Has Stephen Wolfram discovered a new fundamental theory of Physics? (041)

#StephenWolfram #TheoryOfEverything #Physics
Stephen Wolfram, Creator of Wolfram Alpha, Author of A New Kind of Science, discusses his new Project to Find a Fundamental Theory of Physics and more.
Over the course of 4 decades, Stephen Wolfram has pioneered the development & application of computational thinking. He has been responsible for many discoveries, inventions & innovations in science, technology, and business.
In this wide-ranging interview with Brian Keating, Wolfram discusses his decades in-the-making Wolfram Physics Project, his career, his philosophy & approach to science, his hoped-for legacy, and questions from the audience including whether mathematical beauty matter at all, or is it just falsifiability?
We also discuss his books New Kind of Science (2002), Idea Makers (2016) and Adventures of a Computational Explorer (2019). Show notes and resources available here: / an-interview-with-step...
Worksheet here: www.mediafire.com/file/igp7jd3...
0:00 Introduction
00:05:15 The Impact of Computers on his life
00:12:18 Prime Numbers
00:15:25 What he thinks he's good at doing
00:20:49 #WolframAlpha
00:21:30 The work he and his son did on creating a language for #ArrivalMovie
00:32:38:26 The first alien intelligence is really AI!
00:38:58 thoughts on #2001ASpaceOdyssey from his blog post
00:44:50 Cellular Automata & Complexity (1994)
00:54:50 Doom for the "Simulation Hypothesis" Thanks to the Physics Project
1:00:00 A New Kind of Science
01:14:54 Adventures of a Computational Explorer
02:06:39 How Steve Jobs convinced him to use 'Mathematica' instead of Wolfram Omega
02:32:02 A Project to Find the Fundamental Theory of Physics
Born in 1959, Wolfram was educated at Eton, Oxford, and Caltech. He published his first scientific paper at the age of 15, and received his PhD in theoretical physics from Caltech at the age of 20. Wolfram's early scientific work was mainly in high-energy physics, quantum field theory & cosmology. Having started to use computers in 1973, Wolfram rapidly became a leader in the emerging field of scientific computing, and in 1979 he began the construction of SMP-the first modern computer algebra system-which he released commercially in 1981.
In recognition of his work in physics and computing, in 1981 Wolfram became the youngest recipient of a MacArthur Fellowship. Wolfram then set out on an ambitious new direction in science aimed at understanding the origins of complexity in nature. Wolfram's first key idea was to use computer experiments to study the behavior of simple computer programs known as cellular automata. In 1982, this allowed him to make a series of startling discoveries about the origins of complexity. The papers Wolfram published quickly had a major impact, and laid the groundwork for the emerging field that Wolfram called complex systems research.
In 1986 Wolfram founded the first journal in the field, Complex Systems, & its first research center. Then, after a highly successful career in academia-first at Caltech, then at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton and finally as Professor of Physics, Mathematics and Computer Science at the University of Illinois-Wolfram launched Wolfram Research, Inc.
Wolfram began the development of Mathematica in late 1986. The first version of Mathematica was released on June 23, 1988, and was immediately hailed as a major advance in computing.The popularity of Mathematica grew rapidly, and Wolfram Research became established as a world leader in the software industry.
From its beginnings as a technical computing system, Mathematica has grown dramatically. It has been responsible for many important inventions and discoveries in a vast range of fields and industries, as well as being a central tool in the education of generations of students.
Wolfram has turned his attention to the development of a new fundamental theory of physics, wondering: ”What about our physical universe? Could it be operating according to simple rules?”
Pre-print version arxiv.org/abs/2004.08210
The Physics Project is described on his channel here:
/ @wolframresearch
Find Stephen Wolfram: stephen_wolfram
Find his TED talk here: • Computing a theory of ...
🏄‍♂️ Find Brian Keating on Twitter at / drbriankeating
🔔 Subscribe for more great content kzbin.info...
📖 Buy Brian's book LOSING THE NOBEL PRIZE: amzn.to/2sa5UpA
✍️Detailed Blog posts here: briankeating.com/blog.php
📧Join my mailing list: briankeating.com/mailing_list.php
👪Join my Facebook Group: / losingthenobelprize
Please subscribe, rate, & review the INTO THE IMPOSSIBLE Podcast on iTunes itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/i...

[@DrBrianKeating]

Show notes here: medium.com/@DrBrianKeating/an-interview-with-stephen-wolfram-has-he-found-a-theory-of-everything-fea7b8a80ed6

[@elaineharvey5990]

05202020 Note: WOLFRAM in 😏🤗 reverse MAR_FLOW

[@Yatukih_001]

Thanks for this wonderful presentation.He is basically describing what seems to be some kind of a map or a tree with branches. He is describing the map of modern physics.Welcome to the Post Global Warming period.Happy new summer of 2020!

[@lindsayforbes7370]

What an amazing man. Thanks for letting me listen to him

[@DrBrianKeating]

My pleasure Lindsay!

[@gx2music]

Woah. I didn’t know that Dr Wolfram was involved in “Arrival”. One of my favourite Sci fi films of all time. An absolute incredible film that I still watch to this day.

[@deanerhockings-reptilianhu8701]

Dang yes! Perfect timing! Well done on getting an interview with this chap at this moment!

[@DrBrianKeating]

Deaner Hockings - Reptilian Hunter Thanks I hope you like it!

[@gx2music]

This is why I love your channel Dr Keating - to connect with cerebral boosts like Dr Wolfram. His excitement about science is utterly infectious. Have shared with my daughter who is aiming for a science career after her A Levels next year. Thank you!

[@DrBrianKeating]

thanks so much!

[@mikeborrello2336]

Stephen, absolutely right. If you can learn to let go of your fear, creativity will find its way back. Thank you Brian for a great interview and the INTO THE IMPOSSIBLE series of podcasts. Helping to make quarantine life interesting and quite tolerable.

[@DrBrianKeating]

Mike Borrello Thanks very much !

[@Yatukih_001]

@@DrBrianKeating He´s an amazing personality and has with Dyson and others contributed significantly to the development of modern thought.

