The Metaphysics of Stephen Wolfram

SOURCES:
A New Kind of Intuition: • What We've Learned fro...
Rule 30: • What We've Learned fro...
Programs are abstract: • What We've Learned fro...
Models are ideal: • What We've Learned fro...
The eyes have it: • What We've Learned fro...
The Ruliad: • What We've Learned fro...
Monotheism: • What We've Learned fro...
The Ultimate Model: • What We've Learned fro...
The Principle of Computational Equivalence: • What We've Learned fro...
Scientific Anarchism: • What We've Learned fro...
The Case of Robert Fludd (2018) www.academia.edu/37213454/The...

[@DavidGBlair]

This reminds me of the 1989 or so book Chaos: the making of a new science. I was excited about chaos theory at first, but it did not seem to go anywhere for the last 30 years. Instead of starting a new science, I think it more accurately showed the limits of reductionism. Since reading that, I have not believed the conclusions of almost any model. But, there is nothing to replace multi-equation models, so people still use them. In this regard, it is worth looking at Edward Leamer’s 1980 or so book “Specification Searches”

[@richg2881]

Thanks for that.

[@JG27Korny]

Thanks

[@badnick6659]

It did go somewhere. Computer graphics.. data compression..

[@saturdaysequalsyouth]

I've been searching for analysis and discussion of Wolfram's talks because I find him difficult to follow. This video is very helpful and is exactly the kind of thing I've been looking for. Thank you.

[@ScientificGenius]

You're very welcome - this is particularly good to hear since exposition is one of my primary goals here. More to come!

[@silberlinie]

Wie Stephen zu sagen pflegt, was wir hier von ihm gezeigt bekommen, sind die artifacts der Zukunft. Wir sind die Privilegierten, die in der Lage sind, an der Produktion dieser artifacts zusehen zu können. What a time to be alive

[@junglepolle]

Very interesting! I like the nice concise explanations of what Wolfram is trying to say. Please, make more of these kinds of videos! Thanks

[@stewartbrands]

Stephen Wolfram is not trying to say anything. He is saying somethings. He is not "trying",he is telling you about what he found and this does not need a translator. It just requires listening to Stephen many times about many aspects of his research.

[@sophialovecraft7894]

Great video, would love to see your channel grow, nobody else really covers this stuff, not that I have found, it is synchronistic.

[@ScientificGenius]

Much appreciated! It's good to know that some of my thoughts are hitting the mark. It's a challenge to select what to share and how.

[@tangerum5883]

This is the first video I've seen from your channel. Very fascinating indeed! I'm not sure if I grasp it all yet. I've been swimming in the aquarium of Jung, Pauli and Wolfram for many years now. Maybe Fludd is the fourth I've been missing. Thanks, I look forward to more of your content.

[@ScientificGenius]

Cheers! My next video is about John Vervaeke and cognitive science and should be up in the next week or so.

[@Sesso20]

That was deeply fascinating and I am happy that KZbin got me here today. Will definitely see more from you. Its hard to grasp for me, but the Ruliad is something that I have thought about myself although from a "mere" philosophical standpoint. Thank you!

[@LibrawLou]

Since the particularity of a computer is not really necessary, just the Ruliad, then isn't "computation" NOT the overall description, but instead "encoding"? The model of DNA idealizes by encoding with a mere 4 codes to explicate much of living systems. Andrew Hamilton proposes encoding all matter (leptons & quarks) with an encoding of 2 & 4 dimensional Spinors.

[@LibrawLou]

E g. shouldn't Wolfram instead call it the "Principle of Encoding Equivalence"?

[@Constantinesis]

Thank you! Really great presentation! Wolfram is my new kind of science!

[@KaliFissure]

@StephenWolfram is , in the end, building hydrodynamics atom by atom. Space is a dielectric fluid. Gravity causes flows in space. Flows in a dielectric fluid cause charge separation. Charge is an artifact of flows in mass free space. Mass is is persistent vortices in dielectric fluid space. Fields are the derivative of flows.

[@raycar1165]

Are you familiar with the Thunderbolts Project and their Electric Universe Cosmology ?

[@KaliFissure]

@raycar1165 I am a bit. While I do feel like plasmotics is woefully under accounted for in the large dabble processes (galactic spin anomaly) I don't think that the local cycling can account for the largest scales we see. From filaments on though....👍

[@zazugee]

My problem is that Wolfram often doesn't credit other people who have pioneered the digital and computational approach to physics like Ed.Fredkin and Conrad Suze

[@tangerum5883]

Speaking of "threes and fours", I notice on your logo the Cuboctahedron. Both it and it's dual the Rhombic dodecahedron are wonderful examples of the special interplay three (triangle) and four (square) has, especially in relation to the perfection of sphere packing. I feel your choice is no mere coincidence.

