I fell asleep to a vid on the first metal lathe and woke up, several lengthy math and physics videos later. I can't wait to see what ads Google will be pitching me for the next couple of days.
@silverlight3 I still wake up too it too this day, I feel like I wake up, have my coffee, smoke a dab and watch it for like 20 mins now, it's getting a bit odd aha
Interesting. This is the 3rd time experiencing this and the first two times i woke to the same video: '2016 Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate: Is the Universe a Simulation?' ruclips.net/video/wgSZA3NPpBs/видео.html
hearing this in my sleep gave me trippy fuckin dreams... about a group of people going through a series of increasingly difficult challenges from escaping a tsunami to surviving in space. there was terror, suspense, puzzle solving, logic, death, tears. i'm already forgetting but it was my best dream in a while. no one cares but thought i'd share the experience.
This is what it would have been like if someone like Newton or Einstein would have held podcasts. I feel truly privileged to be able to take part in this. Thank you Stephen!
@@TheDavidlloydjones Isn't the magic of the internet that all ideas can be expressed and explored in whatever form one chose to? I think it's incredible to live in a world where free enterprise, and free exploration of ideas are allowed. I do thank you for publicly reminding / pointing towards Fredkin as he is one of the many unsung heroes of computer science. So to anyone who happens comes across this little rap: It's well worth reading anything Fredkin has ever written and listening to any lecture / interview possible to find. If you haven't had the opportunity to read Wolframs "A New Kind of Science" yet it's also an amazing work. At lest worth the read if you can find it at a library. Then one can decide for oneself wether it's worth the money (spoiler, I think it is def worth the 36 bucks i paid for it an adlibris). No other work I've come across captures the interesting nature of automatas quite like this book. Not to make too big of a joke about it, but I find it kind of silly to suggest that a fraudster would put that amount of time and effort behind anything of this magnitude. I mean - if, for example, money was the end game here - don't you think there'd be waaaaay easier ways to get rich than trying to find a solid ToE?
Thank you for writing your book ("A New Kind Of Science") Stephen, jumping right into reading it! (first time to learn about it but the last time to retroactively forget it haha peace out).
i like the way this sort of computational approach lends itself to a better understanding of entropy, you can see how it might be balanced with naturally occurring tendencies toward order and synchronisation
Would absolutely recommend this to anyone who wants to fall asleep while listening to something that doesn’t make him feel alone, and doesn’t make him overthink in silence
What's crazy you say this, I legit fell asleep watching a different video and this was added into my autoplay loop and while asleep I was dreaming of what he was saying and making sense of it. It was actually so insane.
Love the project and am actively contributing. Please keep up with the Livestreams Stephen, we need these to develop our intuitive sense of how to build Universal models and experiment. Eager to see this develop further, I am optimistic this has big promise for physics and humankind hopefully as well :)
I'm not a physicist by any means but my curiosity has led me here after reading the memo. I'm not sure if this is already covered in the broader materials but the two-slit experiment may be a great example of this for the average enthusiast : - develop a sample rule to build space - illustrate how light occupies that space in discrete time steps spreading out leading to the wave pattern - show how the impact of "quantum measurement" by an observer can "freeze time" in a quantum frame leading to the slit pattern
How about first trying something "simple" like recreate spacetime with a single particle before going to such daring complex things as the two slits experiment?
Yea i really got inspired like that i saw many people online playing with cellular automaton and various versions of those and you could really see complexity in it and recognize parts of the world in them and that is what really attracted me to them.
Must say, I'm very impressed by humble Stephen Wolfram! What ever happens, if this project is leading to the unified theory or not, he is much more an inspiration than the typical physicist who is more concerned to appear as scientist, mostly by producing minor stuff which then gets blown big, who is mainly concerned of having a nice career, a nice pension, unearned reputation and not to bring physics to a new level. It's not only a waste of money also of creativity and a missed contributions to society which finances them. Think Wolfram is driven by a childlike interest, not mainly speculating to get a Nobel Prize some day. Being interested in physics since a long time, I started to detect an immense void inside the nothingness-loudspeakers in physics, who appeared ever more as emperors with no cloth, as uninspired pea counters, not having achieved much I'd say in the last 50 years, Krauss, Tyson, Carroll etc. Whereas ordinary people get impressed by some equations and complexity-talk, then putting these loudspeakers on high pedestals they don't deserve, I felt a rising skepticism towards such pretenders. We see lots of blinders in public with their nothing's. Shallow thinkers wanting to appear as new Einsteins. I think Wolfram is different here, smart, humble, interest driven, and if someone I know has the substance to expand Einsteins physics, its probably him and not the army of pea counters of orthodoxies.
Talking about intellectually demanding topics for almost 4 hours straight without a drop in energy levels... impressive. Even more considering Stephen's age.
@@rusmiller816 - Quite older than me and I'm 52. Considering he was taught by Feynman... OK, I'll check Wikipedia but my guess is around 65. Let's see... OK, I was slightly wrong: he's 60 only, born on August 29th 1959.
