How to derive quantum mechanics from Wolfram Physics with Jonathan Gorard

[@nuprophett]

My intuition tells me that Wolfram physics is one of the best current tools that we may have for deepening our understanding of quantum physics. Even this video goes such a long way in explaining 'why' quantum physics appears the way it does to us without the need to invoke hand waving. I sincerely hope that the project gains (or already has) enough traction to keep going and receieve broader acceptance as a legitimate lens for evaluating the universe. There are already brilliant mind working on this, but there is a critical mass of exposure that a theory must achieve for it to continue on, even after its core founders and believers move on, that I hope Wolfram Physics reaches. I hope that humanity does not discard this diamond because it was not mined in the traditional bedrocks of knowledge.

[@lasttheory]

Yes, I really hope this breaks into the mainstream more. Jonathan Gorard is working on that!

[@lasttheory]

@@MikeFuller-ok6ok Good question, thanks Mike. I think I part ways with Stephen Wolfram on the question of consciousness. If I understand him correctly, he sees consciousness as involved in the collapse of multiple paths through the multiway graph to a single timeline. I think that's conflating two concepts that may have nothing in common: 1. "Consciousness" is the word we use for what it's like to be ourselves. I don't think anyone understands where that "what it's like" comes from (why is it like _anything_ to be me?) That's why we call it the hard problem of consciousness: we don't know the answer. 2. The collapse of timelines - or, in traditional quantum mechanics, the collapse of the wavefunction - is another hard problem. Again, we don't understand what causes this. Simply saying that the answer is "consciousness" just doesn't do it for me: it's like saying that the answer is "phlagistikon", without having any idea what "phlagistikon" is, other than that it's what collapses timelines. So, to answer your question: I think we need an account of what an observer is, or, rather, what an observation entails; but I don't think consciousness is going to be a necessary concept here. Stephen Wolfram would disagree with me!

[@lasttheory]

@@MikeFuller-ok6ok As you can tell, Mike, I enjoy talking about these things! I'll take a look at the microtubules, sounds interesting. Thanks!

[@tommysullivan]

You are my new hero!!!!! So much of what you’ve just said in the first half has gone thru my mind. As a scientist I hesitate to say it but I really have a good gut feeling this is where the answers are, this philosophy and approach, u all are awesome thank u so much for sharing this!

[@lasttheory]

Yes, Jonathan Gorard is amazing, isn't he. I know what you mean about a good gut feeling about this: I felt the same when I came across Wolfram Physics. Thanks Tommy!

[@thedouglasw.lippchannel5546]

Try learning CIG Theory

[@GPP_feature42]

I thoroughly recommend viewers familiarise themselves with some information about the Ruliad, hypergraphs and how Wolfram physics developed. It certainly helped me appreciate Jonathan's explanations. Thanks to all involved 👍💛

[@lasttheory]

Yes, thanks! Stephen Wolfram has a _lot_ of content out there, and I'm slowly working to make videos on all the fundamental concepts. I agree, it's worth the effort to dig deeper into this framework!

[@M-dv1yj]

It’s bunk. They can’t translate to a single prediction or simulation. It’s a dropping of the handling of the observer element into a bigger pot of shit than it was already. His and what’s his faces Weinstein’s . Both take the mistakes other theories make with the observer and base their theories on that, beyond double down. Nope it’s as bad as string theory. And as good. Meaning it’s a great exercise in math not of physics

[@Sam-we7zj]

Mind blowing. This is so much cleaner than say many worlds. When will the mainstream catch up?!

[@frun]

Many worlds are simpler.

[@Sam-we7zj]

the universe is splitting into branches of different thicknesses and there are copies of everyone? that's simple to you? many worlds is physics doing gymnastics so it doesn't have to deal with the observer @@frun

[@frun]

@@Sam-we7zj Yes, many worlds are much simpler as a concept. There is no thickness in many worlds. I didn't say it's my favorite interpretation, though. I prefer ensemble interpretation/superdeterminism.

[@lasttheory]

I tend think of many worlds more as a philosophical idea than a scientific theory. (It seems infalsifiable to me.) The power of Jonathan’s approach here is that it’s a _scientific theory_ of the observer. I don’t think we’ve had that before.

[@Zeuts85]

​@@frun It seems to me that "many worlds" would just be an emergent consequence of a complex, multi-way system. "Many Worlds" isn't really a theory, but a prediction--in the same way that "black holes" aren't a theory, but a prediction of general relativity.

