Jonathan Gorard: Quantum Gravity & Wolfram Physics Project

Jonathan Gorard joins Theories of Everything to delve into the foundational principles of the Wolfram Physics Project. Additionally, we explore its connections to category theory, quantum gravity, and the significance of the observer in physics.
Consider signing up for TOEmail at www.curtjaimungal.org
TIMESTAMPS:
00:00:00 - Intro
00:02:28 - Interview Begins
00:11:21 - HD Model And Constructor Theory
00:22:27 - Set Theory and Category Theory
00:33:52 - Algebraic Structure
00:55:47 - Causality and Computational Irreducibility
01:07:54 - General Change and General Relativity
01:19:05 - Scientific Publishing
01:37:42 - The Problem with Entropy
02:03:34 - Stone Duality
02:26:16 - Science and Spirituality
02:48:00 - Limitations Of Computational Models
02:57:21 - Outro
Support TOE:
- Patreon: / curtjaimungal (early access to ad-free audio episodes!)
- Crypto: tinyurl.com/cryptoTOE
- PayPal: tinyurl.com/paypalTOE
- TOE Merch: tinyurl.com/TOEmerch
Follow TOE:
- NEW Get my 'Top 10 TOEs' PDF + Weekly Personal Updates: www.curtjaimungal.org
- Instagram: / theoriesofeverythingpod
- TikTok: / theoriesofeverything_
- Twitter: / toewithcurt
- Discord Invite: / discord
- iTunes: podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast...
- Pandora: pdora.co/33b9lfP
- Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/4gL14b9...
- Subreddit r/TheoriesOfEverything: / theoriesofeverything
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @theoriesofeverything
LINKS MENTIONED:
- Iceberg of String Theory: • The String Theory Iceb...
- A New Kind of Science (Stephen Wolfram): amzn.to/4cDFCyb
- Podcast w/ Stephen Wolfram on the Wolfram's Physics Project (Round 1): • Stephen Wolfram: Rulia...
- Podcast w/ Stephen Wolfram on ChatGPT (Round 2): • How Dark Matter & Ai W...
- Podcast w/ Stephen Wolfram on Observer Theory (Round 3): • Solving the Problem of...
- Podcast w/ Chiara Marletto on TOE: • Paradigm Shift, Ghost ...
- Gravity is NOT Curvature: • The String Theory Iceb...
- Blog Post on Observer Theory (Stephen Wolfram): writings.stephenwolfram.com/2...
- Richard Borcherds on TOE (Round 1): • Richard Borcherds: Mon...
- Richard Borcherds on TOE (Round 2): • Richard Borcherds: E8,...
- Podcast w/ Eric Weinstein on TOE on Geometric Unity: • Eric Weinstein: Geomet...

[@TheoriesofEverything]

Consider signing up for TOEmail at www.curtjaimungal.org TIMESTAMPS: 00:00:00 - Intro 00:02:28 - Interview Begins 00:11:21 - HD model And Constructivism Theory 00:22:27 - Set Theory and Category Theory 00:33:52 - Algebraic Structure 00:55:47 - Causality and Computational Irreducibility 01:07:54 - General Change and General Relativity 01:19:05 - Scientific Publishing 01:41:42 - Gas Kinetics 01:53:10 - Interesting Results 02:03:34 - Stone Duality 02:26:16 - Science and Spirituality 02:48:00 - Limitations Of Computational Models 02:57:21 - Outro

[@user-on3hb4ex7h]

I owe you a coffee... Thanks for the work...I am writing the book!!! Can't wait to send you a copy in 8 weeks!!! Calum McNeil

[@djbabbotstown]

This channel is absolutely outstanding. Your name is popping up everywhere.

[@TheoriesofEverything]

Thanks! Where is it popping up? @@djbabbotstown - Curt

[@djbabbotstown]

I believe it was a stream discussion on the Active Inference Institute channel. I can’t remember the exact stream I’m afraid.

[@____uncompetative]

The Wolfram Physics Project should not be replaced by "Hypergraph (Rewriting) Dynamics" although that it more descriptive as it not Jonathan Gorard's place to rename a project that was started and is funded by Stephen Wolfram. It is disrespectful and actually totally without advantage in two important ways. Compare: Wolfram Physics Project (Wolf ram Phys ics Pro ject) versus Hypergraph Dynamics (Hy per graph Dy nam ics) is six syllables each when said in a verbose manner. So, no advantage in using Gorard's title. Secondly, if ST = String Theory and GU = Geometric Unity then WP = Wolfram Project (as you can easily drop the Physics part as Stephen Wolfram doesn't have another Project that is about something else that it needs to be disambiguated with, there isn't a Wolfram Gardening Project = WGP or a WNMCFEP for the Wolfram No Mess Cadbury's Flake Eating Project as that is a long since solved problem, as he eats them over a sheet of clean paper to catch all the flakes of chocolate). So, HD = High Definition in the context of televisions for most people listening, and WP could have been asserted in the title of this video with: *Jonathan Gorard: Quantum Gravity & Wolfram Project*

[@famistudio]

This is one of your best episode so far. Please make Jonathan a regular guest!

[@TheoriesofEverything]

So glad you enjoyed :)

[@Contang0]

The whole interview was wonderful. Can't claim to understand much of it, however it's clear Jonathan is a significant amount of the brains behind 'Wolfram's' project. He's obviously incredibly intelligent and well researched, but the best parts of the interview were how humble, measured, thoughtful and candid he is, all rare traits and incredibly refreshing to listen to. I'm hoping you get him back on at some point, he deserves all the attention he has coming his way, which is surely a great amount. Thanks both.

[@berniethejet]

Certainly humility makes listening more enjoyable, but folks are too obsessed with humility.

[@Timesend]

I’m a factory worker and have no qualifications in anything science or maths related but I love this talk and all things related to it. It’s awesome.

