Hi and thank you, I'm an old 66-year-old guy now but I have always enjoyed mathematics. Thanks, this has helped familiarize and make me comfortable with the blockchain process. Keep up the great work.
i'm still not certain the universe can be explained completely by computation, but i also can not rule the possibility out, it's very interesting idea, which has seen recent progress, thanks for that
This is on its own level. Brilliant! I suppose, or I'd like to think that, everyone has something they excel at, that's a cut above the rest in their specialty niche. But as I said, this
The recursive triangle in the video thumbnail is called the Sierpinksi triangle, and 30 years ago I wrote an assembly program consisting of only 72 bytes to generate one.
NFTs sound a bit like bounded observers? Could the rules of computational contracts, have an analogue to the rules that bound observers? Govern how pairs of bounded observers can create new ones etc?
People often study God and so on, in an attempt understand the world better. But we've got so far now, that we could now study humans for a great deal of time, and we'd always find an unbelievable amount of knowledge, and probably for an extended amount of time to go...
Very cool! (So we're going to burden future generations with petabytes of trivial blockchain history, forcing them to maintain them, index them, search them, from now til time end?)
@@drdca8263 640k is enough for anyone. But I for one rush to meet our destiny - caretakers of a Matrioshka brain devoted entirely to indexing cat pictures.
@@ingliss haha ( > ◡ < ) ! And yes, it may well be that petabytes will someday be regarded as small potatoes. I don’t know how far we are into the exponential-looking part of the sigmoid curve, so it may last a long while longer. But I am confident that eventually capacity size will stop increasing so fast, and so eventually some size will/would be large indefinitely (at least, in this life/in this-world-as-it-is. I hope that in the afterlife (or in a remaking of this world) there won’t be limits to the information capacity of people, as I think unlimited information capacity is a prerequisite for eternity to be subjectively meaningfully experienced.) . I don’t know what the capacity of such a matrioshka brain will (or would) be (presumably very large), but I believe it will (or would) have a final max size. But yes, if for the time being, while info capacities keep growing so fast, I figure holding on to these blockchains isn’t that big a deal. However, I suspect that relatively soon (I.e. within a few decades) provided people keep using them at all, that if they manage to scale to more users, that there will be a setup by which people will store the info they care about, with no-one storing *everything* that has been done through the blockchain, such that eventually when some things are no longer cared about by anyone, no one will continue to store them. I feel this is needed for very-long-term scalability. I think this can be done in a secure way.
Lindenmayer l-sytems is same is cellular automa theory.....but language is not same.recursive functions is key. Thue morse system...bit string physic is amazing.
So in universal terms, who or what is doing the, "Oh shit what am I doing here? Oh wait I forgot a parentheses, duh." What would errors in the universal code or program be?
🎉block chain was used on rail networks mineral line so i assume that is used on crypto in maths a ledger basically oh pyramid thats intriguing design in under pinned problem was weight keeping the pillars upstanding like greek temple.. or one in i believe in china also stone temples intriguing
"Computational Irreducibility means the only way to find out if these are interesting is to run them... unless Stephen Wolfram says they won't look pretty""
I wonder why Stephen gets involved in so many things. I suppose it has to do with habits formed having created an encyclopedic project. I've heard him doing depth interviews, for example. He's very good at it. It seems to me, however, that we live in a time when building a real AGI is possible. If Stephen can facilitate getting that built, can't it then do all these other projects? It just seems like common sense time management. Set philosophy aside for the moment, and put on your engineering cap.
Presentation needs to be made more interesting . I have no idea what this subject is so I tried to get into the vid . Few minutes in from the start and watching a bit of the illustrations later in the video : Hell no . I still have no clue what this subject is about but I have the strong feeling the presentation is so obscure and unattractive that i ll never know it.
Universe is not computational. It’s algorithmic. All matter follows algorithm and moves with constant momentary speed - speed of light. And I can show algorithm of that movement (not of interaction)
@@nlysts the difference is that it works, explains universe and gives predictions. The difference is that each particle becomes robot, not state of coordinate. Word consists of simple cubes, not some hypergraph. And matter moves from one cube to another each discrete moment of time.
