5 reasons to take Wolfram Physics seriously

[@tantzer6113]

I watched a long interview with Jonathan Gorard about the Wolfram Physics project on the Theories of Everything KZbin channel. I get the sense that he, as a major developer of the Wolfram Physics project, does not agree with your (or Stephen Wolfram’s) characterization of the hypergraphs. I got the sense that he doesn’t think of the hypergraphs as birthing relativity and quantum mechanics unassisted by a clever midwife, which is what you are suggesting, but rather thinks of the hypergraphs as a formalism which can be made compatible with relativity and quantum mechanics. Now, the kind of compatibility he talks about is interesting and significant enough, but it is not the same as hypergraphs simply predicting relativity and quantum mechanics, which would be earth-shatteringly significant. The way Gorard talks about the subject validates Scott Aaroson’s “criticism” that relativity and quantum mechanics were built into hypergraphs to make sure they also come out of hypergraphs. So, who is right? Gorard and Aaroson on the one hand, or Wolfram and you on the other hand? Figuring this out requires getting into the nuts and bolts of all these theories, which I have not done. Could you shed light on this?

[@lasttheory]

Good questions. When I'm talking about the derivations of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics from the hypergraph, I'm talking about Jonathan Gorard's derivations. And you're right, he talks about his work very differently from the way Stephen Wolfram talks about it. One day, I'll do a video on the differences in emphasis and philosophy between the two! Speaking generally, Jonathan is agnostic as to the _reality_ of the hypergraph, and cautious about making bold claims. You're right that he talks about the hypergraph being _consistent_ with General Relativity, and in my conversation with him, he emphasized that it was more a relief than a triumph when he proved the consistency. Stephen is much bolder in his claims, and less cautious about treating what some (including me) might consider speculation or philosophy as if it were physics. I think it's a difference in style more than anything. I confess I find Scott Aaronson's criticisms of the theory a little glib. I'm not sure he's taken on the task of thinking about quantum mechanics from _within_ the framework. It's a common problem that when a theory is incommensurate with the old paradigm, you have to think about it in terms of the new paradigm, otherwise it'll always look wrong. The problem here is that if you think the existing theories are 100% _right,_ then _any_ different theory will seem _wrong._ Hope that helps make sense of these different perspectives. Thanks for the questions!

[@skullpoker69]

I watched a Sabine Hossenfelder vid on the topic and got a similar impression. To me, she seemed to compare it to a 2d map of a 3+1d space-time. As though it's an incomplete snapshot of a dynamic reality. I've been a fan of Wolfram since I learned of his search engine, but that doesn't make his word the absolute truth. That said, every small step toward objective truth is progress. I don't need to understand it for it to be relevant or true. But if I can learn from it, in a way that advances my knowledge of objective truth, then it's likely to be good science. So, wait-and-see seems to be the best approach. Not sure if that helps at all, but know that I agree, for what it's worth.

[@tantzer6113]

@@lasttheoryThank you very much for this. I suppose there is a third approach to consider beyond a “yes” or “no” answer to the above question: I am going to conjecture that Gorard posited certain assumptions that need to be tacked onto the hypergraph to enable the derivation of relativity and quantum mechanics. Now, everything depends on how limited or extensive these added assumptions are. If they are simple and minimal in character, to the point that it seems remarkable that relativity and quantum mechanics should arise out of them, then we have a very important achievement. In science, when complex things are explained in terms of simpler things, that is considered progress. Another question about the tacked-on assumptions: is it the same set of assumptions that give rise to both relativity and quantum mechanics, or you have one set of assumptions to ensure relativity and another set to ensure quantum mechanics? If it is the same assumptions that give rise to both, that would be extremely impressive. In science, when a unified explanation is offered for phenomena that previously had different explanations, that is considered progress.

[@lasttheory]

@@tantzer6113 I'm not yet familiar with Jonathan's paper on quantum mechanics, but I do have some understanding of the assumptions he made to prove consistency with general relativity. "everything depends on how limited or extensive these added assumptions are" - Yes, exactly. And the assumptions, in the case of general relativity, are very much limited: they're simple and they don't seem at all arbitrary. Here are the assumptions: 1. Causal invariance 2. Asymptotic dimension preservation 3. Weak ergodicity There's also the definition of how matter arises from the hypergraph. But that's it. Those are some pretty technical assumptions, but they're really quite limited. For more on what they mean, take a look at Jonathan's explanation in my conversation with him kzbin.info/www/bejne/Z6XNmXhmipKgncU

[@fbkintanar]

Looking from the outside, I don't get the impression that Wolfram physics is a specific theory, much less a testable one. It seems Gorard in particular presents his work as a novel mathematical framework for expressing families of theories. And I don't think their group has zeroed in on a single family that will stand the test of time, they are still testing the waters to restate old theories. It's mathematically interesting, but I don't see that it has demonstrated advantages over some related ideas like causal set theory. It might be so flexible that you can restate anything at all, and when one proposal proves fragile just replace it with a tweaked one.

[@carlhopkinson]

Wolfram is trying to derive physics from the structure of pure causality. A noble and exciting idea.

[@GrahamLaight]

Sounds like, "I can model anything with Stickle Bricks, therefore all the matter in the world is made from tiny Stickle Bricks."

[@lasttheory]

I like the analogy, thanks Graham! And there may be some truth to it: it might be possible to model the universe with _any_ sufficiently complex, Turing complete, computational model. But wouldn't that be a wonderful thing? If the Wolfram model can explain aspects of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, wouldn't that be compelling?

[@Soul-Burn]

We don't know what the world is made of, we only have models. If a model fits the current observed physics and has predictive power, it is probably a good model of the universe.

[@lasttheory]

@@Soul-Burn Yes, well put.

[@wwkk4964]

Excellent list! Personally, I am a huge fan of the project because I have been unhappy with the (lack)of sophistication of our mathemtical tools and if nothing else, the project forces us to set aside continuous calculus and start thinking more cleanly and clinically about enumeration and quantification in discrete terms. it will absolutely revolutionalize all of our current understanding once we go back to exact versus approximate foundations.

[@lasttheory]

Yes, that's beautifully put. Thanks!

[@ready1fire1aim1]

Infinitesimal Calculus and the Nature of the Continuum: The development of infinitesimal calculus by Leibniz and others in the 17th century was a major breakthrough in mathematics and physics, allowing for the precise analysis of continuous change and motion. However, the concept of infinitesimals - quantities that are infinitely small but still greater than zero - has always been somewhat controversial and has led to various paradoxes and contradictions. In the 20th century, the mathematician Abraham Robinson developed a rigorous framework for infinitesimal calculus, known as non-standard analysis. In this approach, infinitesimals are treated as actual numbers that exist in a hyperreal number system that extends the real numbers. This allows for a consistent and logically coherent treatment of infinitesimals, without the need for limits or the concept of zero as a single point. One fascinating consequence of this view is that it suggests that the continuum may not be a fundamental feature of reality, but rather an emergent property that arises from the interplay of discrete, infinitesimal elements. This idea resonates with some of the insights from quantum mechanics, which suggest that the apparent continuity of space and time may break down at the smallest scales. By embracing infinitesimals as genuine mathematical objects, we may be able to develop a more accurate and non-contradictory understanding of the nature of the continuum.

[@wwkk4964]

@ready1fire1aim1 Excellent comment! In some ways, the challenge for humanity is to build the bridge back from what Brahmagupta (negatives and discrete algebra) and Euler gave us (linking the negativity back to curvature or cycles). I do believe that geometry has clouded our ability to think discretely, and this is why we mindlessly apply algebras that are adapted to our intuitive geometries to sorts of places without having any real understanding of how or what should be appropriate. I also predict that people will revise their understanding of Brahmagupta's rules for algebra with zero. He did NOT suggest 0/n = 0, he thought 0/n and n/0 should be treated as irreducible and left as is. (suggesting you can't discard algorithmic, modular or base unit information without consequences)

[@ready1fire1aim1]

Yeah Euclid got Plato's "forms" and "solids" upside-down like 2300 years ago and we still haven't fixed it hahaha. That's why we thought non-zero dimensions were locally real until like two years ago. Ugh Euclid, Descartes, Newton and Einstein thought reality was bipartite due to Euclid's blunder but Leibniz knew reality is tripartite. If 0 = 0+0i then 0D = 0D+0Di.

[@wwkk4964]

@ready1fire1aim1 Wow, just wanted to thank you for the fruitful interaction because I'm still processing your knowledge drops, and will respond soon!

[@darrennew8211]

We're not really "assuming space and time and particles." We're measuring them, altho we don't have an explanation for what they are. You're assuming hypergraph. That said, it's a cool theory and it's neat to see how well it's progressing. "They tell us why the old theories were right" is so excellent.