[@HaileISela]

three and four are always complementary to grow the whole dozen, or the dozenaroundone as in the vector equilibrium

[@BookQuotesRedux]

Interesting work! Thanks for the video.

[@eriklintsev]

Thanks for sharing ☺️ amazing summary

[@underherboot]

Computational Irreducibility and the Principle of Computational Equivalence are only one aspect of why we are limited in our ability to predict the evolution of physical systems. Let's not forget the Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, which is an integral part of all physical processes in the universe, from the micro to the macro. In essence, all physical processes involve a deterministic computable part (i.e. the evolution of the wave function), and a stochastic non computable part (i.e. the state reduction to one possible classical state). The universe is not a computer! Off the top of my head, our ability to predict the future is limited by complexity, computer irreducibility, our ability to measure initial conditions, the existence of chaotic systems, and the uncertainty principle.

[@robertschlesinger1342]

Interesting and worthwhile video.

[@Healitall]

Thanks. The video was really informative and clear. :)

[@afn42]

I just found your channel and damn I am working on exactly that! I am trying to develop a model of the psycho-physical parallels and how this translates into phenomena that are observable in human life. We should get in touch sometime

[@HeronMarkBlade]

Excellent talk, thank you.

[@pollywops9242]

Oh wow i have looked for the words to describe how i see things for years , it's amazing your description of a person focussing on three subcategories of 1 box and another one looking at 4 total boxes I can use this when I'm told I'm crazy (internally i can use it😅)

[@lilmoesk899]

Nice video, I'm hooked by anyone trying to connect ideas from Wolfram, Kant, and Hegel. Keep up the interesting work.

[@ankitaharwal5886]

If you think hegel is right you are looking into the wrong direction.

[@lilmoesk899]

@@ankitaharwal5886 how so? if nothing else, Hegel had the cajones to cook up an explanation for literally everything. I find it beautiful that a single human mind could hope to construct such a grand system of thought that encompasses all of human history and the human mind itself.

[@jobebrian]

@@ankitaharwal5886 And if we’re looking at the development of psychology as successor to mathematics and science, the thinker to interrogate is Kierkegaard, who in part began writing in response to Hegel.

[@ankitaharwal5886]

@@lilmoesk899 karl Marx got his most theories from works of hegel. And karl Marx creates one the most demonic system ever. There must be perhaps something really wrong with works of hegel, I guess gnostic and hermetic roots. Although, not sure because never read it myself. Although, you can read where hegel got it wrong, that would be valuable. This is the right direction to look. If you wanna read logical stuff connecting everything, and getting most accurate picture. I suggest first watch "aether vs atomism argument"(from theoria apophasis channel, it will clear alot of fundamental doubts and you would actually understand how world works on fundamental level). Then read "all energy unified" On same channel. Then read advaita vedanta or plotinus emanation. You will get now people 1000 years got the natural world hugely right, and how modern physics is based on false assumptions.

[@bernard12345]

Interesting video!

[@hv1461]

Well done

[@richardwoollaston3650]

Not having come across Wolfram before, found it difficult at the start of this video to find out exactly what it is all about.

[@ScientificGenius]

Noted - you might find my very first video is a better introduction (The Intuition of Stephen Wolfram).

[@ktrethewey]

You are making an excellent contribution to what is going to be the next scientific revolution. Well done.

[@danellwein8679]

thank you for this ... really good ..

[@leematthews6812]

Connections between some of my favourite areas of study. Very interesting!

[@gavinr189]

Is Design Pattern a suitable word for program? And Algorithm a better word instead of Rules? Or is that taking it too far into computational.

[@mannytps9986]

Have you ever looked into Chris Langan’s Cognitive Theoretic Model of the Universe? How does it stand in relation to Wolfram’s NKS?

[@ScientificGenius]

No, I haven't but on first glance, it appears there might be some interesting connections. Thanks!

[@edmondedwards6729]

excellent video and full of clues and leads to satisfy the "4th mind"

[@andrewradford3953]

This was great explanation of rules. Just watched Stephen Wolfram using chat gpt and Wolfram Alpha to create an algorithm that can be used to display or emulate a physical thing that is described to it in English. Well that's my interpretation.