[@NightmareCourtPictures]

Your doing better than 95% of people. At least you're in the right place (The W-Model, and Curt's channel in a general sense, is the real cutting edge of current fundamental science) Most scientists are not. Cheers,

[@lesediamondamane]

👌🏾

[@Self-Duality]

Having conversed with Jonathan both on and off camera, I’ve had the luxury of directly experiencing his mind’s unique blend of creativity, rationality, humility, and authenticity. What an inspiration! He’s the real life Jimmy Neutron!

[@BigBiff88]

God bless you, bro. You are something special too!

[@TheGrowBros]

I love hearing "conversed" 😊

[@JohnnyComelately-eb5zv]

Oh ok sure. Are you related?

[@ericm9305]

Humble brag.

[@JohnnyComelately-eb5zv]

@@ericm9305 😂

[@FigmentHF]

This gentleman really is an exemplary scientist. Brave, honest, humble and staggeringly smart. He seems very genuine and aware of the psychological pitfalls that we need to avoid on the way to finding out something that is “true”

[@JohnnyComelately-eb5zv]

He isn't really a scientist.

[@ihsan_osmanoglu]

@@JohnnyComelately-eb5zv Really? How so?

[@KaizorianEmpire]

he lieterally is, he writes research papers and heads a research center lol@@JohnnyComelately-eb5zv

[@liminally-spacious]

Such a great interview. Jonathan made these topics really approachable while also bringing awesome energy.

[@MarkoTManninen]

First 18 minutes, solid, lucid opening. I am glad you finally got Jonathan to the program.

[@JohnnyComelately-eb5zv]

Why?

[@JohnnyComelately-eb5zv]

What ideas of his do you find interesting?

[@MarkoTManninen]

I referred to his comment about sticking to formalisms, that reflect the current technological and mathematical innovations and ideas we've had each era. But the underlying ontological conjectures are still open, hard and interesting questions. The mix of continuum and discreteness is a question about formalism and reality simultaneously.

[@cryoshakespeare4465]

Probably one of my favourite ToE episodes so far (though the qualities of each are largely incomparable), this has been a blast to watch. Thank you both for doing this!

[@TheoriesofEverything]

So glad!

[@fabienleguen]

Hi new subscriber here ! I discovered Wolfram Physic Project following a retweet on twitter then learn about it, then discovered Jonathan Gorard work and few interviews with him on KZbin. Then I followed him on twitter and then discovered this KZbin Channel which seem to be very interesting for me (an engineer and Maths and Physics nerd). I enjoyed the interview ! Nice questions from the guest who seems to have advanced knowledge on maths and physics and as always, an inspiring and very kind and polite Jonathan Gorard. In this interview, I discovered the existence of non hermitian quantum mechanics which hyped me ! and category theory showed up again and seems even more important than I originally thought. So I am definitely going to deep dive on those subjects on my free time in the near future. Thank your very much for sharing those valuable discussions !

[@TheoriesofEverything]

Welcome! Hope you enjoy the channel

[@michaelerdmann4447]

Let us know here (in condensed form) what you find in your deep dives if you can.

[@primetimedurkheim2717]

I've been waiting years for this one - Great work, Curt!

[@Mikeduffey_]

So fucking refreshing to get a young gun spitting knowledge in this field 🚀👏👏👏

[@OBGynKenobi]

This guy is the Jacob Collier of physics. I expected him to stand up and start orchestrating the subatomic particles in his room.

[@Mikeduffey_]

Great analogy

[@JohnnyComelately-eb5zv]

Sad. False idolatry.

[@Adiman17]

I'm going to see Collier next week and thought the same thing! It's very seldom you find such brilliant minds that communicate as effectively and charismatically as the 2 of them do. "Understand the rules like a pro so you can break them like an artist." - Picasso

[@JohnnyComelately-eb5zv]

@@Adiman17 🤮😂😂🤡 ok sure whatever

[@Adiman17]

@@JohnnyComelately-eb5zv all the best Johnny ♥️

[@Casevil669]

Thank you both Curt and Jonathan

[@SB324]

Keep your eye on this brilliant young man! Thanks Curt

[@OlleMattsson]

It know it's silly but I feel smarter when listening to Jonathan. His brilliance and energy somehow rubs off in a very pleasant way.

[@jyjjy7]

Been waiting for one of the bigger channels to get Jonathan on, great discussion. If anyone wants more I highly recommend his conversation with Wolfram titled the hyporuliad

[@benjaminbeard3736]

Been looking forward to this one. Thanks for another thought provoking conversation Curt. Your fine work doesnt go unnoticed.

[@ihsan_osmanoglu]

Have been waiting for this, thank you Curt and Jonathan!

[@rckindkitty]

A brilliant conversation. I thoroughly enjoyed this episode. Thank you, gentlemen.

[@neoepicurean3772]

2:24:55 Congrats on that compliment Curt. Gorard concisely formulated what I also appreciate about your podcast.

[@NightmareCourtPictures]

Great interview, especially the end. Gorard’s work is incredible, and I’m looking forward to what he does next, both independently and in the WModel

[@JohnnyComelately-eb5zv]

Refreshing and astonishing admission from Jonathan at 1 hr 29 minutes. Bravo. 👏

[@georgegrubbs2966]

Love this and the Project. Bravo!

[@gobgibbesnimmer]

I've been waiting for this. Fantastic episode. Jonathan put it perfectly, what makes this the best YT channel. Please continue doing what both of you do. ❤

[@brandonb5075]

I’ll have to finish this weekend and I am looking forward to it. My first impression is that it is wonderful to see a brilliant young mind that is OPEN and has not been corrupted by “celebrity”; this gives me hope. I would also say that analogy of relating the Universe to the Tech of the time is a mature understanding. There is a “constant” that transcends all Tech, it’s called NATURE…a “restore point” that we should never delete. Have a great weekend!🤙🏼✌🏼😊

[@SB324]

What a kind thing for Jonathan to say to you, Curt. I agree, and will add that you have something else precious - you care about what you’re doing.

[@sluggo3slug]

Superbly interesting talk. Thanks

[@EWischan]

Been waiting for this!

[@sat25940]

Great interview and dialogue. Aside from his technical insights, Jonathan has an appreciable knowledge of the history of science.

[@harryschmidt4465]

Kudos to your growth as an interviewer.

