[Podcast] Jonathan Gorard on Compositionality, Multicomputation, Ontology, and Functoriality

[@EWischan]

I keep coming back to this discussion. The bit between 37:30 and 41:40 is so good! Put into much better words than I could.

[@TheMemesofDestruction]

Jonathan is one of the most kind and brilliant folks I have had the pleasure of having a conversation with on KZbin. I always learn something. ^.^

[@Self-Duality]

Absolutely true! Not only have I watched your conversation with him, but I was inspired to message him because of it! Keep up the awesome work!

[@gnomeculture6892]

I’ll keep my remark short and sweet: This is beyond exciting and I’m sure I’m not alone in saying that this new category of content has been eagerly anticipated 🎉 We love your dedication to this work Bernard! ❤️‍🔥 Can’t wait to see how it went!

[@Self-Duality]

I’m very pleased to work for you, my friend! Jonathan was nothing short of marvelous - a unique, laserlike mind (to say the least), as you’ll soon find 😌💭

[@KineHjeldnes]

Not even 30 minutes in, and this conversation is amazing!

[@hamletwinston7239]

Great interview! Gorard is a lovely person, too. Very authentic

[@Self-Duality]

I couldn’t agree more! I was deeply honored and pleased to even have the opportunity to converse with him.

[@WalterWartenweilerPrivate]

He makes me love his words even when I don’t understand them. And even better he makes me dig into the topics so I do!

[@rysw19]

Maybe the most interesting interview I’ve ever listed to. First time watching the channel. Hope there’s more like this!

[@Self-Duality]

Welcome! Yes… much more incoming. Stay tuned!

[@cruiser4387]

Cannot wait for this my friend, I already know it's going to be a good one. Would love to see you converse with more people in the future too as speaking with another person adds an extra dimension to these topics which can be even more helpful for understanding.

[@Self-Duality]

Too true! That’s why I’m inviting more people to converse in the near (and far) future - I appreciate your attention and encouragement.

[@E______]

Am I right to say that what you two are talking about is that you unlock or up regulate the whole of self so that your daily state of being, processes syntax in a more efficient and effective way that you become like a quantum human instead of a fragmented traditional memorizing and repeating npc? Because when I listen to you guys my intuition drives me to see it how I conduct my day.

[@E______]

So one becomes a set observer ? I’m so confused but I’m gonna figure it out !

[@chineduecheruo8872]

Great interview. I share your intuition...Yes defining the minimal and maximal scale, would yield one ontology. The ontology of I AM. Imagination is causality. Jonathan is also right, semantics is in one to one correspondence to causality, because we are attracted to our Imagination. Our objects of meaning. Shiny words. Entangled meaning. Semantics.

[@parker9163]

This is extremely clarifying, and, I think, a good connecting point for analytically inclined people to realize the importance of category theory in physics. I love how generic the concept of thinking about things as a causal network, is, for thinking about complex systems that may be difficult for the reductionists to to reduce. It provides a framework for computer scientists to open the door to physics reframed into their world of computational modeling (or systemic modeling for a physicist).

[@Self-Duality]

Excellently stated, my friend! I’m pleased to have brought (or at least played a small role in bringing) Jonathan’s thought into your own!

[@parker9163]

@@Self-Duality Yes, his thoughts aligned with mine that I've had for a while. It's great to see other people think the same thing for clarification.

[@ZephyrAvoxel]

I think the good feeling might also come (partially) because it's nice to feel validated by others, especially others who are seen as experts (therefore probably respected by society as sources of data). However, it probably should be (at most) a secondary factor to evaluate our own emotional responses (a caution to the danger of confirmation bias notwithstanding), I think it's important to acknowledge this factor because my subconscious told my conscious mind it was and it told my awareness to express it...I know it might sound Vvierd but I felt it and expressed the thought, read it, evaluated potential reception potentials then try to explain, mostly to show my context and share how it was sourced from an internal process, one which isn't usually linguistically expressed directly but (in my experience) is always there (though mostly as abstract or subtext) and since my version of that wanted to communicate with the world, and I can can distinguish it from the other internal dialogue(s), I figured why not? And so I tried to do it justice. My subconcious is pretty ()ssum...Innyways 😁 feeling slightly awkward but also pretty accomplished, so...post!