[@channelwarhorse3367]

Into the Impossible machine of Sir Issac Newton...I like IT INCH to equation 🏋‍♀️🏗😏

[@geraldt4946]

Thank you two for this. This was a great conversation that started a bit stiff. Once you two got matching, the points went across so fluently. This is a first time I happily see Stephan explain his theory to be outmatched by his competence. It may be perceived as cocky, but he is a mentor that you can only hope for. I would like to see more like this as the theory evolves

[@anandbalivada7461]

People talk about Wolfram's ego and some of the written stuff associated with him has reflections of it, but he seems very respectful in all his interviews and even says that his theory may fail and only generate some mathematics (lex fridman interview). Best part is that he talks about science almost the entire time and actually is open to holes in his theory rather than blatantly dodging the questions and endlessly criticising the existing theories or community and passing judgements about people. His ideas also deeply resonate with me...mathematics, computer science, physics have always seemed to me as inseparable and Wolfram's theory seems to capture it beautifully. Whether it's right or wrong it really captured my imagination unlike 6 dimensions of rulers and compasses.

[@bozo5632]

IDK whether Wolfram is right or not, but I agree with your characterization.

[@naimulhaq9626]

Why is his discovery not peer reviewed?

[@danellwein8679]

@@naimulhaq9626 it is being peered reviewed as the project unfolds .. especially the papers that are being generated from the summer school project ..

[@ViralKiller]

Even if he's wrong, the fact that the computational approach is far superior to the mathematical string theory approach is clear

[@yetanotherchannelyac1434]

Good to see some coverage here!

[@cullyx2913]

Absolutely fascinating

[@benjamindorsey2058]

Thank u wolfram! Ur work is critical to the world.

[@phutureproof]

So critical I will abbreviate three letter words

[@gx2music]

That teleportation question was fantastic. If you could reconstruct YOU right down to Planck level , does that doppelgänger think they are you? Even though they’ve only been “born” 5 seconds ago. Raises some big questions about conciousness and even religious aspects like “the soul”.

[@MartinHeyamBieleckiBigArt]

Absolutely good interview!!!

[@DrBrianKeating]

Thanks what was your favorite part?

[@MartinHeyamBieleckiBigArt]

@@DrBrianKeating Mr. Stephen Wolfram has a cool inclination to think quantumly -- I like that very much :D

[@gustafa2170]

I love listening to Wolfram!

[@DrBrianKeating]

He’s fun to listen to!

[@CandidDate]

He's got a good head on his shoulders. Wolfram will go down in history for that Mathematica site and language. But he wants more!

[@justice929]

Yes, I thought nobel laurate.

[@channelwarhorse3367]

Yes use the Einstein INCH equation 😃 Math to exists .. Penrose to manifestation 🌡

[@thefinancialtimes9907]

Loved it

[@RobRandolph80]

'If it's sufficiently alien, it doesn't resonate.' Jesus, how sadly true is that fact. In an age of inexhaustible mediocre content, quality is dismissed as an unintelligible outlier.

[@Yatukih_001]

Exactly. At first I thought this was about space and aliens and stuff but that is not true - your comment makes sense!

[@andybaldman]

Because the systems we have created favor mediocrity (e.g., capitalism). Quality that makes people happy doesn't earn as much as bland things that everyone can barely not hate.

[@ardalla535]

Much of what we see on YT makes me long for mediocrity. Have you watched Blackpink vids? Don't.

[@andybaldman]

@@ardalla535 Blackpink is basically selling sex to children. You're witnessing the downfall of society, where people are doing anything to make money these days (including printing it). Greed has consumed any idea of values or norms. The guardrails are off, and it's going to be a hard crash. Brace yourself.

[@harichard6366]

I'm not sufficiently versed on the technical stuff, but some of the criticism I've seen from the physics community isn't technical in nature but that Stephen is arrogant or something which should make no difference as to whether or not it is true.

[@gregoryhead382]

The mass for a black hole can be explained by entangling (m_e) to c, c^2.. and Hz, i.e. emerging from three fundamental constants.

[@channelwarhorse3367]

Wow .. 1935 .. 1905 .. use should understand the INCH equation: g = G Me / r^2 (1e -/+ Ef/Eo) r=c, G sub c is entangled to the swinging bucket per frame. TOE is mass and energy, only transferable 🏋‍♀️🏗😏

[@chuckjones9159]

I am a student of physics, philosophy and the occult sciences. I just wanted to state that astrology is one of the keys to the teachings of the mystery schools. Its "fortune telling" aspect has enabled the knowledge to remain hidden in plain sight in the public arena, much like tarot. The deeper aspects of astrology are akin to a form of symbology used to transmit the essence of the teachings. Unless you devote the time and effort to understand all of the relevant correlations and correspondences AND have acquired at least a basic knowledge of the other six keys it will likely always appear to be hocus pocus. Its real purpose is to convey wisdom not be a detailed predictor of daily life. Thinking it is useless would be like thinking physics is useless if you only knew how to add and subtract.

[@mechtheist]

When we reach digital life, when we have access to our programming and can twiddle the dials with little constraint, what will it mean to say "I love you"?

[@gx2music]

“The effort to get YOUR creativity out , that’s a big challenge” : Dr Wolfram. He’s so bang on there. There is so much untapped potential amongst the human race.

[@Zayden.]

Yes. When we really look at how the world works, unfortunately the vast majority are stuck in downtrodden lives of wage slavery. Unable to develop and express their intellectual/creative potential, because they lack the necessary time and resources. Only select lucky few even get a chance to get their creativity out there. This is why we need a socialist revolution and establish a new egalitarian social order.

[@openomniverse446]

I think Stephen's work is the most beautiful of the ToE group. That fact also makes me sceptical lol.

[@disruptive_innovator]

very cool. thank you both!

[@DrBrianKeating]

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

[@piinyapedpum9238]

An amazing man.

[@documenter4907]

Can you share the link to your Dad’s paper about understating relativity through Bat’s ‘eye’ view? @Dr Brian Keating

[@tensevo]

I have always been troubled when ppl tell me space and time are the same thing, now here is somebody who agrees "spacetime" is misleading.

[@TJ-hs1qm]

No one's suggesting that space and time are the same thing. Where did u get this from?