[@lorilafferty4099]

Im excited about this guys excitement.

[@leslieg2227]

I watch TOA every day ✨ Thank you for all that you do for your audience and thanks to all the guests that come and share knowledge ⚡️

[@JohnnyComelately-eb5zv]

It's Theories of Everything so not TOA. Am I right?

[@ElonTrump19]

A truly humble and honest searcher of truth is a rare thing but when truth is found dogma will occur. Remember there is no private interpretation of truth and because the universe is finite there is only one answer to every question. You both seem to going in the right direction.

[@pounceysilverkitten]

I enjoy listening to people talking this excited about their passions

[@Kowzorz]

been waiting for this one :)

[@CarlosManAl]

A really wonderful post. Thank you very much. Jonathan is really and universal man

[@salimhuerta2699]

I remember I watched the first 50 or so of the livestreams during covid of the wolfram physics project. I remember asking lots of questions in the chat and they actually answered my questions sometimes. Such an awesome time. Such an amazing mind 👌

[@JohnnyComelately-eb5zv]

Cult

[@Fleks47]

Perfect, tyvm !

[@Anders01]

Great topic! I love the Wolfram Physics Project, very fresh take on physics with just a graph (web of points) as the fundamental model. I believe that it has great potential.

[@JohnnyComelately-eb5zv]

😂😂 Really? Why is that? Enlighten me.

[@Anders01]

@@JohnnyComelately-eb5zv A graph (even a hypergraph) is just a network of points. Stephen Wolfram calls the points in his model space atoms, but he also said that these are just IDs for the points. So the whole model is just points that are empty in themselves and with relations between them.

[@jyjjy7]

@@Anders01 Which is very much like Rovelli's relational description of quantum mechanics conceptually

[@russeldeakin8792]

I am very thankful of your efforts. Overwhelmed is an understatement lol. My curiosity started when I was a teen-ager and I used to buy omni magazine. I quickly realized my tastes were more technical and I found scientific American magazine. It was a great resource to help keep me connected to some interesting science and real research. Fast forward about a half a century and now I am able to listen to the greatest scientific leaders and innovators of our time. Having your insightful educated questions combined with your ability to stay connected with us is opening up a whole new level of access to the things I love to think about. Thank you Jonathan for your work and your take on the work Curt is doing, amazing.

[@Dystisis]

Dude has the Kant look on lock. Respect

[@sighfly2928]

It’s how people flexed their brain size in the 1700s, nice to see it making a resurgence.

[@user-vi3sz3fg2r]

Genetics has jumped the shark :)

[@JohnnyComelately-eb5zv]

Yes! They're both guilty of utterly garbage ideas and incomprehensible waffle.

[@Dystisis]

@@user-vi3sz3fg2r I wouldn't say that, high intelligence implies good genetics.

[@Dystisis]

@@JohnnyComelately-eb5zv Okay, and which ideas are not garbage in your opinion?

[@williamjmccartan8879]

Thank you both very much for sharing your time and work Jonathan, and Curt, this young man is a great communicator, I wonder if he has spent any time with Neil Turok and his work in trying to simplify the mechanics of our universe. Again thank you both very much, peace

[@Mikeduffey_]

This is so good. Jonathan is a great guest

[@JohnnyComelately-eb5zv]

Gullible

[@isoteque]

​@@JohnnyComelately-eb5zvCynical

[@JohnnyComelately-eb5zv]

@@isoteque Sceptical

[@isoteque]

@@JohnnyComelately-eb5zv About what claims in particular? Say what you will about Wolfram, but from my listening, Jonathan is quite clear about what is formally proven/provable and what is speculative. This is just mathematical research, interesting in its own right

[@JohnnyComelately-eb5zv]

@@isoteque I've already had a 101 reply exchange in the comments section. Look it up if you're interested.

[@atticusmyser3308]

@TheoriesofEverything Jonathan succinctly assessed and valued your work here man! Well done! I wish I could be as "Socratic".

[@JohnnyComelately-eb5zv]

It was cringe

[@JohnnyComelately-eb5zv]

Curt is very good though

[@phsenus]

Amazing interview and a really great conversation! One question for a follow-up session: What do Jonathan and/or Stephen think about the late works of Stephen Hawking and how does it relate to their views and theory? I'm thinking specifically about the role of the observer in defining reality and constructing physical laws (as explained in "On the Origin of Time" by Thomas Hertog). I see a lot of similarities but I've never seen any public comments from Wolfram or Gorard on Hawking. Maybe someone can point me to the right place if they've talked about it before?

[@vladimir0700]

Excellent!!

[@megamillionfreak]

That light fixture over Jonathan’s kitchen is becoming pretty popular in apartment buildings here in the US. My co-op in Queens recently installed them in all hallways and common areas, and I know people are buying them for their apartments too.

[@n-xsta]

Just brilliant!

[@JohnnyComelately-eb5zv]

Another on point question from Curt and another startling revelation from Jonathan at 1 hour 35 - 36 minutes. ✊✌️

[@charlesrosenbury231]

I really enjoyed this.

[@Eta_Carinae__]

For Jonathan: I think maybe the best nutshell pitch for the CTMU is that, if you observe most serious definitions for cognition - particularly emphasising reflexivity from Cybernetic ideas - they can apply/extend to the entire universe. Taking that seriously is the thrust of the CTMU. It's not so much idealism, but parsing out in more precise terms the ontology of cognition.

[@matteogirelli1023]

Incredibile podcast. Far above my head, but I enjoyed the virtuosism of thought and abstraction. Groundbreaking.

[@mcpkone]

The Theory of Holistic Perspective explain awareness, consciousness. It also show the perspectives of classical physics and quamtum mechanics. Looking forward to your scrutiny of the Theory of Holistic Perspective. Thanks!

[@mattiafabbri8944]

Wonderful

[@monkerud2108]

there are various types of effective models curt, continous spectrums can just be an extension of the approximate description of a spectrum of an effective model, and it might just not apply universally in that form. it is not like our conceptions of what an effective model is perfect, or well understood enough to make broad statements about what features change and which do not, all we can really know is the approximate behavior in terms of the predictions of a theory, to understand comepletely effecitve models, we would need to understand all possible models with the same or adjacent predictions to what we see in experiments.

