Building A Theory Of Everything | Stephen Wolfram | Escaped Sapiens #70

[@fingersoup]

I have to commend the interviewer for letting the guest finish his thoughts. That's all too rare these days. 😎👍

[@EscapedSapiens]

Thanks for the kind words!

[@jmoreno6094]

Kind of funny that the first answer, which was supposed to be an introductory question, took 17 minutes of speech. Not easy for the interviewer

[@TroyYoung-hg8qd]

I have listened to Waffleram many times.He has cleverly figured out something that he never fully explains .Is anyone else hoping he delivers an amazing treasure but cannot convey it . Am I always missing something 😢? If they are derivable ,please open up and derive them fully

[@davidchavez81]

He's a grifter, word salad Is his biggest asset.

[@teenspirit1]

Wow I thought I was alone in this. He always appears in some sort of grift channel (HN, Reddit, YT), says important sounding words about his important sounding thoughts and then goes irrelevant for several months afterwards.

[@GEMSofGOD_com]

Considering his recent insights in physics, he combines other people's ideas without crediting them. No papers, many claims proven false. I'm not even sure if he has any framework which can "have proven that quantum mechanics and general relativity are exactly the same, different terms only"

[@collegephysicsforeveryone7744]

Hes one of the biggest frauds in the world. Hes a great actor but he'll never teach anyone real science

[@daylesuess552]

​@@davidchavez81he's a grifter? Look at the things he's built and invented. You could only hope to do a 10th of what he has accomplished.

[@FXK23]

7:58 : ".....and it turns out this interplay between the computational irreducibility of underlying systems and our computational boundedness as observers of those systems, that seems to be the key thing that basically leads us to the laws of physics that we have". This statement confuses me too much, please explain!

[@helicopter_traffic]

first part: the world is really complicated (irreducible complex, aka cannot be simplified to a basic equation) second part: we are not capable of knowing everything. our knowledge, and our ability to study the world, is bounded. we are bounded in space, aka it’s really hard to forecast the weather on friday for an exoplanet around a distant star. we are bounded in time, aka it’s really hard to know what the weather was 10,000 fridays ago, or will be in 10,000 fridays. we are bounded in computational ability, it’s hard to simulate 10,000 clouds in a computer. and we are bounded in scale. our machines cannot see things smaller than atoms very well, we have a hard time measuring the largest galactic systems of space. third part: this interplay between “things are really complicated” and “thinking is hard” seems to explain why we’ve found physics the way we have. we started with Newton, which is the human scale. later came chemistry and astronomy, which pushed us into smaller/larger scales of time/space. then came nuclear physics and cosmology, even further in both directions. if we were the size of electrons, where time is effectively meaningless, particles pass through each other, there’s no friction, light, or sound, and everything is always moving, then we probably wouldn’t start with newton’s laws, which require things to stand still, bounce off each other, and move forward through time. in fact, newton’s laws of physics may never occur to us. and Einstein’s theory of relativity would be useless for us to understand the universe at an electron scale. steven may add that, at such a small scale, it’s possible we wouldn’t be able to program things as big as galaxies into our tiny computers. similarly, if each person was the size of a galaxy, we might not discover solar systems for a long time, like it took humans forever to discover the cell. and it would take even longer to discover the stars (or even planets!) orbiting inside them. creatures that large would experience time differently, since light/information travels very slowly. they would likely never need to know about chemistry, much less nuclear physics. steven may add that, at such a large scale, it’s possible they wouldn’t even be able to build a microscope powerful enough to see into the world of atoms and electrons. it’s sort of a venn diagram. “things that can be simplified to the point where we can understand them” in one circle. “models of the world we can build” in the other circle. where they overlap is the space where we can build laws of physics. hope that helps somewhat!

[@ratbullkan]

​@@helicopter_trafficI think he means even more, like we are as observers confined to a fraction of the Ruliad, so all of reality we have access to, not just limited by reducible phenomena and measuring instruments, but by principle, has some set rules and physical laws and constants, defined solely by us being tied to that region of the Ruliad. The fact that you need exactly our given set of rules and physical constants in order to sustain beings like us who basically encode information from further apart into time crystal media, which are our bodies, gives rise to this very set of rules and physical constants in the first place. Think of the particles on their way from A to B, as it were, basically taking into consideration every possible worldline from A to B before choosing one random one of them

[@ratbullkan]

​@@helicopter_trafficimagine a physical constant doing soneyhing similar, in every moment actually ceasing to stay constant and changing its value, but YOU would never know, because the only way of your continuity is surfing the ever winning lottery ticket of the constant not changing

[@agastyasfz]

@@ratbullkan i love that interpretation and agree, i imagine dragonflies are probably nearby but not directly on top of the human ruliad coordinate, and i wonder what their spot looks like. i also wonder about what part of ruliad space computers are, i imagine part of what we do with computers is send them out into the ruliad like scouts in hot air balloons to look around and send us back information about what other parts of the ruliad look like. i was recently thinking that our brains themselves are scouts for DNA so that it can respond to threats coming from another scale of time and space as well. that's a lot of words but basically, just, yes i love what you said and it makes me think of fun things so thank you for sharing!

[@minhsp3]

Too many words, what Stephen has to say is that for nonlinear chaotic systems, we cannot make predictions when the Lyapunov exponent is high

[@brendawilliams8062]

Yeap, one half is still a pecan

[@markrosenthal9108]

In other words, "The Butterfly Effect".

[@andy_nvrmnd]

Too much order guarantees the emergence of chaos to balance it out

[@quasarsupernova9643]

Its more than that. He says most laws of nature are irreducible. We are fixated only on the reducible slivers which is why there are so many unsolved questions. I totally disagree with this..

[@JohnnyTwoFingers]

Did you not just disprove your claim by making a prediction?

[@jabowery]

"Computational Irreducibility" is nice turn of phrase for differential Galois theory. But Wolfram didn't invent the concept of a mathematical distinction between mathematical models that have closed kinematic solutions and those that have only dynamical solutions.

[@xqt39a]

Examples of computational irreducibility abound: Chaos Theory, Navier Stokes equation and turbulence, fractals . Mathematically defined: Arbitrarily small changes in initial conditions of input of a predictive function create arbitrarily large differences results caused by non linearity and/or non differentiability of the functional definition. Who needs a ruliad whatever that is?

[@SteamPunkPhysics]

Space and time shouldn't be conjoined? Yeah, no kidding... Once again, famous people are now finally saying what I've been screaming from the rooftops for 20 years. 1:12:00 Particles as topological defects, eddies and black holes. Yes, exactly but you need to stop thinking GR is greater than fluid dynamics and instead accept that inviscid fluid dynamics is how we arrived at GR. You're just not aware of the history of MacCullagh's influence on GR through Mie and Hilbert. (and that EM was fluid dynamics from the start) There's no need to wait 100 years. I can explain exactly why and how particles are black holes and topological defects and point you to numerous papers in fluid dynamics that will show you the mechanics responsible for it. I didn't come up with it, 100 other scientists across a variety of fields have, but we're just overspecialized and compartmentalized too much to properly communicate. The issue you're running into with the concept is that there's a scale based perspective where a particulate-like substrate can be more like a crystalline structure or granular (mechanically gear-like) at one scale and a fluid at another. It's merely an issue of scale. ...well that and the superstitious fear of the word aether. Sorry if you just had to cross yourself upon reading that offensive word I just wrote.

