Stephen Wolfram on Math, Philosophy, & More | Stephen Wolfram on The Origins Podcast

[@sakukreti]

Lawrence Krauss is so great to listen to. These shows are my part of my bedtime regimen.

[@donepearce]

Huh? Lawrence barely got a word in. Stephen hit the GO button and never stopped.

[@frede1k]

@@donepearce lol thats a classic Stephen Wolfram

[@tomhill9865]

@@donepearce o ppl polo machine has L I’ll l m n

[@anonymous8626]

Unless you're a female he works with and finds attractive.

[@scenFor109]

Audio advert interruption is too disturbing. Channel blocked.

[@iancork9721]

Really enjoyed this. I've listened to Stephen on a few different podcasts and got a clearer understanding of it talking it through with lawrence. Great host and asks great questions

[@mrtpsoroush]

Incredible privilege to listen in on such a stimulating and inspiring conversation. Please interview Susskind next! I've always wanted to hear you two converse.

[@bendavis2234]

Yes Susskind is the best! I highly recommend his lectures on KZbin. The series is called the Theoretical Minimum and he put out over 100 lectures covering many topics such as Classical Mechanics, Statistical Mechanics, Quantum Mechanics, Special Relativity, General Relativity, QFT, Cosmology, and the list goes on. Very resourceful stuff.

[@nightshade7092]

Sus

[@miinyoo]

Oh lord. Get Susskind on the show before he croaks. That debate would be verbally violent fun.

[@daviddempsey8721]

Lawrence asked the origin of the long letter quote : “In 1657 Pascal published a collection of open letters entitled Lettres Provinciales and within them notes “I have made this longer than usual because I have not had time to make it shorter.” “

[@williamjmccartan8879]

8 hours on Lex Fridman, 2 hours today, Mr. Wolfram's enthusiasm is continous,and contagious. Thank you Steven and Lawrence for a great learning experience.

[@Kalumbatsch]

Yeah, he's very good at grandiose claims and hot air.

[@DaveWhoa]

yep Lex is awesome too

[@AdamWoodhams]

@@Kalumbatsch ooooooo

[@craigalvin4868]

@@DaveWhoa kik

[@craigalvin4868]

@@Kalumbatsch ninjniniikini

[@TrippyKenpachi]

Oooo… this is the first time I’ve been able to catch a live podcast from Lawrence. He is one of my absolute favorite humans, my favorite thinkers, and he’s almost too adorable. Lol. *reminder on*

[@luckyluciano6093]

Me too!! 1st time catching him live one of my absolute heros

[@TrippyKenpachi]

@@luckyluciano6093 Lol. One of mine, too, though I’ve also had a schoolgirl type crush on him for over 10 years now, 😂.

[@ethimself5064]

@@TrippyKenpachi Really?

[@TrippyKenpachi]

@@ethimself5064 Yes, lol. A giggly, schoolgirl mess of a crush. He’s adorable, and seems to be a great person (on top of being absolutely brilliant). ♥️

[@ethimself5064]

@@TrippyKenpachi Seems to be contagious then😉

[@berniethejet]

Lawrence's interviews of others are just a vehicle to his own self-interview. 😉

[@Hury209]

Two legends are speaking one to another and here I listen to that live. That's weird to me but at same time very exciting and amazing feeling. Thanks Wolfram for creating tool which I am using during study, thats help me a lot to understand things.

[@happywednesday6741]

Could actually hinder your understanding 😬 but his tool is amazing haha

[@NolanManteufel]

Always love to hear Stephen think.

[@cynicaloldgit7177]

I thoroughly enjoyed their conversation. I don't pretend to understand much of what they discussed but it encourages me to look things up and thereby acquire a little more knowledge.

[@Paul1239193]

I'm excited so many paths are being explored! Having said that, I'm irritated and feel Wolfram is basically just saying 'I'm smart and I'm the next Copernicus'!

[@mikely7354]

Lovely conversation. I was taken aback to the ages old debate between induction and deduction of the two Greek giants of philosophy. But Wolfram's insistence on his deductions only make me more excited about the world, about math and science. Thank you both for this wonderful conversation.

[@miinyoo]

Listening to them argue is tremendous. Both of them know a lot yet they're humble enough to know that they know nothing. It's not apparent with hubris and all but I'm sure if you asked them face to face they'd say, they know literally nothing in mealy mouthed words. Stephen would be more up front about it.

