Stephen Wolfram | My Discovery Changes Everything

[@DrBrianKeating]

👉 Want to stay fully informed on breaking news, compare coverage, and avoid media bias? Go to www.ground.news/drbrian and sign up through my link for 30% OFF unlimited access! 📰

[@3sc4p1sm]

To discover god you have to discover everything else first, am sure the issue of irreducibility is embedded in primes

[@MrPublicPain]

I saw some model runners add new data to their models and not their data sets to make the model... once they added the new data to the initail model craetion... boom... they got excellent real results so things that seem right can be 100% wrong in methodology... I wonder which Steven does?

[@MrPublicPain]

I saw some model runners add new data to their models and not their data sets to make the model... once they added the new data to the initial model creation... boom... they got excellent real results so things that seem right can be 100% wrong in methodology... I wonder which Steven does? Also it strikes me that when he mentions "possible histories" that literature has pioneered this . What is a book of fiction? There are millions of duplicate paradigms. The venturi effect is reproduced no matter what the material that flows . Space, and carburetors, black holes... ? Have that shape? The flow speeds up. Of course there are "possible" histories. Of course the flow of electrons, air, water, plasma speeds up when it is "venturied" lol. Scientists need more generalisation. His explanations of space and time are awesome.

[@RanjakarPatel]

Take care four this man. He no fareness four India. He fourget Martin Luther king dreams. My color good color. All color good color. No make race four man who look differencely four convenience and four huminatarian my dear. I am very very very sadness four you’re say. But you try you’re best you’re branes and even if no power four you’re neuron I hope you have gr8 mango.

[@RWin-fp5jn]

Wow. This is the best physics interview-podcast I’ve seen since a long time. Happy to see Stephen is now translating his mathematical insights into unconventional physical interpretations. We badly need this, as our current 100-year old physical theories (GR, SR, QP) are based on mathematical correct approximations, but incorrect underlying equivalence relations. There are many things Stephen guesses correctly; such as dark matter actually being a yet unknown property of space. Bravo! Indeed. Finally someone who gets that we need to focus on the grid itself, not on some imaginary invisible mass. Actually the erratic erratic galactic rotation curves are the result of a LACK of spacetime in between our spiral arms. But again; happy at least the discussion is on the grid itself! We need these disruptive insights of top people! Another mathematician, Roger Penrose, made a similar deep remark, as he stresses time and again that mass fundamentally equals not energy but inverse time! In his words; ‘…If you have mass in the QP world, you have a CLOCK…’. He realises this by substituting Planck E=hf into E=MC2. To finish things off, Heisenberg already defined the other CORRECT inverse relation, namely Energy equals inverse space as per dXdP>=h/2, a polar notation constant. Do we know see what is going on? Why we fumbled for 100 years? If we take these two correct inverse equivalence relations, then Einstein’s SR now says that a speeding object contracts frontal space and time, resulting in an INCREASE in its energy (inverse space) and mass (inverse time). In in slightly different terms; the speeding object wraps continuous ST fieldlines around itself in a standing wave of a discrete quanta of inversed spacetime windings, giving the object potential and inertia. Now do we see that speed induced effects on spacetime on the one hand and energymass on the other all cancel out? Want more proof? Stephen wants to know where complex number come from in the QO world. Well, we must compensate [m/s] speed with its dual QP equivalent speed expression of [J/kg] or [J/kg=Nm/kg=m2/s2]. So, the only way m/s and m2/s2 cancel out is to use a prefix of i2=-1 at the QP side. So dual inverse physics requires math to have complex numbers. Do we now get it?

[@bertpineapple3738]

Wolfram impresses me more each year. His sense of adventure coupled with that intellect is formidable. I am excited to see where he may be going.

[@TheMemesofDestruction]

He’s a pretty cool Dude. 😎

[@Roguescienceguy]

He is more or less at the peak of his intellectual ability, but man.... What a peak it is

[@dimitargueorguiev9088]

Some of his expositions and conjectures are far fetched, unsubstantiated, even misleading. What I do not see in his work is the abundance of rigorous analysis and general enough mathematical proofs in his papers.

[@AdamWest-qp3yp]

His arrogance is a tad off putting.. bro we don’t care how many books you wrote 😂 Google works and I can type you condescending fk

[@GEMSofGOD_com]

His core ideas are **actually** based on mine, and he can't call me by my name. He continues repeating my words without realizing MORE.

[@CalinColdea]

It feels surreal to live in a time when you can listen&watch such amazing individuals, so casually. 🤔

[@KenLieck]

@zornu Not exclusively.

[@markhuru]

Those who don’t embrace the internet will fall behind in evolution

[@KenLieck]

@@markhuru without pants

[@alexanderwhyte5316]

@@KenLieck Not exclusively.

[@albooga]

True!

[@kenw8875]

first discoverded wolfram in grad school at osu in late 90s. had to use maple symbolic manipulator and dipped into mathmatica. what a powerful program. wolfram is such a fire eater and a workhorse. he never settles on status quo.

[@Blue_Azure101]

It kills the MacBook lol

[@warpspeedscp]

@@Blue_Azure101 skill issue

[@davemathews5446]

Wolfram is just amazing in that he can both brilliantly push the boundaries of scientific exploration AND explain what he is doing and thinking in the most clear and simple terms. My intuition is that people decades from now will still be discovering and acknowledging the brilliance of Wolfram's ideas.

[@michelleper5065]

and not a step on a "moon" or a "mars" lol while antarctica still hidden in plain site ... my ai iphone zombies....

[@joakimlindblom8256]

While I have tremendous respect for Wolfram's many accomplishments, most of the ideas that he talks about here do not originate with him. By the way he talks about things, it's easy to mistakenly think it's mostly his work and ideas, rather than the collective work of generations of scientists. I wish he presented things a bit more modestly so that casual observers get a better perspective. In terms of his work on computational irreducibility, it is an interesting perspective, but these ideas can also be framed equally well in more traditional mathematical physics terms.

[@DalbyJoakim]

Wolfram Alpha is the greatest gift of all - Stephen should read ”44” by Thad Roberts which totally is researched using it and is much further ahead

[@mikiafu]

That's a lot of nonsense.

[@dodatroda]

😂

[@yeti9127]

I always find Wolfram to be a most fascinating scholar. 6 books during the covid is just a simple example of his monumental intellect. His confidence in taking on the entire physics in a both macro and micro way is daring. I find him very genuine. I would love to see a few numerical calculations and values coming out of his computation.

[@00jknight]

Specifically it's his ability to speak simply that I deeply respect and appreciate

[@yeti9127]

@@00jknight and humbly..

[@Barelo]

Wait, did he write 6 book in the span of 2 years?

[@andrewradford3953]

Reminds me of Asimov

[@JakeWitmer]

​@@andrewradford3953Yeah, but way smarter. Asimov had trouble understanding "the golden rule"

[@turnabol]

I’m so grateful to have access to conversations like this at my fingertips. Thank you both for your scientific contributions and even more for taking on the burden of being public intellectuals.