[@lepidoptera9337]

There are no particles in nature. There are only people who don't know physics. ;-)

[@wearemany73]

Take a shot every time Stephen says “computational irreducibility” 🙂

[@mrknesiah]

stephen Wolfram is absolutely right in saying that our anthropocentric point of view has held back physics and our ability to formulate beyond our animal capacity

[@MrAndrew535]

The first step is to objectively determine whether or not this is a relevant question. If it is found to be so, then the next question is, to what extent is it relevant and in what context. I say, if one is on a journey of discovery, then what is of greater importance, the origin of the journey, or the destination?

[@brendawilliams8062]

20:03 what Is important here. I wonder what is meant.

[@hn6187]

These are the kind of conversations I wish I'd listened to as a teenager, an honest description about what math and science are rather than the rather shallow and somewhat disingenuous utilitarian sales pitch schools dish out.

[@Namegoeshere-op9hg]

Love listening to Wolfram. Every time I do, I feel like I see a little further into the fundamental unit of nature.

[@orionxtc1119]

Many eminent people do not accept his "Theory of Everything"...

[@jeremylovell-smith875]

Science creates models of reality. These are not reality, just helpful ways of representing reality. Models are pointers to reality, not actual reality. Models help us predict (with approximation) what will happen over time under certain initial conditions. Wolfram is discussing achieving a complete knowledge of the future with no error. But of course we do not know everything now some cannot possibly predict exactly the future. As far as I know science does has never done more than create and fit models to observed reality.

[@michaelb7498]

And a little bit crazier too lol love this guy. This is me but with ancient history. I can go on forever

[@michaelb7498]

And a little bit crazier too lol love this guy. This is me but with ancient history. I can go on forever

[@reachforthesky1576]

Sounds like CI =Complexity. Because the notion inherent in reason/logic/mathematics is of a traceable link between initial rules/parameters and agents of a system and their interactive expression over time. If the sheer complexity of those interactions is too much to predict, that is because of your inability to hold sufficient computational complexity for the variety of potential outcomes

[@mykrahmaan3408]

Is hypergraph a particular type of hype?

[@JohnnyTwoFingers]

High dimensional hype.

[@kreynolds1123]

Is there a reason why pauli exclusion can not be extended with "no two fermions can be compressed to a volume that would be their event horizon"? If it is that a black hole made from two femions would be equlivent to two fermions existing in the same quantum state, and prohibited by quantum dynamics. Then maybe the event horizon is a mathmatical thing that isn't real and exist in our universe, as tachyons being mathmatical things with immaginary mass and don't exist in our universe.

[@ChristianHohlfeld]

are probabilities at a specific measurement encoding branchial space position, maybe globally?

[@andthefunkybunch1466]

"You sly dog!" You caught me monologueing!"

[@maccabeus3843]

SPACE is not about distance, but about collectivity integrating a virtual structure. Its merely an idea than a thing, because a collective is a relation, which is a form or a concept. So HG is the right way to see space as what it is. A class of whats inside a certain area.

[@bettyeldridge]

Here is a qubit: In Fischer’s own words: “What I propose is that normality, creativity, schizophrenia, and mystical states, though seemingly disparate, actually lie on a continuum. Furthermore, they represent increasing levels of arousal and a gradual withdrawal from the synchronized physical-sensory-cerebral spacetime of the normal state. Specifically, there is a retreat first to sensory-cerebral spacetime and, ultimately, to cerebral spacetime only. The gradual withdrawal from physical spacetime is an expression of the dissolution of ego boundaries, that is, the fusion of object and subject, and it implies that an existence solely in spacetime is an oceanic experience, the most intense mirroring of the ego in its own meaning.” In summary, we can see that for any individual perception of the universe (as Self or mind) can occur as an internal or external experience. It is our rich internal experiences that have puzzled researchers in consciousness as the so-called “hard problem” of consciousness. At the extreme parameter in either direction, we experience an encounter with the Absolute. Along the continuum, we may experience varying forms of an I-Thou dialogue uniting reaching either extremely hyper- or hypo-arousal states.

[@4D2M0T]

His theory aligned with Donald Hoffman simulation theory, it was funny to watch wolfram do several U-Turns in their recent talk 😅

[@connected_user]

I had the feeling that Donald Hoffman's theory was so fuzzy and premature that it could've aligned with Stephen's no matter what Stephen said

[@4D2M0T]

@@connected_user it's certainly not without it's flaws, wich he is open about

[@ericgraham8150]

One thing I think… is it… “feels” like Stephen’s theory goes a lot deeper and seems a lot more technical and has more ability to eventually have prediction power. Hoffmann s theory sounds a lot more… surface level and doesn’t have a lot of the technical underpinnings and ability to be applied. I think it’s important to remember that Stephen’s work has produced a lot of real world tools that scientists around the world use daily. Like Mathematica and wolfram alpha.

[@connected_user]

@@ericgraham8150 I think Hoffman's is in its early stages and is thus under-developed compared to what Stephen has been working on. Time will tell where Hoffman's work takes him.

[@ericgraham8150]

@@connected_user that’s undeniably true. Wolfram has been workshopping His theories for many decades so yeah I can concede that Hofmanns work is definitely worth keeping an eye on to see where it goes!

[@KaliFissure]

Finding the right hypergraph for HERE. That's all I'm interested in. Total possibilities is one kind of infinity and manifestatable is another. One is a volume, and one is a slice. You helped me realize compactified time. Which creates minima and maxima. How do you evade conservation? How do you evade closure between maxima and minima?

[@angryOnion13]

Mr Wolfram, the hyper graph is essentially what explains action at a distance. Everything is connected. Every atom "knows" where every other atom in the universe is. Assuming something like a big bang occurred and the second law of thermodynamics applies, then the universe is determined in its entirety. The big question is not how, but why.

[@denm8991]

I was actually thinking about this some days ago on my own and specifically I was thinking about quantum entanglement and thought about the possibility of the two electrons being connected by a “string” or something that transfers information instantly.

[@bruceylwang]

3000 years ago, one Chinese said, “Word is said, not always Word. Name is named, not always name.” Cells say, “We have no problem to understand any word. What exactly are scientists searching for? What exactly are you guys want for? “

[@kx4532]

Let's build particle physics out of cellular automata!

[@couldntfindafreename]

That's what they are doing, but based on the completely generic substrate of hypergraphs. "Cellular automata happen to have too rigid of a register" to implement physics, quoting from Jonathan Gorard. A good video to dig deeper in the topic: kzbin.info/www/bejne/l6SmdXqJjt-qntk

[@davidchung1697]

I had one question for Stephen Wolfram: is there a limit to how much spacetime can be curved due to the presence of mass? If this were so, there would be an upper limit on the "size" of the black hole (the apparent mass inferred via its gravitational effects), since any additional mass accretion would no longer be able to increase the gravity due to the black hole. I don't think we have found an upper limit to the size of black holes - not yet anyways.

[@_SPKer]

Excellent question, something that can genuinely lead to experimental observations that could even validate his theories.

[@tellesu]

Could be like approaching the speed of light. You approach the limit but there isn't enough mass in the universe to reach it.

[@brendawilliams8062]

21:40 You are unaware of your personal Ruliad. It takes others to know more about yourself than you do your own self. 2 is a powerful statement

[@niblick616]

What exactly is a personal ruliad?

[@JohnnyTwoFingers]

Clever! 💯

[@JohnnyTwoFingers]

​@@niblick616Consciousness, which runs culture.

[@niblick616]

@@JohnnyTwoFingers Is that what she is claiming?

[@JohnnyTwoFingers]

@@niblick616 Consciousness running culture? Not that I know of, that is my claim.

