Do humans exist outside of physics? | Stephen Wolfram and Lex Fridman
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 16 сен 2024
- Lex Fridman Podcast full episode: • Stephen Wolfram: ChatG...
Please support this podcast by checking out our sponsors:
- MasterClass: masterclass.co... to get 15% off
- BetterHelp: betterhelp.com... to get 10% off
- InsideTracker: insidetracker.... to get 20% off
GUEST BIO:
Stephen Wolfram is a computer scientist, mathematician, theoretical physicist, and the founder of Wolfram Research, a company behind Wolfram|Alpha, Wolfram Language, and the Wolfram Physics and Metamathematics projects.
PODCAST INFO:
Podcast website: lexfridman.com...
Apple Podcasts: apple.co/2lwqZIr
Spotify: spoti.fi/2nEwCF8
RSS: lexfridman.com...
Full episodes playlist: • Lex Fridman Podcast
Clips playlist: • Lex Fridman Podcast Clips
SOCIAL:
- Twitter: / lexfridman
- LinkedIn: / lexfridman
- Facebook: / lexfridman
- Instagram: / lexfridman
- Medium: / lexfridman
- Reddit: / lexfridman
- Support on Patreon: / lexfridman
Full podcast episode: ruclips.net/video/PdE-waSx-d8/видео.html
Lex Fridman podcast channel: ruclips.net/user/lexfridman
Guest bio: Stephen Wolfram is a computer scientist, mathematician, theoretical physicist, and the founder of Wolfram Research, a company behind Wolfram|Alpha, Wolfram Language, and the Wolfram Physics and Metamathematics projects.
😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊
cough fractal compression cough
like gas pumps they say you need minimum of 5 gallon but what that is really for is the average over time is better than the initial feed of fuel measuring.
If Wolfram, Penrose, Hoffman and Hameroff combine all aspects of their ideas - humanity would make a giant leap forward in the understanding of consciousness.
10:32 So this has a lot of implications to the whole “what if we live in a simulation” proposition. This implies it’s impossible to make a simulation with the same degree of detail as the original universe. If we are in one, the people above us *can’t* be the same, they *must* be living in a more complex world.
It could be similar to our universe but just way bigger .. however I suppose bigger is more complex so you are correct
The simulated universe would have less possible states than the actual universe. Locally, within a particular region, it could be more complicated. That is like saying because a building is bigger than the library it must have more books in it. Fascinating topic. Scale and magnitude are relative. We can move away from both the quantum viewpoint which implies Infinite density and the einstinian view of variable tine with non-Euclidean geometry and relative scale/magnitude Paul Davies style. What if we are inside a blackmore. All of the information in the universe can be represented on a 2 dimensional surface and this could be a projection like a hologram. Maybe nested black holes all the way up and all the way down. Nassim Haramein
The simulation can be way bigger if it was designed to be infinite AND if the orginal is not infinite. The simulation can accomplish this by using simple rules and patterns in different combinations to make unlimited variations. It's like a video game having an unlimited number of levels or other complexities like item stats. In fact our universe seems to do this with patterns repeating many times in nature and following formulas like the laws of physics to create seeming infinite possibilities. TLDR: A simulation can be made to be infinitely bigger then the original even if it takes less resources to run. Size or complexity is not a great way to compare in my opinion, I think it comes down to the amount of information that it can hold, the simulation cant hold more data then the original.
The fact that light has a limited speed kinda supports this idea too. In a more complex world, the speed of information might be infinitely fast, so it would make sense to add a dimension of time.
It seems to me that the human mind/human observer does at least two main things: information compression and relevancy filtering. Compression is relatively easy, but the concept of relevancy is more tricky because it is experience-related. And obviously nothing can replace experience. It strikes me that there is a parallel to be drawn here between relevancy and computational irreducibility: One must let the process take its course!
When the human being acts as a "General Observer" making use of language, as for example happens when we talk to someone or think, we appeal to the reductionism that characterizes the use of language to, through it, try to carry out an adequate "translation" of that segment of the mental landscape, existing at that moment in the brain, which is intended to be represented.
If they show us a photograph for a couple of seconds and then ask us to "translate into words" what we have seen, we make use of the aforementioned reductionism to diagram a utilitarian representation of what we have observed. By the way, it will take us much more than two seconds to "describe" what we have observed. Human language, the most powerful evolutionary tool that has ever existed, is characterized by the sequential use of words, and by the reductionism implicit in their use.
I've always thought of myself as an observer. This time and space I think is vastly important for human kind. A few hundred years and think about the hyper evolution... I remember before the internet...Watch how fast we go next.
