In defence of Stephen Wolfram
Vložit
- čas přidán 27. 05. 2024
- You like Stephen Wolfram, right?
I mean, if he’s to be believed, he has reinvented physics, not to mention philosophy.
How could you not like such a thinker?
Well... it turns out that there are plenty of people who don’t like Stephen Wolfram... or his physics... or his philosophy.
Here are four criticisms of Stephen Wolfram I regularly hear...
...and here’s why these criticisms, though they hint at uncomfortable truths, nonetheless miss the mark.
-
Stephen Wolfram:
• Stephen Wolfram’s web site www.stephenwolfram.com/
• Timeline www.stephenwolfram.com/scrapb...
• TED talks www.ted.com/speakers/stephen_...
• List of podcast appearances lasttheory.com/list/best-wolf...
• List of video appearances lasttheory.com/list/best-wolf...
Stephen Wolfram’s claims:
• He has a path to the fundamental theory of physics writings.stephenwolfram.com/2...
• He has an answer to the question: what is an observer? writings.stephenwolfram.com/2...
• He has an answer to the question: what is consciousness? writings.stephenwolfram.com/2...
• He has an answer to the question: why does the universe exist? writings.stephenwolfram.com/2...
• He seems surprised at how little discussion there has been of his answer to the question: why does the universe exist? • Stephen Wolfram: Compl...
Some of the things Stephen Wolfram created:
• 1987 Wolfram Research www.wolfram.com/company/
• 1988 Mathematica www.wolfram.com/mathematica/
• 2009 Wolfram Alpha www.wolframalpha.com/
• 2014 Wolfram Language www.wolfram.com/language/
• 2020 Wolfram Physics www.wolframphysics.org/
Other people involved in the Wolfram Physics Project:
• Jonathan Gorard www.wolframphysics.org/people...
• Max Piskunov maxitg.notion.site/Max-Piskun...
Other people mentioned in this episode:
• Freeman Dyson en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeman... - quote www.newsweek.com/great-minds-...
• Sean Carroll www.preposterousuniverse.com/ - quote www.scientificamerican.com/ar... - Mindscape podcast www.preposterousuniverse.com/... - episode #155 with Stephen Wolfram www.preposterousuniverse.com/...
• Katie Mack www.astrokatie.com/ - quote www.scientificamerican.com/ar...
• Adam Mastroianni www.adammastroianni.com/ - The rise and fall of peer review www.experimental-history.com/...
• Father Strickland - quote quoteinvestigator.com/2010/12...
Brilliant people of the past:
• Leonardo da Vinci en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard...
• Gregor Mendel en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_...
• Nikola Tesla en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikola_...
• Aristotle en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle
• Galileo Galilei en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo...
• Isaac Newton en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_N...
• Albert Einstein en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_...
• Max Born en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Born
• Paul Dirac en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Dirac
• Werner Heisenberg en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werner_...
• Erwin Schrödinger en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erwin_S...
• Wolfgang Pauli en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfgan...
Other episodes of The Last Theory mentioned:
• Why has there been no progress in physics since 1973? • Why has there been no ...
• Peer review is suffocating science • Peer review is suffoca...
Reference:
• Wolfram Research has over 800 employees pitchbook.com/profiles/compan...
Images:
• Freeman Dyson 2005 commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi... by ioerror www.flickr.com/photos/ioerror/ licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0 creativecommons.org/licenses/...
-
The Last Theory lasttheory.com/ is hosted by Mark Jeffery markjeffery.com/ founder of Open Web Mind www.openwebmind.com/
Prefer to listen to the audio? Search for The Last Theory in your podcast player, or listen at lasttheory.com/podcast/058-in...
The full article is at lasttheory.com/article/in-def...
Kootenay Village Ventures Inc.
Having watched Stephen for the last few years (and his team) and recently the brilliant talk between Jonathan Gorard and Kurt Jaimungal. As an outsider it seems thus. Stephen took a different route, that of business success and real world application and financial success instead of begging the state.
And Jonathan stated it bluntly. That Stephen is basically blunt. But also the branding didn’t seem to me at all self promotional. You have to watch that interview to get the nuance.
Again I’m an outsider. But what appears to me, having absorbed a great deal of the recent opening up, online of the physics/mathematics/philosophical community. I’m sure we are all familiar with now, the prominent names. Is that pettiness, jealousy, meanness, sniping, and general low awareness qualities are surprisingly prevalent in the these high awareness circles. And that’s not what many who haven’t had access to these places would have assumed. Or hoped for.
Yes, we have this strange idea that scientists would be above all this, but in reality they're humans just like the rest of us!
Wolfram as an intelligent fellow that has had an impressive career He has a lot to be proud of. His problem is he's trying so hard to have one of those giants of history moments he keeps narcissistically exaggerating his accomplishments by claiming giant breakthroughs that aren't giant breakthroughs.
Philosophy is a minefield. Much of philosophy is not arguing about the state of reality but what words we should use to describe various things. So laymen might believe that philosophers disagree with each other, but actually the 2 philosophers would say the opposite. They put forward arguments to each other to find out what it is that they agree. They don't argue to prove 1 person's idea is wrong. Philosophy is different to science. It is generally why scientists should stay away from philosophy because you end up with bad philosophy, which is a philosophical idea that claims to be science.
@@he1ar1 I agree scientists tend to make bad philosophers but I would argue there are very few good philosophers today. Leftwing AND rightwing ideology has largely poisoned philosophical discourse with post modernism and Randroidism word salad.
A huge problem is words are being redefined to match political ideology rather than substance. Aristotle pointed out thousands of years ago words have essences and this is being ignored by many philosophers.
For instance, the term "social construct" is often used to "deconstruct" another word rather than adhere to its meaning that both has an essence and a relationship to other concepts.. Alleged "philosophers" then can derive conclusions that match their politics rather than reality.
For a crude example to illustrate the point, If I redefine gender into a cat, and I have a gender, I can then absurdly claim I am a cat and be logically consistent within the framework of my revised definitions. If someone points out I am not cat, I can retort cats are a "social construct".
Same story with rightwing "philosophers". If I say "taxation is theft".. I have redefined the word taxation to match rightwing ideology rather than meaning it has held for thousands of years along with its relationships to other words. I can also claim taxation is a cat.
A philosopher can have a personal philosophy but a philosophy is not philosophy. it's a manifestation of politics. The best philosophers derive facts about reason itself not political recommendations. Reason can then be used to accomplish tasks in other endeavours.
This is the way physics was derived from philosophy. Even used to be called natural philosophy. Aristotle is not great for his philosophical views on slavery but for accomplishments like syllogistic logic.
Oh no, Jon's got dirty meeting this lover of aliens... seeking for fame for nothing comprehensive himself
I used to spend hours playing with the Golly app. I always thought he was on to something. Crabs, butterflies, and even faces took shape countless times. How can it not have something to do with convergent evolution?
Thank you for your tireless efforts, energy and time in bringing the Wolfram theory to the public. Your efforts to make these complex ideas and the problems with Wolfram accessible are truly admirable.🤗
Thanks, I really appreciate hearing that!
Yes they are. However Sean Caroll in his interview with Dr. Wolfram a few months back asked some uncomfortable questions that Wolfran could not answer satisfactorily. Also: yes, some Middle Ages thinkers were persecuted for heresy. These days, no one is being threatened with loss of livelihood or standing for unconventional thinking ( they can be ostracized but they are free to make their own ecosystem, a la Truth Social). They still have to offer the same scientific criteria as ever: repeatability, falsifiability, and a problem statement that is universally understood. Copernicus addressed the problem of celestial mechanics with a solution that was repeatable, falsifiable, and addressed a universal questiuon. What question does Wolfram Physics address?
I got to know about Stephen Wolfram in a podcast where he was discussing with Eric Weinstein and bought the book "A Project to Find the Fundamental Theory of Physics" immediately.