[@darrenmarcum5866]

Absolutely enjoyed the conversation. Thanks! It takes a mix of minds of this caliber to come up with answers that lead to a better human existence. From the Origin to the Theory of Everything, I can't wait to see what comes next from these kinds of interactions.

[@miinyoo]

Stephen Wolfram is one of my favorite people. So weird. So much fun to watch you two debate! Stephen steals the show lol. If he was a kid in the 90's he would have been sharing algebra programs for TI-81s literally in class as the test was going on just for shits and giggles. I have a TI-83 and wonder if it still works but it's nothing compared to what we have now. Alpha is an incredible site and resource for much more than any one person thinks it is. Highly recommend. If you dive into it, it's a universe unto itself.

[@ryderbrooks1783]

Lawrence I want to like this channel. Guests are good camera and sound are good. 1) stop being controlling and just let the conversation flow. (This episode was better than usual) 2) learning about peoples background in this format adds very little to my knowledge base. You are uniquely equipped to speak at a much deeper level on most subjects than all of KZbin yet you spend 2/3 of the time talking about what your guests like to eat for breakfast. Why?

[@tonyjames1932]

Except that in this case, Stephen (believes he) eats physicists for breakfast! But seriously, I think Lawrence is looking for threads that allow the viewer to understand what makes his interviewee tick, and I for one have no problem with that.

[@ryderbrooks1783]

​@@tonyjames1932 I'm glad someone likes it. I find it maddening. He spends 2/3 of the interview essentially asking the guest what it was like to eat their first peanut butter sandwich.. Then FINALLY when we get to the part which makes the guest unique it's shallow, rushed and incomplete. The format of podcasting is the opposite of "we'll come back to that". To me it suggests that Lawrence doesn't understand the medium he's working in. However it's possible I'm not the audience he's going for.

[@Mandragara]

@@ryderbrooks1783 Wolfram is a bit fried. What's interesting to me (a physicist) is more Wolfram the person, rather than details of his theories. Wolfram really wants to talk about his ideas (fair enough), but Lawrence is restricting that somewhat so he can discuss Wolfram the person - which is honestly what I think a lot of the academics in the audience are most interested in.

[@famistudio]

I love Mr. Wolfram, I listen to a lot of his stream, but I am very happy you kept him in check. He tends to get excited about his stuff, even though nothing has been peer reviewed and it is still too early to tell where it will go. We need to keep an open mind, but we can let people make totally unproven claims. Theories of everything are a dime a dozen. Keep it up!

[@plopsmcgee9672]

I love that roast just after 1:57:50! Actual onions in the physical world are finite!

[@lukemighty4063]

I’m really enjoying this stream. I’m imagining how much more interested I would be more than I already am if I understood this conversation at the same level as these guys.

[@fktygglbtchbtch1384]

Love mathematica when it came out. I was in love with it

[@szkoclaw]

I kept thinking about Collatz Conjecture as a possible example of mathematical irreducibility.

[@GNARGNARHEAD]

I don't think I've heard Woldram's work so clearly laid-out, thanks, and hoping we get a follow up

[@FAAMS1]

Loved to see Krauss struggling with embodied cognition or computational bound in Wolfram lingo and I am left wondering if Wolfram when speaking of the Rullyade was aware of Parmenides remarks about motion being an illusion. This Metaphysical Hyper Rulyade is full complete system which kills obscure concepts like, chaos, randomness, and even the naive idea of"qualitative Infinity" as quantitative infinity is redudnadant if it does not bring new information or new emergent phenomena as is just a fractal loop on the same structure...lack of boundaries does not equate with infinite information!

[@astilen5647]

i have been listening for 8 hours tryina keep up

[@joshismyhandle]

Great chat. Thanks

[@ronaldkessel2776]

I think it was Blaise Pascal who opened a letter to some distinguished person, apologizing for its length, because time didn't permit a shorter.

[@walter--]

Lol almost half way in de podcast. Krauss wondering if they are not too much all over the place. BUT I LOVE IT LIKE THIS!

[@curiousbit9228]

It sounds reasonable that "The Theory of Everything" in physics must be " The Theory of Computation" that is applicable to not just physics but every other field. I hate that Lawrence Krauss interrupted Stephen wolfram so many times. But it was a great interview!! Loved it :)

[@kory6897]

it went both ways, they are both great with listening to each other

[@ercanonge527]

i have listened many of wolframs interviews and iguess it is quite common that hosts interrupting him now and then.

[@reimannx33]

There are equally compelling arguements against that premise.

[@tww1671]

What a fascinating talk! I listened to it over the past three days.

[@33interzona]

I always enjoy these conversations !