@Peter Lustig - I think the algorithm is the same as the graph, this is something he should explain better to non-initiates though. But my understanding is that the idea is that each "dot" carries the algorithm, such as {A > BBB, BB > A} in the character string example they sometimes use. It'd be nice if we could see better how that intrinsical algorithm relates to physical fundamentals anyhow, that's a part I still haven't grasped well, only very generically and intuitively, what is clearly not enough.
@Peter Lustig Feynman's diagrams were similarly "mostly" graphical in nature but they opened the doors to truly understanding atomic particle interactions.
3:38:10 @Wolfram wow, that is a once in a generation intellectual achievement. One comment. You don't have to bake the forward direction of the update rule into your assumptions. Causal edges can indicate that two states are causally consistent, but transitions can be bidirectional. That corresponds to the microscopic time symmetry in physics. The arrow of time arises statistically because the graph is tapered at one end and wide at the other. We are big subgraphs and we drift to what we call later time because there are more causal edges leading there. That also answers why the initial condition was simple: It doesn't need to be, the causal adjacency graph tapers at one end, that we call the past, and fans out the other end that we call the future, regardless where you start. The 2nd law of thermodynamics is derived from conservation of information. The simplest graph causally consistent in the past is the big bang and the irreducible information content of the universe. The 2nd law says that states become larger and larger by iterating the causal rule, but no new information is added. There's a bit more proof and formalism to add, so I'll join and express this fully.
I saw you on lex’s show, what you said about special relativity explained by different update speeds for nodes has been keeping me up at night. I’m back for more!
This work is just pure, and revolutionary, so inspirational, dude 1:40:44 “ that means that the particles are not just there in space, and then curl, its the space that form the particles” 🤯
there is a quote from Bohm OR Dirac (my best guess) somewhere saying the same in terms of particles being only the expressions of the folding of the regions of space with diferent potential. its all space. the ALLSPACE of what used to be called the synthetic geometry
50:30 this explanation of special relativity is truly amazing! Even as a professional physicist, I have not heard about this before. And it makes a lot of sense to me.
Peter Lustig even if these ideas don't tell us the specific rule of our universe, if they are mathematically sound and we complete their development it is possible to exactly simulate the universe provided the model is complete. Whether or not that completion is possible is unknown but this project is still very new and right now the goal is to develop tools that can be used over the next decade to develop the field.
The low structure entropy in the beginning of the universe is compensated by the high information value of the starting bit of code that contains the 'plan' what comes. Here information entropy and thermodynamic entropy are really good in sync imo
I am getting a feeling of Quasi-Crystals, Lie Groups, Garrett Lisi, mixed with Syntax analysis, State diagrams, and theory of abstract languages with Finite State Automata. Also add in Conway's game of life, with symmetry analysis and Sir Roger Penrose for fun. Very interesting.
50:55 Reminds of why exactly we created the new idea and application of pixels that are exactly that shape. The dimensional plane of your graph here incorporates another scope for what was supposed to be True Depth TV, an application used for future plasma based, large scale theater screens and virtualization environments..
Absolutely fantastic! I knew Stephen Wolfram was a genius, but I couldn't have imagined to what extend. The ideas presented here are astonishing and Stephen's way of presenting them is outstanding in terms of clarity and coherence. As of Jonathan and Max, although I haven't heard about them until now, obviously they have to be in the same ball park of geniality in order to be part of the team. Right now I'm so impressed an also inspired by this project.
I've never felt so grateful to live in this universe and have a physical existence. Next time I go to the beach I'm going to let sand slip through my fingers and have the universe calculate an unimaginable amount of physics, without even calculating it at all. The universe is amazing. Even just being able to think about stuff like this is emotional. We could of all just been living in nothing and have none of these luxuries. Consciousness is a blessing, always remember that.
This is genius, and honestly the most logical explanation of the universe I have ever heard, combining the multiverse, the quantum, and the classical in a way that corresponds to the observer and attempts to explain the inherent branching of the universe, of which we are very minor but explicit segments within the orders of magnitude, but describable as an event beginning with simple principles, suggesting once again that the universe is being simulated by a very sophisticated computer running very specific generative code. If time is quantifiable at a specific smallest unit, then time might only appear to progress at a “slow" rate because we observe it, but in relative terms, a very sophisticated computer could compute the universe in “seconds" and make its conclusions in the blink of a higher dimensional being’s “eyes”. I wonder how the rules illustrated would appear if simulated holographically.
Super congrats super success. Thanks a million Dr. Wolfram and all contributors. Can we get a worldwide support for extra compute power from average people to seek simple rule of computational language of universe and harness its intelligence and computing capacity on simulations of universes?
I have been listening to this for days. Something came to me 2:41:29. The hypergraph as a thing. Could dark energy be a byproduct of Time? Think of the nodes like a bit coin. When it gets updated there is a theoretical node between the two nodes. Which pops into existence after.
(59:16) So, Wolfram are about to prove Einstein was right about quantum physics after all. Second note is that Wolfram might have secured work for the next generation of theoretical physicists with this. Many interesting ideas he put on the table.
