Eric Weinstein & Stephen Wolfram: Theories of Everything (357)

[@ka9dgx]

I don't mind re-uploads, but they really should be dated with the original air date in the title and description

[@heatvisuals]

dont hate the playa hate the game

[@Max-nv4fb]

+1, recenlty also another reupload on this channel, quite annoying

[@UnMoored_]

Professor K is a shameless promotion machine. “10 million subscribers or die!”

[@mbspng]

@@Max-nv4fb I feel like most of the uploads have been unlabelled re-uploads for quite a while now. Really smarmy.

[@gabrielseagull7891]

Totally feel the same... Brian, have the politeness to date accurately your re-loads. We're not dumb and have MEMORY!!!

[@JumpingCow]

Brian, I love your work and your podcasts. But I would really appreciate it if you ALWAYS include the date of original recording in your description.

[@ks5553]

But then how is he supposed to click bait you into watching old material you've already seen

[@spaceinyourface]

Personally,,I don't mind it,,,I struggle to remember it first time round & I allways feel a little chuffed if I do remember some of it second time round.

[@warrenny]

@ks5553 Bit of biting humor, but well deserved. It's easy to forget that everything is about making money. We all need to bear in mind that real ToE is basically how to market, sell and make money . Serving up old material breaks the 4th wall so to speak. @@ks5553

[@kitschbreeder8546]

@@spaceinyourface more people would unfortunatly.

[@edwardcahill1631]

Agree and due to the complexity of the subject matter, it is nearly always a further learning experience watching it a second time, especially the more technical parts. @@spaceinyourface

[@MrJustCallMeJames]

Description of the video really should have the original air date of the footage.

[@persistenthomology]

I got 13 minutes into this before I realized it was just a repost of the first conversation. PLEASE MAKE THIS CLEAR IN THE TITLE OR DESCRIPTION!!!!!!

[@derosa1989]

it seems very unscience-like not to post the recording date !

[@matiasaraya5451]

​@@derosa1989 Its a post about wolfram amd weinstein, what do you expect 😂

[@benjaminandersson2572]

Brian, this is not the way to gain more subscribers. Cmon. Please focus on doing quality podcasts instead of clickbaiting by doing reuploads. I like you, so please take this the right way, but this is the wrong way to go about it.

[@uGotGot1618]

With all the hours of Wolfram I’ve listened to I have never seen him so combative (for lack of a better word). That is a relative term of course, and it doesn’t change the extreme respect I have for him. Also, for a guy who isn’t living and breathing this stuff like Stephen is, it’s amazing to me how dialed in Eric is. Two incredible minds for sure.

[@rudolphosvideos]

This needs to be longer! I feel like they are just getting started. You can hear that when the end was near more needed to come out. I hear forward to more!

[@emmaoudekempers2]

totally agree! this feels like.. only the introduction

[@simonmasters3295]

innit @@emmaoudekempers2

[@BuckFieri]

The moderator got in the way a lot and it derailed the conversation multiple times

[@LittleCutiePodcast]

Dr. Keating thank you for making these podcasts. Really enjoying the guests you've had on recently.

[@DrBrianKeating]

Thanks so much! *What was your favorite takeaway from this conversation?* _Please join my mailing list to get _*_FREE_*_ notes & resources from this show! Click_ 👉 briankeating.com/list

[@NicholasWilliams-kd3eb]

@@DrBrianKeating Notice, he doesn't name a fundamental transform mechanism/quantity for his theory (About this Universe) that conserves transform quantities and proportionalities over space. Conservation of energy = equal and opposite transformation acting on quantities = there can be no probabilities about the mechanics of a fundamental transform mechanism. (Reflection law must be obeyed). P=hf/c is a spatial statement as well (Volume defined by (c) constraining (f*h) spatial occupation), meaning that (momentum flow direction asymmetries) forms the curvature of trajectories (With respect to specific phase interaction (f)), which is momentum reflection (f) over volume constrained by (c). Therefore Einstein took momentum out of space and added curves to space to account for it (Which violates a conservation of energy by removing the directionality to momentum), the problem emerges because space curvature doesn't have a direction with respect to the specific (E densities) (phase permittivity/resistivity of interacting momentum flow vectors of (p=hf/c) cross sections and perturbations) that define the curved trajectory. Cellular automata is ambiguous and doesn't capture what actually going on at a fundamental level, Stephen Wolfram doesn't have the right answer, his theory of (emergent quantities) are not fundamentals, a fundamental mechanic has a transformation proportionality operator (Reflection law) acting on (Momentum quantities) / (static space time) while conserve the momentum quantity and transform direction. Any deviations this fundamental transformation mechanic violates the conservation of energy and they tend to make ambiguous transformations on quantities in which they have no clue how these transformations relate to momentum flow configurations. It's a point about (The universe has a fundamental mechanism for (E) transformation in the form reflection law acting on intersecting quantities (Volumetric expanding pressure densities), by which gives rise to pressure equalization of reflecting quantities (quantization of energy levels which respect to pressure distribution over volume * velocity vectors along curved pressure trajectories over pressure differentials with respect to a specific phase of (p=hf/c) interacting with other (p=hf/c)) (3D Vector field that transforms a 3D energy density scalar field and operating off the local reflection law). Differential phase pressure forces momentum flow direction symmetry, and potential energy is the storage of (possible momentum reflection quantities) in the form of spatial distribution symmetry (Opposite flow directions occupy equal and opposite of the symmetrical flow structure) Therefore low pressure configurations of high energy density, which allows low surround (E) systems to contain these curves do to the magnitude of reflection increases with the difference in intersect angle directions.