[@ashhamilton3989]

Massive again. Thanks heaps.

[@hyperedwin]

This was the best interview so far

[@missoulasam]

Two of my heroes geeking out on the fundamentals of the Universe. What's not to like?

[@wilfrattigan1200]

Love Wolfram and I love krauss, 2 for the price of 1, this will be good.

[@connected_user]

Love Stephen's jabs at philosophers lol

[@rodraxsan7764]

Thanks internet for these jewels, thanks Lawrence, I'm a young physicist from Ecuador...your critical thinking inspires me a lot :)

[@alexwilson8034]

Wow been dying for this for a year! Thank you!

[@annjuurinen6553]

Truly fascinating. Will watch again. Reminds me of descriptions I have read in the Rig Veda, and the Upanishads. Ancient ways of seeing the universe in lila, in play. Will watch again.

[@benjaminandersson2572]

I don´t know what Stephen means about induction at the end. In mathematics, you can show that something holds for all n, if you assume it holds for n, and show that it holds for n+1. If I remember correctly.

[@benjaminandersson2572]

Or, rather, show that it holds for a starting value, say n = 1, then make the assumption that it is true for some n, and show that it is true for n+1, assuming it holds for n.

[@jjjccc728]

You are thinking of mathematical induction. Wolfram is talking about scientific induction. They are not the same.

[@claytongeist5783]

I don't even have to read Stephen's argument on why the universe exists, because I've formulated this argument myself from basic first principles. Any such thing that emerges from sufficient conditions, given such conditions, necessarily exists; similarly, given a lack of conditions and those things emergent only from such conditions, these things necessarily do not exist (contextually bounded). This is a mathematical argument of the possibility of emergence over rulesets. That which can exist given some set of conditions, must exist as some instance of all possibility under those conditions. So then the possibility of all conditions (starting + rules/transformations) must produce all that can exist, which according to Wolfram is self-bounded, and so does not produce some completely self-inconsistent object. Some instance of something that can occur under some condition, one of them MUST occur, meaning that even if the model is wrong in that it is not that all possibilities actually exist, it concerns the most knowledgeable possibilities of existence. Our universe, if not necessary in the way that it is, is at the very least sufficient, meaning that the conditions are relativistically necessary, meaning that the foundation is necessary, meaning that the ruliad is necessary. For a conditional ruliad, meaning in this case, a ruliad that is not necessary, for any given rule, it is not the case that such a rule necessarily has repeatable computational results for a given state. That last statement is false, therefore, the ruliad is necessary. I define randomness as not a rule, but a consequence of some rules. I do not consider this to be the anthropological argument; it's a philosophical argument regarding necessary conditions. According to Wolfram (in my own words): the instantiation of any given thing as existing requires it to be a branch on the set of all possible rules applied to some state from all possible states. Perhaps the anthropological argument is an instance of this argument. The philosophical part of me concludes that this is no more than the most abstract formulation possible by the human intelligence, and as such, this does not equate to the unknown possibilities, which might reach beyond possibility. The human mind is not equipped to consider beyond possibility: it seems a self-contradictory concept, and yet my imagination tells me that I can know not the difference between beyond possibility and complete nonsense. As such, I believe that insofar as I understand, Wolfram's model is the best that humans will be able to do, perhaps forever after as human, as it is seriously just talking about STUFF DOING THINGS. Like how much more basic and fundamental can you get? It is possible to say that the ruliad is not necessary if either we do not necessarily exist now or if "stuff" itself is not necessary. Personally, it seems to me that this "something" precludes the unnecessity of existence, since the abstract absence of anything is self-contradictory in competing for "existence" with the ruliad, or even just some part of the ruliad that itself is self-necessary. Insofar as it there is in some regard a "real" possibility for different momentary conditions, the ruliad, or some part of the ruliad is necessary. So the reason why anything exists is because it can; because there are necessary conditions in the set of all possible conditions where these conditions are self-bounded and self-computational: there are necessarily conditions that give rise to this universe we observe in this way. Of course, this seems like a copout, but if this answer, represented as a formal mathematical system, provides functional, pragmatic results AND gives way to new predictions that bare out newfound useful knowledge, it is then in my eyes, the best we can do in the realm of physical understanding from abstraction.

