Coding the Cosmos: Does Reality Emerge From Simple Computations?
Vložit
- čas přidán 27. 04. 2024
- Stephen Wolfram joins Brian Greene to explore whether the ultimate theory of the universe might emerge from a computationally simple framework.
This program is part of the Big Ideas series, supported by the John Templeton Foundation.
Participant:
Stephen Wolfram
Moderator:
Brian Greene
WSF Landing Page Link: www.worldsciencefestival.com/...
00:00 - Brian Greene Introduction
03:55 - Welcome Stephen Wolfram
07:59 - How powerful are Wolfram's tools?
13:30 - What is it like to be the weather?
19:32 - Computationally bounded observers like us
29:24 - Are all possible mathematical outcome out there somewhere?
33:15 - Where is the Wolfram software at today?
50:30 - Heisenberg, Bohr, and Einstein thought space was discreet
01:00:25 - When we look back at Einstein's field equations it become obvious
01:13:41 - Is the an early primordial node in the Ruliad?
01:22:24 - Is the universe only three dimensional for observer like us?
01:29:45 - How big is the elementary length?
01:39:50 - What happens to black holes in the model?
01:46:43 - Is it Everett's and the many worlds approach to Quantum Mechanics?
01:56:08 - How do you think about GD6 in the multi way graph?
02:04:22 - How does time dilation work in Wolfram's models?
02:10:49 - What is the ultimate goal?
02:22:00 - The bridge to string theory
- SUBSCRIBE to our CZcams Channel and "ring the bell" for all the latest videos from WSF
- VISIT our Website: www.worldsciencefestival.com
- LIKE us on Facebook: / worldsciencefestival
- FOLLOW us on Twitter: / worldscifest
#briangreene #stephenwolfram #computerscience #wolfram - Věda a technologie
I love that Brian Greene never lets go of the skepticism that is absolutely necessary in science and these programs are not the typical "love fests" of cross-pollinating promotion so often seen on the internet. He's really respectful of his guests but he doesn't shy away from asking the harder questions either. And, wow, he really does his homework when you think about the variety of topics he presents and how engaged, informed and probing he always is. Mad respect for his work ethic and his respect for guests *and* audiences. 100 thousand views in 8 days = human life affirming!
I scrolled down to basically comment this. I've been watching a lot of interviews with Wolfram with regard to his work with this hypergraph/ruliad idea, and this is the first time I've seen so many great, probing questions asked about it. Excellent interview.
interesting . . .@@superscatboy
Looked for this comment before watching to avoid wasting time, will come back to update
I personally wouldn't use the word skepticism to describe what he's doing. He's not skeptical, he just needs more explanation. Every time he asks a question it's because he wants to know the answer not because he's skeptical of the proposition.
I think he's one of the best scientific communicators and more importantly scientific philosopher and historians along with the likes of Sean Carroll of our time.
@@Gennys I don't think I misused the word but thanks for posting a comment to correct me.
By far the most informative discussion of Wolfram's fundamental physics ideas that I have seen. Many thanks to Brian Greene for asking really useful questions, and staying friendly and constructive throughout. Great job.
I was just going to say exactly this. I've seen a number of interviews with Stephen and always kept left hanging hoping the interviewer would ask exactly those questions. Thanks a ton for this!
What are Wolfram's 'fundamental physics ideas' because as far as I can tell he has absolutely nothing to say? The poor guy doesn't realise he's spent too much time playing on a computer and can't say anything concrete, relevant or useful. Please enlighten me.
@@JohnnyComelately-eb5zvIn light of the size and depth of this conversation the wording "nothing to say" is ludicrous. If you really want to be "enlightened", rewatch but this time pay a bit more attention. You can then make a perhaps more informed decision about the relevance of this research. (Yes I know, I shouldn't feed him.)
@@IncompleteTheory Ha! You didn't answer the question because you do not know 'Wolfram's fundamental physics ideas.' That's because they're incomprehensible rubbish. He's a charlatan of the highest order.
So I'll ask you politely one more time. Can you describe ANY aspect of his 'ideas' in a simple sentence or paragraph? I'm betting you can't. This should be extremely easy for you given the 'size and depth' of this conversation. I'm betting you're gonna chicken out again.
@@JohnnyComelately-eb5zvYou don't make the slightest effort to actually deal with the subject of the WP project. Instead you trough out childish insults. I don't feel any urge or obligation to explain anything to you. Feel free to call this chickening out or worse, I grant you the right of the last word on this.
This discussion is a timeless classic that will be accessed hundreds of years in the future, if only CZcams were around in 1905. Amazing and so rich in creative ideas that I just watch it over and over again, and discover more and more about the depth of topics covered, wonderful insights.
Yes, I think so too! Glad to be living in these interesting times, and I also hope that future generations will be living in even more exciting times!
I think its gonna take hundreds of years for anyone to understand what Wolfram is talking about... if ever. Although I hope they do.
That is, if youtube isnt purged.
