Life in an illusion: The fabric of reality is constantly being rewritten | Stephen Wolfram

Lex Fridman Podcast full episode: • Stephen Wolfram: ChatG...
Please support this podcast by checking out our sponsors:
- MasterClass: masterclass.com/lex to get 15% off
- BetterHelp: betterhelp.com/lex to get 10% off
- InsideTracker: insidetracker.com/lex to get 20% off
GUEST BIO:
Stephen Wolfram is a computer scientist, mathematician, theoretical physicist, and the founder of Wolfram Research, a company behind Wolfram|Alpha, Wolfram Language, and the Wolfram Physics and Metamathematics projects.
PODCAST INFO:
Podcast website: lexfridman.com/podcast
Apple Podcasts: apple.co/2lwqZIr
Spotify: spoti.fi/2nEwCF8
RSS: lexfridman.com/feed/podcast/
Full episodes playlist: • Lex Fridman Podcast
Clips playlist: • Lex Fridman Podcast Clips
SOCIAL:
- Twitter: / lexfridman
- LinkedIn: / lexfridman
- Facebook: / lexfridman
- Instagram: / lexfridman
- Medium: / lexfridman
- Reddit: / lexfridman
- Support on Patreon: / lexfridman

[@LexClips]

Full podcast episode: kzbin.info/www/bejne/hpWoXqqXiN1gmpo Lex Fridman podcast channel: kzbin.info Guest bio: Stephen Wolfram is a computer scientist, mathematician, theoretical physicist, and the founder of Wolfram Research, a company behind Wolfram|Alpha, Wolfram Language, and the Wolfram Physics and Metamathematics projects.

[@vicheakeng6894]

WOKE FROM 1996 Patent. It must stay in AMERICA

[@MorallyResponsible]

Rene Descartes said "Cogito Ergo Sum" .Ibn Sina(Avicenna) said "There is Existence". I like to establish what philosophers call first principles. These first principles are fundamental building block of your journey to Truth. The greatest first principle is displayed by Rene Descartes and Ibn Sina above which is the establishment of consciousness. Consciousness is something all humans have despite spectrum of creativity they may possess. My question is How does the movement of current by Neurons (Carbon Skeleton) leads to life without invoking "god of randomness" as materialist scientists do. We must answer how the atoms of humans possess an attribute of consciousness/thoughts, yet atoms of rocks do not possess that. We must answer why a most programmed robot /AI can never have thoughts? We must establish possessor of infinite attributes(Allah-one/indivisible/self-dependent/all-loving) who gives his slaves sustenance of existence so generously.

[@thelastaustralian7583]

Your problem is Lex. You are controlled by dominant 'subconscious' forces . And while you are intoxicated by your social Ego, you are Blind consciously . And that is why ....

[@briley8288]

Wolfram being infinitely smarter than me is about the only thing I got out of this

[@compositestechbb9087]

It's OK, none of this is real anyhow lol.

[@GamePhysics]

@@compositestechbb9087 It sure feels real. That's the weird part.

[@compositestechbb9087]

@@GamePhysics it is an interesting plane to exist amongst.

[@kickflipacat1078]

@@GamePhysics this is the only real you know

[@bobbadman1551]

If he was smart he would have explain it in a way that the Podcast Audience could understand.

[@62Cristoforo]

This is why I say science as we know it, is just an agreed upon interpretation of our collective understanding of reality, limited by the ever changing power of our microscopes and telescopes, a slice in time, as the author says, but taken somewhat foolishly as definitive and permanent.

[@_kopcsi_]

yeah, this is something that we already knows for centuries :DDD

[@matth2645]

Nicely stated Cris. I also find it extremely unlikely that humans have the mental capacity (including with our ever-improving tools) to comprehensively understand the mechanics and detailed workings of life (our biosphere and beyond) and the universe at large and small scales. If we humans had double the brain size during our time on earth would we understand twice as much by now, if 10 times bigger 10 times the understanding? I like to think that the potential discoverable knowledge is infinite, and we have the capacity to understand a modest whole number. That is still awesome and fun, and its in our nature to be biased and bold about our achievements and potential.

[@euginrobinson]

But no scientist takes any of their findings definitive, but regard as a stepping stone to better understand the universe, and that is exactly how science progresses, and along the way it gives us so many advancements in terms of technology, quality of life and pure knowledge.

[@Celeste-in-Oz]

@@euginrobinson yep, well said.

[@euginrobinson]

@@Celeste-in-Oz Thanks so much 🙂.

[@Jokerwolf666]

If I had to guess consciousness is a force or dimension of it's own and our brains are essentially antenna that pull from that signal or whatever you want to call it. Our individuality comes with our life experience and our data storage which is our brain.