[@stormos25one]

Such a good video! Thank you again for every one of these!

[@lasttheory]

Thanks, as ever, for watching!

[@peterhall6656]

Wow. Thanks for listing Jonathan's papers. I want to get my mind around this stunning insight.

[@lasttheory]

Thanks Peter!

[@matthewcox4621]

This is amazing! His mannerisms match Stephen Wolfram's so closely. They've clearly spent a lot of time together discussing computational irreducibility 😂. Brilliant interview!

[@lasttheory]

Thanks Matthew!

[@entropica]

Less often restarting a sentence with "OK".

[@GoatOfTheWoods]

@@entropica Ok, so, ok.

[@joshux3210]

Great video. Btw, I wish there's a long form interview

[@lasttheory]

Thanks! I’m slowly working on putting these excerpts together. if you’d like to watch them all back-to-back, there’s a playlist you can go to: m.kzbin.info/aero/PLVwcxwu8hWKnRQLPvKyvn7L206vTY6jt2

[@erawanpencil]

To a simple-minded fellow like me, this all just seems like swapping out synonyms in a different lingo... but the paradoxes/measurement problem remains. Is there a simpler way to explain what Wolfram's position is or does it necessarily have to be in his specific language?

[@lasttheory]

Great question. I'm still working on wrapping my head around this one. My hunch is that the Wolfram model _does_ present a different view here, and _does_ have the potential to solve the observer problem. Once I'm done wrapping my head around it, I'll put out my simplest possible explanation of how the Wolfram model differs from the conventional interpretations of quantum mechanics, with all their paradoxes. Thanks for following along!

[@zandere1]

@@lasttheory If you could really derive quantum mechanics Wolfram's model, it would solve that problem. But it doesn't. Sorry, but this is just click bait. Which problem *do* you actually solve in quantum mechanics with this supposedly "new kind of science"? Can you predict spectral lines? Photoelectric effect? The Stern-Gerlach experiment? Anything? I don't see anything physical explained here be this theory, no explanations, no formulas, no predictions of observable effects? This is about the fifth video I see about "Wolfram physics" (if you want to call it that way) and I haven't seen anything in the real world explained by it or predicted, which what physics is essentially all about. Just hand-waving and "... has the potential to solve..."

[@davidmcsween]

So the collapse at smaller than plank scales means hidden variables? Not so hidden anymore just unreachable? Is this the ether by another name?

[@lasttheory]

That's a great question, thanks David. I'm afraid I don't know the answer, but I'll ask Jonathan next time I get the chance. I think this is a crucial issue for Wolfram Physics: is it a hidden variables theory, or does it have a fundamentally different approach to quantum effects?

[@das_it_mane]

It seems it would be if it operates below the planck length and what coarse grained version of what's occurring we can measure won't really appear different to us and if it's at such a level that we don't have the computing power to simulate up to a length that we can measure, our world would be hidden from it and it's world will be hidden from us. We would interact on completely different scales.

[@finnegon16]

what about conflicts in superpositions larger than the resolution of the coarse graining? how are those resolved if the systems are to merge?

[@lasttheory]

Yes, another great question. in fact, it’s the crucial question: how do large-scale, branching creatures like ourselves observe the branching universe? I don’t know the answer to this question, but it’s something I’d like to explore with Jonathan Gorard next time I talk to him. Thanks for asking, it helps guide my conversations!

[@VladislavGoryachev]

I am an IT aficionado now studying Bitcoin protocols. Blockchain is a way to order events when there is no universal concept of time. I like to think that the universe is being bootstrapped in a similar fashion, and that process creates relativity and quantum paradoxes. I love Wolfram's ideas, but I find it unlikely that some external force is applying the rules regularly and simultaneously to all nodes and edges of the multigraph. I would rather consider that the evolution propagates locally by each node to its surrounding. Much like in colonies of microorganisms. Of course, such decentralized evolution would be much harder to formalize, study and simulate.

[@lasttheory]

Yes, I agree, the simultaneous application of rules everywhere in the hypergraph seems wrong. Stephen Wolfram has moved away from that, though. It was really only a convenience to generate pictures of hypergraphs. Now the focus is on the multiway graph: considering every possible application of a rule, or set of rules, across the hypergraph. This appeals far more to my intuition, and, by the sound of it, yours too. Thanks for the insightful comment!

[@nealesmith1873]

Markovian evolution

[@davidmcsween]

​@lasttheory or its still a block universe and time is an illusion in which case the hypergraph would be geography.