Beautiful optimism. I hope you are right, and that science and civil society survives another 100 years 🙏
Two scientists I was following separately are now in an deep intellectual conversation. This is eye opening as expected. I can’t help seeing in Brian’s eyes being positively surprised and excited to hearing new conceptual framework.
How true!
Idk… Brian Greene’s grimace at 54:28 is more “that’s dubiously surmised” than “positively surprised and excited.”
Even if Wolfram's physics' project doesn't pan out, we can still appreciate the tools, the new conceptual ideas and the interesting computations and the entire framework of discrete physics that he and his colleagues have developed. Simply astonishing work!
I agree. The older I get the more I get used to the idea there is no one "tool" to unlock the entire universe. We need a tool kit. The more tools in the kit the better work we can do.
It should predict something new, not just "rediscovered" already established facts
CIG Theory is new. Try learning CIG Theory.@@mrnarason
It is obvious this project is correct like it is obvious how gravity works. Once described, everyone immediately understands.
I can only speak for myself, but comming across Wolfram's contributions has had a profound impact on how I think about things like math, physics, and foundamental philosophy in general.
And I would like to think I am not the only one who has come away from his efforts with a lasting admiration of his work.
Mr Green is as good an interviewer as he is a writer. His sharp vigilance made this a delight to follow. Merci à vous !
This was not the video to watch while trying to sleep.
However, it is one of the best discussions I have watched in quite a while. Thank you for sharing.
51:06…✅
By far the best Wolfram talk I've heard. Kudos to Brian for asking the right questions.
Both participants in this conversation did an excellent job communicating really tough concepts. It was a pleasure to watch, even besides all the fantastic information.
Bravo!
I didn't know about the works of Stephen Wolfram. He presents an intriguing way to see nature which might have a great future. Thank you, Brian Greene.
This was AMAZING!!! I've waiting for this level of discussion of Stephen's project because it really seems that it is at least inspiring and rigorous enough to shine some broader light on it than it has received. Of course it doesn't predict any constants of nature nor can it be used to predict accurately any aspect of reality but THAT is the size of the en devour he has taken. It is like going from quantum mechanics to human beings or real life objects, ITS HARD. He and his team are trying to do that but from an abstract formalism of space time and reality to particles or quantum physics. I'm glad this conversation happened and I hope that it might get more people interested.
from quantum mechanics to human beings or real life objects, while seems like redefining space-time in computational context, it is unimaginably hard, not just HARD :)
Excellent point. Frankly, I've never really taken to the "dramatics" of either Greene or Wolfram, but here they surprisingly bring out the best in each other....what I finally get is Wolfram's point that the "rules/laws" operate on each "quantum" of space, and energy is the frequency of iterations. Revelatory. And his skepticism of "spacetime"......but I still see a block universe...hmmm....
I think maybe only like .01% of the whole world will understand the beauty of pursuing an endeavor so extreme in academic rigor… it’s wild… 😮
Initially I misunderstood wolfram. I believe now that he is an absolute genius and is doing some ground breaking physics. I hope some day he gets the recognition he truly deserves. He is simply brilliant
Why is he a genius? Sounds like an incomprehensible bullshit**er to me.
Man, I know I can’t possibly understand the full scope of this, but it’s the best talk I’ve ever heard about wolframs work and it’s hard not to be drawn in by it. There is a real profoundness to what he’s touching on. I love it.
😂😂 What's profound about it? He's a total charlatan and you've been hoodwinked
@@JohnnyComelately-eb5zv exactly the man's thinking computation is the key. I wonder what the classic physicists of the 1900s would make of it.
@@Blake_47 👍
I love how Stephen smiles when he gets asked a really good question. It's this great little nod, "ah, finally a good question! You're quite sharp!"
That's a level of humility that I've never witnessed before. To say "I'm working on something that may not be useful to anyone for another 200 years."
oh, you should try working on something that will certainly not be useful to anyone ever. seems pretty full of himself if you ask me.
@@kittysplode Possibly. I've met many who are full of themselves like that. But I'm hoping he can find something we haven't discovered yet. Or our grand children's children may understand. That's my hope.
@@kittysplode "pretty full of himself" is a very mild way to put it
Finally the two i want to talk together is finally talking to each other!
that tease on Ai at the end necessitates a part 2 for this! Thank you
Does anyone ever see the project or is it always “seems promising” and “what we are working on now” and “beginning to answer” and “now believe”?
The "project" at this point is all really gnarly math, unconstrained and unpruned by guiding experiments in our "real world".
Same boat as string theory is in.
And for the same reasons. The size/energy scale being addressed is way too spendy in energy/$ for our current Kardashev level.
I disagree. With string theory, an entire generation of scientists and mathematicians and theoretical physicists could participate. Here, we are taking Wolfram at his word that there are these frameworks.
It takes guts to do what Wolfram and his team are doing! An attempt at reinterpretation of the fundamental theory of physics with the aim of unifying different fields of study. I've been hooked on his ideas since his Ted talk a while back and I'm so happy this live discussion was released by Brian Greene! I wish it lasted twice as long and covered all the topics that Brian mentioned!