I started reading the book, and to be fair not in super detail by computing the result of each rule, but just enough detail to get a rough understanding. After the explanation of the multiway graph, immediately something "clicked" in my brain, and all the weird stuff I knew about quantum mechanics suddenly made sense (I'm not a physicist, I just like to read about the topic but usually I'm too lazy to do the maths to understand the stuff deeply).
At some point, the book explains that in these models time is seen as the actualization of space itself, rather than a different dimension, and that fits way better to my personal experience and my formal training in computer science. After all, the map is not the territory, models are not reality, they are just tools that help us understand it.
The concept of computational irreducibility made also so much sense to me, and for me became kind of evident everywhere. Of course, the universe is deterministic but that doesn't mean that everything is predictable. That's the reason we can learn about things about the universe, do science, and as living beings we need to stay attentive.
There are multiple examples not only from the book but also from different podcasts of him, that make so much sense based on stuff that I've been thinking for years that somehow very few people seem to question like what is a thing? Is order something that exists physically or just something arbitrary that we impose on the state of the universe? what is life? why there is something rather than nothing? The answers that Stephen provides make a lot of sense to me.
In my opinion, he can come across as a bit too arrogant on podcasts so I can see why that can be a turn-off sometimes, Nevertheless, the ideas he discusses are amazing.
Regarding giving credit I do not know at the moment if he is doing the right thing or not by keeping Jonathan and the other young researchers out of the spotlight because the proposals of Wolfram Physics are a bit controversial and he already has enough fame, money, and status to handle these controversies. On the other hand, for young researchers, these controversies might be career destroyers. I really hope that more credit will be given to these great minds once there is no risk for them to be associated with the project.
Thanks for this, Jan. I've had a similar experience coming across Stephen Wolfram's ideas: as soon as I heard about them, I had a feeling that this could be right.
I think Jonathan Gorard is in a solid enough position in his career that he can handle these controversies. I also think it's important that he provides the bridge to academia that Stephen Wolfram spurns. The University of Cambridge and Princeton University have already provided homes for Jonathan and his brilliance!
I think there is a lot of weight to the "no peer review" criticism. If you notice, all the people but Wolfram who are involved with the project are still publishing, like Jonathan for example. They are putting some of the nuggets out there. The problem I think Stephen's more bold claims are not fully mathematically worked out for them to be published. Even the primary concept of computational irreducibility does not have a strong mathematical basis. I think the maths will come in time hopefully but the folks who criticize Stephen for not publishing are not wrong either. At least until the project publishes the central ideas and has other scientists vet the ideas in a formal setting, these ideas have to be dealt with as the interesting hypotheses that they are.
Yes, I think you're right that Stephen Wolfram is uniquely reluctant to publish. And I agree, Jonathan Gorard in particular is instrumental in bridging the gap between the Wolfram Physics Project and academia.
I do think, though, that there are some ideas that are amenable to publication in academic papers, such as Jonathan's derivations of general relativity arxiv.org/abs/2004.14810 and aspects of quantum mechanics www.complex-systems.com/abstracts/v29_i02_a02/ , and others that are not, such as Wolfram's massive zoologies of rules.
I don't think this is necessarily an either-or. Peer review seems badly broken to me, but maybe, fixed, it might have a place. And in my mind, just putting ideas out there on the web, as Wolfram does, has a place too.
Thanks for the thoughtful comment!
Hey, great thoughts here. Here's a bit of a counter: I think you're right in doubting peer review insofar as it's bad for us to demand agreement before accepting something as valid science. But I think peer review is valuable for making sure a paper or a theory is internally consistent and generally makes sense. What do you think?
Yes, it'd be good if peer review checked for internal consistency and made sure papers make sense. But _does_ it?
Sure, peer reviewers can catch some contradictions and some nonsenses, but I have a feeling they miss most of them. They simply don't have time (and aren't paid enough!) to reproduce the derivations and calculations in a paper. And when there's something radically new, like Stephen Wolfram's computational approach, most scientists seem not to know how to make sense of it, and so knee-jerk dismiss it as nonsense.
I agree, peer review seems like a good thing in _theory,_ but ultimately (as Adam Mastroianni writes in his article _The rise and fall of peer review_ www.experimental-history.com/p/the-rise-and-fall-of-peer-review which I highly recommend you read) whether it's a good thing in _practice_ is an empirical question... and the evidence in favour is not compelling!
Thanks for the thoughtful question!
@@lasttheory I think theory on open-endedness (and Good Heart's law) can provide good alternative arguments in favor of your claim that the peer review process does more harm than good (I am assuming this is alternative, as I haven't - yet, at least (but I think I will) - read the article you cite).
@@lasttheory also, the work recently popularized by Peter Turchin (cliodynamics) might be relevant.
This is a well rounded video 👏 personally I never cared for what anyone else thought of Wolfram or his work because people are often not objective in their criticism. I read his books (collected works from 1980s, a new kind of science and the recent one on the physics project). I'm not sure what he is accomplishing in the last two books. They are very readable but not sufficiently focused, at least to me. Perhaps if he's got something major going there then he should publish a technical book that doesn't have a lot of hand waving.
Thanks, Hank, I really appreciate your calling my video "well rounded", I can't hope to do better than that!
Two new approaches needs further scrutiny:
1. Wolframs computational approach
2. The Theory of Holistic Perspective by Peter Karlsson
4:30 Marconi invented radio communication. Tesla is mainly famous four 3 phase AC motors and closely related inventions (for the non-quack oriented of the world).
Yes, thanks Paul. Marconi commonly gets the credit, but there's good reason to think that Tesla got there first, or at the same time, at least: www.pbs.org/tesla/ll/ll_whoradio.html
@@lasttheory Read the link, which if to be believed, Tesla invented radio? Seems plausible as the link is to a PBS website. Still does not change the fact that there are a lot of crazies out there connected with the name Tesla, so I hope you will understand my incredulity. You sounded like one of the energy crystal people.
Wolfram's idea of Turing complete computational complexity existing almost everywhere in nature with predictive shortcuts being the vast exception, is interesting. Very relevant to Biology, Economics, etc.
However, his take on replacing continuum theories with discrete structures seems much less plausible to me (eg. SR and QM based on finite automata is an absurdity that will lead no where).
Thank you for the link.
@@paulkohl9267 Thanks Paul. Yes, there's a lot of energy crystal nonsense out there, and you're right, some of it does seem to attach to Tesla, but I assure you I'm no believer in such nonsense! As for special relativity and quantum mechanics based on a discrete hypergraph, Stephen Wolfram and Jonathan Gorard do have some truly compelling results here, such as Jonathan's derivation of general relativity. Take a look at Jonathan's account of this in my video here: czcams.com/video/1tjhE0U-mgc/video.html
4:02 Self promotion has nothing to do with whether or not a methodology and theory is scientific or not. That’s like saying gee I don’t want to hear about general relativity because Einstein jokes around too much.
Yes, exactly. As I say at the end of the video, none of these criticisms of Stephen Wolfram in any way invalidate his ideas, just as Einstein's sticking his tongue out at a photographer didn't invalidate _his_ ideas.
Exactly. Ideas should be assessed based on their explanatory power and how well they are supported by physical evidence in the observable world around us. Critically, Wolfram's ideas are weak in both areas.
@@snarkyboojum I don’t think you can make that claim yet when only a years of years in. It’s also about how practical the model is to use to predict and calculate, and also whether it can unsurface things we never realised before.
I really appreciate this. It hits the nail on the head quite satisfyingly! I studied theoretical computer science and physics and bought Steven's book when it first came out. I read it. I read it again and then carefully studied it and all of the appendices. And then when I saw the critical reaction, I was quite disappointed at what appeared to be a flock of so-called experts who were faking being smart, apparently. at least about computation and physics. Wolfram's work walks the walk and anybody can poke it as much as they like. I definitely remember the criticism that Wolfram wasn't wrong.: he just was overblowing other peoples prior claims. People with this criticism did not read Wolfram's work because they would see immediately that he went above and beyond people like Zuse and Kolmogorov Turing Church Shannon Minsky Von Neumann and even Schmidhuber who did similar work, but not even close to the level of Wolfram.
the ideas in Wolfram Physics, Ruliology, etc. are fascinating but do they meet 3 scientific criteria (outside of peer review which was addressed in the video): Repeatability, Falsibility, and addressing a well-understood question? Copernicus did all 3 but was persecuted in his time for being a heretic. What do we have here that is equal in scale to a Copernican Revolution, if we have it?