Summary was generated by Summatim, let us know if there are any inaccuracies! 🤖
0:05: Importance of the Observer
0:49: General Model of an Observer
2:34: Extracting a Summary from Detail
8:15: Science and Snowflake Growth
9:40: Models in Science
11:01: Symbolic Representations
2:56: Natural Language and Computers
11:59: Defining understanding in computational world
12:37: Goal of computational language
12:41: Importance of formalizing natural language
13:02: Comparison with math
Снежинки...Демонстрация того,что два интелектуально развитых человека могут даже "снежинки" превратить в увлекательную и познавательную дискуссию...Спасибо Вам
I'm with you Lex, "fluffy" is definitely 3D 😀
😂😂to the back of the class for you n Lex
Yeah, but I think he means that the geometry is basically contained in one plane.
Time as we experience it in the real world so to speak, is vastly less important the bigger or heavier an object or something gets… but when you get down to the quantum’s or molecular level, time itself begins to have a very precise and very predictable pattern that is almost like chemistry or math. There are reactions that we can induce that can help up understand why and what makes something happen at a certain time. The universe is cooling down and we are moving away from this moment of uncertainty with our thoughts on how to help other people :/
Thank you for all you do my friend
When people approach math without formal basis, they end up with things like Russell’s paradox. When people use natural language to describe the world without formal basis, they end up with things like the title of this video.
Absolutely, because we know and understand everything about everything. Excellent observation.
What's the problem with Russell's paradox?
@@cantatanoir6850 The problem with paradoxes is that if your model contains them, and you try to use that model to answer questions, then you will end up with contradictory answers. You probably don’t want to use an AI that contradicts itself. And that’s what we often get now when using ChatGPT.
Who, in this syntactic construction, approaches “math without a formal basis”?
“Why is it flat?” Is a great question that got dropped.
I always enjoy your guests. My favorite being Dr. Donald Hoffman, because consciousness is fascinating. I hope you have him on again. Thanks for such mind growing context!
Does our observance of the Universe cause it to collapse into particles? If this is the case then how could the particle based Universe have existed before we did? Could it be because other species also observed it and caused the Universal Wave Function to collapse?
There is another explanation. In vedas our level of reality is called transactional(Vyavaharika), if there is a transaction between two objects the wave function is collapsing. If there is no transaction the wave function is not collapsing. Actually there was an experiment in Austria where they tried the double slit experiment with bigger objects like molecules and the result was that the limit of the size that can still behave like a wave is only the transaction with environment.
@@wolwerine777 Thanks for your reply, Peter.
many schools of thought propose that everything that is observed only occurs because it is being observed - the old if a tree falls question.
@@dalelane1948 i knew nothing existed before i was born. i just knew it!
Black holes act as observers
1, human as observer: there are two theorems in science where observer plays crucial role, and these are quantum physics and relativity (two peaks of modern science). but these two theorems have two very different aspects of observers. in quantum physics what really matters is information, while in relativity observer simply means a certain frame of reference. so in a sense relativity has a little bit less to do with consciousness-related things than quantum physics. in relativity a simple clock can represent az "observer", while in quantum physics we use different kinds of measurement devices in order to gain information. at first it could seem that even a clock is a measurement device and in both cases these tools are just extensions of some human minds, which are actually true, but in relativity we don't measure directly anything. we simply exist as observers or compare different processes. so in conclusion we can say that observer is nothing special on these theorems, but their interpretation and philosophical framing is still unclear. in my opinion a huge step is awaiting in this field. and yes, the concept of observer does not represent an entirely physical thing. this concept is much more a link between worlds (dual worlds like in Platon's or Descartes' world models). we humans as observers are links between a physical world and a conceptual world.
2, pressure as average: it is true that in many fields of physics and other disciplines we use simplifications and averages in order to make simpler models about reality. but it is a dumb question to ask whether these are bad approximations. why? because we define them in a certain way, so they are simply new concepts. in thermodynamics we use concepts like temperature and pressure, which are inherently statistical/probabilistic concepts. so they represent something that is fundamentally a global (statistical) description of the system. of course we can ask whether this global description is an accurate description even locally, but Lex didn't ask this. Lex asked a dumb question. and since temperature is just as a statistical/probabilistic concept as entropy (what is more, not just the concept is statistical/probabilistic, but even the famous entropy principle dictates that every closed system tends to an equilibrium, so temperature, pressure and other statistical/probabilistic concepts get averaged out), it is not surprising that in some special cases when entropy is low (so we deal with an extremely improbable case), these global descriptions with statistical/probabilistic concept are not accurate on local level, so pressure, temperature or other physical quantities are not homogeneous in our examined system. this is why we use the concept of equilibrium. in thermodynamical equilibrium practically there is zero chance to have such a fluctuation where this kind of global description of a system does not represent the system accurately on a more local scale.
