Computation and the Fundamental Theory of Physics - with Stephen Wolfram
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 9 дек 2020
- Stephen Wolfram discusses his efforts to use what he's learned from exploring computational systems to build a new fundamental theory of all of physics.
Watch the Q&A: • Q&A: Computation and t...
Stephen Wolfram is the creator of Mathematica, Wolfram|Alpha and the Wolfram Language; the author of A New Kind of Science; the originator of the Wolfram Physics Project; and the founder and CEO of Wolfram Research. Over the course of more than four decades, he has been a pioneer in the development and application of computational thinking-and has been responsible for many discoveries, inventions and innovations in science, technology and business.
This talk and Q&A was recorded by the Royal Institution on 3 November 2020.
---
A very special thank you to our Patreon supporters who help make these videos happen, especially:
János Fekete, Mehdi Razavi, Mark Barden, Taylor Hornby, Rasiel Suarez, Stephan Giersche, William Billy Robillard, Scott Edwardsen, Jeffrey Schweitzer, Gou Ranon, Christina Baum, Frances Dunne, jonas.app , Tim Karr, Adam Leos, Michelle J. Zamarron, Andrew Downing, Fairleigh McGill, Alan Latteri, David Crowner, Matt Townsend, Anonymous , Andrew McGhee, Roger Shaw, Robert Reinecke, Paul Brown, Lasse T. Stendan, David Schick, Joe Godenzi, Dave Ostler, Osian Gwyn Williams, David Lindo, Roger Baker, Greg Nagel, and Rebecca Pan.
---
The Ri is on Patreon: / theroyalinstitution
and Twitter: / ri_science
and Facebook: / royalinstitution
and Tumblr: / ri-science
Our editorial policy: www.rigb.org/home/editorial-po...
Subscribe for the latest science videos: bit.ly/RiNewsletter
Product links on this page are Amazon affiliate links which means it won't cost you any extra but we may earn a small commission if you decide to purchase through the link. 
Наука
I am a 73-yr-old scientist. In my opinion, this is one of THE most important single lectures ever given. It entirely changes our understanding of everything.
Well, your physics intuition is clearly lacking here. I hope it was better in the past.
😂He's theory is more philosophical than scientific,last time I checked he pays huge sums of money to explain his nonsensical philosophy/pseudoscience to mostly non-savvy individuals who've never done REAL SCIENCE. And he's theory isn't his own, he steals ideas from other academics and claims them as his own,he has a 100 plus team of academics working on building the mathematical foundation of his pseudoscience,meaning he doesn't have the intellect to develop his own theory on his own. All in all he's a quak
@@schmetterling4477 so you don't think Stephen's work is significant?
@@dylanpaul7371 His work on mathematical software is enormously significant (and it has made him very rich). His ideas about physics are pure garbage.
@@schmetterling4477 What are some his garbage ideas
This channel is an absolute treasure for all on RUclips. Thank you for sharing your expertise.
Eloquently put. For those aspiring musicians: signals music studio ... Jake changed my life
Stephen Wolfram your talk becomes richer with repeat listening, there’s such an abundance of significant ideas. Thank you. Please record more so future generations may study, unpack, and act upon these amazing concepts.
On his website he has archived 400+hours of videos , documents since the 90's and software tools for free it's open sourced.
He's also the guy who writes our high school math books too i think lol!
Probably the ultimate joke of the universe would be if the seed for intial condition of computational model is indeed 42.
@steveg buh dump tssssss
54, actually
And if 42 is the answer, that makes the universe itself the question? Should be careful with this line of thought, we might make the universe instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable.
the seed is love. we need to transcend the pragmatic science.
It must be. Because, God created the universe in 6 days. And 42/7 = 6.
This is just incredibly amazing. How can it be possible to tie 20th century physics findings into a computational theory of the universe that appears mindblowingly sensible and make it conceptually roughly understandable in one hour? And all of these findings in such a short time... Though I am far from qualified to opine here, I can't help but feel that this is revolutionary work. Thank you a lot for the great talk!
The Flat Earthers should be sent to camps where they play this difficult to understand
so that the basics are accepted. The FErs'' clocks, wristwatches, digital time-keepers, etc. should be replaced with various types of sun-dials until they figure out the distinction between philosophy and geometry (earth measurement).
Dude. You should either learn to speak, type, write clearly or proofread.
I think it makes the most sense. Much more than string theory. String theorists seem to be going the same route as ancient philosophers, theorizing about elements corresponding to geometrical shapes. It's a nice theory and great mental exercise, but in general it seems as far from reality as geometrical elements are from the modern scientific method.
@@hisslamb5378 In my opinion most flat earthers are not legitimate, they hold their opinion because they enjoy frustrating and antagonizing logical people. They also enjoy attention. They know the Earth cannot be flat, because it is hollow.
@@jimsteen911 nothing wrong with his grammar. Very clear, precise and laconic
I can now go back and listen to you and Lex talk about computational irreducibility with a visual model in my mind! Thoroughly enjoyed!
Same here. When I first listened to Stephen w Lex I was definitely confused... it makes much more sense now. Happy new year!
@@nativealien1859 You are right! With the slides in mind, its much easier to follow. Although Lex isn't at his best in that one :-/
same feeling here
My eldest brother was also one of the pioneers who used computation to solve a physics problem. For his PhD thesis as one of John Wheeler's students at Princeton, he simulated what happens according to General Relativity in the simplest possible collision of two black holes: two identical, nonrotating black holes having a direct collision. (Spoiler alert: they form one larger black hole and emit a lot of gravitational radiation.) This was before the age of personal computers, and he used a timeshared IBM mainframe computer and punchcards.