[@GEMSofGOD_com]

Languages and thinking themselves are about composing. The clearer structures are, the more achievable results become.

[@novaterra777]

+- 27.00 Casually mentions the discrepancy between the way nature operates and our models. My mind is blown mostly by how obvious this is to Jonathan despite the presumed abstract type of issues he deals with on a near daily basis. As someone that found their way into this 'sphere of discussion' from a background of philosophical curiosity and somewhat wanton autodidactic research focused on anything BUT mathematics for the most part thus far, this is great to hear. Despite coming at some of the (implied) topics from what could be considered diametrically opposed vantage points i feel a sense of potential convergence. All possible worlds has felt like a questionable avenue in philosophy ever since i first encountered it; speaking in terms of potentiality is probably more fruitful, but not really any more clarifying without well defined context (well shit, english, words, all that). Mind was physically blown +-40.00 onwards, i was going to comment in here further but need to rewatch and take notes, no one wants to read several pages of unstructured reflection on the tube. Going by the timestamps posted i did not expect this to be quite as 'accessible' to someone like me; jack of all trades and a sucker at math. While the deep technicalities are far beyond my current knowledge, i never felt completely disconnected from the discussion. Jonathan seems to have a sense for getting to the core of a subject, summarizing as well as can reasonably be expected (keyword 'whatever' as a courtesy, 'excuse', and a service at once), as well as an overall intuitive kind of intellect that does not blink upon breaking silly modern 'conventions of science'. He's got the skills to be a teacher, and i assume that's part of how you connected. Great first podcast, great guest, mindbending content that proved not to be quite as arcane as i feared it might be. Lots of food for thought. I'll chime in on the language question after some homework, not for several weeks.

[@alexeyprofi3951]

Truth is one for all and does not differ depending on the thought processes. It can be clarified by attributing false / true firstly to statements, the meaning of which is obvious to us, moving on to more and more complex

[@senri-]

Wow this was great, glad to see Jonathan back doing stuff like this, thank you both! Eagerly awaiting part 2.

[@hamletwinston7239]

Wow good job for getting Gorard! I wonder if eventually you can convince him of the CTMU? 🧐

[@Self-Duality]

Yes! Jonathan is not only a theoretical juggernaut, but a truly open-hearted human without an ounce of arrogance. Our first conversation was incisive and delightful; in our second conversation, whose date is undetermined, I hope to present the CTMU in way consistent with his (higher) category-theoretic approach, which is itself extremely innovative.

[@hamletwinston7239]

@@Self-Duality extremely excited and wishing you well!

[@ZephyrAvoxel]

@@Self-Duality My heart swells reading your comments. I hope my heart doesn't explode. I don't think it will.

[@Self-Duality]

@@ZephyrAvoxel Don’t confuse explosions with radical expansions 😌💭💖

[@-ChrisD]

An amazing conversation! You two mesh well together.

[@woad2562]

I'm very excited to hear this conversation.

[@NightmareCourtPictures]