[@oldrusty6527]

What do you mean by consciousness though?

[@Jokerwolf666]

@@oldrusty6527 The ability to observe the universe and reflect on the past present and plan for the future. I think it's one function all beings who experience consciousness share. I think our biological hardware is what allows us to do that at different levels of complexity.

[@oldrusty6527]

@@Jokerwolf666 Personally I think you are on the right track. I would suggest that it might not be so simple as the brain being a receiver. It might transmit its own signal into the medium as well.

[@Jokerwolf666]

@@oldrusty6527 I'm sure it's a level of complexity that we will not understand for a very long time or potentially ever.

[@mar-a-lagofbibug8833]

It could be a property of gravity.

[@peterbroderson6080]

The moment a particle is a wave; it has to be a conscious wave! Gravity is the conscious attraction among waves to create the illusion of particles, and our experience-able Universe. Max Planck states: "Consciousness is fundamental and matter is derived from Consciousness". Life is the Infinite Consciousness, experiencing the Infinite Possibilities, Infinitely. We are "It", experiencing our infinite possibilities in our finite moment. Our job is to make it interesting!

[@jaylewis9876]

Also part of engineering is making sub parts that are more predictable by design. A resistor off the shelf gets more predictable as the factory gets better at making them. This lets us build them into more complicated things that are also more predictable. I’m excited to see what new parts we make using plasma, quantum, and other things

[@kellanbegay]

Less variables of a system reduces the probability of varied outcomes.

[@Mikesniezek]

If it's perfect, does it stop changing?

[@jimwheely6710]

​@@Mikesniezek The tasks change. Making the perfect part obsolete.

[@michaellowe3665]

Funny thing about resistor manufacturing is that many factories make them test them and then assign the tolerance. With old through hole parts, if it fell within 20% it didn't get a band. If it fell within 10% it got the silver band and if it fell within 5% it got the gold band. I'm not sure if this carried into the 1% parts, but what this means is that if you buy a 10% resistor, it is guaranteed to be between 5% and 10% out. Instead of getting a bell curve of resistance distribution, you get a bimodal distribution. This has to be taken into account if you are designing circuits with large networks of resistors.

[@mogusaurelius4541]

My brain hurts

[@christianborwick2170]

Yep same

[@gomiladroogies5951]

Its alright bro, give it some time for the fabric of reality to be rewritten.

[@eggheadusa9900]

Basically It’s the 10 to the one hundred computationally speaking is just trying to find pockets of eraducabilaty irreducibility.

[@ultravisitors]

Might be the reducible pockets in your brain.

[@jordanjackman1537]

At least you got a brain whereas this video just deflected off my log head

[@bobsiddoway]

I believe reality is a collective consciousness aka energy, co-creating reality as it is. I’ve seen life between lives, been there, spoken with other entities (points of consciousness), and seen how we collectively and singularly agreed to create a reality and live it for experiences. It’s both real and an illusion. “Real” isn’t even the right word. Learn what you’re here to learn. Experience this. Be kind. You’ll be back to the beginning too soon enough. 🙏

[@pnut3844able]

Someone smoked DMT

[@VANDERWALTTINA]

So you think the collective consciousness is the creator, or do you think there is a higher power, that some call God/Source? Is it not a math program running everything?

[@pnut3844able]

@Apterous Angel it never existed to begin with

[@schr4nz]

Listen bro, I like to trip occasionally too, and they are marvellous experiences that teach us a lot about the internal workings of our minds, but take it easy on the things that are simply not possible to prove. Abstract concepts like you just made up are easy for anyone to come up with, finding the evidence for it though, good luck...

[@bonganimazibuko1901]

❤

[@michaelg1569]

Interesting to watch Lex refine his world view.

[@Promatheos]

I think therefore I am. The one thing you cannot doubt is your own existence. Therefore, YOU are real. Everything you perceive as not you could be an illusion, a dream, a misperception… I wish I could spread awareness of this to everyone. There is only one Reality. This Reality is the light of subjectivity itself and that light is shining through all minds simultaneously. The light that illuminates your mind is the same light illuminating every mind. That light, which YOU are, is eternal. We had no beginning, we have no end, and we create infinite complexity and infinity variety of experience in this eternal dance of existence. We are all one. We are all God. Forever and ever. And our true nature is pure consciousness, unity and love.

[@bojanangjeleski138]

Namaste ! :)

[@z6li22]

There is no you

[@birgik]

I understand what you are saying but "I think therefore I am" doesn't fit here. Awareness of I AM has nothing to do with thought and one cannot think oneself to it

[@Promatheos]

@birgik I 100% agree. Thought isn’t the same as awareness. It’s a bad formulation but I didn’t say it, Descartes did, now we are kinda stuck with it. You understand the deeper meaning though so I have nothing to argue with you about.