[@tensevo]

@@TJ-hs1qmtalk to a quantum physicist, most likely they will tell you space and time are essentially the same thing, if not the same thing, then the formulas don't work. It's quite mainstream, but still a disconnect since Physics has not been reconciled.

[@johnm.v709]

Friend, Space & Time are'nt same. Watch IJSR vol.7, issue 3 Pages 273-275 Particle details kzbin.info/www/bejne/pJ_Op6J_fd-nhtk

[@DallasMay]

The thing about the "sufficiently alien, it doesn't resonate" thing is that it's not on the Physics industrial complex to test his theories for him. Einstein's theories weren't accepted very quickly either. Not until the 1919 eclipse when Einstein proposed an astronomical experiment that would prove his theory correct or not. Wolfram needs to create his own experiment and publish it. The guy has got all the money in the world. IF he can identify a physical phenomena that his theory can better explain than traditional physics can, THEN you can bet the physics world would adopt his theories in a heartbeat.

[@Orionsbelt31]

Can we get Klee Irwin and Wolfram together?? Seems Irwin's work would benefit massively from the computational meets physics work done by Wolfram. Maybe I'm missing something?

[@bmoneybby]

I get the feeling people in the field don't take Klee seriously.

[@saxbend]

Wouldn't the anthropic principle explain why the universe we're in would have a simple rule? Wouldn't more complicated universes with much weirder conditions and circumstances be less conducive towards the evolution of life?

[@johnm.v709]

Spin of Indivisible Particle : Watch... kzbin.info/www/bejne/pJ_Op6J_fd-nhtk

[@NightmareCourtPictures]

According to Wolfram, and I would agree, is that no there would be no difference, only different for us as perceivers of the universe. The universe running all possible rules is anthropic, where the physics we describe, is because of our relation to how we experience the universe. So humans would anthropically discover the laws of physics as we know them…where as a dog and the doggy race would establish their own laws of the physical world, and they have those physical descriptions because they are dogs and not something else. It’s quite elegant…you can imagine the following: that in a complicated universe it is only complicated to us, but not to another kind of observer.

[@truthseeker3397]

Does anyone have a video that makes this point a bit easier? I'm listening, I hear he's made a big breakthrough but don't know enough to appreciate it. Can anyone help here?

[@VperVendetta1992]

His lecture at the Royal Institute is fairly easy to follow and understand, I'd suggest that.

[@channelwarhorse3367]

Use the opportunity of the Einstein INCH equation 😃 g = G Me / r^2 ( 1e -/+ Ef/Eo) r = c to the Neutrinos quarks as the waters molecule to tic tac above the Viz Qua by circles to line pi 🙄 😀

[@truthseeker3397]

@@channelwarhorse3367 ah that's what I was missing. Crystal clear now.

[@gariusjarfar1341]

Imagination a way to see reality.

[@Stadtpark90]

49:10 “it’s ceremonial” ;-)

[@davidwilkie9551]

Focused comprehensive Theories.. are constructive thinking about the context of Actuality in/of Methodology, which leads to Hypothesis, Theory, and Test by Experimental techniques, ..and this becomes Technology of an Application. It's all fluid/formulaic cause-effect, WYSIWYG computational methods from Conformal Cyclical Cosmological/Logarithmic Condensation Constants of e-Pi-i continuous creation connection in time duration timing modulation Principle, that is variation of the Spacetime "theme", compilations. All aspects of this process is subject to scrutiny and formal Observation, ..the convention of legitimacy in Principle, the holistic Actuality. None of which I have formally qualified reasons to apply.., other than naturally occurring QM-TIMESPACE Principle In-form-ation, Singularity positioning here-now forever Observational Perspective. Therefore, In My Worthless Opinion, (everyone has to think about it themselves), I'm going to say Darwin is eternally correct about new arrangements of Speciation in this, (emergent/bio-logical = reproducible under test/experimental sustainability-pulse), Multiverse/Principle of time duration timing modulation. The "cold reality", probability ONE in the flat space ground state of/in which the aspect that is Anthropic Principle, is a human "mathematical" discovery. "Teleportation" is continuous pure relative motion In-form-ation formulae of superimposed resonances of e-Pi-i interference positioning. The size of the jump referred to, to Mars, is irrelevant to Temporal Superposition-point Actuality. If the cells in your body go out of sync, then in stages.., you get tired and diminished in awareness, lose consciousness, sleep, and gradually shut down all the way to atomic dissonance. Exit that state of mind-body connection.., the distributed self continues as it always is, in aspects of the Multiverse and human Culture. (Gaia, "Ship" of Theseus? QM-TIMESPACE) Carry on Quantum Computing.

[@seymoronion8371]

What is your favorite dessert?

[@nicoledickens2366]

Oh that’s why futuramas professor made the smellotron! The writers read Wolfram!

[@prarobinson]

On language and signaling to aliens/future selves recall: repetition legitimizes. Certain kinds fail (see, quasars), and time-scale matters matters (messages have to meet us at our temporal ranges of operation).

[@prarobinson]

Also, check Derek Parfit on Why Anything, Why This? I'm not sure there's any difference between wondering why our universe might be described by some as-yet undiscovered rule and those we have already discovered. I.e., why is the fine constant what it is?

[@tensevo]

We can only describe the Universe with respect to our own personal frame of reference. Outside of that, the Universe could operate very differently. Even two individuals living on planet Earth cannot agree that they experience the Universe the same way.

[@Dystisis]

They can agree on what's occurring in all physical respects, provided they are honest and not high on subjectivist ideology.