[@claytongeist5783]

I just realized, I kept switching my perspective between math and philosophy, which may confuse people. Mathematically, the ruliad is an object definitionally self-necessary, else this mathematically precludes the formulation and application of any and all mathematics; the ruliad is a necessary pre-conditional object of mathematics. Philosophically, this does not entail a pre-mathematical, pre-logical, primordial necessity to which may often be referred in philosophical circles. Of course, I am not convinced we could ever distinguish the difference, if even there was a functional difference, a difference which was not wholly equivalent in outcome, and if we cannot ever pragmatically distinguish the difference, then the difference is unimportant.

[@ceciliapares2804]

😁💥💥👍can't wait for it to start!!👏👏👏👏

[@primetimedurkheim2717]

My favorite part of Lawrence's podcasts is when he underestimates his audience.

[@yaserthe1]

This will be interesting.

[@mattlambert3118]

I swear, I've been saying the way we teach math is dumb and referring to the exact same example of the integrals that just happen to work with the mathematical trick. I didn't even get to integrals in school because I didn't have to to graduate and I hated math classes. I had to figure it out from stuff online when I was an adult so I could write the code for a PID controlled reflow soldering oven I was making and that useless mathematical trick that only works on specific integrals made finding what I needed to know take forever. This was a years ago now, but I think the real problem was that I was kind of thinking about stuff backward and thought I'd have to find calculate integrals from some formula when it was really just a running sum of the error. The point is that Stephen Wolfram is right about mathematical trickery being dumb.

[@jmachorrov]

Thanks Lawrence grate chat so brilliant

[@DcTurner]

"Let me remind you that actual onions in the physical world are finite" 😆

[@silberlinie]

2:03:50; this is a highly interesting thing. The hypothetical maximum entanglement speed. Doesn't entanglement always happen in a very localized way? Doesn't entanglement always happen at a point? Then what does the term maximum entanglement velocity mean?

[@surrealistidealist]

15:09 Pascal, mathematician, philosopher & aphorist. ❤️

[@jtinalexandria]

Clap for the Wolf Man!

[@happywednesday6741]

@01:02:00 great show thank you both. Question, how are these automata different than the game of life?

[@isedairi]

Lawrence when you setting up the debate between Smolin and Susskind?

[@YawnGod]

Wolfram is such a cool last name. To have been born so lucky. He should talk to a guru. But one of the good ones.

[@Robbie_jojo]

Awsome, thanks

[@secretchordstudio]

blissful!

[@willmpet]

I didn’t get involved with computers till the 90s because I took a beginning class, it was so crappy that I avoided it. It was in COBAL and I hated it!

[@ScottMorgan88]

HP-15C I still have mine and use it daily! :)

[@thelostmarbles4310]

'Time' is the quantity of thoughts within some type of 'movement parimetier'. (ie, light may have travelled a meter).

[@honeyj8256]

Be nice Lawrence ! Well try your best ! 🇨🇦

[@adge610220]

Stephen ease off the accelerator sometimes so some questions can structure the conversation.

[@ddos87]

Brilliant

[@243david7]

An awful lot of (sort of and kind of and I'm like), like so many teenagers do. Maybe that's why he has so many keystrokes. He is also one of the few people to compete with Lawrence for the talking space too. Great talk as always, with good anecdotes from both.

[@3cheeseup]

I think they do this because they are afraid to say something definitive that the other would find stupid.

[@243david7]

@@3cheeseup Good point, could be

[@filiperocha1465]

Speed of light is the "timestep" of the computation update of the state of the Universe, where there are more density, there are more things to update...

[@sagarpatwal]

And I digress, Stephen's voice should be default for all audiobooks

[@PomegranateChocolate]

If Wolfram can pull it off then he will be bigger than Einstein several orders of magnitude.

[@channelwarhorse3367]

The Einstein INCH equation exists, the magnitude is the Standard Model is Periodic Table as neutrinos are source at 0°K 🌡 Origins of 1905 to exact solution to General Relativity mechanically Applied 🐺

[@jasoncawley7512]

So many ways that is might have not happened? Is that actually compatible with the Ruleiad model? Or did it have to happen (somewhere or other, if not here) because it could?

[@kory6897]

For Stevens theory, is it one algorithm that generates his whole hyper-graph that then includes/generates current known physics?

[@KineHjeldnes]

When Stephen explains about necessary truths and things that could not have been different; that is the thing that the physic world do not understand the importance of. t'hooft also make this argument, and it stems from undestanding what naturally follws from what is bound: it cannot help create patterns, and that is why necessity occur. And last but not least, where do Lawrence believe our consciousness exist? It must of course represent something true about the thing it is intrinsic to.

[@johnwu222000]

I heard that Stephen was one of the only two students who finished Caltech PhD in one year. Wondering who was the other one?