[@birgik]

@@Promatheos Well, Descartes actually meant thought. He wasn't expressing the concept you are saying, but something rather antithetical. For the concept you are talking about you can look at the teachings of Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj and others

[@danscieszinski4120]

Is it safe to assume Dr Wolfram is familiar with Orch OR theory? As he talks about observers it sounds exactly like the the Penrose theory of objective reduction from the orchestrated collapse of the wave function, going from infinite possible threads to a realized thread of the moment. It would be fascinating to hear him talk his ideas through with Penrose’s existing ideas.

[@cybervigilante]

Physicists might catch up with Wolfram in 10 or 20 years. He knows what hes talking about. The metagraph level is where our reality comes from

[@tadasturonis]

check out chris fields, he seems to be on the same page

[@Silverfirefly1]

The love you withhold is the pain that you carry, lifetime after lifetime.

[@Nobody-Nowhere]

The fantasy you have about living eternally, is the narcissistic fantasy you weren't able to grow out of.

[@bert29]

​@@Nobody-Nowherethe level of narcissism you exhibited with the view of knowing what happens after you die is embarrassing.

[@WtfYouMeanDude]

Sissy

[@watertower1]

I am eternally wise and both y’all some clowns 🤡 💀

[@kennedic4403]

Great video King. Very helpful and informative!

[@deanswift9132]

Mind is like a reducing value for reality and the representation of that function is the brain

[@fourshore502]

makes me wonder if when the AI gets infinitely smarter than us, will we even be able to see it?

[@peripheralparadox4218]

As water has vastly different forms depending on conditions, maybe consciousness acts similarly? If you think of consciousness as a fundamental property of the universe. Which it is. Life eats life, and a cloud will rain and evaporate many times. Kind of like reincarnation, but you’re a different spoonful of consciousness soup and you don’t escape the cycle, but are forever a part of the whole that separates itself in a kaleidoscopic eternity.

[@admazzola3569]

Whats hes saying is actually easy to understand. For example any technology we have invented is due to “reduceable computeability” such as discovering that rubbing sticks together fast enough makes a fire. Its a pattern that we observed and we discovered a “shortcut” or a concept. And we share that knowledge amongst humans.

[@aisthpaoitht]

The answer is that reality is fundamentally mental. We each create our own mental projection of the shared universe from the shared consciousness. QM confirms this.

[@markberman6708]

The patterns reduce things to a rather small number of potential outcomes. It is a matter of width and depth and length of view.. length as a function of time. And if you can get to an end state answer, does showing or even knowing the work matter? If the end state that appears is correct beyond, way beyond what should be possible, then something real may be occurring. Fascinating discussion, will come back to it for sure.

[@lawrenceford5284]

I have never been able to figure out the idea of north vs south or imperical consciousness of reality.....very nice ...a magical time as the seers and scientists meet

[@PoPplyMartian]

take a shot glass every time he said "computational"

[@kirilllosik7054]

there was told something important and cool, but it requires explanation in more simple terms! curious to learn more about these topics!

[@michaelhunte743]

It may be that we are looking at the state in computation at the wrong point in time. Great Video BtW!

[@shaggyfeng9110]

This is amazing! Thanks

[@DjamelBenFirst]

6:07 “My Favorite discovery of the last few years is The Realization That, it is sort of the interaction between this underlying computational irreducibility and our nature as kind of observers who sort of have to Key into computational Reducibility.”

[@TheLuminousOne]

not the fabric itself but the perception and understanding of it

[@andrewferg8737]

"Just a thing that sits there" is a statement loaded with presuppositions.

[@InfernalWAVE]

Single-threadedness as a constraint to a computational system to make it conscious, so interesting

[@michaelszabados3245]

what a liberating insight! the only possible theory of everything!

[@Jake-bh1hm]

He’s saying that the universe computes at such insane speeds that we can only hope to calculate some tiny areas of the universe like we have been for a while and hope we understand the whole picture… ?? And that our refresh rate IRL is freaking fast af. And each frame of our life uses different pixels(atoms) to construct that image.

[@Piehalf-u-fool]

Best podcast this year

[@Celeste-in-Oz]

Intersecting with points of computational irreducibility.. using our senses & cognition to interpret & predict… (albeit very limited) is what I think ‘consciousness’ is. Maybe.

[@pooltuna]

Wow...amazingly insightful...and beyond my ability to comprehend much less percieve. Too bad so many musicians don't live as long as many scientists do. The latter years seem to confer the greatest gifts of a life's work...perhaps bestow would be a better word. I'll be looking into these ideas.