[@david_porthouse]

So how do probability distributions destructively interfere with each other? I’ve made a suggestion. Any other ideas?

[@lasttheory]

I haven’t gone that deep into Jonathan’s research on this yet, but it’s a great question. I’ll ask Jonathan next time I speak to him. Thanks for the prompt!

[@MarkAhlquist]

13:45 Okay, but, in quantum mechanics they sum up infinite possibilities of particle behaviors, as most 'average out'. Maybe do something similar here?

[@lasttheory]

Thanks Mark. I've yet to dig into the details of Jonathan's idea of completion rules, so I can't really comment on this, but I appreciate your sharing your idea!

[@light8258]

Is the coarse-graining by observers related to the uncertainty principle in a way? Because if coarse-graining means equivalencing different branches of history, a human can always invent some kind of technology to make even tinier processes visible, potentially undoing some of the completion rules. But it seems like there is a limit to microscopy because of the uncertainty principle. So is that the level at which coarse-graining is happening? If that's the case, my problem with that would be, why exactly is coarse-graining happening at that scale, because if it depends on the observer, why isn't it already happening at a larger scale and could other observers with other completion rules look at even tinier processes, potentially enabeling us to bypass the uncertainty principle? Since I don't know anything about the completion rules, they seem kind of arbitrary.

[@lasttheory]

These are good questions, and I don't know the answers. I could speculate, but better still, I'll ask Jonathan next time I talk to him. Thanks for the prompt to dig deeper here!

[@light8258]

@@lasttheory Thank's for your work! By looking at Jonathans paper on QM I already figured out, that branchlike hypersurfaces are superpositions of eigenstates of the multiway system and if you have branch-pairs, these can be merging or non-merging, which relates to states being commutative or non-communtative. The commutator is defined as the distance between the state AB and the state BA (which is AB-BA which is the commutator) in the branchlike hypersurface. To obtain the uncertainty principle, Jonathan then defines unit distance as iℏ, so if branchpairs are one unit distance (in branchial space) apart, we have AB-BA=iℏ and if they merge, we get AB-BA=0, which means they are commuting. So the uncertainty principle has to do with the order of measuring and if the measurement-order changes the outcome (non-merging case) or does not change the outcome (merging case). But I still don't see exactly how this can be incorporated in the idea of coarse-graining. Anyway, hope you keep doing interviews with Jonathan Gorard, his clarity and subject knowledge is incredible!

[@lasttheory]

@@light8258 You're way ahead of me! Thanks for the pointers!

[@Burglecutter]

This kid is incredibly intelligent.

[@lasttheory]

Yes, Jonathan's so fluent when he talks about these things!

[@Burglecutter]

@@lasttheory I think he shares that with Stephen.

[@berniethejet]

Have Gorard or Wolfram addressed Scott Aaronson's various critiques of the Wolfram model?

[@lasttheory]

Yes, good question. Jonathan Gorard, at least, has admitted that Scott Aaronson’s critique has some bite. But I’m not sure the critique that Wolfram’s model could fit _anything_ is entirely justified. Gorard’s derivations of quantum mechanics and general relativity seem extremely promising to me. And if I were presented with the currently accepted understanding of these two theories and the Wolfram model’s approach, without knowing which was which, I’d say it’s the latter that seems a sounder approach. Time will tell, but knee-jerk rejections of this new approach seem to me to be somewhat closed-minded.

[@fabienleguen]

Could some one provide a link pointing to a description of Scott Aaronson critiques of Wolfram model ?

[@lasttheory]

​@@fabienleguen The best resources I've found where Scott Aaronson puts his critique in his own words are: • 24-minute excerpt from Tim Nguyen's interview with Aaronson _Refuting Eric Weinstein's and Stephen Wolfram's Theories of Everything_ kzbin.info/www/bejne/rZWQYXaFgbJrpcU • Aaronson's review of Wolfram's 2002 book _A New Kind of Science_ scottaaronson.com/papers/nks.pdf Aaronson's critque focuses on the Bell inequality. In the excerpt he says that Wolfram's latest approach in his 2020 book _A project to find the Fundamental Theory of Physics_ seems more promising in terms of capturing quantum mechanics, the Bell inequality included. Hope that helps!

[@ZygonesBzygones]

no

[@mmjxtragood6528]

When did the universe get it's first observer?