[@NicholasWilliams-kd3eb]

@@DrBrianKeating Also, any theory of (f=m1m2/D) is a attractive force, it's a pseudo science fast approximation of a pressure gradient. This violates the conservation of energy as a fundamental mechanism because it is emergent from fundamental momentum flow mechanics operating off the reflection law at smaller scale.

[@NicholasWilliams-kd3eb]

Notice, none of them apply a (E) density transform mechanic like (Reflection operator acting on momentum flow direction on intersect) (P=hf/c) interactions renders quantization of pressure equalization (Structures that store momentum flow direction asymmetries on the opposite side of the flow structure allows the reflection law to contain the system with lower energy density quanta) patterns of low pressure momentum flow direction rotations = quantization formation over length.

[@zm5668]

​@DrBrianKeating my takeaway is its 3 years old At least indicate that. This is an easy way to make people not watch

[@eighty88eightkeys]

I love the back and forth here between Eric and Stephen in that it has helped further my layman understanding of these complex topics. Great show!

[@edwardcahill1631]

Stephen could have made the effort to study Eric's stuff before the discussion. He clearly thought his theory was the primary important part of the discussion. It was a little disrespectful to Eric in my opinion.

[@0neIntangible]

About 1/3 of the comments here, are complaints of a re-uploading w/o the original airing date mentioned.

[@MagruderSpoots]

Eric: [Something way over my head] Stephen:This is silly

[@ohsweetmystery]

Wolfram may or may not be right, but he is indisputably brilliant. Why is Weinstein even being asked?

[@Acey-s8m]

I believe he said there are chiral anomalies in math

[@JURSSICZ]

Why re-upload a video from 3 years ago?

[@whiskeytuesday]

Especially with no note in the description to that effect. Strange.

[@nickpmusic]

I agree a little misleading

[@JURSSICZ]

Exactly, very deceptive

[@GilesMcRiker]

A glitch in the multiverse, as Brian managed to quantum tunnel through a wormhole

[@OfficialGOD]

just go with it lol

[@elbibop]

These are great scientists, awesome guys. But Dr. Wolfram is in another league. His life accomplishments speak for himself.

[@starwaving8857]

He is going on a bad path if want more truth. Career doing fine.

[@raginald7mars408]

Wein Stein is full of RE Venge - as he never did anything - always raging about others# dis Gusting

[@steelsteez6118]

​@@raginald7mars408 what do u mean he never did anything? Have u heard of geometric unity? Are you dumb?

[@ohsweetmystery]

Wolfram may or may not be right, but he is indisputably brilliant. Why is Weinstein even being asked?

[@raginald7mars408]

@@ohsweetmystery W Einstein

[@MichaelScharf]

When was this recorded??? Can’t be new! Please add a date to the title

[@otthoheldring]

Absolutely. Seems ever so basic to me. Why Keating wouldn't do that baffles me.

[@Rusl10]

I am neither a physicist or a mathematician. (I read about spin over and over many time just to get the jist from Hawking’s book.) This discussion was sheer brilliance! Indeed I wish to know more. Thank you guys, you make it simple.

[@dustinsoodak8954]

As I understand it, Eric starts with smooth manifolds, constructs a space that satisfies the geometrical requirements of both QM and GR, then gets 3 types of each particle "for free" (though doesn't have enough background in computational physics to obtain things like particle masses). Steven starts with the assumption that the world is ultimately computational and that all possible computational rules exist, then shows that a surprisingly large proportion of them end up looking like smooth manifolds with the properties of QM and GR if you zoom out enough (but it hasn't been developed enough to get many details at the particle level). I keep hoping they will collaborate, working towards deriving known physics from opposite directions.

[@davemathews5446]

Yes!!! Excellent summary of the potential for collaboration, and exactly what needs to happen for real progress to be made. I wish so much they were open to collaboration with each other.

[@P________]

Yo Brian, you might want to say why you uploaded this, I can see a few reasons but you might want to reiterate. And having an original date in the title is standard practice.

[@Baleur]

I love how no other scientist on the planet has bothered to read Eric's theory. It's kind of mind blowing, and if i was Eric, and i genuinely believed i was sitting on something huge, i'd be frustrated out of my mind.

[@blabby102]

Where is his theory? Can you tell me the name of the paper and journal?

[@illomens2766]

Eric is really fucking bad at communicating his theory to other scientists, so he doesn't really have anyone to blame other than himself.

[@blabby102]

@@illomens2766 And he deliberately refuses to respond to requests for more information or clarification under the excuse that academic discourse is corrupt. He's a total hack.

[@illomens2766]

@@blabby102 Yep. Everyone's always either out to get him or too stupid to understand his genius, an attitude that makes it impossible to engage with any of the ideas presented in his Geometric Unity proposal.