[@djannias]

🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:01 🎙️ *The podcast features Stephen Wolfram discussing his diverse career and interests, from self-education in science to his work in mathematics and physics.* 00:32 🧪 *Wolfram pursued a PhD in physics at Caltech and worked with Richard Feynman, later contributing to mathematics by creating Mathematica.* 01:14 🧮 *Wolfram's interest expanded beyond traditional physics, and he explored cellular automata and symbolic manipulation as new scientific approaches.* 02:25 📚 *The Origins Podcast is a platform for intellectual discussions with a focus on science and philosophy.* 03:21 🚀 *Both Stephen Wolfram and Lawrence Krauss share a background in particle physics and have known each other for several decades.* 06:07 🕰️ *Wolfram recalled a philosophical discussion with a philosopher of time when he was a child, demonstrating his early curiosity about scientific concepts.* 07:30 💭 *His mother, a philosophy professor, had an anthropology Ph.D. and contributed to the field of philosophical logic.* 08:55 🔍 *Wolfram later found that some philosophical questions began to make more sense as he gained deeper insights into science.* 12:48 📄 *Wolfram's approach to writing has evolved, focusing on getting ideas down efficiently rather than excessively refining them.* 14:14 🧮 *His early interest in mathematics stemmed from its necessity for understanding physics, not from a natural affinity for the subject.* 15:24 🌟 *Wolfram's approach to mathematics changed as he delved into the essence of abstract mathematical concepts and advanced areas of mathematics.* 16:47 📚 *One of his current projects is to understand the essence of mathematics, exploring its fundamental nature.* 19:36 🎙️ *Stephen Wolfram discusses his interactions and collaborations with renowned physicist Richard Feynman, who was known for his pragmatic approach to mathematics and physics.* 20:05 🧮 *Stephen Wolfram discusses how he had difficulty communicating with Richard Feynman, who would calculate results without fully understanding them but still got the right answers.* 21:14 📚 *Richard Feynman had a reputation for making things appear magical, but his insights were based on years of calculations and extensive knowledge.* 22:23 📻 *As a child, Richard Feynman earned money by fixing radios and creating the illusion of a magical insight when he simply knew the solution.* 28:07 🔍 *Stephen Wolfram mentions the concept of meta-modeling, which involves finding the underlying essence of a model, and how it relates to his work in computational language design.* 29:15 📝 *Stephen Wolfram's interest in particle physics stemmed from a desire to understand the fundamental laws of nature.* 30:12 📖 *Stephen Wolfram emphasizes the importance of self-directed learning and reading books as a means of acquiring knowledge.* 34:11 🧪 *Stephen Wolfram talks about writing scientific papers and the process of learning through reading and experimentation.* 37:13 📜 *Stephen Wolfram mentions a paper he wrote about cosmology and particle physics at a young age, which provided a clean description of these topics but was never published.* 38:23 🏫 *Stephen Wolfram attended the Dragon School in Oxford during his elementary years and later discovered that his childhood friend Hugh Laurie had become a famous actor.* 39:20 🧠 *Stephen Wolfram discusses his educational background and the impressive group of students he went to school with, even in kindergarten.* 40:02 🎓 *Choosing an educational institution where your peers challenge you is essential for a good education.* 40:29 🌐 *Stephen Wolfram reflects on his diverse background and upbringing.* 41:09 👨‍⚖️ *Stephen mentions his parents' aspirations for him to become a doctor or lawyer.* 42:04 🏫 *Stephen talks about his schooling experience and his time at Eaton.* 43:11 🌟 *Stephen discusses his early academic experiences, including bypassing standardized exams through scholarships.* 45:18 🎓 *The difference in educational systems between the UK and the US, emphasizing the tutorial system's independence in the UK.* 49:13 ❓ *Encouraging the ability to ask questions and teaching students how to ask questions is vital for education.* 52:28 🖥️ *Stephen's early interest in computers and how he experimented with programming even as a young student.* 59:10 🖥️ *Lawrence Krauss and Stephen Wolfram discuss their early experiences with computers and software development.