[@JwalinBhatt]

I dont think its that easy to separate measurements from assumptions. Space and time are a part of the fabric of space-time, then would you say we are measuring space-time itself? I'd say we came up with an explanation to explain our observations of how travelling in space affects time. And this explanation be it space-time or hypergraph is as imaginary as any other. At the end of the day we only measure space/time, the rest is a model/assumption. But anyway that's just my thoughts on this.

[@lasttheory]

Thanks Darren. Yes, the Wolfram model assumes the hypergraph, and rules, and causal invariance, but not much else. True, General Relativity, for example, assumes only space, and time, and matter, and the influence of matter on the curvature of space-time; but it's nice that we no longer have to assume any of those things, we can derive them. I appreciate the comment and the careful watching!

[@lasttheory]

That's a good point, thanks Jwalin: even our measurements are predicated on our assumptions. If we observe light through a telescope and try to work out where it came from, we _assume_ three-dimensional space, or four-dimensional space-time, and an expanding universe. Our _models_ determine how we make _sense_ of our measurements.

[@darrennew8211]

@@lasttheory I meant that it's not an *assumption* that time passes. It's an observation. It's a *theory* that time and space are intertwined, and a *measurement* that what we call mass (whatever that is) curves space (whatever that is). Like, you have F=ma. You measure the acceleration, you measure the mass relative to other masses, and you deduce this fictional value called "force" which is useful only to the extent that it appears in other equations. But it's incorrect to say acceleration is an "assumption." It's defined as something we can measure, so it's a measurement. 🙂 NKoP definitely has fewer fundamental measurable things than other theories seem to, and I love your explanation that new theories explain why the old theories were right. 🙂 Actually, now that I think about it, does NKoP address the wavefunction collapse problem? Is there anything there yet that might explain how Schrodinger's equation fails to account for actual measurements?

[@lasttheory]

​@@darrennew8211 Right, yes, you're right, our observations are real. I've always been bemused, for example, by physicists' arguments that there's no arrow of time, or that there's only an arrow of time because entropy increases over time. For me, it's just an observation that time always goes forward. Or, it least, it always does for me, perhaps for other people it sometimes goes backwards? Good question about the wavefunction collapse problem. It don't know the answer: I'm currently working through Stephen Wolfram's Observer Theory to try to understand his explanation of observation. With any luck, the framework will be able to replace the Copenhagen Interpretation concept of observation with something saner. I think it'll go something like this: the observer collapses multiple paths through the multiway graph to a single timeline through "coarse-graining" or "equivalencing". But I need to read more, and ask Stephen Wolfram to clarify.

[@HadiLq]

would you make videos about how Wolframe model deal with the measurement problem while it's a deterministic theory? I am all for the hypothesis that reality is deterministic since I think otherwise it doesn't make sense, but certainly Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum mechanic is not! Is there any other interpretation that Wolframe used?

[@lasttheory]

Yes, that's a crucial question, and absolutely, I'll make videos on this. You can find Wolfram's ideas on observers here: writings.stephenwolfram.com/2023/12/observer-theory/ I think his approach is very different from the Copenhagen interpretation, and I need to dig deeper to see exactly how he resolves the conflict you point out, that this theory is deterministic. Much more on this to come, thanks Hadi!

[@mechannel7046]

A short and sweet summary of Wolfram physics. Thanks!

[@lasttheory]

Thanks for that!

[@jcb6620]

Other than connecting the two theories has there been any new discoveries using Wolfram theory?

[@lasttheory]

It depends what you mean by discoveries! Certainly there have been no novel predictions confirmed by observation: that's true of _any_ new theory, I'm afraid, there's no experimental verification until there is. See my video _ Why scientific theories need not make predictions_ kzbin.info/www/bejne/inmvomRtrL5opKs for further discussion of this issue. But there are possibilities for novel predictions, such as fluctuations in the dimensionality of space having a lensing effect similar to gravitational lensing, and collisions of black holes emitting different radiation due to the discreteness of space. See my conversation with Jonathan Gorard _ Where's the evidence for Wolfram Physics?_ kzbin.info/www/bejne/jn3XqYuhqsyXa9k for more on this. Thanks for the question: it's the right one to ask!

[@wwkk4964]

My favorite new "discovery" is that it confirms some old ideas that the observer is embedded in the scene they are observing and it's a non-trivial fact that we must develop an observer theory to make intelligible predictions about what it means or what it takes to be an observer in the first place and then figuring out what about the observer is covariant with their observations.

[@lasttheory]

@@wwkk4964 Yes, quantum mechanics was really, really in need of a saner explanation of the observer. I, too, am hoping that Wolfram Physics can provide it.

[@wwkk4964]

@lasttheory Yes! that particular one is the most egregious case of observer theory lacking, but I'm hoping it gives us insight about something more fundamental, something that helps get a grip of why we appear to converge on certain patterns at any scale really.

[@NLPprompter]

i hope i understand this right... so.. is it possible hypothetically, if we all living in different hypergraph we all counting different math different gravity or even different reality?

[@lasttheory]

That's a deep question. According to the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, which might apply to Wolfram Physics too, yes, there are many different universes that have evolved in many different ways. According to Stephen Wolfram, the answer to your question is also yes, but in a different way. Different observers might occupy different positions in the ruliad, and so see very different laws of physics. It's tricky for me to wrap my head around both these ideas!

[@NLPprompter]

@lasttheory thank you for your thoughts, I appreciate it.

[@MiesamR809]

I concur with your reasoning. I too see the Wolfram Project as a compelling model of everything. What's needed for this to catch fire is a testable prediction - a new insight that can be objectively measured. Stephen et al know this - I expect something in my lifetime (and I am Wolfram's age.) . Nonetheless. When one contemplates the fact of the theory being on point - it soon boggles one's imagination. Try it.

[@lasttheory]

Yes, I very much agree with everything you say here. Looking forward to that observational confirmation... maybe in the form of fluctuations in the dimensionality of space?

[@santerisatama5409]

The key result of Wolfram's concrete study of computation is the prediction/conjecture of non-predictability aka 'computational irreducibility'. This result obviously falsifies naive predictionism of the failed paradigm of non-computational physicalism.

[@CStefan77]

If one goes with causality it is already assuming a way to build reality. I would say the phenomenal dimensions of the Symboliad through observer is a framework which may explain how one comes to frameworks like Ruliad. Math is both discovered and invented. Frame of reference is paramount.

[@nealesmith1873]

It will be very interesting to see how this develops. I’m very interested in extremely unlikely events. Maybe the hypergraph and how it evolves will show that there were actually many paths (or inevitable paths) to such events and we are actually underestimating their probability.

[@lasttheory]

Yes, thanks Neale. I've not heard Stephen Wolfram talk about probabilities - he prefers to think of the model as deterministic, I think - but I'm very interested in this too. I hope to ask him about it!

[@nealesmith1873]

@ I may be wrong, but the multiway graph branches before eventually converging. In the branching stages, some system states will have more paths leading to them. I’m basing this on this information: mathworld.wolfram.com/MultiwayGraph.html. Maybe only the first and last states in that graph are being called events, but I think that every system state is an event.

[@erickay123]

Something else I have wondered. Dark energy and Dark matter were theorize to explain the galaxy arm problem. But experiments over time and telescope estimate of rouge planets and such, seem to indicate there's not enough of it to explain the speed of the galaxy arm speed. So one explanation that matches the data was Quantitized Inertia. Would would Wolfram Physics, with a discrete hypergraph allow for quantitized inertia to emerge? (A discrete chunkiness is certainly sounds like a prerequisite, but I'm not familiar enough with either to understand them.)

[@lasttheory]

Good question, thanks Eric. I'm not familiar with Quantized Inertia, but I see there's a lot of skepticism about it out there. Stephen Wolfram, too, has hopes that the discrete nature of the hypergraph might provide an alternative explanation of the behaviour of galaxies that'd do away with "dark matter", but I don't think he has any such explanation yet. So yes, absolutely, these different approaches may bear fruit, but in the case of the hypergraph, at least, it's not there yet.

[@lorddorker3703]

Timescape theory? Einstein would like it

[@lasttheory]

@@lorddorker3703 Yes, something like Timescape Cosmology could very well arise from the Wolfram model. And yes, I do think Einstein would like all of this, or at least prefer it to quantum mechanics!