[@ttmallard]

Another teaser ... Design for hi•mt rescue became an 'antigravity' machine by using fluid impulse vs thrust or lift. Spec: 4•ton pyld to 9k/-40C, no fuels or batteries, magnet motors & the biggie is no PROPWASH. To do that became a fluid impulse motor pointed up with a closed system to compressible & back, outlet to inlet re: Kirchhoff using Bernoulli. Jetboard: bit.ly/3aZlXZN Flying car: bit.ly/2sDYmfZ Math: bit.ly/30Cz7qO Ok, after Apollo they microwaved the dirt into a brick, put an antenna array to do that on a free-arm & it repels the arm from the dirt. The reluctance-repulsion puts a plasma-like energy force "shading" gravity from the spacecraft side [using antennas not magnetrons is the 'trick' to it]. I did the math. The fluid impulse motor then becomes pure acceleration, for SAR on Mt.Everest at 9km/-40C it's 7.5•tons/mtr a 6•mtr hovercraft lifts 3×(hover) for dynamics vs ion propulsion is a hairdryer for contrast. Magnets fade -10%flux/1000yrs, it's motive power. So, this doesn't use any esoteric, unknown physics to explain this sighting as a large "raft" of modules. I can answer any questions, it's all basic electronics & fluidics, putting it into a machine a wide open door. Cheers🍺

[@u.v.s.5583]

The thing with Boltzmann is that he is way, way, way more deep and fundamental than Einstein. In any universe where Einstein fails, Boltzmann will still hold true. It is thermodynamics, that is pure mathematics. So that was kind of a bad example.

[@jr8209]

OMG cant someone take one of the Brian stills and animate the mouth rather than do the slide show thing?!? It would be stupid funny

[@DFPercush]

Dr. Wolfram makes it sound as if he has successfully simulated the first moments after the big bang - has this actually been done? Is there a proposed algorithm in existence right now?

[@johnm.v709]

Spin of Indivisible Particle : Watch... kzbin.info/www/bejne/pJ_Op6J_fd-nhtk

[@sarahlight956]

Mr Wolf RAM( the working for life Wolf😊), Nature is a result of a very complex computation program of matter assemblage( space time organised ripples) with chaotic light interventions. In that regard, what controls the whole program is the photonic energy interventions because they break the computation program and direct it according to a chaotic unpredictable behavior. This has brought AI to its knees.AI do not control the program, it is an automate that obeys to cause consequence law but IS INCAPABLE of initiating any change in the program.

[@anthonyleonard]

The birth of a new word - smell·a·tiv·i·ty

[@chrisrecord5625]

So, what's been the overall reaction over the years to Wolfram's "Computing a Theory of Everything" that he espoused ten years ago?

[@Newtube_Channel]

It's a step too far with more holes in it than a piece of cheese.

[@naimulhaq9626]

Did I hear, this gut Stephen didn't even graduate?

[@chrisrecord5625]

@@naimulhaq9626 He was privately tutored until entered Caltech at 16. He received his PhD. from Caltech just after he turned 20. He also was a MacArthur Award winner.

[@DodgeThis]

I wish more people watched stuff like this versus politics and absolute trash.

[@georgepolychronopoulos647]

I never understood why not. My only explanation is because people aren’t exposed to it. My dad knows Dr. Wolfram so had it not been for that I have no idea if I’d ever been interested in any of the topics he’s devoted his life to. However wanting to know more about the theory of everything strikes me as a concept that everyone should and would be interested in

[@harichard6366]

I agree, but I wish people who were interested in this kind of stuff would get into politics.

[@urinater]

That’s such a Biden thing to say

[@Zayden.]

@@harichard6366 I am very interested in this, and am very active in politics, building the forces of Marxism. Wolfram's NKS is nothing but the deepening of the ideas of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky.

[@tensevo]

Good points. If you were an alien and stumbled across an abandoned shopping mall, with no products, you would just find buildings, with strange symbols and empty shelves and touch screen contactless pay points, you might think, what on Earth did these creatures do here? It must be some kind of ceremonial building.

[@Yatukih_001]

No such thing as alien or space.

[@jengleheimerschmitt7941]

Check. And. Mate. 🤣

[@rohanmagee6781]

This guy and Weinstein! Awesome let's hope we get some brand new physics

[@danellwein8679]

i agree ...

[@drednaught608]

@@Tbop3 It would be even more tragic if the true nature of the Universe itself is inherently unverifiable.

[@jeremiahmacclure]

Dr Keating is a stand up comic for physicists and mathematicians, very funny jokes

[@DrBrianKeating]

Thanks Jeremiah! I try. I like STAND UP COSMIC 😍

[@jeremiahmacclure]

@@DrBrianKeating Hmm, Stand Up Cosmology sounds like a good title for a book, just saying... :)

[@DrBrianKeating]

Thanks JM!!

[@fainaandyakovprager5465]

Dr. Wolfram says natural selection is not falsifiable. I am not sure he is right about that. Prof. Dawkins, I believe, has once noted that if we once find human bones together with dinosaur bones in the same unperturbed geological layer, that would have been a refutation of Darwin’s theory.

[@NightmareCourtPictures]

No he’s right about that. Not everything at all scales works based on selection principles, but typically everything does at some scale. The way one would actually describe natural selection after studying it is “system evolution” heterogenous systems after competing becomes homogenous over time at a larger scale, and the evolution stops. This is not a behavior that ALWAYS happens but it happens so much that it is self evidently true, just like the law of thermodynamics (in fact these are roughly the same thing) you don’t typically see the spilled water flow up the mountain, but it can happen according to the laws of physics. That doesn’t mean that “water typically flows down hill” is false because it could flow uphill in an extremely rare case. It is in this sense not falsifiable and more so a generic fact about systems and how they tend to behave most of the time.

[@ambivalentbard4808]

Audio is not good.

[@dhiahassen9414]

The sound is so low that it is challanging to hear

[@kish2934]

What’s great about Wolfram is that he’s given several falsifiable predictions of his theory. This is very unlike Eric Weinstein.

[@MadclintMusic]

Funny seeing useless people talking big whilst typing unnecessary commentary. Ungrateful losers that contribute nothing yet talks high and mighty hahaha. TRUTH HURTS BOYYY Einstein didn't predict gps, It was edge theoretical physics. I rest my case

[@clutchlesss1710]

All Eric Weinstein did was give a mathematical formulation on how it's possible for a "universe" to make itself. Please don't be ignorant, he never said he was correct either.

[@slightlygruff]

@@clutchlesss1710 he's neither correct nor incorrect. His work is to develop grit, not to explain anything

[@andybaldman]

@@MadclintMusic You're a douche. And your music sucks. Truth hurts.

[@PetraKann]

MAD CLINT anybody can propose nonsense

[@furorz]

How about just transmit the first 5 digits of pi, with beeps representing the numbers. Surely this couldn't happen spontaneously.