[@lasttheory]

Good question. When the universe began, and was tiny, consisting of only a few nodes and a few edges, there were no observers, in any sense of the word that would be recognizable to us. And now, billions of years later, there's at least one observer, me, and maybe others, such us you. Which means that the universe probably has to work without observers, since it probably got its first observer quite late in its existence so far. As to _precisely_ when the universe got its first observer, I'd answer that in the same way as the question of when it got its first lifeform. These can't be binary things: one moment, the universe has no life, or no observers, and the next moment, it does. Your question helps keep any theory of observers honest: it can't be a binary, must-have element of physics.

[@DrEhrfurchtgebietend]

One thing that he glazes over here a bit is that he's talking about how the wave function collapse happens at a point in time. The wave function collapse can cause an event in the past. It's about squeezing all of the things together such that they're consistent. If there's something that is undetermined in the past until that time, that thing will then be determined

[@lasttheory]

Yes, there's much to work out here. I'm not sure whether Jonathan has a fully-formed theory of the observer, but I'd like to dig deeper with him on this.

[@mrpocock]

Not a physicist, but... if the observer is this operation that in some sense imposes equivalences over the raw network, then does that mean there's some analogue of entropy in play here? Different observations will correspond to smaller or larger collections of network states, and different next observations likewise. So there will be some internal pseudo-entropy process that drives sequences of observations to tend to be in some sense progressing in a typical pseudo-entropy nonreducing manner. And if you flip all the time arrows on the underlying graph, this same pseudo-entropy will likewise push the observer towards higher pseudo-entropy observations from lower pseudo-entropy ones. Whatever way you flip this notional arrow of time, the observer will experience it running "forwards", where the observer has some kind of access to "past" events and only some bounded prediction of "future" events, due to this pseudo-entropic bound on how the observer is bulking over the individual network states. In effect, the arrow of time reduces to the observer being "governed" by the pseudo-entropy statistic tending to be monotopic, even for random walks of the underlying network of states.

[@lasttheory]

Thanks, Matthew. I confess I need to dig deeper into Jonathan's derivation of quantum mechanics to be able to comment here. And I have a whole bunch of questions to ask Jonathan the next time I talk to him! Hoping I'll have some answers here soon.

[@mrpocock]

@@lasttheory Thanks. As I say, I'm not a physicist, so I may be talking utter nonsense.

[@ZygonesBzygones]

@@mrpocock everything is set up to give the physics we already know "in the limit" (actually, several limits are involved, and the whole thing is rather delicate) and so the standard discussions regarding entropy, phase space, and the arrow of time apply

[@benbennit]

When / how can we prove this theory? It seems it can fit current physical laws and interpretations in... but can it predict or spit out new laws that we can test? It feels so foundational you cannot output complexity without knowing the rules of a system first. Yes, so some things emerge beautifully, but has anything sprung up that we don't expect or can be recreated or investigated in a lab?

[@lasttheory]

This is a crucial question. Unfortunately, we're not there yet: there's a long way to go before the Wolfram model can give us any concrete predictions. But Jonathan does have some ideas of the _kinds_ of predictions that might come out of the model. For example, we might be able to predict fluctations of space from perfectly three-dimensional that could not be explained by general relativity. Another example, we might predict differences in the various emissions from the collapse of a star into a black hole due to the discreteness of space that couldn't be explained with a continuous space.

[@benbennit]

Thank you. It's a fascinating subject, it feels to me that this is the right direction. Does it not follow that this hypergraph model be fed back into an AGI with the examples we know. Then use emergent behaviour to discover connecting patterns, rulesets and possible implications. You would essentially only have to tie current theory together, not be wholly original but experimentally viable.

[@lasttheory]

@@benbennit Yes, the idea of using artificial intelligence to find emergent behaviour from the hypergraph is an intriguing one. I wonder whether the sheer scale might make it hard to do: we don't know how much larger particles are, for example, than nodes and edges. Still, some kind of automation/AI will surely be better equipped to parse this complexity than we are unaided! And yes, I agree, simply making sense of what, right now, isn't very well tied together would be a real achievement.

[@LukeKendall-author]

Surely you'd only need to add an infinite number of steps if the universe is infinite rather than finite?

[@lasttheory]

That's exactly right. Which suggests that the universe is finite, according to the Wolfram model, at least, since imagine a computation with an infinite number of steps is an extravagant idea! Thanks for the comment, Luke.

[@gnagyusa]

Fascinating idea. There's a lot of overlap with Many Worlds.