[@oaksnice]

I don't know why you expect people to read an unfinished paper. Even so, several scientists *have* read his draft. And everyone including Eric himself agrees that it's very much a work in progress.

[@Anders01]

I'm an amateur when it comes to this, but the term "differential geometry" sounded limited to me. I asked Google Bard: "I got an idea that differential geometry might be too simplistic for describing reality. Because the differential of a function as far as I know tells the ratio of change, but that's a very simplistic linear notion! The change may be much more complicated than that in reality." Google Bard answered: "Yes, differential geometry can be too simplistic for describing reality in some cases. The differential of a function is a linear approximation of the function at a point. This means that it is accurate for small changes in the input, but it may become inaccurate for larger changes. In addition, differential geometry is typically used to describe smooth manifolds, which are spaces that are locally smooth. This means that they can be approximated by Euclidean space at any point. However, many real-world objects are not smooth manifolds. For example, the surface of a rock is typically not smooth, and the geometry of spacetime is not smooth at black holes. To describe more complex geometries, mathematicians have developed other tools, such as Riemannian geometry and Finsler geometry. These tools allow for more general notions of curvature and distance. Differential geometry is still a powerful tool for describing many real-world phenomena, but it is important to be aware of its limitations. Here are some examples of situations where differential geometry may not be sufficient: When the change in the input is large When the space being described is not smooth When the geometry is very complex, such as the geometry of spacetime near a black hole In these cases, it may be necessary to use more sophisticated tools from mathematics or physics. It is also important to note that differential geometry is a mathematical discipline, and its goal is to provide a rigorous and systematic framework for studying geometry. It is not necessarily the goal of differential geometry to provide a perfect description of reality. However, differential geometry has been shown to be very useful for describing many real-world phenomena, and it continues to be an important tool for scientists and engineers."

[@srussifordwilliams]

I love all three of these guys. Hearing this is great motivation to be better and do more, in a decent honest way. Wolfram alfa was my most used tool in college, and did change how I think about what is possible almost more than anything else

[@king6dutch]

I have to chime in, I have very little understanding of advanced physics, I find its too complicated to know what hes talking about when Eric tries to explain his theory. That said, I am fine with that. Contrary to what Stephen was suggesting, people like me tuning into this podcast don't want to hear about the culture of science (we've heard it), at least not at the expense of understanding these theories. I want Stephen and Eric with the help of each other to tease apart their theories, I want more simple illustrations like Erics hand symmetry thing to help me get even the smallest grasp on the ideas. I would love a podcast where Eric explains his theory to Stephen, for Stephen and Brian (or others) to try to simplify whats being said and make anaologies. I want Eric to do the same with Stephens theories. I would LOVE for during one of these discussions for Eric or Stephen to come to some sort of eureka moment and overlap these theories, or one to realize the other is holds something theirs doesn't. In short I want the furthering of Science and thereby the human species by some means, and I would like the tiniest bit of understanding while being along for the ride.

[@Srsbzns_5150]

Stephen is the only person who can out talk Eric 🤣

[@mlbonfox8199]

Lol

[@otthoheldring]

Or Keating

[@mihaelaulieru3063]

This was an almost surreal meeting of the minds - two contemporary geniuses who I most highly respect and from whom I always keep learning and expanding new horizons! I wish Brian wasn't rushed at the end - since it was so clear how much these amazing guests enjoyed themselves and were so ready to keep debating the thorny peer review topic (who evaluates who... if you are a genius how can other, say, less genial minds really get it...), or the "cultural" matter that Steven mentioned at the end... Not sure when we can get these two again together - all I hope is we don't have to wait another... three years!...

[@qbtc]

No one considers Eric Weinstein a genius. A case can be made for Wolfram but even that is debatable.

[@jpa_fasty3997]

@@qbtc Sorry, on what planet is it debatable whether Wolfram is a genius? Please present your case for it being debatable?

[@qbtc]

@@jpa_fasty3997 What is Wolfram's contribution to physics? He is super smart and got his PhD from CalTech at 20 but that doesn't make one a genius more a prodigy. He wrote a book on cellular automata and neglected to credit those before him like John von Neumann, the true inventor of cellular automata. So yes it's debatable.

[@dylanthomas12321]

A wonderful discussion with good guidance from Brian. However, my suggestion to Brian is you really need to up your game when it comes to planning. You have used the children bedtime excuse before. Here you have two of the smartest people in the world discussing issues thousands of viewers (also pretty smart), and then you just bail out? It's not a good look, dude. Unprofessional.

[@matiasaraya5451]

​@@qbtcPeople that are actually working physicis and students laught at this guys, its string theory all over again!

[@robertcutts7264]

I love it at about 56 minutes in when Stephen blows Eric's mind with his discovery that Einstein's field equations in 3D space are the same as Feynman's path integrals in quantum field theory! Eric's response is priceless! "Wait a minute! What did you just say!? Lemme think about that for a minute!" But this is a perfect example of why Dr. Keating does this awesome show... so these moments can happen for ALL of us! Thanks so much to all three of you guys for bringing this enlightenment.

[@BrandonJohnson-bx1ht]

Is this a re-upload? I thought I had seen this before!

