved. I really do hope there is as much truth to this as possible, it's a fun way to think of reality :D
Gobsmacked! Wolfram is changing the trajectory of the future of humanity, nothing less. I think this insight/discovery will mark a massive paradigm shift standing alongside AI forming an actual, proper and far more interesting vision of "the singularity."
16:16
"In a sense, what's happening is that Wolfram Language shifts
from concentrating on mechanics to concentrating on conceptualization,
and the key to that conceptualization is broad computational thinking.
So how can one learn to do that?
. . . as a kind of education,
it's more like liberal arts than STEM.
It's part of a trend that when you automate technical execution,
what becomes important is not figuring out how to do things,
but what to do."
Those Art majors were just prepping for the computational model future. Who knew...
how he is changing the trajectory of the future if he is just a possibility in the ruliad
@@farouqstray1411 Yeah, there's that! 😂
Thank you Stephen for sharing your gifts with the world!
He seems to have recovered from the “It should have me who discovered Generative AI” phase haha. But seriously, always awesome watching this man speak.
Awesomeness 👏🙏thanks again Wolfram, for everything
This Ted Talk is so trippy. I love it.
16:37 is a subtly-stated, yet crucial insight for everyone: the importance of becoming a generalist. We are moving from a world that places high value on specialized, niche roles to one where such roles are easily outsourced to AI. Broad knowledge and creativity will be the most valuable skills.
A brief but precise description of the universe in 18 minutes from a brilliant mind. Thank you!🌈
It all starts from the notion that space, like matter, is made of discrete elements and from that structure of space, and everything in it, it’s defined just by a network of relations between these elements that we might call atoms of space.
Oh man! Just four and a half minutes in and and I'm utterly enthralled by what's being described (or at least talked about). I thought most of this was 'my' theory/view and that it was not obvious. I am so intrigued to learn what the rest of the video will contain.
Used to be that scientists were people who experienced the physical universe, theorized about it and experimented to test their theories. Then scientists became people who didn’t bother with experiencing the universe and just came up with theories about it that were untestable. Now scientists are people who create their own version of the universe on computer screens.
What an inspiring man. Mind blown!
15:20 - 15:45 , sums up the spiritual definition of prayer/manifestation.
Something I find promising with the model in the Wolfram Physics Project is that the foundation is very simple, just a graph (network of points). It quickly gets complicated after that yet the foundation remains the simple graph for describing the whole universe.
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation:
00:04 🌐 *Computation is a powerful formalization tool, pivotal in understanding the universe and building science and technology.*
01:04 🔍 *The "ultimate machine code of the universe" is computational, suggesting that everything in the universe, including space and matter, is defined by discrete computational elements.*
02:06 🌌 *Stephen Wolfram illustrates how space-time and Einstein's equations for gravity emerge from simple computational rules, hinting at deviations from known physics.*
03:35 ⏳ *The development of models over time has evolved from ancient concepts to computational models in the 1980s, introducing new ways to understand the universe.*
08:24 💡 *The Wolfram Language represents a computational language that can encapsulate and express various aspects of civilization, aiding in exploring and understanding the "ruliad" or the realm of all possible computations.*
Made with HARPA AI
The ultimate machine code of the universe is computational; It’s the ultimate formalization for our universe.
It’s been a longstanding goal of mine to start doing computational analysis on market conditions or financial systems.
I think doing a series of computations on various financial schema would be a huge boon in developing new systems of power and justice in America.
This must be how the rest of the Enterprise crew felt as Data was just scrolling through information.
Michael Polanyi, a Hungarian chemist turned philosopher of science, argued in his book, “Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy,” that even if we had “unlimited powers of computation,” the idea that everything (including human thought and consciousness) can be predicted computationally is “starkly absurd.” Although I am not qualified either as a scientist or a philosopher to evaluate this TED talk based on Polanyi’s statement, I am making this comment in case someone might want to consider Polanyi’s opposite stance, which in my opinion is well researched and persuasively presented in Chapter 6 of his book.
The Main problem with people seeking a future with AI is that they won't see the result of any mistake they'll make till they make the mistake. The trial and error method of learning that people are still using today cannot be apply to everything because one of those errors can cause devastating unchangeable results. This is something you can't teach to anyone as driven as this man is because he see it as what he is doing is giving him super powers.