[@rajdeepbosemondal7648]

Fascinating discussion with Dr. Stephen Wolfram! The insight into the computational nature of time and the second law is mind-boggling. The concept that you can't cheat the passage of time due to computational irreducibility adds a unique perspective. Looking forward to diving deeper into Wolfram Physics.

[@solconcordia4315]

Oh yes! Wolfram is a mad man but that's absolutely not perjorative.

[@magnuslysfjord423]

Is it that you can’t cheat it or that it’s incredibly computationally expensive to? As everything is incredibly entangled exponentially over time

[@brendawilliams8062]

@@magnuslysfjord423it seems to me the Professor is looking at several components in accomplishing a monumental feat. Some of them aren’t triangle friendly

[@andreworlowski5758]

This is one of my top 5 channels I watch and has been inching its way closer to the top the more i watch. I don't work for free. And i dont expect others to work for free. I have happily subscribed. Its literally the least I could do for cutting edge info.

[@DrBrianKeating]

Wow, thank you!

[@Appleblade]

For the ChatGPT points: It doesn't work... even at a quite basic logical level... for reasoning. I asked Chat to create a Venn Diagram for a categorical argument I knew to be invalid. It failed immediately, directing me to represent All S are P by placing a P circle inside an S circle, rather than the other way round. It only got worse from there. Pretty bad when an AI has no real I.

[@julianfelipe4943]

Agree. AI trains on our garbage. Just wait till it starts training on its own garbage.

[@j________k]

I wish you would follow Lexs format. Ads and such at the start and end of the video only! An no interruptions to the talk

[@carloscb3855]

I completely agree with this comment. Your interviews are great, but the interruptions by ads make them less attractive. This is my sincere opinion.

[@sMVshortMusicVideos]

Wolfram's life history is so fascinating and everything he does is so above the average genius..

[@GoatOfTheWoods]

agreed! and bonus points for using " average genius " and making it have sense.

[@v1kt0u5]

@@GoatOfTheWoods @GoatOfTheWoods StephenW is to the "average geniuses" what they are to the average brilliant, and what the brilliant are to the smart 🙌🤪

[@GoatOfTheWoods]

@@v1kt0u5 Exactly

[@KenLieck]

@@GoatOfTheWoods I was gonna ask "Just who *is* the average genius?" I'd love to see exactly how candidates for the title would be graded as well...

[@Mentaculus42]

@@KenLieck Good question, reminds me of the “Reality Distortion Field” that Jobs was famous for is in play here. So where is Einstein on this scale or Eric Ross Weinstein who so frequently pontificates here on similar subjects. Between Eric & Stephen Wolfram both can’t be right, but both can be wrong. So who is the SUPREME UBER-GENIUS?

[@clintonpiercy6651]

Wolfram is always a good interview. This man shaped my entire understanding of the universe and introduced me to determinism without even muttering the word.

[@alankarmisra]

@1:11:10 He talks about "computational effort" as a limited resource to either move through space or move through time and he says that this is what leads to time dilation (preferring moving through space as opposed to moving through time). But what is limiting the computation effort? The matrix? (of course that's a joke but im intrigued as to what the real answer would be).

[@neodonkey]

Its not necessarily a joke. There is an idea that says says given everything possible can happen and may already have happened the likelihood we're in a simulation is non trivial (similar to how we can say due to the vastness of the universe, the likelyhood of conscious beings limited to a small blue planet in the entire thing is next to nil!) If we're in a simulation there may well be computational boundaries to the Universe we can observe, with the limitations of the Universe being like the edges of a sandbox in a computer game.

[@duncanny5848]

Superb. Stephen Wolfram is a REAL thinker. Much respect.

[@Spencer-to9gu]

interesting points... 15:14 what is time 20:30 temperature & heat 24:32 what is entropy 31:19 3 big theories of 1900s 50:03 neutrinos are dark matter 54:30 blackholes 58:01 if brain processing 1000x 1:05:08 space & time not same 1:06:47 qm magnitude & phase not same 1:10:30 time dilation

[@protobeing3999]

i am an artist and a game developer. It strikes my as incredible how many similarities there are between this description of the universe and the way I structure a game (albeit MUCH less complicated) in the open source engine I use - Godot. Its pretty crazy really.

[@pythagorasaurusrex9853]

Sounds like "we live in a simulation"

[@protobeing3999]

shhhhh@@pythagorasaurusrex9853

[@protobeing3999]

we've known that for a looong time! lol@XvonPocalypse

[@DJWESG1]

It's not that amazing. It's not very different to painting a picture. Or taking a photograph, or recording a video. You are in some way copying the perceived world, albeit with more vectors and functions that a simple picture or short video capturing a moment.

[@protobeing3999]

@@DJWESG1 I am - originally a painter/ sculptor. I think it's fascinating that the more we learn about reality - the more it looks like a creative act. But I suppose you are postulating it's the other way around, which makes sense I suppose.

[@oddvardmyrnes9040]

I have a question. Mr Wolfram states that temperature has nothing to do with the second law. The question is; How many possible configurations can a system have at 0 deg K? I will say only one. At 0 K all motion stop. If molecules move, they possess energy, kinetic energy. If they have energy, temperature must be higher than 0 K. So I can agree that second law have a boundary, but as I understand, it is related to temperature. Can someone help me out here?

[@Gennys]

Well I'm not him but I think I can take a stab. I think the point he's making is that they are only related in the fact that they are emergent properties of a system that has matter. Temperature doesn't make any sense outside of having matter interacting with other matter. While entropy itself is a much lower level conceptualization of there being states of the system that change over time and what the rules of those states tend towards. They aren't tightly coupled as concepts and it's not obvious that either one requires the other perhaps.

[@oddvardmyrnes9040]

@@Gennys.. Hmmmm. Entropy don't happen on its own. Well, one might say it depends on the type of matter. Actinides decay that is true, but that is caused by them being created by interacting with other matter (neutrons) thus becoming radioactive. Trying to keep up with Mr Wolfram is hard. Maybe harder than the capability of my intellect, but I will give it a try. Entropy of matter can only be caused by two things. Chemically or kinetic interactions. The result is the same. Alteration in energy states that manifest into lower equilibrium. If this is true, then temperature is related. I have to confess that I am grappling here. Maybe I miss something. What role does photons play? Let's ask; Gamma radiation dependent on temperature? No. It moves in 0 K space. What happens when it hits matter? Energy transfer if it hits a nucleus. Result? Increase in temperature. Same with lower frequency radiation. EM radiation causes temperature increase and alpha/beta radiation does to. Am I in the woods here? I am sure that I am rambling & need help. Dependent on who you ask, some of them will say; yep, a lot😬, ⁣ but I love to let my mind wonder.