[@sionnach.1374]

Maybe you've cracked time travel after all these years

[@heatvisuals]

Deja Vu because of the solar eclipse

[@Suggsonbass]

it's a re-upload@@sionnach.1374

[@lucuswhite8250]

Very interesting conversation from what you catch between the ads. More ads than cable TV

[@logan27000]

Brian, your channel isn't growing at a rate that would befit it given the many big names you've had, not because you don't have good guests or good content, but because you represent old content as if it is new, simply to try to get views. You should be content to wait for new interviews, or if you are going to upload old ones do so in the form of shorts and include the date in the description to remain transparent. It is obviously consciously omitted. I am telling you this for your benefit not simply to criticize. Your audience is not dumb and you are doing a disservice to yourself with this behavior.

[@miyojewoltsnasonth2159]

*@Brian Keating,* Please include the date this interview was recorded in the Description. Does anybody know the date this interview was recorded?

[@benjaminandersson2572]

It is probably atleast two years old.

[@crakhaed]

Apparently August 2020, not sure the day. Never heard of this episode when it came out and I thought it was new. Disappointing to catch in the comments that it's misleading us to think it was actually new. It's very easy and considerate to include the recording date and airdate, especially if they differ, in the description of the video when you're uploading. If he has put enough thought into it to set up an automated reply to positive comments then it shouldn't be that difficult to implement. Hell, I haven't uploaded a video in a decade but I imagine you can still edit descriptions after posting right? 😂

[@merodobson]

This is what science and humanity in general needs more of. Serious brains behind our progress exchanging ideas and teaching each other. Elevating everything in progress.

[@brendawilliams8062]

I m not the science guy. I need information to study numbers

[@davids4610]

I get maybe get 5% of the conversation but still love listening! Thanks.

[@moledude]

I would love an elaboration on Stephen’s point on the collapse of reductionism. Right now it’s a feeling we all have, but we are missing it’s formal argument.

[@BrianBull]

Is this an old interview? Eric announced the portal which hasn't been active in a long time?

[@NightmareCourtPictures]

Okay now everyone, get a red crayon, write on a paper towel that you have a theory of everything and send it to Eric

[@randomfarmer]

Wolfram's exactly on point in saying that computer software and computer modelling ought to stand in place of equations. If we could exactly model something simple like a hydrogen atom first, it follows from his notion of 'proof by compilation' that we could thereby understand the whole universe. However, we'd need to be very certain before beginning the simulations that what we're simulating does, indeed, model a hydrogen atom and its correct behaviour. If we can't do that, then all we're doing is just creating some sort of very ingenious animation. I've been Googling around a little on this topic of atomic structure and, integrated into my own theory of quantum gravity, is a very central notion of radiation pressure; no one seems to have gleaned that background photons play an important role in keeping the electron from falling into the nucleus. Challenging views on this is tantamount to challenging the foundations of quantum theory since quantum theory arose in large part as a consequence of trying to explain atomic structure and the behaviour of electrons. While I think it's certainly true that an electron density, or 'wavefunction', amounts to a myriad of appearances of the electron (each one incredibly brief) localised around the nucleus, various sources I've consulted also admit that the electron does, at times, tunnel quite close to the nucleus and exerts force over the protons therein; it may also enter the nucleus and the nucleus may 'capture' the electron. Writ large, with many atomic nuclei, this process of electron capture occurs when a star collapses into a neutron star; the electrons then move about within the lattice structure comprising the stars outer layers as free electrons. In considering the background, I think we're neglecting very often the role of radiation pressure and, in the study of dark energy particularly, the effects of the radiation that's already been released by the stars and galaxies in the universe since its inception; the radiation would be building up between galaxy clusters and pushing the universe apart; more photons would periodically be added to this directly, in the radiation emitted by galaxies; and electrons from galaxies would also be tunneling to those recesses of space to deposit photons as Hawking radiation (this is corroborated by a study out of Radbound University in the Netherlands in causal dynamical triangulations; they arrived at the same conclusion I did; that all massive bodies in the universe, not merely black holes, emit Hawking radiation). This dark energy idea also has precedents in some fringe material I've dug up online. In any case, it seems there's a lot of new physics (and hence a lot of 'low-hanging fruit') to be had out there.

[@jamessheffield4173]

I like when reportedly Edison said," I discovered 800 ways to not make a light bulb".

[@justinwhite2716]

It’s interesting that one can derive Einstein’s equations from the computational rules Wolfram describes. What I think is lacking from the cellular automata model is falsifiability. Furthermore, you could produce many equations from cellular automata with no real world application or connection to mathematical theory. You need to know what you’re looking for beforehand.

[@SteveRowe]

Amazing to hear these great minds given enough freedom to speak as themselves. Love it. Please have these guests on again!

[@kronkite1530]

Ah, a comment Dr. Keating did read and respond to - a positive one rather than one of the many more criticisms! Figures.

[@AlienScientist]

MORE OF THIS TYPE OF CONTENT!!! Stephen Wolfram is amazing!! You are guys are Legends! Imagine if Einstein and Rosen could have recorded live streams like this!!!

