7:40 Trying to visualize the scale of Wolfram’s idea of our base reality being “atoms of space” at 10^-100 meters is utterly mind melting as this is 90 ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE smaller than the length of a hydrogen atom which clock in at 10^-10 meters. For perspective the diameter of the entire observable universe (93 Billion Light Years) is 10^26 meters which is only 36 ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE larger than a hydrogen atom. If this doesn’t blow your mind, check your pulse.
I suspect that scale of "base reality" he is describing is the maximum limit of observability in theory, but not practically (at least with what's possible for 500 years into the future of humans, technologically). To visualize, I suspect, just to observe that "atom of space" we would need the energy of a whole galaxy focused to just a few meters -- then we would need sensors sensitive enough to see all those atoms of space within those few meters "filling to the brim", and observe the transistors of space switching on and off as he is describing. Or - if we could somehow have explorers or drones a few miles away from the event horizon of a black hole trying to randomly measure atoms of space "filling to the brim" at the limits of space. But, more practically -- if we are talking about humans trying to prove this theory, we are limited to the energy equivalent to the sun focused to a few meters (fusion if we get there) --and even with that, we just won't see the transistors. It's as if we have the theory of general relativity, but we havent even discovered fire -- let alone measure the speed of light.
Nothing, and I repeat, nothing in this internet world surprises me anymore. But this... this I just heard, is just amazing. Thank you, Lex. Thank you Mr. Wolfram.
Stephen Wolfram's work is so fascinating. It makes so much sense too. Regardless of his results, he truly has found a new way to explore the universe. It's like he discovered a new kind of telescope that opens the window to a whole new world just waiting to be explored.
I completely agree with you. I like Stephen Wolfram for the amazing works of alpha wolfram, wolfram language and mathematica with all the hypergraphs, ruliad and branchial hypermath spaces. In one podcast of other language the podcast callled "Sammy Quantum" asked me who is your man or your hero. I said to him Stephen Wolfram is the man & my hero.
The Einstein INCH equation is published. PENCIL ✏ AND PAPER 📃. G sub c is g = G Me/r^2 (1e -/+Ef/Eo) If you see the Triangle 🔺️ to reference, your on the right ✅ track 👣 to why the line manifests to circle 🔵 1905 to 1915 Child is mechanical ... are you sure?
I think people know this but don't know how to word it. I've heard this before but in a different style of language. In the end nothing is real. You can't touch mind.
I'll never understand why I waste my time listening to this type of stuff that makes absolutely so sense to me. Just in case someone else feels the same way, you are not alone
Getting an easier understanding isnt as hard as you might assume, like I once did. If you look up the most common terms and phrases they repeat that you dont kno, and get a base familiarity with each word, the increase of vocabulary can make it more accessible
Me too.. simply put mathematicians are trying to find 'one formula ' and it's clear the computational approach is more realistic as it has several rules and gates
@@maxodgaard1335 Yes, regardless of how good a science communicator Stephen Wolfram is, and he really is. I have seen no formulas on the physics part of his physics? Programmability of the universe, and the statistic approach to formulate principles for the boundaries of the fundamental physics, are valid scientific approaches, and damned interesting, but where is the simple model for what a Photon is, why it moves at the speed of light? What mass is and why it is persistent, how it is related to gravity? I too have a hunch that Wolfram physics is a neat way to unify the fundamentals, but where is the actual attempt to do so? I don't expect a theory for everything, but at least we should have one or two hypothesizes with formulas, that works? His "hyper grid" should be able to be described in terms of information potential (degree of complexity) so it fits with the surface area of black holes, their entropy, like the holographic principle has at least proven? Which of Stephen Wolfram's books should I buy if I want more than just empirical formulas?
I believe that they way that Wolfram is approaching these physics problems is the right way to go about it. Even if his theories are incomplete right now I believe eventually his approach will yield results.
Agree. He's working on a problem that's in the 10^200 possible universal models (if memory serves me accuratey). He's working on the hardest math problem that has ever been postulated. His work is similar to a cryptographer cracking codes, but exponentially more complicated.
@@doit9854 Choosing an arbitrary hard problem to solve and posing it as the solution to physical inquiries without any reasonable inclination that it might be the right choice is not very smart. In fact, it's quite the opposite - it's a very, very dumb idea.
I just want to know "who am i and why am i aware".... the only answer I can think of that awareness is always there, and that just the things in it changes. And he seems to be explaining how the things in it changes.
I am sure at this point in my pondering, that awareness is a function of complexity in a system communicating within itself. At mine, e.g., will be gone with my body, its creator, dissolving. I don't like this idea, though, so what do you mean with "the things in it", please?
I felt this when I was on mushrooms. I felt my vision was shaking really really fast creating sort of a blur and that blur can shake super fast and give a clear picture or it can slow down to a blur. I felt all atoms of my body had like a special checkmark in their being, the checkmark was my own special id that identified my body. whenever i touched something the other atoms would shove my atoms away and mine would shove them away because neither has matching id codes. I wasn't truly myself I was trillions of beings pretending to be me because alone they cannot accomplish anything.
When I was a child I used to stare at these vibrating atoms in my room when I was trying to sleep. I always wondered what they were but didn't understand until I was older.
I have the feeling that this guy is on the right track. I remember trying to read A New Kind of Science many years ago and not really understanding but also unable to shake the feeling that there was something deeply insightful there Amazing to watch him now apparently recreate relativity with this line of logic!! Incredible.
This is very interesting. I wonder what kind of implications there are for such a reality in terms of observers like us. Maybe there is an experimental way to test this theory, some kind of computational limit or something that could give us a peek behind the curtain.
This professor idea of space creating itself every moment looks like my Acid trip when I spent an our seeing the dots connecting everything in my space of my living room. It looked as if everything is physically connected with everything and there were no real borders between anything. When I moved the cup on my table it felt like a rendering in the new place. I moved it back and again it rendered like a video image not a real cup. It is as a blissful trip.
I accidentally ingested a bag of semi-sweet chocolate on my way to the supermarket the other day. Shortly afterward, the yellow lines in the parking lot were waving back and forth while the pavement appeared to be breathing. At some point, I figured out that the lines were waving in phase with the electronic dance music that was being broadcast from a helicopter circling above. Anyway, when I entered the store - all of the frozen food had been placed on the floor and customers were running across frozen bags while barefoot as if walking on hot coals. I was then greeted by the manager who asked me if I would like to participate or at the very least, place a wager on who will finish in 9th place (as he pointed to the customers running on frozen food). For some reason - I could only say the word "eggs" and repeated it 7 or 8 times. In response, the manager pulled an egg out of his shirt pocket and jammed a #2 pencil through the shell. Yolk spilled everywhere. It eventually separated into lines of yolk and I found myself back in the parking lot looking at wavy yellow parking space lines that a moment ago were lines of runny egg yolk.
Honestly his talk makes me think of being inside of a video game or matrix or better yet a 3D viewport and trying to figure out how to get out. Imagine you’re literally inside of Blender’s viewport and you can’t figure out how things work because the things that affect you like the timeline and the code that shades you and lights you is updating invisibly under the hood and even your thoughts are updated on each frame so how can you figure out what frame you’re on or what the FPS is if your existence is defined by the FPS? It seems not impossible but definitely very difficult.
So consciousness may be just the persistence of awareness from one frame to the next. And our scope of focus is limited by our physical-ness-- our senses, which can only process and hold onto just so much information about each frame... interesting idea.