[@muntee33]

18:42 FINALLY! Well done sir. 👏👏👏 I've been waiting and waiting and waiting. Now that you grasp the meaning of everything all at once, all the time, i know you will inevitably be led to understand that this thing we call the universe is the sweet spot in all of that spectrum that nature tries its hand at. Our existence in this reality isn't necessarily the product of intelligent design due to its being owing to that of perfection. It is the perfect sequence of all things that is revealed when all sequences are simultaneously tested. It is the revealing of the coin toss. 😏 It is that which is able to 'climb up to the very top of the rope' that' chance has thrown down' for him. Or more accurately, it is he who is able to climb up the rope which he previously threw down for himself.... The big bang is not the beginning of everything.... The heat death of the universe isn't the end. It is actually the other way around. *At these maxims the fractions can be considered close enough to immeasurable to be sensitive only unto itself. Where it also acts as a singular point in its own reference frame. Like an embryo that becomes fertilised and becomes a fully formed being... It grew inwards not outwards. You didn't grow from one cell like thst which is in a particular part of your body now and develop imto all the othrr cells as you assemble yourself cell by cell.... Also, the equal n opposite thing... Neh. This winning lottery ticket we call chance or intelligent design is not a perfect union of action n reaction. For that would dictate that the structure of reality is perfectly reflective, or balanced. Nature is a lazy simpleton with chronic OCD. It will always find the path of least resistance. And it wouldn't take long to become fixated on reducing the restrictions of density and eliminating mirrored pairs as rapidly as possible. This would inevitably lead to a situation where two opposits are secured whose existence underpins the entire plane of physical manifestation we call the universe... And it either decays into chaos, or it cascades down into larger and larger groups of opposition that come together and neutralise the other. Till there is an existence of a state of non-existence. Everything is within the node.... The only way some like Penrose tiling works is if the initial parameters are predetermined and the manner in which they may develop and proliferate are also predetermined and the structure splits amd develops inwards, and the sorce of this all? The immeasurable complexity of the fractal nature of the universe that has split more times than numbers can account 5 for. The end shapes the principles present at the start and the start is the sum total of the end. And gravity. Its a dipole... Just doesn't originate here on earth. Actually only one side is here at any one time.

[@GEMSofGOD_com]

He's just talking about the backpropagation from the necessary 2D space (cause 1D necessarily has to be measured against another D) into 1D space, A) to which this second D can be attached at any place, OR B) which can be probed from that 2D in every point of this 1D, depending on the property of the prober of this 2D space.

[@GaryBernstein]

Why do the math laws need to come from anything? They are 1 of all possible sets of laws

[@danielfranco4317]

I'd love to talk with him for 20 min. And have him explain his examples . The concept works., and what it can be applied to has more uses Than what Is thought imho

[@stewartbrands]

Where are Buckminster Fuller's investigations into and around the tetrahedron in all of this. The primary enclosed space and associtated vetors from the equilateral triangle. Where are the referances to this fundamental shape?

[@Mike10four]

We are all philosophers prior to scientific verification and peer review.

[@familyshare3724]

Computational irreducibility allows for free will, IMO. Future reduction (wave collapse fx) is not necessarily random nor determined nor reversible. "The Universe is not big enough for the future" - Lee

[@mykrahmaan3408]

"From outside blackholes look the same". How many has he inspected before concluding they look the same? And exactly where? In the lab or at home?

[@Curleyguitars]

Only 7 mins in. CIR sounds like nonlinearity, the source of chaotic time evolutions of surprisingly simple systems of coupled equations. You can't just "plug in 1000,000" and get the right answer here also. Looking forward to hearing how CIR is new and interesting.

[@lucavalentino]

That's my same impression indeed. But I went back to listen to it again and I (maybe) understood that CIR is just about not reproducibility if jumps are made in the calculations whilst non linearity is non reproducibility because of uncertainty in initial conditions which lead to large deviations when running the calculation. Did I get it or am I wrong?

[@muntee33]

I believe the Penrose tiling, or something very similar, holds the cypher for decoding the reference frames of nature to the most discernible degree, after which our current philosophy and conceptual capacity is woefully i adequate for taking any further steps and will need to develop its capacity and complexity many orders of magnitude to make any meaningful progress in this direction

[@lepidoptera9337]

You should start a church based on that religious belief. ;-)

[@brendawilliams8062]

@@lepidoptera9337you need to look into the separation of church and state

[@markoszouganelis5755]

Thank you!

[@merlinjones2660]

To build an understanding of a dimension one starts with phase interpretaotions of the energies that built it, and how it interacts with its self , and then what it expands into and the energies in those expansion interactions whilst understanding those interactions and the phase waves that do it , and there energies of how thy change as interactions take place

[@NicholasWilliams-uk9xu]

I want to see Shane ask more questions, like when he said 54:50, explore possibilities.

[@EscapedSapiens]

Noted.

[@TroyYoung-hg8qd]

Totally agree Shane has to keep him honest by expanding on information. I’d love to hear Stephen explain a timeline of his findings over 40 years ❤

[@StineWins]

Is a ruliad some kind of number wheel?

[@hidekiyamamoto3561]

But am I wrong in saying : computational irreducibilty == non polynomial problems ? - or actually what i want to say is that If P!=NP -> Computational Irr - and it's like obvious And if that's true... if CI can be mathematically proved... P vs NP could be solved... am I wrong?

[@noobvsprominecraftbuild]

its pretty obvious that P doesnt equal NP. there might not be a mathematical proof of it but Godels theory of incompleteness proves that there are true statements in mathematics that cannot be proven to be true.

[@hidekiyamamoto3561]

@noobvsprominecraftbuild yeah that's correct but I believe It doesn't answer my question... My question Is about a part in the video where It looks like CI can be mathematically prooved... That... Didnt sound right infact.

[@noobvsprominecraftbuild]

@@hidekiyamamoto3561 the halting problem

[@stephen1475]

I don't think you can construct a real particle from an infinite sum of quantum field fluctuations because of the computational irreducibility of the goldbach conjecture.

[@niblick616]

How does that work?

[@RVeda-vh5on]

'Computational irreducibility': "In general, the only way to know what a program will do is to run it. In general there is no shortcut". These are equivalent, to my mind - related to the long-proven impossibility of telling something about a program as simple as whether or not it will halt.. I've always considered the math theory of computation wonderful, abstract and mystical; still, I attended what must be considered to have been a mainstream course in it at Stanford in '74, which contained the initial assertion above. I.e., this was a mainstream thought at least a decade before Wolfram claims to have invented the idea. Likewise Cellular automata and their theory - long studied. Or the related idea that great complexity can emerge from simple rules (ahem... the PDEs of physics are such simple rules, albeit continuous rather than discrete (something I haven't heard Wolfram mentioning that he's noticed). Voila - complex universe). Or computational universality, another Math Th Comp basic idea Wolfram is obviously familiar with. Exactly how is that different from this 'ruliad' term he coins, as if from bad sciFi? Has he explained that somewhere? I really do like Wolfram and his ideas - a lot. But I constantly get the feeling he thinks he's discovering for the very first time (and with immense expected near-future impact) things that have long been known.

[@lepidoptera9337]

You can't run a general program. Most of them won't terminate. ;-)

[@brendawilliams8062]

@@lepidoptera9337that seems probable

[@lepidoptera9337]

@@brendawilliams8062 It's no different in physics. If you look at all possible Hamiltonians, a mere dozen or so are integrable, meaning that we can predict the long term evolution of the systems that they are describing. All other Hamiltonians (of which there is a very large infinity) are non-integrable. That math can tell us very much about "life in general" was a misguided hope of the 18th and 19th century. It just ain't so. That's why I don't understand these efforts by folks like Wolfram. There is no such thing as a "world formula", not even at the most basic level of dynamic systems. The limitations we are encountering due to Goedel for arbitrary mathematical expressions are replicated just as well at the level of continuous systems and quantum systems. Things don't get better just because we are talking about physics. If anything they get worse.