@@sanle7515 Most of Wolframs work is computational meaning ya, it’s repeatable. You can do a lot of the same experiments wolfram did on your computer.
Addressing well understood questions; ya. I would consider Wolframs work on par with spacetime unification and E=mc^2. If you do your research into it, as one should since it’s publicly available to be fact checked and verified, his principle of computational equivalence is a statement that all systems share a basic and fundamental equivalence to all other systems. In particular that, any system following rules is sitting in the same complexity space to any other system that is following rules and that this complexity space is equivalent to that of a Turing machine. Everything that comes from the w-model arises as a consequence of this principle.
That’s a big deal. Like how mass and energy share an equivalence or how space and time share an equivalence, here in this framework all systems simple and complex share an equivalence, and that encompasses all systems that exist. Like in other equivalence relations where some object is preserved under transformation, like how space and time warp to preserve the speed of light, that object being preserved in computational equivalence is the ruliad objecr (abstractly this full state space of a Turing machine is being conserved)
When we consider that all system include ourselves since we are also systems that follow rules then what inevitably follows are more important questions like what it is consciousness and what is observation.
I think people who criticize the model don’t actually understand the material or did the proper research because if they did they repulsive realize how important it is even if it was wrong. You have to accept that Wolframs work is in fact tackling very super critical ideas at the heat of what one should expect from a theory of everything (a theory that actually does explain everything even complex systems).
Cheers.
@@sanle7515what do you mean? Stephen has said that they are able to derive the mathematics of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics from his model. Haven’t those theories been experimentally tested? You can say they haven’t provided *new* testable predictions, which is true, but the hard work of building up the theory has began only in the past couple of years. As for which questions it’s trying to answer, 3 of those are presented in this exact video you’re commenting on. What could be grander than explaining the mechanism by which reality presents itself to us as it does? The only thing I can think of is “why is there something rather than nothing”
@@sanle7515Those scientific criteria you mention are the pushed fallacies about science making
Wolfram's narcissism really is unsufferable at times. I read NKOS when I was younger and what was otherwise a very interesting read was tarnished by the self aggrandising tone throughout. I don't think it's an ad hominem attack to say that the tone he conveys is highly adjacent to a lot of quackery, and that this inevitably leads to his ideas not being treated as seriously as they otherwise might be.
I find it infuriating that narcissists often have a point :-)
I am intelligent enough to see the narcissism, but I have no idea what he is talking about most of the time!
Thanks Joel. You have a point, that Stephen Wolfram's style can be a bit hard to take, and a similar style does seem prevalent among quacks. I just hope more people are able to look past it to the depth of the ideas he has.
IDK. I read it and just looked beyond it at the science. Wolfram is brilliant, he knows it, and other people will eventually see it too. He's confident in his own ability. I just don't care about the criticism. The science he's creating makes more and more sense and I'm happy that he's producing something interesting.
@@atheistbushman I find it that narcissism is an evolutionary advantage and helped survival and that you dont need to hate in the case you are worse
Why is his narcissism insufferable?
So he's bad because you consider him that way and the other charlatans are admissible?
Nice overview. I think you're right. I do watch alot of stuff that SW is getting out in perticular the livestreams give an impression on how open the employees are to him.
Results and usability are key for SW and rightly so I would claim. I have the impression that he's more interested in "claiming" his ideas then really working them out in detail in papers. Working all out in detail will also cost alot of time.. There are so many people that are arrogant or full of themselves etc which I normally really ignore. We indeed should focus on what he claims and decide on it's usefullnes. That SW does not mention the names of the people doing the hard work is I would claim self-destructive and plain stupid and unneccesary. If he would put Max and Jonathan more in a spotlight he could get way more energy (and succes) out of the team. I do think he really thinks it's unimportant. It must be his experiences from the past whispering this in his ear?
Yes, you summarize it well. Thanks for the considered response!
I would love to see this channel move beyond only the Wolfram project, and fulfill its name "The Last Theory"! ... one very interesting aspect that it would also cover and analyze, which is also related to the Wolfram project, is the concept of the "atoms of space", AKA the "Aether", a concept that has a lot of history that predates both Einstein's relativity and quantum physics.
Thanks Hayder. We'll see how these computational models evolve, and yes, depending on where they go, I can see a time when I'll expand the scope of this channel. I feel I've barely scratched the surface of the Wolfram model, though, so I'll keep digging deeper for now. Thanks for following!
The main issue with the Wolfram's Physics Project is that the ideas lack compelling, explanatory power. So far, there are no new deep insights afforded by his approach. His ideas are definitely interesting, but they don't shed any new explanatory light on existing theories. Maybe it's too early, but that's the key criticism in my view. Also, his ideas haven't generated any new physics yet. That's ok if it's early, but it's not going to get much attention until he has something really new and original to say about the physical world. So far, he's trying to march through the history of physics massaging his approach and framework to support existing accepted physical theories, and there are still very significant gaps there too. So in short, I wouldn't get too caught up on the cult of the personality - that's a mere distraction. I would look at those other two objections a lot more carefully though.
Thanks, it's good to hear where you're at with this. I agree that the Wolfram model hasn't generated any new physics yet, and, as you say, this is because it's early.
I'd push back on your suggestion that there are no new deep insights, though. The idea that of a discrete space-time, generated through updates to a hypergraph, that conforms to Einstein's equations of General Relativity, is surely an insight that gives us a deeper understanding of the structure of space.
The idea that the same ideas, applied in a different space, can give rise to some of the principles of Quantum Mechanics, is, if it's right, a major step forward in my mind in our understanding of how General Relativity relates to Quantum Mechanics.
You're right, there are significant gaps, not least in the model's handling of particles, but there's no massaging going on here. Jonathan Gorard's derivations of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics involve remarkably few, weak assumptions. They more or less fall out of the model!
I agree, now that I've addressed these criticisms of Stephen Wolfram, I'll be getting back to the actual ideas on this channel, so much more important than the personalities!
False because computacional irreducibility, equivalence and boundedness for example are deep insights
That's an thoughtful take and I think you nail some important points. Wolfram is an interesting character that has done some really cool things and made contributions, largely from the business/industry side of things, as sort of an outsider, and occasionally outsiders do publish important work. On the other hand, most of the examples of revolutionary thinkers were part of the academy, from Newton on, and I get the tradition of peer review, self editing/policing of the "guild" to filter noise and quackery, even if it is also a form of gate-keeping. On the other other hand, anyone with a press or computer can publish and promote a good (or bad) idea in any way they see fit, more now than ever. Unfortunately, Wolfram does perhaps come across as a bit of a glory hound, and maybe, let's say "eccentric", and that might interfere with communication. At any rate, he's obviously capable, well resourced and if his ideas have the goods they'll find uptake.
Yes, thanks for this. It'll be interesting to see how the gatekeeping changes in the era of anyone being able to publish anything on the web.
I don't know much , this sounds very good and I am excited with Wolfram Physics proposals but, why not submit to peer review despite it's flaws and possibility to get rejected, wouldn't this at least give this new framework more credit as to dare to be subjected to the available reviews? Because it is a solid proposal? Eventually if Wolfram Physics nails it in many real problems , the peer review will have to retract and will promote a better way to filter good science from bad.
Yes, good question. I think Stephen Wolfram has real antipathy to academia, which doesn't always serve him well.
Jonathan Gorard is, I think, stepping in to provide that bridge between the Wolfram Physics Project and academia. He has published several seminal papers on the Wolfram model in a traditional academic format.
A more direct answer to your question, though, is that it would be very hard to submit most of what Stephen Wolfram has produced to peer review. Academia's simply not set up to handle this computational paradigm. It accepts short papers, whereas much of what Wolfram has done is voluminous computations.
Thanks for the question!