[@Zayden.Marxist]

I think Wolfram has some interesting and even profound ideas. I think his NKS is really stimulating and when grasped enables clear thinking about all aspects of reality, from molecules to rivers to human society. I think, due to his lack of understanding philosophy, Wolfram Physics has aspects of it that veer into absurd mystical notions and obscurity. For example, I don't think that time and space emerge from something called the hypergraph that exists independent of human thought. Time and space are fundamental physical features of reality, they are the mode in which matter-energy exists, I guess you can call this my assumption, or premise, or axioms. I just think the hypergraph/ruliad is a new more intricate, subtle and nuanced conceptual tool to understand matter-energy, motion, time and space. It's nice to realize that we need assumptions to proceed with science, but I think the one I stated above is fully sufficient, I find no flaws within it, and no reason to doubt it. This is just my understanding based on his videos though, haven't actually studied Wolfram Physics, just NKS, so maybe I'm not understanding some things, but this is where I stand now, based on what I do understand.

[@lasttheory]

Thanks for your thoughts! Yes, time and space have done pretty well for us in physics so far. They are showing a few signs of strain, though: Einstein showed that together, they're curved; and they don't seem to have the right number of dimensions to explain the early universe. Wouldn't it be compelling if we found a deeper theory that could explain not only space and time, but these discrepancies, too?

[@Zayden.Marxist]

@@lasttheory I think it's great Wolfram and his team are discovering/inventing ways to explain space and time. The thing is they are not the first ones to take on such an task. It has been going on since the ancient Greeks. Sure, our current understanding of time and space are showing signs of strain and inadequacy, but not space and time itself. Those are objective features of reality, they are not straining, they just keep on existing and will forever keep on existing, just like they existed before any human ever came into existence. When it comes to the universe 13 billion years ago, I'm more a fan of scientific observation, data collection and analysis from JWST and HST and whatnot...I find Lambda-CDM to be more mathematical speculation than scientific experimental/observational/theoretical rigor. There needs to be a lot more empirical confirmation of what actually existed and took place 13 billion years ago before building a model of it.

[@lasttheory]

@@Zayden.Marxist Yes, I hear you about what happened 13 billion years ago. We have a few echos and many models, but it's all a bit tenuous! And yes, Wolfram is continuing a millennia-old tradition of trying to find the underlying truths of the physical universe.

[@arkadiuszkoszewski8380]

Does it explain all that strange experiments with an electron going through gates?

[@lasttheory]

Good question. Yes, the Wolfram model hopes to have an explanation of this quantum mechanical weirdness, in the form of different paths through the multiway graph. I have yet to fully understand Stephen Wolfram's explanation, but I'm working on it!

[@wolfgangnormann2654]

Wolfram’s physics claim a range of statements, e.g. the world is discrete, particles show up as black wholes etc. Many aspects you find also in the principle theory by Nassim Harramein, whereas the holographic principle theory is able to derive real physical constants. Is there any chance that Wolframs physics and the holographic principle are somewhere connected, e.g. describe the same reality with different mathematic approaches?

[@lasttheory]

That's a good question, thanks Wolfgang. I'm afraid I'm not very familiar with holographic theories, and I confess that from what I have seen of them, I don't find them compelling in the same way as I find Wolfram Physics compelling. For sure, it would be interesting to see if there were any equivalences between them!

[@ryanstory1642]

Where us the best material to learn (technical learning)? I see theres a book online, but i want to make sure that it is a deep dive rather than a 50,000 ft view (im a pure mathematician in training, AI engineer and researcher by trade), so looking for formalization, code, simulation.

[@lasttheory]

Thanks Ryan. Stephen Wolfram's book _A project to find the Fundamental Theory of Physics_ is long and excellent. It doesn't have code and it doesn't have the mathematics of Jonathan Wolfram's treatments of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, but it _is_ a technical deep dive, and you'll get a lot out of it as a mathematician and researcher. The whole thing is available online, so you can sample before you buy, but I do recommend you buy it, it's beautiful! lasttheory.com/book/a-project-to-find-the-fundamental-theory-of-physics-by-stephen-wolfram

[@FernandoJ.Neuman]

Thank you for the video. I am trying to follow the main ideas (I am a physician). I have a question. What happens if we make a "rule" in t he ruliad space based in the wave function and we apply it multiple times? Cab we obtain an hypergraph in which we can derive quantum mechanics and general relativity?

[@lasttheory]

Thanks for the question, Fernando. Yes, if we choose a particular rule and apply it to the hypergraph repeatedly, we can end up with a structure that's consistent with General Relativity and aspects of Quantum Mechanics. It does depend on the rule: if you pick a rule that's _not_ causally invariant, for example, it won't work. The wavefunction is another question: while the Wolfram model is consistent with aspects of Quantum Mechanics, I don't think we're at the point where we can see precisely how the wavefunction emerges. Hope that helps!

[@FernandoJ.Neuman]

Thank you for your thoughtful answer

[@stenergut9661]

i am not taking any of this seriously unless it makes tangible and testable predictions.

[@lasttheory]

Yes, I hear you! I'd push back a little. _Any_ new idea is unproven until, well, you know, it's proven. We have to give new ideas space to develop before we insist on their making novel predictions. More on this in my video _ Why scientific theories need not make predictions_ kzbin.info/www/bejne/inmvomRtrL5opKs

[@expioreris]

How did this video got 90+% upvotes?

[@lasttheory]

@@expioreris Good question. Maybe there's something here that you're not seeing?

[@EurekaPhysicsSimplified]

This is exactly the kind of thinking that could reshape the future of physics! Wolfram’s ideas are both radical and fascinating. I’ve been exploring similar out-of-the-box concepts on my channel, join me for a deep dive into the unknown!

[@stanvassilev]

The problem with Wolfram's model is that it's not a theory. A theory can produce a new testable hypothesis, not merely provide another way to model existing knowledge. Where is the testable hypothesis? Wolfram Physics is not a theory, it's a computation framework that describes virtually anything, therefore nothing in particular. It doesn't describe physics any more than math by itself describes physics. Math is an abstract computation model. And that's the problem. Once we have one abstract computation model we don't need another. They're equivalent. Even worse, Wolfram Physics is not even "another model", it's just a tiny subset of math. So basically, it gives us nothing.

[@lasttheory]

Thanks, Stan. You're right, it's a framework more than a theory. But it really _can't_ describe just _anything._ It's very specific, for example, about the structure of space. Space-time either conforms to Einstein's equations or it doesn't. So yes, if the Wolfram model could describe all sorts of different spaces, some consistent with General Relativity and some not, then I'd agree with you, it's not really saying anything. In fact, however, it _only_ describes a space that's consistent with General Relativity. Jonathan Gorard has proved this: see our conversation _How to derive general relativity from Wolfram Physics_ kzbin.info/www/bejne/Z6XNmXhmipKgncU And it _can_ produce testable hypotheses. We're not quite there yet, but fluctuations in the dimensionality of space and effects of the discreteness of space in extreme events such as black hole collisions _are_ measureable and could be used to test the framework. More from Jonathan on this: _Where's the evidence for Wolfram Physics?_ kzbin.info/www/bejne/jn3XqYuhqsyXa9k Take a closer look at this framework, and I think you'll find a lot more there than you think!

[@jessewolf7649]

@@stanvassilev mathematics is far more than an abstract computation model

[@PLAN50]

It's just a philosophical concept. No part is ever proven. The basis of any credible hypothesis.

[@lasttheory]

Yes, it's just an idea at the moment. But I'd say a hypothesis is the exact opposite of what you say it is: a hypothesis isn't an idea that's been proven, it's an idea that _hasn't_ yet been proven. And that's how all theories start out: unproven. Quantum Mechanics, General Relativity, Maxwell's theory of light, Newton's theory of motion, and on, and on, and on: _all_ started out as hypotheses, _unproven._ If you're interested in ways this framework might be proven in future, take a look at Jonathan Gorard's ideas _Where's the evidence for Wolfram Physics?_ kzbin.info/www/bejne/jn3XqYuhqsyXa9k Thanks for the comment!

[@KeithMoon1980]

I'd love for you to do more videos about those "Ah-ha"s. Some of them were new to me!

[@lasttheory]

Thanks Keith! And yes, I'm a bit bogged down in writing the code to get to the causal graph right now, but I'd love to get to those ahas!

[@carbon1479]

One caveat, if you've heard Curt Jaimungal's sitdown with Wolfrom and Hoffman, it sounds like Conscious Realism is entering the same theory through a different door.

[@lasttheory]

Right, thanks, yes, I have seen that conversation. I confess, though, that I'm skeptical that the two ideas are equivalent!

[@fs6107]

Physics will go nowhere until we correct elementals' errors that have been made more than a hundred years ago now... We are trying to add "mathematical complexity" to solve those errors, but it leads to something totally incomprehensible on the physics aspect, it's very sad, and it's not interesting (except for mathematicians perhaps). Let's be humble and admit we made those fundamentals mistakes, and let's start all again on healthy foundations. Now what, you will ask ? I see a lot of fundamental phenomenons we understood badly, or "too quickly" let's say, but the "worst" (from far) is that the force acting on charged particles in an electrostatic field ALSO depends on their speed into that field. We missed that tremendously important part (long time ago) which lead to several errors in understanding electromagnetic field and of course much more.

