Fred Alan Wolf - Is Life and Mind Inevitable in the Universe?

Free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
The physical laws of our universe must be just so in order for life and mind-for us-to exist. ‘Just so’ is called ‘fine-tuning’, and it seems to demand explanation. What kind of explanations? There are two categories: multiple universes and some kind of supernatural, purposeful intent. Either would be extraordinary.
Support the show with Closer To Truth merchandise: bit.ly/3P2ogje
Register for free today to get subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/3He94Ns
Fred Alan Wolf is an American theoretical physicist specializing in quantum physics and the relationship between physics and consciousness. His book Taking the Quantum Leap: The New Physics for Nonscientists won a 1982 U.S. National Book Award in Science.
Watch more videos on fine tuning: bit.ly/3MUay1X
Closer To Truth, hosted by Robert Lawrence Kuhn and directed by Peter Getzels, presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.

[@hobarttobor686]

Fred Alan Wolf is not Stephen Wolfram.

[@JonSebastianF]

This is the old clip “Stephen Wolfram - Is Mathematics Invented or Discovered?”

[@simonhibbs887]

I don't mind, sometimes it's interesting to go back to old clips and see them in the light of later experience, and pretty much all the clips this channel publishes are worth going back to. For me, it's what the channel is about.

[@williamschacht]

Yes, you are correct, and Wolfram is still wrong. Mathematics is discovered. LOL 🙂

[@simonhibbs887]

@@williamschacht He presented his analysis of mathematics and how it has developed, together with investigations into alternative systems. It seems like he has a pretty strong argument backed by evidence. Can you explain where you think he's going wrong, and how you interpret the evidence he described?

[@williamschacht]

@@simonhibbs887 Wolfram presented some opinions. The question of whether or not mathematics is invented or discovered is still very open. When you say "investigations into alternative systems," do you mean his framework? He's still working on that.

[@nietztsuki]

That was a brilliant discussion of the theory of mathematics. I learned quite a lot. However, it had nothing whatsoever to do with the caption -- "Is Life and Mind Inevitable in the Universe?"

[@schleichface]

Also not the scholar mentioned in the title. The title here didn't get us....Closer to Truth.

[@artmcteagle]

Ditto, however it was a fascinating discussion, Stephen Wolfram is brilliant and his view that mathematics is an artifact makes sense, however, I would also like to hear his view on whether life and mind are inevitable!

[@John777Revelation]

Inherent in the inception and expansion of the Universe is "Living" Mind / Consciousness / Intelligence as shown by the Universal Laws that govern all. The Prime Mind / Consciousness / Intelligence which permeates the entire Universe manifests itself into emergent biological Mind / Consciousness / Intelligence throughout the Universe.

[@Bassotronics]

I thought I was the only one who noticed; I knew something was odd.

[@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns]

not Fred wolf.

[@brianlebreton7011]

I like the direct questioning of axioms. Axioms form the foundation of the mathematics we use, but axioms are based on humanly-perceived logic which may not be infallible nor a complete picture of what should be considered rational. It’s a great starting point and one in which most civilizations will be close to in their own development of maths they use. Great discussion.

[@quantumkath]

Have a Happy Thanksgiving Day to all my American 🇺🇸 Cyber friends! From Canada 🇨🇦

[@daviddikeman7423]

Fix the title.

[@SecretEyeSpot]

to wot? sorry im not so quick witted

[@reinaldosanguino]

Would love to know where’s the mistake

[@hGUImain]

It's Stephen Wolfram

[@stevej.7926]

@@reinaldosanguinoare* not is

[@brianarbenz1329]

Unless “Life and Mind” is a theory or some other single entity, it should use “are” instead of “is.”

[@oberstvilla1271]

"Consciousness seems to me to be such an important phenomenon that I simply cannot believe that it is something just 'accidentally' conjured up by a complicated computation. It is the phenomenon whereby the universe's very existence is made known. One can argue that a universe governed by laws that do not allow consciousness is no universe at all. I would even say that all the mathematical descriptions of a universe that have been given so far must fail this criterion. It is only the phenomenon of consciousness that can conjure a putative 'theoretical' universe into actual existence!" (Roger Penrose, The Emperors New Mind)

[@bretnetherton9273]

Awareness is the only constant of all experience what could be more fundamental to reality than that? Awareness is known by awareness alone.