[@bubstacrini8851]

U gotta be kidding, Aristotle is going to reveal how we can understand a new fish in a new tank in a new multiverse

[@kiegal4499]

love the ruliad analogy.

[@bernardofitzpatrick5403]

Subscribed 👍 much needed exposition.

[@jobebrian]

Thanks for making this video. I’ve taken brief looks at Wolfram over the years but have always had trouble getting a handle on ideas. This has helped considerably, and I will next go to look at the video on intuition. Question: What is “nks”, referred to several times in this video? (this might not even be the right spelling, but I’m following what shows up in the transcript). Other thinkers who might be worth considering in relation to this video: “Ruleology” brings to mind Wittgenstein, namely 138-242 of Philosophical Investigations, and section VI of Remarks on the Foundations of Mathematics. And also Saul Kripke’s Wittgenstein on Rules and Private Language, the much discussed commentary on Wittgenstein on rule-following. Also Kierkegaard. If we’re going to follow Jung and Pauli in considering Psychology as the field of study succeeding mathematics, I think Kierkegaard made many observations about the relationship between the “solitary, existing individual”and the Absolute, which seems (on the surface, anyway) to fit with Fludd’s remarks on the tetragrammaton and man. Also C.S. Peirce, as well as others in the field generally referred to as Semiotics. Peirce thought of himself as a kind of successor to Kant, and his notion of “Thirdness” a simplification of the Categories. Also Bergson and then Deleuze, who emphasize the importance of Being qua Becoming, or “no Being without Becoming”, which seems (to me) to accord well with Wolfram’s contention that human computational ability progresses within the unbounded computational nature of reality (do I have that right?). Not to mention Pascal and countless other religious thinkers who have already taken up many of the questions pursued by Jung (and Fludd, I think). Such thinkers may not be scientific enough for others, but at the very least they represent a dynamic view of the traditions from which scientific thinkers are usually trying to free themselves or in some way reconcile. (N.B. in my view, Wolfram’s desire to see these questions approached _within_ rather than _outside_ of science is somewhat misguided, for science itself always grows out of some religious tradition or another, and to eschew religion is itself unscientific. Another way of looking at this is to look for a unity in the Aristotelean view of the threefold you mention at the beginning. If only because a “Unified Theory” is what everybody seems to be looking for. And nobody wants to end up like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, forever hawking their ignorance on the international lecture circuit. Looking forward to future videos!

[@dantemichael]

Wow, thanks for your very insightful comment. NKS = A New Kind of Science, which is Wolfram's book about the computational universe. The videos I'm referencing are from his retrospective of its publication. My first ever video explores the initial reception of NKS: to this day, nobody really 'gets it'. To get a handle on his ideas is to think like Wolfram... or perhaps other figures from intellectual history. You seem to have a grasp of the scope of this kind of work. I haven't thought about Kripke's book on rules in a long time - I remember stumbling upon it in the library and bringing it into my 2nd year metaphysics class. Nobody had any idea what I was talking about!

[@MrMaxcypher]

This is my first video from you and I'm now a subscriber. I'm still trying to understand the basics: Wolfram's take on what computation actually is. On another note, I find it truly evocative how you relate 17th-century thought to Wolfram's corpus and I'm curious to know if your range of interests have touched upon the works of G. I. Gurdjieff. Obviously, he's not of the 17th century but one can view his work as a sort of integration of thought from that era with ancient world views. Thanks for your hard work.

[@ScientificGenius]

Much appreciated! Gurdjieff is someone who has always been on the periphery for me and I do have some of his writings. I've crossed paths with a follower of his before but know little about his work. The theme of connecting the ancient and moderns is certainly recurring, with Wolfram offering a new opportunity for deepening the connection. Wolfram's reaction to the latest AI developments says everything you need to know: for him, everything is computational and AI is really not as special as it might appear!

[@MrMaxcypher]

@@ScientificGenius Gurdjieff was all about the possibility of evolving into a fully conscious being, and he put his money where his mouth was, so to speak. Soon, I'll peruse your videos on B. Fuller because Bucky was seminal for me in my quest for some sort of consistent comprehension of this strange reality. Back to Wolfram: could you recommend a work that would give me a solid philosophical background for his notion of computation? His notion must be beyond just crunching numbers and running programs/algorithms, right? Oh, and thank you for replying to my comment. I assumed that you would be way too busy exploring Japanese culture (a fascinating people!) to find time for this conversation.