The only thing I am uncomfortable with is Theoretical Physics as a word, it is a n oxymoron. This discipline is very interesting from an applicative point of vie, but I would call it immaterial science, because physics is absolutely not involved at any level, it's quite the contrary, it's also a wild claim to attach those mathematical concept to an universe we cannot explore. He keeps losing me when he, or anyone else, extrapolates this intellectual exercise to the universe. As much as all this requires intelligence to develop, jumping to correlations with stuff we can't empirically prove would have been considered a wild claim in pre-Ensteininan science.
Black holes can't be pieces that gets separeted from the main piece because that means they are no longer affecting the universe. If that would happen in real, this would just be desapearing matter and space, which is not the case. I think that the phenomena that would describe a black hole, in my current understanding of your theory, is a big set of nodes that begins to indefenitely attract every other nodes around them and begin to form an area with dimension converging to infinity so everything gets lost inside that big piece of space and matter and there are so many dimensions and so many dimensions begin to be immitated that nothing finds a way to get outside of that area. Too many directions will lead to the middle of that giant piece so everything moving randomly gets to the middle, but not kinda the middle at the same time.
it seems to suggest the existence of a new kind of quantum field variable which is neither local or non-local in nature, it would be more like a variable that defines its own locality through process
3:26:04 "We see it as a big intellectual adventure..can we climb the big mount everest of science", as long as you have a lot of fun doing it...its unimportant if you do end up at the top or not.
Wow, this is sick. This is modeling at another level. Hyper graph travelers. I wonder what quarks, carbon and hydrogen look like? Why on earth the plank length is such a weird boundary.
I like to go to sleep on auto play some nights. Woke up early in the middle of this, wth? I’m not a math guy but it’s still fascinating. I guess the algorithm sees something in me :)
As a PhD in Physics Im fascinated by his work. It seems to solve few of the burning questions we were having. Its seems to be able to work in big (high order corrections to Einsteins' field equations) and small scales (path integral formulation).
Computational equivalence made me not care about specific rule, but rather, think how a UTM-equivalent simple rule can arise from nothingness. However, discovering the model of our particular universe would mean a lot for our predictive power, and mining the space of computational universes in general may result in useful models for the various phenomena in our own universe. It's exciting to imagine, that we eventually come to use experiences and ideas from alternate universes, to our own one.
28:00 This thing looks VERY VERY similar to a human brain and its neural networks!!! Mr. Wolfram says its dimension is aprox. 2.7. It also happens that the dimension (fractal/Hausdorff dimension) of the surface of human brain is 2.79 OOOOOOOHH what a coincidence!!! Or is it...?
EXCELLENT! EXCELLENT! This talk is Amazing! I feet asleep at my computer then this video was playing around 5:am. So I started the video again from the beginning. The Topic is amazing!
i stumbeld on this and just listened to it all. i have to say it just makes sense. the beauty of this graphc theory (is it called like that?) is that it starts with an beginning. it could be used to describe the universe. i love the way of thinking, which is deterministic. to find the "right" rules is probably impossible. and if there is our universe, there may be anything else too. but finding subsets of possible "universes" with some functional simularities could be enlightning. its something that will become bigger, as computer and ais evolve. you will need some sort of ais to search for interesting graphcs. crazy and fascinating
one thing that may be wrong: the update step time itself is not our time. time itself must be part of the graphs theory (if i understood correctly). so space and time may be an expression of a graph, that described a graph. though that may be wrong
I dreamt that I had a teacher in primary school and he just kept going on and on about this. I gave him obligatory nods like "oh yeah, I know what you're talking about - keep going..".
1:37:45 Re: Black holes and spaghettification, does this have bear on why, in exceptionally large black holes, spaghettification does/should not occur? In other words, is there a model using these edges that can account for the different effects the properties of the black holes(eg size, mass, etc) have on observersations of nearby objects (like freezing, spaghettification etc.)?
If it was possible to observe the entire space (outside of it), then finding the rule must look somewhat akin to what the mini-Mandelbrot Sets look like when you zoom through a Mandelbrot set....
I don't think we can claim space exists in his model, nor that it is discrete or continuous. All the model claims exists are elements, relations and update rules. Those things are the axioms. Are the elements discrete? Yes in a sense they are, but are the relations discrete? In a sense they are not. To say it is one way or the other might be a matter of how we interpret the structure itself. His model propose the existence of "stuff" and rules for the stuff. That is all, he does not even suggest what the stuff is made of more than being elements with relations. As I understand it, Wolfram claim our perception of reality is just one alternative interpretion of the "stuff" and the rules governing it.
Also could the initial state of the graph be infinite in size? Seems not because otherwise the possible branches would be infinite as well and also the whole graph would never be defined (unless it were somehow countable?)
I always believed the universe started with a simple notion, something like getting from A to B or 0 to . I loved your representation of how it would evolve from that point onto matter, particles formation. But what decides how long (rate) from A to B would be? Or how and what comes decide its evolution after getting to point B?
8:25 yes, I picked up thinking about and tinkering with things like this again due to the pandemic. Currently trying to answer the question "How can we tell if there is something or nothing in an image?".