I've been thinking in terms of graphs and metagraphs myself. Every "thing" is a graph, and just connections, with no inherent existence. But it is also a node in a higher level metagraph. But there is no direct connection from the metagraphs to the included nodes, which are actually sub-graphs - since it would then collapse into a one-level graph. There is only a bias, and these biases are dynamic, with feedback from the lower level graph providing a counter bias that determines what biasing edges connect or disconnect. Biases are very common in nature - hormonal bias, electrical bias, thermal bias, etc. Metagraphs, BTW, can also be a node in an even higher level graph, although things get more general as you go up the ladder. The feedback explains a lot of things that are not now recognized by science, since we are the feedback on the human level.
I guess I'm still trying to get my head around the concept of "atoms of space" since, if I recall correctly, the whole Michaelson Morley experiment was designed to detect an "ether" in space... but was unable to detect such an ether. Wouldn't "atoms of space" be akin to the ether? And wouldn't such a system contradict relativity? Sothat if atom of uuid (say) 0x14587391872 were held as an anchor point for which a reference frame were defined, then you would have an absolute frame of reference? I agree with Wolfram's own assessment of his hypergraph model as "hard to understand". Why not rules to update the ether?
This is exactly right, and it's the one thing people don't really understand and you are one of the few people that get it! Everything is just a series of connections and relationships...and we know this as a fact and you hear it all the time, that we are made of 99.99% of empty space, and the .01% is the mass of atoms...yet we havn't actually SEEN below the level of atoms yet so how do we know that mass isn't just another layer of connections like Wolfram says? That it's all just SPACE and what we see is just a feature of space. In the same vein, we look out at society, or a colony of ants...they operate like a single creature...we are operating autonomously but we live in a society which if you "zoom out" we are doing something collectively like the ants in their colony. The things we think of as being not a solid object actually gets "more solid" as it becomes more connected...is this not a description of what everything is? Like you said, it can all be modeled as a graph...each node itself is a smaller subgraph...and it's graphs all the way down and all the way up. None of it is really "physically" real it's all just connections and relationships to other things.
@@JonMcGill The answer is that his model is not an ether, because the atoms of space are not physical, they are computational. Susskind has posited rather recently, a proof that physics must be explained by some kind of matrix theory (a theory in which there are abstract coordinates in space, that one can define on a N by N matrix, and each coordinate contains information about the state of the system) Wolfram's atoms of space is a network model of space, but that network model can be thought of as a matrix theory. It's like someone mentioned elsewhere...that your computer does something on the pixels of the screen...operating in a way that seems rather intuitive right...but in your actual computer is a matrix theory of computation occurring to give you the things you see on the screen. The coordinate system of the matrix is not clearly intuitive as to what is depicted on the screen (a holographic principle), and thus is the same kind of story with the hypergraph's atoms of space. The atoms of space are mathematically abstract points where the points only know about their relationship to other points...which is a kind of matrix theory, where the atoms of space are coordinates, and the parameters that define each value in that matrix is it's relationship to all the other coordinates.
I know why this discussion bothers me so much, Wolfram's math is more real than space and the stuff in space. Where does the computational equivalence live? What makes it real? There must be a computer somewhere. It can't be the hypergraph (atoms of space) because they don't really exist from one moment to the next (avoiding the aether wind question). So WHERE IS REALITY?
The computation isn't more real than reality, it's just a description of reality. You are used to thinking of reality as synonymous with space and time, but it's not. Computation is the base, every computation youve seen occurs on silicon or some other physical substrate that teaches you to expect all computation to occur on a substrate, but that isn't true
@@psmoyer63 I'm not sure the question has anything to do with computation though, we can play the same game with magnets. Where is the magnetic force from.? The magnetic field Where is the magnetic field? Its a fundamental force etc etc explain field theory but the question remains where these fields exist. Since every particle is just an excitation in the field it doesn't explain where the field itself is. At the end of the day any sufficiently fundamental component of reality will be unable to be explained because it just is how it is, explanation gives way to description
so it seems like he is saying that our awareness really is fundamental. I got lost a couple times but he said the universe is the way it is because we r the ones looking at it basically. which is trippy. how do we even pop up out of something like that which he describes? i think we r getting very close to realizations that will change humanity as we know it
This is quality and I’m so happy I stumbled upon this video. Really helps reaffirm a lot of my thoughts I’ve been having for my future doctorate paper in physics. Thanks Lex
I am reminded of Salieri’s astonishment upon witnessing The Magic Flute in the movie Amadeus. “I saw [...many amazing things…]” In Wolfram’s talk, I saw the Enlightenment, Leibnitz, Feynman, graph algorithms, Zeno’s paradox explained, time/space/and my own location, and more.
Oh dear, does that mean we don't exist on a fundamental level ?. A vortex is only a relationship between molecules and their dynamic interaction.. All objects in the universe, ( well the universe as we experience it ) are merely the relationship between, fine grain atoms and their updating. We emerge from that relationship, and because of the limitations of course graining we only experience the emergent universe, in other words we only see the vortex. But wait it is not too bad, we have reason, imagination and analogy, to get to a deeper understanding of reality. Well I will accept that.
It seems to me that Wolfram's theory only describes known theories such as GR equation. Can his theory make new predictions and derive new theories that can be verified?
So that's essentially "no reality but computation" concept which is what many people would intuitively assume after following the thread of constant "reality reduction" history in physics and "math is the law and if applied as computations with some fundamental constants, we have all the Universe running". Nothing new in aspects of physics interpretation (just rather standard form of simulation hypothesis), but at least nicely arranged and well explained. Doesn't answer "what the machine is", but explaining how a single machine runs a rather simple code should be easier to explain than the whole Universe, especially that the machine doesn't need to run "fast", right? It could be even a "mini-caveman" using his "little hammer" on a "cosmic stone" and no one will notice it :-)
I might be misunderstanding what Wolfram is saying, but surely our position in Rulial space could be seen as a consequence of the fact that, given an infinite hypergraph, regions will evolve where only a subset of all possible rules can be used, and some of these will evolve in a way where for their entire future only those rules can be computed? We can then imagine other regions with wildly different physics, but which aren't interacting with our local region as they can't compute the same sets of rules?
Stephen Wolfram has very interesting ideas, I foremost have to give props to Lex for being a great interviewer though because while Wolfram is explaining something questions would appear in my head, and every time Lex would ask the questions that had popped up in my head once Wolfram had completed his point.
Atoms of space. Wait a minute...didn't somebody come up with a close approximation of the speed of light, based on equations that suggested atoms of space!? Now I remember, it used to be called corpuscular aether. Sir Edmond Whittaker wrote a couple of pages about it.
It would be interesting if he explained how to go from hyper graph to electron, photon or other particle from standard model. How does all those combinations end up as a particle. I guess it has to be a lot of them. If we speak about 10-100 and Plank constant is 10-34 it's huge diff, and a lot of steps in calculation.
26:21 so what your saying is if i did a art of a project... there is a complete project out there even if i never finished it... from multiple different me's...
Computational irreducibility is only limits in calculus. Of course there's a limit to reality, and these facts are already known in physics, he's just giving them another name. Plank's constant is known, and his description of a smaller reality is what string theorist's are working on. We already know that space is not empty because of our knowledge of quantum physics. His analogy to water molecules interacting to create a vortices and these flow terms relating to the quantum fabric of the universe is already known. I understand his expertise are in computation, but he throws around physics terms like Deepak Chopra. 'The discreetness of space' is simply quantum physics and doesn't need another term to describe it, and we've known that general relativity breaks down when near a black hole for awhile now. His hypergraphs are simply expanding on the established theory of quantum entanglement to describe clumps of particles that become entangled instead of just two particles. His ideas on time are interesting, but we already know that even time breaks down on the subatomic particle scales because of the double slit experiment. Look into this guy's past, and you'll see who he really is.