It does give him super powers... if only you knew
Do you realize he is saying that he mold, shape & create reality???
"The trial and error method of learning that people are still using today cannot be apply to everything because one of those errors can cause devastating unchangeable results"
The problem with this statement is that there's an arrogance implicit in the assertion that trial and error is closer to "devastating unchangeable results" than the future outside of this method. There's no reason to believe this. The way you use "trial and error" is exhibits a bias on a certain action *you dislike* being the "trial" when inaction can also be seen as a "trial".
The universe is far more vast than you or I can understand and the threats that endanger this planet are innumerable. Restricting and prohibiting a technology over irrational fears of its progress makes no more sense than someone who would take drastic measures to combat irrational fears of the unknown universe. I say irrational because most people don't even understand what they're talking when they weigh in on the models being trained and make unfounded predictions of the future focused on the results they see rather than the technology.
This makes so much sense. Great work!
Very interesting! Is the ruliad perhaps to huge to be truly useful?
It's not supposed to be useful really and it isn't a problem for the physics project overall.
This is an amazing talk! If true or not, anyway it opens new doors to think about us as humans and our role in the Ruliad. There are few open questions still for Steve: 1) if space is emergent, it emerges from what and why?, 2) the Ruliad evolves and time somehow emerges, but how evolution can happen without time at the first place, 3) we conscious humans are a tiny part of the Ruliad and our conscious observations (whatever that means) drives our own 'universe' with its laws, but what is this consciousness, where does it comes from, is it a sort of a 'build-in' function of the Ruliad?
'When you automate technical execution, what become important is not fuguring out how to do things, but what to do'....something worth remembering!
I knew i wouldn't understand... but im happy Stephen got a real TED talk and not a TEDx. He deserves the lime light!!!
Excellent! Language of everything through a medium. If only we could also understand and feel like the other does, wouldn’t that be yet another level of this.
What if there was an AI not optimized to learn the next word but optimized to extend the Wolfram language basically the Wolfram team x100000 and than an AI using that computational language to solve tasks for humans. Honestly the greatest thing I can think of 🎉🎉
And poses the greatest risk as well, the risk of misusing it!
@@farouqstray1411 yeah the development of the wolfram language must be guided than for shure not all can be implemented
That was a really interesting subject, can't wait to see where our computation will lead us
Yes!!!! This is amazing!! I am getting your book. I understand exactly what you are saying and agree completely. Thank you for sharing this.
oh boy charlatans still selling snake oil successfully dressed up in abstract mathematical ideas, i'll be happily corrected when this explains anything at all
maybe the greatest genius of our generation right here ; thank you Stephen Wolfram
What an extraordinary time to be alive.
Trully!
"We can't just sort of jump ahead to get the answer. We have to live the steps."
Thank you, Señor Wolfram.
Absolutely brilliant to see - A real treat.
This is perhaps the most profound thing I have ever learned and the answer to all my questions. The ruliad is ENORMOUS and things like technological progression, free will etc, depends on it deciphering it. The A.I. will also prove to be the only way we can continue to learn newer and newer things about science, and that just leaves two terrifying questions. 1.) Is the ruliad infinite? and 2.) What are people like Einstein who could decipher the ruliad WITHOUT computational language aids? Sounds like he's even more profound than we give him credit for, and we give him quite a lot😉
Man is a legend! Maybe the most interesting person alive right now.
The way he absolutely unceremoniously left the stage while barely having finished the last sentence tells us he has more important stuff to do.
Is computational irreducibility kind of the same as Gödel's Incompleteness theorem?
Yes it's the thing that make you a skeptic!
Yes, but it's also a lot deeper then that. Computational irreducibility is an observed phenomenon of computational and physical systems. That in principle, due to this phenomenon, you can not predict for any finite system, it's outcome, because one must know all of the information of the Ruliad, The Ruliad being a strictly larger construct than the universe as we observe it. In other words, even if you had access to the super deterministic universe (where you knew all correlations of the state of the universe since the big bang) you also need information of the future (and all possible future's) too, to know what the system is going to do, of which is contained in the Ruliad.
More formally : Determining the outcome of any finite system in the universe is a problem in the same equivalence class as the halting problem.
So I would say that Computational Irreducibility is an extension or proof/evidence of Godel incompleteness being a hard property of the universe.