[@brendawilliams8062]

@@lepidoptera9337 I do not know if it is possible with Turin maths to accomplish less or more than what you are referring to I just have not accomplished much more than the concept of how it moves.

[@lepidoptera9337]

@@brendawilliams8062 It seems to me that there are similar fundamental barriers everywhere. The recent proofs that quantum computing and conventional computing are equally expressive in terms of algorithms (one is just more efficient than the other depending on the particular problem) is probably a hint that there is a fundamental limit to knowledge that can not be broken by reformulating problems in a different language.

[@blijebij]

Very interesting!

[@wwkk4964]

Thsnk you!

[@EscapedSapiens]

Welcome.

[@JohnnyTwoFingers]

@18:45 Stephen overlooks that not all things follow all rules all the time? And also that *perception of* what is going on is another way around "rules". Materialism is a fundamentally flawed perspective to figure out this problem.

[@sunnyinvladivostok]

> follow all rules all the time time doesn't exist at this point yet. the perception of time is something that emerges over successive application of the rules.

[@JohnnyTwoFingers]

@@sunnyinvladivostok In constrained, disciplined environments it certainly exists...and pays dividends!

[@muntee33]

This video could make a great drinking game

[@TroyYoung-hg8qd]

Is the output to input Inflation ?

[@tellesu]

According to Wolfram's ideas particles moving through space follow a deterministic group behavior as far as the updates that are read as "movement" are concerned.

[@lepidoptera9337]

According to nature there are no particles. ;-)

[@RobinCheung]

I wonder if it is made necessary because you can't be definitive about your calculation being a representation to the true underlying steps and if it contains within it the uncertainty that your model may not be precisely equivalent to what you think you're modeling and not simply coincidentally matches what empirical methods of inquiry were satisfied and stopped quantifying deviation as a net expected value not accountable as a random variable. So in other words, hypothetico-deductive methods being at their essence, arbitrary in nature with no driver to minimize that arbitrariness, and worse, it seems so many researchers consider reductionist approaches as so much a knee jerk that Michael Levin even universally skips the all important step of allowing research design to flow from the ontological justifications given a predetermined most appropriate epistemological stance--but instead he emphatically jumps to "perturb the system," which is tantamount to "endorsement of blindly applying reductionist methods to complex systems that all but guarantee your answer cannot be correct but also even worse, that you think you even should get an answer that had any validity to model the actual system. You wouldn't use stoichiometric calculations to predict mood or anything even beyond the macromolecular domain because you know that steric factors are orders of magnitude greater than electrostatic interactions and it's not that domains with predominant charge or whatever isn't valid at that abstraction, but it is so overwhelmed and made irrelevant by each other of complexity being mediated by different mechanisms entirely. But this "presumption to the applicability of reductionist hypothetico-deductive methods without having let it flow from a syllogistic examination of what you want to know, how that exists within the relevant episteme: scientific method that will bring about its own need to be superceded. We're starting to look to science with a misapprehension of the purpose of science in the first place: by its very definition, scientific method cannot aim as a goal to arrive at "correct"; it's is only a framework that is premised on its being a consistent framework that can orient your inquiries towards hopefully an incrementally increasingly correct direction, but in order to arrive at actual correctness, you are always going to need more than once syllogistic step, so if you did happen to arrive at correct, it's either the end of times or if it is correct, then it was accidentally discovered and not scientific.

[@montfort9581]

Unfortunately I think you are basically correct. I had a look at your channel, you seem to be a talented guy, I like the main graphic, where does that come from?

[@JohnnyTwoFingers]

How did you determine all of this to be true? Or did you?

[@montfort9581]

@@JohnnyTwoFingers For what it's worth I don’t think I did “determine of it is to be true”. I said that I thought it was “basically correct”, which is rather different really.

[@JohnnyTwoFingers]

@@montfort9581 Ah crap, cuz that would be some serious power!!

[@montfort9581]

@@JohnnyTwoFingers I see now that I wasn't fully coherent in my reply -- but then neither is Wolfram half the time either...

[@qslingo]

In that application of Stephen's elegant computational structural abstraction to an objectifiable dynamic process... i.e. Universal emergence ... mandates a continuous means of induced excitation, what is the Momentum Mechanism (MOMECH) for substance... i.e. minimum/indivisible units of spatially defined energy..... configuration update, within the computational structure? S. Lingo UQS Author/Logician

[@HalfassDIY]

Great interview, thanks ! Just listened a second time, this might be the first theory of everything Ive heard that includes the Platonic Realm as an actual structural support. I like it !

[@JohnnyTwoFingers]

@16:45 Stephen gets lost in language ("cannot *solve* society"). I'm surprised he makes such fundamental errors!

[@StupidusMaximusTheFirst]

The universe can't wait for bold physicists' discoveries, so it can slap your shiny baldness.

[@zack_120]

It's about the grand law of nature, focusing on the only concept of 'hype graph' would've been way more informative.

[@dtarby2095]

If you stop believing that everything started from a single point it will then make sense.

[@ericgraham8150]

What will make sense?

[@titfos1970]

Excellent point dtarby2095.

[@fjauge2465]

He points to valuable insights. We cannot expect of him to be perfect or some kind of demigod.

[@krzysztofwos1856]

The fact that LLMs make the same kind of models that brains do is non-obvious, but it's surprisingly simple to explain. It's a consequence of the Free Energy Principle. I highly recommend Fields et al. Free Energy Principle for generic quantum systems. It shows that two quantum systems interacting through an N-qubit quantum channel can be considered Bayesian observers making models of each other. The FEP is a scale-free, background-free phenomenon. It applies to everything that exists. It does not say how observers form the models, but it can show that necessarily they can be seen as doing so. So, it's a bit of a weird answer, but ChatGPT forms models that are the kind of models we form because it cannot not to. The main innovation behind ChatGPT, Transformers, provided an efficient learning architecture allowing parallelization of training and thus efficient use of GPUs and web data.

[@coder-x7440]

I was surprised to see this in a comment section. Well done on possessing such a depth of knowledge. You must be on a long journey on the path to what this existence is all about. Good luck on your adventure. Few will get as far as you have already.

[@JohnnyTwoFingers]

I wonder if your guesses are right. 🤔

[@reachforthesky1576]

His attempt to describe computational irreducibility sounds like a word soup tbh. You would think that someone trying to develop a TOE, would have the ability to describe complex ideas, or an idea, in terms which were far clearer. Seems that the very idea of CI is irreducible itself

[@bryandraughn9830]

Your comment is proof that he knows his audience. Mathematically illiterate.

[@reachforthesky1576]

​@bryandraughn9830 You might have noticed that his description, or attempted description, wasn't expressed in classical mathematical terminology. So ..your attitude and contention is apparently silly ​@@bryandraughn9830

[@ksscientistorrapper9919]

No lie… that was low key 🔥

[@mykrahmaan3408]

46.05: atoms of space. Are there protons, electrons, neutrons, quarks, leptons and bosons of space too?

[@AirSandFire]

No

[@mykrahmaan3408]

@@AirSandFire So, not different from the FIELDS without leaves, flowers or fruits.

[@theStrayKat1980]

Shane - you're adorable because your depth of understanding of abstractions is frankly, beyond sexy ;)

[@thePlum]

Please have ERIC WEINSTEIN on Escaped Sapiens (which is becoming my favorite podcast) 🔹🔹

[@EscapedSapiens]

Thanks for the kind words and thanks for the suggestion. I might eventually invite Eric on - it will need to be some time down the line though, as I already have quite a few other great physicists/mathematicians lined up :). Thanks for listening!