* 01:00:08 📚 *Lawrence Krauss introduces Stephen Wolfram to the Macintosh computer in the early 1980s.* 01:04:21 🤝 *Lawrence Krauss recalls introducing Stephen Wolfram to the Macintosh at Harvard University.* 01:12:45 🧩 *Stephen Wolfram's transition from particle physics to symbolic manipulation programming (SMP) and its significance.* 01:16:21 🔍 *Stephen Wolfram mentions the commonality between problems in SMP and gauge field theories, leading to potential insights in the future.* 01:20:08 🤯 *Rule 30, a particular cellular automaton rule, produces seemingly random patterns from very simple rules, surprising even renowned physicist Richard Feynman.* 01:21:34 🌌 *Stephen Wolfram discusses the atomic theory of space, proposing that space is made up of abstract relationships between points, and everything in the universe is derived from the structure of space.* 01:26:08 🔄 *Computational irreducibility, the idea that certain computations cannot be simplified and must be computed step by step, plays a fundamental role in understanding complex systems.* 01:28:26 🔍 *The principle of computational equivalence suggests that various systems, from Rule 30 to our brains, exhibit equivalent computational sophistication.* 01:30:33 🌐 *Stephen Wolfram discusses the emergence of Einstein's equations from the underlying structure of space and time in his models.* 01:37:18 💻 *Stephen Wolfram highlights the potential practical use of his models for numerical relativity, allowing simulations of phenomena like black hole mergers.* 01:38:26 🧩 *Stephen Wolfram discusses optimizing quantum circuits using multi-way graphs, a method better than existing approaches.* 01:39:23 🌌 *Dimensional fluctuations in the early universe are a part of his model, suggesting space may not always be three-dimensional.* 01:42:54 🌌 *Characteristics of the universe, such as the number of dimensions, remain unexplained in his model.* 01:50:34 🧠 *He believes his model can serve as a bridge connecting various fields of mathematical physics, such as causal set theory and string field theory.* 01:58:26 🌌 *Stephen Wolfram discusses the idea of layers in understanding the universe, comparing it to peeling layers off an onion.* 01:59:08 🌌 *The concept of "atoms of space" is introduced, where space is constantly being rewritten, except for singularities like those in black holes.* 02:00:47 🌌 *Stephen Wolfram explains the connection between physical space and branchial space, suggesting they are part of the same theory.* 02:01:29 🌌 *The conversation explores the interface between quantum and gravitational aspects, as well as their relationship to various physics concepts like ads cft and er equals epr.* 02:04:33 🌌 *A potential breakthrough in physics is discussed, where critical black holes might reveal previously unseen aspects of the universe, akin to discovering the molecular dynamics of fluids.* 02:07:06 🌌 *Lawrence Krauss and Stephen Wolfram discuss the challenge of determining when a theory of the universe is complete and whether there might always be more to discover.* 02:10:12 🌌 *Stephen Wolfram reflects on the surprising and unexpected paths that led to his current research in physics and the potential implications for understanding the universe.* 02:15:55 🌌 *Lawrence Krauss acknowledges Stephen Wolfram's dedication and ambition in pursuing a unique trajectory in science, even if the outcome remains uncertain.* 02:18:26 🧩 *Stephen Wolfram raises the question of how we know if we've reached the end of our understanding in physics, highlighting the challenge of determining when we've completed our experiments and models.* 02:18:54 🌌 *A model of physics is a tool for humans to understand and explain why the universe behaves the way it does, emphasizing the importance of creating narratives and computational languages to grasp the universe's complexities.* 02:19:37 🤔 *Stephen Wolfram speculates that there might be limits to scientific induction and certain aspects of decidability that could be unknowable through scientific induction, leading to fascinating philosophical questions about the boundaries of knowledge.* 02:20:19 🌐 *The digital nature of the universe, as opposed to an analog model, is a significant distinction that impacts how we approach questions about the completeness of a theory.* 02:20:34 🤷 *The philosophical question of why this universe exists instead of another becomes more relevant when one considers holding a model of the universe in hand and contemplating its nature.* Made with HARPA AI