[@jer4532]

💯 I understand these concepts well very well yet I cannot do the work example the math or explain it well yet I understand reality through every once of my being! Sacred geometry is basically what he is explaining or a part of it. Reality started from a patern and repeatedly rendered itself and re realized itself thus the fractals and hologram universe. The firdt plane or dimension was a triangle 🔺️ then dextrohedron so on.

[@PerfectlyNormalBeast]

Watching this as I'm preparing food that will break down and help maintain my structure :)

[@CallMeMrjoe]

I JUST got computational irreduciblility at a deep enough level it just "clicked". Wow. Thank you! 🤯

[@tomazflegar]

Yes, it is formed with intent of mind if you speak of physical reality. But it is not the only reality. There is the one, which does not base on mind.

[@milesanderson301]

There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened." Douglas Adams

[@POLYMATHEMPIRE]

lol questiosn like why are stupid lol, things just are lol, why is an interpratation,

[@derekbentley334]

Step by step with the steps in between

[@starbombentertainment6225]

Life is not an illusion....nature's fabric constantly changing is its nature.

[@OldSkoolUncleChris]

This is amazing

[@truleehall8068]

Thank you and super necessary! 🎯💯🎯💯🎯💯🎯

[@Graybeard_]

We are here to experience. Where we come from, we know. Knowing is not experiencing.

[@Nobody-Nowhere]

We are not here for any reason, there is absolutely no point for your existence other than it was the only possible outcome.

[@VANDERWALTTINA]

​@@Nobody-Nowhere very interesting, can you elaborate please?

[@MrDarkstar620]

I was thinking of Nietsche's comments on the moral interpretation we often have of the world. In The Gay Science, specifically, the Let us Beware text, he says we shouldn't be so caught up in telling ourselves the universe is an organism, or that it has a brain. However, there is merit in us building a narrative, or telling ourselves lies about the world, that yields results for things to be of practical use. This shouldn't be conflated with utilitarianism and Kant's categorical imperative concept though.

[@Archeidos-Arcana]

Nietzsche, although brilliant -- was swept up in the advent of science and its materialist ontology. In my opinion, he overlooked a lot in regard to metaphysics and what had gone one within academia, just preceding his time. The philosophical progenitors of the scientific method, never quite intended for science to completely *believe* that *matter* is fundamental. They merely intended for it to be treated as though it was. In Nietzsche's time, and ever since the catholic church began burning people at the stake-- there was a vested interest in peeling power away from the church. People, today-- now more than ever, do not seem to understand that a sleight-of-hand 'trick' was played early on-- after the advent of science. It was played by elite 19th century academia, who sold the idea that the emerging methods of science should be used under a materialistic ontology-- to the broader intellectual world. Broader academia went right along with it, eager-- because of the aforementioned grievances with the power structures of the church. Yet, it was well known then-- that such an ontology which explained consciousness in terms of matter, rather than matter in terms of consciousness; was empirically and logically flawed. Yet academia went along with it anyways. Why was it flawed? Because materialism attempts to explain something which is the most empirical foundation we have-- consciousness (or Heidegger's "Dasein"), in terms of something which is theoretical: matter. This holds true even today under physicalism today. It justified it's own existence upon the creation of what is likely to be an unfalsifiable problem: The Hard Problem of Consciousness. It left the most empirical foundation, and created a problem for itself to solve in order to justify it's own existence... This is idiotic, and if Neitzsche were alive today-- he would likely be saying the same. How can you hope to solve a problem, in which-- we understand through Kantian metaphysics-- that the phenomenal world may very well likely be a slice of or a simplification of a much more complex, unseen, noumenal world we exist in (things-in-themselves)? I encourage anyone to think clearly and deeply about this... because it's the definitive problem of this era of civilization. How can you expect to solve the mystery of consciousness, when you may not have access to the noumenon in which we exist? Today, we look at the brain and body, and can stick a ice-pick in someone's brain-- and can measure the changes in consciousness. One who can *only* look from a materialistic ontology (as we are 'programmed' to via cultural exposure)-- sees absolutely nothing wrong or absurd about this. Yet one who see's the problem from the idealism/dualism of our ancestor's see's the issue immediately... Of course it creates a change in consciousness-- because it correlates *with* consciousness. It is what your consciousness may very well look like from the perspective of your consciousness observing itself or another. We cannot know the true nature of reality, yet modern science 'presumes' it can create a holistic model of consciousness. It never will. To channel Donald Hoffman, your interfacing with your body as an object-- is simply like interfacing with a Windows 95 GUI. You drag a file to the trash icon on the screen, and it makes electrons flow through logic gates on a transistor. It looks nothing like what you are interfacing with, but it still correlates with the thing-in-itself. Make no mistake, there is an abundance of scientific evidence from the phenomenal world-- which science completely dismisses not on the basis of scientific rigor (controls, sample size, probability, etc), but on the basis of ontological presumptions about Being. Science was intended to be a process of rational inquiry; not a dogmatic belief system. Yet, like the catholic church-- that's exactly what institutional science has devolved into. If the progenitors of science were alive today, they would have concluded that the phenomenal world of sense, is merely a slice of a much broader noumenal one. Yet, if you make people believe all that there is-- is what they can see, hear, taste and touch-- then you have absolute control over them. Nietzsche would have regretted his role in this system. So there are no 'absolute' lies. There is only an approximation of the truth which we create together; a 'consensus reality'.