[@bijousmith1021]

@1:07:00 is that right? The way I think about GR (also QM) is that it is really about removing the observer. For GR you imagine an observer, then imagine another, then make the laws of physics such that they're the same for both. Those were _imagined observers_ (and honestly not sentient nor sophisticated nor equipped with any instruments, they're really just reference frames, algebraic structures imposed artificially.) Actual physics is then entirely observer (frame) independent. Any actual observers equipped with actual clocks and rulers will then see all sorts of crazy stuff if they're non-inertially related, but they'll always agree on what GR is telling them about the other guy or girl. Few realize it, but it's the same in QM. What we detect in measurements depends on the choice of apparatus (orientation, polarizer setting, aperture, etc.) but the rules of the game (QM/QFT) don't give a stuff about our choices, they're the same rules, always. Our choice of instrument setting imposes a boundary condition, and that's all, it does not change any other physics. But this "choice" could also be governed by some automated mechanism, which we'd then say was "the observer". In QM "observer" just means whatever sets a boundary condition. The whole mystery of QM in popular (and professional) conception is that a wavefunction is supposed to be governing this generalized observer too, which is a sort of self-referential paradox. It shows you orthodox QM is incomplete. IMHO We should be more humble and adopt a pragmatic view of QM, something like the scattering amplitudes concept (stuff goes in, other stuff comes out, but discoverable rules govern the probabilities). In such a resolution there is no wavefunction of the universe, that idea has to be abandoned, as I believe Feynman thought it should.

[@JohnnyComelately-eb5zv]

What do you think of John Bell, David Bohm, Sheldon Goldstein, Tim Maudlin, David Albert etc?

[@aarongreen716]

time for a category theory deep dive Curt ;)

[@tommysullivan]

Yes precisely, at 1:05, need to encode in a git like manner based on some kind of hash that is sensitive to small changes in the structure it hashes, use that hash like a tag of every node but it is fully calculable

[@flaparoundfpv8632]

The noggin on this guy!

[@Eta_Carinae__]

QUERY: RE: Jonathan's allegory between Don Scotus and his views on the universe's Kolmogorov Complexity, alluding to the discourse earlier concerning the observer-dependence and inconsistencies between definitions of entropy, does Jonathan then conclude that the complexity of the universe being (or appearing to be) fine tuned to obtain the cleanest signals from it, is a notion dependent on one's notion of "signal"?

[@lesediamondamane]

Are there any good books to read to understand this Wolfram computational stuff?

[@NightmareCourtPictures]

Yes. Start by watching Wolframs “What we’ve learned from NKS” series where he reads his new kind of science book. After you watch the series…and you should probably watch that a couple times over, look into his other shorter lectures like “how universal is the concept of numbers” and “observer theory” lectures. The idea behind new kind of science is that all systems share the same possible state space (that of a Turing machine) which creates an equivalence notion for all systems, thus providing a relativistic framework for (all) systems. It’s worth mentioning that to understand the importance of equivalence relations you should have some understanding about how they are proved and what they mean, such as isomorphism, invariance and transformations. These same equivalence is how formalizations of physics are constructed (I’m sure you’ve heard of Lorentz symmetry, Lorentz invariance and Lorentz transformations. Gauge groups (group symmetries) are gauge invariances where group theory is an establishing of transformations done that can be categorized by a group. It sounds all big and fancy but they boil down into what equivalences mean. Wolframs whole thing has been about showing how simple systems are formally equivalent to complex systems by way of his principle of computational equivalence. That all systems (can be formalized) as being equivalent to Turing machines. Many consequences come about as a result of that being true. Hope you find this comment helpful Cheers,

[@Achrononmaster]

@1:59:00 I too like Penrose's argument. But what does it tell you? It does not tell you we have to "quantize gravity" or "geometrize QM", because there's a third option which is that GR really is already a quantum theory (if it admits non-trivial topology at the Planck scale, or thereabouts). That'd mean there is no wavefunction of the universe, and the gravitational field, or metric, is not ever in superposition. It's the matter fields that can _effectively_ superpose, and the mechanism by which they do is GR (+ nontrivial topology). This way GR can still be highly nonlinear and QM linear. Worth noting that superposition is linearity of solutions (linearity of states), whereas QM observations --- the measurement theory --- is a different sort of linearity (linearity of measurements). Vector space duals there. QM superpositions do not generate global spacetime superpositions because (In this picture I've outlined) QM is not a global theory, it is a local theory. The other way to say that is that a global spacetime theory with the right local structure does not need to be re-quantized.

[@JohnnyComelately-eb5zv]

Bell pretty much proved that QM is non local. Aspect and others recently won a Nobel prize for experiments relating to this. Do you already know this?

[@Achrononmaster]

That dude "@bijousmith1021" seems pretty sharp. @1:41:00 On the 2nd Law stuff, I think Curt's lead-in is right, there is nothing profound in Wolfram's take. Time symmetry is always broken if you stick in some particular symmetric arrangement of matter in a region. This was known from inception, so a long time ago. Boltzmann was worrying about other things like cosmology. The issue is not that it's strange we see an arrow of time, but what made the special initial condition. In modern times CPT-symmetry is a very good framework for understanding entropy in cosmology. But as with all physics it cannot account for the residual metaphysical questions people always have ("Who or what made CPT the deal?" etc.).

[@TheMemesofDestruction]

Jonathan is a Computational Wizard, imo. ^.^

[@matteogirelli1023]

2:01:30 what if this means that QM has proven that the universe is not at its lower energy state and vacuum decay is possible?