[@davetaitt1528]

I think when AI "realizes" itself, we will know it without doubt, because it will be devouring us.

[@yoshihiro2221]

His notion is too early to present human being. That's all. There should be so little people who understand his abstarct concept . In short, he is just making short path of human knowlege. Because he relized that not only we had done but we were doing were just calculating-behavior.(which made him be able to write a quantum paper per two weeks.) His notion is not diffrent or difficult but just deeper. Likewise falsifiability is not a strict concept to mathmatically abide by. Strictly, all of scientific theories are not axioms. so in deep deep levels theories, something like string theory or computational universe, are doomly not falsifiability in the very end. All we need to do is capitalizing it or making another better tools to develop our civilization.

[@JanPBtest]

But doesn't the Conway-Kochen theorem pretty much invalidate this?

[@Dragrath1]

No go read the material causality is an emergent consequence to Wolfram's computational system in fact it makes an even stronger case for causality as this model forbids time travel and quantum entanglement emerges directly from his theory

[@JanPBtest]

@@Dragrath1 But this can't be correct because the Conway-Kochen assumes only certian three axioms, two of which have been verified experimentally, and the third nobody seriously doubts in (I think it can be verified too, in principle). The point is, Conway-Kochen does _not_ assume quantum mechanics, it only assumes those three properties. So I don't think Wolfram can get around it.

[@Dragrath1]

@@JanPBtest The problem is that in Wolframs model those two axioms are consequences of an observers reference frame in Branchial space or the space of all possibilities remember the Feynman path integral becomes formerly equivalent to the Einstein field equations quantum mechanics is an apparent consequence of an observer being part of the frame not separate so in essence they aren't fundamental so the conclusion only hold within the frame which is trivial. So the Conway-Kochen isn't wrong per say but it isn't really telling you anything. The key here is that if Wolfram's model is accurate that quantum effects need to be thought of more in the terms of how two different observers in relativity can disagree on the timing of events or size of an object etc. The axioms of quantum mechanics and general relativity are not postulates in this model but consequences derivable and branchial space is no more real than physical space both of which are emergent properties of the comutational updating rules. This model has a lot of implications for example an isolated pure quantum state would according to this be equivalent to a black hole in Branchial space i.e. an isolated system is equivalent to a black hole. The details would probably depend on the exact rule or rather set of compatible rules due to computational irreducibility but this should be testable and it is fascinating and worth investigating regardless.

[@roxxcoroxx498]

ok so as a non-physics person what do i care about or want to know? The "something from nothing" question is still #1 in my average human understanding. Quantum Fluctuation doesn't satisfy....it's too little...lol.......or is the question too big?

[@jengleheimerschmitt7941]

You're really giving Karl Popper short shrift here... His Falsificationism doesn't have anything to do with prohibiting modifying or fine-tuning ideas after negative results.

[@gariusjarfar1341]

Fundamental physics, what a mystery, have we numbers and geometry we us to measure what we see. Waves of energy emanate from a place we can't see, energy that creates structure that becomes our reality. Wolfram enters this reality with a geometry that echos Fibonacci. Have we the 5 eyes, 3.14159, 2.618, 1.618, time and mind, yet fiscal reality occupies our mind. These 5 structures defy the dark sparkling place we call entropy. Consciousness constructs mass, consciousness is the boson we seek that interprets torsion field energy.

[@theduke65536]

Hard to watch, too many gratuitous face shots, but did listen :)

[@MitchelHumpherys]

Lmfao the headshots were killing me

[@TheMemesofDestruction]

2:22:02 - We possess the one thing God does not, limit.

[@StephenPaulKing]

What if the universe simply can not be described finitely?

[@seymoronion8371]

Then the question becomes: Is the journey more important than the Destination.

[@gx2music]

Regarding computational models - the most visual way of a ordinary person seeing progress on this is the video game industry. Look at weather simulation in games. The AI being used that controls the bots against you in Call of Duty. The increasing realism of ocean waves and sea shores in open world gaming. On and on and on. These are all computational models getting increasingly complex. And it’s being used in gaming.

[@STaSHZILLA420]

Such a wild thought to know you'll never reach the future. No matter how hard you try. Present time is the singularity in which we surf through the universe.

[@Ender_FPV]

Jeeeeze Wolfram it's puff puff pass!! Leave some for the next guy wouldya?

[@paltieri11]

🍾

[@wulphstein]

Maybe physics acts more like physics than it acts like math.

[@silberlinie]

So, here we have one more, who would like to upload himself. Interesting. If this wave of desperate people, who can realize many of their goals and end up with the realization of their limited life, if the wave of these people is constantly increasing. Then the realization of their seemingly unthinkable wish is inevitable.

[@CeBePuH]

So... any testable predictions?? Or is this like the string theory that is impossible to verify through any kind of test?

[@dmitrysamoilov5989]

only hypothetical tests that take a collider the size of the solar system to probe, no less than String Theory

[@dmitrysamoilov5989]

@Boston is my race track it's not rubbish. the question is a philosophical one. is mathematics more basic or is computation more basic. wolframs idea is that computation is actually a more basic "function" of the universe from the mathematical equations we use to explain it. I think it makes a lot of sense, albeit on a very very meta conceptual level. what makes me believe it the most is the fundamental-ness of time. no previous theory comes close to satisfyingly include it into their frame work. stephen wolfram's does. it breaks down time into its component. literally no other scientific theory about the origins of our universe does this.

[@dmitrysamoilov5989]

@Boston is my race track i see, well maybe you know more about the subject than I do. what field of physics research do you "have your money on"?

[@dmitrysamoilov5989]

@Boston is my race track ok, i did some research on feynman's backwards time traveling virtual particles. it seems as if what you're saying doesn't negate the concepts proposed by wolfram. have you read the wolfram "manifesto"? www.wolframphysics.org/technical-introduction/basic-form-of-models/basic-structure/#p-75 i'm not a scientist, but i have a strong feeling, that what he is proposing is still compatible with everything that QED states about virtual particles and time travel. what is your understanding of this "hypergraph approach"?