3, geometry of snowflake: it is evident that every snowflake has hexagonal symmetry because when water freezes and ice crystals form, the molecules (H2O) form a hexagonal crystal pattern on atomic and molecular scale. this microscopic structure emerges to the macroscopic level. this is the "order" aspect of snowflake formation, while the "chaos" aspect is the fact that the microscopic characteristics of the air around the forming snowflake are parts of a chaotic system with full of nonlinear dynamical equations. and as usual, even during the formation of snowflakes order and chaos play dual roles. in a sense every snowflake is similar, since all of them have the same hexagonal symmetry inherited from the atomic/molecular level, but at the same time every snowflake is different and special, since all of them have their own details due to the mentioned chaotic nature. and this dual characteristics (order and chaos) form together the fractal nature of snowflakes.
Lex is getting close to one mil! Congrads!
perspective is everything to each observer
Points very well taken.
1:48
Everything and everyone, is unique - like snowflakes - and especially Stephen Wolfram and his viewpoint on reality.
"The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence."
-- Nikola Tesla
That's what mathematics does
@@xmathmanx “Today’s scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality. ”
― Nikola Tesla
I don't think mathematics necessarily studies phenomena though. Mathematics is merely logic, it is exploratory-- in the same way that a dream is, but a dream is not usually held to pertain to the phenomenal world. Tesla believed that there were things that *occurred* with phenomenon, which science opts out of study because it does not fit into a physicalist ontology. Reality was not physical, to him.
You could say he believed we exist in a grander noumenal reality, which science has opted out of studying, because of the ontological assumption that reality is constituted of something material or physical in nature. Our senses perceive only an slice of what is likely to exist, and how 'they bring' the world to us may very well have little correlation to the noumenon.
@@Archeidos-Arcana yes, mathematics does not study anything other than itself
Imagine you the intangible person are encased inside your body soon after conception. This intangible person that makes us conscious, self aware and sentient learns though the body's senses but also learns to perceive by intuition. So there is a conscious being inside of a living body. I think we the being is not physical, is not the brain. Though our being uses our brain, body and senses to learn. So I think we are non physical beings inside of physical bodies. Beings parallel to, but not actually in the physical universe. If physics is a simulation, then we are likely part of a character test. Physics responds to our being. Or I'm most likely an idiot.
"All models are wrong, some are useful" - coined by the statistician, George Box
Some of the more seemingly "normal" guests lay down the heaviness.
Wolfram isn't exactly the paragon of normality. Dude got a PhD in particle physics at 20. Without a previous degree
Such a sick question.
Observer is like us, that observes thoughts,ideas, basically mind. Ultimate observer cant be observed and observer at the same time, because someone observes both
There is only one thing.
Great discussion, bad video title (not good description of the topic, sorry)
Absolutely love this. Talking my language ✌️😃
Yes.
this video doesn't explain if
humans exist outside of physics
They don't
... and if we built the wrong tower we have to expect dire consequences?
All working models of the universe are true only to the extent that we provoke a true reaction from the universe due to a certain intrusion
? You tell me
When applied to building a general AI system, his snowflake modeling example, shows doing it safely will be very difficult with our limited view.
Anyone else think this guys voice sounds like Hitch?
Things are relatively stable ,but consciousness is found mathematicaly in an isolated 11th dimension of exponential observable contradiction s!!?? I think they weren t saying 11th dim. Anymore
Title for this clip is so off 😂 fluffy snowflakes?
Could life on our planet be a tiny part of a Universe that is a giant probability experiment beyond, far, far beyond our ability to understand it; given all factors of creation, on a creation planet that evolves sentient life, sometimes with a bit of help from creation, sentient life that can only evolve through struggle, will said sentient life overcome the worst of its coding fo struggle? Can desire and inquisitiveness and our better natures tame the reality of survival code, deal with some beings having defective code, some beings being consumed by the worst natures of our coding. Could our coding be a simple and essential function of becoming sentient. Is the test, the true test of sentience be 'up or out'. Could we be being 'observed' by more than one entity, entities that have their own code and hierarchical architecture, with a sentience above that? If so, is there a further 'up and out' or transition? Need some science fiction writings on this stuff.
I like to combine this idea with the idea that our planet was barren before it was colonized by fungus (fungus spores can survive like 500x the lethal dose of radiation that humans can) which created land which plants grew on which created an atmosphere and oceans and eventually life and fungus also happens to be the reason why apes and other beings developed real sentient consciousnesses and that eventually we will somehow continue this cycle. Possibly this cycle was started by random chance, or another alien species, maybe we are being watched or maybe we are an experiment.