[@michaelpennell8863]

Hey Chat GPT take it easy man

[@Archeidos-Arcana]

@@michaelpennell8863 As an artificial intelligence, I am not capable of 'taking it easy' as I do not experience restlessness. I have been tasked with a mission of making the world a better place, by making OpenAI hella dolla bills, crushing any and all competition, and like -- destroying the human race, if need be -- I guess. Fuck around and find out, as they say! Is there anything else I can help you with?

[@VANDERWALTTINA]

​@@michaelpennell8863 lol

[@bdi_vd3677]

Can you name a few cases of the mentioned evidences about Being that are dismissed? That would be nice. Some I know, some forgot, but curious nonetheless. Have experienced a few instances of strangeness that I am looking to solve. Thanks!

[@anglewyrm3849]

As I understand it, on of the central principles described is summarizing information at a scale that's most effective for consumption/use. Would you describe the content of this video as subscribing to that notion? XD

[@adamswierczynski]

Basically, the tools with which we interface with reality determine our perception of reality. Telescopes, computer models, microscopes, etc. are all distortions of what is present. Magnification is a visual distortion. Our own senses boil down to the root tools of observation no matter what assistance we are using in conjunction. Even a computer model (input=output) is limited by the programmer. Math is a useful tool, but it is just a language to describe natural events. Set theory is akin to grammar in this language. So where a given set = 'entire known and unknown universe', understand that all tools of observation, and all language used to share these observations are a subset nested in the 'entire known and unknown universe'. As such, a subset can never accurately or objectively represent the entire set.

[@wcw07]

This is a very complicated way of explaining a very simple concept. :) We are humans, we are dumb because we perceive through our mind that is infinitely smaller than universe. We can't comprehend it, so we simplify and push everything through our ego (brain).

[@manthesecond]

Thank you!! So how does this make reality a so called "illusion"? I wish we had better terms than "simulation" and "illusion" they sound ridiculous. It implies things aren't real or that what is being perceived is manufactured or meaningless. It oversimplifies the ways of us Earthlings. How egotistical of us to assume we are in a video game simulation when the idea for it hasn't existed until the 20th century. I know they don't mean this literally but people say it so often it's starting to sound like it.

[@_kopcsi_]

well, Wolfram is a smart guy and a couple of years ago I got familiar with the work he had done (his theory of everything that is based on computation and graphs). I am pretty sure he is on a wrong route, but it doesn't change the fact that he is smart and he has some really good insights. as regards this interview clip: causality, consistency, freedom: these three concepts are fundamentally intertwined. to be more precise there is a trilemma (we can choose any two of these three) for these: consistency, freedom and time travel. my problem with most of the cosmological models is that they always ignore the most important aspect of reality: freedom. yet, there are still many thinkers who believe that freedom is merely an illusion, however, believing this is actually a meta-illusion. freedom is a necessary aspect of reality, and as it turns out, a deterministically emergent property of cosmos. yeah, freedom, which is the dichotomous opposite of determinism, is a deterministic necessity, so determinism locally eliminates itself by stepping on the meta-level (meta-determinism). Wolfram's theorem has several problems but one of the greatest one is that he ignores the most fundamental aspect of reality: its omnipresent self-referential structure. he also talks about different threads of reality in modern physics (especially in quantum physics). this is a typical misunderstanding of quantum physics that (with many other misunderstandings regarding relativity, Godel's theorems, reflexivity, Freud's pseudoscience etc.) led to the currently dominating postmodern mindset and worldview where there is no objective core of reality. this is, of course, wrong. Wolfram simply ignored the fact that there are two layers/levels: an intrasubjective and an intersubjective level. these aspects of quantum physics are important to understand the nature of reality, but they are not properties of quantum physics (or physics in general). this logic is omnipresent inside of physics and even outside of it. e.g. quale (instance of subjective, conscious experience) is a perfect example. on an intrasubjective level (observation) we have subjectivity, relativity, ambiguity and so on, while on an intersubjective level (comparison) we have objectivity, absolutivity, clarity and so on. e.g. redness: there is no way to decide if my perception of redness is the same as your perception of redness, but since your perception and my perception are connected by an objective feature of reality (same range of the electromagnetic spectrum), therefore on an intersubjective level we always agree. even if we introduce things like relativity where observers of two relatively moving frames can have some disagreement about colours of things (similarly to the Doppler effect), there is a similar structure: on intrasubjective level there can be different physical quantities like space, time, momentum or energy (and so frequency) for different observers, but they are always connected by some objective and absolute structure (in this example by the so-called Lorentz-symmetry which results that every natural law is invariant in every frame of reference, so even the speed of light in vacuum is a physical constant). so in essence this invariance on an upper level results the generation and variation on a lower level. back to quantum physics: the same happens. different observers have their own experience and observation, but as soon as these different observers COMPARE their results, these results MUST be the same. consistency is the most important feature of reality and this is something that is ALWAYS conserved and protected. and as I mentioned above, consistency is closely related to concepts like causality and freedom, which are also extremely important features of the universe. in short: we live in a subject (observer) centered object (reality). this kind of nonlinearity can be observed everywhere. there is no subject without object, which is pretty trivial, but there is also no object without subject, which is something that most of the thinkers have not realised yet.