[@occhamrazor]

Almost 2 hours of Real "technobabble", I can only guess the amount of layers of understanding is needed to (truly) understand what is discussed here. I love it, not often I feel so... limited in my smartness(?). I hope both are right, they deserve it, we need this.

[@user-cg3tx8zv1h]

Most of the things that have been discussed here have flown over my head. I just get the gist of it. But, I wish it didn't end...

[@TheMikesylv]

Eric is the man

[@dylanthomas12321]

I may have seen this before or perhaps I've seen Wolfram and Weinstein so many times elsewhere. My undergrad physics from the 1970s is not good enough to keep up with these two great minds. But I'll probably watch it again next month once I recover and dig up some of the theories they referred to. But thank you Brian, maybe only you could make this happen, given your standing in physics. Sometimes social media, KZbin, lives up to its promise. Well done.

[@ac-uk6hs]

I can't get enough of Eric Weinstein one of the smartest people I've ever come across

[@ColdHawk]

If Einstein’s work is like climbing the sheer northwest face of Half Dome, trying to understand Weinstein is like trying to free climb the north face of the Eiger. The man does not want to give the common person a single piton. His take seems to be, “If you haven’t done the work to understand the mathematical models of the geniuses who have gone before then I cannot stop to explain it to you.” Fair enough I suppose, but unfortunate for me!

[@EmyCarlan]

You should get these two awesome gentlemen together again some time, and really let them probe each other's theories even deeper. Their debates are very interesting to watch.

[@rooruffneck]

Please provide dates of the conversations.

[@robertcutts7264]

At around the 26 minute mark, Stephen says some really interesting stuff about how the work he's been doing for 40-ish years with symbolic computational language turns out to be the same thing that works in his new area of research on hypergraphs. He drops this notion: the symbolic computational language is meaningless to start with, and only gains meaning as it applies to those objects contained in (or emerging from, as it goes) the hypergraph. I'm not a religious person, but this sounded uncannily like an echo of John Chapter 1, verse 1: "In the beginning was the Word (Logos), and the word (Logos) was with God, and the word (Logos) was God."

[@richardatkinson4710]

“We should get Sabine back on…” Absolutely. Her “Lost in Math” attitude is entirely compatible with Wolfram’s “untidy” computational approach, but not with field theories and the infinities of the “continuum”.

[@Anders01]

Great battle topic! I'm a huge fan of the Wolfram model because it's extremely simple at its foundation, just a graph. I will listen to Weinstein's presentation and compare it.

[@bill_tube]

I've heard that if you repost old podcasts over and over on the theories of everything and act like they are new that they will eventually become true.

[@____uncompetative]

That is not what is happening. Very few people have realised that this is not a repeat of an old podcast. It would have been marked as such if it was. This is evidence of the Simulation hypothesis, as the Simulation has been reset and run forward multiple times in the hopes that the Russia-Ukraine situation doesn't turn into a nuclear war which is GAME OVER for every one of us NPCs. Some of the smarter amongst us have woken up to the fact that Simulation is being reset and run forward in the hope of a butterfly effect leading to a different non-terminal outcome in the small latitude in which the Simulation is not superdeterministic. Many ordinary level intelligence people have not noticed this 'recycled reality' just as they will laugh at re-runs of _SEINFELD_ as if it were the first time they had seen it. Unfortunately, our above Dunning-Kruger IQs have us aware to the fact that all of this is familiar and has happened before. We had a war in Iraq. Then we had a war in Iraq. Russia invaded Crimea. Then Russia invaded Crimea. Hamas attacked Israel. Then Hamas attacked Israel. We really need that butterfly to flap its wings.

[@Shadow_B4nned]

Stephen has humbled himself here. WolframAlpha with AI is probably the greatest invention of our time. It's the invention that invents other inventions.

[@JG27Korny]

Indeed a brilliant example of computational irreductibility, LLM can't know things that need to be computed. So why don't we combine those. I asked gpt to make code for wplfram way before the plugin appeared. And a friend told me it is inevitable that this will come as an app.

[@raveman7]

brian… this is one of the greatest conversation ive seeen !!!! thank u for pairing eric and stephen together to discuss real science --

[@maximilliansbabo2099]

What is the original date of this recording….

[@steelsteez6118]

In the broccoli space that wofram refers to, do you guys know if the bozo pairs divulge and then convulge only if the polarity of the dirac and Ying yang models are heliotropic as stated by weinstein? Or are we more so considering their geometric entropy in terms of the quantum neutrino shift of both y and x axis when accounting for quadrature amplitude modulation as it relates to orthogonal frequency division multiplexing of photons in Weinsteins curvature tensor sores?

[@paulbrowning5376]

Dude, I think you just solved time travel.

[@CallMeChato]

These two would make a great Wayne’s World.

[@makayladorvil1542]

Thanks for making this video available

[@Whitewater11]

I really wish we could get guys like Eric and Stephen to just riff for years on end and pay them well to do it. I know they would likely end up ripping each others heads off but we needs guys like these to work through these things that can't be covered in candid conversation.

[@Whitewater11]

I will add that Stephen seemed rather combative for some reason.

[@tykjenffs]

The paradigm shift is discovering everybody was wrong.