@@matterasmachine something involving cubes on a lattice is still computational. Computational doesn’t mean “involving a hypergraph”. You should consider taking the outside view regarding your understanding.
@@drdca8263 They do not compute anything. They just live their discrete lives and execute their algorithm. Each of them can be considered separate universe as universe is what the do. It's not cellular automata. Anyway. Is choosing between definition - the only thing that bothers you???
Every time I fall asleep, RUclips puts this on, I must have about 60 views on it but haven't watched more than 15 seconds.
literally for me too. so weird.
Same here. But the other way round. Every time I watch it I fall asleep in 15 seconds. Lol.
@@robinbrowne5419 😂
literally why im here 🤣🤣
I really need to stay awake learn something they didn't teach at school
Last night I fell asleep, and when I woke up this was on. Hi there
nature making the complexity it makes using the simple rule concept is super interesting
I went to sleep watching Vsause and woke up here. What the fuck happened between then and now
Hi and thank you, I'm an old 66-year-old guy now but I have always enjoyed mathematics. Thanks, this has helped familiarize and make me comfortable with the blockchain process. Keep up the great work.
Thanks for taking the time to engage the public. I know I enjoyed it and who knows who you'll inspire.
Great show.
I fell asleep and I was apparently 50 minutes into this video
Thank you Stephen from the bottom of my heart
I fell asleep watching kurzgesagt and woke up to this
i'm still not certain the universe can be explained completely by computation, but i also can not rule the possibility out, it's very interesting idea, which has seen recent progress, thanks for that
I really like this, I like Stephen. In this you see his personability and hes cool
Amazing work wish I could meet this guy everything he does are the things I contemplate daily
This is on its own level. Brilliant!
I suppose, or I'd like to think that, everyone has something they excel at, that's a cut above the rest in their specialty niche. But as I said, this
Nice to be here!
I woke up to this
thank u MR Wolfram
Uhhh great stuff! Already love the start of it. 🙌
Stephen Wolfram looks like he DOESN'T STINK AT ALL!!!
Measures down to Lovelaces thats great.
a truly remarkable thing
Thank you for being honest.
This makes me think about mutations perhaps not being so random as we first imagine.
That is no excuse not to shower before leaving the house.... :)
Lol, I love hanging out making art with the Wolf
感謝您花時間與公眾互動。我知道我喜歡它，誰知道你會激勵誰。
Omg I was just going to mint a BTC NFT (artifact) to record something about AI from ChatGPT and was thinking of you!
Good one!
The recursive triangle in the video thumbnail is called the Sierpinksi triangle, and 30 years ago I wrote an assembly program consisting of only 72 bytes to generate one.
The real talent is resolute aspirations。
Fascinating
it's first time I see them in color
NFTs sound a bit like bounded observers? Could the rules of computational contracts, have an analogue to the rules that bound observers? Govern how pairs of bounded observers can create new ones etc?
People often study God and so on, in an attempt understand the world better. But we've got so far now, that we could now study humans for a great deal of time, and we'd always find an unbelievable amount of knowledge, and probably for an extended amount of time to go...
Very cool! (So we're going to burden future generations with petabytes of trivial blockchain history, forcing them to maintain them, index them, search them, from now til time end?)
Fortunately petabytes of history will be as trivial for future generations as kilobytes are now.
@@ingliss there are physical limits to storage densities (though, I believe we are still a fair number or orders of magnitude away)
@@drdca8263 640k is enough for anyone. But I for one rush to meet our destiny - caretakers of a Matrioshka brain devoted entirely to indexing cat pictures.
@@ingliss haha ( > ◡ < ) ! And yes, it may well be that petabytes will someday be regarded as small potatoes. I don’t know how far we are into the exponential-looking part of the sigmoid curve, so it may last a long while longer. But I am confident that eventually capacity size will stop increasing so fast, and so eventually some size will/would be large indefinitely (at least, in this life/in this-world-as-it-is. I hope that in the afterlife (or in a remaking of this world) there won’t be limits to the information capacity of people, as I think unlimited information capacity is a prerequisite for eternity to be subjectively meaningfully experienced.) .