[@georgeroberts442]

So what? Here I sit, a math ignoramus, unable to perform even high school trigonometry, and just about every formula or equation I see is “computationally irreducible” for me. Hey, that’s the world I live in. As far as I can discern, Wolfram is merely pointing out the obvious.

[@StarsManny]

The interviewer seems to have a nervous compulsion to keep looking down or to the left and then back to the camera.

[@EscapedSapiens]

That's pretty funny - I must have been checking the equipment, or the notes or something. I had to switch studios last minute to film this so who knows what fires I was putting out in the background. I seem to settle down with my compulsions after the first 15 minutes or so...

[@grant3044]

Quack quack quack. His sickness is relativity. I moved an apple, its a new apple. I moved an apple behind the curtain, in aggregate reality its both gone and not gone, but aggregate reality collapses to a consensus state with a infinitely limited degree of randomness when i look behind the curtain so that a nearly identical apple is instantiated in a nealy identical state. And the "randomness" or rather reality measured is the aggregate result of the currently possible dominating but still fighting against the currently unpossible. Thanks Shane for asking: his model is a hidden variable model, obfuscated through the exploration of all possibility spaces limited by the probability uncertainty baked into quantum mechanics. They accept hidden variables in their field as an aggregate feature of what they dont know. To get around it they grind out a probabilistic map through (magic numbers, magic formulas) quantum formulas to predict what will happen but within a range of possibilities: its a best guess framework with an error factor inverted to give the probability factor. Whose "pedictions" become less accurate as time / the algorithm updates because their lack of information is parameterized then factorized by time and thus baked into the algorith: resulting in the probability map of all plausibilities in their possibility space over time. They bake in the uncertainty range because without it, and with base Newtonian physics limited by the accuracy of our measurements, we have an atomic level of innaccuracy / error they need to account for. They have an idea on the scale or range of error but they just accept the notion that the universe jiggles atoms ever so slighty, draft up their fudge factor range, and say there's no need to understand why or how because it's impossibly incomprehensible due to the infinite complexity of reality. His hypergraph is a fancy aggregate representation of a possibily space, the strength or likelyhood of relationships & results in the space, between all factors considered. To be fair its a neat tool. But the metaphysical kosmological diefication of uncertainty, relativity, and subjectivity is a bit much. These guys just want your money, or rather your governments money. Dont trust speculations of anyone who believes you age slower the faster you are accelerating. Or that you are simultaniously dead and alive until observed. Not saying his information is analytically useless, just dont drink the koolaid. Their science is based on Einsteins theories: that are built on fudge factors, subjective assumptions about reality, and non-experiments i.e. thought experiments. To be fair the tool is useful for brute forcing posibility maps under know parameters and constraints; good for guessing and checking as he says.

[@pluto9000]

🍎

[@norbertocosta-ec7fz]

The theory of everything has no consistence. You just can't do an equation to explain the universe: its a fantasy.

[@theomnisthour6400]

What better rules than the ten commandments?

[@niblick616]

What version?

[@theomnisthour6400]

@@niblick616 there is only one, contrary to popular fiction

[@JohnnyTwoFingers]

Scientology has a sophisticated system. Taoism is superior imho.

[@theomnisthour6400]

@@JohnnyTwoFingers bullshit. Prove it. You just like the moral ambiguity they provide

[@JohnnyTwoFingers]

@@theomnisthour6400 Haha, oh the irony.

[@ashmeadali]

" ECK is totality of all awareness." _The Shariyat-Ki-SUGMAD_ (Way of the Eternal). Experiment to expand awareness/alter personal frequency: Sing *HU* daily. Search how to sing *HU* . A simple, safe sonic tuning fork. "If you want to find the secrets of the universe, think in terms of energy, frequency and vibration."-Nikola Tesla. Skip "think" and do experiment. Keep It Simple Soul.

[@frederickmueller7916]

Bravo Stephen. This is way less nonsense compared to the modern religion called physics. (e.g. string theory or the idea that the collapse of the wave function enables consciousness).

[@drbachimanchi]

I am an endocrinologist from india enthusiast about fundamentalphysics ..i have been listening to Mr Wolfrum as i find his explanation for reality very logical...but this interview beats everything else .well done.please say hi and an endocrinologist from india is willto work for Mr wolfrum with out any pay 😊

[@brianneill4376]

Sizing=Size^Cubed>0!=10^00^0PresentFuturePresent0^00^00!=10^00^00^00^000:0000:001111Moment.Moment110.00:00.0.

[@koenraad4618]

Either Wolfram is nuts, or he is up to something, but that something can only have meaning if it can be communicated to everyone, should not be too complicated. We don't have the time to listen to Stephen for seven days on a row. I am afraid Wolfram's ideas are build on the many mistakes and deliberate corrupting "physics postulates" that are part of an already partially falsified "standard" model. Despite of the flaws in the standard model of physics that Wolfram takes for granted, Wolfram's key idea he is working out, can be meaningful. It is very very abstract Stephen is talking about, too schizophrenic to be of any use ("branching minds in a branching universe"), it does not ring a bell AT ALL (yet). On the contrary, Stephen's reflections on physics shows that 'natural philosophy' has gone mad.

[@JustNow42]

I do not think Mr Wolfram explain what he is doing very well. Too fast, too confused, too eager, even Shane look confused

[@GEMSofGOD_com]

Considering his recent insights in physics, he combines other people's ideas without crediting them. No papers, many claims proven false. I'm not even sure if he has any framework which can "have proven that quantum mechanics and general relativity are exactly the same, different terms only"

[@Namegoeshere-op9hg]

With every possible rule operating on every possible space with every possible outcome, can’t we recreate an arbitrary number of different universes?

[@dbeberman]

loved Wolfram's book "A New Kind Of Science"

[@felixhex]

Dude, ain't entropy the *third* law of thermodynamics, dafuq? Second is flow law and heat energy differential, third is entropy, give rise to the term information together. You mixed up the second and third law of thermodynamics, I guess it's okay, everyone kinda forgets the actual second law, as important for computer science it may be(graphs etc)

[@JOHNSON-wn7rq]

He's trying to say it's dynamic.

[@LoesungFeuer5]

Like if you did understand everything 😊

[@advaitrahasya]

Sounds like a promising mathematical model. Let's see if the gold standard of better data-fitting can get other physicsts to take a look… And some implications described are remarkable, given the blinding paradigm. Indeed, a BH should have a surface over a "hole punched in it" and topology is key to fixing the threefoldly inverted paradigm which blinds physicsts. Different mathematical models are still just mathematical models - not understandings of mechanism. And the current paradigm underlying them all is as invisible to physicsts as was the Geocentricism of dark-ages astronomers. All these MMs are great, as long as one remembers Newton's "hypotheses non fingo" honesty. Some, of course, always knew that Earth isn't in the middle, no matter that interpreting epicycles "proved" that planets were embedded in Crystal Spheres. Likewise, some of us have always known the simple mechanism by which all phenomena appear. Physicsts do data-fitting, and understand the mathematics. Listen to physicsts if you want to know exactly (or even only the probabilities of) how much, where and when. Listen to those with an understanding of mechanism if you want to know the why and the how of things, and (eventually) come up with better Mathematical Models. Note the progress made by the generation of physicsts who's reading list extended eastward. That progress came from having their thinking loosened up a bit. None were trained in the basics necessary to understanding what they were reading. When understanding of the mechanism of the fundamental finally seeps through the firewalls of the Physics echo chamber, it will be a description of the simplicity from which complexities emerge … and as long as interpretations and models get more complex, the further physicsts are getting lost in mathematics.