[@bjpafa2293]

Stephen Wolfram, one has meet him when he called IT knowledge computational engine... Berkeley at the beginning, The Weinberg brothers, especially Eric with Geometrical Unity, later. It seems one iconoclast of Physics /Mathematics. There can evidently be three or more. Sean Carroll as pedagogue, educator around physics. Sabine Hossenfelder ❤️ Brian Greene as communicator, host of the best... And all those not mentioned, deserving it. Congrats to you! It's a pleasure to have heard your argumentative positions.

[@bjpafa2293]

I apologise to all those, Max Tegmark, Brian Cox, Laura Mersini-Houghton that should be mentioned here.

[@hercules71185]

Holy, if you ever want to feel like an idiot. Listen to these guys. They break things down so effortlessly yet beautifully. Eric is absolutely brilliant and his knowledge allowed us to see just how much Wolfram really knows. His perfect understanding is what we needed to keep this conversation moving. I can't wait to see more. I feel like I have learned from this talk than my many many hours of lectures, videos and reading over numerous years.

[@kevinswett1964]

DONT ANY OF YOU DARE STOP DOING THIS STUFF. In my opinion, the real value of these types of conversations is much less about what value is brought to the average viewer/listener (most of us are not equipped to understand even 1% of the content) and much more about bringing two bright minds together to share ideas and wisdom with the goal of inching closer to a unified or comprehensive theory of our universe. Keep it up, guys. -- An impressed and hopeful layman

[@narcisopetty]

Nicely done! I am an unabashed fan of Eric, and appreciate Dr. Wolframs work (that i am aware of) I appreciate your efforts Brian, outstanding.

[@northzealand]

same !!

[@jessevanderhamm]

Why are there cuts while a single person is monologuing? Why his is very frustrating because it invokes a sense of distrust in the viewer and runs the risk of someone being taken out of context. If a single person is talking and there are obvious cuts in between sentences, how are we supposed to trust that what the person is saying is actually what they intended to say and not just what they’ve been pieced together to sound like they are saying something they didn’t actually say? I’m giving you guys the benefit of the doubt but please take this comment seriously because there’s few legitimate reasons I can think of that would necessitate cuts while people are speaking. Please try to avoid doing this in the future… please!

[@bertdrake]

Stephen Wolfram is truly amazing, and so is his App.

[@andrewmacdonald1904]

My unified theory is near completion (it has taken several rolls of paper towels and a whole box of crayons). My theory is sort of thin at one end, a lot thicker in the middle, and is a bit thin at the other end.....but I hope to even it all out soon. It’s a great theory and will change the world in unimaginable ways!

[@inthefade]

Please label videos if they are re-uploads :)

[@notloki3377]

super interesting talk. i understand probably 85% of what they're saying, and i still feel like i'm the watching the gandalf and sauroman duel from the first lord of the rings. massive shoutout to dr. keating for platforming this. we need some fresh air in the physics world, and conversations like this one let it in.

[@onlyguitar1001]

Let me guess, Weinstein is Sauroman? 😆 Great respect for all of them. I think it's worth saying that if many of our observations can be explained by using a unifying model then that has to count for some amount of experimental evidence even if the theories haven't yet devised further experiments. I hope that further studying dark matter will lead to a better understanding of what it is and might be a crucial piece of the puzzle for these theories.

[@notloki3377]

i'm not gonna pick one for light and one for dark.. those categories are too simple and they're both different. weinstein is more theoretical, and wolfram is more pragmatic. for what it's worth, i'm more sympathetic to weinstein, but that has more to do with me than it does with him. i personally have a lot of doubts about dark matter, and my bets are on a paradigm shift that takes us away from the general relativity/quantum mechanics dichotomy. i have a hunch that this world is a shadow or cross section of a higher dimensional object, but i have no idea how i would test that or if any gainful technology can be made using that theory.@@onlyguitar1001

[@mikaelbohman6694]

A slightly autistic Gandalf vs a bit ego Sauron 😅 . Anyway, great talk, I can follow Wolfram pretty well but it’s harder with Weinstein, as I lack the mathematical background and am not familiar with the lingo.

[@pistolen87]

To quote Ed from Good Burger: " “I know some of these words"

[@PTHastings]