[@das_it_mane]

2:00:17 leaving a bookmark for myself

[@rajeevgangal542]

Is computational irreducibility any different from NP hard problems? I feel it would have been so much greater to devote a little less time to his personal story and more to specifics. There were a few and good pushback but a deeper discussion would've been nicer.

[@ruigoncalves2]

Check the podcasts with Lex Friedman

[@SimonJackson13]

Electric charges opposites repel in reverse time. An unzip of 2 charge poles as falling backward in time becomes?

[@SimonJackson13]

Our physics is an observer cast frame of the ruliad. Quintessence is scaled by observational effect on observer's frame.

[@SimonJackson13]

Are neutrinos higher entangle speeded than electro-leptons, and the two quarky speeds?

[@silberlinie]

1:42:45; I am always skeptical about the statement, the universe - space - would be 3-dimensional. That always seems to me like a pull-yourself-out-of- the-swamp explanation. What I mean is that the space has a dimension. And that this dimension is that of the space. Just as the time has a dimension. Which is the dimensuion of the time. Regardless of some attempts to come to grips with time as with more than one dimension. And see it as the most probable fact, that it is our specifically biological carbon based life form, which produces this conception. And so it is likely that other perceiving entities have a very different sense of space.

[@projectmalus]

Perhaps we can perceive both a lattice of 2 or more dimensions, and the in-between space as a fractal expansion of that lattice. The sort of perceiving with the mind is in that fractal life part (maybe). Any thing other than that seems lifeless. What does it mean to live in exactly 4 dimensions and not for instance, moving continuously between 3 and 4? Or this makes no difference and reality is a sort of communal place where resources are there for the taking. Self limiting for homo sapiens is akin to living on one dimension only, still able to gather resources but not in the marketplace. Instead of dimensions, a spectrum between control and expression, not human specific. Whatever the entity, finding balance in that spectrum could be a meeting place. All about actions for them too.

[@silberlinie]

@@projectmalus I think that there are a number of physical dimensions. One of them is space, one is time, one is creation/decay, and so on. And there are the mental dimensions of living beings, love, cognition, etc. And there are the mental dimensions of ideas, form, etc. So you have a spectrum of dimensions. And one class of them are the physical dimensions, with time, force, space and fields.

[@projectmalus]

@@silberlinie Okay, I see what you mean. It reminds me of the electromagnetic spectrum of infrared etc some of which we access, and other creatures use other levels like those deep sea vents with bacteria. Even the humble jellyfish is incredible, it moves by forming a torus of water with an undulation, holding it while producing another and achieving enhanced ground effect by bouncing one off the other. How does it know? If the universe is expressed thru these different dimensions it seems like a dropping down in energy also. Like the universe is a ring left behind by the waxing and waning, or lens dilation of some perfect non-object like a pearl. In turn this ring breaks into slightly curved motion segments that are efficient like brachistochrone curves. Objects in the universe made of two things, these curve segments joining objects, and awareness objects themselves which are close or same as the perfect symmetry non-object. What we see as dropped down in dimension as energy is used up/higher entropy state. Dropped down and trying to get back! rejoin the ring circle at least, and this the striving part. Joining imperfect, two kinds of motion objects (waxing and waning awareness and linear body) with segments of motion in order to gain value and get back to that perfect object with only one kind of motion, the lens dilation. Interesting to think about anyway, perhaps joining balls with sticks isn't something an alien cares about. We should introduce them to baseball :)

[@natepolidoro4565]

20:36 Me doing any math problem as a math major.

[@rockyfjord3753]

I'm 42 minutes into it, skipped ahead a few places, but it's not really interesting to me, kinda narcissistic on their part, haven't really learned anything that might be of usable value. Done.

[@nunomaroco583]

Hi from Portugal. ....

[@Erich1224]

I graduated to four finger typing. :)

[@ciaran7252]

So wish this host would just stop interrupting-good questions but let’s hear the guest please

[@janschneider8647]

Walter seems to be a very interesting guy to listen to when he is not arguing with Jeff Dunham.

[@Jack-xl5eq]

God damn, Wolfram needs a toothbrush, stat!

[@lapitop4206]

You need way more specific details and explanations to actually understand what he's actually talking about. It all sounds interesting, but afterwards I'm not able to say with any satisfaction what Wolfram is saying, other something very vague and abstract.

[@lapitop4206]

As someone pointed out, they should have spent more time on the theory and less about talking about their life and weaving a narrative. That's just a matter of preference of course.

[@PAWiley]

there's something on Stephen's forehead that I tried to clean off of my screen for a good 30 seconds

[@willmpet]

I probably took an IQ test when I was in elementary school and did well, I was tracked with the the smart kids and that probably helped my education.

[@scotland_from_up_high7440]

never seen Lawrence as defensive as this. Is he annoyed that he is no longer on the frontier of science or has scepticism ultimately killed his optimism

[@medialistener]

I notice it too. He is compering himself in each claim. When Wolfram says something he immediately interjects with his story. When I tune in for a podcast-interview with a guest I want to hear what they have to say, not the host. Let the guest speak. Leave your stories for your own interview.

[@element4element4]

Wolfram makes claims that makes no real sense. His papers are a really crazy set of vague details, and crazy huge unjustified claims about what they've shown. Lawrence, despite all his faults, is a real and competent theoretical physicist. He is trying to be nice and respectful, which is why he seems softly dismissive. In a less public setting, people would tear apart the meaningless grandiose claims. To be clear, this is not "the frontier of science". Nobody in the research community takes Wolfram seriously, especially after he got invited to give talks on these things.