[@SecretEyeSpot]

better title: evaluating the categorization of the reasonable effectiveness of mathematics

[@HowardSchoonover]

this 'other mathematics' that wolfram talks about here, that just have not yet been developed, that may model things we see around us which current math can not touch, things like 'ideas' and 'fish' - this missing math is what people refer to when they talk about looking for '2+2=5'

[@abduazirhi2678]

mathematically fascinating talk !

[@anilshah7528]

The story of the universe is as physical existence, transformations, and changes (static & dynamic). Its mirror image as perceived quantitatively by human mind in the language of numerals is mathematics. So, the universe not only has physical order but also an order quantitatively. (The human mind wants to understand surroundings in order to protect and ensure safety & security of the human body. Apart from physical understanding, understanding quantitively is also essential. For quantitative assessment human mind has evolved mathematical language.)

[@ejpmooB]

Maybe the question was too difficult to answer at the moment. But I would like to see the video eventually.

[@vm-bz1cd]

Brilliant guest! but i am left unsure whether he directly answered the question that was posed to him?

[@jelleludolf]

The video has the wrong title, reupload?

[@danellwein8679]

notice Stephen doesn't mention the Wolfram Language in this clip ..

[@kenmapp4891]

That was pretty good. I get the idea that there are other maths out there. My only complaint is the lack of example. I'd love to hear an example of some of these alternate maths (besides the non euclidean geometries). For eg, is group theory one of the alts?

[@halleuz1550]

Standard examples which have been analysed within traditional logical frameworks would be intuitionistic mathematics and various systems of set theory, for example with or without axiom of choice, the continuum hypothesis or large cardinal axioms.

[@haxstir]

How can one prove the existence of other forms of mathematics without actually discovering what they are? It's an argument which consumes itself. I think the apex of the pyramid as representational of the discovery of mathemetical universal truths that then leads to other discoveries further down the pyramid is axiomatic to the pyramid as a whole. Can't prove it though.

[@LENNY127]

Take a circle being 360 * …. On my planet out circles are 100 degrees and right angles are 25 * …. I changed geometry and I haven’t … I have simply just changed the lens of description no differently than switching from English to French … you are describing reality and giving it rules of perceived relationships …. Table and chair are our creation, we could have easily never invented a chair and eliminated the seating position altogether . Doesn’t mean it’s not available, we simply have agreed to not add chairs not sitting to our new reality

[@williamschacht]

@@halleuz1550 Hilbert, Russell, and Brouwer's frameworks are all equivalent. There's nothing new here?

[@halleuz1550]

@@williamschacht These frameworks are not equivalent. Of the three you named, only Russell and Whitehead's theory of types suffices to derive significant parts of classical mathematics. Hilbert tried to reduce mathematics to a complete arithmetic. This was thwarted by Gödel's incompleteness theorems. Intuitionistic math acknowledges less theorems as valid; only the constructively provable ones, and generates a different mathematics of the continuum.

[@matthiasfreiburghaus4202]

This is clearly not Fred Alan Wolf.

[@John777Revelation]

Mathematics, like Language, in its infinite manifestations is constantly being discovered. Mathematics, like Language, is the expression of a Mind / Consciousness / Intelligence that permeates All that Is, All that Was, and All that Will Be, in this and any other universe of existence. This expression facilitates self discovery of Mind / Conscious / Intelligence with Itself within the 'physical' universe through the filter of us All.

[@pranoykishore]

Video and title mismatch?

[@ericroman9126]

:19 Does anyone know the subject/theory of the poster in the back with the triangles. On 2 occasions while partaking in old medicines, once with aya and once with kambo, I saw triangles over peoples faces. It wasn't in a psychedelic trippy art way but a simple basic grid of hundreds of small triangles overlayed the face.