[@lasttheory]

Yes, absolutely. I'd like to dig deeper into the similarities and differences between Jonathan's ideas about quantum mechanics and the many worlds interpretation. Thanks for watching!

[@dadsonworldwide3238]

So is Wolfman trying to use the chaldean / classical model to then build his framework in qauntom physics so that it gives rise, emergence or derives that feedback? For examplr Kinda like string Theory really wanting to be a deterministic classical dictation or manipulation of the qauntom evidence? Or is it a situation where he simply uses qauntom physics for what it is and to hell with trying to appease human dashboard equations?

[@lasttheory]

Thanks for the question. If I had to characterize Stephen Wolfram's approach, I'd say it's fundamentally bottom-up. He has an intuition that a computational model can give rise to the complexity we observe in our universe, and has chosen a framework, based on applying rules to a hypergraph, and, with Jonathan Gorard, has shown that it does indeed correspond to some of what we observe in the universe, e.g. general relativity and aspects of quantum mechanics.

[@dadsonworldwide3238]

@@lasttheory thanks

[@victoratanasov9680]

I do not see this theory producing any new prediction that can be experimentally verified. Actually, what are the new predictions it makes?

[@Sam-we7zj]

I don’t think it’s complete enough to make predictions yet. But sounds interesting enough to investigate. Also foundational physics had been stuck for half a century. Nobody is making new predictions.

[@NightmareCourtPictures]

Yes, there are a lot of things that it predicts. In order to even understand why, requires knowledge of the wolfram model… because the wolfram model is not fully panned out yet, predictions are just conjectured (like how they conjecture a possible variable speed of light, higher dimension measurement close to time of Big Bang or maximum entanglement speed) But I’d say where most of the prediction and experimental proof is going to come from for now is through the framework of the model and why it’s possible to use it in to analyze and create everyday systems. Multi-computation for instance being the new paradigm of how to approach system creation and analysis to do maximally efficient computing…such as molecular computing. You can find stuff from people like Micheal Levin that already shows that this is going to be the next stage of how humans create things and get things done. There’s a massive slew of stuff that I’m not getting to but all I can say is that you have to study the wolfram model more and understand what it is so you can see what the implications actually are, especially when you take the proof by exhaustion experiments and the PCE that he derived from them as true (which is self evident)

[@lasttheory]

Yep, as the others on this thread say (thank you both!) there’s quite a way to go until we have firm predictions from the Wolfram model, but there are plenty of ways in which these predictions _could_ differ from physics as we know it. I’d like to do a video on this question soon.

[@eriklintsev]

​@@lasttheorycould be something quantum falling into black hole or dark matter turns out to be not exactly 3D matter region

[@lasttheory]

Yes, exactly, thanks Ilya. There are many possibilities where space might depart from three dimensions. A star collapsing into a black hole might be one. If we can detect and analyze the different emissions from such an event, we might be able to prove that space isn’t uniformly three-dimensional, or even that it’s discrete rather than continuous. If the Wolfram model is able to predict these discrepancies, that would be a huge step forward.

[@wonseoklee80]

Still wondering this is quite similar to the many world explanation: the universe is happening all the way it can and we observers only see on our perspective. Maybe technical breakthrough but philosophically similar.

[@lasttheory]

Yes, thanks Kevin, there are similarities to many worlds, for sure. I need to look into this deeper, but I suspect Jonathan's explanation is, in the end, different, philosophically, from many worlds. One difference is causal invariance: for small differences in the order of application of rules to the hypergraph, the result for large-scale observers like ourselves is the same, so we don't need quite so many worlds in this model.

[@wonseoklee80]

Thanks for the reply. Yeah I get that point, maybe this could be a better theory than many worlds, also it gives more fundamental understaing of all of these phenomena.

[@yellowfish555]

what is an observer?

[@lasttheory]

This is a great question. The conventional interpretation of quantum mechanics has no answer: the observer collapses the wavefunction, but there's no definition of what an observer _is._ I believe Jonathan Gorard is looking to create a model of quantum mechanics where the observer is _within_ the hypergraph, not outside of it, _branching_ just as the hypergraph itself is branching. There's a long way to go before we'll know how this might work, but I'm hoping to ask Jonathan more about this in my next conversation with him.

[@Achrononmaster]

@3:30 I believe that is not true. To make measurements an apparatus could break entangled pairs, the apparatus does not become entangled. Qubits in the apparatus may of course become entangled after the measurement, but that's *_after_*_ the measurement._ Also, it makes no sense whatsoever to speak of a "measurement device being entangled with a quantum system". Entanglement is monogamous, it can only be generically between two individual quanta. It is very, very difficult to entangle all the quanta of a system one-one with quanta from the measurement apparatus.