[@user-pn7jk9sj8b]

Triangle has 4 ◇ What a magnificent mind .. Thank you, Jonathan 🎉

[@TheNaturalLawInstitute]

@TheoriesOfEverything: Curt, I really don't want the attention or to spend the time away from my own work, but Jonathan, Stephan, and sometimes even Josha Bach (who is the only other person I know that understands this subject) are using a frame of reference (paradigm) that is unnecessarily abstract and sews doubt in the audience that very much needs to understand the ideas they're expressing. THE EXAMPLE OF THE OBSERVER The observer for instance is another example of "Man and his senses, perceptions reason and action are the measures of all things to man". (Vitruvianism) And humans are marginally indifferent in their capacity to sense and percieve ad act, even if marginally different in their ability to reason. We are both marginally indifferent and marginally different from other animals for additional reasons such as body form-embodiment, ratio between brain and body, degree of neoteny (domestication syndrome), and the number and density of neurons, and the recursive capacity of our hippocample-thalamus-prefrontal cortex (working memory) in time. In similar vein, just as Stephen discusses Mathematical(continuous, verbal, describable) and Computational(discreet, operational, constructible), and Set (verbal, ideal, Syllogistically survivable) reducibility we also are limited by Linguistic reducibility - until we invent the concept and reference to it (word, vocabulary) to express it. But there is no limit to combinations in ordinary language any more so than there is in operations, computation, and mathematics, but while each unlimited in combination at scale each is not unlimited in reducibility. What might not be obvious is that all language consists of measurements reducible to analogy to experience (vitruvianism), and use of those measurements requires the universal grammar, meaning 'rules of continuous recursive disambiguation', and as such wether motions, sounds, or symbols, icluding use of hands, speech, and symbols such as writing and mathematics, limited in dimensions (manifold of relations) we refer to as some paradigm consisting, the resulting logic of their comparison, accumulation, and judgement (agreement/disagreement), each is just another language that varies in specificity, generality, fiction, fictionalism, (or deception). The advantage of computation is that humans are incapable of the same volume of computations in time (Time compression), and the advantage in mathematics is that we are incapable of both time and scale independence without it (time, referent, and scale compression), and just as we are capable of time and information compression in ordinary language (storytelling). Just as we are limited by memory and reasoning without mark-making, writing, the narrative, calculation (transformation of inputs into outputs) and computation (machine reducible calculations). So when Stephen says 'observer' all his is really saying is that (a) while the relatively simple basic laws of the universe consistent at all scales, (b) by evolutionary computation by trial and error these simple laws create complexity from which evolves a hierarchy of scales of emergent operations we call 'disciplines', (b) our life-form specific systems of measurement, meaning, sense, perception, prediction of possibilities, and capacity for consciousness, consideration, reason, and action may vary both marginally differently and indifferently, particularly in time, scale, referents(objects, spaces, backgrounds), quantity, qualia, prediction, memory, recursion, and self regulation (c) and as such each life form relies on a variation in measurements and resulting capacity for actions, DESPITE that they are all measuring the same universe, organized and created by the same trivial rules. so just as mathematics is scale time and referent independent, our differences in body form produce measurements of the universe around us that are time, scale, and referent (object) independent. Because all measurements of life forms are nothing but those measurement needed to ACT given it's body form and bodily resources, such that it can defeat the dark forces of time and ignorance (Entropy). CLOSING. While this is the central issue preventing their communication (operationalism), this is just one of the various topics that could make Stephen, Jonathan, and the team's work a bit more successfully accessible and communicated. I could also add to the discussion of 'mathiness' how, since the time of the greeks we have benefitted from geometry(operational) vs the near east's use of algebra (verbal) but perhaps more importantly, we have been unfortunately trapped in the false promise that mathematics (verbal description of continuous phenomena). While Descartes returned mathematics to the physical, unfortunately Hilbert didn't succeed where Einstein did, and as such Cantor(infinities), Einstein ('space-time'), and Bohr ('just calculate') sent mathematics and physics sideways, that when combined with the 'particle' folly and then the 'string theory' folly, have cost us the better part of a century - that believe it or not - Stephen's work is seeking to pull us out of (along with say, Neil Turok (The universe is simple), Andrew Budson(Consciousness) and the miraculous accident of brute forcing AI by massive text made possible by the internet (Intelligence). So, unfortunately despite recognizing the problem of 'mathiness' that we in economics are all to painfully aware of, even if physicists aren't, Stephen and team are not escaping it by completing the unification of ALL disciplines as the sets of grammars (paradigms) of calculation whether by the massively parallel baysian intuition produced by neurons, the rough planning that humans perform with calculation (in it's proper definition) or the precise calculation humans perform with markmaking tools, or the computation we produce by following repeating rules (formulae) or that we hand off to machines, from the abacus to the present use of graphics processors to sum weights of vectors in a very costly imitation of the 80 billion neurons we achieve it with. ;) Affections Thank you for your work on behalf of the public. Curt Doolittle The Natural Law Institute Seattle, Boston, London, Kiev. PS: I might as well publish a video on this subject given that I've effectively written a script here on YT.;)

[@tshddx]

I very much enjoyed this interview with the Jacob Collier of mathematics and physics.

[@user-if1ly5sn5f]

I kinda wanna describe my thought pattern because idk if anyone else really thinks the same. I listen/feel/see/smell/etc. i think of what the words mean when someone says something, i think of the definitions and context they are used in when correlated together. I align the words with visual representations such as color and shape, i think of the feeling and differences of the meanings connected such as peoples feelings and the situation over all and even how animals feel and it cascades into the differences like one sentence is a branch and so many small branches of connected thoughts in all my senses sharing. Think of when you smell a color or feel a word pull on your emotions. We share ourselves when we PAY attention and in sharing the stories and sentences share back with knowledge and insights. Reality doesn’t deny the unreal, it shares but looks like giving and taking and we see that and think competition is the way when we should be uplifting with competition and not focusing on tearing each other down in a battle of who is right and wrong, every path is possible but what about the connections? Does a king take from its people or does it share to expand? I’m not religious but Jesus said some stuff and wanted to uplift the people and even let his enemies take his life and reap what they sow because he understood life and didn’t deny any of it and accepted it and expanded himself and his people and shared the spirit/history of differences so that they could help us in our journeys even when they are no longer present. We don’t just take from reality or we may succumb to our own ignorance. Share so that we can uplift and expand reality to include the unreal.