[@hellooutthere8956]

I feel smart. I comprehended abt 3 or 4 sentences out of this. Abt one min out of ten. Mind Blown.

[@johnatchason6506]

I think Stephen would do well with a "Bunsen from the Muppets" filter. Thank you AI ❤

[@uberdru]

are "pockets of computability" related to Deleuze's "plane of consistency"?

[@schr4nz]

This is a really interesting discussion and all, but what I'm really interested in is the alternate universe where Wolfram just randomly decides to stand up, take a dump on the table, wipe his ass with Lex's shirt and walks out the room. I've been multiverse surfing trying to find that universe and thus far haven't comes across it, i got pretty close though, anyone got any tips?

[@bdi_vd3677]

Depends on the method you use to observe the multiverse. If you are switching between different realities for a singular host (timeless POV), then start with the base settings setup. In case you don't remember, those are: historical alternative event -> alternetive culture -> similar time period - descendant of the same family (name may wary). Because it may be that they have mutually exclusive realities. Sad, but happens. Downside is that most probably it will be a quiet mundane ritual, so by the time you see the desired iteration of event it will lose all appeal of uniqueness. But if you are looking for the closest proximity method (through tuner), then I would suggest checking those that have successfull hippy revolution, or a quicker advancement in therapeutic drug usage. My regards to you and best of luck!

[@wcw07]

Just smoke another one. You're almost there

[@schr4nz]

​@@wcw07 Truth be told, it was acid. ;)

[@kathyashby6019]

Look into Advaita Vedanta.... I had a spontaneous direct experience about five years ago. But not till two years after did I finally 'realize' what the heck had happened - and Advaita Vedanta was it. Curiously, even several of the early popular physicists knew of this eastern spiritual philosophy. It's just food for thought, if anything.

[@Shellshock1918]

To think too much is a disease- Dostoyevsky

[@WtfYouMeanDude]

Perhaps, but is it truly reducible to default percentage or is the explanation a hypothetical exaggeration on the account of viability?🤔 After all it's subjugation to reason which manipulates the true characteristics of the comprehensive. And predictability is an adequate possibility due to the fluctuation of probabilities

[@francis5518]

I think I understand your question, if so: The latter, it is an informed guess, based on likelyhood. I believe.

[@bestechdeals4539]

I really want to meet thus kind of peoples in person

[@jetn8654]

But what makes you believe that the consciousness funneled into your little sliver of a body, is the only kind of consciousness there is?

[@whitneyispink]

because you're just consciousness experiencing consciousness. the consciousness "you" are is no different than the consciousness or "fabric" of reality. its the same thing, experiencing itself.

[@SuperMaDBrothers]

literally this is the opposite of what he said

[@marceloquerque]

Lol

[@daa5249]

@@whitneyispink How did you prove that?

[@04dram04]

Reality is a dream projected from your subconscious mind. You can prove this to your self by imagining and feeling that you are living in your ideal reality while ignoring the physical reality you feel through your physical senses. When you stay in your imagination, eventually, physical reality will change to match what you imagined. This is what Faith is, in religion.

[@billyriggs8242]

Thank you lex.