I don't know about all that, but he made the little squares on the screen jiggle like animals so I'm sold; it's pretty obvious Wolfram single-handedly turned physics on its head. All kidding aside, even that drunk guy on ambien in the suit doesn't seem impressed.
Год назад
I have heard he is a ”problem child” of physics community. He has to have his ”own” theory of everything and doesnt want to share summerized papers with The community, rather hundreads of Pages of babble. But what you said is what I think also. There is no new practical science in this ”project”.
The problem with his theory is that it's not falsifiable. And he should produce some sort of visual accompaniment to explain wtf he's talking about. He's not good explaining the theory either, like he's all over the place.
The only language capable of describing these types of concepts is mathematics. Expecting theoreticians to explain their ideas using an ordinary, spoken language is unrealistic. We owe them credit for trying to bridge the gap, but in most cases it's absolutely impossible.
It's a burgeoning theory, not quite a theory yet. It doesn't need to be falsifiable so long as it is predictive. it need to predict a surprising physical result that other theories have not.
I thought about what you bring up as well and I agree. As of yet he seems to not be able to provide any falsifiable claims. But as someone else mentions here, it is the beginning of the theory. I don't think at all his theory would remain non-falsifiable forever. From the discussions I've seen he seems to get closer and closer to understand / "reproducing" effects since long observed in physics. I think he said he is starting to understand what particles are in his model. When he has gotten that far, given what we know about particles, it maybe would be possible for him could make some claim about the behavior of particles his model predicts that isn't explained/predicted by other models. Until that happens I definitely buy people being very skeptical about his claims. Rightly so. And I probably don't think it should be the focus of any larger research project. He can continue doing what he wants. I find what he suggests an interesting model to think about so I will continue listening to what he has to say. If you are annoyed by all the physics things that sounds a bit mombojumbo, just think of it as abstract math and think of all the physics nomenclature as borrowed words from physics. Seeing it from this light, if nothing else it has been useful as a very interesting mathematical exploration of computability and complexity. As with all abstract math, it is not instantly clear if it is useful in everyday life / science.
@@markcarey67 Then maybe you can explain - he seems to indicate relativity is preserved. Yet his description of space and motion has these quantified space atoms and when I move my hand through space, I am really transferring the state of a set of space atoms to adjacent space atoms which isn't really motion but creates the illusion of motion. That suggests an absolute motion (or equivalent of) through a fixed set of space atoms which is definitely not relativity 1905.
I have always struggled with the notion of continuity in space and time since I strongly believe everything is finite how can I accept infinitesimal. However the notion that space is constantly constructing itself and conquering nothingness boggles me.
this has already been asked and even answered. "quantum physics vs hidden variable theorems", Bell's theorem and Bell's inequality etc. actually this topic was awarded with the latest Nobel prize in physics. the work that actually proved that physical reality has no local realism.
Lex mate, I've been reading some of the Hindu scriptures, namely Eknath Easwaran's translations of The Bhagavad Gita and The Upanishads. If you haven't already, I urge you to at least read the intro of The Upanishads. I think you'll really like the insights into consciousness that these writings offer, and having a Hindu Scholar on the podcast could be revelatory.
As a developer I ended up same yet advanced model of universe. I also model universe as quantized units with fixed update rules, unlike him my model is synchronous tho. Also in many ways his work is behind me and needs a lot more work and advancements to reach to be a complete and interesting model with an actual predictability and interpretational leap. I have this, and want to help him, not sure he will be seeing this or not
The hypergraph seems analogous to a theory of artificial intelligence that Dr. Gordon Pask and I developed, based on his network and conversation theory he was developing in 1975. He has been greatly missed with his passing. It was also the reason I dropped out of grad school as we quickly discovered that we would need 10^10 more to make significant inroads: more local memory, long term memory, and computational power then available. The main point I'm struggling to make is that intelligence requires both computation and a very large interconnected network of events.
By definition we also state that consciousness is not blindly bound - thus we must admit it too has self-similar hyperweb structures across which we as conscious beings group into - and each such aware at their awareness level a sufficient portal into their part of the hyper graph. We only wish to weave the flow of Life from the fabrics of consciousness. That is Tantra. Taming (physics) & flaming the universe spirit. He forgot to emphasize that his is a generative grammar, incidentally just like Sanskrit & yoga models. Any facet of our personality that seeks to investigate reality must be accorded a sense of self-hood. Together they shall come tathAstu
So, just before I watched this, I was thinking sbout the new concrete they put in our street. It didn't have any rocks in it, but the old stuff did. After discussing with Google I found out that rocks make concrete stronger. The larger the rocks, the stronger the concrete up to a certain granularity. After listening to this, it got me wondering... Are black holes kind of like large rocks that make the structure of space stronger?
The speed of light is not always constant but nobody is likely to know that for a super long time and for all practical purposes it may as well be constant for what we do here just wanted to put this little bookmark here for posterity.
I feel like these “simple programs” he talks about can be reduced to addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division in every scenarios he applies his theories. Some of his ideas are very interesting though, I’m all for approaching things from multiple perspectives. I hope he finds success to the degree of quantification that is required for engineering and science with his approach. Physics is stuck right now, we need new approaches.
Branching and merging, but can there be merge conflicts? That is to say my current version could be inconsistent with the head, and such the update would ruin my causal connection that I have memorized or recorded.
I know Wolfram's work on this topic and I am 100% sure that he is on a very wrong route if he wants to find the final answers and the "theory of everything". until a "theory of everything" addresses the most fundamental question and dilemma, the so-called causality dilemma (how something can be created from nothing), the proposed model cannot be a true "theory of everything" in the first place. and since the causality dilemma cannot be resolved in a purely physical description, this means that a true "theory of everything" must at least consider a dual world model.
If you are indeed aware can you not differentiate that which is evil and that which life? As written. verse: New International Version (NIV): Jesus said, “If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains.”12 This passage highlights the idea that spiritual blindness (lack of understanding or awareness) does not carry the same guilt as willful ignorance or arrogance.
It's my feeling as well that there is actually nothing other than one permanent substance that exists as many impermanent forms. I, however, don't think we can meaningfully label that substance, because in the absence of any other label, ANY label is meaningless. In other words, there's ONLY "this".
Thanks so much for sharing. The problem of scale and context appears to have been addressed. "Ecology meet physics, physics meet ecology. Glad you could make nice!"
Space and Time are separate at the fine granular level, therefor an object as it moves through space has a constant set of different fine granular atoms, it is the relationship between these atoms that stay the same; that gives the appearance on a course grain level as the object not changing. It is similar to waves on a pond, the wave look as if it is moving, and that it is a continuous wave spreading outward, but in fact the atoms of the water do not spread; it is the transfer of energy of the water molecules between one another that give the impression of a moving wave. This is not an accurate analogy, we see the many waves on the pond from a global perspective, we do not see the universe at course grain level globally, We see it locally ( a single wave only ), so we only experience time as linearly, we never see the other multitude versions of ourselves.