[@magnuslysfjord423]

Entropy is a higher level concept in itself caused by irreducibility. The farther away one is from the beginning of when the rules started; the more “encrypted” they are due to the complexity of the rules that have been applied over each iteration. Pseudo example For n in 100: If n modulus 3: 2+3^n Else: 2+ 3^n*2 Is less complex than For n in 1000 The reason why that causes more entropy is because there’s more information to unpack. Hence, the concept of “uncertainty” and “chaos” are historically used. Temperature is what we subjectively experience but it seems more like it’s related to the density of the functions that are being applied as entangled rules. The lower temperature indicates there’s less rules being applied to the system

[@oddvardmyrnes9040]

@@magnuslysfjord423 .. Takk skal du ha Magnus. Men ingen ser ut til å vite svaret jeg spør om. Hvor mange molekylære konfigurasjoner kan et lukket system ha ved 0 grader K? Etter din forklaring må svaret bli mindre med temperaturen, men hva er grensen? Jeg prøver å forstå entropi. Jeg klarer ikke å se at fenomenet er adskilt fra materie, og dermed temperatur.

[@oddvardmyrnes9040]

@@dumpsterplayer2700 .. Have you understood what Mr Wolfram is saying? My understanding is that he postulate that entropy is independent of temperature. My question can be rewritten to; How many subatomic configurations can a molecule have at 0 deg K? I will say 1. Do you have any problem with that? Surly you know of Bose-Einstein condensate?

[@thoribass696]

Epic performance by Stephen Wolfram, exactly as I expected. Thank you Brian!

[@DrBrianKeating]

Glad you enjoyed it!

[@lastadolkgGM]

Please put all your ads at the start, its infuriating to have the train of thought be all of a sudden flooded by something that has NOTHING to do with the subject being discussed in the podcast. I imagine that that´s one of the causes so many people aren´t subscribed to your channel, maybe you need to rethink your capitalization strategy.

[@dimsim-youtube]

actually, put them at the end, they will be even less annoying, and yet, people will be more likely to watch them (people are going to skip them if they can anywhere ... at the end they often have nothing else to watch)

[@HeyokaMushi]

@@lastadolkgGM get youtube premium and be engaged enough to skip forward through the other ads

[@utmch2003]

@@lastadolkgGM not just the placement of Ads. This thing has way too many ads to make the video unwatchable.

[@deathorb]

I am professor of advertisements regarding KZbin social media sites etc. I can conclude that this video could happily support 20% more adds and having them every ten minutes guarantees most people will fail to skip them. Feeding them relevant and helpful advice about products they may want in the future. Nothing to lose by doing this. Please remove your comment. (Sponsored by Namco - traditional arcade board specialists)

[@lastadolkgGM]

@@deathorb

[@BeachBumZero]

18% of your viewers liking and subscribing is actually very good. You should know this. Congrats on that. If you want a higher percentage, maybe eliminate the imbedded ads. Definitely soils the enjoyment of the experience. People come to KZbin for very specific topics and dont like being railroaded.

[@mjantunezl]

This time, the ads, made the video unwatchable. I HAD ADS EVERY 3 MINUTES! This is the first time I have had to watch so many ads in a video.

[@reformed_attempt_1]

@@joeedgar634 and not only that, instead of taking 5 minutes to install an adblock, he asks Dr Keating to basically cut his entire youtube revenue. I will never get this entitlement

[@Hexaglyph]

@@joeedgar634 >includes embedded ads >still calls it free your notion of 'free' is extraordinarily impoverished

[@Hexaglyph]

@@joeedgar634 >can't parse a rhetorical style >claims my notion of language is diminished bit of a self-own on your part

[@jonathanholmes3116]

Hi Brian, this was a fantastic interview, thanks for doing it. Your knowledge and ability to push back and ask relevant deep technical questions made it all the better. If there were one suggestion to improve the format it would be to remove the time constraint, I think this interview could easily have played out for another hour or so. Appreciate it must be tough if not impossible with kids and a job! But yes, thanks again and looking forward to your future videos. 👍

[@DrBrianKeating]

Glad you enjoyed it!

[@TQ2andDebbieDo]

I do not agree with removing the time constraint. I rarely have hours to listen to things like this. If it were another hour long, even though I love this, I would never touch it just because of time.

[@6ixpool520]

As someone who started watching this channel from close to the start, Dr Keating has really improved his interviewing skils a lot. Really fantastic interview and I hope you keep it up!

[@victorfinberg8595]

10 min in: absolutely fascinating. not only does wolfram have the ability to talk at length, apparently entirely unscripted, and produce what qualifies as a brilliant piece of rhetoric, but ... there is a massive amount of information coming through ... and ... it remains almost fully accessible, even to people who know little physics. (i say this as someone who DOES know a fair bit of physics, and teaches the same) but while what he says is undeniably BRILLIANT, it isn't necessarily all CORRECT

[@TheKornfeld]

You can't say something like that and not provide at least a few examples of what you're referring to. 😂 Please share!

[@victorfinberg8595]

@@TheKornfeld difficult to do, unless you specify WHICH part of my post you want me to provide details for

[@slouch186]

@@victorfinberg8595 What did he say that isn't necessarily correct?

[@victorfinberg8595]

@@slouch186 for example, the concept that ( i paraphrase) time is simply a result of successive computations. there are certain fundamental variables, all independent of each other: - 3 spatial dimensions - time - mass - electric charge etc. why do we need to introduce the concept that time is NOT fundamental? it's also problematic, because it implies that reality is fundamentally mathematical, as opposed to fundamentally physical. i consider the claim to be an unproved, and unnecessary, assertion

[@wendyg8536]

I have a sense that Stephen's goodness has been the foundation of his work, the essence of mathematics is truth.

[@goldwhitedragon]

How so?

[@jeffjohnson2307]

Writing a book while the podcast is going! I’m dyyyying 😂😂😂😂😂.

[@jimpim6454]

He was like 'shit he got me ' 😂

[@YoanhRodriguez]

@@jimpim6454 😂

[@pollywops9242]

Finding out about Wolfram physics has really rocked me to my core and I'm very grateful

[@jellakids]

What prevents people from subscribing is reposting old videos as new ones. Every video I see now, I have no idea if it's new or not - weirdly, some trust has been broken.

[@ESS284]

Just remembered why I unsubscribed lol yeah

[@srussifordwilliams]

One of the best interviews I have ever heard. Both men are amazing, thank you both

[@DrBrianKeating]

Wow, thank you!

[@philtaylor8863]

That is a fantastic idea that gravity is just the structure of or the fabric of space itself so if no matter existed just a uniform homogenous fundamental field of space gravity would be evenly distributed. As you introduce disturbances the gravity field with ripple and form troughs and ridges.

[@miroslavdyer-wd1ei]

Stephens enthusiasm is a valuable gift to science. I view his ideas in the same way as I view de Broglie.