[@lasttheory]

Right, yes. If we think of quantum entanglement according to the Copenhagen Interpretation, then yes, the measurement collapses the wavefunction and breaks the entanglement. What Jonathan’s proposing, however, is to move away from that interpretation, where the observer collapses the wavefunction, towards one where the observer is _part_ of the system, branching along with every other part of the system. It’s a radical departure, I know, but it seems enormously promising to me!

[@MrBajaJunky]

At least on some level this theory should be equivalent to the ordinary many worlds interpretation. It still is a useful video since also in many worlds you have to explain what is really going on but it is doable just using the Schrödinger equation. As I understand it the "multiways" are equivalent to the branches in many worlds.

[@lasttheory]

Right, yes. It's interesting the similarities and differences between the multiway graph in the Wolfram model and the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. I should do a full video on this. Thanks for the comment!

[@phsenus]

Hey guys, I have a question and I would really appreciate if someone familiar with the theory could take it up, even just to tell me that it's a stupidly framed question or has no applicability to the theory: If we are observers that perceive ourselves as consistent over the passage of time, is there anything we can derive from the theory about the nature or the behavior of observers that perceive another kind of consistency such as for example consistency over space. One example of this that I can think of would be a ray of light. It has a (potentially infinitely long?) progression over space that can be followed consistently, yet it feels no time so surely doesn't have notion of consistency over time. Could you construct an observer that in a sense "lives" on a light ray or some other structure that does not impose a notion of consistency over time? And if yes, what can we say about the properties of such an observer? Thanks in advance to anyone who can help! ❤

[@lasttheory]

Thanks for the question! There's a lot there. I'm not sure how to answer your question fully, but here's a start. What do you mean by an _observer?_ It's a crucial question in physics, given that the observer is, by definition, part of the universe being observed. Stephen Wolfram's concept of a consious observer is based on the collapse of multiple paths through the multiway graph to a single timeline. So right from that definition, there's an asymmetry between time and space. I'm not sure, given this definition, that it makes sense to think of an observer as perceiving consistency over space. Rather, an observer, in Wolfram's concept, makes sense of _time._ However, Stephen Wolfram _does_ have the idea that different observers perceiving the universe in different ways according to their positions in rulial space. In other words, interpreting the universe in terms of the application of one rule gives a very different idea of what it's like than interpreting it in terms of the application of another rule. I don't pretend to understand this deeply, but maybe Wolfram's approach promises an answer to your question?

[@phsenus]

@@lasttheory Thanks for the answer! Okay I understand that a concept of time is somewhat part of the definition of an observer. However, and I think that's also what you mean by the last paragraph in your answer, what we perceive or define as time might be somewhat arbitrary and other observers may perceive other things as progression of time than we do. Maybe similar to holographic ideas the ruliad itself can be seen as a static object and only be traversing through it - possibly in different ways - can one get a concept of time. Anyway, I'm excited to see what further developments will bring here!

[@williamschacht]

Has anyone determined if the mind operates algorithmically/computationally? If it turns out that the mind does not operate algorithmically, wouldn't this put a "damper" on the Equivalence Principle?

[@drdca8263]

What do you mean by “operates algorithmically/computationally”? Now, personally, I believe that “scientific materialism” is false (in that I believe there is such a thing as souls and such), but, when studying physics, the typical working assumption is that it is true, And it is believed that all finite physical processes could in principle be simulated on a powerful enough computer. So far, there doesn’t seem to be any strong observer-independent evidence to the contrary. (Though, I might suggest that there is subjective evidence against scientific materialism... but, hey, what if the behavior of souls and whatnot can, in principle, be simulated?)

[@williamschacht]

@@drdca8263 What the hell is a soul? Read Penrose's book. The mind can't be described in terms of algorithms.

[@philipm3173]

Check out Michael Levin.

[@williamschacht]

@@philipm3173 The biologist? He has a paper/book claiming that the mind can be simulated with an algorithm????

[@philipm3173]

@@williamschacht Levin has pioneered study of how bioelectric networks display various levels of intelligence. He is exploring the realm of basal intelligence, as "a precursor of brain-like processes, which reveals not only evolutionary pivots between two different problem spaces, but also shows a path to solving the problem of collective intelligence across scales of organization." (Levin 2023, Bioelectric networks: the cognitive glue enabling evolutionary scaling from physiology to mind) Biological computation has a very different means of operation than silicon so you can't just overlay some preexisting system of Boolean logic from digital computers. Hope this helps.