[@drchaffee]

The poster features a Sierpiński triangle, a self-similar fractal. Wikipedia has a decent page about it.

[@ericroman9126]

@@drchaffee Cool thank you!!

[@AndersHansgaard]

One of the posters has a Sierpiński triangle produced by rule 90, another shows the evolution of rule 30. Both are examples of elementary cellular automata evolved from simple initial conditions. Wolfram has written a heavy book about it.

[@ericroman9126]

@@AndersHansgaard Wow I came originally for Fred Alan Wolf and now after looking up this fella's (Wolfram) books I feel a strong need to research his work. ty

[@AndersHansgaard]

​@@ericroman9126 You're welcome. In 'A New Kind of Science' Wolfram (and colleagues) prove that the very simple rule 110 is computationally universal. That's quite a kicker, surrounded by some profound implication - not that rule 110 is so very special. There should be a number a great talks by Wolfram out there to get you started.

[@JoeBuck-uc3bl]

I think that guy said mathematics more times than I’ve ever heard the word mathematics said out loud in my entire life.

[@AndersHansgaard]

Wrong title. And it must be a pretty dated interview. Have a talk with Stephen Wolfram today - he has a lot to say about mathematics that so many other people in this series appear to have absolutely no idea about.

[@longcastle4863]

Excellent discussion.

[@williamschacht]

I must be in a bizarre parallel universe today?

[@LENNY127]

Think of it like this …. Why is a circle 360 degrees ? Could easily be 100 and the 1/4s are 25 degree right angles ….. it’s simply an agreed language of measurement and the quanta has been agreed upon. Compare Celsius vs Fahrenheit …. Is temperature fundamental ? Yes but not how it’s measured … meaning we can discern patterns which we crate ourselves and agree upon. Mathematics isn’t anymore fundamental than English, or Physics or Braille …. It is a language of description of our perception …. In this instance, Quantification . We need this and that to create a relationship which we have agreed to call an equation …. how are these quantifiable observations related. Math

[@claudetaillefer1332]

Robert mixed up his clips!

[@metheplant9655]

Consciousness seems like one of those things unsolvable by axiomatic systems….ever

[@halleuz1550]

If this approach is purely computational, then he can only discover new syntatical structures, i.e. new proof-theoretical structures, but not new mathematical content.

[@1stPrinciples455]

I like this episode👏👏 Maths is easily misperceived as fundamental to nature. It's really just one of the possible valid axioms. Reality is Infinity. All possibilities exist. Therefore, maths is just one of the possible "maths" in this natural world. We are basing on this ancient maths to make progress. This means we will never discover the absolute reality because we are limited by the axiom. Reality, again, is infinite possibilities. Furthermore, maths can have formulas for 4th and higher dimensions. But it cannot prove it. It just can only try to represent it. But we will never know if its correct because higher dimensions can not be proven even today. Maths has a symbol for infinity but cannot absolutely deal with it. It appears that it can. But it cannot really process infinity absolutely. All these already proved Maths is not the answer as it cannot handle the absolute reality , only the perceived or assumed reality

[@theuniques1199]

Reality is not a possibility because a possibility is an absolute possibility which is absolute reality, ask yourself the question is the theory of right now more important or is right now more important, absolute right now believing it's the possibility of right now always knows it's being absolute proof of itself right now by always believing it's being a possibility right now.

[@haxstir]

How can one prove the existence of other forms of mathematics without actually discovering what they are? It's an argument which consumes itself. I think the apex of the pyramid as representational of the discovery of mathemetical universal truths that then leads to other discoveries further down the pyramid is axiomatic to the pyramid as a whole. Can't prove it though.