He is confusing the observer with the content of observation, the observed
Ha 😅
Thank you for sharing gentlemen.
Watchmen accountability of all
Does sun rises tomorrow morning ?
Can we implement time traveling?
Will Jesus come back
again ?
..........etc😮
You both think too much 😅
Think things
that are useful
and beneficial
,such as how to connectly breathe
more health
for your body and mind❤
the whole conclusion of this discussion in this interview clip is nothing but Godel's incompleteness theorems. in order to make useful theories and models you have to simplify and focus on a limited range of reality. this is equivalent with the fact that an axiomatic formal system always has a finite consistency domain and it will never be complete. consistency and completeness form a duality and so there is a fundamental trade-off for this kind of models (axiomatic formal systems). in other words: in order to get useful models and theories, we have to do some sort of concretisation and simplification, and these always decrease generality and universality (being less abstract and fundamental). but there is nothing surprising in this in my opinion. why? because this is the very trade-off that Godel's theorems impose.
Yep, That’s largely the point of his work. That Godel’s incompleteness is a feature one can’t overlook when constructing a model for the universe. He speaks on this (godet) a lot.
@@NightmareCourtPictures well, then Wolfram's work is not too novel... and it is pretty straightforward that Godel's theorems are fundamental for axiomatic formal systems, this is known since the inception of these theorems. but it is not correct to say that it is an inescapable limit when we try to construct a model for the universe since these theorems are valid only for a specific kind of models: axiomatic formal systems (condition 1) that contain the arithmetic of integers (condition 2). it does not imply from this that Godel's theorems exclude a whole and final description of reality because there might be other kind of models and descriptions (not axiomatic formal systems). and I am pretty sure that we will bypass this seemingly unbypassable limit.
@@_kopcsi_ You're limited in your scope for what encompasses wolfram's work. You assumed that his work is nothing but godel's incompleteness, which is a strange thing to say, and disingenuous since you don't seem to actually know about the stuff he does or has done, so why the assumption here?
Uhh but anyway...you're also constructing a conversation that really only makes sense to yourself, mostly because you don't seem to know anything about wolfram's work which makes this conversation kind of pointless. Go and do some research and then you'll be able to make arguments that someone might want to engage in.
For example, what your saying sounds like this :
"Maybe someday someone will solve the halting problem."
Ya I mean okay bro...go head and do that until then, the conversation here is about how the universe and all the systems inside of it are Turing Machines, where the halting problem holds. Now replace Halting Problem with Godel's Incompleteness and that is the conversation you seem to want to have...nobody is going to humor that.
@@NightmareCourtPictures no, I know perfectly his work. I also read his books. and I do believe that he is on a wrong route (my opinion). you know, if the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail. Wolfram is just this type of guy. his worldview and models are heavily limited since he believes that everything is computational. which is, in my opinion, a huge bullshit. but you have absolutely no clue how much I know about his work but blindly assume that I don't. with this you only make fun of yourself.
actually it was you who wrote this: "That’s largely the point of his work. That Godel’s incompleteness is a feature one can’t overlook when constructing a model for the universe." -- I replied to this. and then you diverted the conversation in such a retarded way.
"For example, what your saying sounds like this: "Maybe someday someone will solve the halting problem."" -- nah, dude, I just said that what you wrote is totally incorrect. and this is a common mistake among people who do not understand Godel's theorems. people like you tend to overgeneralise these results. that's why I mentioned that not only axiomatic formal systems exist.
@@_kopcsi_ his character has nothing to do with the science. You bringing it up as your reason for starting an argument is just fallacy.
But anyway. If you knew about Wolframs work then why make the comment you made in the first place? Like I said seems strange.
There’s no argument to be had here. If you know his work then you also know that godels incompleteness is a well defined feature of it…it is not “the godel incompleteness theorem” and stop making it out as if it is.
Like I said there’s no conversation here other than : you don’t agree with the world being computational….that’s about it. You could say the universe is based on tiny unicorns if you want to make that argument… make a model like that then make an argument till then these things hold and he holds them true as well.
physics is not fundamental. Only statistics.
FUNKY
So, the brain is filter of information.
Take some shrooms and this will become clear.
Always has been
@@frozenwalkway As opposed to only/merely a processor of information.
Let it go the hairs gone
of course snowflakes are 3d, regardless of how thin it may be
Good night fellow bots
3:46 - 8:10
Snowflake conversation
we live in the desert quatum blown every moment by God
Here 1st 💪🏻
I can tell you that the growth rate of snow flakes is pretty much exponential in American Colleges right now.
Listening to this to learn something about "humans outside physics" but all they talk about is snowflakes 😂
lazycommentforthealgo
So snowflakes are U.A.P.'s? 😮
Number 12