Oh! Punch cards, lol
I had just given my notice to resign from my first job as a bank officer back in the day when to be the head Teller in a branch entailed a small subset of just about every other function thr bank performed, not just immediate financial transactions and the flow of cash. For that reason the Bank as a rule would pay you out the 2weeks notice to which by law you were entitled. Because I was leaving on personal grounds I wont go into they showed me just how much trust they had in me that they told me of their plan to put the branch "on-line" and that they would be extremely grateful if I would consent to staying on a few months to travel to our head office in Sydney and do a course to learn basic programing and data processing involving creating punchcards from the transcription of ALL the information inherent in EVERY account held at a given date & then how to read daily printouts from all the data processed the night before at close of the day. You can imagine what an honour that was to a shy 21year old who never really thought much past his daily labours. The amount of "damage" a disgruntled employee could do in a single day was enormous from manipulating account balances, flat out stealing of cash, travellers cheques, whole books of blank Bank Cheques etc., or just throwing away transaction receipts, deposit slips, recurring debts, manipulating loan transactions etc. mail and correspondence in general - a lot which would not be known for sometimes months. A shy 21yr old suddenly had 'the most important job in the branch' for those 3 or 4 months - it was equal measure flattering as highly embarrassing. They asked if I would pop in once in a while (every week for ages, lol) just to refresh things for the Golden oldies who got things done but were still uncertain as to how to think of the 'changes' as reflecting the procedures they remembered with fondness, lol
In retrospect I should never have left - it does not compute! Go figure, Lol
Epilogue: Alcoholic father, vulnerable mother and only one son still at home. Enough said? Sad..
I appreciate you candidly emoting
your journey and the contributions to a field of endeavour that now promises such advancements that quite frankly people my age (65) envisioned 5 decades ago 👍
Though in a pandemic yet it is a wonderful time to be alive! I hope that many young people can follow your passion and make bold work with this new tool.
Thankyou profusely👍❤👌
@@richardearnshaw2719 : I don't understand why you attributed "candid emotion" or "passion" to my comment recalling my brother's early 1970s computer simulation of two black holes (and the spacetime in their vicinity). It makes me wonder whether your reply's final paragraph was canned, like a boilerplate automatic signature.
My own first experience with computer punch cards was about 10 years before yours and about 5 years before my brother's. I was a young boy, and my dad paid me $1/hour to program (punch) the statistical analysis he needed to complete his PhD dissertation about the effectiveness of welfare benefits programs.
But this anecdote and yours are off topic... unrelated to the use of simulation (also called "numerical" methods) as a tool for theoretical physicists faced with equations too complicated to solve analytically.
She tried flexing and you flexed harder! 🤣
I've watched several versions of this explanation now and it becomes more convincing each time (as a layman)
I'm also convinced that rules 257 and above are responsible for Stephens shirts. But we have to go through the whole process of generating them to find out what he'll wear next: there are no shortcuts.
The thing is, everybody thinks their model of the universe, is the right one. There is a point at which the physicist thinks their model is the universe, but to everyone else, it just looks like another model.
@@tensevo - It may well turn out to be what Quantum Theory is all about -
getting the 2D Flat Earthers with the 3Ders (you and me) into the block-chain of 4D (quanta),
with 5D to follow at an order of magnitude speed for us 666 (Carbon) Hydroids.
Someone: "Is there free will?"
Me: "Computationally irreducible."
So fascinating . One idea is to create new words , another way is to teach numbers to toddlers in a different way than we do now . I love this man's mind .
55:42 "When there is energy present, there are causal edges; when there are causal edges present, there is a deflection in geodesics and that deflection in geodesics is precisely the deflection that's associated with the force of gravity."
Makes sense to me. Turtles all the way down. Reminds me of cycloidal change. :o)
With Wolfram's definition, computational reducibility (generating function) and energy seem related to me. Though I wonder if a causal edge is a point at Infinity (limit) rather than a termination (no useful energy v. no energy). I don't know why we assume halted is fundamental, other than when we conceive ourselves the center of it all. Physics seems to explain nonhalting is fundamental. Maybe it's also that our mechanical computations require energy whereas the Universe as a computation doesn't have an off switch.
@sprock there's a maximalism in my thinking there, true. Peaks or troughs, troughs or peaks? When I try to clearly separate halted from non-halting, it gets too slippery to handle.
I'm really into the idea of "taxonomy" these days because it recognizes concepts like space & time are artifices on top of Nature to help us understand phenomena from our relative conscious experiences.
That said, I think there's a maximalism about prime numbers only expressible with the halted element of primality. Prime numbers are the only numbers that can have primality, but they can be conveyed as non-halting too.
Regarding continuous-discrete, tiling is a powerful art because it explores the intersection between the two. See, Penrose's work and my work [here on RUclips] for examples.
Thank you for letting me be able to watch this. This is a treasure I can't describe in words.
I wouldn't wonder, if in the future, this turns out to have been one of the most important talks in human history.
@@harriehausenman8623 it really feels like that while im listening to it
It's nothing but overhyped nonsense.
@@Kalumbatsch its a REASONING !
@@Kalumbatsch 😂 you'd whish you could do the "nonsense" that Dr. Wolfram does.
Thankyou Ri and Mr Wolfram for updating my spatial graph on what is essentially the initial branch and evolution of physics as we know it.