[@niblick616]

Prove that any of that word salad is true!

[@advaitrahasya]

@@niblick616 Out here, the baboons throw actual shit. Congratulations on having evolved far enough to do that with words 😉

[@advaitrahasya]

@@niblick616 your estimation of it as worth insult, reveals your mental capacity. Good luck with that, poor fellow.

[@niblick616]

@@advaitrahasya 1/ It is not an insult to tell the truth about something. Sorry. 2/ I notice that you failed to show that anything I pointed out is wrong in any way. Has it predicted anything that is novel? You didn't say. He started out trying to find one rule but appears to now be claiming that all possible rules are required. 3/ Thank you for making my point by resorting to personal abuse rather than advancing any rational arguments.

[@advaitrahasya]

@@niblick616 now, that's a word salad :)

[@kricketflyd111]

This computational irreducibility makes me think of the Bible and our geometric spiritual growth, where we comprehend over time. 😮

[@niblick616]

The bible is a book of lies and fiction and blood lust! Have you ever read any version of it from cover to cover?

[@niblick616]

1/ The 'bible' is a fictional book of nonsense. 2/ What is 'geometrical spiritual growth' other than some absurd word salad?

[@wtfatc4556]

Religions capture something important, related to reality in a non objective way... Yet to this day, science can only point out more and more unknowns

[@niblick616]

@@wtfatc4556 You forgot to provide a single example of what you are claiming. Please provide just five valid and verified examples of what you are talking about?

[@RealQinnMalloryu4]

Stephenwolfram is avery brilliant saipan on escape sapian only

[@pappaflammyboi5799]

A lot of yapping and tongue wagging by Wolfram, but nothing really explained. I understand chaos and probability theories with a mixture of the laws of physics but beyond that, this computational irreducibility is gobbledygook.

[@tellesu]

It's ok to not understand things buddy. That doesn't make them nonsense.

[@pappaflammyboi5799]

@@tellesu Do tell smartypants...

[@afreezaphorogiancossack2194]

Is this what he looks like nowadays? Damn, pretty healthy for his age, I'm guessing.

[@xqt39a]

Kamala Harris, our next president, has recently been theorizing on the passage of time ..has she been talking to Wolfram I wonder?

[@collegephysicsforeveryone7744]

If this guy is half as smart as they see he is he is definitely leading you all astray. He talks smart and acts smart but so does a magician. He designed the code hes helping you try and uncover. Hes like the friend who steals the bag of drugs then helps you look for em.

[@6Diego1Diego9]

Steve has really been pushing this scheme all over the Internet without being able to submit definitions or proof. It sounds cool and all but c'mon.

[@EscapedSapiens]

Hi Diego, Going through his derivations of GR, QM, and statistical mechanics in more detail is definitely necessary. I tried a bit to pry open what the derivation of QM looks like at around 54:40, but a full account would really need a second interview. My impression is that they have fragments of a theory and they are in the process of tying all the pieces together. Its quite ambitious. I need to see/read more before I am convinced of the approach, but I don't think the ideas should be discounted for being incomplete or alternative. Even if they turn out not to work, our best models might one day take bits and pieces from the attempt. In particular, it doesn't seem crazy to think that the ideas of 'computational irreducibility' and 'computational boundedness' might have something interesting to say about what a measurement is and who an observer is in QM. An emergent spacetime with particles being described by topological defects is also not so wildly outside the mainstream. Perhaps if this video gets enough interest I'll be able to convince Stephen to come back on to go through some of the details of the derivations in more detail. Thanks for listening.

[@NightmareCourtPictures]

@@EscapedSapiens Hello. if your interested, Gorard has a 3 part lecture online where he goes through the derivations (Wolfram Physics 1 : Basic Formalism, Causal Invariance and Special Relativity) Another good set of videos to watch is wolframs NKS series where he reads the book. Here it’s clearly defined what irreducibility is, and experimental evidence for it (the whole book is basically a proof by exhaustion, as his thing is to just run classes of rules) and computational equivalence which form the basis of the work in the physics model. IMO I think people do the work backwards. Got to go from NKS -> wolfram physics model, since the wolfram model is a consequence of the work in NKS being true. Cheers, and thanks for the interview!

[@EscapedSapiens]

Hi NCP, thanks - yes I've been meaning to go more closely through Gorard's GR and QM videos now that my interview with Stephen has been filmed (the ones on 'the last theory' from about 9 months ago...). It's a bit of a balancing act when I do research for these interviews, because I want to know enough about a subject to ask good questions, but not so much that the conversation/my curiosity isn't genuine. Thanks for listening! :)

[@niblick616]

@@EscapedSapiens Until he submits his work for peer review and makes some novel predictions, which are then confirmed, his thoughts will remain just a curiosity. Verbal arm-waving means nothing.

[@niblick616]

@@NightmareCourtPictures 1/ Where exactly is the 'experimental evidence' you mention? 2/ What exactly does that supposed 'experimental evidence' consist of?

[@fjauge2465]

Not only on many systems, but in infinately more sistems you cant do it.

[@CupOfSweetTea]

When you use a thousand words to describe your idea in a simple way, you haven't yet developed your idea

[@henrytaricano]

Is this a copy of Chris Langan’s theory?

[@OliverBridge]

By Jove! I think he’s cracked it!

[@mykrahmaan3408]

The only way to counter 2nd. Law of Thermodynamics and computational irreducibility is to target only PREVENTION OF EVIL (exhaustively defined as DISASTERS, PREDATION, DISEASES ~ which include all birth defects, all weapons manufacture, all violence ~ and DEATH), which is finite, as the sole purpose cum criterion of proof of all knowledge. Note the most fundamental difference between this target, PREVENTION of only the EVIL, and the goal of SCIENCE ~ PREDICTION of ALL future events. That renders "search for knowledge" a finite task, that hopefully, can be achieved by present generation. Life thereafter would only be exploring the universe to terraform and populate all celestial bodies with the 100% CERTAINTY that all negative possibilities are PREVENTED by a system of indicators and rectifiers of certain evil, if left unattended, that guatantees it. The answer to the question "are the LAWS OF NATURE deteeministic or probabilistic?" is a very clear one: Neither. Nature doesn't have any such law, but it permits DISCOVERY of the sources of all evil which are finite, hence can deterministically be countered, while leaving all positive events unpredictable. POSITIVE, thereby, is meant as in the common, lay person's, usage and NOT in the various mutually contradicting usages of the term in science and mathematics (increase of anything ~ even diseases or violence in arithmetic, result confirming suggestion in experiments or tests, charge of protons in physics and 3 of 6 directions in space as defined by the Cartesian system, which has absolutely no physical meaning ~ all mutually incompatible and contradicting with the common usage) Positive surprises are even more enjoyable than positive certainties. So it is very good that not all future events are PREDICTABLE. Science, all hitherto search for knowledge rather, has set the wrong goal as target. That is the reason why the entire human race, from antiquity to present day, from Thales of Miletus to Stephen Hawking and still continuing, has failed to derive the mathematical model for even a single natural phenomenon that could PREDICT accurately when it may harm life function, let alone PREVENT such.

[@niblick616]

Utter gibberish.

[@mykrahmaan3408]

@@niblick616 Only incompetent idiot forwards a judgement without any reason whatsoever to back it.

[@mykrahmaan3408]

@@niblick616 Only an incomotent idiot forwards a judgement without any reason to support it.

[@mykrahmaan3408]

@@niblick616 Anybody who forwards a judgement without backing it with reason only indicates own incompetence.