[@genomicmaths]

Wolfram is talking about computation and at the same time saying that entropy does not require for the concept of energy (24:35). Energy quantifies the system capacity to accomplish physical work. Without physical work, we cannot even know (compute) the entropy of the system! Entropy concept by itself only give us information about the current state of the system. However, what really matter is the entropy variation, which tells us about whether the system gain or loss information. To change the system information in just one bit, any computer machine must dissipate (at least) 2.9×10^−21 Joule of energy (at room temperature), which is called Landauer's principle (already verified with experiments) = k_B T ln 2, the Boltzmann constant by the system temperature by logarithm of 2.

[@rokko_fable]

These scientist, while brilliant, are often stuck in one way of thinking. he seems to think about reality as if it actually IS math and like a computer. Instead of the truth, that these are human constructs simply used to represent reality in an attempt at comprehension. calling space discreet, is just silly. same with anything "quantum" related. it's just brushing up against the limits of our tools or capacity to see, but does not necessarily have any relation to reality. scientist have been wrong about everything for as long as humanity has existed. after a while they develop new tools and make a new model. it's just funny knowing that, and yet each generation thinks they are somehow finally correct.

[@seekerofthemutablebalance5228]

@@rokko_fable right, I agree although I think most scientists know that their theories are just descriptions of their interpretations of how they think the universe works but then they talk about it as if it's definite and direct like they are explaining how to make a cake. I think they need to emphasize the uncertainty aspect more and that it's just an attempt to explain one theory in terms people might comprehend

[@6ixpool520]

I think the implication is that entropy is a mathematical artifact of the statistical aggregate of the behaviours of the quantized fundumental constituents of the universe. He likens it to the gas laws, which while useful for calculating macroscopic events, doesn't really mean anything at a quantum/molecular scale.

[@oddvardmyrnes9040]

@@rokko_fable.. My thoughts too. Question asked in my separate post are not answered.

[@redsix5165]

49:13 wouldnt the analog be the friction between moving space and moving time?

[@lacasa3514]

Great episode! Stephen blew my mind like 3 times, something you and your guests do consistently on this show. Keep up the great work, ignore the haters.

[@DrBrianKeating]

Thanks! Will do!

[@samirsupnekar]

Ignore the Big Bang Theory!!! 😊

[@jenniferrobertson2542]

You're a good dude Dr. Keating. Thank you for your channel :) Dr. Wolfram is a super cool dude too! :D

[@v1kt0u5]

Super cool Brainiac! ;D

[@kdaustin]

I can't remember how I found this interview, but it's life-changing for me and my obsession with entropy and elementary particles 🙌

[@DrBrianKeating]

Glad to hear that!

[@MikeEnergy_]

Literally same . So much food for thought

[@humblegrenade118]

The absolute of space is infinity, the absolute of time is eternity, so space and time has no origin or ending

[@MTerrance]

Wolfram is fascinating. The thing that impresses me every time is the amazing arc of his work. The best analogy I can make is of a man creating the tools to work stone to ultimately build a cathedral. The dogged pursuit of his vision of understanding reality in ways no one has done before is amazing. I do not begin to understand his work in a meaningful way, but I have to believe, that if he lives long enough, he will build that cathedral. If he succeeds the consequences for our understanding of reality are profound. If he fails, he will still learn amazing things.

[@neodonkey]

I feel there is a truth here. Lets change the analogy to bronze. Many naysayers feel like people in the Stone age saying "This Bronze thing will never work out, and since its not made of stone, there is NO WAY it could work out, and his current approach is not in anyway compatible with stone based technology or tools" and Wolfram is the guy saying "Be patient, but I think this Bronze thing might have a future."

[@rfvtgbzhn]

0:59:51 that problem exists generally, even if you don't use Wolfram physics. Our regular atoms also change all the time, with every breath we change some of our atoms, everytime we eat or drink something we get new atoms and every time we go to the toilet we lose some atoms. After something like a year, almost no atom is the same. To say it dialectically I am the same and not the same as a year ago.

[@petermgruhn]

The Ship of Theseus. "Depending on the study, most of the atoms in our human body are replaced every 5-7 years."

[@neodonkey]

​@@petermgruhn Yeah you only need to look at "tidemarks" on a bathtub that hasn't had regular cleaning to know that something that used to be "me" is now existing as some filth around the bathtub.

[@neodonkey]

Talking of which I once had a philosophical discussion with a friend about how the transporters in star trek worked. He said that all your atoms were copied, they were transferred and replicated elsewhere, the atoms that made you up at your initial source location were reused for something else. He was convinced you'd just moved locations. I explained to him that you were essentially killing yourself and making a clone and never being aware. He didn't agree, so I gave him a thought experiment: You step into the transporter. A beam passes over you. Somehow every single atom is copied and sent to the destination and replicated (they have fast internet in the future). Your clone steps out of the remote transporter happy in the knowledge that transporter technology is safe and effective and a great means of long distance transport. Meanwhile you step out of the booth confused and disappointed, having gone absolutely nowhere. An man arrives in your cubicle and tells you they haven't quite figured out the destruction process yet. So he hands you a gun. Do you kill yourself? Inexorably the answer is NO (unless you were planning on suicide...in which case you both succeeded and failed)

[@Naturamorpho]

I love his analogy of entropy and encryption!

[@NeverTalkToCops1]

Rather obvious, I'd say. Stronger encryption means higher entropy.

[@Naturamorpho]

@@NeverTalkToCops1 What is obvious or not is observer dependent, I think. It wasn't so obvious to me before but now I can't help but see it as the most natural proposition ever! Obviously!

[@mkhosono1741]

Bell labs, entropy, phones, and information share a common history.

[@chemistchemist6438]

@@mkhosono1741 Right. This is why I love Shannon's information theory. He was the one who really discovered the ultimate meaning of Entropy and saw the connection between his theory and Boltzmann's entropy based on probability. Definitely a connection in between information in the universe and its probabilistic nature.

[@hyperduality2838]

@@chemistchemist6438 In a communication system messages are predicted into existence according to Shannon's information theorem using the concept of probability. Predicting messages into existence is a syntropic process -- teleological. Entropy = average information. Syntropy = average mutual information. Sine is dual to cosine or dual sine -- the word co means mutual and implies duality. Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy). Certainty (predictability, syntropy) is dual to uncertainty (unpredictability, entropy) -- the Heisenberg certainty/uncertainty principle. Probability waves or electro magnetic waves, light require the receiver of a message to predict reality into existence -- syntropic. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Syntax is dual to semantics -- languages. If mathematics is a language then it is dual.

[@ericnorman5237]

1:11:11 🤔-curious: time dilation is a trade off. So what is type trade off in length dilation? What is the significance of the value of the speed of light (in a vacuum)?

[@HarryHab-w9k]

this point is addressed explicitly in Mermin's excellent book It's About Time

[@carlopedersoli4844]

Im not a scientist and I probably had to listen to it 3 times, but Wolfram is a fascinating character. I believe I understood what he explained. It would explain a lot of mysteries, if true. As observers, we cant really get what we see. Maybe AI will someday.