for the part where Wolfram talks about space as one of the most fundamental concepts: space is an impredicative concept since it inherently includes and encapsulates self-referentiality. just think it over. entities like objects (space-like entities) or events (spacetime-like entities) can exist only in space (or more generally in spacetime), in a framework. but similarly, this framework has meaning only if we have entities in this framework (we define distance in space and time between entities). this circularity/nonlinearity is the essence of impredicativity (which is in some sense a specific manifestation of self-referentiality in logic, set theory etc.). this is analogous to almost every concept, since almost every concept has this impredicative nature. e.g. height. let's have a room with some people. every person has a definite height. so we can define height in an objective way (based on relativity and measurement, since height is inherently a relative measure). “the tallest person in the room” depends on a set of things of which it is an element (set of all persons in the room). so it means that the tallest person of the room is included in the set of people of the room, but at the same time “the tallest person in the room” is a function which is defined on the set which contains the element which is the output of this function (this output is the tallest person in the room). again, there is circularity which is the sign of impredicativity: the tallest person (as an element) is part of the set, which is then the domain of the function that defines this element. these circularities are everywhere, we are just not aware of that most of the time. in my opinion this self-referential nature (which echoes in many places from Russel's paradox through Godel's incompleteness theorems to Turing's halting problem, not to mention almost every natural law) is the thing we should understand more, and sadly Wolfram's work and theory (with his hypergraphs) perfectly ignores this. I do thing that Wolfram's ToE is unfortunately a dead end. I don't say that it cannot provide us new insights, but it is fundamentally a wrong attempt to grasp the essence of the universe. and this is why I consider Douglas Hofstadter (anther physicist who has also become a cognitive and computer scientist) as the one who got closest to the final answer (even if perhaps he is still very far from it). in a sense Wolfram and Hofstadter has been doing the same, but from two totally different aspects: Wolfram approached these fundamental topics (like cosmology, consciousness and AI which are inherently interweaved) from a "numerical" and "quantitative" direction (computational approach), while Hofstadter did this from an "analytical" and "qualitative" direction (logical approach). I don't say that one is good and the other is bad, because we usually need both, but I do believe that Hofstadter's method and approach hold the key, not Wolfram's.
So the universe is a GPU and space is its pixels. Surprise surprise this is how a computer guy thinks the universe works. Of course he may be right but I'm eagerly awaiting the evidence.
10^-100 m ... thats 10^-300 m^3 ... and we have 10^400 of those... thats 10^100 m^3 for the whole universe. That gives a ballpark size of the universe of 10^33 m, divide that by the speed of light of 3 10^8 m/s, gives 3 10^24 s or 10^19 year.. thats a lot more than 13.8 10^9 year...
Very nice you have made the information digital. As you know probably that this model of space -time is a natural mathematical structure. Indeed I have a very same model as much as it is explained this very short interview. I have too the time scale 10^21s & 10^16 years. As you have calculated square of existing billions year.
15 minutes into a job interview listening to this sh!+: Interviewer - "Very interesting, Mr. Wolfram. I think I don't have any further questions. Thank you for your time" Stephen Wolfram - "When can I expect to hear back? I am ready to start immediately" Interviewer - "I will share my notes with the team and we will let you know as soon as we make a decision" Stephen Wolfram - "But is it like, Monday or so?" Interviewer - "Have a good day Mr. Wolfram"
In the 260 day calendar, George Floyd was killed precisely 2 cycles prior to the vote yesterday. 520 days. In that system, Jung and Freud born on the same day and number. Time is periodicity and should be referred as that. The 20 days are the same sequence and function as the 20 standard amino acids, and the first 20 I-Ching descriptors. Also the same as the 20 primordial elements Tin - Ytterbium. Sequence and function correlations are not causation but they are indicative of a highly, pervasive, regulated periodically stable system. Consciousness, is directly affected and constantly in line with that basic calendar.
Wonderful talk! However, I have the feeling that it requires as a prerequisite to be already familiar with Wolfram's graph theory... It is also wonderfully compatible with my own hypothesis...
This is a high tech update of a Greek idea described by Democrates and Leucippus. He's on the right track in identifying that our anthropocentric perception of time and that the Block Universe theory is fundamentally flawed. Particle Physics and String Theory have caused physics to stagnate for 50 years. Good interview, Lex! Conciousness isnt special. The neurological basis of a subjective experience is already well documented in studies of various species.
Answer is you will only get so far like a bird untill that greater intelligence shows you different & even then will you be able to comprehend, it just might not even be meant for you.
It’s big it’s also very small …. And the space in between You can chose Energy frequency vibration E=mc2 Speed of light transformation with one thought Signs are everywhere Your Heart is a compass for what you need 😇 faith
Exactly yeah. This isn't even a theory of everything, it can't explain a lot more fundamental things. This theory will never be a theory of everything, it's just not how real existence can ever manifest (completely incoherent in many ways).
I feel that at times searching for consciuosness is over sought.. That it is merely an evolved construct derived from the cooperative reliance on others to achieve greater than what one can accomplish individually, essentially consciousness is humans as a super organism, not much unlike the mixture of computations that make up the universe. Everything is both different and the same, in that all the inputs are available to rationalize consciuosness, but pure computation is beyond it..
A great and interesting video. Yet one look at this comments section makes me lose hope for the future of humanity. So much unscientific drivel being thrown around...
7:40 Trying to visualize the scale of Wolfram’s idea of our base reality being “atoms of space” at 10^-100 meters is utterly mind melting as this is 90 ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE smaller than the length of a hydrogen atom which clock in at 10^-10 meters.
For perspective the diameter of the entire observable universe (93 Billion Light Years) is 10^26 meters which is only 36 ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE larger than a hydrogen atom.
If this doesn’t blow your mind, check your pulse.
What really blows my mind is that the metaverse exceeds 10^-69420 meters radially.
However, maybe the universe extends for another 10^74 meters beyond the observable universe...
The fact we cannot measure the entire universe means his 10^-100 is incorrect . As it is based on other "known" parameters that are far from known .
🤯
I suspect that scale of "base reality" he is describing is the maximum limit of observability in theory, but not practically (at least with what's possible for 500 years into the future of humans, technologically). To visualize, I suspect, just to observe that "atom of space" we would need the energy of a whole galaxy focused to just a few meters -- then we would need sensors sensitive enough to see all those atoms of space within those few meters "filling to the brim", and observe the transistors of space switching on and off as he is describing.
Or - if we could somehow have explorers or drones a few miles away from the event horizon of a black hole trying to randomly measure atoms of space "filling to the brim" at the limits of space.
But, more practically -- if we are talking about humans trying to prove this theory, we are limited to the energy equivalent to the sun focused to a few meters (fusion if we get there) --and even with that, we just won't see the transistors.
It's as if we have the theory of general relativity, but we havent even discovered fire -- let alone measure the speed of light.
Nothing, and I repeat, nothing in this internet world surprises me anymore. But this... this I just heard, is just amazing. Thank you, Lex. Thank you Mr. Wolfram.
Word, man. I completely agree with you
Agree
Stephen Wolfram's work is so fascinating. It makes so much sense too. Regardless of his results, he truly has found a new way to explore the universe. It's like he discovered a new kind of telescope that opens the window to a whole new world just waiting to be explored.
I completely agree with you. I like Stephen Wolfram for the amazing works of alpha wolfram, wolfram language and mathematica with all the hypergraphs, ruliad and branchial hypermath spaces. In one podcast of other language the podcast callled "Sammy Quantum" asked me who is your man or your hero. I said to him Stephen Wolfram is the man & my hero.
I think he knows what he is talking about . And that’s all right
The Einstein INCH equation is published. PENCIL ✏ AND PAPER 📃. G sub c is g = G Me/r^2 (1e -/+Ef/Eo) If you see the Triangle 🔺️ to reference, your on the right ✅ track 👣 to why the line manifests to circle 🔵 1905 to 1915 Child is mechanical ... are you sure?
I think people know this but don't know how to word it. I've heard this before but in a different style of language.
In the end nothing is real.
You can't touch mind.
I'll never understand why I waste my time listening to this type of stuff that makes absolutely so sense to me. Just in case someone else feels the same way, you are not alone
I’m hoping to continue to listen to these in order to one day even understand just 5%😂
I guess I'm a bit futher with trying to envision what he is saying
Getting an easier understanding isnt as hard as you might assume, like I once did. If you look up the most common terms and phrases they repeat that you dont kno, and get a base familiarity with each word, the increase of vocabulary can make it more accessible
Everything is just language. Even math. All ideas are graspable. I think you might be underestimating your comprehension.