I'm definitely in the camp of the Ruliad as a real structure. It's just an object that describes space of all possible things that could exist and like in any other mapping exercise, one is merely mapping functions to and from the Ruliad...and therefor it's this Ruliad that "is" the universe because there only exists this object and things map to it and can't map outside of it. It's like a permutation group of rules, and any morphism is just mapping to the Ruliad up to it's size. Can think of it like this. you got a 100x100 grid, and a 10x10 grid. The 10x10 grid maps to the 100x100 grid in all the ways that it can, but all configurations of the 10x10 grid, are permutations of 10x10 subsystems of the 100x100 grid. The Ruliad is contained in both of them equivalently (where every mapping exercise can be thought of as a rule), but the space of 100x100 grid has "more" rules because it can construct 15x15 or 30x30 states that the 10x10 grid can only approximate or conjecture it's existence. So the 10x10 grid approximates and conjectures rules of the 100x100 grid, which approximates and conjectures the "ruliad" grid, which could potentially be infinite. So the Ruliad is the universe, the finite physical universe of 10^400 eames or w.e. map to the Ruliad up to that size...and approach all computable functions, and approximate all non-computable functions. I think this lines up with Gorard's thought on the subject, but just in a different perspective about what the Ruliad could be. I do not think hypercomputation exists...if it did it is like Wolfram would say "exist outside of the event horizon" just like how the 100x100 grid exists outside the 10x10 grid. Regardless, I love Gorard's take on this stuff though, and i hope they (him and his collaborators) get to agree on something. Cheers,

[@novaterra777]

You did just mention infinity and then partially regressed from that notion. There is a semantical issue lurking here, that quite possibly cannot be properly described in english combined with math. It's not a binary thing by it's very ontological description. Philosophers have made this overly complicated; that which negates itself, has a perpetual balancing mechanism implied, so that's entropy and syntropy covered. Non-existence is incoherent with anything we have ever observed, since it does not correspond to the transformation of energy/ form that we observe. The totality of reality 'dissipating resources' can't possibly be true because they would have to end up 'outside of reality' which is once again, completely incoherent, and then suggests a different structure, not an absolute loss of energy or information, or perhaps other building blocks we are not aware of yet. Therefore an ontology without built-in limits is the only thing that makes sense.

[@KineHjeldnes]

WOW! What a guest!❤

[@muzzington5176]

Really looking forward to this! Any ideas as to who you're going to talk to next?

[@Self-Duality]

Many candidates. It’s likelier, however, that I’ll speak with Jonathan Gorard for part 2 before anyone else - we left so much open territory!

[@Unique-Concepts]

Best channel I ever find

[@Self-Duality]

We are one! 😌💭

[@novaterra777]

Part 2 and so forth, please :)

[@sirelegant2002]

This was amazing, although over my head! I really look forward to future podcasts. If you did a podcast with Frank Yang it would complete my life in a sense

[@Self-Duality]

Thank you for tuning in! I’ll reach out to Frank Yang per your request.

[@KaliFissure]

Dude...I would so love a lunch w Jon. We have like totally different approaches but partially for that reason it would be so interesting no doubt

[@nodelayfordays8083]

Regarding the talk at 56 minutes on homogeneity of humans, is it possible that we are evolving toward and just arent there yet and is it also possible that its relative to what's possible?

[@Self-Duality]

Nice. Yes, humankind is evolving into a “social memory complex” on the planetary scale, but that’s an extremely delicate discussion!

[@mitchellhayman381]

Jonathan is a beautiful person

[@philippweisang]

48:40 I believe what Johnathan says here is deeply related to what Joscha Bach is talking about in this talk: kzbin.info/www/bejne/d6Grn6R-m6uKeM0 In my view, Bach is describing the attempt of closing the gap between definability and constructability as the philosophical project of AI. I'm not sure the correspondence is 1:1 though.

[@elidrissii]

9:33 is he referencing Picard's little theorem? If so, I don't get what he means by every analytic function has a singularity (f(z)=z being an obvious counter example), unless he's including the point at infinity, so really the Riemann sphere as the domain, not the complex plane.

[@Self-Duality]

I’ll have to follow-up on this. Thanks.

[@brettw7]

Amazing.🤯

[@kkomax7]

This is Gold with capital Geee!

[@Self-Duality]

Stay tuned for part 2! 😌💭

[@KineHjeldnes]

Sorry for the spam, but interesting with the example of lagrangian and hamiltonian. Because, since Schrödinger cut out the teleological quantization of the action this is also reflected in how we constrain the system in the lab which then again must effect what is possible to measure.

