One rule to rule them all? with Jonathan Gorard

Рет қаралды 3,160

Күн бұрын

In the early days of the Wolfram Physics Project, Stephen Wolfram seemed to be seeking a single rule that, when applied to the hypergraph, could generate our universe.
More recently, however, Wolfram has promoted the idea of the ruliad, the application of every possible rule to the hypergraph.
So I asked Jonathan Gorard, who was instrumental in the founding of the Wolfram Physics Project, whether all rules might be applied to generate our universe, or whether he was searching for one rule to rule them all.
-
Stephen Wolfram’s 2010 TED talk www.ted.com/talks/stephen_wol... in which he said he was committed “to see if within this decade we can finally hold in our hands the rule for our universe”.
Jonathan Gorard
- Jonathan Gorard at The Wolfram Physics Project www.wolframphysics.org/people...
- Jonathan Gorard at Cardiff University www.cardiff.ac.uk/people/view...
- Jonathan Gorard on Twitter / getjonwithit
- The Centre for Applied Compositionality www.appliedcompositionality.com/
- The Wolfram Physics Project www.wolframphysics.org/
Concepts mentioned by Jonathan
- Equivalence class en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equival...
- Congruence class en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congrue...
- Lagrangian mechanics en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrang...
- Hamiltonian mechanics en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamilto...
- Teleology en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleology
- Ontology en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology
- Axiomatic view of mathematics - top-down en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiomat...
- Constructivist view of mathematics - bottom-up en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constru...)
- Domain of discourse en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_...
- Intuitionism en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intuiti...
- Algorithmic information theory en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algorit...
Image
- Stele from Retortillo commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi... by Emilio Gómez Fernández commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Us... licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0 creativecommons.org/licenses/...
-
The Last Theory lasttheory.com/ is hosted by Mark Jeffery markjeffery.com/ founder of the Open Web Mind www.openwebmind.com/
Prefer to listen to the audio? Search for The Last Theory in your podcast player, or listen at lasttheory.com/podcast/042-on...
Kootenay Village Ventures Inc.

Пікірлер: 56

@danellwein8679 10 ай бұрын

Jonathan is good for Stephen .. thanks for this ... good stuff

@lasttheory 10 ай бұрын

Yes, he really is!

@citris1 10 ай бұрын

Good to listen to at .75 speed.

@lasttheory 10 ай бұрын

Ha! Yes, the ideas come fast from Jonathan!

@panagiotisapostolidis6424 10 ай бұрын

we need to know more about the ruliad, or maybe something related and more easy to study, excited to see where all this goes, grateful for this channel

@lasttheory 10 ай бұрын

Yes, I'm working on videos right now that will go deeper into the multiway graph and, soon, introduce the ruliad. This is exciting stuff!

@IncompleteTheory 10 ай бұрын

Well it's nice that Jonathan is already thinking about how to handle multiple contenders for a rule of our physical universe, but so far we have not even one such rule. I understand it is difficult (impossible) to tell how close we are to finding one (let alone many) but it would have been interesting to learn about the ongoing search process. Apart from that, as always: fascinating!

@lasttheory 10 ай бұрын

Thanks for the comment! Yes, it's frustrating, it'd be so good to find a rule, or a set of rules, that look promising for explaining our universe. I don't think that's what Jonathan's doing, though, so much as analysing the consequences of the Wolfram model as a whole. For example, his derivation of General Relativity from the hypergraph isn't based on any particular rule. Instead, it asks what properties rules would have to have to be consistent with the universe as we know it. For example, one of the assumptions Jonathan makes to derive General Relativity is that rules are causally invariant. And that's really valuable to know: causally invariant rules can give rise to General Relativity; so causally invariant rules are the ones we should probably focus on.

@James-ll3jb 4 ай бұрын

No it's not. It's mental chewing gum

@Zeuts85 4 ай бұрын

@@James-ll3jb That's what people have said about almost everything in science since the beginning of written history. Congratulations on being unoriginal.

@James-ll3jb 4 ай бұрын

@@Zeuts85 Grow up. If you can't spot b.s. Mr. Spock, there's no help for you. Griw a brain.