... I'm an idiot who wrote that reply before listening to this clip... 😅
He makes a lot of sense. I have a gut feeling that his thinking is in the right direction.
Everybody has
Try looking up Chris Langan and his CTMU theory. He's probably the smartest man in the world and his claim to fame is that his IQ is over 200.
Me too.. simply put mathematicians are trying to find 'one formula ' and it's clear the computational approach is more realistic as it has several rules and gates
Gut feeling in science, mixes as great as water and oil....
@@maxodgaard1335 Yes, regardless of how good a science communicator Stephen Wolfram is, and he really is. I have seen no formulas on the physics part of his physics? Programmability of the universe, and the statistic approach to formulate principles for the boundaries of the fundamental physics, are valid scientific approaches, and damned interesting, but where is the simple model for what a Photon is, why it moves at the speed of light? What mass is and why it is persistent, how it is related to gravity? I too have a hunch that Wolfram physics is a neat way to unify the fundamentals, but where is the actual attempt to do so? I don't expect a theory for everything, but at least we should have one or two hypothesizes with formulas, that works? His "hyper grid" should be able to be described in terms of information potential (degree of complexity) so it fits with the surface area of black holes, their entropy, like the holographic principle has at least proven? Which of Stephen Wolfram's books should I buy if I want more than just empirical formulas?
I believe that they way that Wolfram is approaching these physics problems is the right way to go about it. Even if his theories are incomplete right now I believe eventually his approach will yield results.
Agree. He's working on a problem that's in the 10^200 possible universal models (if memory serves me accuratey). He's working on the hardest math problem that has ever been postulated. His work is similar to a cryptographer cracking codes, but exponentially more complicated.
@@doit9854 Choosing an arbitrary hard problem to solve and posing it as the solution to physical inquiries without any reasonable inclination that it might be the right choice is not very smart. In fact, it's quite the opposite - it's a very, very dumb idea.
@@A.T.-89I would tend to agree, but then, I know nothing.
I just want to know "who am i and why am i aware".... the only answer I can think of that awareness is always there, and that just the things in it changes. And he seems to be explaining how the things in it changes.
Search for ”panpsychism”. It reminds me of your idea
"You are the universe experiencing itself" ~ Alan Watts
@@alfredaquino3774 nope, can't be the universe. The universe is changing, to witness the change, you yourself must be changeless.
@@DavidSmith-ef4ehor you could be changing in different ways.
I am sure at this point in my pondering, that awareness is a function of complexity in a system communicating within itself. At mine, e.g., will be gone with my body, its creator, dissolving. I don't like this idea, though, so what do you mean with "the things in it", please?
I felt this when I was on mushrooms. I felt my vision was shaking really really fast creating sort of a blur and that blur can shake super fast and give a clear picture or it can slow down to a blur. I felt all atoms of my body had like a special checkmark in their being, the checkmark was my own special id that identified my body. whenever i touched something the other atoms would shove my atoms away and mine would shove them away because neither has matching id codes. I wasn't truly myself I was trillions of beings pretending to be me because alone they cannot accomplish anything.
When I was a child I used to stare at these vibrating atoms in my room when I was trying to sleep. I always wondered what they were but didn't understand until I was older.
They're not atoms, I get that too. You can't see atoms
@gjcarrow vibrating particles. I used to see them when I was a child. Recently I've realised I still can.
I have the feeling that this guy is on the right track. I remember trying to read A New Kind of Science many years ago and not really understanding but also unable to shake the feeling that there was something deeply insightful there Amazing to watch him now apparently recreate relativity with this line of logic!! Incredible.
Id like to send love to everyone else who enjoys Lex's show!
This is very interesting. I wonder what kind of implications there are for such a reality in terms of observers like us. Maybe there is an experimental way to test this theory, some kind of computational limit or something that could give us a peek behind the curtain.
This professor idea of space creating itself every moment looks like my Acid trip when I spent an our seeing the dots connecting everything in my space of my living room. It looked as if everything is physically connected with everything and there were no real borders between anything. When I moved the cup on my table it felt like a rendering in the new place. I moved it back and again it rendered like a video image not a real cup. It is as a blissful trip.
I accidentally ingested a bag of semi-sweet chocolate on my way to the supermarket the other day. Shortly afterward, the yellow lines in the parking lot were waving back and forth while the pavement appeared to be breathing. At some point, I figured out that the lines were waving in phase with the electronic dance music that was being broadcast from a helicopter circling above. Anyway, when I entered the store - all of the frozen food had been placed on the floor and customers were running across frozen bags while barefoot as if walking on hot coals. I was then greeted by the manager who asked me if I would like to participate or at the very least, place a wager on who will finish in 9th place (as he pointed to the customers running on frozen food).
For some reason - I could only say the word "eggs" and repeated it 7 or 8 times. In response, the manager pulled an egg out of his shirt pocket and jammed a #2 pencil through the shell. Yolk spilled everywhere. It eventually separated into lines of yolk and I found myself back in the parking lot looking at wavy yellow parking space lines that a moment ago were lines of runny egg yolk.
@@chriskennedy2846 I wish I could describe my trips half as good as you just did
ya buddy!
The ruliad. Look into it. Its a concept hes developed
Honestly his talk makes me think of being inside of a video game or matrix or better yet a 3D viewport and trying to figure out how to get out. Imagine you’re literally inside of Blender’s viewport and you can’t figure out how things work because the things that affect you like the timeline and the code that shades you and lights you is updating invisibly under the hood and even your thoughts are updated on each frame so how can you figure out what frame you’re on or what the FPS is if your existence is defined by the FPS? It seems not impossible but definitely very difficult.
So consciousness may be just the persistence of awareness from one frame to the next. And our scope of focus is limited by our physical-ness-- our senses, which can only process and hold onto just so much information about each frame... interesting idea.
I’ve been waiting many years to hear a theory like this. Thank you for changing my life.
Look up wholography
I've been thinking in terms of graphs and metagraphs myself. Every "thing" is a graph, and just connections, with no inherent existence. But it is also a node in a higher level metagraph. But there is no direct connection from the metagraphs to the included nodes, which are actually sub-graphs - since it would then collapse into a one-level graph. There is only a bias, and these biases are dynamic, with feedback from the lower level graph providing a counter bias that determines what biasing edges connect or disconnect. Biases are very common in nature - hormonal bias, electrical bias, thermal bias, etc. Metagraphs, BTW, can also be a node in an even higher level graph, although things get more general as you go up the ladder. The feedback explains a lot of things that are not now recognized by science, since we are the feedback on the human level.
Could just say a wave instead of graph and then you have string theory.
I guess I'm still trying to get my head around the concept of "atoms of space" since, if I recall correctly, the whole Michaelson Morley experiment was designed to detect an "ether" in space... but was unable to detect such an ether. Wouldn't "atoms of space" be akin to the ether? And wouldn't such a system contradict relativity? Sothat if atom of uuid (say) 0x14587391872 were held as an anchor point for which a reference frame were defined, then you would have an absolute frame of reference? I agree with Wolfram's own assessment of his hypergraph model as "hard to understand". Why not rules to update the ether?
This is exactly right, and it's the one thing people don't really understand and you are one of the few people that get it! Everything is just a series of connections and relationships...and we know this as a fact and you hear it all the time, that we are made of 99.99% of empty space, and the .01% is the mass of atoms...yet we havn't actually SEEN below the level of atoms yet so how do we know that mass isn't just another layer of connections like Wolfram says? That it's all just SPACE and what we see is just a feature of space.