[@NamelessOne22]

Yup

[@hypercube717]

Interesting.

[@OlleMattsson]

Having ones mind blown like this is imho the whole point of being here.

[@lasttheory]

Couldn't agree more, thanks Olle. Jonathan blows my mind every time I talk to him!

[@PankajDoharey]

Who is this genius?

[@duncankilburn7612]

The notion of 'wave-particle duality' is easy to explain in terms of a 'computer algorithm'.

[@philipm3173]

Sure if you want an ad hoc with no support other than a flimsy comparison

[@RichardGoldwaterMD]

Two being the only even prime number, I infer there is an adjacent universe based on the irreducibility of duality. Observer.observed are a dyad.

[@ZygonesBzygones]

Not really a derivation, though. Sort of, kinda, getting the same thing, knowing what you are supposed to be aiming for.

[@lasttheory]

Yes, there's a long way to go, for sure. Knowing what we're aiming at is inevitable, I'm afraid, but I don't think that's a strong criticism. After all, Einstein knew what he was aiming at when he gave his account of the photoelectric effect or predicted the precession of Mercury. That's the whole point of physics: we know what the universe is like, we come up with a coherent theory to model it.

[@JAYMOAP]

I disagree with him. You see, when you have a particle spin, polarisation angle let's say 90 degree or pick any number, when you deform your system your expected value will shift out of this expectation value. So you get a state which is our of phase from the expected let's say 12 degree. So you have an expectation value of 90 degree but your measurement show 102 the deformation can change just as your phase, so you can get different values across many measurements while you know it has to be 90 degree. So you try to tune the phase back towards the expectation value. With this you correct an error. The reason I present you this way, because it explains to you better why we always forced to approximations against uncertainty. It's not about time reversal and coarse graining or equalence but we calculate degrees of freedom between expected values and how much your measurement out of phase

[@Unidentifying]

Where are the equations?? 🤦🤦 "Wolfram Physics" ... probably one of the most conceited and embarrassing things I have ever heard or read, wow

[@lasttheory]

Where are the equations? That’s a great question. The thing is, Wolfram Physics is a new paradigm. The prevailing paradigm is mathematical, based on equations. Wolfram’s new paradigm is computational, based on rules. But if it’s equations you want, they _are_ needed to map Wolfram Physics to our existing theories. in the case of quantumyy mechanics, you can find Jonathan Gorard’s derivation, complete with equations, here: www.complex-systems.com/abstracts/v29_i02_a02/

[@ZygonesBzygones]

@@lasttheory "The prevailing paradigm is mathematical, based on equations. Wolfram’s new paradigm is computational, based on rules." sorry man, that is facile gibberish, and where you start to go wrong is that you have not yet fully grasped what mathematics is all about. this is not the first, nor will it be the last, attempt to posit some sort of granular or discrete structure that yields what is already known in the suitable limits - fair enough, that's the game, and it is not an easy one; several Nobel laureates have given it a go without fully convincing results (which is enough to make me look for less steep pastures elsewhere!) one of the things I liked most about the WPh project is the bit where they estimate, very roughly, at what spacetime scale their granular structure (hypergraph nodes) is to be situated, and they worked out, what, it's like 50 orders of magnitude below Planck. Perhaps their arguments can be generalised to provide bounds on any kind of attempt at discrete spacetime. but my point is, you've got to understand where the proof of the pudding lies you see, what these guys are setting up is in fact a mathematical structure (otherwise how could it yield the sorts of things you think of as "being mathematics" in these limits?) and what makes the whole thing worthwhile is whether working within this structure _makes certain interesting questions more tractable_ (by the way, I am fine with _just what constitutes an interesting question_ undergoing some revision or evolution along the way) and that's where it falls down, for the moment, and probably until this one peters out in a couple years time; SW and his mates are smart enough to know that they have to begin by defining a fairly broad class of models (they use the term _models,_ and although I have some reservations regarding how that may mislead the uninitiated, I am fine with it) in order that they have sufficient "flex" to play with. And SW is not fully a crank, and so he is not proclaiming that the ultimate physics is to be found within this class of models - although come on, he must harbour a pretty strong hope or hunch that yes, such will be the case, since otherwise why bother? but anyway, the broadness of this class of models is just the headache; getting an analytical handle on discrete structures is just very difficult; running simulations and tentatively categorising the results based on ad hoc defined properties is as good a heuristic as any to formulate conjectures that may be turned into theorems (and remember: theorems are the tools of the trade that we really require to make interesting questions more tractable), but simulate-and-classify has been SW's go-to move ever since his CA work back when he had all his hair, and yeah, sorry I just don't see the project making the sort of headway that it would require