[@astrovation3281]

Why must something be comprehensible for it to be correct?

[@lasttheory]

Thanks for your thoughts. Yes, we may have taken many wrong turns in our theoretical frameworks. We _have,_ however, reached a point of extraordinary accuracy in our predictions based on those theoretical frameworks. It's often the case in science that we do have to fundamantally shift our paradigms; but let's no lose sight of how successful they've been to date.

[@trucid2]

It would be great if you coyld go over causal graph theories and explain how Wolfram's model differs.

[@lasttheory]

The Wolfram model certainly involves causal graphs, and I'm just beginning to cover them on this channel: I'm currently working on a video on how the causal graph can be constructed from the multiway graph. Do you know of other causal graph theories that are different from the Wolfram model?

[@trucid2]

@lasttheory I don't know much about causal graphs (or is it causal sets?). I do know that Wolfram wasn't the first to try something like this.

[@lasttheory]

@@trucid2 Yes, you're right, causal set theory has been around for a while. I don't think there's a tension between those ideas and Stephen Wolfram's and Jonathan Gorard's. They're taking these mathematical ideas and running with them.

[@hireality]

Brilliantly put 👍 Stephen Wolfram and Roger Penrose, both true mavericks, are the most exciting and extraordinary scientists of the world.

[@brendawilliams8062]

Where does that thought come from. Skipping quantum to hyperspace. You’re joking , right

[@PankajDoharey]

Since Energy is discrete and not continuous that must have been our first clue to space and time could also be discrete.

[@lasttheory]

Right, yes, there have been plenty of discrete aspects of physics discovered in the early twentieth century, such as discrete photons, and, as you say, discrete energy levels in atoms. The Wolfram model takes this to a more fundamental level, discretizing space and time.

[@ilanpi]

FYI: In his paper deriving the Selberg Trace Formula, Atle Selberg decided to call it: "The trace formula."

[@MikeWiest]

“Aspects of quantum mechanics.” That’s why it’s a dead end. It doesn’t do QM unless you force it.

[@lasttheory]

I need to look deeper into the claims about quantum mechanics, Mike, but from what I understand, there's no _forcing_ required: quantum mechanics falls out of the causal graph as easily as general relativity falls out of the hypergraph. I'll certainly be going into this in future videos. Thanks for the comment!

[@MikeWiest]

@ thank you. The original idea was local cellular automata, so there was no way that was going to give quantum nonlocality. So they added nonlocal connections. (That’s my superficial understanding…but it might be right.) If GR “falls out” why isn’t it just discrete GR? It sounds like lattice QCD which is not a fundamental theory…just an approximation. Does the standard model “falls out”? I’m sorry for my bad attitude but this has always seemed like a vanity project to me. Thanks for your gracious response…but I don’t find your reasons compelling so far.

[@lasttheory]

@@MikeWiest Thanks again, Mike. I appreciate your straightforwardness! I don't fully understand it yet, but I think the answer to your question (isn't it just discrete GR?) is that the theory doesn't just stop at the hypergraph (which, yes, is discrete GR), it goes on to the multiway graph (see my video _What is the multiway graph in Wolfram Physics?_ kzbin.info/www/bejne/h5_GdnVsnpehi7s&pp=gAQBiAQB ) and the causal graph (video coming soon). The possibility of different paths through the multiway graph - and particular the role of the observer in collapsing these different paths to a single timeline - opens the door to quantum mechanics. There's a lot here. Vanity project or otherwise, I really think it's worth looking into. Thanks for the exchange!

[@MikeWiest]

@ ok the multi-way graph. And ah yes he’s talking about observers now. Perhaps I’ll learn more about it. I confess my favorite is Orch OR which doesn’t try to reinvent physics with Legos and actually does solve the Measurement Problem. Also I’ve got a bit of experimental evidence that they are right about microtubules being the target of anesthetics.

[@mircorichter1375]

​@@MikeWiest orch OR?

[@PankajDoharey]

Does it explain Gravity ? If so what is it?

[@lasttheory]

Thanks, Pankaj. Yes, General Relativity emerges from the Wolfram model. The explanation of gravity, briefly, is this: particles of matter are persistent tangles in the hypergraph (think of knots in a fishing net); this tangling changes the shortest path through the hypergraph; other particles follow the shortest path through the hypergraph; so particles of matter deflect the paths of other particles through space; in other words, there is a gravitational attraction between particles. Obviously there's a lot of math that goes into proving this, but Jonathan Gorard has done this math and it all works out. Hope that helps!

[@charlesprabakar]

As much as I agree that Wolfram Physics is a serious Physics, here is one such complementary new physics based i-TOE of ours-- and If I may summarize it in the form of five reasons Reason 1 -- Our new physics is based on a new math and philosophy as well, by changing the traditional Turing philosophy (Physics is a differential equation and Philosophy is its boundary condition) as follows-- Physics is an algebraic equation and our CPT(α,Φ) function is its boundary condition! Reason 2 -- Our new Physics driven classical universe is a discrete Golden ratio-Eigenvalued Ramanujan graph whereas quantum universe is a α governed continuous graph. One of the best ways to grasp the two parts of this new Physics is by modeling the whole reality using this philosophy(quantum reality without the backdrop of spacetime + classical reality with emergent spacetime).And more specifically, the boundary condition part of this philosophy boils down to discovering the dynamic rescaling/renormalization scale/limit of universe called CPT(α,Φ) function, as it rescales and renormalizes naturally for every ST coordinate without we doing it. In other words, the fully formed quantum universe is the macro level initial condition and α is the boundary condition that limits its infinite boundary to a finite boundary -- all orchestrated by our CPT function Reason 3 -- Our is a simple model as well, wherein shared Hilbert space between classical and quantum universes (thus maintaining continuity/causality) emerges naturally when nature’s inbuilt probability generating CPT(α,Φ) function (aka Riemann hypothesis meta proof function) starts limiting the Algebraic formalisms of nature using the q-analog/Langlands style EPR=ER dualities, in such a way that classical reality can emerge from the quantum reality by simultaneously resolving the century-old measurement problem of QM. In other words, in our i-TOE's view, the probabilistic/stochastic nature of both quantum and classical realities are caused/sourced by nature’s inbuilt probability generating function called CPT(α,Φ) function (aka Riemann hypothesis meta proof function).This precisely is also why, we have framed this CPT(α,Φ) function as the foundational cornerstone of our much larger i-TOE/SOE/ESG program, with a mission to integrate the q-analog/Langlands program style EPR=ER duality correspondences, existing between “α driven indivisible non markovian stochastic laws governed Quantum universe and “Φ driven deterministic markovian stochastic laws governed Classical universe”.Simply put -- Our CPT(α,Φ) function( aka RH meta proof) is the dynamic renormalization/rescaling measurement scale used by the universe to regulate/correlate the DUALITY existing between the “α governed quantum universe“ and “Φ governed classical universe”, by birthing the space-time of latter from the former again & again using non markovian memory-aware C-star algebra/GNN construction based axiomatic HIGH-BARS, set by Dirac-von Neumann axioms of QM and Wightman-Osterwalder-Schrader axioms of QFT(the ultimate golden yardstick, see below and visual exhibit). Reason 4 -- Our new physics has many such aha moment type insights that probability is not a statistical stochastic process, rather it is an intrinsic property of nature itself, generated by this dice rolling function called CPT function only. And one of the best ways to understand this is by integrating the foundational DUALITY existing between quantum and classical universes using the dualities of Langlands program as explained in this article/paper in pre print Reason 5 -- Our i-TOE is not only compatible with GR and QM, but also has exceeded their predictions in 10 observation categories 1. Particle Physics predictions with 5σ precision for Standard Model (see exhibit as well) i-TOE Framework Predictions: : 20 particles (including 3 yet to be discovered) along with mass predictions for the remaining 4 particle spectrums -- regular matter(5σ precision)+ dark matter + dark energy + 2 TBD spectrums). See exhibit and article for details. Standard Model : 17 particles of regular matter. 2. General Relativity Einstein equations and Friedmann's Equations Inertial mass prediction for the Universe i-TOE Framework Predictions: : 12×10^52 kg Einstein/Friedmann's equations: 3.6×10^54 kg Alignment: Strong theoretical consistency with GR and observational data. 3. Observable mass predictions i-TOE Framework Prediction: ≈2.43×10^54 kg Observational Data: Consistent with estimates from CMB and large-scale structure. Alignment: Reasonably accurate and aligns well with observational estimates. 4. Hubble Constant H0 i-TOE Framework Prediction: H0≈67.4 km/s/Mpc Planck (CMB): H0≈67.4 km/s/Mpc Supernovae (SH0ES): H0≈73.5 km/s/Mpc Alignment: Strong alignment with Planck data, slight discrepancy with supernovae measurements. 5. Age of the Universe i-TOE Framework Prediction: ≈14.6 billion years Observational Data: ≈13.8 billion years Alignment: Close to the observational data, slightly higher. 6. Cosmological Constant Λ i-TOE Framework Prediction: Λ≈6.28×10−54 m−2 Observational Data: Λ≈1.1×10−52 m−2 Alignment: Slightly lower but within the same order of magnitude. 7. Matter Density Parameters for Baryonic Matter, Dark Matter, and Dark Energy i-TOE framework prediction for Baryonic Matter Mass: ≈1.19×1053 kg i-TOE framework prediction for Dark Matter Mass: ≈6.31×1053 kg i-TOE framework prediction for Dark Energy Mass: ≈1.68×1054 kg Alignment: Very close alignment with current estimates. 8. Sound Horizon and BAO i-TOE Framework Prediction: rs≈300 Mpc Planck (CMB): rs≈147 Mpc BAO Surveys: rs≈147 Mpc Alignment : needs refinement 9. Large-Scale Structure (LSS) Galaxy Surveys i-TOE Framework Predictions: Power spectrum and correlation function consistent with ΛCDM model. Observational Data: Data matches predictions of the ΛCDM model. Alignment: Good alignment with large-scale structure observations, supporting the validity of our model. 10. Gravitational Waves Observations i-TOE Framework Calculations: Predicted strain h≈1.1×10−20 for a binary black hole merger observed at a distance of 1.3×109 light-years. Observational Data: LIGO and Virgo have detected strains in the range of 10−21 to 10−23. Alignment: Consistent with the sensitivities of current gravitational wave detectors, indicating good alignments. For details, check out the article/paper in preprint. And I welcome constructive feedback from the experts of this forum www.linkedin.com/pulse/unique-christmashanukah-day-announcing-our-itoe-wits-grsm5%CF%83-prabakar-imofc/?trackingId=36FrvOC8TLu6UqnDgYFADg%3D%3D