PS:
I'm also very appreciative of the fact that both Wolfram and Greene managed to explain themselves in ways that common folk like me could attempt to understand.
I'm humbled to listen to these two men converse. They may, or may not, arrive at the discoveries they seek, but there is no doubt they're both honest, earnest, and incredibly intelligent.
Brian, you are clearly the best science communicator, as if there was any doubt. I always found it difficult to listen to Stephen Wolfram, up until now.. Thanks Brian!!
Subjective. Objective are math models and how you feel, that's objective. Well, if you navigate the former, then the latter is pretty good with Stephen who makes the former exceptionally easy to grasp
Exactly the same for me!
I watched this only because I've listened to Wolfram before and although I couldn't follow everything he said, much of what I did understand seemed to me to be very profound and made a lot of sense.
Brian did a great job here, asking a lot of questions as they were entering my head and getting Stephen to clarify certain points.
The result is I came away from this with much clearer understanding than I've ever had from Wolfram before. And it reinforced my thoughts from my earlier experiences; that what he has to say is very profound and makes a lot of sense.
I've never been very good at maths but one of my strong points is being able to visualize complex, abstract concepts. I've found this useful for identifying paradoxes in physics theories, without needing to do the math. In fact, I've found so many that I was starting to wonder if some physicists aren't getting so lost in their equations that they can't see that their conclusions don't make sense. Stephen's do.
Rather than coming away somewhat confused, this video has actually left me feeling enlightened and more hopeful about progress in an area that seems to have stagnated in recent years/decades.
Great work!
@@antonystringfellow5152 GPT
Me too... I know Mr Green is the best
I luv Brian's visual manner
This was such a great conversation. I’m so glad I got a chance to hear it
It would be a billion times better were Stephen coming up with these concepts three years ago when I've put much more out to him. Sadly, only I have been owning precise frameworks and most remarkable discoveries about reality for these years, and everyone of these pop figures are too lazy to do a thing to expand their good models to find this or that themselves, really.
Again, the path to particles could be me - haven't shared that before cause been researching that again all by myself - all these SM terms are not very aligned with intuition - but yeah, all SM partices perfectly are perfectly linkable to the line of naturals of total universal computation in my framework, and you know what? There also could be no other particles - that's from these same two-three (one, actually) principles Stephen mentioned in the beginning (1D of time -> comparisons {observation} -> masses of comparisons)
In case someone wants to talk to me - Finished @ 43:00 - nothing new for me
Me too! And so glad they both took the time for an extended discussion. I have been trying to get a sense of what Wolfram's project is all about for a long time and this is the best window into it I have come across. Most of the time it is too big for the format and people don't ask incisive questions.
Absolutely an outstanding conversation. Thanks.
This is the 2nd interview I saw with Stephen where he described in more detail his Ruliad. I'm thankful that this helped me to understand it better. Learning about his Ruliad is interesting to a point, but my sense is it may end up being lost opportunity, and it's a mathematical toy that very few other than Stephen are playing with/building. Brian's questions helped tease out the concept and its relations/parallels with our currently conceptualized physics/reality (or, with our severely "computationally-bounded mind that gives us a sub-conception" of "reality"). The sense I have now of his Ruliad is as a hyper-connected tensor field containing every theoretically possible computation (on unbounded N-dimensional planes) including every possible connection between all theoretical computations. In one sense, it can't be fully found/defined until we know of every type of computation possible -- suggesting the Ruliad (in its most-complete form) can never be found. We can find/define only its present-maximal form based on our current most-complex/maximal definition of "computation".
So to me, it's a "map" of all theoretical computations (sequence of 0-to-infinite theoretical steps), including every possible inter-relationship between each n-tuples of computations.
Thank you Brian and Stephen for your efforts towards unlocking the mysteries of the universe.
Wow, it's absolutely amazing what he is proposing. I really hope he will get more funding and the cooperation needed to feed more and more theories to the algorithm. You are awesome people, wish you all the best.
It's likely he doesn't need any external funding since he is the founder of the company that makes the Wolfram mathematics package.
very impressed by Brian Greenes questions here. Well done Brian!
With all respect to Dr Wolfram, many of his reasonings just do not stand up to scrutiny…
Such as? Genuinely asking, I'm not well versed enough in theoretical physics to notice...
Wolfram has a lot of critics, so it was refreshing to see his speculative physics project given respectful consideration at least. I'm not sure whether any of these ideas will gain traction, but it is a different perspective that may offer some new insights. This is by far the best of the recent, in-depth discussions with Wolfram.
What do you mean gain traction, he won. This is absolutely the only thing that makes sense now.
@@MichalToporcer It remains a bit fuzzy, in not reducing to detail.
This is rad. Brian asks great questions, Stephen gives great answers! Thank you dudes.
Brian Greene is one of the few people smart enough to understand the concept Wolfram is working on. I honestly believe he's onto something that will end up having big explanatory power, at least abstractly, and probably much more than that.