A Nobel prize is due for Stephen Wolfram, if only an experiment can proove this unification of Quantum Gravity.
I think this man just computationally derived "Different strokes for different folks."...
Excellent talk.
Absolutely amazing, and exciting.
Thanks Stephen and the Wolfram Team 👏👏
There are a lot of strategies to make tongue-wetting profit that the average joes don't know. . Personally, the financial-market for me seems the only way forward with my long time horizon (accrued roughly $457k in gains since Mid 2021 ) but if you don’t have that fortune of time it’s a tough market out there almost nowhere feels safe!
If you’ve got patience I believe it’s a great time to invest… I’m no expert but as Warren buffet said he’s seen this happen a number of times throughout his life
@@BrunoLuke I've known I had wanted to start investing for a few months but just haven't been brave enough to start due to the market so far this year. I have $60k I want to transfer into an S&S ISA but it's hard to bite the bullet and do it. $457 is a huge milestone, Please what's your strategy? I will love to have an insight
@@MarcelPhilips I began with a fiduciary portfolio advisor by the name MARTHA ALONSO HARA. She’s verifiable and her works ethics is in accordance with the US investment act of 1940. Her approach is transparent allowing total ownership and control over my portfolio with fees very reasonable in comparison with my investment-income. Also, She covers things like investment insurance, making sure retirement is well funded, Go over tax advantages , ways to have a volatility buffer for investment risk. many things like that.
@@BrunoLuke Word of the day: fiduciary. do not talk to anyone who is not a fiduciary to you, who explains everything.
@@MarcelPhilips MARTHA ALONSO HARA really seems to know her stuff. I looked her up on the web using her full name and found her page, read through her resume, educational background, and qualifications and it was really impressive. She is a fiduciary who will act in my best interest. So, I'll book a session with her
Wonderful! As a young father with zero money I nevertheless got drawn to book stores because it was like a home for my mind. I found Wolfram's huge book hot off the press and could neither purchase it nor seriously comprehend it, but I was entranced, returning to it alone in its place in the tiny 'Science' section of Barnes and Noble as if to a secret deposit of alien tech. I followed the website in retirement, but never thought to look for a presentation like this. Wonder-ful.
What an elegant way to present things, super interesting. Thanks again RI!
Rarely have I ever listened to anything related to physics that made more sense than this. Also still confirms my thinking that free will is an illusion.
It’s incredible that he was able to derive general relativity AND the path integral formulation using these models. The ingredients of a new Theory of Everything...
Sincerely, Thank You For Creating This Exhibition Of Computational Physics. In My Opinion, The Multidimensional Computation Model That You Have Displayed Here Is Phenomenal.
@Stephen_Wolfram: This is the most complete and coherent explanation you've given so far. I would like to help explain it a little more clearly, by taking this talk, pulling out the key concepts, and stating them in operational language. Doing so would unite your work on computational physics, Joscha Bach's work on computational intelligence, and my work on computational behavioral science( and testimonial truth in law regarding all of the above), which together would provide explanatory power for the entire suite of formal, physical, behavioral, and evolutionary sciences with a single consistent and coherent model.
TOPICS
Goal:
Less concerned with application to physics but with the general implications of and application of "Wolfram's Computational Revolution."
CONTEXT
Language as measurement, and measurement of commensurability, and commensurability at human scale
Reason vs Calculation (transformation) vs Mathematics (top-down deduction) vs Computation (bottom up construction)
What is the difference between a mental model, a mathematical description, and an operational(calculated) construction?
The limits mathematics (upper and lower) vs computation (address human scale, limits of human mathematical ability)
What was and why did the Combinatoric Revolution Dissipate?
What was his original idea and what did we learn from Mandelbrot?
SET UP WCR'S BROADER CONTEXTUAL SUCCESS
Interject: What if anything is wrong with mathematics?
Interject: What's wrong with Statistics? (completeness)
Interject: Physics: the success of GR and QM, but the Problem of Cantor and Bohr. (Reversing Descartes)
Interject: The Failure of the Philosophical Project (analytic)
Interject: Why did Economics Fail? (balance sheet)
CORE
Explain Dimension (measurement, or cause, vs existence) Does space have three plus one dimensions or do we measure space with three plus one dimension?
Explain Decidability and Undecidability (mathematics, limits, arbitrary precision, scale independence (choice) vs computational invariance and decidability)
Explain Universal Computation (arbitrary rules of computation, computation as operations, math expressed in operations (computation) vs language (sets))
Explain Computational(operational) Unpredictability
Explain Computational Reduction, Reducibility
Explain Computational(operational) Irreducibility
Explain The Principle of Computational Equivalence (generalization, universalization, resulting in indifference, limits)
Explain Causal Invariance ( lots of unexpected explanatory power in this conclusion )
Explain how we can identify a successful branch or branches
Explain whether some branches are 'false' and if so, how we can experimentally or logically Prune Branches from Graphs.
What is the 'field' of mathematical expressions vs 'field' of computational expression? What is the generalization we learn from this?
Explain how we would state a theory in computational rules? (the rule set AND the subset of the result sets)
Do you have wild guess about (a) how far you are from finding the elementary rule? (b) how long it will take for the physics and mathematics (and then subsequent fields) to adopt and adapt to thise new model?
How does this affect the allocation of funds for scientific research in physics? (justifies funding experiments to verify, falsify)
CONSEQUENCE
Explain emergent phenomenon (everything that can be calculated will be) What does this mean for the universe?