[@ScientificGenius]

Calculating Space by Konrad Zuse comes to mind as another example of the universal computation perspective. But Wolfram truly believes he has stumbled upon a novel discovery; there are no simple comparisons or primers aside from what Wolfram has said and written. Fuller's philosophy is also 'sui generis' in this way. So what happens when a scientific genius is unable to explain what they've discovered? How much responsibility do we have (as curious onlookers) to interpret their findings? And what resources/methods are best suited for this challenge? How do we measure success in our endeavour to understand these people as they intend to be understood? These are the bigger questions that motivate my content here and they fall within the discipline of 'hermeneutics'. Also I have decided to stay in Canada for now!

[@reneelalala7690]

Thanks!

[@l3lixx]

NKS indicates that the unpredictable nature of the future shape of a storm cloud is no less complex than the neural activity of a thinking brain. In this sense the weather literally has a mind of it's own.

[@lodepublishing]

His approach does not seem to explain what drives the ruliad. He just says it's there, but that just shifts the question from "why is there something and not nothing" to "why are there rules and not no rules"

[@heinrichagrippa1259]

Turtles all the way down.

[@ArtRebel007]

I also wonder what is your opinion of Tetryonics, the theory by KELVIN C ABRAHAM, if you happen to be familiar with it? Thanks again.

[@jareknowak8712]

Building complexicity out of simplicity is nothing unusual. But building true randomness on the basis of rules is real magic. Complex effects that arise as a result of a large number of actions, based on deterministic principles, are often mistaken for randomness.

[@ScientificGenius]

You're absolutely right. I think the reason why Wolfram cares about this idea is because of the impression that this complexity is indefinite. It's like looking deeper into a fractal and realizing that it never ends, except there are more interesting things going on than simple recursion. At the very least, this would explain why Wolfram believes that 'rulial space' can be continuously explored and produce new insights, as he describes in his latest blog post that I mention at the end of this video. As for randomness, Chapter 6 of NKS goes into more detail on how this relates to simple rules. Not so much on magic though! www.wolframscience.com/nks/chap-6--starting-from-randomness/

[@OdjoAdja]

the terminology of 'quantum' is a 'science with intuition', how can the Heisenberg experiment on atom position and end with the 'uncertainty' if there's no intuition involved.. to complement of 'rule 30' at 5:03 there's also 'rule 40' which still in my finding where the 40 number came from, 40 days of fasting, life begin at 40, top 40, wd 40 etc.. interesting 8:54 perhaps the 'ruliad' is some sort of 'algorithm' which is most popular terminology nowadays, need further attention..👍

[@jareknowak8712]

If i will run the "Rule 30" program on reverse, from final effect to the cause, will I finally get to the ground rules, the "Rule 30"? If so - I dont see anything extraordinary about it.

[@jareknowak8712]

Trying to discover the initial code, starting with the visible effects, is no different from our trying to understand the basic principles of Physics by looking at the reality around us. It is essentially a description of the history of intelligence.

[@KALLAN8]

you can determine the rules by running any single step beyond the ambiguous point of around 10 steps. The extraordinary thing about Rule 30 is that it is impossible to jump ahead in the computation. ie. not possible to guess what it will look like 100 steps in the future. I think similarly in reverse, you need to run every step. Most other rules, you can jump to the end or jump to the begging, not rule 30. It is computationally irreducible.

[@jareknowak8712]

@@KALLAN8 Thank You James, You intrested me very much. As soon as I have time I need to get deeper into it!

[@wolfrhymesmusic9763]

I didn't know I created a type of physics?!?😂

[@michajarosz8987]

It reminds me of Jack Barker's The Conjoined Triangles of Success ;)

[@saschajandt654]

Very fascinating video. Personally I am very much influenced by the thoughts of people like Plato and Hegel, so obviously I have a very different interpretation of the ruliad and its implications. Seeing this from the perspective of someone who, it seems like, has been influenced by the likes of Kant is very interesting. At the end of the day I am still amazed by how Stephens ideas seem to fit very nicely with some of the most profound philosophical systems, which leads me to believe, that Stephen might actually be on to something here.

[@dylanpaul7371]

Is everything in the universe, not just humans, subject to this computational equivalence?

[@mitsaoriginal8630]

U should look into Chris langan in relation to wolfram

[@homelessrobot]

I can see people developing wolfram's work in the future after he has passed, and some turning it into a mystery cult of 'wolframites'. Not a dig on his work at all, but there is certainly alluring air of cosmic revelation in it.