[@Kalumbatsch]

@@element4element4 Must be some midlife crisis thing. Dude made a load of money selling software and then realized he'd always wanted to be the next Einstein, so he publishes a 1000 page example of OCD where he plays around with pixels and calls it a new kind of science. It's sad and funny at the same time.

[@channelwarhorse3367]

String Theory Lawrence the Grand Unification, ♥️

[@brianboyle2681]

@@element4element4 while I think Krauss could in general be nicer here Wolfram talks a load of hogwash about not submitting himself to peer review etc. He is too precious about his ideas and even if they had merit we will never really know because they will never be properly refined in effect being published on blogs and worked on only by admirers.

[@leftblank6036]

The problem with these models is that it’s unlikely for another company or research group to verify. because it’s so complex 😂

[@thecakeisalie8135]

Wolfram's confidence in his work makes me think that he might actually be close to some groundbreaking discoveries about the universe. Either that or he's suffering from some biases. I hope for the former.

[@sac78008]

2:07:00 "This is a really useful numerical tool...but whether it is a new picture of reality, I'm going to, you know...[skeptically trails off]" A "picture of reality" is an image which represents the real thing. Quantum mechanics is predictive. Does that mean it's a "picture of reality"? For Kuhn (The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 1964), QM is a scientific paradigm, arguably in crisis. Wolfram's computational theory, if it is as predictive, has the potential to displace QM as a paradigm

[@AhmadMouk]

I personally feel there’s a moderate to high probability Stephen has SUPER high functioning ADHD. I say this as a “mostly-functioning” doctor with ADHD myself 😂. Its interesting getting a peak into his childhood years with this in mind.

[@bobmusil1458]

Sorry, but Krauss is an awfull interviewer. He never lets Wolfram finish, he always wants to show that he knows/understands more than Wolfram. Mr. Krauss - this is not a contest who's smarter.

[@brianboyle2681]

It was the same with Penrose

[@yaserthe1]

I'm not sure I think it's as profound as you think. Lol That's a toast!

[@marioquike]

the title should be, the autobiography of Krauss and how Wolfram grew and became old. Where is the meat ?

[@Gemans68]

Too many ads spoil this

[@lapitop4206]

just use adblocker.

[@filiperocha1465]

Of course any universal model of computation can run any algorithm and then can represent any theory so has to be consistent to the known Physics theories and Mathematics... And the universe runs in a computational basis so... Or It is the computation itself, that is, undistinguished from the simulation it is produced by this computation The Universal Turing Machine can simulate the Universe too so...

[@johnboothman1235]

1/X = X-1 only for the fibonacci ratio --- how so ???

[@eglintonflats]

Kraus can't stop talking about himself.

[@natepolidoro4565]

38:06 Uhhh.... Drexel

[@travisfitzwater8093]

The Universe is music; the question is what is the air of Space?

[@travisfitzwater8093]

Matter is Tornados of the air of space which is really just a haze of differing magnitudes and frequencies of electricity and magnetism. Gravity is the tendency of positive and negative polarities to glom together. Inertia is what keeps all matter from flying together or flying apart.

[@travisfitzwater8093]

Imagine you are a radio wave. You are traveling along in accordance with the Lagrange operators on your eigenvectors. Now, you cross into an area of space where the ambient frequency and energy distribution is off of the [ ]ing chart, beyond that of a sea of quasar belches. You have now dissolved into a separate dimensionality. Welcome to your new existence.

[@travisfitzwater8093]

The Universe exists because a pool of helium and hydrogen was blasted with energy the likes of which you and I cannot even dream of fathoming. (That's the "how. ")

[@travisfitzwater8093]

The "why", I'll keep to myself; and leave for the consideration of the reader and posterity.

[@shaunlanighan813]

Is the guest selection based on what aspect of his own life Krauss wishes to stutter through? Also, how many times need he tell us that he went to Harvard? By one hour he's said it three times. We get it already!

[@danielgautreau161]

A philosopher who supposes that relativistic time dilation might affect a clock but not affect a human is worse than a flat-earther.

[@mitchellhayman381]

You couldn't understand relativity and think that. It's not possible

[@jakefisher1638]

Did anyone notice the fucking 0 latency? I guess what else should you expect from a teleconference between two physicists

[@katkatfarkat]

if it compiles it works 😉