I've been thinking about how to make a complexity classifying deep learning neural network, but I have no idea if it's possible given the nature of complexity and computational irreducibility.
55:00 "energy is the flux of causal edges through space like hypersurfaces". Since we start with only 1 causal edge and as time passes me have more and more causal edges. Does this mean that the energy of the system continuously increase over time?
This question leads to interesting considerations, thank you. My understanding is only rudimentary, but generally as the edges increase, this so-called "flux" may change both in quality and, as mentioned, in quantity, with respect to causal edge increase, the question being: though increasing in count number, are the properties of these causal edges such that this flux either: (A) stays the same, "on the whole"* (within the system); or, (B) does it, in fact, change? (Leading, of course, to interesting interactions with the known laws of Thermodynamics.) *This, of course, leads to a nice question of how this "system" should be defined/ Again, I am in the process of delving into the computational and even mathematical structure of these particularities and thank you for the framing of your question.
From the website, chapter 8.8: "We should note that with our identification for energy and momentum, the conservation of energy becomes essentially the statement that the overall density of events in the causal network does not change as we progress through successive spacelike surfaces. And, as we will discuss later, if in effect the whole hypergraph is in some kind of dynamic equilibrium, then we can reasonably expect that this will be the case. Expansion (or, more specifically, non-uniform expansion) will lead to effective violations of energy conservation, much as it does for an expanding universe in the traditional formalism of general relativity [117][75]." So apparently the first causal edge will contain all the energy that will ever exist and it will subsequently be divided with each step along the causal graph.
The sheer amount of people who've fallen asleep watching another video only to wake up and find this video playing is immense
Uncanny isn't?
Same boat
This is me.
morning
CTMU happens to be among my recent watches tho
I fell asleep to a vid on the first metal lathe and woke up, several lengthy math and physics videos later. I can't wait to see what ads Google will be pitching me for the next couple of days.
My subconscious must be full of it I just woke up and see I am just ten minutes from the end!
Same
same, last night
Same just now😂
Igxuuucucucuuuucu😅uu
I fell asleep while watching RUclips and when I woke up this is what was playing.
Me too!
Same
Same
Bro same
frr
I COULD FALL ASLEEP TO ANYTHING ON RUclips AND I ALWAYS SOMEHOW END UP WAKING UP TO A WOLFRAM VIDEO????
Stephen is waking people up.
My case exactly
@silverlight3 I still wake up too it too this day, I feel like I wake up, have my coffee, smoke a dab and watch it for like 20 mins now, it's getting a bit odd aha
i know ! but why ? oh why ? please someone tell me why !!!!
try steve hislop flying lap tt rc45 .... and watch for 15 mins .. i can guarantee you wont fall asleep
Anyone else woke up to this on autoplay at 2AM?
So we are all waking up to this video.
Woke up to the part about the universe being a simulation and stayed in bed until i finished it
Interesting. This is the 3rd time experiencing this and the first two times i woke to the same video:
'2016 Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate: Is the Universe a Simulation?'
ruclips.net/video/wgSZA3NPpBs/видео.html
What's up with the sunglasses doe
I was dreaming I was exploring a planet while some dude was talking to me about quantum computing and hyper drives and I woke up to this video.
post me some of what your on please
I fell asleep to a Vsauce video and woke up to this vid
SAME! EVERY NIGHT
Hell no this is what I just did too
bro why the hell i wake up everytime with this video
hearing this in my sleep gave me trippy fuckin dreams... about a group of people going through a series of increasingly difficult challenges from escaping a tsunami to surviving in space. there was terror, suspense, puzzle solving, logic, death, tears. i'm already forgetting but it was my best dream in a while. no one cares but thought i'd share the experience.
Make a film!
@@mikevanelp5916 kinky
Fell asleep watching yt and this is what I wake up to
I just left a comment saying the same thing. I was on auto play and woke up in the middle of this :)
@@twocyclediesel1280 me too :)
AMAZING. I'm here because of Javier Santaolalla one of the best Physicist of all time! I'm even Flipating! ;)
Pablo Carrizales Rocha physicist?
@@user-hk8yp7cw1v y
@@user-hk8yp7cw1v physician lol
Y tendrías que usar el plural “physicists” pq dijiste “one of the best” antes...
@@user-hk8yp7cw1v Correcto amigo.
This is what it would have been like if someone like Newton or Einstein would have held podcasts. I feel truly privileged to be able to take part in this. Thank you Stephen!
They held lectures. Why you went to Princeton or Oxford.
Exciting time in history...please be the fuel for a new era of prosperity.
Internet, show you history in real time.
@@TheDavidlloydjones Isn't the magic of the internet that all ideas can be expressed and explored in whatever form one chose to? I think it's incredible to live in a world where free enterprise, and free exploration of ideas are allowed.
I do thank you for publicly reminding / pointing towards Fredkin as he is one of the many unsung heroes of computer science. So to anyone who happens comes across this little rap: It's well worth reading anything Fredkin has ever written and listening to any lecture / interview possible to find.