[@Prometheus4096]

Wolfram also isn't a scientist!

[@palnagok1720]

...we can only consciously process about 2K bits of info each second...this is rather small...one part in 200 million is what we are aware of...we don't have a clue what reality is.

[@nilskp]

@@Prometheus4096 why not?

[@spidirector]

your channel is great has informative topic one thing i dont like is you have ads within the video not talking about youtube ads (premium user) but video ads you personally make , over all great youtube channel 😀

[@markkennedy9767]

One thing i like about Wolfram is his breadth of knowledge when it comes to the history and provenance of science. His series on that stuff is great and it shows that he has a great idea of how scientific ideas fit with each other and which ones are important.

[@ewthmatth]

"his series on that stuff..." Where?

[@ogslowdragon]

14:57 time is a measurement of events that can't emerge without space and matter simultaneously. If you have matter and time, where would you put it? If you had matter and space, when would you put it.

[@karlbarlow8040]

"Time is the inexorable progress of computation." That's succinct and profound.

[@teckyify]

That is his stone old automaton model of the universe. I found it never convincing and reductionistic. There is a reason why not everyone is running around like he found God. 😂

[@jacobostapowicz8188]

Time is preservation of the order of operations. -me a non educated construction worker @24 years old. These guys are boring and take the long way to discover the obvious and people are look oooh so smart!

[@karlbarlow8040]

@jacobostapowicz8188 Ah! A brother in the craft. I'm a Bricklayer myself. Keep on keepin' on.

[@jacobostapowicz8188]

@@karlbarlow8040 Awesome, I mainly do roofing and always tell people i would not want to mess with a mason or a framer! We think about things out there whilst building. 💪

[@karlbarlow8040]

@jacobostapowicz8188 I think it's the 3D, real world, problem solving nature of the job that makes our minds agile and logical enough to get to grips with anything. Years ago, I got to know a guy who was bricklaying in the 1920's and he and his mates had just the same interest and deep appreciation of the wonders of the universe. I'm pretty sure you are sharper than I was when I was 24. It's good to know the tradition goes on 👍

[@tshureih]

Great show, Brian. However, if I may, and with all due respect, I pay KZbin to skip the commercials. The messages about subscribing are too much. Best of luck

[@DrBrianKeating]

I understand

[@zit1999]

Around 1:21:00 the way he words our relation to time is so profound.

[@DonG-1949]

Sounds like genuine schizobabble to a neanderthal with no physics knowledge such as myself

[@arminthaller7284]

@10:10:37 and later. Does this include an absolute zero speed? It seems to contradict relativity, where acceleration causes time dilatation. I see two options: a) Acceleration causes the additional spacial calculations reducing the number of time related calculation. b) It would be possible to measure speed relative to absolute zero because clocks at absolute zero run faster than clocks with some speed relative to absolute zero. I wonder if that effect would be mesurable in experiments already done?

[@kwazar6725]

From philosophy and observation to mathematics. Fascinating

[@markkennedy9767]

1:02:00 is really strange: is he saying that QM is not really much different from thermodynamics or GR. That in QM we infer a definite state (measurement) in the same way we infer state properties such as temperature and pressure in thermodynamics from their microscopic make up? Are the two things directly comparable like this. What about randomness in QM

[@realcirno1750]

this is the type of shit you watch when you want to seem like a man of science intellectual without ever having to actually crack open a textbook

[@dhardy6654]

Yes and typing a reply is the same as publishing and getting likes is peer review. And if nobody acknowledged the reply it means my comment is 100% correct and it destroys everything in science.

[@ycombinator765]

@@dhardy6654 🤣🤣🤣

[@laurentiubucur9586]

Agree! All this crap is to sell that stack of books. Addressed to amateurs and time loosers😢

[@mostexcellentlordship]

I, for one, am a complete and utter science intellectual and yet here I am. Not feeling so hot about your hypothesis now huh, Mr. Big Shot? I have smitten down this demented bulwark of inferior cognition with the equivalence of a mental exhalation. My vastly superior inhalations would easily spell the end of you. Please refrain from being inferior in my presence in the future. It displeases me. If you wish to develop yourself and be more like me I suggest you do not attempt and give up proactively, because it is not possible. More people should proactively remove themselves from my presence in order to reduce my displeasure, but alas, while I harbor a great many skills and powers of grand importance and impact I have yet to acquire the ability to mentally control inferior humans. This is because it is only possible for me to control those who are equal to me, but there are none. This explains my lack of total mind control soundly and perfectly but I digress. Have an acceptable day, good sir.

[@ericnorman5237]

1:05:15 🤔-curious: so “spacetime” may be an over simplification?

[@Tr1gg3e]

@1:10:26 Did he just say time dilation is essentially that, there is a certain bandwidth for processing movements (recreating yourself in another location) and the effect/passage of time, and if you move fast enough, you’re essentially causing more displacement calculations, taking bandwidth from time calculations, resulting in the dilation. Why was my first thought: “That’s exactly like setting off a bunch of TNT on a Minecraft server to tank the frame rate of the server, overload it with calculations so that as everyone else (the player observer) ages at the same rate, the server only processes a fraction of server time due to the explosion calculations”.

[@walter--]

For me he lost some credibility there. That was a very strange thing to say. It sounded like an analogy, but I had the impression he was serious.

[@walter--]

For me he lost some credibility there. That was a very strange thing to say. It sounded like an analogy, but I had the impression he was serious.

[@walter--]

For me he lost some credibility there. That was a very strange thing to say. It sounded like an analogy, but I had the impression he was serious.

[@walter--]

For me he lost some credibility there. That was a very strange thing to say. It sounded like an analogy, but I had the impression he was serious.

[@walter--]

Oeps; quadruple post ;-)

[@Martin.Kefauver]

God bless Stephen Wolfram!

[@peetiegonzalez1845]

Wolfram is undoubtedly one of the most brilliant minds alive in the last few decades. His current slew of presentations are intriguing, but it would be nice to be shown some actual maths, algorithms, explanations, or (heaven forbid) testable predictions from his work. The fact that he's not tied to academia gives him a lot of freedom, but freedom to work also means freedom to utterly ignore the scientific process and just go on podcasts to claim he's solved all the problems without actually telling us HOW, in a way that can be understood, scrutinized and replicated.

[@HarryHab-w9k]

yes

[@Franciscasieri]

he's actually solved nothing here if it doesn't agree with experiment.

[@alancalvitti]

@37:00 sw: "planck length is more a question of units" - planck constant has dimension of action, whose conjugate factors are related by heisenberg inequality. for example, stephen's 10^400 "computational steps" in a universe only ~14bya impIies an unrealistic energy per step

[@Giant_Meteor]

My thought on "dark matter" is somewhat similar. When we view the behavior of distant galaxies, we are looking back at times when the so-called gravitational "constant" was greater than it is here and now... as the universe was far less spread out than it is now.