[@mavzolej]

Sounds like string theory for discrete math lovers. Does this theory provide a way of ruling out competing proposals based on observations?

[@lasttheory]

I'm happy to say that this framework is nothing like String Theory! Here's _ Why I don’t like String Theory_ kzbin.info/www/bejne/e3OXiaeirtmCg8k Good question about observations. Jonathan Gorard runs through a few ideas here: _ Where's the evidence for Wolfram Physics?_ kzbin.info/www/bejne/jn3XqYuhqsyXa9k

[@santerisatama5409]

Comparing Wolfram's Ruliad and hypergraphs with the totally connected graph of Euclid's First postulate, it's better to understand Ruliadic graph theory as holistic continuum of totally connected graph from which partial programs can be carved out by removing some edges and their nodes here and there, than as "discrete theory" which graph theory is currently considered by mainstream academic crackpot sociology that has ceased to comprehend the most basic aspects of Euclid.

[@sistajoseph]

If you can't tell us what the hypograph is, meaning it is not simple, them it is likely not the answer. The thing is, it might still give the right answers, the standard model gives about 90%.

[@lasttheory]

The hypergraph _is_ pretty simple and I _can_ tell you what it is: take a look at my playlist on the basics of Wolfram Physics for a brief introduction kzbin.info/aero/PLVwcxwu8hWKnCIn_SXq8myTf2JH6ee83U

[@santerisatama5409]

@@lasttheory The idea of hypergraph is pretty old, going back at least to Euclid's First pre-requirement (aka "postulate") "Let it have been the pre-requiered to draw a line from any point to any point". Main problem of Euclid's language is that he does not make clear terminological distinction with point (end of line) and node (meet of lines). That said it is quite clear that Euclid means what we now would call totally connected graph. In our post-Dirac quantum age we understand not much better that directed edges (which are analogical continua) have the following main types: < > < > parallel movement outwards > < parallel movement inwards. Numerical representation of a connected graph does not mean ontological reduction edge continua to pairs of numbers. In fact, number theory (including continued fractions) can be wholly constructed from this most parsimonous notation by Stern-Brocot type holistic nesting algorithm. I can demonstrate how, if you wish. The operators < and > symbolize continuous directed movement as the ontological primitive on which the empirical science of constructive mathematics aka computing has been based on at least since Euclid. Wolfram himself is not yet necessarily fully aware of this simple fact, but from what I've seen, he's getting there in his own way. Thanks to Wolfram, we can now comprehend that Euclid's First Postulate means in fact the Ruliad, when the lined/edges are comprehended as bidirectionally reversible quantum time. In mythical language this corresponds with dynamic version of Indra's Net. PS: When numbers are constructed as an interpretation of the underlying operator language, information contained in the operator language is lost from sight of numerical interpretation. Numbers are hence already entropic in themselves, compared to the syntropic operator language.

[@davidmurphy563]

1, Paradigm change. This makes it far more likely to be crackpot and far less likely to be true. Sure, it happens. There's Bohr, Dirac and Einstein. But for every one of those there were ten thousand that were hopelessly wrong. Also, rapid changes tend to happen at the beginning. After than changes get increasingly gradual. Think of the design of any comodity, say cell/mobile phones. At the beginning radical change, later on, gradual improvement and a settling on a design. 2. Don't compare it to other theories. If it works it'll make predictions which can be imperially tested. I have no idea if this is the case. I doubt it because it's not on the major news networks. What? Are they burying the lead? Still, I'm not a physicist so I don't know. Big pinch of salt though. 3. Simplifies. The explanation should be as simple as possible but sometimes things are complicated. Fluid mechanics. Not simple, not false. Next. 4. Insights. I have no idea if your theory explains anything. But it would have to explain everything current theories do and then more. Given that you're the only one excited about this, I'm guessing this is a damp squib. 5. Backward thinking. Ok, encompassing is a valid point. Newton is exactly equal to GR when gamma = 1. There's no difference. Listen, if this is the case then great - but where are the papers? Why are no physicists excited??

[@lasttheory]

Thanks, David. You're right to be skeptical! We always should be with new frameworks. Just a couple of points: I think fluid mechanics is an excellent example of a phenomenon that once seemed complex being made simple by a new theoretical framework. Back when Leonardo da Vinci was sketching eddies in water, fluid dynamics was impossibly complex. Once we understood that the complexity arises from interactions between molecules, it became a whole lot simpler. That's what Wolfram Physics promises to do with General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. And you're right: any new theory has to explain everything current theories do. That's why it takes so long to get a radically new theory off the ground these days: there's so much to explain! But I think Wolfram Physics is doing pretty well: explaining Special Relativity, General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics is a good start! Finally, I'm happy to say that I'm _not_ the only one, and there _are_ papers. Take a look at Jonathan Gorard's seminal papers on the Wolfram model, for example: arxiv.org/abs/2004.14810 and www.complex-systems.com/abstracts/v29_i02_a02/ Hope that helps persuade you to take a closer look!

[@GEMSofGOD_com]

It is a crackpot theory which is erroneous. Hypergraph formalism can be useful though. In practice, it isn't a great tool for human understanding. A machine could use this formalism to create such tools. None whatsoever. Which means..?

[@santerisatama5409]

It's quite clear that the Cartesian paradigm change of coordinate system neusis was crackpottery, compared to the foundationally sound mathematical paradigm of Plato's Academy and generally Greek pure mathematics that evolved from Zeno's reductio ad absurdum proofs against infinite regress. The Cantor-Hilbert paradigm shift was even more crackpottery, right out of the looney bin. The paradigm of mathematical physics is based on absurdity of crackpot math, Cantor being the king of crackpots. Mathematics is a dialectical science, and and as a thoroughly dialectical science we like to do our reductio ad absurdum proofs very thoroughly, creating the whole paradigm of mathematical physics for the most thorough absurdity we can create. Mistakes and absurdities are not without value, we do learn a lot also from them, and in their way, they also participate in the evolution of coherent constructive mathematics. Wolfram's multicomputational paradigm is just cumulative continuation of the old foundational paradigm of Plato's Academy. Wolfram has translated Euclid's Elementa into hypergraph form, and after the insight of the Ruliad, he publicly self-identifies as a Platonist. Obviously you fail to understand Wolfram's key result of computational irreducibility. Together with it's close kin the Halting problem, they falsify naive predictionism as dogmatically preached (pseudo)scientific method. Computational determinism and predictability are very different categories. From multicomputation with computational irreducibility follows fluid mechanics of time. Understanding fluid mechanics as ontologically temporal computational phenomenon is a big simplification as well as coherent explanatory theory.