What does this say about Goedel? Language? (talk about grammar and what grammar and logic mean)
What does this say about evolutionary possibility? (maybe: costs vs costless, math(instant) vs operations(time), philosophy and cost, economics and failure of full accounting)
General Meaning for all of Science (predictability) vs Calculability (explanatory power) isn't that adversarialism? Adversarialism vs Falsificationism. (Tie back to failed operationalist revolution: Babbage revolution > operational (intuitionistic) revolution > combinatoric revolution failures. Why? (cost) )
EXTRAS IF POSSIBLE:
Have you discovered or considered a frame of the adversarial competition in the universe that leads to equilibrial states.
What would bayesian accounting add, as we've seen in proteins - which is the hard problem. Why did biologists use permutation but physicists not? (human scale problem again). what does this say about the current research in physics?
Would you expect vocabulary (references), grammar (of continuous recursive disambiguation), and logic of equilibrial states (abstractions) - particles, atoms, molecules, organic molecules etc - to emerge? (of course) Is there any limit to this vocabulary?
Is there any implication that how far you are from discovering a set of equilibrial states below our existing particles? (admitting that particles are just waves)
Why did you choose vectors as rules rather than geometries? How did geometries emerge? Why did Triangles emerge? (equilibria) (Why triangles in human spatial computation.)
Is your claim that there are an endless number of languages of computational expression? (why not parsimony of positional names. Body form and sense as standard of measure)
How much of the challenge of teaching mathematics is a failure of reducing it to computational realism and a 'periodic table' of dimensions vs techniques?
R is challenging. Wolfram language is enormous. what is the relationship between today's AI (bayesian categorization), algorithmic choice, wolfram Language, and databases? Are we passing human scale in mathematics (logics)? Is that the whole problem of the 19th 20th? (I think so).
NOTES
Note 1: IMO Babbage's failure to convert from physical experimentation to theoretical expression and subsequent exposition of applications of the theory cost mankind at least a century, delayed the Einsteinian and quantum revolutions, and gave permission to 'mathiness' (pseudomathematics and pseudoscience) in philosophy, law, economics, social science, psychology, and very nearly brought about a dark age in present academia because of it. In other words, while you see your work solving the problem of the foundations of physics, it's more that our generation is compensating for one of the great intellectual failures in history with one of the most dangerous consequences in history - at least as dangerous as the Christian destruction of Greek and Roman arts, knowledge, law, and administration. My experience is that we are compensating for and correcting a vast wave of pseudoscience outside of applied science in branches of technology, in a desperate race to reverse the momentum of the 'pseudoscientific' revolution. So my analysis is that your work is more important outside the field than is obvious.
Note 2: Following Hayek and Popper, and less so Brouwer and Bridgman, I saw the problem in economics and law that you saw in mathematics and physics, and that the solution was computational (better labeled perhaps, as operational). The difference is, that while you can reform mathematical platonism into mathematical and computational realism (thank you), and reform physics with it into operational realism (thank you), with mathematicians resisting your reform, physicists largely appreciative, and the general public will lionize you. And while the Joscha Bach's of the world can reform cognitive science into operational realism, with philosophers and theologians in opposition. My attempt to reform psychology and sociology, economics and politics, ethics and law will be (has been) met with pitchforks and scythes. Truth is only as valuable as it empowers us with new discounts and opportunities. All attempts in history to suppress desirable and profitable deceits is met with vehement resistance. Socrates Aristotle, Galileo and Darwin and all those between them. ;)
-Cheers
This was wonderful. I have been waiting for this level of communication to describe advanced discoveries all year. Thank you for sharing this information at a level that is understandable by someone who doesn't work in physics.
I expect the ideas that come about from the sharing of these discoveries is going to be mind blowing.
Thank you, Royal Institute, for making these talks available!
Why didn't you read the book 6 months ago? ;)
@@Baerchenization 😁 because I wasn't aware of the book. I will look it up. Thank you!
Unless you're making a time travel joke, in which case I'm just not that good yet. 😆
Brilliant. Iv had many parallel thoughts about space as a graph. Never imagined this picture could be so refined as to reproduce qm and gr. I'm blown away. Wolfram preceded all the researches working in this direction nowadays. So inspiring
Wait this can't be a Royal Institution Covid-19 Virtual Video, the sound is... GOOD so far... Scandal I tell you scandal! :-)
But is it? Is it really?🤭
😢
@@TheRoyalInstitution dont worry, we love your videos, especially professor szydlo!
@@TheRoyalInstitution Noooo don't cry lol. I kid I kid =) although one thing I hope this pandemic will result in is a revolution in Microphone technology that makes it's way to more affordable consumer goods. :-)
@@TheRoyalInstitution we love you we promise!
I saw this a while back (The Ted Talk) and thought it wasn't exactly new or spectacular, so i waved it off as just another video. But after recently coming to an understanding about complexity theory, i went and read his paper on this subject, and at this point i firmly believe that this truly is the theory of everything. I think Wolfram didn't explain this as elegant as he did in his paper, which is maybe why it brushed it off all those years ago.
He shows from start to finish, how using a simple ruleset, ends up creating the structure of space, time...and all the equations seen in physics, and how these things are essentially emergent properties of this one ruleset. He then goes on to explain that the universe is essentially not limited to just one rule but to rulial space (the space of rulesets) that means you can really get any and all equations with sets of a different rule.
The main thing to take away from this theory is that there is a single and very simple fundamental rule, that is just being computed over and over again from the start of the universe to now, and that we are here, for no other reason then being one of the results of this computation.