[@aniksamiurrahman6365]

Dark matter behaves very similarly for our own galaxy too. It behaves very similarly, despite how far it is, to galaxy and galaxy cluster. What's your take on that?

[@Giant_Meteor]

@aniksamiurrahman6365 All that dark matter seems to be, is a variable tossed into equations in order to make observations of distant events fit with our equations. We have this gravitational constant that seems to work great for predictions of all experiments done here on earth, but seems to fit less with observations of distant events of large bodies. I'd be more amenable to the possibility that we don't have a right understanding of gravity or time, or that we don't understand how large distances affect our observations of distant events in respect to time, or whatever, than that the bulk of the universe is made of some otherwise completely undetectable matter, that somehow amazingly seems to have no measurable effect on our experiments done here on earth. Most of the galaxy we live in is quite distant.

[@lubricustheslippery5028]

Brian knows more about the practical observations of dark matter than Stephen, and Stephen have an more theoretical and historical view. Observations of stuff like the bullet cluster is problematic with the view that dark matter is more that the physics is wrong than it being something like an particle. I don't know enough to say what view is wrong, only that they make sense form the different backgrounds of Brian and Stephen.

[@lubricustheslippery5028]

My little crazy idea of what dark matter is, was something Wolfram almost said. Namely that fluctuations in the dimentionallity of space is changing the inverse square law and thus the strength of gravity at bigger distances.

[@iankrasnow5383]

The phenomenon you're talking about is dark energy, not dark matter. The two concepts aren't actually strongly linked beyond the name. Secondly, the cosmological constant isn't thought to change over time as far as I know. Thirdly, I believe the concept of Dark Energy and the cosmological constant actually would work quite nicely with Dr. Wolfram's approach. I don't think he's trying to refute that. What he's trying to refute is that the universe is made up mostly of matter that can't interact with other matter except via gravity. He thinks that some fundamental process other than an undiscovered particle might be responsible for the odd behavior of galaxies. And he's extremely vague about what this might look like. I certainly wasn't very convinced from just this conversation.

[@AlienScientist]

Misleading title.. was hoping for a proof of the 2nd Law, and possible exceptions to it.

[@petermgruhn]

But you got a great bunch of well known historical snippets!

[@lassepulkkinen4769]

Stephen Wolfram may be on to something that will hopefully course correct modern physics and quantum mechanics. Great podcast, @DrBrianKeating

[@aniksamiurrahman6365]

I very deeply doubt. All what he is saying has been explored by others. Henceforth, either these theories failed to predict anything observable, or, for a very few cases, those prediction didn't bear out in reality.

[@redsix5165]

41:39 if space is discrete - atoms of space - how does space expand without adding energy/mass to the system? Ie in what other system do you see physical objects deforming and retaining their original properties…eg space expands and the atoms just stretch apart without causing some change….is it even mathematically reasonable that space could expand like it does and either a) add more space atoms or b) stretch the space atoms… to me…space is dark because it is like a shadow reflected from a higher dimension (but the shadow gives existence) in the same way that carl sagan said you could somewhat picture a four dimensional objects shadow in three dimensions. -anyway space has to be continuous because it is “The Place” and is therefore a unity in and of itself.

[@cazzone]

I know I am very ignorant, but I missed the part where Wolfram proves entrophy...

[@DocSiders]

Matter & Energy feels like they might just be stable and unstable "structures" or "entities" made of "condensed multidimensionally curved space". Gravity is curved space and matter "generates" gravitational fields...and matter and enetgy are convertable. P.S.: Mathematica has been my main "Workspace" & also my "Playground" for decades. Thank You Wolfram.

[@__-bf6ph]

Basically, laws can be broken depending on the way the observer sees the law. The universe has a self correcting system that is something breaks on one level can be corrected on the others to keep the entire system going. Thanks for sharing this as it is important for us to all move forward.

[@aniksamiurrahman6365]

I don't think you got it right.

[@sunbeam9222]

@@aniksamiurrahman6365 what's the point of commenting that if you don't offer an alternative? Genuine question, what even is your point in doing so? And please would you care to clarify then? Eager to hear another view point.

[@aniksamiurrahman6365]

@@sunbeam9222 Ever heard of a little activity called "learning physics"? Try that first, aye?

[@sunbeam9222]

@@aniksamiurrahman6365 lol so you're one of those flies that spread all other KZbin contributing nothing but "you're wrong" or " go learn " types of comments. Ok then iif that's your kick, enjoy.

[@aniksamiurrahman6365]

@@sunbeam9222 And u r one of those who's all talk and no walk. By ur reply alone I can see u know no physics at all. I can't take charge to educate illeterates from ground up.

[@louisgiokas2206]

I find the mention of the engineering problem at the end (at about 1:32:30) is interesting to me. The type of thing he is talking about is routinely done. I was reviewing a multi-physics simulation product at one point. They had an optimization feature that does exactly what he says about the strut. In studying statistics, we often did massive numbers of simulations for a similar purpose (find the optimal parameters). What is interesting, in contrast to Wolfram's universe, is that these were not part of a framework about how to conceive the world, but something humans just did naturally. I am about four years older than Wolfram. I started studying physics. I was working in High Energy Physics on campus from my freshman year. In that job I learned to program and learned a lot about statistics, and particle physics. I eventually switched to computer science. That is a long complex story, but one of the things I found was that even then, in the early to mid 1970s there seemed to be a lessening of funding. There were few tenured slots and lots of openings for graduate assistantships and post-docs. These, of course, were much cheaper. Another thing that was interesting was that one of the co-heads of the HEP department had a joint appointment with the then brand-new Computer Science Department. He had an "experiment", that was fantastically expensive, in pattern recognition.

[@brendawilliams8062]

The constant that is used would have to bounce off Moire in some form I’m assuming. I can’t imagine past that point.

[@coolcat23]

The way he thinks about computation being a limited resource rhymes with how I think about the speed of light being a hard limit on motion. A particle cannot move faster than with the speed of light because it runs out of time to move even more quickly. More generally, the speed of light is really the speed of causality, so it tells us how fast the process of applying the rules is running.

[@6ixpool520]

Thanks for this. I like how you framed it. Maybe it being the limit will tell us much about the fundamental substrate of reality eventually.

[@robadkerson]

It's also more accurately known as "the speed of information."

[@immrsv]

And a Planck Length is the resolution (or, the smallest storable value. aka, epsilon) :D

[@TheRainHarvester]

Coolcat, i like the way you think. Leave me a comment on the video, "the physical reason time slows at the speed of light". I think you'll like it.

[@devilsolution9781]

@@immrsv i would argue the smallest unit of length is also the smallest unit of time and at that point they become the same dimensional thing.

