Stephen Wolfram Readings: On the Nature of Time

[@marcalimarian]

Top work! My current early philosophical self conception or school are: Participatory Realism - Integral Discovery - Absolute Unique Creation and Destruction

[@mitchellhayman381]

Thank you Stephen. I know it's a small amount of people watching, but we sincerely value your thoughts. I'm doing a degree in math and physics and you're my inspiration.

[@nduvhomusiccast]

Always informative session. Not a scientist but highly thrilled by the thoughts behind it.

[@alcanzando]

Thank you, Dr. Stephen, for this talk. I think time could be computable

[@memegazer]

thank you jonathan gorard who actually had the balls to make a prediction

[@ENAnonymous]

I’ve been looking forward to this post. It’s been truly eye-opening to flow your work on computational irreducibility and observer theory. You're introducing a transformative framework for understanding the perceived laws of physics, and it's fascinating to see the connections unfold. A small feedback: Much of the terminology requires familiarity with your prior posts and presentations, which might create a barrier to entry for new audiences. I find myself pausing to reference terminology introduced in prior posts.

[@JasonCunliffe]

06:50 ♻️🕊️🐎🎷⏯️ 🎶 >>>> START :: Stephen Wolfram

[@paulchurch5894]

Simply incredible. Interestingly, this description of time is essentially identical to the concept of time in UTXO-based blockchains like Bitcoin. They form a directed acyclic graph as assets move between addresses in the system. There is no concept of time in the graph beyond that descendants of a node must come ‘after’ their ancestors. It seems that your description of time is analogous.

[@AlanEdgett-w9j]

Thank you. Excellent talk. Only area where it felt forced to me was in describing why all humans collapse the same version of events in branch space (due to being so close together). Seemed “convenient”. We see measurable variations in time even small distances apart (ie earth orbit vs ground level). You would think we’d have evidence of slight variations in collective remembrance of the past due to spatial differences as well.

[@mooncop]

the nature of time is to run out, of course! 😽

[@TennisNeedsMore]

I just had an idea - what if we looked at causal hypergraphs as a 2D version of a slightly expanded model, where the 3rd dimension would be the "height" that is not visible from our 2D model of the hypergraph. And that so called branchial height of each branch would be a sort of a "sluggishnes" or "fragility" of that branch, or a potential way to explain a Gauss-like conservation law for reality as one of the questions at the end there proposed. Just a thought

[@djbabbotstown]

If a black hole is somewhere where time essentially stop through some maximum writing if I got it right. Why is it said that the internal volume continues to grow as quantum complexity continues to increase. What’s happening inside.

[@harriehausenman8623]

The echo in the sound is quite distracting. 😥

[@jk-mm5to]

Does anybody really know what time it is?

[@mrudo8663]

Are this arguments for a Multiverse / many worlds view?If the final theory of everything is non-linear with respect to wavefunctions, then many-worlds is invalid.(stolen question from Wikipedia) do gravity work with this view?

[@user-8ng1ize]

Gravitational waves can be explained in a theory where waves are the fundamental basis of matter. In this theory, gravity is not seen as “mass-attracting-mass”, but as “energy-attracting-energy”. Mass, momentum and energy are considered as basically the same wave excitation of the vacuum medium. Moreover, this excitation is geometric, the curvature of spacetime comes not from the presence of mass but from the excitation of the vacuum of which mass is just one modality, alongside energy. Because they are treated on the same footing, as waves. I’m not sure what relation this holds to the many worlds view, but your statement that wave functions are incompatible with it is very interesting. After all, the many worlds view is often quite mystical and probabilistic, so it fails to address very basic unsolved experimental questions, like explaining results of collider experiments which are incongruous with the probabilistic and corpuscular view.

[@SomePrinter]

Time depends on us being computational observers

[@Zayden.]

Time exists independent of human observers and experience.

[@SomePrinter]

​@@Zayden.I would say we're embedded in time.

[@memegazer]

@@Zayden. it is like wolfram said tricky there are computational boundaries yes those are real but they are flagila in a sea of all possible computations including those that process infinitely, and have been processing infinitely, and will continue to process infinitely and also infinities have differend sizes humans operate on a seemingly agreed upon cardinality in that context so yes, time exist indpedent of individual perception but what some fail to realize is how that could come to be the case without certain necessary entailments

[@wwkk4964]

Hyporuliad 😌 observer here.

[@professorslideraudio]

Dr Wolfram let’s spring for a good mic and an audio interface or even a usb mic

[@joelwexler]

This could all be made up crap and I would not be capable of knowing this.

[@jf-jx4ym]

Make simple (enough) real Life teaching examples of applying hypergraphs in some meaningful way of varying difficulty, pls. Modelling The whole of existance based on a stupid theory of a bang billions of years ago .. skip that For now?

[@jf-jx4ym]

@FauxGraph ty for origami analogue.. so it's a fancy way of depicting algorithms that is different from other methods

[@rigelb9025]

Cat.

[@rigelb9025]

Re-humanizing.