[@dmitrysamoilov5989]

@Boston is my race track p_p

[@naimulhaq9626]

An Unitary evolution of the Schrodinger's wave function is the simple rule that created everything in the universe. But the algorithm of the evolution is beyond mankind and belongs to the divine design, ensuring determinism, eliminating randomness/chance, when a series of conditions emerge without fail, creating life, soul and consciousness etc. We will never know the algorithm.

[@ralphclark]

The question of why this particular universe has been actualised is a mistake. Every possible universe has been actualised, so far as its inhabitants are concerned.

[@Newtube_Channel]

There are just too many assumptions here. Our scientific experience and understanding of things is very limited. It's interesting that we should have complete access to nature and yet our fundamental knowledge of it is incredibly limited given that we have to go to vast lengths to formulate theories. I wish he would refrain from joining together half baked ideas from physics. Much of physics is really a collection of special cases of incomplete if not wrong, ideas. A phenomenon like cellular automata has other analogs too. These sorts of things are repeatedly observed in dynamical systems. It isn't anything new. But what we consider to be complexity is really an open question. The universe in all its form is a similarly analogous question in its entirety. I don't believe it's possible to answer these types of questions without stepping out of what we consider to be the universe. It's a somewhat uniqueness/regularity problem.

[@Yatukih_001]

Exactly. Science is a religion and all it does is it advertises its business. Its why we still have the Church of Scientology. The Wolfram physics project is a description of Wolfram´s knowledge and everything he has discovered in the past years.Happy summer!

[@kjekelle96]

Awesome conversation! (compare that to Trump and that lot, what a messed up time we live in...)

[@WizardSkyth]

However I approve of Wolfram's work, even though grossly unoriginal in essense, but respecting his dedication, his thesis on computational (ir)reducibility is rather banal ... just like all of the reductionist science.

[@hihihihihello]

just cause you turn physics into bean counting doesnt make it something new and ground breaking. anything can be turned into math too. wow you counted stuff cool. doesnt mean ANYTHING.

[@rg3412]

Brian, you are stuffing too many questions in your question for the guest. I’ve noticed this on several of your interviews. Just pick one, the rest will follow.

[@tensevo]

Most physics works because it is a self-referencing tortology, like an echo chamber. No question it works, but it works, because we make it work for us, not because it is that way Universally. For example, F=ma, we define the SI units and say when we multiply m by a, we have Force. Of course it is because you just defined it to be that.

[@Newtube_Channel]

Quite right. Just one basic step where the right type of questions fail to be asked. Instead everyone's touting theirs' in a mishmash of everything.

[@danielstump3204]

No, it's not that simple. F = ma is not the only definition of force. There are other "definitions" from other experiments. For example, F = G m1 m2 /r^2 is the gravitational force. It's when we combine these two "definitions" of force ( two equations) that we learn something significant: The planets revolve around the sun in accord with Kepler's data.

[@tensevo]

@@danielstump3204 Yes, but you work out G, the constant, from experimental data which happens to be data we can measure from our part of the Universe.

[@tensevo]

In other words, G is only a universal constant to us. It works for us, until the formula breaks at the very large, very fast and the very small.

[@l.rongardner2150]

@@danielstump3204, sorry, gravitation is NOT a force; it's an epiphenomenal effect. Come up with another example.

[@BinaryReader]

One thing that bothers me about Wolframs claim he discovered that simple programs can create complexity is that John Conway demonstrated that with his Game of Life. The complexity was part of the puzzling nature of the game of life. I wish Wolfram would provision that when talking about Rule 30.

[@channelwarhorse3367]

What does he do with Albert Einstein INCH equation, is not theory ?

[@NightmareCourtPictures]

In his book he does. But the thing is, the game of life is just one rule, out of an ocean of rules just like it which is what Wolframs book is about. In other words the game of life is just one of a subset of the set of all possible rules and how they behave.

[@ThumbDr]

This was soooo creepy how it just cut to that Indian guy and like a hundred pictures of him with his shirt half unbuttoned like wtf lol. Why even do a webcam interview if you’re not on webcam

[@wulphstein]

Does the physics community think its important to prepare PhD students to discover the gravity propulsion drive? Warp drive technology?

[@channelwarhorse3367]

Einstein's INCH equation is published 🏋‍♀️😏 G sub c the neutrinos quarks to water molecules have r = c event horizons to the 3rd plane of action 🎬 😀

[@wulphstein]

@@channelwarhorse3367 Nothing comes up on google about an Inch equation.

[@channelwarhorse3367]

@@wulphstein Relativity Applications of Mass is published book by Troy McDermott, Universal Engine Application... umm..here: g = G Me / r^2 (1e -/+ Ef/Eo) r=c ♥ G sub c .. the water molecule has an Event Horizon as does the neutrinos, to reactive frame of reference 😀 the 3rd plane .. manufacturing the machines, the Newton impossible, challenging to retrain people to use the INCH to technology, Public Law applied to Energy Invention .. paired with Presidents obviously enjoy the INCH equation, is not theory 🙄

[@channelwarhorse3367]

@@wulphstein okay #inchequation

[@channelwarhorse3367]

No I do not, manufacturing beneficial technology using the INCH equation since 2007, Double Gravity Engines Process .. they are not interested 😒 in your step beyond General Relativity to Relativity. Why deviate from the path of Math? Climate change is real .. beyond the Math poems for those that try, thank you 😊

[@user-cn4qb7nr2m]

I'm not an expert, but my basic face recognition ability goes crazy around 1:15:00 . "Lies and deceit!!" - I hear from it.