[@niblick616]

@@mykrahmaan3408 1/ More utter nonsense, of course. 2/ Anyone who chooses to post a series of absurd assertions without a single piece of valid evidence for any of them, as you have manifestly done, cannot be taken seriously. 3/ Unsupported nonsense remains unsupported nonsense no matter how much you whinge about it. 4/ Where is the valid evidence for any of your claims? You utterly failed to provide a single piece! Empty and unsupported claims are not evidence for anything.

[@AspartameBoy]

Turing’s theorem.. duh

[@BH-BH]

Being isn’t mechanical

[@michaelb7498]

I fear this genuis of a man is lost in his research, skewing his data. He goes on record claiming that his theory is working for the theory of everything. U can see the excitement in his eyes. Hopefully he has the wherewithal to balance himself back out. The esoterics can be dangerous

[@GEMSofGOD_com]

Actually, considering his recent insights in physics, he combines other people's ideas without crediting them. No papers, many claims proven false. I'm not even sure if he has any framework which can "have proven that quantum mechanics and general relativity are exactly the same, different terms only"

[@DaveAtlas]

a => b(x)

[@youtubebane7036]

There is causation between your rouliad and your hyperuliad because it is a strange loop or a strange feedback loop. Our universe is just a particle or a singularity in the next couple sets of higher orders of magnitude in existence just as the particles in our body and everything else are a universe and so are singularities. This is the way the universe grows and multiplies as well as disappears and evaporates. Somewhere in one of the particles in your body there is a living being on a planet much like this thinking that it is not causal to the one that it is part of named Wolfram. Now imagine what would happen if they weren't then we would not have any particles.

[@niblick616]

What does higher magnitude of order mean?

[@youtubebane7036]

@niblick616 so the universe is always expanding and it will eternally there is no contraction of space as matter is the opposite forest in the equation that they are searching for. Matter is being eternally squashed into singularities in black holes and other less dense structures temporarily although they will all end up in Singularity that's another reason they are a potential infinity. And I hope you understand what that means now. It's a common turn used in mathematics that's not something that I just made up in fact nothing that I speak of is I just have very poor way of describing it and I'm not very articulate. I tried to cram too much information on one comment is the problem. So while matter is Contracting in a singularities space is eternally expanding and once those singularities are all outside of causal continuity meaning the light from them will be causally disconnected from everything as it can never reach any other point or thing in space because it would be moving away from it faster than the speed it can travel due to the accelerating expansion of the universe. That's why the observable universe is what it is because the further you go the faster it's expanding until it hits the edge of light and then basically disappears from our telescope and in fact it really literally disappears from existence and is recycled back into the middle the not the center middle the middle of everything meaning it gets recycled back into everywhere and it is what is causing the expansion and it's called dark energy. This boundary is a relative thing because depending on where you're at the boundary will be a different distance away from you because every one of us is literally the center of our own relative universe. The entire cycle from Singularity to evaporation is one revolution in the Universal hierarchy of size and number and causal relationships as the universe expands it divides itself into as many Planck units as possible that can be fit into the area covered by space and each one of these will one day be capable of supporting matter and even singularities the larger sizes like our black holes. Are there all particles are singularities they're just from different scales kind of like how a Stellar Mass black hole is infinitely smaller not literally but millions and millions of times smaller than a supermassive black hole and the largest supermassive black holes are billions of times larger than our sun. That's a whole different skill in the hierarchy of size. Because of the interlocking nature of reality there's halfway points and other place markers along the way that we perceive as particles Stellar black holes and supermassive black holes as well as other things and this is the microscopic macro and Cosmic scales. After the universe has reached heat death and expanded so far all things are constantly disconnected when the singularities in the black holes disappear because of the Hawking radiation and all movement ceases that means that space will disappear as well as they are codependent upon each other. But this will be for the shortest instant of time recordable which is basically a duration list moment. Just like the conscious present moment even though we tried to quantize it and there's even people who say they can measure it it literally doesn't have any duration because it's always moving just like you can't determine the speed of a particle when it's moving and it's very very simple why. Because you have to stop it to measure the speed. Once you do that it's not moving anymore anyone who said quantum physics is hard to understand it's just kind of dense I think. Now all that information is basically like what Mr wolfram's talking about in his ruliad and what we were first discussing about how computation alone isn't enough for quaglia and Consciousness and all other non- computable. You can think of it as a giant alphabet. When information becomes aware of itself because nothing is impossible because of the information so that means that it must be infinite since it's only thing there is That's why nothing is always turning into infinity and back again as I described and this is what gives electromagnetism its pattern and polarities, but when the information first starts differentiating it's a homogeneous perfectly Square and motionless lattice of crystalline pattern and structure of all the particles and energy in the universe in total and complete heat death and thermal equilibrium and no movement as that's what nothingness is but once it starts differentiating the thing that I call an alphabet needs a language for it to be written down somewhere . This is consciousness and mind because even though our alphabet Terry's information it cannot carry any significant meaning without words in a language that it is a part of and helps build. But we're not done yet because there's three different kinds of energy fundamental to the universe and there's kinetic energy gravity and then thermal energy which is the energy of Life Light biology and chemistry and Heat and that my friend is what takes the letters and then takes the words and then add a story story to it because without a story the information would still be basically meaningless it would be disjointed and unconnected words that had no meaning outside of their own self and this idea of letters creating words so they could be made into a language and then written down at the story is completely mirrored in the prime numbers and the golden ratio in Fibonacci Sequence as the prime numbers are the building blocks of all member every number there is is a factor of a prime number and they are basically like the leaves on the tree and the tree they are growing on is the Fibonacci spiral the golden ratio which is the relative side that time and space are providing for continuation continuity and everything that is a Continuum and not discreet while the prime numbers represent everything numbered Quantum and discreet and furthermore these both represent Chaos on one hand and order on the other and where they come together it's called probability. When this happens the the universe has for all intents and purposes grown one infinite size of existence in the hierarchy as it not only expands it ages and it multiplies but it doesn't just do this because it shrinks in the opposite polarity and multiplies further and since this is infinity we're talking about there's an infinite number of other operations of infinity that we can't even fathom that happens but for our universe there's only a few select that matter and that's the ones for time matter and all if our physical constants. So after a revolution even though it's still an Infiniti that's exactly the same as the last one for all intents and purposes it literally is bigger has a different cardinality even though that is something that's completely impossible if you're talking about any other type of Infinity but this is kind of like how when you go from the natural numbers to the real numbers all I said in decimals can it appear in between each point infinitely so it's uncountable that is akin to the way this universe gets larger in size as it expands and multiplies in comparison to what it was because it is expanding infinitely in all directions of infinity so it's not only just expanding in area is expanding in number of as well.