I slept through most of this. its like a "lullaby" for adults. So soothing to hear 2 scientists have a totally esoteric discussion that I will never understand.
Agreed
Your subconcience mind is now smarter. =)
Like watching a golf match.
@@softwarephil1709 No. Golf is so boring that i cannot fall asleep while watching it as ironic as that sounds.
Like an 800elo chess player watching Magnus Vs Hikaru 😂
Thank you both very much for sharing your time and work, Stephen and Brian, have a great night, peace
I clicked on this with the intention of watching it for 5 minutes. I looked up and 2:32:54 had gone by--fascinating Q&A!
Brian Greene should join Stephen Wolfram in developing his model. Its incredible that other great physicists don`t join forces in this project. One day it is going to revolutionize science and philosophy !
Already did revolutionize it.
"Steven, where are you physically?" I 'd expect some answer like "Laniakea supercluster"..
Delightful session. Stephen comes across as a modern day Columbus... and Brian as the congenial, skeptical King Ferdinand II. Very excellent interview.
What I like about Wolfram is that, thanks to the tools he'd made so early on, he developed a kind of fearlessness in asking the big questions. He doesn't just ask "what happens when we do X" he then goes on to ask "What happens when we do all the possible variations of X" and questions of that ilk. He exhausts the possible space of answers first and then goes back to try to understand what's happening or the implications of what resulted. It's this exhaustion of possibilities that gives him what many unfortunately deem as a kind of overconfidence or cockiness. That confidence is earned simply by the certainty acquired through that exhaustion.
I've been following stephens deep dives into thermodynamics, and it's great to see him use what's he learned strengthen his arguments with the great Brian Greene.
1:09:33 I love this metaphor of the "pale" diagnosis.
Building bridges indeed.
Super sensemaking.
Good stuff!
Truly grateful of your shared work.
💜
I’ve tried to wrap my brain around the idea of “3.2 dimensions”. It makes my head hurt. So beyond fascinating. I wish I had the intellect to fully understand what they are talking about.
Wolfram is a true free-thinker. He’s not afraid to say anything.
Wolfram often says “ I don’t know “ a rare and wonderful thing
He separates thought from belief, too
He separates what he knows into the sensible. The sensible gave Sherlock Holmes a go for his money
and from that platform, he knows what it is he needs to know...
@@0.618-0 matrices and Newtonian
@@0.618-0 like in 111 then out of sight to me
The way Wolfram described time is the way time works in a video game. The changing of the whole system state from one to the next, and in this case, it is a long line of 1s and 0s. And a change to the long line of 1s and 0s code is a change of state. If your PC cannot process that change fast enough, then the frame rate in the game slows down. This can actually be related to speed C (causality/light) and time dilation. Everything he says, is consistent to if we live in some virtual system.
And that’s just 1s and 0s. Imagine 1-9… surreal and beyond all humanly comprehension.
Aquinas, I love it!! ❤
Kudos to Wolfram for rediscovering what Kant already said 300 years ago
I teach philosophy, quantum physics is something I take interest in though I can't make head and tail of it. Stephen has done a good job. He has given so much food for certain basic philosophical implications of the ways of his putting things.
This is an amazing discussion. Thank you for posting it.
You want the electron to muon mass ratio? Wolfram needs to equip the spacetime graph with E8 for that, to get the electron. He's going to use a rule to build that in the spacetime graph, such that graph vibrations follow the standard model. Now, take the ideas of Salvatore Pais, and smash that spacetime graph with highly concentrated energy, in a local region--that will strip the local structure out of the spacetime graph, like formatting it. Then the rule application process can build a different group, a bigger one, temporarily in the formatted space, while the surroundings are still disrupted from that energetic punch. That new group in the local region will give you the muon. Then as rule execution continues, the graph will be normalized and built back into its baseline structure--the larger group gets broken down back into E8, and muons go away and you get electrons again. The muon to electron mass ratio can be found by looking at that process. Pais's universal superforce, is the same thing as Wolfram's rule execution. Shame no one ever reads the comments.
"A New Kind of Science" is the book that introduced me to Stephen Wolfram and "Elegant Universe" is my introduction to Brian Green. I've seen Green, N. Degrasse Tyson, M. Kaku in a conversation one way or the other; and I've long wanted to see Stephen Wolfram be part of conversation with these guys. I thought it would never happen.
Excellent. Mr Greene you are a model of discretion and curiosity. Your guest appeared to enjoy the discussion which was a delight to see. Love you both.
Wolframs endeavours to unravel natures deepest secrets as an observer within the blue globe we call home..earth..is beautiful, awsome discussion Brian and Stephen.GodBless you and Merry Christmas!
It is a breath of fresh air enjoying the small, and massive collaborations between scientists to achieve a feat.
I truly believe the work Stephen and his team are doing is the only way physics can move forward and stop repeating itself.
Fantastic conversation, well done guys.
You are brilliant!!!!! Love your shows.
While I don't understand some of this talk, most if im honest, its remarkable, thanks to you both for putting it up online.