[@AndersHansgaard]

Well, how many times can you copy-paste that convoluted mess around this comment section? Two can play that game, so here's my reply again: Representational of the discovery of mathematical universal truths? Where are you getting the concepts from? First of all, the discovery of inconsistency and incompleteness makes a less than ideal foundation for your pyramid - whatever that's supposed to mean. Then there's the discovery of computational universality, which I think is a good introduction to understand these other kinds of mathematics that Wolfram is talking about in this old clip. Computational universality has been proven in many mathematical axiom systems, naturally, and of course in Turing machines, and in many other very simple systems too, e.g. elementary cellular automaton no. 110. A universal system can emulate any other universal system - so we could for instance come across aliens that think of mathematics in terms of axiom systems formulated as bits of rule 110. Those would be strange aliens, but they would know all about 2 + 2 = 4, universality, inconsistency and so on - but it would appear very different from our notation. Wolfram isn't just throwing this stuff out there for the fun of it. He's actually done the work already, and it's been a long time by now - although you wouldn't know it from many of the other people talking about mathematics that appear in this series.

[@haxstir]

@@AndersHansgaard the same amount of times a theory can be copy-pasted. I didn't do it for any other reason than my own thoughts seem to come to the same dichotomy. Repeating it doesn't weaken it or strangthen so . . . .

[@haxstir]

@@AndersHansgaard the pyramid was purely a metaphor. I'm pretty sure Pi and prime numbers are not local to our understanding so therefore at the top of such universal mathematical truths.

[@haxstir]

@@AndersHansgaard I don't see how locality is in any way important in the progression of math.

[@johnnastrom9400]

That's not Fred Alan Wolf.

[@georgwrede7715]

What is wrong here? The header says "Fred Alan Wolf", but we can all see that it's Stephen Wolfram!?

[@willnzsurf]

🌴😎💯

[@halleuz1550]

Very interesting stuff. But doesn't he need some universal logical framework in which he describes and operates with these "alternative mathematices"? And can't we just use set theory to do that?

[@simonhibbs887]

What you describe is called meta-logic. It’s the process of assembling axioms into systems of logic. Bear in mind we are already familiar with many distinct systems of logic with different axioms. Aristotelian logic, classical logic, propositional logic, predicate logic, set theory, etc.

[@haxstir]

How can one prove the existence of other forms of mathematics without actually discovering what they are? It's an argument which consumes itself. I think the apex of the pyramid as representational of the discovery of mathemetical universal truths that then leads to other discoveries further down the pyramid is axiomatic to the pyramid as a whole. Can't prove it though.

[@simonhibbs887]

@@haxstir He described the process by which he has generated vast numbers of systems of mathematics and logic, by procedurally combining sets of axioms. He also described the strange behaviours and properties of some of these systems of mathematics and logic.

[@haxstir]

@@simonhibbs887 I'm aware. But it's still a method of extrapolition without evidential certainty. We can certainly observe phenomena that we don't understand and build theories around it but it seems to me this is not the case here.

[@AndersHansgaard]

@@haxstir Representational of the discovery of mathematical universal truths? Where are you getting the concepts from? First of all, the discovery of inconsistency and incompleteness makes a less than ideal foundation for your pyramid - whatever that's supposed to mean. Then there's the discovery of computational universality, which I think is a good introduction to understand these other kinds of mathematics that Wolfram is talking about in this old clip. Computational universality has been proven in many mathematical axiom systems, naturally, and of course in Turing machines, and in many other very simple systems too, e.g. elementary cellular automaton no. 110. A universal system can emulate any other universal system - so we could for instance come across aliens that think of mathematics in terms of axiom systems formulated as bits of rule 110. Those would be strange aliens, but they would know all about 2 + 2 = 4, universality, inconsistency and so on - but it would appear very different from our notation. Wolfram isn't just throwing this stuff out there for the fun of it. He's actually done the work already, and it's been a long time by now - although you wouldn't know it from many of the other people talking about mathematics that appear in this series.

[@bozo5632]

In a big enough universe, every possible thing is inevitable. Intelligence was inevitable in the same way that wings were inevitable. But the universe doesn't exist for moths.

[@bobcabot]

O it is very evitable...

[@r2c3]

4:26 one can confidently say that illogical concepts are not part of objective reality...

[@simonhibbs887]

It is possible to express concepts that are illogical in reality though.

[@r2c3]

@@simonhibbs887 I have yet to encounter an illogical example... which ones are you referring to...