[@jakekenner1386]

The whole scientific enterprise as epitomized by modern physics is flawed since it's based on giving a mathematical or computational description of whatever can be perceived. Scientists can't even talk about things scientifically without talking about what can be perceived, but their discussion about what can be perceived then requires them to discuss the nature of perceiving consciousness, which they can never do. It's scientifically impossible to discuss the nature of perceiving consciousness since it's nothing perceivable. If perceiving consciousness was itself something perceivable, that would create a paradox of self-reference that would make the whole scientific description logically inconsistent in the sense of the Godel incompleteness theorems that prove a logically consistent system of computational rules can never prove its own consistency. Perceiving consciousness proves the consistency of the computational rules by perceiving them, which means its true nature can never be reduced to computational rules without creating a logically inconsistent paradox of self-reference. The upshot is that perceiving consciousness is itself nothing perceivable, which makes the whole scientific enterprise a waste of time if we're trying to explain the nature of meaning that's given to the perceivable world. The nature of meaning is best epitomized by the second law of thermodynamics, which says a life-form, which is a form of information that is self-replicated in form in a recognizable way as that form is animated, can only become self-replicated in form if its entropy decreases, which requires the entropy of the life-from and its environment to increase as the self-replicating form incorporates organizing potential energy of attractive forces into its form while it also sheds disorganizing thermal energy into the environment. That is how all life-forms are self-replicated in form in a recognizable way. That's what we call life, which inherently requires the life-form to eat potential energy and to shed thermal energy into its environment. The self-replication of a life-form in a recognizable way is indeed described by computational rules that govern how information is organized into form. The problem is the nature of the perceiving consciousness that is recognizing that form cannot be described by computational rules. That kind of scientific description would create a logically inconsistent paradox of self-reference. All meaning is given when perceiving consciousness recognizes a form of information that is self-replicated in form in a recognizable way. The problem of recognition and giving meaning is not a scientific problem since the nature of recognition can never be reduced to computational rules. Recognition and the giving of meaning is inherently a property of perceiving consciousness that can never be described scientifically since its true nature cannot be reduced to computational rules. See the Science and Nonduality Website: scienceandnonduality.wordpress.com/ or read the PDF documents: scienceandnonduality.files.wordpress.com/2020/05/what-is-real-1.pdf scienceandnonduality.files.wordpress.com/2020/05/all-movies-are-a-footnote-to-the-matrix-3.pdf scienceandnonduality.files.wordpress.com/2020/05/the-story-of-consciousness-1.pdf

[@l.rongardner2150]

Yes, science is limited in the sense that it only describes what can be perceived (objects and their effects). But scientists are the new priests of society, so people naively think that their pontifications on what can't be perceived is somehow uniquely profound, when it's not.

[@gariusjarfar1341]

I'm sure Brien looks forward to profiting from the misery of other dimensions, like he does from you and me.

[@enlongchiou]

F-E=V=n(n-1)(n^2-5n+18)/24+1-(n(n-1)/2=n!/(n-m)!/m!+1 for Atiyah’s index theory to 12!/4!/8!+1=496 of beta function of string theory of everything correspond to automata cellular.

[@ematarkus4121]

?

[@yodrewyt]

21:04 I stopped listening here because of the endless prefacing/digression/know-it-all run-on sentence. Next time, please just ask your question.

[@seferkeshet]

"HEY GUYS, GUESS WHAT, WOLFRAM EVERYTHING!!!! WOLFRAM THIS. WOLFRAM THAT. I'M RENAMING THINKING THE PROCESS OF COMPUTATIONAL WOLFRAMMING. NOT SURE OF WHAT TO GET YOUR LOVED ONE FOR VALENTINE'S DAY??? GET HER A WOLFRAM." - STEPHEN WOLFRAM OF WOLFRAM WOLFRAM

[@javiersanchezdelabarquera4879]

Spoiler: no

[@PhysicsPolice]

1:30:00 This guy love to talk about what "people don't know" and "people never do" and what physicists "seem not to have figured out". Someone should really tell him those are all straw men.

[@OneEmanation]

PhysicsPolice you really are the physics police aren’t you?

[@OneEmanation]

PhysicsPolice regardless, he is clearly not saying that not a single person “knows” or “doesn’t do” or “hasn’t figured out” but rather that he was ahead of the consensus, which he absolutely was and still is.

[@PhysicsPolice]

MrHashtagMinecraft hahahahah! no he wasn’t. (That which is presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.)

[@OneEmanation]

PhysicsPolice you’re either a troll or confused. Not worth my time.

[@PhysicsPolice]

@@OneEmanation you're the one trolling replies at me, bro.

[@domcasmurro2417]

This guy is an ocean of vanity. Is some kind of anti-Freeman Dyson. I bet if he find some new particle by accident, he is going to name it after him.

[@gx2music]

He was writing peer reviewed papers at age 15. By age 14 he had three books published on physics. When you are at that level , and haven’t burnt out in later years , I think you are entitled to have some particles named after you.

[@mateus6387]

@@gx2music can you give me those references? Did not anything so early in his carrer.

[@janisakson3064]

A new theory of everything? Sounds strange.

[@channelwarhorse3367]

Einstein the INCH equation is not Theory.. is the TOE ruins all theories because it is math to Law of Formula, mechanical r = c event horizons as mass is energy content transferable.

[@AKAKiddo]

I tried reading Wolfram's book, A New Kind of Science, but had to stop. Absolutely amazing that someone can be so egotistical. Every other paragraph was unabashed self-aggrandizement. Like he invented cellular automata. Then you get professors like this one lauding him more. It's 10% science and 90% self-promotion. It's a new kind of science alright. The science of promoting yourself and making money.

[@AlfaOmegaViewer]

No.

[@enterprisesoftwarearchitect]

Is it just me, or is Wolfram just ripping off John Conway’s Game of Life (Celular Autómata)?

[@inthefade]

"Rip off"? Not quite. He continued research along with countless other mathematicians in cellular automata. Wolfram is very important and respected in that niche field. For example, he made the conjecture that "Rule 110" is Turing complete in 1985, which was proven true later. He gave the keynote address for a cellular automata convention (online) earlier this year.

[@enterprisesoftwarearchitect]

I read the book "New Kind of Science" when it came out. LOTS of things are Turing complete. Compared to the importance of his AI work, making a Ricci Tensor in Minecraft isn't so exciting.

[@NightmareCourtPictures]

@@enterprisesoftwarearchitect the game of life is just one rule, and what wolfram did was study a huge class of rules to see what they did and classified their behavior…where game of life sits in one of those classes. This was centrally what the book was about: studying whole classes of different rules. Based on the study of them came the second part of the book which is the generic principle that states why they behave in that way being: mostly all systems are computationally equivalent. I’ve studied his work and the stuff surrounding this subject and without a doubt this stuff is revolutionary and true. I mean what more proof can you need then to enumerate all possible rules to make a scientific claim about their generic behavior.