It was refreshing to see someone asking real questions and while I cant say whether or not Mr Greene is skeptical or believes in the theory it was nice to see someone being a little less combative with Mr Wolfram
Brian keeps blowing my mind with all these events
Wouldn't it be amazing if Brian is sufficiently intrigued to join Stephen's project? :-)
That’s what I hoped when watching this.
Those outside of the politics of academia will struggle to understand the dismissive, and sometimes derisive, reaction many institutional physicists have had toward Stephen Wolfram's physics model. Wolfram's model represents a shift in paradigm for theoretical physics, not just in the underlying theory itself, but also in the approach to how the research is conducted with mathematical rigor taking a backseat to computation and novel discoveries subsumed by reproduction of extant theory. To career academics, this might represent a threat to identity, legacy, and funding. As Wolfram's model does not follow established institutional expectations, I doubt that it will be widely embraced in our time. Like an artist with a revolutionary new style, I doubt his work will be appreciated or emulated prior to his passing.
My enjoyment of this conversation was tempered somewhat by the host who vacillated between excellent questions grounded in scientific skepticism such as whether the derivation of Einstein's equations was a matter of tautology, and questions that appeared more centered on the politics of science research and the attribution of 'credit' than on the ideas under discussion. Perhaps underling the divide, Brian and Stephen appear to be at odds regarding the intent of Stephen's research and project. Whereas Brian may expect the model to make new predictions, Stephen appears to be more interested in exploring how and why his model can reproduce many of the tenets of modern physics from a sparse set of principles and parameters. That said, I do feel that the conversation has begun to bridge the gap between their respective camps, and I hope that more researchers and academics take an interest in exploring the potential of the new model. It would very telling of the politics involved were physicists to dedicate time and funding to theories such as string theory but shun Stephen's model unequivocally.
Wolfram simply doesn't bring anything testable to the table. Physics is NOT paper pushing. Physics is experiment and observation. We tried teaching you that in high school. You were clearly not listening.
@schmetterling4477 don't lie outright. There is absolutely publishing for publishing sake everywhere. It's silly to think it isnt, especially with all the factions trying to figure out cosmological models.
@@jaz4742 And why are you telling me now that you are intellectually lazy? I don't care. ;-)
@schmetterling4477 your projecting isnt working. Grow up
@@jaz4742 How can I be projecting? I have a PhD in physics. That's the opposite of being intellectually lazy. ;-)
Thank you both Brian and Stephen for this inspiring extension of Plato’s “divided line analogy” in his discussion of the “Republic”. The role of philosophers is to go back into the cave and enlighten those viewing shadows and drag them out into the light of the reality ….. eventually. The Republic needs philosophers to rule ….. it seems to me. ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️. 1:52:24
a really good conversation. Wolfram's way of thinking gives a new perspective to understanding the world
Probably the best interview with Stephen Wolfram I have ever seen. And I think it's because Brian was trying to understand just like most of us, and he asked the right questions. I walked away from this understanding Wolfram's work much better.
Stunning vid 😊
Love this discussion. Brian is great at tying his new hypotheses to accepted parts of established theories to bring up questions many in the audience would find relevant.
WoW! 🤯 I will definitely stay tuned for the next talk between Brian Greene and Stephen Wolfram because this one already was such an eye-opener!
This is like watching the Democrats and Republicans getting along. You can see that Wolfrom isn't particularly impressed at first when he opens up with his arms crossed. But then they seem to get along nicely. It's always amazing to see humans slowly realizing their enemies are not so different from themselves. It's crazy how similar we all are.
I can’t even watch the “news” after this. It’s like going back to kindergarten.
@@bryanfischer2929I know the feeling
"It's crazy how similar we all are." surely for we are all one thing with each other and with the whole entire observable universe, which evolves not concerning our subjective wishes but is based on the objective computational procedures, which we are now trying to grasp together with the consequences following from them.
I never saw Stephen Wolfram feeling uncomfortable or having any sort of communication problem. In fact I find it trul amazing, I never seen more equilibrum in another person. I can`t even imagine him getting nervous or angry, he is protected by the world of science he built around him and yet has remained a very pleasing human person. I find it ridicoulous that some people accuse him of vanity or pride.
@@sergeynovikov9424 the materialistic universe "evolves not concerning our subjective wishes."
However, if an intelligent being is the designer, implementor, and sustainer of the material universe, then surely are subjective experiences have values and purpose. Values of... love, beauty, goodness and truth. A purpose of Life, consciousness and destiny.
Whereas, the mechanistic ⚛️ atoms and its physical constructs are platforms/dwellings/schools for the evolution and advancement of Minds, values and human Personalities.
I know this is a sappy comment, but my dad loved Mathematica. He was an electrical engineer who always fed my interest in science. He’s passed away and this interview made me feel like he was waving to me from the great beyond. Thanks Mr. G, I can put a face to the name of Mr. Wolfram!