I don’t know what the capacity of such a matrioshka brain will (or would) be (presumably very large), but I believe it will (or would) have a final max size.
But yes, if for the time being, while info capacities keep growing so fast, I figure holding on to these blockchains isn’t that big a deal.
However, I suspect that relatively soon (I.e. within a few decades) provided people keep using them at all, that if they manage to scale to more users, that there will be a setup by which people will store the info they care about, with no-one storing *everything* that has been done through the blockchain, such that eventually when some things are no longer cared about by anyone, no one will continue to store them. I feel this is needed for very-long-term scalability.
I think this can be done in a secure way.
@@drdca8263 see also; Sharding
Does anyone have the policy id(s) for these tokens?
Lindenmayer l-sytems is same is cellular automa theory.....but language is not same.recursive functions is key. Thue morse system...bit string physic is amazing.
Picture to rule set converter?
first one looks like ATLANTIS, second looks like a DRAGON, third looks like a ZEBRA MIGRATION...
Are NFTs the new tulip bulbs?
Lord Sainsbury. Difference Engine?
So in universal terms, who or what is doing the, "Oh shit what am I doing here? Oh wait I forgot a parentheses, duh." What would errors in the universal code or program be?
🎉block chain was used on rail networks mineral line so i assume that is used on crypto in maths a ledger basically oh pyramid thats intriguing design in under pinned problem was weight keeping the pillars upstanding like greek temple.. or one in i believe in china also stone temples intriguing
her strogan got me beefin til im off
His he making these NFTs and selling them?
Humans are traded as NFTs in some alien civilization.. explains abduction stories 😄
A lot of them look like South Indian temples to me
"Computational Irreducibility means the only way to find out if these are interesting is to run them... unless Stephen Wolfram says they won't look pretty""
That's completely true and you earned -1
They all look like a protractor
Gee, can we get on to something meaningful?
2 years after the NFT craze fell out of the market and I am still not changing my original thumb-down of this video.
Disney Dollar a none fungal token?
🥴
I wonder why Stephen gets involved in so many things. I suppose it has to do with habits formed having created an encyclopedic project. I've heard him doing depth interviews, for example. He's very good at it. It seems to me, however, that we live in a time when building a real AGI is possible. If Stephen can facilitate getting that built, can't it then do all these other projects? It just seems like common sense time management. Set philosophy aside for the moment, and put on your engineering cap.
I would imagine that he gets involved in many things because he is interested in many things.
Ah ah ah am am am ah ah am ah am, unbearable to hear
I've been listening to this guiy for the past 5 minutes while I've been playing a game and everything he says has been a load of meaningless dribble!!
Presentation needs to be made more interesting . I have no idea what this subject is so I tried to get into the vid . Few minutes in from the start and watching a bit of the illustrations later in the video : Hell no . I still have no clue what this subject is about but I have the strong feeling the presentation is so obscure and unattractive that i ll never know it.
Wow his credibility has really declined in my eyes due to this video.
It's strange. He doesn't know how to pronounce 'shown'.
Universe is not computational. It’s algorithmic. All matter follows algorithm and moves with constant momentary speed - speed of light. And I can show algorithm of that movement (not of interaction)
What is the difference?
What you described sounds like a computational universe
@@nlysts the difference is that it works, explains universe and gives predictions. The difference is that each particle becomes robot, not state of coordinate. Word consists of simple cubes, not some hypergraph. And matter moves from one cube to another each discrete moment of time.
@@matterasmachine something involving cubes on a lattice is still computational. Computational doesn’t mean “involving a hypergraph”.
You should consider taking the outside view regarding your understanding.
@@drdca8263 They do not compute anything. They just live their discrete lives and execute their algorithm. Each of them can be considered separate universe as universe is what the do. It's not cellular automata. Anyway. Is choosing between definition - the only thing that bothers you???