🎯 Key points for quick navigation: 00:00 *🌐 Introduction to theories of everything and engagement with the scientific community* - Discusses the evolving landscape of theories of everything. - Highlights challenges faced by traditional gatekeepers in physics. - Introduces Eric Weinstein and Stephen Wolfram's perspectives on the zeitgeist of current theories. 02:23 *🔄 Computational foundations and surprising discoveries in physics* - Stephen Wolfram discusses his transition from particle physics to computation. - Describes the unexpected success of integrating computational thinking into fundamental physics. - Mentions parallels between current advancements and historical developments in computation theory. 06:13 *🔍 Abstract mathematics and its application in theoretical physics* - Explores the relationship between abstract mathematical concepts and real-world physics. - Discusses the concept of the multi-way system and its correspondence to advanced mathematical structures. - Highlights the synthesis of theoretical frameworks to enhance understanding of universal phenomena. 11:03 *🚀 Future directions and practical implications of new theories* - Examines the potential societal impact of emerging theories of everything. - Discusses practical applications and computational validations of theoretical models. - Explores the integration of new methodologies in understanding complex physical phenomena. 20:39 *🔄 Paradigm Shifts in Science* - Paradigm shifts in science are pivotal moments marked by methodological advances opening new areas of exploration. - These shifts often begin with a singular breakthrough, followed by rapid evolution and institutionalization within the scientific community. 25:22 *🖥️ Computational Models vs. Mathematical Equations* - The shift from mathematical equations to computational models in science reflects a fundamental change in how we conceptualize and simulate natural phenomena. - Computational approaches offer a broader, more nuanced perspective on complex systems, challenging traditional reductionist views. 31:42 *🌌 Computational Irreducibility and Equivalence* - Computational irreducibility posits that certain systems cannot be simplified beyond their computational processes, challenging the notion of predictability in science. - The principle of Computational Equivalence suggests that our computational capabilities are equivalent to the systems we study, implying inherent limitations in predicting complex behavior. 40:23 *📚 Stephen discusses simplicity and complexity in scientific theories.* - Stephen emphasizes the value of simplicity in his work, aiming to make complex concepts accessible. - Simplification in scientific theories can sometimes lead to underestimation of their depth and significance. 41:50 *🧩 Exploring the foundations of matter mathematics.* - Stephen delves into the concept of matter mathematics, encompassing the theoretical framework beyond specific theorems. - Matter mathematics aims to derive fundamental equations analogous to Einstein's in mathematical space. 45:13 *🌌 Unraveling the mystery of spinners in quantum mechanics.* - Discussion revolves around the challenge of understanding spinners from computational rules. - Spinners in quantum mechanics emerge from complex mathematical structures like the multi-way causal graph. 01:00:59 *🌌 Theoretical frameworks and Hilbert space interpretations* - Quantum mechanics operates within projective Hilbert space, not directly within Hilbert space itself. - Eric Weinstein discusses the loss of information due to the projective representation, highlighting potential experimental implications. - Stephen Wolfram contrasts these views with the geometric interpretation in Bronzeville space, linking it to quantum phase changes. 01:01:53 *🔍 Quantum amplitudes and gravitational effects* - Quantum amplitudes' phases are influenced by gravitational interactions in Bronzeville space. - Differences in how bosons and fermions interact geometrically are discussed. - The impact of curvature tensors on uncertainty principles in geometric quantization is explored. 01:03:19 *🌠 Predictions and falsifiability in new theories* - Eric Weinstein and Stephen Wolfram discuss the theoretical frameworks' ability to make testable predictions. - Emphasis on scale-independent predictions and potential implications for cosmology and quantum computing. - Comparison with historical examples of falsifiability in theories like Einstein's General Relativity. 01:07:10 *📚 Emergent properties and non-chiral universe* - Eric Weinstein proposes an emergent, non-chiral universe model, challenging conventional views. - Discussion on unification of particle generations and implications for observed neutrino masses. - Theoretical implications for understanding fundamental symmetries and unseen particle sectors. 01:20:36 *🕵️‍♂️ Einstein's Legacy and New Geometries* - Einstein's theory of general relativity revolutionized our understanding of spacetime. - Geometric Unity proposes a singular geometry underlying both general relativity and the standard model. - The concept challenges traditional views on internal symmetries and spacetime metrics. 01:23:23 *🌌 Gauge Theory Misconceptions* - General relativity's portrayal as a gauge theory may hinder deeper understanding. - The gauge group's role differs significantly between general relativity and the standard model. - Reevaluating these concepts could lead to breakthroughs in physics. 01:26:17 *🌍 Challenges in Modern Physics* - Modern physics faces challenges due to complexity and historical precedents. - A sense of learned helplessness has crept into the field, impacting innovation. - Theoretical frameworks need to reconnect with foundational physics principles. 01:32:00 *🧠 Role of AI in Physics* - AI holds potential to revolutionize physics by aiding in complex pattern recognition. - Computational irreducibility poses challenges in fully understanding physical laws through AI. - Bridging the gap between computational theories and observable phenomena remains crucial. 01:40:36 *🧩 Understanding the prerequisites for advanced theoretical exploration* - Differential geometry and quantum field theory are akin to learning languages before delving into literature. - Building expansive computational worlds requires integrating puzzles into existing frameworks. - The development of AGI isn't necessarily required for complex problem-solving in structured environments. 01:41:36 *🤖 Reevaluating the role of AGI in computational tasks* - AGI was previously thought essential for various tasks, but simpler systems often suffice. - Theories of AGI and the simulation hypothesis prompt philosophical reflections on intelligence emergence. - Contemplating the possibility that humans could be the AGI in someone else's simulation raises profound questions about creators and creations. 01:42:35 *🌌 Philosophical musings on constraints and creators* - Einstein's query on whether the creator had choices in universe construction reflects constraints in defining natural laws. - Debates around mathematical hypotheses versus empirical physics highlight divergent focuses in theoretical exploration. - Advocating for more focus on concrete physics rather than speculative theories to advance scientific understanding. Made with HARPA AI

[@LuisCurrupaki]

@@PTHastings thank you for the description!