Thanks infinitely to WSF team and Stephen Wolfram for doing this. One of the rare occasions, maybe the only occasion in many years, that there is a real scientific conversation about new potentially unresolved ideas in physics that does not get boiled down to a bunch of philosophical speculative mumbo-jumbo with people throwing in their nonsensical bizarre fantasies about consciousness and the collapse of the wave function (no offense intended) or fine-tuning vs random multiverse spawning and so forth (no offense intended). Brian Greene is the best interviewer! Kudos! Enjoyed every bit! Hungry for more!
0:22: 🔬 Physicist Stephen Wolfram discusses his recent work on a different way of thinking about the fundamental laws of the universe.
14:29: 🤔 The video discusses the different internal narratives of aliens, weather, and human brains, and how science tries to understand and explain the natural world.
25:54: 🧠 The video discusses the concept space and the gradual expansion of human understanding and imagination.
38:04: ⚫️ The video discusses the agreement between predictions from general relativity and observed phenomena, as well as the potential for using models in numerical relativity.
1:00:47: 🔬 The video discusses the concept of infr geometry, which is a new version of geometry not based on a manifold or space.
1:12:08: ⏳ The passage of time is an irreducible computation, and living through time has meaning.
1:23:59: 🌌 The universe may have more dimensions than we perceive, and our perception as observers may influence how we interpret it.
1:35:46: 🌌 The video discusses the concept of dark matter, dark energy, and the paradigmatic way of thinking about space.
1:47:20: 🔬 The observer in quantum mechanics is embedded in the system, leading to a branching and merging of the observer's mind and the universe.
1:59:08: 🔬 The video discusses the path integral in quantum mechanics and its relationship to energy momentum and gravity.
2:11:49: 🔬 The video discusses the concept of entanglement and the search for a physical way to measure maximum entanglement speed.
2:23:45: 🔬 The video discusses the potential practical applications of string theory in physics and distributed computing.
Summarised by TammyAIsummaries
Exactly nothing we know of suggest that mathematics have this kind of significant power of creation; we have never observed it to have such power. It's an extraordinary claim and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Nothing in the universe suggests that everything should boil in mathematical equations. And if we assume the mathematics to be the creator of the universe, we'd still be postulating a realm beyond the universe in which the mathematics exist. Mathematics certainly does not explain everything, because a) 'nothing' isn't 'something' you can formulate on, because at the moment you give it a symbol it becomes 'something', making it infinitely more than 'nothing' (nothing is a concept with absolutely no reference), and b) because mathematics can also be removed from the existence, still leaving the existence itself to be - not the other way around. does logic exist beyond our universe?
Mind makes math. Math does not make mind. This is pretty much an empirical fact.
I hypothesize that within a couple years AI will let us know if there is a unifying theory of everything, and if not, it will tell us what the rules are that govern reality, and it will be a simple formula but complex in practice.
Quantum computing and AI will inevitably lead us to answers we are incapable of understanding intuitively.
I am happy to have an absolute frame of reference once you identify points in space, as in Wolfram's scheme.
Interesting conversation, thanks!
At about 22:25 and on: Even if you were not computationally bounded, you could never tell where, say 100, air molcules in a box would end up after 5 seconds because there is no way to calculate when and how the colliding atoms will get excited absorbing some kinetic energy in the process and when the states will decay releasing photons. Those unpredictable events (says QM) makes it absolutely impossible to calculate where the atoms will be after 5 seconds (or almosta what ever much shorter time).
If you were able to measure each and every interaction, and either collapse the wave function or create a new branch for each measurement (depending on your preferred theory). You could calculate it with enough computation. I.e. laplace demon. From what I gathered from the 0.01% of what I understood in Wolframs theory it points towards many worlds. I think us being computationally bound to our particular branch and not able to compute the potentially infinite other branches is the problem.
“When I began life as a Physicist….,” 😂. Now, that is one to remember.
Or. "When I began life, as a physicist,
@@bmoneybby That does not help, just emphasizes the Physicist baby 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂🤣.
@@hochathanfire0001 it makes it better. It makes it sound like he was already a physicist when he was born. Which is the funny part lol. The first way can go either way, but the second is for sure a physicist baby. 😂
I shall agree to disagree with you. Context being commonplace, I still cannot help but enjoy how technical you are slicing this up. Now it has gotten easily more confusing, and even funnier. Two for you, 🍺🍺. Well deserved 🤣🤣🤣🤣.
The way Mr Wolfram talks about the ruliad is very similar to the way Thomas Aquinas talks about god.
The ruliad is all encompassing but we are working out the details, that's the jist I got.... sounds fantastic. I learned more about SW's emotional response to his theory than the tenants of the theory he is proposing..
brian green is a legend! everyone dishes the superstrings theory.. but almost all is done by people who have no idea of its mathematical beauty and its repercussions, it is at least 100 years before its time..
great to see the academic community taking stephens ideas more seriously lately, good riddance to the whole groupthink superiority complex looking down on him thing that was so prevalent in 2000s when i was in grad school. love the physics project stephen, really inspiring stuff from you jonathan and the team
soo fucking good i have no idea what they are talking about but i feel like im following lol
It was an honor.