[@____uncompetative]

You have been misled by the lies of Christianity which is provably evil according to an examination of the Gospels.

[@user-if1ly5sn5f]

@@____uncompetative lol i don’t follow a church but i do listen to reality and i don’t deny any differences because all is real shared with reality.

[@user-if1ly5sn5f]

@@____uncompetative see, your own misunderstandings caused you to try and correct me. Who are you to correct what is real and unreal? Are you in charge of reality? I share and you accuse me of some form of negative. Don’t be so quick to judge. I listen to the trees and to the winds, i listen to the animals and share with reality myself, a portion in connection to a current in flux towards a greater whole than myself. We are not separated. God, reality, the unreal, all sharing, with you, with me, with everything.

[@earFront]

What about the cat and jammy toast anti gravity method?

[@tupacalypse88]

Ok Jonathan is awesome 👍👍

[@User53123]

Yes. ❤

[@Achrononmaster]

@1:43:00 whoa! I did not get that at all... or musta' misheard? Computational complexity is not observer dependent (unless you weirdly define it to be). Entropy is also not observer dependent, you define physical system entropy relative to data or information, not to observers. I0t is an entirely secondary thing what data or information or sensory data an observer has accessible. Which is fine, you can then use purely objective measures of entropy to help explain why different sensory capable observers see things differently, but that's a biological/sociological story, not a physics story.

[@jestermoon]

Take A Moment Relax Enjoy the Genius at play. Great show thx 🎉 3:41 What is 'The Theory of Everything' we are looking for. I have a grade 2 in woodwork. I'll see what I can come up with. Keep Asking Questions Stay Safe Stay Free 7:30

[@sethatron100]

Very good episode! It Seems more likely we are in a black-hole and entropy is the hawking radiation.

[@TheoriesofEverything]

Glad you enjoyed :)

[@anthonylawrence5842]

Can the "true" explanatory description of the nature of reality be this specialised and complex?

[@bgz42]

There's nothing wrong with the arbitrary edge saying some other event was causally related to another despite not being the exact same edge if you assume Relational QM. In Relational QM it doesn't matter (I think).

[@MrSubstanz]

The worst part of this video is the height Jonathan placed his laptop at (the angle making him reposition his glasses all the time). I hope everyone reading this is able to extrapolate how much good there is in contrast. With Curt's videos it's just easier to point out the bad stuff, since you're done way, way sooner. Loved this talk more than I expected (again)!

[@SandipChitale]

At 1:40:00 there is a discussion about why entropy does not increase in both directions from the current moment, and in there an assumption is that micro-physics is time asymmetric. What if that is only true for the equations but not to the physical world. In other words, starting with the initial conditions and evolving the system by those laws, if we play the universe up to t=0 it gives us the snapshot of the universe at present moment. If we play the universe upto t=-10 seconds we get the snapshot of the universe 10 seconds ago. However, may be that does not mean it is possible to actually rewind the universe. Like Tim Maudlin and even Stephan wolfram say, the time has inexorable movement and direction. The laws of physics simply predict where the particles will be the next inexorable tick of that movement like a treadmill that cannot be stopped and only goes (naturally) and on its own, without requiring explicit work to be done. But if you want to actually revert the universe you will have to do computational and physical work. Try reverse rotating the Earth 10 seconds and also make it go to the position 10 seconds ago along the orbit and you will see what I mean. You will have to expend energy. So let alone reverting the whole universe. Thus, reversibility of time in physics equations vs. being able to actually do it is like difference between perception and observation that was talked about earlier in the discussion. At 1:41:00 Curt asks "what about for the system itself", well the laws of physics evolve the system only in one direction. The system does not have a choice. It will only be us, wanting to reverse the system, as Jonathan says moments later, require us to actually do the work, i.e. expend energy and computation to reverse the system. The cost for of forward evolution of universe in time has already been paid for, so to speak. And if you think about it for a moment, even as we are busy reversing the system, the underlying time will be moving forward. So in some sense the reversing will mean reversing the velocities (which is a directional, vector) quantity but not the time. In other words, time has no choice but to march forward, even if in theory we can reverse the velocities and make it appear that universe reversed. In other words the "forward" evolution of the state is something which is already paid for and available for free to the universe. Secondly, the use of the word "forward" for the direction of time may be a thus a misnomer. It is as if someone got there and used it first. And now, as the word "reverse" is opposite of the word "forward", we think that we have permission to think of time flowing in reverse direction. What if that is our misapprehension? This is similar to the discussion about if mathematicians or physicists who first coined the words or terms of the discourse. It may simply be the case of first (incorrect) choice of the word "forward" direction of time. May be time only has before to after direction (coining a new word "befoter" direction) and laws of physics tell us what will be the "after" state following the "before" state.

[@TheoriesofEverything]

I'm unsure of what you mean; can you please expand? Is it accurate to summarize as: the directionality of time isn't intrinsically embedded within the equations, but rather constitutes an additional structure that must be imposed on the fundamental laws? For instance, is it analogous to the empirical determination of certain physical constants, which must be measured and subsequently incorporated into the equations, rather than being directly derived from them?

[@JohnnyComelately-eb5zv]

Tim Maudlin is legit. Wolfram isn't.