In the same vein, we look out at society, or a colony of ants...they operate like a single creature...we are operating autonomously but we live in a society which if you "zoom out" we are doing something collectively like the ants in their colony. The things we think of as being not a solid object actually gets "more solid" as it becomes more connected...is this not a description of what everything is?
Like you said, it can all be modeled as a graph...each node itself is a smaller subgraph...and it's graphs all the way down and all the way up. None of it is really "physically" real it's all just connections and relationships to other things.
@@JonMcGill The answer is that his model is not an ether, because the atoms of space are not physical, they are computational.
Susskind has posited rather recently, a proof that physics must be explained by some kind of matrix theory (a theory in which there are abstract coordinates in space, that one can define on a N by N matrix, and each coordinate contains information about the state of the system)
Wolfram's atoms of space is a network model of space, but that network model can be thought of as a matrix theory. It's like someone mentioned elsewhere...that your computer does something on the pixels of the screen...operating in a way that seems rather intuitive right...but in your actual computer is a matrix theory of computation occurring to give you the things you see on the screen. The coordinate system of the matrix is not clearly intuitive as to what is depicted on the screen (a holographic principle), and thus is the same kind of story with the hypergraph's atoms of space. The atoms of space are mathematically abstract points where the points only know about their relationship to other points...which is a kind of matrix theory, where the atoms of space are coordinates, and the parameters that define each value in that matrix is it's relationship to all the other coordinates.
The last sentence of the video about consciousness fits perfectly with the Thousands Brain Theory.
Nope. 2. One is illusory
I know why this discussion bothers me so much, Wolfram's math is more real than space and the stuff in space. Where does the computational equivalence live? What makes it real? There must be a computer somewhere. It can't be the hypergraph (atoms of space) because they don't really exist from one moment to the next (avoiding the aether wind question). So WHERE IS REALITY?
3d is just a projection from 5d
The computation isn't more real than reality, it's just a description of reality. You are used to thinking of reality as synonymous with space and time, but it's not.
Computation is the base, every computation youve seen occurs on silicon or some other physical substrate that teaches you to expect all computation to occur on a substrate, but that isn't true
@@sandworm9528 Thu universe is computation. The question remains.
@@psmoyer63 I'm not sure the question has anything to do with computation though, we can play the same game with magnets.
Where is the magnetic force from.?
The magnetic field
Where is the magnetic field?
Its a fundamental force etc etc explain field theory but the question remains where these fields exist. Since every particle is just an excitation in the field it doesn't explain where the field itself is.
At the end of the day any sufficiently fundamental component of reality will be unable to be explained because it just is how it is, explanation gives way to description
@sandworm9528 Yes, we can, I mean, Wolfram can.
so it seems like he is saying that our awareness really is fundamental. I got lost a couple times but he said the universe is the way it is because we r the ones looking at it basically. which is trippy. how do we even pop up out of something like that which he describes? i think we r getting very close to realizations that will change humanity as we know it
This is quality and I’m so happy I stumbled upon this video. Really helps reaffirm a lot of my thoughts I’ve been having for my future doctorate paper in physics. Thanks Lex
So he basically revived the ether idea and turned the universe into voxels...?
Well why not?
@@robinpage2730 he just over complicates the explanation so much.
Lex, you should interview Erik Verlindi his work on gravity as an emergent property is fascinating and relatable🤷🏽♂️maybe.
@@z4zuse You must be German…😂
@@z4zuse geez, one of those
In the future there will be a Wolfram hyperspace engine! And it sounds awesome!
I am reminded of Salieri’s astonishment upon witnessing The Magic Flute in the movie Amadeus. “I saw [...many amazing things…]” In Wolfram’s talk, I saw the Enlightenment, Leibnitz, Feynman, graph algorithms, Zeno’s paradox explained, time/space/and my own location, and more.
how does this explain zeno's paradox?
Oh dear, does that mean we don't exist on a fundamental level ?. A vortex is only a relationship between molecules and their dynamic interaction.. All objects in the universe, ( well the universe as we experience it ) are merely the relationship between, fine grain atoms and their updating. We emerge from that relationship, and because of the limitations of course graining we only experience the emergent universe, in other words we only see the vortex. But wait it is not too bad, we have reason, imagination and analogy, to get to a deeper understanding of reality. Well I will accept that.
It seems to me that Wolfram's theory only describes known theories such as GR equation. Can his theory make new predictions and derive new theories that can be verified?
So that's essentially "no reality but computation" concept which is what many people would intuitively assume after following the thread of constant "reality reduction" history in physics and "math is the law and if applied as computations with some fundamental constants, we have all the Universe running". Nothing new in aspects of physics interpretation (just rather standard form of simulation hypothesis), but at least nicely arranged and well explained.
Doesn't answer "what the machine is", but explaining how a single machine runs a rather simple code should be easier to explain than the whole Universe, especially that the machine doesn't need to run "fast", right? It could be even a "mini-caveman" using his "little hammer" on a "cosmic stone" and no one will notice it :-)
Joscha Bach has a similar narrative.
I might be misunderstanding what Wolfram is saying, but surely our position in Rulial space could be seen as a consequence of the fact that, given an infinite hypergraph, regions will evolve where only a subset of all possible rules can be used, and some of these will evolve in a way where for their entire future only those rules can be computed? We can then imagine other regions with wildly different physics, but which aren't interacting with our local region as they can't compute the same sets of rules?
Stephen Wolfram has very interesting ideas, I foremost have to give props to Lex for being a great interviewer though because while Wolfram is explaining something questions would appear in my head, and every time Lex would ask the questions that had popped up in my head once Wolfram had completed his point.
Atoms of space. Wait a minute...didn't somebody come up with a close approximation of the speed of light, based on equations that suggested atoms of space!? Now I remember, it used to be called corpuscular aether. Sir Edmond Whittaker wrote a couple of pages about it.
It would be interesting if he explained how to go from hyper graph to electron, photon or other particle from standard model. How does all those combinations end up as a particle. I guess it has to be a lot of them. If we speak about 10-100 and Plank constant is 10-34 it's huge diff, and a lot of steps in calculation.
"It's crazy" Wolfram 0:35 nuff said :)
26:21 so what your saying is if i did a art of a project... there is a complete project out there even if i never finished it... from multiple different me's...
Computational irreducibility is only limits in calculus. Of course there's a limit to reality, and these facts are already known in physics, he's just giving them another name. Plank's constant is known, and his description of a smaller reality is what string theorist's are working on. We already know that space is not empty because of our knowledge of quantum physics. His analogy to water molecules interacting to create a vortices and these flow terms relating to the quantum fabric of the universe is already known. I understand his expertise are in computation, but he throws around physics terms like Deepak Chopra. 'The discreetness of space' is simply quantum physics and doesn't need another term to describe it, and we've known that general relativity breaks down when near a black hole for awhile now. His hypergraphs are simply expanding on the established theory of quantum entanglement to describe clumps of particles that become entangled instead of just two particles. His ideas on time are interesting, but we already know that even time breaks down on the subatomic particle scales because of the double slit experiment. Look into this guy's past, and you'll see who he really is.
I don't know about all that, but he made the little squares on the screen jiggle like animals so I'm sold; it's pretty obvious Wolfram single-handedly turned physics on its head. All kidding aside, even that drunk guy on ambien in the suit doesn't seem impressed.
I have heard he is a ”problem child” of physics community. He has to have his ”own” theory of everything and doesnt want to share summerized papers with The community, rather hundreads of Pages of babble. But what you said is what I think also. There is no new practical science in this ”project”.