[@franciserdman]

No. He only pushes it back one level. He basically says (based on another interview I saw of him), that entropy increases due to "irreducible computational complexity". This might be true, sure, but another way to say "irreducible computational complexity" is that P (polynomial time complexity space) does not equal NP (non-deterministic polynomial time complexity space). So if he is saying entropy increases due to computational complexity, he is really saying entropy increases because P != NP, which, infamously, has yet to be proven. I don't necessarily disagree with him even - I myself have suspected a link between computational complexity and entropy , but he has not really solved the problem, just pushed it back one level. It is generally agreed that existing math (Set theory etc.) won't be able to solve P /= NP. I think homotopy type theory is promising for re-writing physics in one day, so maybe this will eventually shed light on computational complexity, but I'm not expert to be able to comment. So, basically, while it is clever suggestion that computational complexity explains why entropy increases, he (and nobody else either) cannot really explain computational complexity completely, because the mathematical tools are generally thought to not yet exist for that.

[@NightmareCourtPictures]

Hello. I think you have this slightly wrong: Computational Irreducibility is formally explicit; That the problem of knowing what a system is going to do, is equivalent to the problem space of solving the halting problem (formally undecidable) and by extension that problem space encompasses, the state-space of a Turing machine. What his other principle states (Principle of Computational Equivalence) is that all systems are computationally equivalent : That all systems share this same state space. Implicitly, it is a statement that at the some infinite limit, P = NP, and that computationally bounded observers can only sample from this space in a way such that P=/=NP. It is a joint union of the idea that If you were to have knowledge over all this statespace (similiar to a maxwell's demon)...then you would know what the universe does and that would be your "hyper computer." But it is a necessary consequence, that we that exist in the universe, are computationally bounded, finite parts of it, that course grain the complexity, losing information about that complexity in that process of course graining and thus problems decouple into a P=/=NP problem space. One such problem is of course entropy and why we believe it to be increasing.

[@charlesdonly776]

That is a pretty good definition of time. From my physics, nuclear and mechanical e, background… I would say time is the change in relationship between physical things. This incorporates the computational steps Wolfram suggests but also includes the notion that if there was nothing physical in the universe, then we don’t have a universe and we don’t have time.. just having a potential energy of no form existing and not changing would be a state where time does not exist.. no one can know if that state ever existed before the Big Bang. 1/x^2 vs 1/x discussion.

[@mitchellhayman381]

How does the Lorentz symmetry arise?

[@param888]

i have a question pertaining to quantum entanglement, we are using a equation of equilibrium and kind of dividing it with two entanglement particles and hence they should have equal and opposite spins. I suspect the moment we observe and we confirm the observed particle was left spin and the unobserved will be right spin particle, I suspect the universe is not transferring any information between particles rather the moment any one of it is observed at the same time they both are being materialize of same spin instead of opposite spins, there is no possibility of information transfer rather generate the same out put for both situation, whether you choose to observed chosen particle or you chose to observe destroyed particle, you will always find same outcome, if let say you chose to see a particle and concluded it was left spin , i insist if you skip that particle and try to observe it's entangled particle which you was not observing before, you will be surprised to find that even that spin is left, so despite its entanglement particles but universe has decided same spin for both particles at same time and put restrictions that you can only observe one out of these two. The basis of my argument is a religious text book and some personal experience of reality.

[@flashpeter625]

The part around 1:11:00 about time dilation being due to "consuming compute resources" by moving; reminds me of this vector-based "spacetime" explanation: You always move at the speed of light in spacetime. If you are stationary, your velocity is pointed completely in the direction of time. Whereas when you move spatially, some of your fixed speed is spent on moving through space, and the time component of your velocity vector is decreased. In this context, what is speed of light in Stephen's model? Is it essentially an expression of the unit of computation resources used by a node to compute one step?

[@6ixpool520]

The speed of light is probably the speed of computation in the model if I were to guess. I wonder why that would be the limit within this framework though? What dictates the amount of computation that can be done?

[@flashpeter625]

@@6ixpool520 If we take the analogy with the velocity vector in spacetime, it is not just the maximum limit of computation, it is THE amount of computation done in every step. You can't go higher, you can't go lower either. So it would essentially be a (universal? local?) constant, a quantum of computation. And speed of light in space would be derived from it, a mere emergent phenomenon.

[@TheRainHarvester]

Watch the video, "the physical reason time slows at the speed of light". It's 2 minutes that explains everything.

[@mikda360]

Your ad reads man, so nice. I just love them so much

[@mrknesiah]

Exactly. Our anthropocentric perspective has led to fundamental misunderstandings. The existence of time as part of four dimensional space-time, for example. Time t is a convenient shortcut for applied physics but believing in time is superstition.

[@VAXHeadroom]

Much of this discretization of space discussion reminds me of the work of Harold Aspden. I think his "G Frame" concept is an extremely simplistic view of what Wolfram is digging into.

[@4pharaoh]

When you are a hammer, everything looks like a nail. (when you are a mathematician, everything looks like a computation)

[@tarkajedi3331]

CLOSER AND CLOSER............ AMAZING RESULTS !!!!!!!!!

[@onionknight2239]

Very cool Dr Keating 👍

[@davevallee7945]

Time is an unavoidable cost to computation. The question that implies is that there is a universal balance sheet, which, on one side lies the cost of progression. So what is that progression? Is it towards, away, or some other, unknown vector?

[@MA-ie6hl]

Wolfram Rocks!

[@waynelast1685]

Thanks for the video, but can someone please summarize the main points b/c I don’t have time to watch the whole thing.

[@zachreyhelmberger894]

Just mind-blowing!! His explanation of time-dilation as a consequence of computational effort to move in space rather progressing through time just knocked me out.

[@yurialcocer5655]

I hope I’m getting it right, Wolfram approach to time is through computational irreducibility, wow! And I resonate that you need to actually live through it, to get the answer. But, having optionality is not also part of the equation? Choosing a different path wouldn’t give you a different answer? Probably this question will be answered later in the video, but really wanted to comment on this.

[@arldoran]

That "open the pod bay doors!" always gets me unprepared! :D

[@tiny333333]

This is the best video I’ve ever seen . By Jove I think he’s cracked it ! Density of activity in the network . Beautiful ❤

[@kanishkchaturvedi1745]

I think there's some incomplete reasoning going on here. Entropy is formally the log of microstates for a given macrostate. A higher entropy state therefore has more microstates. Since after any physical event the more probabilistic thing is the system acquiring a macro state with more microstates associated with it, entropy usually increases. For large number of particles, the number microstates of certain macrostates dwarf those associated by other more 'special' macrostates (think of a room with hot air on one side and freezing on the other) so much that the chance of entropy decreasing is infinitesimal. Probability seems to be a good enough reason why we don't have mixed freezing and hot rooms nor smoke combining with hot air and water vapor to become fuel. I don't see why the need to frame in terms of the computational boundedness of the observer. Even if we had perfect information about molecules we'd still see fuel turn to smoke and the temperature move from hot bodies to cold bodies for large objects. The second law is a probabilistic statement for which the macroscopic probability of violation is a limit tending to 0. When you have small enough systems you will see the other probabilities emerge.