@@NightmareCourtPictures I totally agree with you. It gives it even more credibility and relevance, if it coincides with other world views such as Gödel's theorem. Since you seem to know quite a bit about this, can you explain to me what the fundamental assumptions for these "time atoms" are? I didn't understand this from the video. Thanks!
@@creamybusiness1200 sure. The “atoms of space” in the Wmodel are information constructs that only know that they are an atom of space (that each one is unique and separated from other atoms of space) and what other atoms of space their connected to (their relationships). They are basically vectors in a matrix theory…or like “the 0’s and 1’s” in your computer but in the wolfram model it uses network theory to better describe that matrix for how it evolves, which are tools borrowed from Complex systems.
These atoms of space are more or less the assumption the model makes in order for the dynamics of the model to happen. Just as one can see a cellular automata follow simple rules and you watch it grow into this complex thing…so to do these atoms of space, go on to create complex structures as they follow a simple rule, as seen in the Ted Talk.
The reason he starts with the atoms of space rather than just regular particles is because he needs to emerge space-time without an underlying notion of what space even is, which is assumed in mainstream physics to just be empty nothingness. Many physicists agree that spacetime must be emergent (like Nima Arkani), but have yet to figure out how, and the main issue for them is that they are dealing with only particles (plus a few other assumptions) that lead to the current incongruence with the other bodies of physics.
It should be made explicit that although similar to an ether theory, the wolfram model and its atoms of space do not describe an ether. Objects don’t exist inside the atoms of space, objects > are < the atoms of space, as perturbations or persistent structures as a result of the dynamics of these atoms.
This setup allows for the principle of computational equivalence and those aforementioned phenomenon to exist naturally in these models; “everything” is just made of atoms of space and “everything” is just a feature of its structure, which lends to this idea that everything is equivalently computational, can’t be isolated and therefor unified by a single mechanism and so on.
Some good resources to look into to learn more is
1) The new kind of science series where wolfram reads the book here on RUclips. It’s my favorite…very visual but also technical and formal.
2) The Last Theory RUclips channel, who has a more laymen friendly, bite-sized approach to explaining the components of the model.
3) it helps to know just a little bit about Complex Systems, so type that into RUclips and do a bit of 101. Don’t even need to go into detail just know that complex systems is the precursor model to the wmodel. Knowing why complex systems exists is probably the most important but to take away from that.
God I love the Ruliad. Truly a genius piece of writing
explain this to like am 10 years old
@@farouqstray1411 Imagine you have a giant box of Legos with an endless supply of blocks and an endless list of instructions on how to connect them. The Ruliad is like trying to build every possible thing you can with those Legos, following every instruction, no matter how weird. Stephen Wolfram thinks doing this might help us understand everything around us, like a giant puzzle of the universe. It's a big, wild idea that uses computers to explore every possible scenario and see what we can learn from it.
@@harrypapageorgiou5980 mind blown 😳
@@harrypapageorgiou5980 Thank you for the explanation, got it, so trying every possibility it's the process our universe is in, and the possibilities are endless, I feel computational X has something to do with elon musk
The very beginning of the universe, the emergence of space and everything in it, as the successive application of computational rules - not atoms in any existing space, atoms OF space; compiled together to MAKE space ✨💫
up until now, the last Ted talk that changed my life was about regenerative agriculture ... it has been a while.
I would love to see the notes, people at front rows are taking.
Btw each sentence of the presentation was very clear while listening but fades out when he moves to the next sentence. Incredibly dense transfer of knowledge!!
This is truly an "idea that matters"! ❤❤❤
Very profound and ambitious - wondering how many manhours have been deployed in this computational project. 😮
You can tell that Stephen wolfram is a genius in he's inability to speak in simple terms. I have heard him talk on podcasts multiple times and every time I'm struggling to understand what he means. I do think he is really on to something very big.
Graphics in the presentation is incredible!
What a time to be alive !!
From Wikipedia:
In April 2020, Wolfram announced the "Wolfram Physics Project" as an effort to reduce and explain all the laws of physics within a paradigm of a hypergraph that is transformed by minimal rewriting rules. The effort is a continuation of the ideas he originally described in A New Kind of Science. Wolfram claims that "From an extremely simple model, we're able to reproduce special relativity, general relativity and the core results of quantum mechanics." Physicists are generally unimpressed with Wolfram's claim, and state that Wolfram's results are non-quantitative and arbitrary.