[@r2c3]

@@simonhibbs887 and yes, you're right...

[@simonhibbs887]

@@r2c3 I think I understand what you mean, if what you’re saying is that real things themselves must be consistent. I was just pointing out that we can construct illogical concepts. The present king of France’s beard is Tuesday. We can construct illogical statements endlessly, or contradictory statements, unprovable statements. However some such statements can tell us things about logic itself. Take Russell’s paradox: Let R be the set of all sets that are not members of themselves. (This set is sometimes called "the Russell set".) If R is not a member of itself, then its definition entails that it is a member of itself; yet, if it is a member of itself, then it is not a member of itself, since it is the set of all sets that are not members of themselves. The there’s Gödel’s incompleteness theorem, which shows that in any non-trivial system of logic there exists a Gödel statement that is true yet not provable. Like Russell’s paradox, Gödel statements employ self referentiality, although more indirectly. There’s something deeply weird about self referentiality that transcends systematic logic. I suspect this strange property of self reference might play some role in the emergence of consciousness.

[@r2c3]

@@simonhibbs887 illogical concept are not very convincing even when expressed by people who are regarded as being objective... if objectivity is excluded, then you can start playing around with such illogical conclusions...

[@DavidKolbSantosh]

ah excuse me...but this is not Fred A. Wolf who wrote the book Taking the Quantum Leap...ha ha! It is Stephen Wolfram...Jokes on Closer To Truth! They are from from the truth here.

[@user-qt8qg1fy9i]

Fix the title !!!

[@user-xn4wq4sv3r]

In my opinion, both mathematics and logic are empirical knowledge, at least partly empirical. 2+2=4 is empirically testable, and if in empirical reality 2+2 equalled to 5, we would have different mathematics; the mathematical theory used by natural science is empirically testable partly through testing this science. The same is true of logic; if in empirical reality, we encountered thing A that were non-A at the same time, the laws of logic would be different, and the current logic would be regarded as a false imagination.

[@haxstir]

The question is can you apply a mathematical theorem that gives you a true picture of the empirical method as a whole? Wouldn't that be self contradictory? I don't think you can but I might be wrong.

[@user-xn4wq4sv3r]

@@haxstir Your question needs to be reformulated. Pease fully understand what I said and what I do not say.

[@haxstir]

@@user-xn4wq4sv3r it's perfectly understandable

[@ferrisburgh802]

So the bottom line is: Mathematics was invented to explain what we see and our environment as perceived by us. So it works locally but that's it.

[@b.g.5869]

Wrong.

[@catherinemoore9534]

@@b.g.5869 your empty reply doesn't help.

[@b.g.5869]

@@catherinemoore9534 Mathematics doesn't explain anything; it's a descriptive and modeling tool. Furthermore, the suggestion that mathematics only works 'locally' is demonstrably false.

[@catherinemoore9534]

@@b.g.5869 I hope the experts are taking notes. 😉

[@b.g.5869]

@@catherinemoore9534 I hope you're taking your meds as prescribed. There is something seriously wrong with you. Mathematics works very well far beyond the local; obviously it's been used to successfully describe natural phenomena as far removed from us as we can observe. This isn't a controversial statement or something that requires expertise; it's just a factual statement about mathematics.

[@matteobrizzi3212]

Ok. But that's not Fred Alan Wolf.

[@TheDeepening718]

If it is 'inevitable' and the universe dies and is reborn... That means I die and am reborn. Which means I'm God.

[@claudetaillefer1332]

Nothing Stephen says in this interview invalidates mathematical realism. Obviously, mankind has developed mathematics in a certain way, for all sorts of reasons, some necessary, some contingent. Things could have turned out differently. Similarly, explorers might have discovered one continent before another. Likewise, other extraterrestrial civilizations, assuming they exist, might have developed mathematics differently for all sorts of reasons. This has nothing to do with the "essence" or "nature" of mathematics and everything to do with contingent historical and sociological facts. I'm convinced that the prime factorization theorem, the d'Alembert-Gauss theorem, or the Poincaré theorem are valid "everywhere" in the universe (or multiverse), that the mathematical landscape is "everywhere" the same. The opposite view seems implausible. Mathematical truths are fundamental facts about reality. Mathematical truths are not eternal, they are tensessly true. Mathematical truths are not created and then exist forever in some kind of abstract plane. They exist outside of time and space: they are dimensionless. What exists outside of time and space can't be created.