Sthephen are original in every way you look at
Being egocentric and/or dogmatic is not flawed in the sense that its part of intelligent human nature and the scientific world that critisizes him 😂
Dont the rest appreciate his great contribution to discussion with things such as computational irreducibility, equivalence and boundedness?
Yes, well said, thanks Mazius!
Thank you for sharing your insight. Science is about solving NP problems, so no organization/government/university can afford funding searching for solutions. Only individuals can afford it. Odd right?! But that's happened in history and it'll happen in the future. We just need to promote individuals more than groups, aka universities.
Yes, I agree. We're surprised every time someone outside of academia and/or outside of a field makes a significant contribution to that field. As you say, it has happened so many times in the history of science that you would have thought we'd have got used to it by now!
Look up Mandevillian Intelligence, see e.g. the introduction available as OA via Springer (should come up as an early search result). One result under this heading is that complex problems aren't best solved by large groups of people because then most (or all) interesting but "too" novel ideas - even when these are required - are squashed before they can grow.
He probably needs to retitle his work: "A MORE Fundamental Theory THAN Physics..." or his "A Theory of Everything" should also be subducted into this new title (because strictly speaking it CANNOT be everything in the future and secondly there's an even more fundamental level that remain a mystery prior to this lower level he appears to be uncovering), to quote from his article on Path to TOE in Physics, April, 2020:
"I soon realized that if that was going to be the case, we’d in effect have to go underneath space and time and basically everything we know. Our rules would have to operate at some lower level, and all of physics would just have to emerge."
So his is where he's operating and it's simpler perhaps to state this upfront and call it by another name than Physics at this level:
There's clearly a connection from raw Mathematics/Logic that has a transformative ability from this into Physical Phenomena as we know it aka "within Space-Time".
It should be more explicit that what he's proposing is indeed this "link" and it seems based on upon numbers creating topology and self-ordering information that then manifests emergent phenomena aka physics. Physics is no different to being an emergent phenomena in the same way that it also gives rise to the emergence of chemistry and thence biology and we're going to see shortly that biology is giving rise to more emergence such as sentience and consciousness as even higher orders of intelligence manifestation in the cosmos and beyond biology abstracting into cultural evolution and that will then produce AGI operation/awareness from that still further.
His basic insight has got to hold true as above the trend can be predicted and expected to continue:
"...that even when the underlying rules for a system are extremely simple, the behavior of the system as a whole can be essentially arbitrarily rich and complex."
In science taking a system, then taking it apart aka reductivism and from that deduction has proved immensely powerful. Reversing that and taking simple elements and rules and allowing them to play out or "simulate" into a system aka emergence is an opposite useful method he seems to have deployed with success because taking a macroscopic view of our universe:
It looks a lot like smaller structures of other systems of density of networks of connections eg neurones in a brain in 3d could easily look like the structure at macro scale of our universe!
When Charles Darwin came up with Evolution, he had a lot of data to use to formulate a Theory and a lot of it at the macro scale held up and only later with Mendell's genetic units did the mechanism (amongst others) support it. I think this approach will follow suit: The observation of the universe as a giant such structure perhaps a kind of hypergraph will eventually yield new insights because the reconception using this way to picture it will help break through beyond current models' limitations by joining up things more coherently that seems separate.
For example to reconceptualize "Time" as sort of "CPU Tick Cycle" of information propagation across the system is a very useful different way of looking at time and it seems to provide explanatory value eg Time Dilation.
The criticisms you cite are about the Person, not the above idea so seem to be of incidental interest.
What might be the best outcome of this theory? It seems to me things might start to change quite quickly in the coming years and the least benefit of a number of such potential benefits from this theory will be the demystifying of the physical universe at least in so far as our human minds can apprehend it: Those little computational universes or microcosms for example can be held in the palm of our hands, why not the nature of the universe too - at a very zoomed out focus of course!
Yes, you're right, we might need a different name for Wolfram's sub-physics ideas. He uses the term _metamathematics,_ which I think is pretty good.
And yes, the criticisms I talk about in this video are about the person. Happily, the other 50+ videos I've put out on htis channel are about the ideas! Hope you'll take a look at them, too.
Thanks for the comment!
He cannot afford being that explicit thats all
Did you actually read A New Kind of Science? Because I did, after buying a copy. I'm a fan of digital physics and was hoping he had made progress. Only nothing of the kind is proposed. It's not even about peer review. It's like buying a book title A New Way to Bake Cakes and finding only a intracate lengthy tomb on different way to milk cows.
Yes, I hear you about _A New Kind of Science._ But have you taken a look at _A project to find the Fundamental Theory of Physics?_ Written 20 years later, it's a completely different beast (and a very beautiful one!) getting into the specifics of how a hypergraph-based model maps on to physics as we know it. It's available free online, here's the introduction: writings.stephenwolfram.com/2020/04/finally-we-may-have-a-path-to-the-fundamental-theory-of-physics-and-its-beautiful/ I highly recommend you taking a look.
I think his work on the human mind as a computational device at some point in the ruliad progressing to another point is the best work he has ever done.
Now Wolfram physics as a graph of discrete cellular automata, in my humble opinion, looks like junk...
Furthermore trying to sell this as a settled fact, as he often does, is off-putting to me.
I would be more open to him if he started off saying "I have a wild idea that has very little supporting evidence but is very powerful and could ultimately be found to represent the true nature of reality."
In that context I would be very open to him but that isn't where he is at.
At a minimum he is brilliant and definitely deserves the attention he gets. That being said, no, I'm sorry, I just don't think there is enough evidence for a cellular automata universe yet and it seems unlikely that this will be our best path forward.
If I'm wrong and we find evidence for that I will gladly admit it. Either way I wish him the best and hope he continues his work. Nobody can deny his brilliance.
Yes, I hear you, it would definitely be better if Stephen Wolfram presented all this as the wild ideas they are, rather than settled fact, which they're not.
I think there's more evidence that the hypergraph model is promising than maybe you realize. Jonathan Gorard has derived general relativity czcams.com/video/1tjhE0U-mgc/video.html and aspects of quantum mechanics czcams.com/video/YZhCYLZanEE/video.html from the hypergraph, which is far from proof that the model is right, but seems extremely promising to me.
Thanks for the comment!
One of these days, I'm going to have to start with the first videos here. I read NKOS a few years ago, which was cool, but it seems to have really developed since the first glimpses there.
Yes, Stephen Wolfram's 2020 book _A project to find the Fundamental Theory of Physics_ is a huge step forward from _A New Kind of Science._ It's also a very beautiful book, you should get it! And I hope the videos help too. Thanks for watching!
I guess the credit issue is why the naming thing is a problem they go hand in hand don't they
Yes, thanks David, I agree. I'm a bit uncomfortable calling this Wolfram Physics or even the Wolfram model when Jonathan Gorard has contributed so much to prove that it really does correspond to physics as we know it. Maybe it should be called the Wolfram-Gorard model?
lol, you've somehow got me seriously thinking that scientists involved in potentially contentious areas might do well to study the rap game. In fact, back when we had breakthrough after breakthrough, there was a lot more open 'beef'
Without peer review, how do you separate the gems from the mountain of slush? You didn't even hint at an answer to that.
Recall that review found a significant flaw in Wiles' first version of a proof of Fermat's Last Theorem?
Yes, sometime peer review can catch errors, for sure. But for the most part, it doesn't. And worse, it encourages research within the narrow parameters of what peer review can handle, rather than bolder ideas.
There's already a mountain of slush in academic journals, so there's already the problem of finding the gems amongst the millions of papers published. I think we'd be better off relying on mechanisms other than peer review.
I'm not the only one who thinks is. There's increasing, quiet dissatisfaction with peer review among academics. I really recommend you take a look at Adam Mastroianni's take on this _The rise and fall of peer review_ www.experimental-history.com/p/the-rise-and-fall-of-peer-review
Thanks for the push-back, Perry!
@@lasttheory GIGO. More slush than not out there. You didn't present alternatives in the video, you only promoted wallowing in the undifferentiated slush.
But sure, do please trot out better alternatives!