[@youtubebane7036]

@niblick616 the most mind-boggling part of this is the fact that the largest thing imaginable is literally the smallest thing imaginable because it is a strange Loop Purity strange Loop is a structure where you go out one side and come back in the bottom like on a game of Pac-man and that is literally how our universe functions although it doesn't do this directly it does it through the chain of causal Infiniti as I was speaking of which is something completely outside of this universe and we don't even need to speculate on what it consists of cuz we'll never know. We just need to know its value and how it relates to what we do know and thanks to light having a finite speed because infinite velocity is impossible everywhere we know many things about it that could show exactly why everything in our universe is what it is perfectly. I mean exactly on a one-to-one basis not in some kind of permissible inexactness where you can be off by thousands and even millions in the units of value that you were talking of but they say that as long as it's close to an acceptable margin of error then it's still valid. My way of doing things gets rid of all that it's matched up one the one with either a yes or no logic. I have literally figured out a new way of calculating with infinity so we can deal with some of the infinite values that we get in physics that they try to normalize other ways. I'm here to show everyone that there's no need to read normalize anything that the infinities are perfectly valid in natural they just can't exist physically except as infinite density are singularities so when in infinite Multiplicity in number in an infinite object in area and volume needs to manifest physically the differentiate itself from everything else then it'll have to take turns doing it because all things will eventually be differentiated if the universe is continuously expanding and multiplying while at the same time Contracting in its opposite polarity in recycling the leftover energy both ways back into it. It's literally a feedback loop but it's more of a spiral because it's not a closed loop and that's why the Fibonacci sequence is literally the backbone structure and framework that holds up everything else while the prime numbers are the things that fill it in first the primes then the factors in the grill along the Fibonacci spiral. But each Revolution between evaporation and expansion would be one Loop in the Universal hierarchy of universes. Each one would be a new universe constantly connected directly to the one right before and the one right after at any time you can make a series of three out of anything you can count it whether you can count infinity or not. And that's a paradox. Because you can link them together causally from their direct predicate and Drake Anderson and you can also count them because of identity as each one is literally a different universe so it has a different identity as everything in existence has its own unique identity that doesn't share with anything else and that is how differentiation operates and it happens. So why you cannot use regular counting numbers to count infinity and many other accountable things you can still use identity and causal connectivity to order them in a different pattern so it's still a pattern that is the most proficient way of growing well putting as many things in one place and as fast as possible the most proficient way of packing things together basically when it is growing and that's why all things grow like this but the particles and stuff that they are growing from because that's what they are are from the quantum side of the universe so they are the prime numbers. Each Revolution would be a stepping up or down in the hierarchy or even stepping to the side as all number lines are valid in Universal reality. The real numbers that irrational numbers the imaginary numbers the and complex numbers this is why time and space seem to be separated from each other and we can't move in the dimension of time willingly because it is literally lying down a different number playing that is 90 degrees turn to the side or Twisted from this one every quarter of a Revolution causes it to twist 90° and that's why it forms a spiral. I'm like literally not making any of this up or any of the terms there are things that have been talked about for centuries I am just putting them together with modern ideas in a fashion that no one else has ever done

[@niblick616]

@@youtubebane7036 1/ More utter gibberish with not a single piece of valid and verified evidence for any of it. 2/ You claimed "...the most mind-boggling part of this is the fact that the largest thing imaginable is literally the smallest thing imaginable because it is a strange Loop Purity strange Loop is a structure where you go out one side and come back in the bottom like on a game of Pac-man and that is literally how our universe functions although it doesn't do this directly it does it through the chain of causal Infiniti as I was speaking of which is something completely outside of this universe and we don't even need to speculate on what it consists of cuz we'll never know. ...". That is not even an English sentence. It is literally word salad. 3/ You also claimed "...So why you cannot use regular counting numbers to count infinity and many other accountable things you can still use identity and causal connectivity to order them in a different pattern so it's still a pattern that is the most proficient way of growing well putting as many things in one place and as fast as possible the most proficient way of packing things together basically when it is growing and that's why all things grow like this but the particles and stuff that they are growing from because that's what they are are from the quantum side of the universe so they are the prime numbers. ...". That is literally word salad with absolutely nothing to support it. 4/ Who do you think you are kidding?

[@youtubebane7036]

@@niblick616 you know what the hilarious part is about all this? Almost everything that you told me is nonsense or dismissed as word salad are not even Concepts that I have named myself at all but they are things I have learned about from the Giants in the field both in the past and in modern times. I didn't come up with the tournament strange Loop that was Douglas hoffstetler and the universe has been described this way many times as they say that if it's infinite then that means you go in One Direction long enough you're going to come back in the other side. Even mainstream sources like Neil deGrasse Tyson and others like him talk about this kind of shit all the time. I think I know what's going on here because I don't think that you're always an asshole and I don't think you're completely as dumb as a rock so the misunderstanding is coming from my word salad as you call it which in fact it is because I have voice type as I told you before in my phone doesn't correctly text what I speak about one time out of every 10 and without punctuation and editing I could see how hard it would be to understand what I'm talking about I haven't even described the parts of my series that are mine alone although some of the relationships that I have shown are pretty much new although the values have been described before from other measurements in other places Mainely empirical measurements while mine show the origin of these values and why they are what they are and how they got there . What I mean by an infinite network of causality is just for the plain fact that Infinity is far too large for the mind to even grasp its complexity and how many different types of infinity there are which we are only aware of is very slight few that interact with our physical universe . This is nothing this is impossible Infinity is also impossible in a physical time-space continuum as there is no room for it the bolt Infiniti of number in Infiniti of area are the possibilities and Infiniti of velocities in impossibility everywhere. Potential Infinity just represents the physical Universe which will never quit expanding and started from nothing and is moving towards infinity and just like in calculus when something tends towards a limit for all intents and purposes it is equal to it potentially although not yet and it is the ratio between them in comparison to the size of absolute nothingness that gives us our golden ratio which is the framework for everything. This is just a very simple triangulation like you learn in high school about the Pythagorean triangle . I know you don't understand what I am speaking of and I know you don't want to understand because I can see from your nature that you like to troll but at least you're rudeness and disrespectfulness isn't that bad in fact I'm much worse when it comes to a topic that has great emotional importance to me or When someone tells me I'm wrong without any like you mostly do except now you're pointing something out here or there in the issue with that is that is that the things you are pointing out are all well established theories and Universal constant that have been derived calculated and theorized by the great in science and it is just my poor texting skills and my bad communication that makes it seem to you as I am speaking in word solid. Everything I'm talking of is all verified and if not then well theorized and proven with mathematics by the global community of mathematicians and physicists. The only thing different is 1 mini of the big names have explain things like strange loops and such they don't explain how they work or what they do like I do or at least how they work in my model and they just say that if you don't One Direction long enough you'll eventually end up back where you started. That is literally a strange Loop the only difference between there's and mine is that I apply it to an ever-expanding universe Universal will never stop expanding in one sense but the other polarity is Contracting as matter but from outside of our universe this whole thing does not have any dimensions and it is zero volume and area but infinite density because it appears to the larger universe above ours as particles and singularities. You can think of it kind of like a bunch of Russian dolls what each one is inside of the next and so on and so forth but the last one which actually is a position that lies everywhere upon the number line is literally the smallest relatively. And everything outside of the observable universe literally doesn't exist because of relativity .

[@thebasicmaterialsproject]

Wild

[@AspartameBoy]

You did not invent Turing’s Theorem 🤣

[@zentreeing]

Is biological Evolution an LLM? Is DNA a collection of weights that give the next organism, that fits the environment?

[@JohnnyTwoFingers]

Human consciousness works like an LLM.

[@zentreeing]

@JohnnyTwoFingers I believe that it depends on what one means by consciousness. If we are talking about intelligence, then I'm in an agreement that it does seem to have many aspects of an LLM. But if by consciousness we mean beingness and awareness, then I believe, it's a totally different beast.

[@JohnnyTwoFingers]

@@zentreeing I believe the exact other way around!!! Haha, that's trippy 😂

[@JohnnyTwoFingers]

@@zentreeing I'd have many arguments, but one would be: what does meditating do? What does one seek, when meditating?

[@JohnnyTwoFingers]

@@zentreeing Now that I thought about this more, I think that makes some sense. 🤔🤔🤔 As an implementation, it could work. But then: where did it *come from*? Oh ya, evolution. Easy peasy.

[@ck58npj72]

Makes himself feel smart I suppose...

[@TheRadischen]

Projection eh?