If you haven't had the opportunity to read Wolframs "A New Kind of Science" yet it's also an amazing work. At lest worth the read if you can find it at a library. Then one can decide for oneself wether it's worth the money (spoiler, I think it is def worth the 36 bucks i paid for it an adlibris). No other work I've come across captures the interesting nature of automatas quite like this book.
Not to make too big of a joke about it, but I find it kind of silly to suggest that a fraudster would put that amount of time and effort behind anything of this magnitude. I mean - if, for example, money was the end game here - don't you think there'd be waaaaay easier ways to get rich than trying to find a solid ToE?
@@nolan412 Yes, exactly Nolan! Imagine what it would be like if we had and audiovisual record of those lectures!
“Different points in Branchial Space, their natural distance Metric is expressible as something as Entanglement Entropy.”
Fascinating!
Thank you for writing your book ("A New Kind Of Science") Stephen, jumping right into reading it! (first time to learn about it but the last time to retroactively forget it haha peace out).
I fell asleep at "live stream will start shortly"
Well done! Thx🎉
i like the way this sort of computational approach lends itself to a better understanding of entropy, you can see how it might be balanced with naturally occurring tendencies toward order and synchronisation
Would absolutely recommend this to anyone who wants to fall asleep while listening to something that doesn’t make him feel alone, and doesn’t make him overthink in silence
What's crazy you say this, I legit fell asleep watching a different video and this was added into my autoplay loop and while asleep I was dreaming of what he was saying and making sense of it. It was actually so insane.
Profound!
Love the project and am actively contributing. Please keep up with the Livestreams Stephen, we need these to develop our intuitive sense of how to build Universal models and experiment. Eager to see this develop further, I am optimistic this has big promise for physics and humankind hopefully as well :)
same
I'm not a physicist by any means but my curiosity has led me here after reading the memo. I'm not sure if this is already covered in the broader materials but the two-slit experiment may be a great example of this for the average enthusiast :
- develop a sample rule to build space
- illustrate how light occupies that space in discrete time steps spreading out leading to the wave pattern
- show how the impact of "quantum measurement" by an observer can "freeze time" in a quantum frame leading to the slit pattern
How about first trying something "simple" like recreate spacetime with a single particle before going to such daring complex things as the two slits experiment?
I have the best sleeps ever when this is on in the backround!!! no joke....thank you!!
coming from lex :)
Yea i really got inspired like that i saw many people online playing with cellular automaton and various versions of those and you could really see complexity in it and recognize parts of the world in them and that is what really attracted me to them.
Must say, I'm very impressed by humble Stephen Wolfram!
What ever happens, if this project is leading to the unified theory or not, he is much more an inspiration than the typical physicist who is more concerned to appear as scientist, mostly by producing minor stuff which then gets blown big, who is mainly concerned of having a nice career, a nice pension, unearned reputation and not to bring physics to a new level. It's not only a waste of money also of creativity and a missed contributions to society which finances them.
Think Wolfram is driven by a childlike interest, not mainly speculating to get a Nobel Prize some day. Being interested in physics since a long time, I started to detect an immense void inside the nothingness-loudspeakers in physics, who appeared ever more as emperors with no cloth, as uninspired pea counters, not having achieved much I'd say in the last 50 years, Krauss, Tyson, Carroll etc. Whereas ordinary people get impressed by some equations and complexity-talk, then putting these loudspeakers on high pedestals they don't deserve, I felt a rising skepticism towards such pretenders. We see lots of blinders in public with their nothing's. Shallow thinkers wanting to appear as new Einsteins.
I think Wolfram is different here, smart, humble, interest driven, and if someone I know has the substance to expand Einsteins physics, its probably him and not the army of pea counters of orthodoxies.
Yea. There is a difference between caring more for ones ego than caring for science. Same go's for politics by the way...
Wolfram humble? bahahaha
So exciting to learn about! Thank you
ELEGANCE IN YOUR TREMENDOUS EFFORT ALONE THANK YOU FOR SUCH VERY HARD WORK.
How I wish I'd found this at the beginning. So much catching up to do 😯
Talking about intellectually demanding topics for almost 4 hours straight without a drop in energy levels... impressive. Even more considering Stephen's age.
How old do you think he is?
@@rusmiller816 - Quite older than me and I'm 52. Considering he was taught by Feynman...
OK, I'll check Wikipedia but my guess is around 65. Let's see...
OK, I was slightly wrong: he's 60 only, born on August 29th 1959.
@Peter Lustig - I think the algorithm is the same as the graph, this is something he should explain better to non-initiates though. But my understanding is that the idea is that each "dot" carries the algorithm, such as {A > BBB, BB > A} in the character string example they sometimes use. It'd be nice if we could see better how that intrinsical algorithm relates to physical fundamentals anyhow, that's a part I still haven't grasped well, only very generically and intuitively, what is clearly not enough.
@Peter Lustig - I don't understand enough to judge further but I think you don't either: you seem way too opinionated without sufficient knowledge.
@Peter Lustig Feynman's diagrams were similarly "mostly" graphical in nature but they opened the doors to truly understanding atomic particle interactions.