One may suppose that this is an historical debate, to see in the future, cutted or not, to remember how physics was like in the middle of a big leap forward.
Congratulations, thank you. ✨
Fascinating, after studying 3 sciences for 40 years I agree with most of Wolframs hypothesis, he takes my childlike understanding of such things and adds detail, context, depth and a logical framework.
What hypothesis? That computers tell him stuff but he can't explain it with any clarity because playing on computers for too long has turned his head to mush? That hypothesis? 😂
this guy is a genius
Yes, both.
Stephen! You go! This is the path to unification! The ruliad is the M-Theory of the universe! It's (or it will be when it's complete) the universal translator or physics.
Also, I can't wait until the day comes when I can upgrade my brain to that kind of level. Heck, even just to the Brian Greene level! If Elon's Neuralink can get me half way there (in a few years, after they stop killing monkeys of course), sign me up!
Please talk again… one of the best chats between any two physicists I’ve ever seen. Also both really nice blokes and amazing communicators.
Wonderful show😊 its important to ask the questions that aren't asked. The question of the empty spaces...
I listen to Wolfram’s answer with great interest then need to ask myself “did he answer the question I think he was just asked?”
Employing 800+ people is not a small organisation - especially in such a specialised area
As always thank you show much Brian. Keep being you, we need you!
Brilliant! Deep humility, respect, appreciation of each other. Superb questions asked, equally superb replies, adding to the depth of an engaging, entertaining, informative conversation. Thank you. Best wishes.
This is so facinating to listen to while at work. Many thanks for giving us this!
I happened to tune in at around 1:15 in the video. Wolfram seemed baffled to respond to the question of how the universe begins within the framework he's proposing. To explain himself he invokes the undefined concept of "the ruliad", ties that into the supposed differing perceptions of humans and aliens about physical laws (because each are "clumped in" to their own specific region of the ruliad) and goes on to suggest that the universe started with "infinite" dimensions that gradually reduced to what looks like 3 dimensions to us. Maybe I should have watched more but it sounded loony to me.
Hi. I studied the Wolfram Model for about 3 years now, and i'm pretty well versed on how it works (from an outsiders perspective, but none the less if your looking for purely formal details, you'd have to talk to the folks working on it directly)
The Ruliad is an eternal and infinite object. It both encompasses all events of the past, and all events of the future, in all possible ways in which that evolutions could unfold. Therefor "The Big Bang" is just one place in this object.
To describe what this Ruliad object actually is on a formal level : It is the state-space of a fully computed Turing Machine. The state space of a turing machine is "all computable functions" as outlined by Alan Turing. But the Ruliad goes a bit further in that, due to the principle of computational equivalence, which is that all subsystems in the universe are also turing machines, and where each turing machine output is the input (program) to other turing machine inputs, then the Ruliad is the space of all possible ways these turing machines could have computed inputs and outputs. The reason it has structure deals with the convergence and divergence of these input and output states (like how 1+3, 2+2, 5-1 and so on are all equivalent to the number 4, where the output of 4 is a convergent state for those rules, and you can imagine that there is an infinite heierarchy of convergent states, depending on what rules are being run, by which particular turing machines)
To expand on the principle of computational equivalence, which is extremely important to this, is that because all subsystems in the universe are equivalent to a turing machine, these subsystems are also equivalent to each other and to this infinite ruliad object. Therefor there is a deep connection between the subsystems in the universe, and the universe itself because of that equivalence. It's also due to this equivalence, that the perceivers of the object will behave relativistically and therefor how one interacts with other subsystems and the universe, is through a frame of reference...susceptible of course to said effects. This is easy to see when you think about things like Graph Isomorphism : Take a network graph, and pretend you are one of the nodes in the graph. If you were to switch your perspective to another node, you are perceiving the same object, but from a different perspective, and this might give you non-trivial differences in the PERCEPTION of that object, like coarse graining or the obfuscation of other nodes from your point of view. Good examples you can find online are visual illusions where a cylinder casts a circle and square shadow on two different walls. Ones reference frame determines whether you see a circle, or a square, or the actual shape of the object which is higher dimensional
Another intuition based example: you can imagine the 2d representation that is typically used to describe spacetime relativity as a graph with nodes (which is exactly what it is) and when you bend and warp this graph as is normally done...that is effectively what people do to perceive the same object, where it's properties although equivalent, take on these dualistic often paradoxical relationships (space expansion, time compression)
Coarse graining is also one of these relativistic qualities that is important as to why we percieve physics in the way that we do. Coarse graining is the idea when you look at some system, you take all of it's particulate information, and then you "blur it out" to see what the aggregate information is. For example have a look at white noise... when it's far away or blurry, it will appear like a single homogenous color (grey) but up close, it contains all the little black and white pixels in all of it's random complexity. This procedure of looks at something far away, trivializing it's scale (like a human being, trying to perceive air molecules in a room) or blurring out and more generally simply omitting information about a system because that information appears to us as just noise, is coarse graining. In the Wolfram Model, course graining of the evolution by observers i spoke about earlier is ALSO happening. When you have these states : 2+2, 1+3, 5-1 and so on, all of these different rules are converging to the same answer (4) and so we don't get to fully acknowledge the entire evolution for what actually led to the answer. The nature of us as subsystem (computationally bounded observers) is what restricts us to only observing these convergent coarse grained behavior of the evolution of the universe.