Jaimungal makes the point that Wolfram's perceived arrogance could be interpreted in some ways as a 'front', a self confidence that is necessary in order to secure academic funding. While he understandably may have a large ego, the arrogance accusation does seem to stand in contrast with his obvious generosity in teaching and explaining physics to the wider public.
Yes, that's a great point, thanks!
That self confidence is needed to advance these complicated ideas against the status-quo!
@@maziusclavo8021 Yes, that's a good point, thanks Mazius. It's difficult to expect any one person both to be self-effacing and to reinvent physics!
Thanks for your interesting perspectives, well argued
Wolfram Alpha is a lot of fun to use. I would recommend it to anyone interested in that kind of stuff.
Don't forget Bruno Marchal.
I could be completely wrong, but I thought wolfram physics was just a different way of looking at or describing natural processes from different fundamental axioms.. So a call for peer review would sound like a complete missing of the mark, and lack of understanding on the part of those requesting it. To my ears it sounds like people are requesting rust programming language be peer reviewed by c programmers... What would that even mean!? It is a tool, a language, a way of looking at things, use it if you think it might give new insights that you wouldn't get otherwise. Meanwhile let the guy use his pet language, and see if he writes a new kernel.
I really like your way of putting it. Beautiful analogies! And yes, precisely, let's see if Stephen Wolfram writes a new kernel.
I like this comment. I'm not sold on Wolfram physics and it is kinda out there. That being said for all I know he could be completely right.
Even if he is completely wrong his work will open more insights and I hope he keeps working on it.
Self promotion is not a flaw.
Thumbnail design on point
I was going to comment that it was a seriously OTT thumbnail for a talking head video. :-)
Ever since changing his name from 'Cassius Clay' he realized he realized he was crossing the Rubicon and strong enough to let it all just bounce off him ;)
❤
The problem is SW has fallen into the "crackpot" AND the "doesn't play well with others" stereotypes, i.e., making wildly iconoclastic claims -- with either scanty or abstruse proof, then being off-putting. Your typical researcher doesn't make earth-shattering claims, rather, just the opposite. You have to carefully build up street cred -- and he hasn't done that. Physics is a nice-guy club. Physicists are typically mild-mannered Mr Rogers types. It's almost Law of Jante with them. SW simply doesn't fit in.
Sounds like he fits in with the dubious Weinsteins
Feynman , Gell-man etc wouldn't fit in either.
@@dilutioncreation1317 I suppose so. Throw in Hossenfelder. Einstein was iconoclastic. Wittgenstein didn't fit in. But they lucked out. Einstein's GTOR was recognized immediately by Hilbert and Göttingen. But physics didn't wake up until Eddington kept after the solar eclipse experiment, which finally proved it correct. It's probably a bit like Brian Eno when he said there aren't geniuses as much as there's a "scene" and out of that scene steps a strong representative. SW isn't coming from a scene, a community. As this video alludes, he pushes away any community to remain top-and-only dog.
Conrad Zuse reinvented physics. But probably he will be recognised in 1000 to 2000 years due to The Great Patent Heist. Read the paper called Calculating spaces.
Right, yes, Conrad Zuse is a great example of someone who was applying cellular automata in science long before Stephen Wolfram. Thanks, Christopher!
@@lasttheory You are welcome. I studied computer engineering once (I was young, I never knew) and later I did some vhdl cores (FPGA) on regenerative configurations of digital circuits based on cellular automata where I was informed that already Dr. Zuse had some research done via his company back in the70s. I felt completely idiot. I suspect there is much more hidden research on the field than on plain sight. On Dr. Wolfram, I think he is on some right tracks, but his book, titled, a new type of science, was a little bit too detailful, difficult to follow and in some manner speculative. I did read it and throw it, since I didn't got any known value to me. (At Dr. Wolfram: sorry). Take care, ugly days come to all of us.
Interesting, I only knew about the Z3 computer during the war
@@atheistbushman After The War, he founded an engineering Buro and created the Z4 (which you can find some parts in Zürich, ETH, here in Switzerland). The control mechanism in programming, called FOR LOOP for first used in his machine. Beyond that he cooperated with information machines companies (IBM, Siemens et al) to various areas such as drum memory, control units, state machine protocols. With the introduction of IC and later programmables he contributed to some extend, though the most of the fame goes to people that have less to do with it. He published a number of papers, the calculating spaces is one that is most common in the English speaking literature. In USA and UK was significally hated, more due to the post war propaganda issue than anything else.
@@christopherneufelt8971 Very interesting, sad that he is not getting the recognition he deserves
Absolue masterpiece of a video! Thank you so much for putting this together!
Thanks, I put a lot of thought into making this one, so I really appreciate your response!
What a great channel and personality. Thanks for this
Well said.
Great video! I love your chanel and have watched all your videos
Thanks Russell! Much more to come...
last theory is also a miss nomen... there will be new theories come
I hope so, thanks Bruno! The Wolfram model hasn't even produced a fully-fledged theory yet, so there's certainly much, much more to come in physics.
I have met Stephen Wolfram in the context of the Wolfram Tech Conferences and Summer schools. He knows who I am, which is something. I find him interesting in the extreme, with a reality-distortion field that rivals Steve Jobs. I have no problem naming things 'Wolfram', having struggled with naming software programs. Naming a company after oneself has a long tradition -- Ford Motor corp, Hewlett-Packard, etc. etc. Peer review seems to be broken at the moment and it is not the only way to present ideas.
I do not know enough Physics to understand the Physics project, but I do understand enough maths to know that the mathematical aspects of the project is very interesting, and I see applications of many of his ideas outside of fundamental physics.
As you point out, it is the ideas that count, and Stephen has provided more than enough information for anyone to assess the ideas. When I was a research specialist (physical biochemistry), it was well known that papers (even good ones -- peer reviewed, of course) left out critical technical details that made it hard to replicate experiments.
For myself, I am convinced that there is enough to the ideas for me to spend my time (and resources) on understanding it.
Thanks, George, for the thoughtful response. It's interesting that you bring up the reality-distortion field that's shared by Stephen Wolfram, Steve Jobs and (I'd add) Elon Musk. Reality distortion can be infuriating, but it can sometime achieve extraordinary things.
In what way does peer review seem to be 'broken'? You didn't say.
@@niblick616 Whole articles on this topic. Too easy to get junk science past review, for one. No direct experience, but undoubtedly too hard to get new ideas published.
@@vonHolzwege
1/ You admit that you have no direct experience, but you feel confident enough to claim that it is "...undoubtedly too hard to get new ideas published...". It is obviously false when anyone can publish any bizarre idea on the internet, whenever they want.
2/ What is interesting, is that some frienge people like Hossenfelder claim that it is too easy to get things published in some areas of physics as you did yourself, when you claimed "...Too easy to get junk science past review, for one. ...". Which is it, too easy or too hard?
3/ What articles are you referring to? What data have you based your assertion on? What time period do your remarks apply to? Published by which organisations?
4/ I am, afraid that you have not provided any valid and verified evidence for any of your claims.
Bravo! Thank you.
Naming your company after yourself is very common in Germany. I think Wolfram is in very good “company” 😂.
Examples: (Werner) Siemens, (Robert) Bosch, (Gottlieb) Daimler und (Carl) Benz, (Ferdinand) Porsche, (Carl) Zeiss, (Carl) Miele, Adidas (Adolf Dassler), Haribo (Hans Riegel, Bonn), (Max) Grundig. (Not to mention the different types of Engines: Diesel, Otto, Wankel all are named after their inventors. Similarly known for their eponymous products are Kärcher and Dremmel.)
Liebherr, Thyssen, Krupp, Bauknecht, Opel, Fendt, Horch (- “Audi” is just the Latin version of the name, after Horch was ousted from his original company, he founded a new one and had to pick a new name, as the old naming rights stayed with the old company).
Forgot the Pharmaceuticals: Merck, Bayer.
Then I forgot about ships (Blohm und Voss) and planes: MBB (Messerschmidt, Bölkow, Blohm).