Thank you so much for articulating this!
Really exciting stuff Prof. Wolfram. I'll be watching your career with great excitement.
But seriously, this could be something big. If nothing else, this way of thinking is so refreshing and different.
This is a brilliant talk and so enlightening. I think many cellular processes that emerge as complex events and are interconnected webs are likely based on very simple rules. As biologists it’s hard for us to ‘work backwards’ to find the more simple input but we are slowly chipping away.
Watched this second time now and wont be the last. Please do another lecture, Stephen!
Thanks for the video, Stephen and The Royal Institution.
I appreciate Stephen Wolfram's contribution to computational mathematics. I'm an engineer and have used Mathematica for engineering work. But I don't really fully understand his latest project. I get the idea of finding simple rules that when combined lead to the complexity found in nature. But I really don't understand the how he has in mind to identify the simple rules underlying the known behaviors of nature and how one proceeds from there to discover new physics.
By brute-forcing it :-)
..just kiddin', of course.
As you say, the simple rules are already there. The fact that we're unable to identify such rules has nothing to do with a supposed complexity. He's just stating the obvious: There should be a simple set of rules, that, when combined, produce complex systems.. well, that's how the universe works, we already knew that. The question is, as you put it, how, and he can't give any answer to that question, just like everybody else. Although his pixel art is kinda cute and a huge appeal to the masses, it means nothing we didn't know already.
You put a limit on how those rules COULD interact, and then just iterate over all possible combinations of them and accept only those, which realisations leads to phenomenon known in our physics/universe. As he told, he found many sets of rules which replicate some of our physics, but he hasn't found (yet) a set of rules which replicate all our physics/universe.
Absolutely brilliant lecture. Stephen Wolfdram is a genius.
Stephen Wolfram thinks he's a genius, that much is true.
@Wolfram. Great to see you on here! Congratulations! Looking forward to catching up on the project soon. The simplicity and elegance of your approach is imho unassailable.
Computation irreducibility is the truth of having to pass through all space between here and there. No worm holes ?
So interesting that there might be a way of taking all of the particle qualities and all the interactions that we see and use to derive reality Add energy via photon. Nullify charge using electron....oh but we need to bind that charge to each axis so we also need the 3spin components of a neutrino as well. This photon we will separate into charge components and make e+ e- A QM model in fact is particularly well suited for such.
Have you been able to apply your work on Casimir forces on quantum scale to volumes described in the hyper graphs?
We really want to become a neutron, and we have an electron right here but that antineutrino is late!
computation needs a new name - this is a way of thinking that may lead to ? very happy to see this!
I love that this allows for unification of language between several fields, we can surely only be closer to reality's way of speaking by letting the language itself evolve.
Unbeleivably densely packed with brilliant insights into the essential nature of our universe. I need to watch this several more times to absorb its valuable contect. My infinite thanks for sharing these insights.
Reality is what we believe it to be. Nice concept right here. In one of the universes, a Stephen Wolfram biography is being written and it's called "The Man Who Lived in Wolfram Universe".
incredible discoveries…wolfram simultaneously creating an incredible framework & me stumbling into a portion of the multi-graph where wolfram explains it in a 1-hr video - the website on this topic is excellent as well
“We cannot conciliate Einstein’s large scale with Feynman’s quantum realm...”
Wolfram: “Hold my brachial space...!”
What does that mean what does it even mean help me
@@wademccuistion2170 things go brrrr
@@wademccuistion2170 Sure thing. So there is a lot of things you can do in math that look like different operations, or you get to the same same answer in the end. That is kind of like the thing that is happening. How we see the world and "what is going on the quantum" level is the exact same program seen in a different perspective.
He said "branchial space" from the branches in the graph.
Thanks Dr. Wolfram. This is really inspiring and eye-opening.
Something about Wolfram's talks bothers me in that I am never any wiser after listening for ages!
Stephen Wolfram is brilliant, enjoy your platform!
Thank you RI!
Remarkable. Thank you for the extraordinary work of Stephen Wolfram , and the team who have worked on this theory. I hope to learn it in details.
The idea of "pockets of computational reducibility" is a line of hope for continuation of interesting research and applications..
On a side note, I think there is a remarkable resemblance of this theory with the core abstract teachings of Buddhism. Causality Hyper graph of this kind is tabulated in the Pali Cannon, Abhidhamma Pitaka, patthana prakaranaya; which could be an example instruction set 1:17:30 one can refer to. I hope somebody would express it programmatically, so that it can be analysed further with today's tools of graph theory.
I see two paths from here:
A) Searching for hypergraph rewrite rule that yields features of our universe (as early as possible in its execution, so as to be a practical physics model).
B) Search for path from nothing to something: how the simplest possible rewrite rule that produces universal computer, could have arisen from nothing?
If all universal computers are computationally equivalent, philosophically, I'm more interested in "B", but pragmatically, also interested in "A".
It's a privilege to listen to Stephen Wolfram, obviously! But the the real hero of this "talk" was that programming language he created !!
It just boggles my mind how seamlessly it encodes natural language into assembly.
@@ericlaska4748 AFAIK (and please correct me), it didn't solve the Traveling Salesman problem. Instead, it relied on a stock algorithm that provides a "good enough" result.
It's a bit like how bees work: they face the Traveling Salesman every day, and they're very efficient. But they haven't solved it... instead they rely on a simple algorithm to get a "good enough" harvest.
Cheers.
Thank you Stephen and RI. Great talk!