[@enterprisesoftwarearchitect]

@@NightmareCourtPictures I read his “a new kind of science” years ago. I am mostly joking. But his rules are discrete and local, among other things. Constructor Theory (Deutsch and Marletto, Oxford) have a science of rules that include continuous and non-local phenomena as well.

[@enterprisesoftwarearchitect]

He mentioned that some of his rules are Turing Complete, but the universe could easily be non-computational (Penrose, “The Emperor’s New Mind”)

[@andybaldman]

Why is our normal scientific process insufficient to vet these theories? If they're legit, they should be able to suitably predict things about the universe, and experiments can be designed and performed to test those hypotheses, just like any other scientific investigation. What more is needed? Why do we need endless podcasts with people self-promoting these theories of everything, when there's already a process for vetting theories about the world?

[@NightmareCourtPictures]

If you study physics you’ll realize that physics has backed itself into a corner with reductionism. There is a fundamental limit as to how deep we can probe the world. There has to be an extension or complete modification to current science. Also anyone that studies biology or complex systems knows that the wolfram model must be right. Everything points to it and physics is only now starting to notice the connection (black hole information, and holographic principle) If you do some searching, look for Gerard Thoofts cellular automata interpretation of quantum mechanics, Nima Arkani’s spacetime is doomed lectures and susskinds work on complexity and gravity. They all are pointing to the wolfram model just under the shroud of confusion that is particle physics.

[@andybaldman]

@@NightmareCourtPictures That's all well and fine, but it doesn't address my original statement. If his theory is correct, shouldn't it be a matter of proving it using the scientific method?

[@NightmareCourtPictures]

@@andybaldman I mean it is already the scientific method. New Kind of Science was a publication of the experiments he did with cellular automata... what he did was enumerate entire classes of rules to see what they did and how they behaved. Enumerating means testing all possible outcomes of a particular problem. For example if you wanted to figure out how the "food" works, then you enumerate all possible recipes, and take a look at the generic behavior for what "food" is. From these experiments, he came up with a principle that explains why these programs behave the way that they do, and that is through his principle of computational equivalence : That (almost) all systems are computationally equivalent. The meaning of computationally equivalence is based on a proof of Turing universality in these rules...that these classes of rules are capable of simulating each other and so on. The problem is that the proof for turing completeness is pretty much flawed because it ignores arbitrarily long encoders (initial conditions) and other parameters that are well...arbitrary and useful only for how we humans need to make use of computers... and so Turing completeness is a proof that ignores the way NATURE would categorize the behavior of programs...regardless, he still proved that rule 110 could simulate a Turing Complete system, and that therefor the rule set of the elementary cellular automata rules (0 - 255) are universal. The physics project, is a result of his experiments with cellular automata. So this follows the scientific method, and once he builds his theory, he can reasonbly test it (as he said a number of times in the video) and personally, i've already put into practical application the implications of his physics project (called multi-computation): it works, it is universal and that is what one can consider independent verification. In fact i would claim that Wolfram's physics project is more scientific method then any current physics right now because most experiments right now can't be independently verified...just tested millions of times (LHC) and Wolfram's project actually allows independent entities to validate it (because it's implications are universal and applicable in multiple fields of study) Cheers,

[@truthteller4689]

The answer is no.

[@OneEmanation]

Truth Teller why do you say that?

[@dustinirwin1]

@@OneEmanation There is absolutely nothing of substance coming from this. Nothing testable, and doesn't it concretely explain our observations. It's self promotion. It's 1 shade short of the fukking electric universe story.

[@OneEmanation]

dandelion dandelion 1) it does make testable predictions he’s mentioned a hand full 2) it really doesn’t seem like you understand his theory because his framework, whether it is the final answer or not, has provided a beautifully elegant way of thinking about relativity and quantum mechanics as the same emergent mechanism. It’s all very well documented in over 1000 pages with a dumbed down introduction you can go read. Now just make sure to keep in mind that just because you aren’t equipped to understand his theory, has zero bearing on its validity.

[@slightlygruff]

if sn says ok every other word, he's probably wrong

[@apburner1]

This is about as good as any flat earth theory I have heard...

[@Kalumbatsch]

Short answer: No. Long answer: No.

[@seymoronion8371]

Flippant answer: meh . . . Disclaimer: I haven't watched the video yet and therefore can't/haven't formed a real opinion on it, as of this posting. Just didn't want to let a good joke go to waste.

[@Psnym]

Been following Wolfram’s project all year. Many assertions, few proofs.

[@Kalumbatsch]

@@Psnym The only thing he's ever done that's of any significance is sell a computer algebra program. The rest is delusions of grandeur.

[@mechanicaltimi123]

Young people do not work. They sit around and do not work. Old people work. There's a big problem there. When we look at the new models which Stephen has suggested, they look fairly okay. I like the idea of a computational system. We can apply that to who should live and who should not live. What else do we need a system like that for? Should we get humanity off of the earth? Or is this all going to end up making a system where people take advantage of other people. I want you to see that you describing a system where people take advantage of other people. Neither of you are capable of getting food for yourselves or you families. Why cant you solve the problem of good for everyone. You want to solve the problem of good for you. Its wrong. It will backfire. EDIT he always says its embarrassing. So then my question is why. Why? Why is it embarrassing?

[@pedrol.mammini4940]

Personally I think Wolfram is very isolated from the actual cutting edge physics research, absolutely nobody working on the most fundamental fields of physics (QFT, Cosmology, Matter Physics, etc) thinks he's onto something, and at no point bothers to legitmately prove why he would be right. It's overalll a very weird situation where somebody wants to work as a scientist without having thte education or formation to do it.

[@sa0o923]

Imagine saying Stephan Wolfram, a guy who wrote his first paper on particle physics at age 15, and got his PhD at age 20, and spent his life creating tools that are used by physicists to further their research, doesn't have the education to do it.

[@pedrol.mammini4940]

@@sa0o923 how did a 15 year old write a peper about particle physics? and if he did that he would be a world known scientist, not the creator of a Wolfram Mathematica