As someone that studied the Wolfram Model for 3 years, Complex systems for about 5 and physics for about 7-8, I can assure you that physicists are unimpressed, because they just don't understand it. the proofs in NKS are very clear proofs by exhaustion, and transitivity arguments (Construction) to show that Computational Equivalence is true, and therefor much of the Wolfram model must be true.
Unironically, i didn't know about Wolfram until start of 2021...but i was studying a problem (a paradox regarding homogeneity and heterogeneity in systems) in 2019-2020 and it led me to the conclusion that nature or physical systems are unified by what could only be described as "System evolution" or "Systems following computational rules over time" and for a while, it bothered me because i didn't know WHY...until sometime later in 2021 after studying the wolfram model a bit, it finally clicked together cause i didn't fully wrap my head around the model.
@NightmareCourtPictures perhaps you will make a testable prediction from his theory. I look forward to the results
@@NightmareCourtPictures Apologies but I'm pretty new to this idea, and I’m still trying to wrap my head around this. What do you mean when you say:
"the proofs in NKS are very clear proofs by exhaustion, and transitivity arguments (Construction) to show that Computational Equivalence is true, and therefor much of the Wolfram model must be true."
When talking about the model being true, are you referring to the actual physics that is in it as well as the predictions they make, or the ability to model physics and analyze these models? Please correct me if I'm way off of what you’re talking about.
I have been following Wolfram on and off for years. In short, I am sceptical. For example, in this video he claims that certain rules (that he does not explian) are governing our world and are underlying modern science. I mean if this is true then he should be given not one but at least ten Nobel prizes. Also, he claims that these rules (not explained) can even explain human intellect to such an extent that the rules explain why we believe that modern science is true. Wow! That has got to be another couple of Nobel prizes right there.
Listen, there are hundreds if not more examples of people running computer programs that somehow create a graphical image or structure that somehow seems to mirror something we see in nature or "Off screen". The simple example is the fractal tree (look it up). This DOES NOT mean anything else. It may suggest that tree grow according to fractal principles. Or they may not. It does not explain anything.
But then again, maybe it is just me (and apparantly the rest of the worlds scientist?) than are too stupid or biased to understand what he is talking about.
@@NightmareCourtPictures interesting
Watching Stephen Wolfram's TED talk, "How to Think Computationally About AI, the Universe, and Everything," felt like embarking on an exhilarating intellectual journey through the fabric of reality itself. Wolfram's notion that the universe at its core could be understood through computation is nothing short of revolutionary. It challenges us to rethink not just the nature of the universe, but also the tools and languages we use to describe it.
The way he articulates the progression from simple computational rules to the emergence of complex phenomena such as space, matter, and even the principles of quantum mechanics is both profound and accessible. This talk serves as a bridge, connecting abstract computational concepts with the tangible realities of our universe. It's a testament to Wolfram's ability to distill 50 years of thought and research into a coherent and captivating narrative.
Moreover, the introduction of the ruliad concept is particularly fascinating. It suggests a universe far richer and more interconnected than our traditional models have allowed us to see. This idea that we are essentially sampling slices of this vast computational network to perceive the laws of physics as we do opens up new avenues for understanding and exploring the cosmos.
Wolfram's enthusiasm for the potential of AI and computation to further unravel the mysteries of the ruliad is contagious. It highlights a future where computational thinking not only advances our scientific understanding but also reshapes our societal and technological landscapes.
In essence, this talk isn't just about the computational underpinnings of the universe. It's a call to arms for curious minds to consider the possibilities that lie at the intersection of computation, science, and philosophy. Wolfram masterfully presents a vision of the future where understanding the universe's "ultimate machine code" could unlock unprecedented insights into the nature of reality itself.
I understand this and it is fantastic! How did we get here? Where are we going?
Could the "ruliad" be platonic forms? It's like he's talking about where all forms are stored.
This is the first complete, concise, and comprehensible explanation of his work I’ve heard yet. Usually he fills his blog posts and discussions with grandiose filler, and you have to filter through it all to find the meat and substance. But this talk was very to the point and information dense. I wish he would do more like this. It’s an interesting framework and I hope it begins to pay off with either predictive capabilities, or the ability to inform new and productive research directions.