Thanks Dr. Wolfram! Such a treat to hear you talk about your research.
Good for you Stephen. A whole new framework for the old framework :)
Ok i watched the whole thing.
The following make sense to me
1. Space is all that exist
2. Time is the computational irreducibility of the transition of space from one state to another state
3. Then everything emerges from it
So, i think this theory is good in building intuition or making sense of QM and Relativity. It's a kind of interpretation.
But I still want to learn more. Like how it would predict things. I know this theory says we cannot do shortcuts. Everything happens step by step, but I desperately need the answer to dark matter and dark energy. And also how mass, inertia, momentum, electromagnetism, etc, emerge from it. Running it for a huge number of steps is quite impractical. Unfortunately for me, the application of Physics in technology is what makes it useful. If computational irreducibility doesn't allow that, then i think we are still stuck
Unfortunately nature doesn't agree with either you or Wolfram. ;-)
The whole point about why knowing the answer is 42 isn't satisfying is that we have yet to figure out what the exact question of life, the universe and everything is. And somehow, I don't think computation will help, as computation gave us the answer without recording the question.
Very great idea! Worth pushing forward! Would be wonderful to be stimulated by a Nobel prize for Mr. Wolfram.
Hypergraphs are mathematical structures that generalize traditional graphs by allowing hyperedges to connect multiple nodes. While hypergraphs offer a broader representation of relationships, they also introduce complexity and challenges that can make them less suitable as a theory of everything in the context of physics or any fundamental theory.
Here are some challenges and problems associated with using hypergraphs as a theory of everything:
Complexity: Hypergraphs can become very complex as the number of nodes and hyperedges increases. This complexity can make it challenging to develop clear and concise mathematical models, and it can also make calculations and predictions more difficult.
Lack of Unification: The fundamental goal of a theory of everything is to provide a unified framework that explains all physical phenomena, from the microscopic to the cosmic scales. Hypergraphs may not inherently provide a unified approach to explaining diverse physical phenomena, and reconciling different fundamental forces and particles within a hypergraph-based framework could be nontrivial.
Consistency with Observations: Any theory of everything must be consistent with well-established experimental observations and empirical evidence. Constructing hypergraphs that accurately model all known physical phenomena and predicting new phenomena is a significant challenge.
Quantum Mechanics and Relativity: A successful theory of everything needs to encompass both quantum mechanics and general relativity. Integrating these two fundamental theories within a hypergraph-based framework would require addressing the discrepancies and challenges that arise at the intersection of these fields.
Mathematical Formalism: While hypergraphs provide a flexible mathematical formalism, it may not naturally capture the mathematical structures and relationships that have proven successful in describing physical phenomena in existing theories like quantum field theory and general relativity.
Predictive Power: A theory of everything should be able to make accurate predictions that can be tested experimentally. Developing predictive models based on hypergraphs would require identifying the relevant physical laws and constants and deriving the necessary equations.
Emergent Properties and Complexity: Many physical phenomena, especially in complex systems, exhibit emergent properties that are difficult to capture using simple mathematical models. Hypergraphs might struggle to represent emergent behaviors effectively.
Consistency with Existing Theories: Any new theory of everything must also be consistent with the predictions and successes of existing theories in relevant domains.
While hypergraphs have their applications in various fields, including complex systems and network analysis, their suitability as a theory of everything in physics requires addressing these challenges. The pursuit of a theory of everything remains an active area of research, and multiple approaches are being explored, including string theory, loop quantum gravity, and other quantum gravity theories.
Relativity encompasses both quantum mechanics and general relativity. Galileo came up with it in 1630, latest but there are statements of other scientists like Copernicus that indicate that the concept was already know much earlier.
Let’s plug in Navier-Stokes equation as the rewrite rule for the hypergraph...
If only we knew the initial state (and a couple more pockets of reducibility)
Reception
While Stephen Wolfram claims the project has been a success with scientists and others engaging with the project through the livestreamed content,[14] other prominent physicists have leveled criticism at the project.[12][15]
Criticisms of the project center around the apparent non-quantitative aspect of the theory, with noted quantum computing scientist Scott Aaronson stating: "It's this sort of infinitely flexible philosophy where, regardless of what anyone said was true about physics, they could then assert, 'Oh, yeah, you could graft something like that onto our model'".[15]
Wolfram's decision not to seek traditional peer-review was also a point of contention in the physics community.[12][15] Physicist Sean Carroll commented that "it would be more effective to write short papers addressing specific problems with this kind of approach rather than proclaiming a breakthrough without much vetting."[15]
No worries. Academia always takes a couple of decades to get it. :-)
Yeah, especially when the creator is uncollaborative.
I still would’ve loved seeing the speakers in the auditorium, even without the public.
hah me too
can you imagine if covid didn't happen and this talk got given to the public? the audience would have gone completely WILD
I believe Stephen Wolfram lives on the US East coast, so understandably would be reluctant to travel at the moment.
Legend. Not just 42. I wonder if Stephen had seen Logopolis and the concept of Block Transfer Computation (somewhat philosophical). A year after the great Douglas Adams left the show. I would be curious to see how, for instance, the Young Twin-Split experiment could be modelled in this. Latest version of your software amazing. Many Thanks.
Wow. I bet it takes just nearly as long to arrive as practical fusion power. We'll be needing it kinda soon, I think. Great stuff.
This channel is great. I really appreciate it.
PLEASE create a parallel channel on Rumble.
RUclips can no longer be trusted due to their censorship.