[@Self-Duality]

Not spam at all! An interesting note!

[@ZephyrAvoxel]

parallel time circuits. could we map the schematics?

[@ZephyrAvoxel]

Aaaaand...I should clarify: I am seeking any responses anyone might think of and care to share for this question.

[@KaliFissure]

What is that paper he mentioned the singularities? This is the proof of universe from field.

[@Self-Duality]

He didn’t mention a publication, but I’ll definitely ask him! Also: feel free to reach out to him via his public email - it’s listed on his own publications! I’d love to watch a discussion of you two 😌💭

[@KaliFissure]

@@Self-Duality near the start he mentioned something he was reading, a mathematical proof that a field would collapse into singularities. That every function has an attractor in a way?

[@user-uq2lt6ni7k]

Have you spoken to Chris on coming on?

[@Self-Duality]

As I’ve mentioned elsewhere, he is openly invited (for a single or series of conversations), but the choice of timing is his own. He has more urgent projects underway.

[@StephenPaulKing]

The singular ontology idea, from 49:08 ish , doesn't work if we take Gödel's towers of Formal Theories into account, since there is no absolute top. Existence is forever Incomplete!

[@user-uq2lt6ni7k]

A.M.A.Z.I.N.G.

[@eltyo340]

This infinity category sounds awfully metaphysical haha

[@Self-Duality]

😊💭

[@GEMSofGOD_com]

On ontologies. Again, I disagree, because having many would be smth like having many languages, which is good to prevent Alzheimer's, but not great for achieving immortality, prime emotions of humanity, everything-in-existence empathy, etc. How about The Ontology where particles sort of have eyes, too? They'd rotate quickly, but the structure can look the same at all scales, let's focus on this structure! I'm deep into mapping mine to pretty much all universally possible practical applications. The key is to stay true to how all human and post-humans (would) perceive the world while thinking logically about it, and why not have the whole universe (or, OK, galaxy) as it is in yours and everyone's mind? P.S. I agree, causality semantics

[@Self-Duality]

Right, so you’re advocating for a unique singular ontology wherein the minimal, intermediate, and maximal scales are bound by one and the same structure. This is what I subtly suggested to Jonathan.

[@GEMSofGOD_com]

@@Self-Duality Ultimately, this structure in how it would look perfect to me would be: 1) since the new can always happen or not, does it? 2) if yes, then how does it relate to what happened before here & elsewhere? If it makes sense to call it looking truly new, call this new somehow - and that's a semantic definition. Take a sufficient amount of new moments - and resulting structures all look pretty much the same. P.S. The answer to the first question can also ("in real life") be "maybe"

[@GEMSofGOD_com]

Do you know Meillassoux' End of Finitude by any chance? He had flaws, but that's OK since he's gotten to the conclusion that 1 is a great axiom of everything. After that, he dives into combinatorics, but he goes a bit sideways. n! and C(n,k) would be amazing ways to look at the foundation of this superstructure that would include all languages and yeah, all everything, only one-two steps aside from some other tool at every moment for every new activity.

[@maxwelldillon4805]

Surely we aren't SO "computationally heterogeneous" that there exists no minimal description of reality which we all agree on? Doesn't the fact that we inhabit the same single universe, entail that a universal theory must exist? Surely...

[@Self-Duality]

Yes. I was hinting at the ontological necessity of a minimal/maximal description (about which, I will note, Jonathan expressed an open mind). If you haven’t yet heard of it, I suggest reading the following introductory publication of the Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe (CTMU): heyhepto.seanwalsh.netdna-cdn.com/MegaFoundation_CTMU.pdf

[@maxwelldillon4805]

@@Self-Duality Nice, I'll take a look. Thanks as well for the talk with Jonathan, fantastic discussion.

[@Self-Duality]

@@maxwelldillon4805 I appreciate your thoughtful attention! I enjoyed it myself!

[@Stadtpark90]

13:16 37:33