[@richardatkinson4710]

A few people are incensed that this is a repost - they think anything a couple of months or years old is passé. In philosophy - and I think the correct theory of everything will be philosophical/metaphysical rather than physical - we still discuss (for example) Zeno of Elea, or Pythagoras, or Plato…

[@rh7686]

Awesome show. Wolfram is a great elucidator. His computational methods for discovering the underlying rules for the behaviour of matter and energy is definitely worth exploring. Love the scientific debate.

[@dhnguyen68]

Thanks Eric for riffing off the Stephen’s ideas. I also learnt a lot from you guys.

[@psychedwellness77]

Geez getting ads like every 7 minutes. Thats ridiculous

[@Darisiabgal7573]

Boredism = The theory that you can take something that is explained in simple terms and make it so abstractionalized and mathematical that explaining it causes everyone to instantly go into a coma.

[@liamduff88]

I would like to understand more about what Dr Wolfram means when he says that " its unbelievably easy to get the double slit experiment to work"?? Is he saying that he can explain the weirdness of the outcomes in the double slit experiment with his model?

[@mikemhz]

The burn on Sabine: "I don't have time for theories of everything!"

[@joeimbesi99]

He should get Sabine Hostilefender on to argue with them(esp Eric) in a future session

[@useruser-h5k3h]

As long as all theories of fundamental physics evolve out of mathematical equations only, we not going anywhere.

[@andrewmoonbeam321]

When did this take place?

[@jankartasan]

This is great! Whenever I feel I'm a smart guy, I listen to this kind of podcasts, don't understand a word of it, and i'm in no time back to earth.

[@HigoWapsico]

If the goal is understanding the “fundamental nature of reality,” you should have Bernardo Kastrup on. It will at least clarify what it can’t be. ❤

[@RafaelCruzPodcast]

Please let’s take the time to honor these luminaries, guests and host alike. Thank you for the work you do.

[@tantzer6113]

Please also let’s take the time to honor the local barista and the farmers who grow coffee.

[@douglasalexander3218]

This was such an awesomemminteraction amd discussion. I love seeing the respectful opposing views becaus it allows the viewer to really make a choice for themself. Thank you for this !

[@DrBrianKeating]

My pleasure

[@alex79suited]

The re-ups are great for Sunday morning.

[@jamesthurin]

I think Wolfram is spot on here. We need to reduce down to explore the fundamentals and then model that up over time if we want to discover the derivation of our current mathematical theories and change our perception of reality into one that makes sense. It's all compution, and clearly some weird things emerge from that, but go easy with the woo. Weinstein is projecting his insecurities onto Wolfram, and finally Wolfram became annoyed enough to comment on it. Weinstein probably knows nothing about the work that Wolfram was doing but he couldn't help himself but to inject and argue. I think they would actually find that they agree on a few important things had that been allowed to happen. What the internet does to people is what happened to Weinstein.

[@WizardSkyth]

Thumbs up. Without dissing Eric , Wolram is on the right path and should team up with Donald Hoffman and Rupert Sheldrake .

[@davidmacaulay7810]

Thanks… great bringing together and well managed… followed both for ages but that was the first I could understand the difference.

[@DrBrianKeating]

Appreciate your generosity

[@maryammobasser7262]

Dr. W you are on the most fascinating right tract 👏👏

[@palfers1]

Superb for this physics grad.

[@oliverjamito9902]

A little lower than the Angels! Yet! Angels who persevere and heard the WORD come here in front and remind! Gratitude and Honor!

[@ethanwilliam9944]

12:25 This right here is a huge problem in the community. Everyone is so "busy" that they don't take the time to understand the next person's proposal. It's silly really to assume something is incorrect without knowing what it is you are designating as such. It makes zero sense.

[@timb350]

Gotta say...listening to Wolfram I'm kinda thinking that one day...this guy is gonna have "Nobel prize winner" before his name.

[@MrCalhoun556]

1:49:08 "Sabine can be kind of gruff and unpleasant" - I just think you not just described Sabine but also the average German academic.

[@marksteiner3493]

Can't believe I missed this. Love them both so much. Brilliance. But yea, include the date, bruh.

[@bosco3451]

Is there a paper to read?

[@boujnboujn7947]

"I Used to be a particle physicist, long time ago, I did that when I was a kid" Stephen Wolfram is obviously a genius

[@mikaelbohman6694]

“Particle physics, that’s for kids”

[@Krath1988]

Its kinda cringe, but also kind of excited to see to what length's Dr Keating will go to get a million subscribers.

[@davidwilkie9551]

More admirable efforts to sort out some sense-in-common congruent concepts. So because I have always had a problem with language used for advanced levels of Mathematical Conjecture.., and thanks.

[@prometheus6474]

I think removing pauses is well meant but this is very heavy content (to me at least) and the pauses help process what's being said. Good talk either way.

[@joesphmorphew]

I hope that the next time you have these two giants together, you have a babysitter to put the kids to bed. They had just gotten warmed up... In all seriousness, awesome podcast! I do look forward to seeing them again. Thanks for all that you do.

[@petermoore900]

There's really absolutely nothing wrong with a rerun just disclose upfront the original airdate. That's all. I watched this thinking it was brand new only to realize the info was 3 years old (and basically nothing has happened since)