@echelonrank3927 3 ай бұрын

@@Zeuts85 wrong. they didnt have harmless mental chewing gum back then, they has sorcery and witchcraft

@maxwelldillon4805 10 ай бұрын

since we live in one universe, which is distinct from other alternatives we can imagine, i think the one rule goal was and is plausible.

@lasttheory 10 ай бұрын

Thanks Maxwell. I agree, it's conceivable that a single rule could give rise to all the complexity of our universe. I do wonder whether that's the simplest possible theory, though. If we decide that rule #9124 governs our universe, it begs the question: why rule #9124? why not rule #9125?

@philipm3173 10 ай бұрын

@@lasttheory because that rule is the universe we inhabit.

@fig7047 9 ай бұрын

I have caught up with you now. I would like to see an explanation of how certain properties of the hypergraph map to aspects of quantum mechanics. Similarly, I would like to see the same thing done for general relativity too.

@fig7047 9 ай бұрын

Oh, and energy too. I've always thought that energy was a fundamental component of our reality. Nothing happens without energy?

@lasttheory 9 ай бұрын

Yes, absolutely. These are three essential topics, and I'm getting to them. Energy has a surprisingly simple (though not easy-to-explain) respresentation in the hypergraph. General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are more complicated, but I'll get into Jonathan Gorards derivations soon. My next topic, though, will be particles. How are photons, etc. represented in the hypergraph? Another essential topic, and one that doesn't yet have a good answer. Thanks for watching all my episodes! Much more to come.

@User53123 7 ай бұрын

I think if there is one rule it would be no duplicate information. Information has to be separated somehow, either by beingat different times or different locations. If it's in the same place or time we see the spin up spin down to separate it. Otherwise how could the universe keep things straight?

@lasttheory 7 ай бұрын

That's interesting. I'm not sure how exactly this would work, but for sure it's worth thinking about such an information approach. Thanks Jaime!

@User53123 7 ай бұрын

@@lasttheory catching up on all your videos tonight, for some reason youtube didn't send me notifications.

@NightmareCourtPictures 10 ай бұрын

I don't agree with John here...I don't think he's giving the Ruliad concept enough credit for why it's so elegant and useful. To explain myself: So John had expressed the idea on computational Irreducibility a few videos back...that when looking at a system, irreducibility creates reducible laws of physics at a larger scale and in this way, the two phenomena are united together. Thing is that this is exactly what the Ruliad as a concept is supposed to do. Rather than explain why a particular rule, creates a structure, all possible rules are creating a computationally irreducible structure...and from that, gives rise to the predictable laws of physics that we know... and what the Ruliad implies is that therefor the laws of physics as we know them are generic...not particular or special. This makes the wolfram model, a convergent one (where all possible rules, converge to generic laws aka general relativity and Quantum mechanics). To me that is extremely elegant. Adding to the above about why the Ruliad over the one rule idea, surrounding this generic-ness... If computational equivalence is true, which I'm sure Wolfram would say it is, then nearly any rule you pick is going to be Turing universal, and capable of emulating all other rules (at any scale)...which means why would Rule X be any different of a situation than Rule Y or Z and so on? Give the computation enough time and it will produce a generic universe where things can exist in it. if it's infinite as Turing universality suggests then all possible universes will exist in it. Those things have to be explained away when we pick a particular rule, and I think picking particular rules goes against the the grain of the project and all of it's principles that it sets up. It's like picking a "reference frame" and saying that reference frame must be what the universe is...i guess in the language of wolfram would be picking a "rulial reference frame." and saying that particular frame of reference is the universe...it seems to run counter to the model Lastly, the Ruliad concept seems like an inevitability to me, as Wolfram typically frames it. The fact that we exist in a universe where you can run rule 0 - 255...implies that we must live in a universe where you can run these rules...and not just one of them. If we take that computational equivalence is true again, where rules do Turing universal computation, then we can in effect run all possible computable rules, and the Ruliad therefor exist. I'm not saying that the picking of one rule is gonna be useless, but i'm saying that the Ruliad is a lot more useful... as a construct that not only seems to exist just as a logical deduction but serves to unify and simplify the model...if it operate in this manner where what it creates laws of physics that are generic...then the only way to do the study of the universe would be through this construct...and not any particular rule. Cheers,