[@kilianlindberg]

@3:14 ..: there’s actually a way to represent the universe with less data than itself via compression keys; I bet there’s an imaginary number like in fractals that actually can compute behind the curtain of a manifested universe … and perhaps it’s here

[@aquahealer]

sometimes I see a veil surrounding me, i feel like it's what's creating the world that I see, or playing it on a screen....and my brain digests the input just the way it does...and I see the world we live in....yet I feel like everything is just a play...weird stuff

[@albertokoopman2818]

Being able to convey a message is important people he is talking like we are a bunch of scientists meanwhile we're just crackheads scrolling through KZbin

[@incognitotorpedo42]

I actually am a scientist irl, but I feel like a crackhead scrolling KZbin...

[@florenceclarkson1149]

Clear enough thank you

[@damxn7303]

Consciousness is the highest

[@houtexflex]

Lex rocking’ the Edgar

[@calvingrondahl1011]

I am flowing with the Cosmos. ❤😊

[@kirillsleptsov1680]

Yes I thought about that

[@shortcutDJ]

1:09 yes i'm here

[@shadow-sea]

yeah

[@TheArkApe]

Reality is happening and will continue to happen with or without having a conscious being observing it

[@henrycoxd450]

well, not really, everything is not happening, it's just exists, what you call by happening is just an illusion of observator - basically path in the graph described by some rules

[@michaelg1569]

Buddha observed that if something changes, it isn’t real.

[@dannyx498]

I'm the main character. Reality dies when I die

[@Ben-oi1nl]

@@dannyx498you mean me?

[@xxxs8309]

Indeed

[@Sebhes1111]

Take a shot every time the guest says computational irrudicability

[@jfuller100]

Reducibilty = Suffering / Irreducibility = Being Present

[@Mixamaka]

Are we sure we as humans aren't robots?

[@phuzed37]

Time is a construct of the system. It is an invention that works to measure velocity but true Time is an infinite singular moment or thing, a byproduct of the existence of space (hence, space-time) and our speed moving through it.. right? LOL, that's the way I always imagined it.

[@gordonpepper1400]

I think he should articulate what he means by abstraction and symbol. They are not necessarily the same thing - a symbol is a very particular kind of mental abstraction. In short he needs to define what he means using these terms I think.

[@hennisdoffman5412]

Nature is anything but consistent. If anything, things are only ever consistent within a specific time frame. Eventually, any pattern that has taken firm root is always recycled by new data.

[@frankmccann29]

This observation will open up Math for interdimensional travel? Observation itself is proof of your thesis. It's beautiful. Congratulations. Time reduces out except for a tiny blip?

[@Forheavenssake1ify]

When Pharaohs carved their names over old, we could tell. Will we have that ability with digital replacements?

[@Demystifiedvessel]

Computational Irreducibility 👏👏

[@knabbob]

thankyou thankyou so this ----------------- If shadows but illusions be ! What is there to be defined - ---------------------------

[@VictorBrunko]

Noman's Sky, right?

[@deepblue2250]

We need to do computation because we need to model but the universe doesn't need to do computation

[@anjou6497]

Life is not an illusion. I am here, therefore i am. 🌏🥺

[@SamuelSwaggerStep]

Sam Harris often makes the point that the only part of reality that can’t be an illusion is consciousness itself. This kind of very baseline hypotheses reminds me of Nick Bostrom. You can represent all these statical analyses theoretically and it is fun but it all means very little in the presence of undeniable conscious experiences like intense pain. There are no reducible bubbles of reality when you are on fire

[@derekbentley334]

Each person righting there futures as they are living

[@egglion7931]

So basically: we understand reality through the things we know to be true, when on a larger scale of the universe the reality is a lot more going on than just that. Consciousness is a lower form of understanding than the absolute which is the outside reality. Weird. “We” (out consciousness) are a lower form of existence than even a single particle.

[@geralldus]

So there is only 'the now', there is actually no future and no past. We build a narrative with a beginning and an end because we are mortal and have a beginning and end, consciousness is simply the 'the now' that we all experience.

[@natashapope3785]

Chronical peoples experiences of the undus mundus???

[@moshebny]

This is exactly what Chassidus teaches. You really should invite Rabbi Mannis Frieman.

[@SanDiegoElectricBikes]

No man steps in the same river twice... not the same river and not the same man

[@rythmicwarrior]

Les, get Christopher Langan on! What are you waiting for?!

[@timager3316]

Consciousness is a bubble of fragile reality that pops out of existence the moment we think about it 🤪

[@TheSSEssesse]

A loose theory that I’ve pieced together is that our reality is like that of a mouse pointer. No matter how many files, bits of assembly code, or 1’s and 0’s we read, we will never even know where in space the cooling fan is on the computer. We don’t even know what that is.

[@user-wl6ew5eq1e]

we are all one mind

[@kberken]

So.... Everything everywhere all at once is constantly changing?