That's a great point, I hadn't really picked up on that, though of course I'm familiar with many of the examples you cite. Thanks for the impressive list of self-named companies!
Could you make a video about Eric Weinsteins geometric unity?
Thanks for asking, but I'm going to continue focus on the Wolfram model here on this channel. For me, the paradigm shift from mathematics to computation is much more compelling.
@@lasttheory Sure no problem. Just thought he is in a kind of similar position to Wolfram in that he is also facing a lot of backlash just for putting out his idea because of the anti-enlightenment sentiment currently popular which is at least related to this video.
who tf is stephen wolfram
I have a video that answers this question: _Who is Stephen Wolfram?_ czcams.com/video/NS5ud4Lsfwc/video.htmlfeature=shared
A scientist is never less scientific than when criticising an idea that they don't believe to be scientific enough to be worth their time.
Wolfram's personality has nothing to do with anything. Yet somehow this seems to be the topic of most discussions rather than the content of his theories.
Newton was a renowned asshole... but 350 years later we all know his name.
I admire Wolfram's tenacity. Even if everything he has ever worked on turns out to be gibberish, the world needs people like him who are willing to go against the grain, regardless of how others may view them.
Ostracising a person will only fuel their narcissism.
Yes, that's well said. I often wonder why scientists never learn the lesson that they shouldn't summarily dismiss a theory they haven't taken the time to understand. It's too easy to end up looking foolish in retrospect! Thanks for the comment!
Thanks for the video! And for the patience to offer a balanced view that is so rare these days.
Narcissism is an evolutionary advantage, Wolfram already did a great work devoting his life to his own conviction
The big problem with Wolfram's big ideas is that he doesn't actually have a viable scientific theory. In order to do that, he would have to make falsifiable predictions.
Peer review is part and parcel of how science is done. Lots of crackpots just "put it out there," and we are free to ignore or read those things as well. Without peer review, you're not engaging with the world of science. You might have something worthwhile to say, but you won't have the right audience. Peer review is also how you find errors and academic dishonesty.
When a scientist says "I am my own check," they veer into crackpottery. That's not just hubris, it's downright dangerous to the practice of any knowledge-based profession. I may be paraphrasing him slightly, but Wolfram said this.
I know from first hand experience that Wolfram does not give proper credit. I know this because I did my thesis on cellular automata used to model physical systems. Toffoli was my advisor, and Fredkin was much of my source material. Those two pioneered the field of cellular automata, but they get scant mention in NKS. Wolfram sued a conference to prevent one of his grad students from independently publishing a result, all so he could keep that for NKS. (It was the only piece of original scholarship in that book, incidentally, and it wasn't even Wolfram's work.)
If you want to defend Stephen Wolfram, fine, but the conspiracy theory tone of your video seems unwarranted. This is not some brave soul bucking the system. Wolfram is far too wealthy and powerful in academic circles to be a credible underdog. My own research suggests a whole lot of skepticism is in order when evaluating Wolfram's convictions - because that's all he has right now, convictions. Maybe a hunch. Not a theory. Just some ideas that aren't even unique to him.
just made a similar comment elsewehre in the comments section, @RobertPoole . To Dr. Wolfram's credit, he doesn't make grandiose claims about free will, the origins of the universers or consciousness. He just points to... 'simple rules'
1) You're talking about the proof for Turing Universality of Rule 110?
I would also sue somebody trying to independently publish, what is a critical component to a theory that hasn't been released yet, especially if one agreed to not do so in leu of being part of the larger project where that proof is critical to its success.
Similiar story: I presented a series of ideas to somebody not too long ago (originally my ideas and formulation of an invention). For the stuff that I do, it would be one of the biggest contributions to the area in the past decade. The guy I was working with decided to "show off" what he was doing (without mentioning anything about me right) and people thought it was his idea. Not cool.
To me, sounds like a similiar story. If you are working with a collaborator and there is an agreement that it is part of some larger project...no you shouldn't "independently" try to put out any of its materials BEFORE it even comes out. This is why people sign NDA's to prevent this kind of clownery from happening...and if you get sued for violating an NDA, then that is in fact your fault.
2) Peer Review is not part of the scientific method. It was just invented at some point to expedite scientific progress. There's many places online where you can read about all the issues of peer review, and why people do not like it, and that its corrupt to a certain extent.
Do i need to bring up the peer reviewed paper that got published recently which had the front cover Ai generated image of a gigantic rat dong? Top tier peer reviewed research am-i-right?
What Wolfram did in NKS is real science at its core. He did experiments, made observations, and came to conclusions from those observations to build bodies of evidence for principles (principle of computational equivalence to be specific). If you read and understand the contents in his book, you would understand that the level of proofs in the book, are up to snuff.
3) Quote : "I know from first hand experience that Wolfram does not give proper credit. I know this because I did my thesis on cellular automata used to model physical systems."
You said you know from first hand experience meaning you have actually worked with Stephan Wolfram (first hand). That's a big claim. Just working on Cellular Automata does not give you "first hand experience" for what Stephan Wolfram does in relation to credit. So you'd have to elaborate on this point, and be careful with what you say.
Here's my thing and just a bit of advise for you : Stephan Wolfram is a billionaire. If he wasn't giving credit as he should be, dotting his I's and crossing his T's, he would get in big trouble all the time, left and right. He would be in jail if any of the stuff people said about him were true to that extent. If you say Wolfram "stole" your work or others, then you can go and sue him, and if you actually have proof that he did, then you would make a lot of money, and maybe Wolfram would go to jail depending on how severe that was. So do you actually have a claim? or is it just hot air...
@@NightmareCourtPictures The work was original work by that grad student, and he had every right to present it at a conference. Wolfram may have been within his legal rights to sue the conference to prevent publication of the presentation, but that's not how you do science. Also, the book you hold in such high esteem is a regurgitation of original work done elsewhere. I've read most of it, so I really don't need to spend the money on a repackaging of others' original scholarship. The one original proof isn't much in itself, and is hardly worth the cost of admission. The proof has to do with putting lower bounds on the number of states a CA needs to be Turing complete for computation.
And that one piece of original work isn't Wolfram's.
Peer review may not be part of the scientific method, but a lot of things aren't, yet are part of modern scientific practice. It's a time honored practice that serves a purpose (primarily error correction). It's how egregious errors in methodology get discovered.
Arguing from Wolfram's wealth as a reason that he couldn't possibly engage in academic dishonesty or doesn't give credit where it is due is a non-starter. I could just as easily argue that his wealth insulates him from consequences. (And he couldn't afford to be as famously litigious if he couldn't afford good attorneys.)
First hand experience means first hand experience. It does not mean the words you are (ineptly) trying to put in my mouth. I worked with Toffoli. I read Fredkin's work. I read enough of NKS to know that he relegated credit to bare foot/end notes. There are plenty of reviews of NKS that point out many instances where Wolfram makes it sound as though he originated an idea, and credit is given grudgingly if at all. I mainly cared about what he had to say about the people whose work I was riffing on, and that's what I zeroed in on. Working with people and seeing them get shafted is my definition of first hand experience. I witnessed this. Please work on your English comprehension.
You are your work in academia. Looking at Wolfram's work product is all I should need to do. I really don't care if he privately admitted his intellectual debt to some confidante. His style is dishonest because of how he frames the work of others while insisting that only he sees the big picture.
Fredkin proposed that the universe was one big CA long before Wolfram did, but Wolfram's self promotion means that most folks think Wolfram invented this stuff.
Here's a thought. How about you be careful with what you say? I don't appreciate threats from over-eager defenders of those who literally don't need defending. Next time you feel the urge to maliciously misinterpret someone's words, just remember that Dr. Wolfram isn't the only litigious person out there.
@@RobertPoole in other words you have no proof that wolfram actually stole your work…because you didn’t work with him; which isn’t first hand.
Like I said you can right now go and sue him if that were the case. It has nothing about being able to make an argument…go to court right now if what you say is true. That’s why we have laws about the stuff.
Like I say your probably blowing hot air cause you wouldn’t be in this comment section you or your colleagues would be talking to a lawyer.