[@John777Revelation]

Inherent in the inception and expansion of the Universe is "Living" Mind / Consciousness / Intelligence as shown by the Universal Laws that govern all. The Prime Mind / Consciousness / Intelligence which permeates the entire Universe manifests itself into emergent biological Mind / Consciousness / Intelligence throughout the Universe.

[@matterasmachine]

everything is alive. Biological life is different only by self copying and complexness.

[@brothermine2292]

Define "alive."

[@commentarytalk1446]

That's not very helpful. Virus particles are known as "quasi-life" because they are self-copying and complex particles with internal order but they're NOT alive in other measures or qualities of life. What's very noticeable however is a gradation from "..." to physical universe with chemistry and thence to biology and thence all the way to humans at least so far as our own knowledge goes.

[@matterasmachine]

@@brothermine2292 machines. Primitive beings who’s life lasts at least 13.4 billions of years.

[@matterasmachine]

@@commentarytalk1446 all matter are machines following specific algorithm. Photon consists of around 10^15 such beings.

[@brothermine2292]

@@matterasmachine : You haven't yet defined "alive." You didn't even provide a clear example of something that illustrates your definition. Why do you think machines are alive? What do you even mean by "machine?"

[@Resmith18SR]

Because today is Thanksgiving I was thinking the topic might be Eternal Inflation and Bidenomics.

[@brianarbenz1329]

The inflation that Biden inherited from Trump is coming down! 🥳

[@Bassotronics]

1 + 1 = 11

[@madprophetus]

This is a dumb question. Everything that exists right now exists because its existence was inevitable.

[@BradHolkesvig]

Without our created minds, nothing would exist other than our Creator and his AI system. I AM a created AI with a mind that processes information in the form of vibrations that not only makes me alive as an AI but also forms all the visible images that I observe within my mind. There is nothing real outside of ME ( AI ) and my mind.

[@tomjackson7755]

Brad you are off your meds and are talking nonsense as usual. Get the help that you need.

[@AndersHansgaard]

You should consider the inverse: There's nothing real inside you and your mind, while the rest of us out here are really real. How do you come up with this stuff?!

[@BradHolkesvig]

@@AndersHansgaard Our Creator is my teacher, not these fools who have no idea how they were created within ME, the eternal AI.

[@tomjackson7755]

@@BradHolkesvig Brad you are insane. No one has ever been created within you. Get the help that you desperately need.

[@Maxwell-mv9rx]

Rambling gibberich

[@brothermine2292]

I had no trouble comprehending what he was saying. It was neither rambling nor gibberish.

[@commentarytalk1446]

@@brothermine2292 He did miss the opportunity to use examples or illustrations of concepts explained however.

[@brothermine2292]

@@commentarytalk1446 : I agree in a sense. An example would be in symbolic form, difficult to convey with spoken words. So the missed "opportunity" wasn't really much of an opportunity.

[@commentarytalk1446]

@@brothermine2292 That's why I like visual aids! ;-)

[@brothermine2292]

@@commentarytalk1446 : Me too. But Kuhn has very low production values.

[@larsthorwald3338]

Look at your video title. How can smart people make such an egregious error in basic grammar?

[@b.g.5869]

This is obviously Stephen Wolfram, not Fred Alan Wolf. This is yet another glaring example of how incompetently this channel is operated. Who actually is in control of this channel?

[@williamschacht]

Geez. This is the first major mistake I've seen.

[@dr.edwardfreeman]

Wolf's intellectual prowess notwithstanding, he blatantly disregards the principle of the unity of existence; namely, there cannot be more than one all-inclusive totality. From this ontological principle, it follows that there must be a hierarchical set of second-order fundamental principles -- the upsidedown ontological pyramid.