@lasttheory 10 ай бұрын

This is fascinating and really gets to the heart of the Wolfram model. All possible rules is certainly cleaner than one rule (which would bet the question: why _this_ rule?) or multiple rules (ditto: why _these_ rules?) My worry is that if we have a model of the universe where _everything_ is possible, then we risk explaining _nothing_. Suppose there are particular rules that allow propagation of persistent knots in the hypergraph, which might correspond to photons. Of course, there are other rules that _don't_ allow this. So does our universe allow all possible rules, even the ones that don't give rise photons? The fact is, in our universe, there _are_ photons. Not just here and now, but, it seems, everywhere and ever since the early universe. So surely it's reasonable to think that the rules that give rise to photons are somehow privileged in our universe? What do you think? As I say, this is fascinating, and there's so much more in what you write, and so much more I'd like to think through.

@brainxyz 8 ай бұрын

@NightmareCourtPictures Always interesting reading your insights

@NightmareCourtPictures 8 ай бұрын

@@brainxyz Hey Brain! It's good to hear from you again. @lasttheory I never responded to this i'm so sorry . I remember reading this great response and I did not have a decent answer, and I remain pretty stumped about the "what is a photon?" question. I think this is really one of the big wild cards for the model. my own intuition: is that I do believe that in the end the two ideas; one being a propagating pattern in the hypergraph, and two a computationally irreducible -> reducible pocket at a new scale component of the graph are two sides of the same idea, and the question of whether we have a One rule world, or an all possible rules world, remains to be seen...although I also believe that these concepts are two sides of the same coin too Just want to mention that to both @brainxyz @lasttheory if you guys saw the most recent livestream with Gorard and wolfram on the Hyporuliad? (Science Research Session: Hyporuliad). They go into some formal discussion about the Ruliad, Hyperruliad and something I've never heard before (Hyporuliad), the discussion being centered on what i believe is an attempt on formalizing the idea of hyper computation. Also they go into a lot of the juicy exciting bits about the Ruliad side stuff of the wolfram model and I think it was one of the greatest discussions I've ever heard. They went over P=NP, Transfinite numbers, inevitable geometry, continuous multi-way graph representations :O I'm a bit peeved that we have yet another word for a Ruliad construct, but I am mildly enjoying the colorful naming schemes they manage to come up with lol. Anyway I'm just recommending you guys watch it if you haven't yet.

@Anders01 9 ай бұрын

Jonathan explained in another video why they need to use hypergraphs instead of ordinary graphs. I came to think of how from a philosophical perspective ordinary graphs are the correct representation. Because in the simple case with two points and a line between them, that's all there is! Between the two points/nodes there is only one relation as I see it in physical reality.

@lasttheory 9 ай бұрын

Yes, this is an open question. I'm guessing, ultimately, it won't matter whether we use hypergraphs or graphs. Hypergraphs is just a convenience for now.

@MA-ie6hl 10 ай бұрын

The truth resides in the middle.

@lasttheory 10 ай бұрын

Yes. I'm fascinated to see what that looks like. A handful of rules for our universe? A set of rules that meets certain criteria? It's exciting to be here to see these ideas evolve.

@gregor-samsa 10 ай бұрын

No that is Just the cheap Trick used by all right extreme Propaganda.

@generaltheory 10 ай бұрын

Middles = media. Voice, words, text, video, audio, pictures, newspapers, gift cards. Modes of communucation. Modes of activity sometimes becoming behaviors. What acts? What performs? What ignites the fire? And the most eternal one. When has that happened? What points do we choose to connect to get higher? Where are desired behaviors?.. I can see you putting those card numbers and sending me two mil

@KaliFissure 9 ай бұрын

The rule, that density increases.

@KaliFissure 9 ай бұрын

It is continuous but we can never model perfectly. There may not be a grain but we can never calculate to ininty exactly so….. What works? And a hydrodynamic model using a dielectric super fluid of variable density is the most fine grained. QM is integers to hydrodynamic fluid

@lasttheory 9 ай бұрын

Right, if space is infinitely continuous, we'll never model it computationally. But if it's _discrete,_ then maybe we _can_ model it perfectly?