🎼Computational irredusability, irredusability, irredusability 🎶
The problem with his theory is that it's not falsifiable. And he should produce some sort of visual accompaniment to explain wtf he's talking about. He's not good explaining the theory either, like he's all over the place.
I understood it - it helps to know his previous work as well as related work like causal dynamical triangulations.
The only language capable of describing these types of concepts is mathematics. Expecting theoreticians to explain their ideas using an ordinary, spoken language is unrealistic. We owe them credit for trying to bridge the gap, but in most cases it's absolutely impossible.
It's a burgeoning theory, not quite a theory yet. It doesn't need to be falsifiable so long as it is predictive. it need to predict a surprising physical result that other theories have not.
I thought about what you bring up as well and I agree. As of yet he seems to not be able to provide any falsifiable claims. But as someone else mentions here, it is the beginning of the theory. I don't think at all his theory would remain non-falsifiable forever.
From the discussions I've seen he seems to get closer and closer to understand / "reproducing" effects since long observed in physics. I think he said he is starting to understand what particles are in his model. When he has gotten that far, given what we know about particles, it maybe would be possible for him could make some claim about the behavior of particles his model predicts that isn't explained/predicted by other models.
Until that happens I definitely buy people being very skeptical about his claims. Rightly so. And I probably don't think it should be the focus of any larger research project. He can continue doing what he wants. I find what he suggests an interesting model to think about so I will continue listening to what he has to say. If you are annoyed by all the physics things that sounds a bit mombojumbo, just think of it as abstract math and think of all the physics nomenclature as borrowed words from physics. Seeing it from this light, if nothing else it has been useful as a very interesting mathematical exploration of computability and complexity. As with all abstract math, it is not instantly clear if it is useful in everyday life / science.
@@markcarey67 Then maybe you can explain - he seems to indicate relativity is preserved. Yet his description of space and motion has these quantified space atoms and when I move my hand through space, I am really transferring the state of a set of space atoms to adjacent space atoms which isn't really motion but creates the illusion of motion. That suggests an absolute motion (or equivalent of) through a fixed set of space atoms which is definitely not relativity 1905.
This is a lot of fun. In medias res. “Computationally bound creatures” Excellent clip edit
I have always struggled with the notion of continuity in space and time since I strongly believe everything is finite how can I accept infinitesimal. However the notion that space is constantly constructing itself and conquering nothingness boggles me.
Now the question is are the Atoms moving at a ever random pace or is there some organized molecular movement that can't be analyzed yet
this has already been asked and even answered. "quantum physics vs hidden variable theorems", Bell's theorem and Bell's inequality etc.
actually this topic was awarded with the latest Nobel prize in physics. the work that actually proved that physical reality has no local realism.
Thought provoking, beautiful thanks for providing this interview
My question is, can hypergraphs resolve the disconnect between general relativity and quantum mechanics?
Lex mate, I've been reading some of the Hindu scriptures, namely Eknath Easwaran's translations of The Bhagavad Gita and The Upanishads. If you haven't already, I urge you to at least read the intro of The Upanishads. I think you'll really like the insights into consciousness that these writings offer, and having a Hindu Scholar on the podcast could be revelatory.
As a developer I ended up same yet advanced model of universe. I also model universe as quantized units with fixed update rules, unlike him my model is synchronous tho. Also in many ways his work is behind me and needs a lot more work and advancements to reach to be a complete and interesting model with an actual predictability and interpretational leap. I have this, and want to help him, not sure he will be seeing this or not
So can you model an analog clock in space-time and therefore synchronisation ?
Maybe you need Petri Nets
The hypergraph seems analogous to a theory of artificial intelligence that Dr. Gordon Pask and I developed, based on his network and conversation theory he was developing in 1975. He has been greatly missed with his passing. It was also the reason I dropped out of grad school as we quickly discovered that we would need 10^10 more to make significant inroads: more local memory, long term memory, and computational power then available. The main point I'm struggling to make is that intelligence requires both computation and a very large interconnected network of events.
Do particle’s posses computational consciousness
By definition we also state that consciousness is not blindly bound - thus we must admit it too has self-similar hyperweb structures across which we as conscious beings group into - and each such aware at their awareness level a sufficient portal into their part of the hyper graph. We only wish to weave the flow of Life from the fabrics of consciousness. That is Tantra. Taming (physics) & flaming the universe spirit. He forgot to emphasize that his is a generative grammar, incidentally just like Sanskrit & yoga models. Any facet of our personality that seeks to investigate reality must be accorded a sense of self-hood. Together they shall come tathAstu
So, just before I watched this, I was thinking sbout the new concrete they put in our street. It didn't have any rocks in it, but the old stuff did. After discussing with Google I found out that rocks make concrete stronger. The larger the rocks, the stronger the concrete up to a certain granularity.
After listening to this, it got me wondering... Are black holes kind of like large rocks that make the structure of space stronger?
Blew my mind into the next universe's big bang. THANKS
Is this similar to loop quantum gravity, but derived from the bottom up? Could the two ideas converge?
The speed of light is not always constant but nobody is likely to know that for a super long time and for all practical purposes it may as well be constant for what we do here just wanted to put this little bookmark here for posterity.
I feel like these “simple programs” he talks about can be reduced to addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division in every scenarios he applies his theories. Some of his ideas are very interesting though, I’m all for approaching things from multiple perspectives. I hope he finds success to the degree of quantification that is required for engineering and science with his approach. Physics is stuck right now, we need new approaches.
Branching and merging, but can there be merge conflicts? That is to say my current version could be inconsistent with the head, and such the update would ruin my causal connection that I have memorized or recorded.
Pattern Recognition - Everything Works In Formation, Information
I know Wolfram's work on this topic and I am 100% sure that he is on a very wrong route if he wants to find the final answers and the "theory of everything".
until a "theory of everything" addresses the most fundamental question and dilemma, the so-called causality dilemma (how something can be created from nothing), the proposed model cannot be a true "theory of everything" in the first place. and since the causality dilemma cannot be resolved in a purely physical description, this means that a true "theory of everything" must at least consider a dual world model.
actually many beautiful ideas being explored by mr wolfram, good work
If you are indeed aware can you not differentiate that which is evil and that which life?
As written.
verse:
New International Version (NIV): Jesus said, “If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains.”12
This passage highlights the idea that spiritual blindness (lack of understanding or awareness) does not carry the same guilt as willful ignorance or arrogance.
It's my feeling as well that there is actually nothing other than one permanent substance that exists as many impermanent forms. I, however, don't think we can meaningfully label that substance, because in the absence of any other label, ANY label is meaningless. In other words, there's ONLY "this".
Maybe it is God? Or we can just label it as God? Maybe thats not a very meaningful label I guess idk
Hey stop lableing (haha)
So, how does this explains the results of the LHC?
Thanks so much for sharing. The problem of scale and context appears to have been addressed. "Ecology meet physics, physics meet ecology. Glad you could make nice!"
Space is the representation of diffuse particles.
Space and Time are separate at the fine granular level, therefor an object as it moves through space has a constant set of different fine granular atoms, it is the relationship between these atoms that stay the same; that gives the appearance on a course grain level as the object not changing. It is similar to waves on a pond, the wave look as if it is moving, and that it is a continuous wave spreading outward, but in fact the atoms of the water do not spread; it is the transfer of energy of the water molecules between one another that give the impression of a moving wave. This is not an accurate analogy, we see the many waves on the pond from a global perspective, we do not see the universe at course grain level globally, We see it locally ( a single wave only ), so we only experience time as linearly, we never see the other multitude versions of ourselves.