3:38:10 @Wolfram wow, that is a once in a generation intellectual achievement. One comment. You don't have to bake the forward direction of the update rule into your assumptions. Causal edges can indicate that two states are causally consistent, but transitions can be bidirectional. That corresponds to the microscopic time symmetry in physics. The arrow of time arises statistically because the graph is tapered at one end and wide at the other. We are big subgraphs and we drift to what we call later time because there are more causal edges leading there. That also answers why the initial condition was simple: It doesn't need to be, the causal adjacency graph tapers at one end, that we call the past, and fans out the other end that we call the future, regardless where you start. The 2nd law of thermodynamics is derived from conservation of information. The simplest graph causally consistent in the past is the big bang and the irreducible information content of the universe. The 2nd law says that states become larger and larger by iterating the causal rule, but no new information is added. There's a bit more proof and formalism to add, so I'll join and express this fully.
I saw you on lex’s show, what you said about special relativity explained by different update speeds for nodes has been keeping me up at night. I’m back for more!
This idea has been cooking in your head all these years -- you have a very powerful subconscious mind sir!
I think conscious too :D
Amazing work. Truly inspiring
A WOLF with a lot of RAM memory. Thanks Wolfram
❤️
Nigga
@@inakibolivar664 stfu
29:50 talks about - we haven't found particles in the more complicated rules - hope to do that in next few weeks
Blake Baird ?
This work is just pure, and revolutionary, so inspirational, dude 1:40:44 “ that means that the particles are not just there in space, and then curl, its the space that form the particles” 🤯
See Coney Island Green Theory in the book "I Have Become Space".
there is a quote from Bohm OR Dirac (my best guess) somewhere saying the same in terms of particles being only the expressions of the folding of the regions of space with diferent potential. its all space. the ALLSPACE of what used to be called the synthetic geometry
yes, everything is probably something like a very big lissajous curve that have an infinity of “time” to form each new state to its perfection
All of you literally sound like your describing God, and has just given it different names.
@@douglaslipp3258 there is no space
50:30 this explanation of special relativity is truly amazing! Even as a professional physicist, I have not heard about this before. And it makes a lot of sense to me.
what about it is new to you? This seems like basic stuff to me,.
I woke up to this playing on my phone….
Your not the only 1... they r trying to push an agenda out thts clearly not part of what we usually watch.
I see some similarities with Donald Hoffman's work. I would love to see the two projects converge into the same model.
Hello and thank you for doing this 💪👏❤️
Best idea, the beginning of the theory of everything. you make my day. History in real time. Awesome.
Tt
Peter Lustig even if these ideas don't tell us the specific rule of our universe, if they are mathematically sound and we complete their development it is possible to exactly simulate the universe provided the model is complete. Whether or not that completion is possible is unknown but this project is still very new and right now the goal is to develop tools that can be used over the next decade to develop the field.
Oh God, this is like oxygen to a suffocating man! THANK you for providing a serious venue for speculative science from competent workers.
The low structure entropy in the beginning of the universe is compensated by the high information value of the starting bit of code that contains the 'plan' what comes. Here information entropy and thermodynamic entropy are really good in sync imo
This is so wild, I can't even process it.
I am getting a feeling of Quasi-Crystals, Lie Groups, Garrett Lisi, mixed with Syntax analysis, State diagrams, and theory of abstract languages with Finite State Automata. Also add in
Conway's game of life, with symmetry analysis and Sir Roger Penrose for fun. Very interesting.
Thank you for everything Stephen. Never leaving a dream.
Unlike other people in the comment section. I didn’t fell asleep. Just turned off phone and after few minutes RUclips started playing this by itself!
50:55 Reminds of why exactly we created the new idea and application of pixels that are exactly that shape. The dimensional plane of your graph here incorporates another scope for what was supposed to be True Depth TV, an application used for future plasma based, large scale theater screens and virtualization environments..
I found this video on my phone when I woke up, now I’m gonna watch it all!
This is amazing. It's so beautiful and simple and complicated all at the same time. Thank you for sharing this with us.
Absolutely fantastic! I knew Stephen Wolfram was a genius, but I couldn't have imagined to what extend. The ideas presented here are astonishing and Stephen's way of presenting them is outstanding in terms of clarity and coherence. As of Jonathan and Max, although I haven't heard about them until now, obviously they have to be in the same ball park of geniality in order to be part of the team. Right now I'm so impressed an also inspired by this project.
I've never felt so grateful to live in this universe and have a physical existence. Next time I go to the beach I'm going to let sand slip through my fingers and have the universe calculate an unimaginable amount of physics, without even calculating it at all.
The universe is amazing. Even just being able to think about stuff like this is emotional. We could of all just been living in nothing and have none of these luxuries. Consciousness is a blessing, always remember that.
THANK YOU FOR TRYING TO SHOW USALL HOW THE"WHOLE FRAME" WORKS !
Fascinating introduction! Was just the kick I needed.