[@SandipChitale]

@@TheoriesofEverything Hi Curt, essentially I am making a relatively simple point. Like you say about the continued use of the word/terms in math because physicists got their first (spin) or vice versa (tortion), even if they do not make sense in that field. It just may be that someone who got there first, following their intuition, used the word "forward" for the progression of time. And because "reverse" is opposite of "forward", from that point on we were misled to think that it is meaningful to talk about "reverse" progression of time. Think of it this way, we can think of 3 apples. We are allowed to also think of positive 3 apples. So far so good. But it does not mean negative 3 apples is a physical concept. Similarly, it may be that the math equations allow varying the time variable value in a negative direction, but it may not be a physically meaningful concept. Even the examples given by scientists of indistinguishably of billiard ball movie when run forward and backward is actually flawed because of what I call truncated, imprecise analysis. Sure a human may not be able to tell the difference, but if we are precise, we will see that the two balls heat up after the collision (asymmetry). And even granting perfectly elastic balls, please note that when the film is shown in reverse, the velocities of the balls are in reverse, but the time is still progressing (I will permit myself for this discussion, to use the word "forward") in "forward" direction. In a nut shell, we should not use the word "forward" for progression of time, and thus also rendering "reverse" flow of time as a moot or invalid concept. And so, if "reverse" progression of time is meaningless, then we do not have to worry about why entropy does not increase in both directions away from the present moment. Because there is only one direction that is physical. My other nerdy point is that when scientists say time reversibility of micro-physics, what they really mean is velocity reversal. Remember velocity is a vector, V= directional distance/time. And when we reverse the direction of the velocity to the opposite direction we get that required negative sign for reversing the math equations. The denominator i.e. time has to stay positive otherwise both signs will cancel. We will not get reversal. Lastly, if at the big bang the universe was a point i.e. no degrees of freedom, then by definition the entropy was low. So we do not need to be explicit about the so called past hypothesis. By definition the point has one state and thus is fully known and thus entropy is low and micro state and macro state are the same. So in other words we should not have to wonder why the entropy was low at the big bang. No?

[@NightmareCourtPictures]

Yes, I agree. I’ve made similiar statements before on this subject. It goes something like this: If you have some drink in a cup and you begin to stir it clockwise. What you then do is “reverse the trajectories” which then makes the liquid spin counterclockwise. Is it logical that we perceive this reversal of trajectories as a reversal in time? Or is it more logical that we just stirred our drink in the opposite direction? it became very clear to me at least that time reversibility is an illusion of sorts, and the physics built on top of it needs to be thought over. We simply can’t create an experiment that truly isolates systems, let alone “reverses” time in any meaningful way, most of the thought experiments done without consideration for whether the thought experiments can be carried out by a real system with the observer taken into account needs to be reevaluated from the ground up.

[@neoepicurean3772]

@@SandipChitale So, like Curt says, your point is that time is fundamental? Ala Smolin, and Maudlin to some degree? And I will grant you your perfectly elastic balls :)

[@Eta_Carinae__]

QUERY: would Jonathan be amenable to the universe being _"like_ a clock, in itself", or as it's put in the scientific realist lingo, that it's _approximately_ true that "the universe runs on clockwork"? EDIT: does he think that there is an associated metric for truth, much as he has found for consistency?

[@blingpup21]

Please Curt, get Jonathan and Scott Aaronson to debate please. I love the Wolfram Project but it needs to be challenged!!!!

[@____uncompetative]

Aaronson would likely insist on debating Wolfram himself, which is no more likely to happen than Timothy Nguyen getting his debate with Eric Weinstein mediated by Michael Shermer. Both are publishing their work in progress, so it might make better sense to just wait until they have made serious progress with their work, if not actually to have a solid hypothesis.

[@JohnnyComelately-eb5zv]

Yes it does need challenging because it's complete horsesh*t.

[@JohnnyComelately-eb5zv]

@@____uncompetative Weinstein is another charlatan with a persecution complex

[@gariusjarfar1341]

Once I was an eager mind like John, then I settled down, into standard reality became my view, then I broke out again into a new kind of physics. When I was 24, I was initiated into Weston mysteries, my search began as an initiated adult. Initiated into the hunt, then I became ordinary again, then burst out again into the fractal and geometry. From youth then burst out again in old age, a sage of the 5th position or a fool.

[@epajarjestys9981]

Great interview. Very smart guy.

[@zachfriedman92]

I had this on in the background and had to question if Christ Williamson had become a physicist

[@jordanshim380]

This man is the very definition of the idea that you don’t understand something properly unless you can explain it to others and have them understand.

[@mitchellhayman381]

Amazing young man. Thanks very much Kurt.

[@NotNecessarily-ip4vc]