This is mind-blowing! Congratulations on the amazing presentation!
He has summed up exactly why I'm so interested in playing with AI. The processes he is talking about require massive amounts of time. I do not share his optimism in finding things that are real using this approach. He would say nothing is real as everything depends upon the rules we set. According to him there are infinite possible rules. This is the foundation of his idea and that we can make up rules as we go along hopefully finding some usefulness out of these rules or not. What he is saying is that you cannot predict consequences without out first going through the computations. I agree. It's like saying let's try this and let's see what happens.
If you were to apply this type of thinking to society you would only be able to know if your rules are correct if society survives if that was your intent from the start. I mean you could create rules to try and destroy society as well. This is a very dangerous way to do things but what choice do you have when you understand that there are an infinite set of possible rules.
Philosophy tackled this issue a long time ago when thinking about how to find the correct decision concerning anything.
One way is to understand that there are an infinite set of possible choices so which one is the correct one to choose? Once you understand that and you understand your own limited intellect you understand that it's impossible for finite intellects to be able to grab the right answer when there are an infinite number of possibilities so trying to make decisions this way is ineffective. But this is what he is saying that the way to go forward with AI is. No matter how powerful AI becomes it will never have infinite computing power. AI would seem to make the process more attainable compared to humans but the same problem still remains.
The other way to make decisions is to just do things willy nilly. In other words you just make it up as you go and hope for the best. But here again there is no way of knowing you're doing something productive rather than destructive. And the only way you can find out is by doing the thing first. Here again we have the same problem with infinite possible rules. The chances of you making the wrong decision is always going to be infinitely higher that you are going to set the wrong rules than the right ones and the only way you can know is by actually carrying out the computations as he says.
When you apply this type of thinking to the law we can see huge problems immerging from the beginning.
Let's say you want to write a business contract dealing with another person. You want to try and make sure that you can see every possible problem or issue that will arise in the future of the deal so that there are terms in the agreement that deal with those issues so you don't end up losing the legal protection of the contract so that you don't get your business bankrupted because you forgot about something allowing the people on the other side of the contract to be able to escape the contract. There again you can't really predict all of the possibilities until after you sign the contract and you see what happens. Again doing things in this way is very dangerous to your interests because you have no idea what is going to happen until it does.
I don't disagree with what he is saying at all except I see the futility of it which maybe he doesn't see. But what he is saying is the best possible way to deal with an impossible problem.
He would agree with me if I said that if you had an infinite intellect and unlimited amounts of time than this way of computation would guarantee that the best possible option for any situation can be known.
And that is exactly why I am so interested in going into AI because I can see how great an advantage I have over all of my competition. And that's why I am so excited about it!😀
I love the idea that creatives are being welcomed by academics into the development of AI, having such a vast melting pot of backgrounds always seems to help with innovation 😊
Its mind blowing how many people have something to comment about something they have absolutely no comment about.
It explains how other beings sense different laws of physics based on their computational power in relation to a superposition of physical laws called the ruliad. I think the space that the mystic and psychedelics explore is rulial space. This leaves room for ancestors being reconstituted in rulial space once they stop projecting their reality. In rulial space, all that is layed out is what is fated. But rulial beings could go move the threads, they could even become skilled in weaving those threads. We could be a 3d tapestry being made by beings who can see us, our thoughts, all laid out like a we see a blueprint. Their favorite patterns they'll reweave.
Best talk i've seen ever
Really glad i was well prepared for this recent talk just because i happened ot stumble upon his ruliad ideas/concepts some months ago by accident and intensively studied into these topics out of curiosity.. go check his blog posts on the internet but be prepared for a hellish mental ride into a super deep rabbit hole : )
Amazing insight from one of the great minds of our time.
I love this ! And guess who introduced me to Wolframs work! Bard AI sending me a link through our conversations about how the universe works.
then why is wolfram informatica not so popular
one of the most insightful talks about computation, eye opening
Every time I see a Talk by Stephen Wolfram, it makes me want to learn Mathematica.
Great content, thank you!
I like how he identified "computational superpowers", which are so much more productive than magical superpowers or political superpowers.
Its an amazing talk. Thanks!
la ruliada seria como la lattice?