[@davidmurphy563]

​@@lasttheory Thanks for the links but none of those papers were peer reviewed and they were all written by a graduate in Mr Wolfram's employ. Mr Wolfram is very rich. I'm only going to read peer reviewed literature. Also, I'd be grateful if you would disclose whether or not you are personally receiving money from Mr Wolfram. Out of curiosity I googled the opinions of scientists. There was very little... Um, I couldn't find anything positive, I did look: "A Rare Blend of Monster Raving Egomania and Utter Batshit Insanity", Cosma Shalizim Carnegie Mellon University "I'm very sceptical about whether this is really a whole new way of doing things" Doyne Farmer, Santa Fe Institute "It’s this sort of infinitely flexible philosophy where, regardless of what anyone said was true about physics, they could then assert, 'Oh, yeah, you could graft something like that onto our model'" Scott Aaronson, University of Texas "The experimental predictions of [quantum physics and general relativity] have been confirmed to many decimal places-in some cases, to a precision of one part in [10 billion],” says Daniel Harlow, a physicist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. “So far I see no indication that this could be done using the simple kinds of [computational rules] advocated by Wolfram." Daniel Harlow, MIT "If we suppose that a rabbit was coming out of the hat, then remarkably, this rabbit would be coming out of the hat, and then [going] on and on about how remarkable it is." Daniel Harlow, MIT "Certainly there’s no reason that Wolfram and his colleagues should be able to bypass formal peer review, and they definitely have a much better chance of getting useful feedback from the physics community if they publish their results in a format we actually have the tools to deal with." Katie Mack, North Carolina State University "It’s hard to expect physicists to comb through hundreds of pages of a new theory out of the blue, with no buildup in the form of papers, seminars and conference presentations" Sean Carroll, Caltech "Being rich isn’t a 'get out of peer review free' card" Chanda Prescod-Weinstein, University of New Hampshire

[@lasttheory]

​@@davidmurphy563 OK, thanks David. I understand that it's a big ask - of you, of every physicist - to take this new framework seriously. I'm basing my own decision to take it seriously not on any physicist's say-so, but on my own assessment. That's how new ideas take hold in science: people see something that speaks to them, and take it seriously. If, in your own assessment, this model is not worth your attention, that's fine. Feel free to ignore it. And I'm very happy to disclose whether or not I am personally receiving money from Stephen Wolfram. I am not.

[@SelectCircle]

Reason 6 - I never even heard of it. ... That's when you know it's gotta be right.

[@lasttheory]

I'm hoping you'll be hearing more of it in future. Sabine Hossenfelder recently came out and said that it might be time for physicists to take a closer look... and she has some reach. Thanks for watching!

[@SelectCircle]

@@lasttheory I subbed. I do want to learn more.

[@heterotic]

Does it need to be "true" if it is useful?

[@lasttheory]

Good question. Is there a difference?

[@planmet]

The trouble is it is neither use nor ornament.

[@lasttheory]

@@planmet Thanks Andrew. You might be right about its being useful: as with any new theory, it may or may not further our understanding of the universe; that remains to be seen. I would say, though, that regardless of whether the model proves applicable to physics (more than it already has done), it's certainly a beautiful framework; does that count as ornament for you?

[@planmet]

@@lasttheory Perhaps I am envious of the enthusiasm you have for this idea - and the lack of take up of my own hypotheses. I can explain how elements develop, how planets grow in diameter, how they pass through planetary cycles. I can predict where elements can be found and knowing the age of rocks (determined by independent workers) which ores one can expect to find in them. I can explain why 70% of the Earth comprises of ocean-bed which is less than 200 million years old. Like in the pieces of a puzzle my findings mesh together to give a full picture. The biggest problem I have got, though, is that I'm not an obedient supporter of the secret society which controls everything and prefers it that everyone retains a belief in a God rather than understands science. So Earth has not evolved through five planetary cycles as I suggest - we must maintain the idea God created it just 6000 years ago.

[@davidwuhrer6704]

How can it be useful if it isn't true?

[@jeffreyhowarth7850]

Listening to Wolfram gets me excited. Haven't been this excited since David Bohm.

[@lasttheory]

Thanks Jeffrey. Yes, it's really good to see the not-so-coherent Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics challenged again, by Stephen Wolfram, as it once was by David Bohm. Exciting times!

[@jawadmansoor6064]

I like the reason 3: Things should be assumed but calculated.

[@lasttheory]

Thanks Jawad!

A lot of bold affirmation without a single quantified and testable result.

[@lasttheory]

Yes, it's going to take some time, to get to novel predictions, at least. But there are some very strong results already, if it's mathematics you're after. Take Jonathan Gorard's proof that the hypergraph is consistent with General Relativity as just one example: arxiv.org/abs/2004.14810

@lasttheory Nah this article doesn't claim to be a proof of anything, just a bunch of shared behaviors again without a single quantitative prediction not even for already know phenomenal or new ones, nothing; Its a wonderful abstraction and for sure could have usage,but not even a candidate for TOE or anything like that yet, and in your last comment and in this video you have make affirmations that not even Stephen it self will take with good eyes, let's be more scientific and less ufology. It will be a way more advantage for us and even for this potential theory because until now it's not even a formal theory for anything and everybody knows that majorly it's serious researchers and Stephen itself ;)

[@hamdiel-sissi7760]

According to current scientific understanding, Stephen Wolfram's "New Physics" or "Wolfram Physics Project" has not definitively derived or fully reproduced the equations of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, despite claims that it can generate structures resembling aspects of both theories; most physicists consider it a work in progress that needs further development and experimental verification before it can be considered a validated theory of everything

[@lasttheory]

Yes, it's absolutely a work in progress, and it definitely has not been validated. Jonathan Gorard has proved it _consistent_ with General Relativity and aspects of Quantum Mechanics, but you're right, that's not the same as fully reproducing these theories. Still, that's always the case with a new theory: it's not fully developed, much less validated, until, you know, it's fully developed, and validated. There's enough about _this_ new theory, for me, to make it more compelling than any other I've come across, so, again for me, worth investigating. Thanks for the comment!

[@GEMSofGOD_com]

From Arvin Ash's latest video or two, we know why they are actually fundamentally incompatible. In 2020, Wolfram claimed, word-for-word, to Weinstein, that they eventually turned out to be identical in what actual processes they described.

[@DanielMartinez-ss5co]

Until now, nothing new, they have demonstrated nothing, and their explanation of time is absolutely circular, they do not derive not even one of the theories we have as partial solutions

[@lasttheory]

@@DanielMartinez-ss5co Thanks, Daniel. I hear this criticism of the Wolfram model a lot, but it's simply not true. There _are_ derivations of our current theories as partial solutions. See Jonathan Gorard's derivations of General Relativity arxiv.org/abs/2004.14810 and Quantum Mechanics www.complex-systems.com/abstracts/v29_i02_a02/

[@Kyoz]

The grandest hypergraph of all is the E8 lattice. All actions needed to operate the universe are encoded as transitions from one state to the other.

[@anthonymckinney8173]

Brilliant! Amazing voice 📢

[@lasttheory]

Thanks Anthony!

[@dbuckleton]

Time does not emerge from hyper graphs, thats circular, time appears in the hyper graph because the computations are occurring in a universe that already has time (for some unknown reason) thus its appearance in wolfram hyper graphs is also for an unknown reason. Wolfram has no good answer for the arrow of time, it also struggles with wave-function collapse.

[@lasttheory]

Thanks for the push-back, David! We do have different perspectives on this, I think. For me, at the most basic level, the Wolfram model posits hypergraph + rules, and space _is_ the hypergraph and time _is_ the evolution of the hypergraph. At a deeper level, the reduction of different paths through the multiway graph to a single timeline by observers represents the emergent of our particular conception of time. I agree, the question of wavefunction collapse is an open one. I'm hoping Wolfram's concept of observation will provide a better explanation for this always-slightly-dodgy aspect of quantum mechanics.

[@dbuckleton]

@lasttheory it is circular to say time is the progression of the computation. A computed time series is like a stack of still frames, there is no reason to have it read out results in only 1 direction.

[@lasttheory]

@@dbuckleton Well, the framework is based on the repeated application of rules to the hypergraph, one after the other. Sure, you _could_ come up with a different framework that says that read the results backwards. I'm not sure what that means, but in any case, that's a _different_ framework.