This is genius, and honestly the most logical explanation of the universe I have ever heard, combining the multiverse, the quantum, and the classical in a way that corresponds to the observer and attempts to explain the inherent branching of the universe, of which we are very minor but explicit segments within the orders of magnitude, but describable as an event beginning with simple principles, suggesting once again that the universe is being simulated by a very sophisticated computer running very specific generative code. If time is quantifiable at a specific smallest unit, then time might only appear to progress at a “slow" rate because we observe it, but in relative terms, a very sophisticated computer could compute the universe in “seconds" and make its conclusions in the blink of a higher dimensional being’s “eyes”. I wonder how the rules illustrated would appear if simulated holographically.
i watched this on accident but now i am a fan of this guy
Amazing! Tank you!
Incredibly profound.
Needs more views.
Super congrats super success. Thanks a million Dr. Wolfram and all contributors. Can we get a worldwide support for extra compute power from average people to seek simple rule of computational language of universe and harness its intelligence and computing capacity on simulations of universes?
Right click -> loop,
Best music for your ears
As far as anyone went ,no one could ever answer these questions yet we know there is an answer.
I have been listening to this for days. Something came to me 2:41:29.
The hypergraph as a thing. Could dark energy be a byproduct of Time?
Think of the nodes like a bit coin. When it gets updated there is a theoretical node between the two nodes. Which pops into existence after.
Yup. Fell sleep and woke up to see this had been playing
(59:16) So, Wolfram are about to prove Einstein was right about quantum physics after all. Second note is that Wolfram might have secured work for the next generation of theoretical physicists with this. Many interesting ideas he put on the table.
The only thing I am uncomfortable with is Theoretical Physics as a word, it is a n oxymoron. This discipline is very interesting from an applicative point of vie, but I would call it immaterial science, because physics is absolutely not involved at any level, it's quite the contrary, it's also a wild claim to attach those mathematical concept to an universe we cannot explore.
He keeps losing me when he, or anyone else, extrapolates this intellectual exercise to the universe.
As much as all this requires intelligence to develop, jumping to correlations with stuff we can't empirically prove would have been considered a wild claim in pre-Ensteininan science.
Black holes can't be pieces that gets separeted from the main piece because that means they are no longer affecting the universe. If that would happen in real, this would just be desapearing matter and space, which is not the case.
I think that the phenomena that would describe a black hole, in my current understanding of your theory, is a big set of nodes that begins to indefenitely attract every other nodes around them and begin to form an area with dimension converging to infinity so everything gets lost inside that big piece of space and matter and there are so many dimensions and so many dimensions begin to be immitated that nothing finds a way to get outside of that area. Too many directions will lead to the middle of that giant piece so everything moving randomly gets to the middle, but not kinda the middle at the same time.
it seems to suggest the existence of a new kind of quantum field variable which is neither local or non-local in nature, it would be more like a variable that defines its own locality through process
In man's pursuit of understanding the universe, they, unwittingly, created a new one
3:26:04 "We see it as a big intellectual adventure..can we climb the big mount everest of science", as long as you have a lot of fun doing it...its unimportant if you do end up at the top or not.
I keep waking up and the algorithm drives me to these videos
enlightening...ready to unlearn the past knowledge and instill new knowledge. tqvm
36:35: "OK, lets talk about time...." :-) great stuff, thank you
Wow, this is sick. This is modeling at another level. Hyper graph travelers. I wonder what quarks, carbon and hydrogen look like? Why on earth the plank length is such a weird boundary.
I like to go to sleep on auto play some nights. Woke up early in the middle of this, wth?
I’m not a math guy but it’s still fascinating. I guess the algorithm sees something in me :)
exact same thing. That's amazing.
I wake up to this every morning.
As a PhD in Physics Im fascinated by his work. It seems to solve few of the burning questions we were having. Its seems to be able to work in big (high order corrections to Einsteins' field equations) and small scales (path integral formulation).
STOP THE CAP
I think this video is one of the most important things I will ever see in my life
Computational equivalence made me not care about specific rule, but rather, think how a UTM-equivalent simple rule can arise from nothingness.
However, discovering the model of our particular universe would mean a lot for our predictive power, and mining the space of computational universes in general may result in useful models for the various phenomena in our own universe. It's exciting to imagine, that we eventually come to use experiences and ideas from alternate universes, to our own one.
Do the graph transforms get a different result if the nodes are listed in a different order (permutate, transform, then permutate back)?
28:00 This thing looks VERY VERY similar to a human brain and its neural networks!!! Mr. Wolfram says its dimension is aprox. 2.7. It also happens that the dimension (fractal/Hausdorff dimension) of the surface of human brain is 2.79
OOOOOOOHH what a coincidence!!! Or is it...?
@John Smith Yes,but its all worth it!!!
outstanding mind, thank you
Surprising how far the project has come in 3 years!!!!!!!!!!!