[@Hailfire08]

Well said

[@mostexcellentlordship]

Yes. What he said.

[@TheMarcusrobbins]

I'm calling it. This guy is 💯 correct. This is the correct lens.

[@brandonlewis2599]

The problem I have with this notion of "time is a computational process" is that the idea of a "process" is something that *unfolds in time*. So it's circular.

[@NightmareCourtPictures]

its not circular. Thats exactly what it means. Time, is the progression of a system changing states. when the system stops progressing, "time" stops. because the system is non-isolated, we dont notice this. say we have a system in front of us like particles in a box, and lets pretend we could stop all of its particles from moving. Well we observers of the system dont say time stops, because we humans as a system ourselves, has not stopped. The problem in defining time as existing independent of underlying processes, is a feature of us relying on us observing systems in isolation, which is not possible because we are part of the system. its a basic flaw in the assumptions of traditional physics, and also why theres an observer dependence in every major physics theory.

[@Zeuts85]

@@NightmareCourtPictures Very well stated.

[@HarryHab-w9k]

that is not necessarily the problem, you do spot a circularity but that is inherent in the English words we are using here. the trick is to see computation itself as a block world thing, i.e. as a graph (which sound profound but isn't - pretty much anything that is discrete mathematics can be though of as a graph - the real question to ask is: but it is profitable to do so?)

[@HarryHab-w9k]

@@Zeuts85 no, all of what he said was beside the point

[@benn746]

@@brandonlewis2599 It doesn’t unfold. It folds against constraints. Flip your view around. You aren’t watching the car go around the track from the stands. You’re in the driver’s seat. Are you steering? That’s up for debate.

[@RezaJavadzadeh]

thanks, looking forward for more content like these

[@leeFbeatz]

Gonna catch this on Spotify!!!! 🙏❤🙏❤

[@DrBrianKeating]

Can you do me two fast favors? Please leave a rating and review of my Podcast! On Apple devices, click here, scroll down to the ratings and leave a 5 star rating and review apple.co/39UaHlB On Spotify it’s here spoti.fi/3vpfXok Thanks!

[@leeFbeatz]

@@DrBrianKeating I will right now on my account!

[@leeFbeatz]

@@DrBrianKeating just rated my overall view of this channel……. Unfortunately 5 stars is all it goes to 🙏

[@leeFbeatz]

@@DrBrianKeating I guess it’s 0/7 /1 in binary as zero can mean two different things (0 didn’t consider rating, 0 couldn’t rate it lower and be disconnected with, initially, the value of Doctorial conversations in nature of education; 1; 2; 3; 4; 5) = 7 digits available in the binary of 0-5……. I guess 5 or all digits could be considered having 2 separate derivatives of the 1 digit product to be sound with the first 2 zero products in available variables/binary digits

[@leeFbeatz]

@@DrBrianKeating therefore no empty space”- Dr. Brian Keating and colleagues….. “therefore light” Eric Weinstein

[@stuartdryer1352]

First Law: You can't win. Second Law: You can't even break even except at absolute zero. Third Law: There is no such thing as absolute zero.

[@DanielleNewnham]

I’m a huge fan of Stephen Wolfram - had him on my podcast too this week - we discussed how to create more polymaths, entrepreneurship, working on long term innovation projects and reimagining education!

[@xmathmanx]

The entrepreneur aspect is by a million miles the lamest aspect of wolframs work, if he had no business success at all his ideas would be just as valid and wonderful

[@m1ar1vin]

Thanks. I'll tune it.. didn't know about you before

[@DanielleNewnham]

@@m1ar1vin Thanks - hope you enjoy it

[@sunnyinvladivostok]

@@xmathmanx It's unlikely he'd be able to pursue his ideas to the extent he does without the freedom granted him from his business success :/

[@xmathmanx]

@@sunnyinvladivostok nope, almost every great thinker, scientist, philosopher etc etc was not very rich

[@Mastervitro]

I like to imagine what it would really be like if time "froze" or your body and brain are moving so fast that time appears to be frozen, what would the world actually look like then and how would your body react with it assuming your body moves normal relative to you. I image the air feeling empty, no gravity, heating and breaking things easily, seeing red and blue shift as you move, etc.

[@DingbatToast]

I missed the bit where he changed EVERYTHING. It doesn't surprise me that he has written so many books as he has a real talent for saying a lot without conveying any new information.

[@leonidsawin4578]

He dumbed a thing the brightest 0.1% of humankind are struggling with down to a form that even you can (possibly) comprehend.

[@DingbatToast]

@leonidsawin4578 ah yes, the "thing" got it. Thanks for clearing that up.

[@gordonfrimann246]

​@@DingbatToast The point he was trying to make must be computationaly irreducible

[@DingbatToast]

As Wolfram says “Whenever computational irreducibility exists in a system it means that in effect there can be no way to predict how the system will behave except by going through as many steps of computation as the evolution of the system itself.” Which is a completely ambiguous statement, and he provides no actual proof to back this up. So, I stand by my original statement. Have a lovely weekend 🍻

[@DingbatToast]

@@gordonfrimann246 precisely 😉

[@roynexus6]

Thank you both!

[@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

[@chemistchemist6438]

Time does not exist in the universe, we created the concept of time based on the movement of the planet around the sun. What really exists in the universe is the notion of periodicity which under our human intelligence we see as what we call time.

[@NightmareCourtPictures]

Precisely. Thank you.

[@minimal3734]

I agree that time is an artifact. But I think without it there is also no periodicity. Just pure geometry remaining.

[@TheEngineeringHub]

Why is Brian reading while Stephen is explaining stuff? His eyes just go left to right repeatedly. 🤔

[@ngc-ho1xd]

With all due respect, the title is too click baity and there's too many advertising interruptions that go on for too long.

[@kissgg666]

I agree, despite the great guest and the exciting topic, this is almost unwatchable.

[@johndunn5272]

Is the mathematics very simple in the computational model and does this say something about how far the model can approximate ?

[@theklaus7436]

A brilliant show. If the world in its core in a sense are built upon statistics- then a universe might create itself! Given enough time. A little bit too Boltzmann ! I like this phrasing 😊🎸 next level- is that: let’s judge the book also by the hole cover 😊

[@justinmallaiz4549]

Brilliant. I’m so glad Wolfram had time to figure this all out between books. -He’d be impressed how long it took me to write this

[@IncompleteTheory]

Thanks for this, Brian. Please also try to get Jonathan for an interview.

[@DrBrianKeating]

Noted!

[@IncompleteTheory]

@@DrBrianKeatingCool! Jonathan has a brain the size of a planet and you need to think really fast to follow him, but he actually tries to a bit harder to stick to the question, while Stephen tends to meander away on tangent after tangent. No offense to him, intended. Big fan of both guys.