1) Theories of Quantum Gravity Contradictory Approaches: - String theory requires 10/11 dimensions - Loop quantum gravity has discrete geometry ambiguities - Other canonical quantum gravity programs still face singularity issues Non-Contradictory Possibilities: Combinatorial Infinitesimal Geometries ds2 = Σx,y Γxy(n) dxdy Gxy = f(nx, ny, rxy) Representing spacetime metrics/curvature as derived from dynamical combinatorial relations Γxy among infinitesimal monadic elements nx, ny could resolve singularity and dimensionality issues while unifying discrete/continuum realms. 2) Paradoxes of Spacetime Singularities Contradictory: General Relativity Gμν = 8πTμν Solutions contain spacetime singularities where geometric description breaks down. The presence of singularities where physics becomes transcendentally ill-defined represents a fatal flaw. Non-Contradictory Possibility: Combinatorial Algebraic Quantum Gravity ds2 = Σx,y Γxy dxdy (metric from monadic charge relations) Gμν = f(Γxy, mx, qx, ...) (monadic gravitational dynamics) Representing spacetime/gravity algebraically from relations Γxy among discrete quantized monadic charges/masses avoids singular infinities entirely. 3) Gravitation: Contradictory: General Relativity Gμν = 8πTμν Rμν - (1/2)gμνR = 8πTμν Einstein's field equations model gravity as curvature in a 4D pseudo-Riemannian manifold, but produce spacetime singularities where geometry breaks down. Non-Contradictory: Monadological Quantum Gravity Γab = monic gravitational charge relations ds2 = Σx,y Γab(x,y) dxdydyadx Gravity emerges from quantized charge relations among monad perspectives x, y in a pre-geometric poly-symmetric metric Γ, sans singularities. 4) Quantum Entanglement Contradictory: Bell's Inequality Violation |Ψ>AB ≠ |Ψ>A ⊗ |Ψ>B (non-separable entangled state) Quantum entanglement cannot be represented in a classical tensor product state space, violating locality and separability assumptions. Non-Contradictory: Algebraic Quantum Theory |Ψ>AB = U(A ⊗ B) |0> (holistic transformation) In monadological frameworks, the state arises from a holistic unitary transformation on the monadic zero product, avoiding undue separability assumptions. 5) Wave-Particle Duality Contradictory: Double-Slit Experiment P(r) = |Ψ(r)|2 (probability from wave) But detections are particle-like. The ambiguity of whether light/matter behaves as particle or wave in the double-slit experiment represents a fundamental paradox. Non-Contradictory: Bohm's Pilot Wave Theory Ψ = Re(iS/ħ) (integrating particle and wave) dP/dt = (h/2πi)(δΨ*/δS - δΨ/δS*) De Broglie/Bohm pilot waves model particles as singularities carried by integrating the total wavelike dynamics, resolving the duality paradox. 6) Quantum Field Infinities Contradictory: Quantum Field Theory Feynman Diagrams with infinite terms like: ∫ d4k / (k2 - m2) = ∞ Perturbative quantum field theories rely on renormalization to subtract infinite quantities from equations, which is an ad-hoc procedure lacking conceptual justification. Non-Contradictory: Infinitesimal Regulator QFT ∫ d4k / [(k2 - m2 + ε2)1/2] < ∞ Using infinitesimals ε as regulators instead of adhoc renormalization avoids true mathematical infinities while preserving empirical results. 7) Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics Contradictory Paradoxes: - Measurement Problem - Schrodinger's Cat paradox - Einstein's "Spooky Action at a Distance" paradox Non-Contradictory Possibilities: Monadic Relational QM |Ψ> = Σn cn Un(A)|0> (superposition of monadic perspectives) Un(A) = ΠiΓn,i(Ai) (integrated monad of relational properties) Representing quantum states as superposed monadic perspectives Un integrated over the relational algebraic properties Γn,i(Ai) could resolve paradoxes by grounding phenomena in coherent relational pluralisms. 8) The Unification of Physics Contradictory Barriers: - Clash between quantum/relativistic geometric premises - Infinities and non-renormalizability issues - Lack of quantum theory of gravity and spacetime microphysics Non-Contradictory Possibilities: Algebraic Quantum Gravity Rμν = k [ Tμν - (1/2)gμνT ] (monadic-valued sources) Tμν = Σab Γab,μν (relational algebras) Γab,μν = f(ma, ra, qa, ...) (catalytic charged mnds) Treating gravity/spacetime as collective phenomena emerging from catalytic combinatorial charge relation algebras Γab,μν between pluralistic relativistic monadic elements could unite QM/QFT/GR description. The key theme is using infinitesimal relational monadological frameworks to represent phenomena that appear paradoxical under classical separability assumptions as perfectly coherent manifestations of integrated pluralistic structures. Whether statistical mechanics, logic, QM or unified physics - the contradictions all stem from erroneous premises that: 1) Observers are separable from observations 2) Properties/events are independently existing entities 3) Time evolution is fundamentally deterministic 4) Reality can be fully represented in a single mathematical model By centering infinitesimal monadic perspectival interactions as primitives, these paradox-generating premises are all circumvented in favor of irreducible relational pluralisms. The monadic "zero" subjects and their combinatorial algebras become the SOURCE of coherent interdependent plurality, not a paradoxical separable ontic realm. Deterministic laws emerge as statistically regulated boundary patterns on a vaster potential pluriverse. In essence, the monadological frameworks realign our descriptive representations with the inescapable facts of first-person experience - allowing our physics and logics to resonate with the intrinsic integrated structure of reality we comprise, rather than segregating it into hopeless contradictions. This pluralistic Renaissance offers the path toward renovating humanity's knowledge bases and reason architectures - restoring consilience by deriving all phenomena as cohesive relational aspects of a monadic metaphysics, rooted in irreducible first-person facts.

[@____uncompetative]

Claude?

[@Giraffozilla]

What id MKS he keeps referring to?

[@curtjaimungal]

Nks is new kind of science . It's a book written by Stephen Wolfram in The link is in the description

[@bradduplisea6385]

Not enough ads

[@Pink_Noizz]

wow what a brilliant mind..

[@DavidFMayerPhD]

In the 1928 book The Nature of the Physical World, which helped to popularize the concept, Arthur Eddington stated: Let us draw an arrow arbitrarily. If as we follow the arrow we find more and more of the random element in the state of the world, then the arrow is pointing towards the future; if the random element decreases the arrow points towards the past. That is the only distinction known to physics. This follows at once if our fundamental contention is admitted that the introduction of randomness is the only thing which cannot be undone. I shall use the phrase 'time's arrow' to express this one-way property of time which has no analogue in space. Eddington then gives three points to note about this arrow: It is vividly recognized by consciousness. It is equally insisted on by our reasoning faculty, which tells us that a reversal of the arrow would render the external world nonsensical. It makes no appearance in physical science except in the study of organization of a number of individuals. (In other words, it is only observed in entropy, a statistical mechanics phenomenon arising from a system.)

[@thomasbradley2916]

Commendable renaming to the HD model. I support it

[@____uncompetative]

I am wise enough to not rename the Project funded by my employer.

[@JohnnyComelately-eb5zv]

@@____uncompetative I don't think he's employed by them now?

[@JohnnyComelately-eb5zv]

They're both crap so it doesn't make any difference

[@stevenutter3614]

Man that guy has a big brain, Volumectrically.

[@kathyorourke9273]

Hahahahaha 😮

[@mooncop]

KL-divergence should be "oh snap" surprisal

[@OGGinsburg]

By acknowledging the differences in term used between mathematicians and physicists, we can deduce that the use of mathematics itself in numeric form still equally allows for a twist and manipulation of meaning via symbols used and egos involved. Best if one engaged in the text explanations uses lame terms, or at least terms from physics, as math is trying to explain that very fundamental field. Not vice versa.

[@mooncop]

information parsimony permeates this talk, geodesic dispersion please (homotopies of homotopies of homotopies, and so on, and so on)

[@AndyMiron]

How can spaces of states be secondary to quantum transformations happening between them? Doesn’t make sense..

[@StephenPaulKing]

Are Precepts Computationally irreducible?

[@user-pn7jk9sj8b]

Thanks

[@TheoriesofEverything]

Thank you so much!