Also consider LBRY
Blockchains resist censorship
Agreed 100%
@@Psnym Odysee FTW!
Wolfram was a brilliant scientist who was expected to win the Nobel Prize in Physics as a young man. And now he's making new physics like Heisenberg, and he's still respected to win Nobel Prize and still young! I want you to live to be over 100 years old. The longer you live, the sooner we can get closer to the truth.
Don't hold your breath. ;-)
Admirable! I follow Eastern teachings, and my teacher says he is more of a program than a person.
every time I listen to a Wolfram talk, my life is changed :P
Yes, you lost time during which you could have done something useful... like eating a hot dog. ;-)
Stephen Wolfram is a blessing I bet the world will never fully get to appreciate for decades
He deserves all our love, just for Mathematica (Wolfram Language) and admitting that he never was good at mechanical calculations.
God bless Wolfram.
This was a wild ride. Had to hold on to my chair for dear life for half of the talk. Not sure if genius or crackpot though.
Is there truly a difference?
A bit of both I think.
There are people out there whose outlandish theories I can readily dismiss as unprovable speculation or mere crackpottery... Wolfram is one of two people alive whom I will happily follow over any intellectual cliff just to see where their ideas are leading... If there's a new physics out there waiting to be discovered, his models seem ripe for providing insights into it. Even if he's eventually proven wrong, you know it's going to be an interesting ride getting there.
(Roger Penrose is the other one btw).
Cool... I once glinced at what Wolfram performed a lecture about "Automata and fractal".
There is an Wolfram's Physics!
I have my own theory about this cosmos.
I think cosmos is one, and there's nothing that can escape this cosmos to outside.
Then every creatures input their power or force to Cosmos, and Cosmos which is an environment as to the creature or an individual or a subset forces feedback to the creature.
And it reminds me of "Mandelbrot's Set".
And its formula of the set; f(x)=z²+c; is quite similar to the formula "E=mc² + E_kinetic".
And recently I learned "Bohmian Physics
= Pilot wave theory
= Bohm's quantum physics".
Based on the video that shows the below;
one bouncing waterdrop inputs its bouncing force to the surface of a waterpool that is covered by very little silicon-oil,
and the waterpool is fluctuating, which means it waves, and the wave force back again to the waterdrop.
I think quantum tunneling is possible when the force from the waterpool to the waterdrop accumulates enough for the waterdrop to jump over the system's wall.
I think,
One closed system has a rule of FEEDBACK; because an object and its environment is not separate, actually is a whole one; which can be formulated by "Mandelbrot's set" and "E_static = mc² + E_kinetic"
I'm also interested in Self-replication and Automata from John Von Neumann, Wolfram, and Conway.
This has been the most excellent concept and presentation. I do believe this line of reasoning represents the future of physics progress.
@Nomay I am pleased to see others are also looking for a new path of progress for physics. See...God is a mathematician!
I follow your idea. Thankyou.
Very refreshing as to how matter-of-factly Stephen Wolfram states things. Having had used Mathematica for numerous projects in the past, I'm delighted to see it recent successes. Would love to see more on the relationships among energy, entropy, and information in scalar and non-scalar form.
Cool talk , Thanlypu RI, and Dr Stephen Wolfram. So as eloquently described, QED and General Relativity are the same theories applied at quantum and Cosmic scales respectively in rhe Ruliad.
To his point at the very end re: "[...] the world beginning to think more and more of the world in computational terms, thinking about programs as descriptions of things..." I immediately think of DAOs (Decentralized Autonomous Organizations) their governance smart contracts and smart contracts in general:
Reading the organization's formal statements and listening to the interested parties holds not a candle to actually examining the smart contract which is the nucleus and seed that describes what can and cannot be done (if you're prone to counterfactuals a la Constructor Theory) and the relm of requisite Blockchain computations which will give rise to the tangible/intangible organizational assets i.e. transactions, members, treasury, authority etc.
Brilliant, Lucid, great scope.
Such an stimulating way to start the week ✨
Is a particular configuration of a hypergraph a horizontal section through the causal graph?
Sounds fantastic. I don't understand how the understanding of Physics in the same universe could be different from one entity to the next?? Surely, in the end, it's the same physics?
There are 256 possible rules in the computational universe of cellular automata. What causes the limit to be 256 rules? Have you created cellular automata with rules that would show the progression/behavior of three dimensional blocks which start at the axis of a plane with x and y and a and b axis and allow for a 3d rendering a la the style of autocad such that one could spin the rendered output and zoom in/out with the blocks progressing from clear to opaque and back again as one zooms in and out and changes the point of perspective?
16:09 What about MIP*=RE showing that quantum systems can solve problems other than those which can be solved by a classical computation? How does that fit in? Brilliant talk, and great work.
"Simply" outstanding. A breath of fresh air.
So, has this approach yielded a useful result at all? For example, can it calculate an orbit? Can we see an example of it?
No, it hasn't. It's just an art project.
Eye-opening stuff, thanks :)
Agreed. Very interesting and inspires thought and consideration. How would rotation occur in the updating process? None of the flow charts of updating even hint at rotation.
I am deeply nostalgic for being in my classes a year ago. I miss office hours.
I tried a few years ago to read "A New Kind of Science" and did not understand it. I have been to the Wolfram Alpha web site for some unfulfilled queries. Now, in under 2 hours, I have had its author explain its main tennets. Have you thought of writing "A Summarised New Kind of Science" for those of us who need to be more informed than a 1 1/2 hour lecutre can provide, but are not up to reading a whole 1000 page book by ourselves?