EXCELLENT! EXCELLENT! This talk is Amazing! I feet asleep at my computer then this video was playing around 5:am. So I started the video again from the beginning. The Topic is amazing!
i stumbeld on this and just listened to it all. i have to say it just makes sense. the beauty of this graphc theory (is it called like that?) is that it starts with an beginning. it could be used to describe the universe.
i love the way of thinking, which is deterministic.
to find the "right" rules is probably impossible. and if there is our universe, there may be anything else too. but finding subsets of possible "universes" with some functional simularities could be enlightning.
its something that will become bigger, as computer and ais evolve. you will need some sort of ais to search for interesting graphcs. crazy and fascinating
one thing that may be wrong: the update step time itself is not our time. time itself must be part of the graphs theory (if i understood correctly). so space and time may be an expression of a graph, that described a graph. though that may be wrong
Easily the most fascinating video I have ever seen on RUclips. Steven Wolfram, next step: Explain Consciousness! Please go after it!
consciousness is self relection in kind of logical way (without feeling and emotions).
I dreamt that I had a teacher in primary school and he just kept going on and on about this. I gave him obligatory nods like "oh yeah, I know what you're talking about - keep going..".
2:46:40 Wow. Physics unfolding before our very eyes. Thats a rare thing.
1:37:45 Re: Black holes and spaghettification, does this have bear on why, in exceptionally large black holes, spaghettification does/should not occur? In other words, is there a model using these edges that can account for the different effects the properties of the black holes(eg size, mass, etc) have on observersations of nearby objects (like freezing, spaghettification etc.)?
I’m not the only one who fell asleep to a whole different video and woke up to this right???
If it was possible to observe the entire space (outside of it), then finding the rule must look somewhat akin to what the mini-Mandelbrot Sets look like when you zoom through a Mandelbrot set....
The very first axiom is where you're going to get the most resistance. Whether space is discrete or continuous is a debate that will go on for ages.
I don't think we can claim space exists in his model, nor that it is discrete or continuous. All the model claims exists are elements, relations and update rules. Those things are the axioms. Are the elements discrete? Yes in a sense they are, but are the relations discrete? In a sense they are not. To say it is one way or the other might be a matter of how we interpret the structure itself. His model propose the existence of "stuff" and rules for the stuff. That is all, he does not even suggest what the stuff is made of more than being elements with relations. As I understand it, Wolfram claim our perception of reality is just one alternative interpretion of the "stuff" and the rules governing it.
54:30 causal invariance is what leads to the independence of reference frames... please, help me there a little, I dont get it...
I also woke up to this video :D Why does the algo love it so much?? But tbh now I am somehow interested in this and will probably soon watch it haha
One does not simply choose wolfram, one is gifted wolfram from which thee slumber.
"It's turtles all the way down!"
"Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!"
Good stuff! Thank you!
Also could the initial state of the graph be infinite in size? Seems not because otherwise the possible branches would be infinite as well and also the whole graph would never be defined (unless it were somehow countable?)
I always believed the universe started with a simple notion, something like getting from A to B or 0 to . I loved your representation of how it would evolve from that point onto matter, particles formation. But what decides how long (rate) from A to B would be? Or how and what comes decide its evolution after getting to point B?
8:25 yes, I picked up thinking about and tinkering with things like this again due to the pandemic. Currently trying to answer the question "How can we tell if there is something or nothing in an image?".
I've been thinking about how to make a complexity classifying deep learning neural network, but I have no idea if it's possible given the nature of complexity and computational irreducibility.
ill be honest i fell asleep watching minecraft videos and ended up here....
55:00 "energy is the flux of causal edges through space like hypersurfaces". Since we start with only 1 causal edge and as time passes me have more and more causal edges. Does this mean that the energy of the system continuously increase over time?
This question leads to interesting considerations, thank you. My understanding is only rudimentary, but generally as the edges increase, this so-called "flux" may change both in quality and, as mentioned, in quantity, with respect to causal edge increase, the question being: though increasing in count number, are the properties of these causal edges such that this flux either: (A) stays the same, "on the whole"* (within the system); or, (B) does it, in fact, change? (Leading, of course, to interesting interactions with the known laws of Thermodynamics.)
*This, of course, leads to a nice question of how this "system" should be defined/
Again, I am in the process of delving into the computational and even mathematical structure of these particularities and thank you for the framing of your question.
It seems so, I would like to see how this doesn't violate the first law of thermodynamics
I would expect that for more evolved graphs, several subgraphs reach local stability as a frequent event
From the website, chapter 8.8: "We should note that with our identification for energy and momentum, the conservation of energy becomes essentially the statement that the overall density of events in the causal network does not change as we progress through successive spacelike surfaces. And, as we will discuss later, if in effect the whole hypergraph is in some kind of dynamic equilibrium, then we can reasonably expect that this will be the case. Expansion (or, more specifically, non-uniform expansion) will lead to effective violations of energy conservation, much as it does for an expanding universe in the traditional formalism of general relativity [117][75]."
So apparently the first causal edge will contain all the energy that will ever exist and it will subsequently be divided with each step along the causal graph.
yeah, i see issues with deriving the first law of thermodynamics here
54:00 I had to loop it like 20 times to get the message
:D
Posting a comment to the video of the most important physics breakthrough of our life time. 🥂
This too www.express.co.uk/news/science/1308437/dark-matter-news-scientist-moon-core-theory-newton-einstein