A classical cellular automata can’t explain nature, the universe is quantum mechanical and violates Bell’s inequality.
for the part where Wolfram talks about space as one of the most fundamental concepts:
space is an impredicative concept since it inherently includes and encapsulates self-referentiality. just think it over. entities like objects (space-like entities) or events (spacetime-like entities) can exist only in space (or more generally in spacetime), in a framework. but similarly, this framework has meaning only if we have entities in this framework (we define distance in space and time between entities). this circularity/nonlinearity is the essence of impredicativity (which is in some sense a specific manifestation of self-referentiality in logic, set theory etc.).
this is analogous to almost every concept, since almost every concept has this impredicative nature. e.g. height. let's have a room with some people. every person has a definite height. so we can define height in an objective way (based on relativity and measurement, since height is inherently a relative measure). “the tallest person in the room” depends on a set of things of which it is an element (set of all persons in the room). so it means that the tallest person of the room is included in the set of people of the room, but at the same time “the tallest person in the room” is a function which is defined on the set which contains the element which is the output of this function (this output is the tallest person in the room). again, there is circularity which is the sign of impredicativity: the tallest person (as an element) is part of the set, which is then the domain of the function that defines this element. these circularities are everywhere, we are just not aware of that most of the time.
in my opinion this self-referential nature (which echoes in many places from Russel's paradox through Godel's incompleteness theorems to Turing's halting problem, not to mention almost every natural law) is the thing we should understand more, and sadly Wolfram's work and theory (with his hypergraphs) perfectly ignores this. I do thing that Wolfram's ToE is unfortunately a dead end. I don't say that it cannot provide us new insights, but it is fundamentally a wrong attempt to grasp the essence of the universe. and this is why I consider Douglas Hofstadter (anther physicist who has also become a cognitive and computer scientist) as the one who got closest to the final answer (even if perhaps he is still very far from it). in a sense Wolfram and Hofstadter has been doing the same, but from two totally different aspects: Wolfram approached these fundamental topics (like cosmology, consciousness and AI which are inherently interweaved) from a "numerical" and "quantitative" direction (computational approach), while Hofstadter did this from an "analytical" and "qualitative" direction (logical approach). I don't say that one is good and the other is bad, because we usually need both, but I do believe that Hofstadter's method and approach hold the key, not Wolfram's.
Wow. Absolutely riveting. Just listen to it twice and now I’m going for a third time
watch this recent update; I think it gets into some of these ideas a little bit more clearly: ruclips.net/video/Sr6CmIzF6u0/видео.html
I wish I could understand this even a little bit but it is so far over my head.
@@JohnBrian-zs5yp and it's also so beautifully abstract it blows your mind when you get it
“The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy “, Mark McCutcheon much simpler.
This clip has the lenght of some podcasts
So the universe is a GPU and space is its pixels.
Surprise surprise this is how a computer guy thinks the universe works. Of course he may be right but I'm eagerly awaiting the evidence.
10^-100 m ... thats 10^-300 m^3 ... and we have 10^400 of those... thats 10^100 m^3 for the whole universe. That gives a ballpark size of the universe of 10^33 m, divide that by the speed of light of 3 10^8 m/s, gives 3 10^24 s or 10^19 year.. thats a lot more than 13.8 10^9 year...
Very nice you have made the information digital.
As you know probably that this model of space -time is a natural mathematical structure. Indeed I
have a very same model as much as it is explained this very short interview.
I have too the time scale 10^21s & 10^16 years.
As you have calculated square of existing billions year.
What kind of matter is spacetime made of and how it interacts with massive objects
Absolutely brilliant.
"...Being recreated all the time. .. pure motion. ". = Time. So, where's the mystery.
Fundamental reality will not be discovered through expirementation.
15 minutes into a job interview listening to this sh!+:
Interviewer - "Very interesting, Mr. Wolfram. I think I don't have any further questions. Thank you for your time"
Stephen Wolfram - "When can I expect to hear back? I am ready to start immediately"
Interviewer - "I will share my notes with the team and we will let you know as soon as we make a decision"
Stephen Wolfram - "But is it like, Monday or so?"
Interviewer - "Have a good day Mr. Wolfram"
The answer is still 42
From what I understand, we do not know the 1 direction speed of light. Current calculations are based on the two way speed of light.
Correct.
There is much more to understand. Much more.
Atoms of space…oh, yeah…that’s the answer..atoms of space 😳. PT Barnum? Is that you?
But if "atoms" really exist we have a problem. So, whew, they disappear and re-emerge every time we look at them.
In the 260 day calendar, George Floyd was killed precisely 2 cycles prior to the vote yesterday. 520 days. In that system, Jung and Freud born on the same day and number. Time is periodicity and should be referred as that. The 20 days are the same sequence and function as the 20 standard amino acids, and the first 20 I-Ching descriptors. Also the same as the 20 primordial elements Tin - Ytterbium. Sequence and function correlations are not causation but they are indicative of a highly, pervasive, regulated periodically stable system. Consciousness, is directly affected and constantly in line with that basic calendar.
Exactly!
wow such elaborate and swift use of powerful words im in awe! a true mathmatician, or should i say..magician
Wonderful talk! However, I have the feeling that it requires as a prerequisite to be already familiar with Wolfram's graph theory... It is also wonderfully compatible with my own hypothesis...
But first, Wolfram needs not to be so enamored with his hypergraph theory. It claims, in effect, there is no fundamental reality.
@@psmoyer63 I wouldn't say it claims that. It claims that the physical universe follows directly from mathematical properties of systems of graphs.
@@ConnoisseurOfExistence hmmmmm, sounds LQG nodes. I still don't find a fundamental footing for Wolfram's mathematical musings in reality.
time is energy
This is a high tech update of a Greek idea described by Democrates and Leucippus. He's on the right track in identifying that our anthropocentric perception of time and that the Block Universe theory is fundamentally flawed. Particle Physics and String Theory have caused physics to stagnate for 50 years. Good interview, Lex! Conciousness isnt special. The neurological basis of a subjective experience is already well documented in studies of various species.
It's got to do with Electromagnetics. The answer will come from Electromagnetics.
Answer is you will only get so far like a bird untill that greater intelligence shows you different & even then will you be able to comprehend, it just might not even be meant for you.
Large or small are both relative; so infinitely large or infinitely small; can’t be reached.😮
Beautiful rich voice he has
It’s big it’s also very small …. And the space in between
You can chose
Energy frequency vibration
E=mc2
Speed of light transformation with one thought
Signs are everywhere
Your Heart is a compass for what you need 😇 faith
Such a great view of things
Of course, I mean coarse.
Don't know how true what he's saying, but thanks for blowing my mind anyway.
7:35 it's fractals, all the way down
its 33min thats for sure not a clip cmon bruh
So pretty much he is saying we live in a simulation 😅
Exactly yeah. This isn't even a theory of everything, it can't explain a lot more fundamental things. This theory will never be a theory of everything, it's just not how real existence can ever manifest (completely incoherent in many ways).
Interview Jonathan Gorard.
Energy equals Mass multiplied by the speed of light C squared …that is a theory!
This honestly just sounds like a woo-woo version of quantum loop gravity..
I bet his wife has gone mad by now.😂
Actually his wife is also a mathematician
I feel that at times searching for consciuosness is over sought.. That it is merely an evolved construct derived from the cooperative reliance on others to achieve greater than what one can accomplish individually, essentially consciousness is humans as a super organism, not much unlike the mixture of computations that make up the universe. Everything is both different and the same, in that all the inputs are available to rationalize consciuosness, but pure computation is beyond it..
My understanding is that its not the theory of everything yet
I've come to very similar conclusions
By jove, I think he's got it !
George Castanza is good at physics, turns out. Who knew?
I was in the pool!
A great and interesting video. Yet one look at this comments section makes me lose hope for the future of humanity. So much unscientific drivel being thrown around...