That would actually be awesome!
Fascinating. Still, the answer *is* 42.
That was a great touch. Lol
I had my roll no. 42 once
"I've spent a large fraction of my life trying to explain things computationally..."
This tickled me.
It's a rational approach :)
Thank you for sharing your mind. I truly appreciate this insight being freely available.
this is the most interesting ive ever seen in my life
is the rewrite rule applied as time passes or is it used to progressively define all of space and time with greater fineness as the rule is applied more times - the first application defining events and successive applications defining other events that can happen in the case that the originals are not prohibited, superposition being used to make it that no pair of events is preferred over any others?
And then as a result you get both GR and the standard model? Can you make a prediction? How do you construct a network that has the initial state of an experiment embedded in it at a known address?
To make a prediction do you need a superposition of all embeddings, translated, rotated, ..., such that all the embeddings are superposed at a known address so your prediction describes all possible instances of the initial experimental condition?
I we are already in a feed back loop generating our future from the past
Very interesting and better than the 1976 version. However Wolfram could have included Turing's halting problem, which is related to Godel. He seems to find relevant models for GR and QM maybe because he didn't try simulating quantum computing function. Simulating self replicating strains of DNA/RNA etc., of life and consciousness may require much more than 300 or 3000 steps of his models, but a model for QC function may churn out Carlo's rebounding BH/WH of LQG, simulating Penrose's cyclic universe.
How would you go about reversing the process, i.e, going from the complex to the simple?
Im sure that I'm missing something important, but I'll ask my question anyway... If a model is computationally irreducible, then how useful is it? I cannot use such a model to make predictions, right?
For example, let's say that I attempt to model the universe as a hypergraph with some number of simple rules defining interactions between nodes. How do I validate or invalidate the model's correctness. In particular, if time and gravity do not emerge after X number of iterations, do I decide the model is inaccurate or do I just to run the simulation longer to see what happens? If time, gravity, and other features do appear, do I stop the simulation and claim success or do I need to keep the simulation running to ensure that aberrations will not appear.
1+1=2 is computationally irreducible (albeit trivial). What did you learn from that about the universe just now? How do you validate a calculation against nature? With an experiment. That's what physicists do.
@@schmetterling4477 I appreciate your response. However, I think that it misses the point. The computationally irreducible models discussed in this video have some initial state and a simple set of rules applied iteratively to create some new system state. While it may be possible to predict what will happen one iteration in the future, by definition, you cannot predict what the system state will be after some large number of iterations. If you can predict some distant future state, then the model isn't computationally irreducible.
Simple addition is not computationally irreducible. If I have some rule like add one to existing state (expressed as an integer). Given an initial state (e.g., the value 1), I can tell you what the new system state will be after a million iterations. This wouldn't be possible if simple addition was computationally irreducible.
A better mathematical analog might be something like the collatz conjecture.
The patron alert is the best ask I can remember
If something is computationally irreducible in this universe, then you need to calculate those steps in other, much "faster" universe. It's workings be the same, but instead of for example 1M of simulated steps, you could reach 100G of simulated steps in the other universe. It's not ideal (because I accept that predictions are impossible) but it will be USEFUL, because you will know what will happen in this universe's future.
If we do indeed live in an ancestor simulation as proposed by Bostrom, a computational approach to a theory of everything seems intuitive.
Except that simulation hypothesis is just pseudoscience.
Are new nodes created at every time step? Or are nodes themselves actually updated? I don't think I understood that point
I understand, that there's no "time steps". They are instantiated when there is a possibility to do so. Similar to the workings of Petri Nets.
I would pay if you would make the episodes in podcast format.
Shhhhh
Look up his lex fridman podcasts
So if I make a 10**400 matrix (DW I understand the space that calculation would need) would essentially be a universe of Planck Length points? Then if the relashionship between P points is defined by R ruleset would that make a primative universe? Would it be possible to do multiple rulsets that affect each other? for example more complex conditional logic that might check for several blocks in it's environment to make a decision. What if 1 block can have multiple colors per square? Why are you only using the Tetris 'T' shape?
10^-100m across, as I remember him saying, should be very sub-Planck?
The elementary cellular automata he's using at the beginning were mainly chosen for their efficiency - you can implement the whole ruleset in just a couple lines of code. Keep in mind they were developed over 40 years ago when computational power was a fraction of what's available today. They're just presented as an example of how a dead-simple ruleset can produce complex & unpredictable results. There are of course many more types of CA out there, but this one is probably about the simplest.
@@KSignalEingang is the rule set based off Conway's game of life?
@@definty It's similar, and it was developed about a decade after GoL , but I'm not sure how much of an influence Conway was specifically (as opposed to the whole field of cellular automata which apparently goes back to the 40s).
The main difference of course is that Wolfram's ECA is built of 1D rows, each of which is generated from the previous row, whereas Conway's GoL treats the whole 2D "game board" as a single state that updates & is overwritten with every step. The former seems much simpler, but is still capable of producing impressive complexity. Being simpler, it's somewhat easier to analyze, and to apply that analysis to other systems of interest like finite state machines (basically, mathematically idealized computers).
The simplicity of sacred geometry!
43:10 time as an emergent property could as well be a feature of the rules of the hypergraph and those rules could also even emergent of the hypergraph. So only ever the initial condition of the system matters.
What's he saying at 55:07? "jd6" is that right? Nothing coming up on search
Geodesic.
Now I can understand, it certainly sounded like JD6!!