And your last sentence is hilarious. You can’t do anything to me…what are gonna sue me for? Lmao? Do you know how laws actually work?
You claiming wolfram stole something from you means you should go to court, not blabbing on about it here on a YT comment. If what you said is true then your claims obviously come with real world consequences. If your so confident in your claims you shouldn’t have anything to worry about. I say you should be careful about what you say…because claiming someone stole something is defamation if your wrong.
About NKS I read the book and studied it’s contents and the w-model for three years in order to understand it for myself. The proof in NKS was not really about showing a lower bound for the universality of CA’s, it was about proving the universality of the whole rule class and by extension all systems that run on rules by showing A) that the Ca’s emulated each other and then B) showing one to be Turing universal so that C) prove that the rule class is capable of universal computation under the argument that you could string CA emulations to each other until you get to rule 110 which then D) provides evidence for the principle of computational equivalence which shows all rules sit in the same complexity space (that of a Turing machine)
If you read the book, you didn’t understand it go and watch chapter 11 on Wolframs NKS series where he goes through the argument.
@@RobertPoole Additional comment
1) Quote about defamation law from a legalzoom article:
"Defamation is a false statement presented as a fact that causes injury or damage to the character of the person it is about. An example is “Tom Smith stole money from his employer." If this is untrue and if making the statement damages Tom's reputation or ability to work, it is defamation."
So if you think you or your friends got jacked, well just make sure you actually have proof, because if not, well you play with fire. that's advise that i'm giving you for your own good.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
2) A statement about Mathew Cook's case related to rule 110 on wikipedia
"Matthew Cook presented his proof of the universality of Rule 110 at a Santa Fe Institute conference, held before the publication of A New Kind of Science. Wolfram Research claimed that this presentation violated Cook's nondisclosure agreement with his employer, and obtained a court order excluding Cook's paper from the published conference proceedings."
There was a Non-disclosure agreement...so it's pretty straight forward. Bro violated the NDA and released independently stuff that he wasn't supposed to.
For instance: If you work on a movie, and you wrote the screenplay...doesn't give you the right to break an NDA and release the screenplay before the movie releases...if at all, since the NDA governs the terms of how the materials are dealt with across arbitrary periods of time. Such is the case with pretty much any NDA you sign.
I like SW and his philosophy, but believe his physics model is wrong(partially). People who hate him are schmucks.
In spite of all of its flaws, shortcomings, etc., isn't peer-review the best we have until something better is formalized? I suppose if one has big bucks and power, one can do whatever one wants. Everyone else be dammed.
I haven't studied Wolfram's NKS to make any critical statements about it whatsoever. From what little I have read I find it absolutely fascinating, even though it lacks rigor and some of it seems to have been said before.
If he (his NKS framework) produced a model for turbulence that says something new, his name would surely be bigger than everybody else's.
I really recommend you read Adam Mastroianni's excellent article _The rise and fall of peer review_ www.experimental-history.com/p/the-rise-and-fall-of-peer-review It might change your mind about peer review: far from being the best thing we have, Mastroianni argues that it's worse than nothing. You'll see from my video _Peer review is suffocating science_ czcams.com/video/oF-2QJHy53M/video.html that I agree.
And there's more rigor to the Wolfram model than there appears at first sight. Take a look at Jonathan Gorard's articles _Some Relativistic and Gravitational Properties of the Wolfram Model_ arxiv.org/abs/2004.14810 and _Some Quantum Mechanical Properties of the Wolfram Model_ www.complex-systems.com/abstracts/v29_i02_a02/ for some serious rigor!
Thanks, William, I appreciate your comments as ever!
@@lasttheory An opinion on a blog by an experimental psychologist won't change my mind. If it's just a "free for all" the people with the big money and/or power will get their way first, i.e., way worse than anything we have now.
I have looked at Jonathan's papers on ArXiv. It's not my area, but they looked like they were based on what is already known. If there is any rigor in NKS, Wolfram has kept it in his private notes.
It is not true that Einstein etc through out there models without connecting them to established physics first. Not even string theorists do it. But Wolfram always claims that he will be able to derive Einstein's field equations etc from his model SOON. But he never delivers.
I don't know... I think we forget how revolutionary special relativity and general relativity were at the time. It was such a disconcerting discontinuity with previous theories that Planck, Lorentz et al already had the essentials of these theories, but refused to believe it. And quantum mechanics was _so_ radically different that Einstein himself refused to believe it.
This is just a lie. they derive it, and there are lectures and literature explaining these derivations (video: "Wolfram Physics I: Basic Formalism, Causal Invariance and Special Relativity") and finally, people who understands the subject, knows that at basic form, this should be trivially true for such a type of model.
Additionally, it's also just logical that his work applies to nature because his principle of computational equivalence, is a statement about systems that follows rules. All systems follow rules...can you think of any that do not? Physics has been the thing humanity definitively categorized as operating on mathematical rules. The first statement in Wolfram's NKS, is that in order for us to do science, we have to believe the universe operates on rules, followed by asking "What kinds of rules?"
Thereafter Wolfram proposes that the universe doesn't only operate on mathematical rules, but more general, computational rules, and the rest of the book is about proving this, by just presenting sample after sample that shows computational rules as being a superior way of explaining system behavior, like systems in nature, than mathematical equations.
@@NightmareCourtPictures Yes, thanks for filling in that gap in my reply: Jonathan Gorard _has_ derived Einstein's equations from the Wolfram model. Here's his seminal paper: arxiv.org/abs/2004.14810
@@lasttheory Very interesting link, thanks. But now I get the vibe: Wolfram's model is so general, it can model anything, including physics. If so, then what is the use? A video about its predictions would be nice.
@@TheOneMaddin Thanks for the reply. Yes, there's that danger, that a hypergraph model might simply be a general model of everything. But from what I understand from Jonathan Gorard, that's _not_ what's happening here. The structure of space-time according to Einstein's equations is quite specific, and it might well have turned out that the hypergraph predicted something different. Instead, it turned out to predict Einstein's equations. It does this without any tuning: if it had turned out to predict something different, it would have been impossible to tune it to predict Einstein's equations instead. General Relativity simply falls out of the model.
And yes, prediction is, for sure, a big question mark for the Wolfram model. There are currently no _novel_ predictions (though it does provide some satisfying explanations that earlier theories lack). Here's a video in which Jonathan talks about possible future predictions: _Where's the evidence for Wolfram Physics?_ czcams.com/video/XLtxXkugd5w/video.html
It does seem like Wolfram is intentionally gatekeeping. This looks bad for two reasons that I can think of, 1) He actually isn't sure it will stand up to intense scrutiny; in other words the research is not complete enough to share even parts of it, and/or 2) He really does want any discovery all to himself, both the credit and the rewards, and if someone stumbles upon it besides him, he wants it to be someone under his employ. Other than that, I applaud his genius and also his unapologetic attitude. I say to naysayers: let him run, stop complaining, and see what happens. Just like I would with Newton or Davinci, I myself would not give him money, but I'd probably buy him a beer.
Yes, you put it well. I don't think I'd use the word "gatekeeping", given the volume of material Wolfram puts out there (1200-page books, hours and hours of video), but I know what you mean about his seeming to want to keep it all in-house. If you ever get to buy Stephen Wolfram a beer, please let me know, I'd love to join you!
I don't think someone gatekeeping would stream themselves live CEOing.
I stopped half way through, because what you aren't doing is defending Stephen Wolfram's ideas. You haven't once said what his ideas are.
This is just clickbait.
I'm not defending him either, but you can't defend OR attack his ideas if you won't even engage with what they consist of.
Thanks for the feedback, Joshua. It's a shame you didn't get to the end, where I say precisely what you say here: can we please talk about Wolfram's _ideas?_ If you're interested in these ideas, I have 50+ videos on my channel dedicated to them. I hope you'll take a look!
Maybe, after Wolfram has finally demonstrated anything that he and you claim, including that his work has 'predicted' anything, including Quantum Mechanics in any meaningful way, you might have a case. Sorry.