[@lasttheory]

​@@ZygonesBzygones Sorry to hear you don't think the Wolfram model will be a successful approach! It sounds like you have a good grounding in the philosophy of science, and you know that ways of looking at things shift. Sure, you can call this framework "mathematical" if you like. Stephen Wolfram, Jonathan Gorard (a true mathematician) and I prefer to call it "computational" to highlight some of the differences from the traditional approach (e.g. discrete iterations rather than continuous equations). But this is just semantics. I hope you'll take a deeper look at the Wolfram model, particularly Jonathan's papers. Yes, it's difficult; but dismissing a whole approach because it's difficult, without taking a deeper look, would mean never making any progress in physics.

[@Dr_LK]

Until it can generate predictions that can be proved or disproved through observations, all this is nothing more than chit chat.

[@lasttheory]

I’d like to gently push back on that, Lucas. _All_ new scientific theories begin as speculation, lacking predictions. If we refused to countenance _any_ theory that doesn’t immediately make predictions, then _none_ would ever get off the ground. I have much more to say on this: let me know what you think of my next video, which’ll be specifically about predictions. Thanks for the comment!

[@nealesmith1873]

Very interesting! It stimulates the imagination. Maybe the universe generated the graph at the start and humans appeared on some branch, they observed and the graph collapsed to evolve humans. Otherwise we probably would have gotten stuck with bacteria or maybe cockroaches!

[@lasttheory]

Yes, this is where physics gets really mind-blowing, when you _really_ take on board that the observer is bound by the same rules as whatever's being observed. I'm hoping to do much more on this subject, just as soon as I've wrapped my head around it a little more! Thanks Neale!

[@aleksandarvolchev7818]

This is how would advanced aliens sounds to us if we make contact lol

[@lasttheory]

Right, yes, it's not easy to grasp these ideas, is it? Thanks Aleksandar!

[@banditulnoptii]

Please stop intrerrupting the discourse of your guest only to nod and say "yeah", repeatedly and without any purpose. It's extremely annoying and it makes your videos almost unwatchable for me. Intrerrupt them only if you have something important to say, a contribution to the matter in discussion, otherwise it's just something repetitive, as irritating as a Chinese drop, and it blows away the concentration needed to follow and understand the often complex matters in discussion.

[@lasttheory]

Sorry for the excessive interruptions. The cuts to me do serve a purpose: they cover over the video cuts I'm making to tighten up Jonathan's speech. But I can understand how the repeated "yes" can be irritating, and I'll reduce them in future. Thanks for watching regardless, Nick!

[@Derek_Bell]

Not one single formula given.

[@lasttheory]

Thanks Derek. You're right, my channel aims at explaining these ideas in the simplest possible way, often visually (in my solo videos), without too many formulae. But if it's formulae you're after, Jonathan Gorard has plenty of them! Take a look at his paper _Some Quantum Mechanical Properties of the Wolfram Model_ www.complex-systems.com/abstracts/v29_i02_a02/ which has 159 formulae!

[@chaoticmoh7091]

This sounds like another whackey theory like the rest of them all

[@lasttheory]

It's difficult to discriminate between all the weird ideas out there, isn't it? This one is more compelling than any I've heard in my lifetime, though. Being based on computation rather than continuous equations, it's very different from the current paradigm. If you're interested in giving it a chance, try my playlist on the basic concepts kzbin.info/www/bejne/pZrOeouHbcp9rdU

[@RiotSociety666]

You are wrong 😂

[@lasttheory]

Well, yes, absolutely, there's the possibility that Jonathan, and I, are both wrong about everything we're discussing here. I'm sure Jonathan would be the first to admit it. But are there specific things you think we're wrong about? It'd be good to talk about them!

[@RiotSociety666]

@@lasttheory 👌👌👌

[@jezza10181]

All of this is way over my head ...

[@lasttheory]

The quantum mechanics in particular is really har for me to wrap my head around! But I’ll be taking all the concepts mentioned by Jonathan and making simpler explanations on this channel… with images and animations! I hope these will help!