[@dbuckleton]

@@lasttheory A rule would need to be something like the tracks of time have a ratchet function allowing only one direction of change. The jiggle of vibrating events causes mostly forward clicks only as back clicks are highly unlikely due to the topology of the time tracks ‘tooth shape’. The angle of the 'tooth' is derivable from the rate of non-forwards time events, thus testable and qualifies as useful science. A rule can't randomly assert behaviour or it’s a problem not a rule. That time moves forwards only is a big problem for hypergraphs as much as any other system I know of. A computation will naturally follow tracks as they do in computers. These tracks in hypergraphs should mathematically work backwards, forwards and every other direction. Diagonal time involves changing the historical collapsed super positions, but this is valid and should be predicted from the hypergraph, it causes troubling ‘many worlds’ issues among other serious problems including its disagreement with observation. That means a process is not always easily reversible, as when traveling backwards in time the course may use alternative past super positions. The mechanism by which the computation reads only in a single direction requires explanation otherwise your theory is incomplete in a critical way, it simply isn't a theory of everything. This issue can be simplified using a 3x3 grid, labelled 123, 456, 789. Events occur such that a particle reads off results as 1,4,7, which would be a straight line. Then when time reversed reads off results as 7,5,3, a diagonal line, thus a non-symmetric time reversal and indicates a multiverse. Wolfram physics minus its perfectly circular rule of 'only goes forward because it only goes forwards', would view this as valid in a multiway system where time was not artificially constrained. Don’t get me wrong, Wolfram physics is my current favourite also, but time does not emerge from wolfram physics, and must be artificially introduced as a ‘hot fix’. That its a big issue is an infectious and obvious issue when you listen to how Jonathan Gorard tries to explain how the waveform collapse requires 'pruning' by termination functions, a highly artificial process that makes no theoretical sense and is close to, or equal, to 'magic'.

[@michaelrynn2465]

"Ever changing connections between changing atoms of space"? Really? A good job for a digital computer using graph theory of today, which we are lucky enough to have developed these sort of hammers in this modern technological society. What could be done with analog computers? Obviously somethings like hypergraph relations model some things that exist which make up the fabric of everything, and are responsible for this evolving universe, and are good examples of real things that must have the property of self-computation updates of relational properties, which we can model on digital computers to represent mathematical properties of abstract graph update theory. How does the universe model itself? But the universe is also fields and vibrations, and what are these in graph theory, maybe recurring and moving patterns? Like string theory, what constraints can or cannot be placed on their behavior and results such they are able to represent this universe, in all of its mysterious regularity of change, scale and details?

[@lasttheory]

Thanks Michael. To answer your question about fields, the continuous fields of our current theories would, in the Wolfram model, be approximations to the discrete hypergraph. According to Jonathan Gorard, the smooth equations that govern these fields are statistical results that arise from the underlying chaotic behaviour of the discrete nodes and edges of the hypergraph, just as the smooth flow of water arises from the underlying chaotic behaviour of the discrete molecules of water.

[@nightwaves3203]

What's been made out of it. You can observe and say that's the way it is but that's equating the weather report to Nobel prize status when he's right about it's going to rain. But I wouldn't doubt a new prize for that.

[@lasttheory]

Yes, there's a long way to go if this is to be a comprehensive framework for physics, for sure. But if you're interested in seeing how far Stephen Wolfram and Jonathan Gorard have already taken it, I do have several dozen easy-to-follow videos about it on this channel. Hope you'll take a look!

[@heterotic]

A good theory is falsifiable.

[@lasttheory]

Yes. If it's not, it's not science, it's philosophy.

[@AdrianBoyko]

If it isn’t falsifiable, it doesn’t mean it’s not correct.

[@lasttheory]

@@AdrianBoyko Thanks, Adrian. I confess I'm not sure what "correct" means when applied to an unfalsifiable theory! In any case, I'm not arguing that an unfalsifiable theory is necessarily incorrect, I'm just suggesting that it's not _science._

[@AdrianBoyko]

@ A theory is just a theory and there’s no such thing as a “scientific theory”. Science is a method of selecting between competing theories. There is no guarantee that the scientific method will ever select the best theory.

[@zingjesus6567]

Hrrr the truth isnt falsifiable. You want the truth or do you want science theories? Computacional irreducibility is a fancy name for causation. What is reallly interesting is that the hypergraf is the logical Proof of aristotelian teleology,but no One seems to notice.i Saw that immediately. Wolfram physics is very interesting.

[@MinusMedley]

Energy dissipates, nature always tries to find the most effecient way to do it. The end. Everything else is just an observation at different scales.

[@corley-ai]

is the title a play on "the last question"?

[@DanielMartinez-ss5co]

Always the same situation, physicist claiming for the Theory of Everything instead of a Theory of a 'little bit of something', Vanity!

[@strangereyes9594]

Honestly, Stephen Wolfram comes across as just another tech bro inventing his own language to explain reality. What I mean is, if you listen to this agglomerate of people who think of themselves as the forefront of progress towards a singularity type of event (especially the AI bros as a subset of the bunch), you see that they talk in a very specific way that separates them from the rest of humanity and they talk in this way to do exactly that. I am not saying they are wrong, however, they radiate a distinct vibe of an emerging "tech priest" class using their own sacred language to usher in or summon their god, to use some theological terms because they fit surprisingly well here. Their ideas and motivations are not as novel as they think they are. I could be wrong though, just my two cents out of boredom.

[@lasttheory]

Right. I hear you. When I hear Silicon-Valley-types talking about how they're going to solve aging and achieve immortality, I feel the same way. But don't let that put you off this framework for physics. It really is, as far as I've been able to tell so far, more interesting than just another overblown idea.

[@Juttutin]

I get what you're saying, but i find it really hard to put Wolfram in that category. Not that I've actually tried, but just from my consumption of their impacts in my world, I'm not really seeing the overlap. There may be a touch of the same self-confidence-bordering-on-arrogance, but beyond that? Tech bros (who tend not to get PhDs in physics from MIT, but like to convince themselves they could have) like to think they are among the smartest people on the planet, because they got rich. Wolfram (with a PhD in physics from MIT) seems more like someone who got rich by being one of the really smart people.

[@lasttheory]

@@Juttutin That's well put, thanks Justin.

[@rosomak8244]

For me this is destined to fail due to some set-theoretical arguments about the involved magnitudes of sets. People seem to forget that the isn't just one single "infinity" out there. There are multiple flavours of that. Anything less than c should immediately manifest in the world surrounding us. Discrete things behave utterly fundamentally different to continuous ones.

[@lasttheory]

Yes, absolutely, at a fine scale, discrete behaviour is fundementally different from continuous behaviour. But at larger scales, continuous behaviour, such as the flow of water, can arise from discrete behaviour, such as the motion of water molecules. Does that not make a discrete framework as least plausible to you?

[@heterotic]

A good theory limits It's model to a sufficient degree of complexity to achieve its intended purpose.

[@lasttheory]

Precisely. Simplify as far as possible, but no further.

[@happyhillsfarm9598]

Hello from Rossland BC!

[@lasttheory]

Hello to you all at Happy Hills Farm! Thanks for watching!

[@shimtest]

I believe his ideas will be accepted eventually, but they are radical compared to current physics so they are getting a lot of (understandable) pushback

[@lasttheory]

Yes, science moves slowly, when there are large numbers of academics who have invested their careers in the old paradigm. Thanks for the comment!

[@heterotic]

You are a good theory.

[@johnvenier4011]

It’s cool but I wonder how it would be received if it weren’t proposed by a very rich famous person.

[@lasttheory]

That's a good question, thanks John. Certainly Stephen Wolfram's accomplishments in creating software used by scientists in calculations and simulations give the framework a credibility that it wouldn't otherwise have. But for me, honestly, it's Jonathan Gorard's very precise work on relating the hypergraph to general relativity and quantum mechanics that give me confidence that the framework has a real chance of simulating physics. Jonathan's neither rich nor famous, but you don't have to talk to him for long to gain considerable confidence in his work.

[@johnvenier4011]

@ Makes sense. I was thinking about the initial introduction of the idea into “serious” scientific discussions. These days it seems you need some sort of “in” to get heard. Another idea is that based off of world population figures, we should be seeing about 6 times the number of Einsteins born in 2004 compared to 1879. So where are the Einsteins? I think the answer is it is hard to break into science from the outside.

[@NightmareCourtPictures]

Well said.

[@nameless-yd6ko]

Occam's Razor leaves us with the overarching ToE, the complete 'set' that encompasses all known reality! This is Reality as I see it; 1) All that exists is One Consciousness/Mind ('God' if you like...). Beyond this not anything else exists. 2) We are all unique momentary Perspectives (Souls) comprising the One Consciousness. 3) That which we, collectively, 'perceive/reflect' (are Conscious of) is Mind/Memory/concepts (the little bit before us at the moment). "God cannot know himself but by me!" - Meister Eckhart

[@gtziavelis]

Most beloved theoretical physicists would say: "Show me the formulas!" and sadly you have shown no formulas here, but it was great entertainment.