Hope some of this helped a bit. Wolfram has a few writings online you can read, but i highly recommend watching his "New Kind of Science" series where he annotates that book. In that book he proves formally why principle of computational equivalence is true, and that as a result, things like the Ruliad and the Physics Model, fall out of it as a result. It's really a pretty elegant set of logic and proofs and it's worth your time. Cheers.
@@NightmareCourtPictures you are wasting your time explaining stuff to disinterested trolls.
@@NightmareCourtPictures Freeman Dyson, after reading Wolfram's book A New Kind of Science offered that, “There’s a tradition of scientists approaching senility to come up with grand, improbable theories. Wolfram is unusual in that he’s doing this in his 40s.”
@@johnstack3338 I’ve looked into some of the criticisms of New Kind of Science. Flat out I just don’t agree and haven’t seen a reasonable counter argument.
For instance, Aaronson’s counter argument was that the proof for Rule 110 being Turing universal, was not a strong proof but a weak one. I disagree with that because the proofs for universality are pretty straight forward: can x emulate a Turing machine, if it can it can compute what a Turing machine can, which is clearly demonstrated in the book. Additionally if Aaronsons argument was credible it would invalidate the premise of universality of Conways game of life…which is a cellular automata operating on simple rules that can emulate a Turing machine. That’s been proved without a doubt so it’s ridiculous to pose that argument for rule 110 which is also a cellular automata running on simple rules that can also emulate a Turing machine.
Other criticisms like Dyson also hold no weight. Science is about doing experiments and forming proofs and wolfram in that book did very clear experiments to prove the assertions made in that book with exhaustive proofs (a very strong form of proof) such a quote is not science at all and is therefor just an invalid opinion. Until people come up with actual counter proofs to what was shown in that book, which I highly doubt will ever happen given how strong they are…so I’ll pass.
Do yourself a favor and look into these kinds of things for yourself. To do so requires many years of studying traditional science to pinpoint what is wrong with traditional science, so it’s not easy, but when you do you will inevitably come to the same conclusions of Wolfram (that the universe is basically a computation)
I've come to realise that TV personalities with a PhD / degree, are far more irrelevant than their opposites. I used to love watching Brian, along with that Japanese guy with white hair (I know his name but can't be bothered typing it) talking about strings and alternative universes. Now I don't, and now I think that they wasted so much of their skill chasing down a ghost.
Wolfram is definitely on the right track more than anyone I've ever heard. AI will help us learn everything very soon.
"Do you think there is a what is it like to be the weather?" 14:40 Wolfram answers "Yes." Absolutely right!
I just imagined something about the first minutes into the conversation.
What if 'consciousness' is like the volume (sound) of music, for us humans is at full blast, maybe chimps & gorillas a little lower, 16:55, whales lower, dogs and cats lower still, plants lower... At some point you don't hear anything and many people would assume that's it. And what Wolfram is saying is, no no, there is sound waves, is just we can't hear them, but if we somehow construct tools (computational tools) we might be able to hear down there.
I love these topics, and complexity, and consciousness...
At time 2.28.28. in the conversation something wonderful and very"cool"emerged.
I have a degree that includes high math and physics, but not enough to fully grasp everything that is discussed here. However it looks that Wolfram´s approach to reality is just what is needed (be it in the right direction or not), that is look at things from other perspectives than the mainstream. That is how history shows us progress is made. Thanks to Dr. Greene for this great interview.
You seem not to understand that in this interview Greene just exposed him as a total charlatan in a polite way.
Amazing conversation! I hope Stephen will produce a public internet course on this theory.
The comment at the start about building tools for science, which then allow you to explore more science, which will need new tools, is on point with the David Deutsch mantra "Problems are inevitable. Problems are solvable. Solutions create new problems, which must be solved in their turn."
absolutely amazing, I'm hoping I even understood a quarter. I did want to say, it sounds like the difference from what I can tell (just being introduced to this whole concept as well) is that Wolfram's seems to be talking about Many Worlds yes but in the sense that there is only ONE universe, wherein all those other possibilities take place and that that is part of the way the universe works. I can't quite get a graps of why this is so important but I feel like it definitely is - something to do with his point about the observer insisting there's one thread of reality, that there is something continuous
I wasn't more aware on the topic by the end of 2x replays....maybe because i fell asleep. I'll certainly listen again. Big fan of the channel
So many nice notifications to me as an architect and designer ... about Space... Thanks
We think, we hope, We're not sure yet... As much respect I have for this man, he should get some of this stuff peer reviewed