I don't know if this will satisfy you, but the Wolfram model does very precisely give rise to Einstein's equations, i.e. predicts General Relativity. Take a look at Jonathan Gorard's overview: czcams.com/video/1tjhE0U-mgc/video.html These are not novel predictions, but they're indicative that the Wolfram model is at the very least a contender.
@@lasttheory
1/ You are correct that what you provided does not satisfy me because it does not address any of my observations, unfortunately.
2/ The last claim in your post does not logically follow from your failure to provide any valid and verified evidence that Wolfram model actually qualifies as a contender for what it claims to do.
3/ What would satisfy me are the things I have already listed in my previous post, which summarises how real science works. None of those have been provided.
4/ Your latest link is a duplicate of some of what I had already looked at and discussed. Nothing extra or valid and verified was added to what you had already posted, unfortunately.
@@niblick616 OK, we might have to agree to disagree here. If papers with precise derivations of real physics from the Wolfram model, such as Jonathan Gorard's _Some Relativistic and Gravitational Properties of the Wolfram Model_ arxiv.org/abs/2004.14810 deriving Einstein's equations, aren't enough for you to take this seriously, then I don't know how we can have a meaningful conversation.
@@lasttheory
1/ Unfortunately, the paper you have now cited does not do what you claim. It contains a lot of arm waving and assumptions derived from already existing physics. The paper has been published in The Journal of Complex Systems, which was co-founded and edited by Stephen Wolfram. Arxiv has published an updated version 2 of the paper in 18/10/2021. That does not appear to have been published in the Journal of Complex Systems.
2/ The various claims in that paper have not been repeatedly confirmed by any independent, reputable scientists.
3/ The Wolfram model is not accepted in science in any meaningful way. Nothing you have provided actually demonstrates that.
4/ Wolfram stated in 2020 "...
“Sometime - I hope soon - there might just be a rule … that has all the right properties, and that we’ll slowly discover that, yes, this is it - our universe finally decoded,” Then he expanded that to a class of rules/models when he stated
"...The purpose here is to introduce a class of models that could be relevant. The models are set up to be as minimal and structureless as possible...". in this paper
A Class of Models with the Potential to Represent Fundamental Physics
Now he seems to be saying that all rules maybe operating to do that job when he writes "...The full ruliad involves taking the infinite limits of all possible rules, all possible initial conditions and all possible steps.
The fundamental idea of Wolfram seems to have fundamentally changed.
I see the Wolfram Physics Project as very promising. The simplest foundation of reality I can think of is as an expanding complete graph, and then the Wolfram model fits into that as an evolving subgraph! That's what I call a fundamental model.
Yes, that's one of the truly compelling things about the Wolfram model, the simplicity of representing space and everything in it as a hypergraph. Thanks for the comment!
What you think has no necessary connection to what is true. To make that connection you need at least some valid and verified evidence. Do you have any?
@@niblick616 To go from the simple graph model to something like quantum mechanics and general relativity seems very complicated, involving math that's way over my head. But I like the fundamental model approach. Today in physics all the theories hang in the air so to speak without a fundamental ground.
@@niblick616 Yes, you're right, of course, there needs to be a connection to reality. And the Wolfram model is getting there. Jonathan Gorard has already derived Einstein's equations, i.e. General Relativity, as well as aspects of Quantum Mechanics, from the model. Check out his overviews in these quick videos: czcams.com/video/1tjhE0U-mgc/video.html czcams.com/video/YZhCYLZanEE/video.html
@@Anders01
1/ That is not true, unfortunately. You are confusing a hypothesis with an actual theory as used in modern science. A theory is something that has been well-established by both repeated experiments and theory.
There is no comparison between the hypotheses of Wolfram and theory.
2/ All theories in physics, therefore, by definition, and in practice do not hang in the air without a fundamental ground.
I think he deserves better than what academics are dishing out to him, not because his ideas are necessarily correct (they might or might not be), but because he is not just some random person off the "street". He was Feynman's protege, got a PhD and was publishing in peer reviewed journals before he left academia, and then went on to create an amazingly useful symbolic computer language. There are lots of cranks, but they don't have his credentials. Credentials are a good filter for cranks, though of course some times there will be false positives (brilliant ideas will be filtered out if this were the only filter). Just being employed in academia is NOT as good of a filter.
Yes, thanks, I like that: being employed in academia is, indeed, a pretty poor filter!
His background and his financial success are what really separate him from the crackpots. He doesn't need the money or clout of academia and apart from his work that's why I follow his work
From what I have seen and read, most physicists who encountered Feynman were awed by his intellect (see David Deutsch interviewed by Sam Harris); not so Wolfram. Of course, that could speak to his arrogance but given his obvious precocity and later achievements I tend to think it is a reflection of his own comparable brilliance.
@@lasttheory I meant being employed in academia is a worse filter in the sense that more good ideas (non cranks) wlll be filtered out (compared to the credentials filter), but it's a good filter for filtering out cranks..
This is the "peer review is suffocating science" guy...
XD
LMAO
Oh, little buddy.
But it does
Yes, that's me. If you disagree with me about peer review, I'd really encourage you to read Adam Mastroianni's article _The rise and fall of peer review_ www.experimental-history.com/p/the-rise-and-fall-of-peer-review If you still disagree, that's fine: rational people can come to different conclusions about these things.
"THIS Got Through Peer Review?!" video by Pete Judo
^^^ The state of peer review lol!
Academics criticizing Wolfram (or anyone else) for being too self promotional is beyond hypocritical.
The way Academics manipulate (and/or kiss the ass of) the publication & peer review systems to promote themselves is so close to corrupt that one may as well assume it.
Wolfram has the balls to put his ass (and money) on the line for something rather than muddle about creating preposterous little citation magnets.
As for Dyson, I’m pretty sure I saw a painting of his ancestor pissing on Galileo’s telescope. Another habit of old physicists - moribund fear of having to absorb another thing they clearly can’t.
He won’t peer review - exactly who is it that is clamouring to provide a thorough even-handed review? Which hysterically over priced journal is going to publish it?
He doesn’t credit people, true. He also takes the heat from the fools who just as soon destroy the careers of anyone involved.
That said, more than being unfair it fails to help build credibility for his efforts.
IMO he needs to think about that for the good of his projects.
1874...."there's not much left to discover".....Planck disagreed.
2024....."we aren't close to the fundamental theory of physics"....Wolfram disagreed.
Yes, precisely!
@lasttheory I also enjoyed you bringing in the Jesuit, because physics is a kind of priesthood, more so than other science disciplines. Neal Stephenson ran with this idea in his book Anathem...
A wolf in rams clothing.
Primate jealousy. Who ever gets ahead, gets pulled down.
Right. If you stick your head above the parapet...
No. That is demonstrably not true.
You also forgot to demonstrate that Wolfram is ahead in anything. Can you do so?
@@niblick616Nothing needs to be demonstrated to yourself. You need demonstration of jealousy towards individuals maybe someone is autistic here
The weird thing about critizising Wolfram for not having a theory capable of producing predictions (which isn't even true, but for the sake of argument ...) is that they - like so many before them - completely ignore the fact that every single testable theory, in order to be produce predictions, must be translated into something computable: integrals must be turned to sums and fluffy words to logic (e.g., assumptions). So, if one insists on being pedantic and point fingers here then one should notice the approximately three to four fingers pointing back at oneself here (assuming you have five fingers and depending on which way your thumb is pointing) - your theory isn't directly falsifiable "either" (or more correctly, if computational theories aren't then no theories are).
Yes, well stated!
No. You miss the point when you become the point. I’ll speak for you now…we do not need a new fundamental physics or “solution”. That’s a fact. That’s logic. Waste more of that by which ultimately ole wolfram acknowledges is most precious…time…and how that time is spent.
I guess I'm not as satisfied with the state of physics as you are. Quantum mechanics has always had an unsound foundation, and General Relativity can't be reconciled with it. If you're OK with that, then sure, we don't need a new fundamental physics. But I hold out hope that we'll find one. Thanks, anyway, for watching, and for the comment.