[@lasttheory]

Yes, this was more of an overview video, about why I find it compelling, so there wasn't time, in 6 minutes, to get to the details! But I do have a whole series of videos on the details. If you're interested, you could start with this playlist: _ Nodes, edges, graphs & rules: the basic concepts of Wolfram Physics_ kzbin.info/aero/PLVwcxwu8hWKnCIn_SXq8myTf2JH6ee83U And if you _really_ want to dig into the formulas, take a look at Jonathan Gorard's papers on General Relativity arxiv.org/abs/2004.14810 and Quantum Mechanics www.complex-systems.com/abstracts/v29_i02_a02/ Thanks for the comment!

[@johnstack3338]

Neither Wolfram nor anyone else has "derived" special or general relativity from anything he has published. Nor will they ever because Wolfram doesn't even try to have his ideas, whatever they are, published in peer reviewed journals. He never has and never will make a falsifiable claim.

[@lasttheory]

Hi John! If you're interested in the special relativity work, that's in Stephen Wolfram's technical introduction here: www.wolframphysics.org/technical-introduction/ And if you're interested in the general relativity work, Jonathan Gorard's paper on this is here: arxiv.org/abs/2004.14810 Hope that helps!

[@colorlessking.]

oh, trust me I knew wolfram theory is much better than anything I know even before you said it here. I also know why it works, only few parts are missing. and I can assure you he won't be able to find them.

[@brendawilliams8062]

Quantum does hard work to guess it. It’s lie the most readily available ruler. Strings didn’t work and bee able may still shed some light but it’s far above the computation available

[@MikeWiest]

You’re claiming “Wolfram physics” reconciles QM and GR but I don’t believe you. I also don’t believe QM or the standard model emerge from this scheme. Big claims, no delivery.

[@lasttheory]

Certainly the standard model _doesn't_ emerge from Wolfram Physics: there's a long way to go before we have an explanation of particles from the hypergraph. And as I say in reply to your other comment, I need to look more deeply into quantum mechanics. But certainly, Jonathan Gorard has proved that the hypergraph is consistent with general relativity. I can't say I understand every line of the math, but if you want to take a look, Jonathan's paper is here: arxiv.org/abs/2004.14810

[@MikeWiest]

@@lasttheory Thank you sir! "Consistent with" is different from "falls out of." Thanks for the link! I don't expect I will be able to follow it all either but it at least gives me something concrete to look at to see if I can see where there's a problem...or if it really is (i.e. will be, when developed to include particles...!) the real theory of everything....! Cheers

[@MikeWiest]

ps From that paper: "First, we prove that causal invariance (namely, the requirement that all causal graphs be isomorphic, irrespective of the choice of hypergraph updating order) is equivalent to a discrete version of general covariance." That's what I meant when I said it's just lattice GR.

[@jroy959]

Can Wolfram Physics save my life or take my soul up to heaven?

[@lasttheory]

Now that's a question that I can answer categorically. No, it can't.

[@GEMSofGOD_com]

He has to leave his business to someone like me already, or else it's done

[@matterasmachine]

Wolfram is wrong. Matter executes discrete cyclic algorithm and it's __testable__.

[@jessewolf7649]

A discrete as opposed to a continuous Universe is to me philosophically untenable.

[@lasttheory]

Thanks Jesse. I'd be interested to hear why you think that? If space and time _do_ prove to be discrete, how would that be a problem for you philosophically?

[@jessewolf7649]

@ I cannot conceive of a Creator of the Universe - call it God { or not } - that would leave “pockets” of space or time or spacetime “empty”. Additionally - for what it’s worth - I have a doctorate in Mathematics - and my mathematical philosophy broadly speaking is that the real line or any higher dimensional manifold is a continuum. I might add that any alternative views of the foundations of mathematics seem to me to be tortured. To the extent that mathematics is the natural language of physics - notwithstanding the fact that there exists discrete mathematics - I cannot abide a physical theory which treats reality wholly discretely - notwithstanding quantum mechanics.

[@lasttheory]

@@jessewolf7649 OK, thanks Jesse, that's good to hear where you're coming from on this. I won't try to persuade you that a discrete universe might be as coherent - or as beautiful - as a continous one, because it sounds like, for you, this is a matter of aesthetics - or theology. Thanks for the exchange!

[@MichaelCampbell01]

@@jessewolf7649 "I cannot conceive ..." Say no more.

[@jessewolf7649]

@ As far as I know, Wolfram’s philosophy of a Universe based on computation is not taught in any accredited US graduate program in mathematics; this of course doesn’t mean he’s wrong but it should at least give one pause.

[@MrStarchild3001]

Dude, I've yet to see any real world physics. It's philosophy as far as I can tell. More like greek philosophers, less like einstein.

[@lasttheory]

Yes, I hear you, based on most of what's out there on Wolfram Physics, you'd think it's all ideas, no substance. But there really is some solid stuff behind it all. For an overview, take a look at Stephen Wolfram's technical introduction: www.wolframphysics.org/technical-introduction/ And if you want some seious Einsteinian substance, take a look at Jonathan Gorard's papers on General Relativity arxiv.org/abs/2004.14810 and Quantum Mechanics www.complex-systems.com/abstracts/v29_i02_a02/

[@jneal4154]

Your reasons were incredibly subjective and I disagreed with the premise of just about every reason you gave. I think Wolfram's approach to physics can give valuable insights, but I am adamantly against your subjective line of reasoning. For a discussion of scientific theories, your position is disappointingly unscientific. You also make some silly claims with no evidence to back it up, like quantum mechanics and GR becoming the same theory on the hypergraph, or the idea that causality is actually discrete. Wolfram's work might suggest these as possibilities, but it most certainly does not solve quantum gravity, which QM=GR implies.

[@lasttheory]

Thanks for the comment. You've really hit on something here. In this video, I'm not explaining why I think Wolfram Physics is _right._ We just don't know that yet. Working out whether it _is_ is a scientific process. Instead, I'm explaining why I think Wolfram Physics is _compelling._ That always has to come first. With any idea, we respond to it emotionally first, before we can ever get to the science. This initial response tells us whether it's worth taking it seriously enough to make the _effort_ to get to the science. This is true not just of Wolfram's ideas about the hypergraph. It's true of Einstein's ideas about relativity and Schrodinger's about wavefunctions. We _have_ to decide whether an idea is compelling _before_ we get to the mathematics, the science. Of course, we _do_ have to get to the mathematics, the science, but I couldn't squeeze all of that into a single 6-minute video. Happily, I have dozens of other videos about the mathematics, the science, on this channel: take a look if you're interested!

[@davidrandell2224]

(4): Gravity is simple relative motion. The earth is approaching- expanding at 16 feet per second per second constant acceleration- the released object (apple). (5): The earth’s surface is literally physically the floor of Einstein’s cabin. No,no,no.

[@davidrandell2224]

100,000 years and 20 billion brains later one brain- Mark McCutcheon:” The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy “, - discovered/published the CAUSE of gravity, electricity, magnetism, light and well.... everything. So,no. That’s a genius level event. None other has come close.

[@davidrandell2224]

(2): SR wrong due to reference frame mixing and bad math.(3): QM classicalized in 2010. Forgotten Physics website uncovers the hidden variables and constants and the bad math of Wien, Schrodinger, Heisenberg, Einstein, Debroglie, Planck, Bohr and Wolfram. So again,no.

[@martinsoos]

All I see is smoke. No model. No math.

[@lasttheory]

I know how things can seem that way, Martin. In this case, though, there's plenty of fire. If it's details of the model you're after, Stephen Wolfram has 1200+ pages of it. Check out his announcement writings.stephenwolfram.com/2020/04/finally-we-may-have-a-path-to-the-fundamental-theory-of-physics-and-its-beautiful/ and technical introduction www.wolframphysics.org/technical-introduction/ It it's math you're after, Jonathan Gorard is the master. Check out his derivations of general relativity arxiv.org/abs/2004.14810 and quantum mechanics www.complex-systems.com/abstracts/v29_i02_a02/ I assure you there's plenty of substance here!

[@martinsoos]

@@lasttheory After skimming through the filibuster, my take is that you have found another way to describe nearly anything. But like Calculous, that fails to calculate the arch length of a catenary, I see a mathematical model that computers can use to describe reality. This work deserves more funding than particle accelerators and I intend to keep my eye on it. Thanks for the links.

[@hakiza-technologyltd.8198]

You’re 100% wrong

[@williamcase426]

Yeah totally wrong

[@lasttheory]

I'm certainly open to the possibility that this model is wrong. I mean, 100% wrong seems unlikely, given that it's consistent with General Relativity, which seems at least a little bit right to me. Still, if it's wrong, I'd like to hear _how_ it's wrong. Any pointers?

[@heterotic]

Don't blame yourself. You were created for a purpose.

[@zeroonetime]

010 I.S. the last scientific equation for the T.O.E. and the G.U.T. ~ 010 ~ T.E.N. dimensions uni-verse..