@KaliFissure 9 ай бұрын

What is in between the discrete pieces?

@lasttheory 9 ай бұрын

@@KaliFissure If the discrete nodes and edges are _in_ space, then that question demands an answer. For example, when I draw the hypergraph in my visualizations, I draw them _in_ the space of my screen. But those are just _visualizations._ If the discrete nodes and edges _are_ space, then it makes no sense to ask what's in between them: the nodes and edges are _all there is_. Hope that makes sense! My video _What’s beyond the universe?_ kzbin.info/www/bejne/qnfTiKt7jbuLY6M touches on this. Let me know what you think, and thanks, as ever, for the questions and comments, Caleigh!

@tommysullivan 3 ай бұрын

Lmao @ religious wars over which rule!! Called it!! 😂

@frun 9 ай бұрын

Ruliad=mathematical logic? It seems to be similar to a set of all consistent axiomatic systems.

@lasttheory 9 ай бұрын

Yes, very much so. Stephen Wolfram has put out a big book on this: Metamathematics www.wolfram-media.com/products/metamathematics-foundations-and-physicalization/

@Elsiodur 8 ай бұрын

The rules our consciousness is using to interpret reality likely emerge as a self-similar image of the particular internal description language & the kind of geometry our internal topological stable structure (faith?) aquires. To me, it seems mathematics can describe well the emerging properties & the geometric relationships of particular rules, but beyond that, it's all about faith 😅

@KaliFissure 8 ай бұрын

Convergence is the law. Slow convergence, 13.8bilion years? And at the event horizon After neutrons take the ER bridge and exit at lowest energy density point... Geometry The neutrons decay. A change of state like no other. 0.6fm³ to 1m³. Expansion of 10⁴⁵ dark energy. And the decayed neutrons are dark matter. Amorphous hydrogen which evolves in time into everything. Gravity gathers. Topology scatters

@williamschacht7076 10 ай бұрын

I can get away with just using Newton's framework.

@lasttheory 10 ай бұрын

Ah, those were the days, when Newton's deterministic model looked like it could explain everything! Thanks, as ever, for the comment!

@williamschacht7076 10 ай бұрын

@@lasttheory Lagrange and Hamilton are just generalizations of Newton. Turbulence is everywhere and all you need is Newton to describe it. But, then again, to say that Newton works for describing turbulence might be "jumping the gun?"

@michaelmcgovern9097 8 ай бұрын

please stop saying 'you know' when you're telling us something

@lasttheory 8 ай бұрын

Yep, there are quite a lot of “you know”s in Jonathan’s speech… but in his defence, he’s explaining some pretty complex ideas at a pretty extraordinary rate, so I think we can forgive him that!

@generaltheory 10 ай бұрын

Guess what I have just done with Egyptian and Judaist cosmography. And guess what - they're right. Mega right.

@generaltheory 10 ай бұрын

And this is, my friends, the powerful mega News of millenias and our humankind to the eternity. Putting up a plan and a website with focus for collaborative research these days

@echelonrank3927 3 ай бұрын

dude is basically looking for the next theory that explains everything and nothing at the same time. a clean set of elegant rules that generate the universe , but not actual things within the universe. couldnt even generate a flatworm LOL

@lasttheory 3 ай бұрын

You're right, the Wolfram model is nowhere close to generating a flatworm, and, sadly, never will be: that's way too high level for physics, we'll leave that to the biologists! But the Wolfram model does predict the structure of space, as Jonathan Gorard's derivation of Einstein's equations from the hypergraph shows. And it does predict aspects of quantum mechanics. So there's a long way to go, but there's _some_ progress!

@James-ll3jb 4 ай бұрын

This stuff is so presumptuous it's hilarious: 500% pure JARGON!😂

@lasttheory 4 ай бұрын

Hi James! I hear you, but Jonathan is actually one of the least jargony people in physics. It's just that, well, there really are some complicated concepts in all this. I'm doing my best to make videos to explain each of these concepts in the simplest terms I can. Hope these videos help!