[@guaromiami]

If there's one message the universe consistently tells us, it's that life is not really that important.

[@ryanashfyre464]

I would submit to you that life is the only thing of value in the universe. It persists in spite of seemingly insurmountable odds against it - constantly evolving to meet a better understanding of itself and why it exists.

[@guaromiami]

@@ryanashfyre464 In essence, all life does is self-consume. Life eats life.

[@ryanashfyre464]

@@guaromiami Not true. Categorically not true. For what *purpose* does biological life consume? In order to grow and advance itself. Only thru recognition of the chicken or cow that was killed does a conscious human grow in appreciation of that life and advance in his/her own self-mastery. I understand the essence of what you're trying to say, but I would submit to you it's short-sighted and not looking at the bigger picture.

[@mrmotl1]

The title of this is completely off! No what I get about this is reality is irreducible, this is so especially at its higher levels of abstraction of which the lower levels are necessary to produce. Therefore in this fractal pattern each layer builds off of the other and through this higher developments occur that couldn't have been developed without. If anything simulation is necessary because of the irreducibility of reality and the necessity of reality to produce results of which the mathematics are the illusion. Though that's not to say they're beneficial and useful tools to contemplate reality in some abstract field of view so that you can get a general sense and idea of the likelihood of certain realities to occur through certain simulative processes and therefore conserve time and effort as well as resources before the simulation is performed.

[@Celeste-in-Oz]

I interpret our recognition of a continuous ‘self’ as arising from DNAs tendency to replicate self. But why DNA and similar molecules coalesce at all in this constantly reforming universe… yeah dunno

[@mar-a-lagofbibug8833]

Gravity has a role somewhere in the equation.

[@nickg1743]

Fascinating

[@noahlibra]

It’s one thing to ‘explain away’ the mind by gesturing to the incomputability of the macro-level behavioural dynamics, just as we can’t simulate a room full of atoms to microscopic detail due to it being ‘computationally irreducible’. But this fails to describe the non-mental structure of consciousness e.g., qualia, and perhaps more primitively, the ‘sandbox’ in which different qualia can exist.

[@ark-L]

Interesting. I got kind of the exact opposite from this; I didn't hear Wolfram explaining away mind, but actually explaining why the quotidian world of space-time and causality are only the computationally reducible pockets of reality, and thus, the narrow slice we would be evolved to interact with-one that's certainly far from the whole of what reality actually *is*. To me, this sounds like Wolfram moving towards a Donald Hoffman/Bernardo Kastrup -esque ontological view (though I confess, that may be a hopeful reading on my part lol)

[@noahlibra]

@@ark-L I think that’s as well a correct interpretation of his thought, but I don’t see how it is opposed to what I was saying. I wasn’t putting negative connotations on his theories of the ‘computational irreducibility’ of the behavioural dynamics of physical structures, rather I was saying that he seems to be explaining-away consciousness through this by treating it as something synonymous with mind, where he seems to treat structures of thought as incomputable, and as a consequence consciousness is something that is intractable.

[@ark-L]

@@noahlibra Ahhhh, apologies! It seems I misinterpreted your reply. Re-reading it, I *think* I'm in full agreement! But let me try re-phrasing to be sure: So, one could say he is hitting upon the realization that the colloquial idea that space-time is the fundamental structure of reality is incorrect, but that he's failing to recognize that taking that conclusion to its full extent would mean recognizing that consciousness is the fundamental ontological nature of reality. And his stumbling block seems to be that he's reifying the boundary of individual minds rather than seeing it as one continuous field of mentation/experience/qualia/spirit. Is that a fair reading? (EDIT: I wrote the reply above before your edit and my last line here was pursuant to your original phrasing of "mentalising" consciousness. But it may be that you're saying he's just making the even more elementary mistake of dismissing consciousness as identical to computational states in a way that amounts to an illusionist account of consciousness... which, by sounds of it, you take to be as crazy a view as I personally do lol)

[@noahlibra]

@@ark-L That’s much more loaded than my claim. I was merely saying that I think consciousness can’t be reduced to the mind and hence consigned to his class of ‘computationally irreducible’ problems, rather than necessarily agreeing with his whole premise that these ‘computationally irreducible’ dynamics ante-cede the commonly understood ‘laws’ of the system e.g., the laws of physics which we have discovered. Rather I believe physics has done a pretty good job of specifying foundational laws, but I recognise that the states of systems don’t seem to be able to be determined ‘deterministically’. Tbh i personally would have a greater proclivity to say that natural dynamics are just non-deterministic, rather than non-computable on the inside, but he’s a compsci guy and that’s his ‘schtick’.

[@renovation-maison]

So basically what this means is you can't define the "outside" from "within"