[@geor664]

Can you talk about our understanding of basic physical constants. Or put another way how do we define physics using maths at the most granular level. Boltzmans Constant is one good example, Max Planks constant H is another. I think of these numbers as "fudge factors" that allow us to equate our modelling between the macro and micro world? In terms of 'its computational all the way down'. Im seeing that we 'need' to introduce these physical constants to cross the boundaries between the macro world and the atomic world. I can use and model with these values with ease, for a simple example Vth (thermal noise voltage) = sqrt(n.k.t.bw) but i am still to find someone or some text that can explain the meaning of these values such Boltzmans constant in a way that means something at the most basic level of understanding. A mathematical answer is preferred. Yes we know their value but we don't know why they are that value at the most intrinsic level of understanding. Have you thought about this level of granularity in understanding our world in a rule based / modelling sense?

[@pollywops9242]

I didn't know about this untill yesterday, right on time because the current "science" is just spiralling out of control, ego and money make them not only hold on to wrong conclusions they force it as reality to us to monetize it This is very obvious theory and it just keeps hitting,in great detail,all my objections and questions about just the method and the aquarium It also very deeply resonates and excites me , my 7 year old daughter wanted to instantly do the first rule on paper and make a universe I am also very inclined to stop everything and try out rules I love changing my intuition because it will only change if it's wrong Thank you so much

[@brendawilliams8062]

This approach seems to me very wise.

[@EugenethePhilostopher]

An interesting experience is to listen to this while computing some geometries of solar flares in Mathematica.

[@granteubanks]

Fantastic fantastic video thank you so much. Are you familiar with Kabbalah? Jung was fascinated with this and it is perhaps an explanation of the Tetragrammaton. The Hebrew alphabet functions very similarly to L-systems or multiway systems as Wolfram calls it. Look at esoteric imagery and see how it relates to Wolfram, holism, Actor Network Theory, etc. Also I believe it's pronounced Kahnt :)

[@bon12121]

10:15 'what went wrong' What is this about? sounds interesting.

[@ScientificGenius]

Great question - I'm alluding to Pauli's view that debates in the 17th century became relevant again in the wake of 20th century physics. More specifically, quantum mechanics exposed our inadequate understanding of "the nature of the bridge between the sense perceptions and the concepts" (from Pauli's essay). The legitimacy of this crisis in epistemology was a matter of opinion. But the historical turn in the philosophy of science suggests that Pauli's intuition was ultimately correct here, at least in my opinion!

[@ScientificGenius]

following up: my quote from Lyotard in this video summarizes what went wrong. Science (especially since the Enlightenment) was never supposed to implode. The project was about human freedom through rationality, not 'fractals'. The bridge between science and art (and religion) all becomes apparent once the limits of the enlightenment project are revealed. But who wants to cross it? Maybe AI will beat humans to it.

[@dreforeman1707]

Good Channel

[@charlesbeck9170]

I think there is something there, but I don't know what it is! can it be applied to say, engineering?

[@PeterFnPorker]

I think Wolfram is on the verge of understanding Quatum Information Flow and how to use it

[@tupacalypse88]

That would be great I hope so.

[@patrickabois]

I think you should do a blog with Wolfram and you guys can have an interesting chat, and get somewhere beyond what you're expecting, let grace take over kind of thing. Can someone contact Stephen Wolfram, show him (or someone who knows him) this video? You obviously exhibit signs of genius when you take complex ideas and simplify them, and then add upon them like you do. Although I know you're not calling yourself a genius with your title, only showcasing geniuses like Wolfram. Humility goes a long way, especially in a world where trolls sling mud at you, like a few did here for whatever asinine reason. Nevertheless, a great video in synthesizing various important thinkers and adding your own bit, big bravos to you. Side note: I also agree it ought not be multi-computational as a paradigm, that's stretching it a bit for posterity perhaps; however, multi-being (computational and human) came to me, especially since computers are merging with humans, and he involves them in his system (although I'm not sure which one is more indeterminate, or spontaneously unpredictable, or irreducibly led to the occasional cluster-fuck significance). Anyway, would you say that the principle of computational equivalence is a door to God for atheists, or theists looking for a new way that hasn't been muddied by idiocy of some sort? Would you also say that irreducibility is another way of saying that God is always one step ahead within singular reducibility? Love that last line, btw... "I will sing in the shadow of your wings." Now that's a song title!

[@ArtRebel007]

Really fascinating. Thanks for your thoughts. I am curious how Raymond Lull might fit into the picture? Also, your discussion brought this to mind ... 3 x 4 = 12, the synthesis of Trinitarian and Quatrinarian thought, as personified by the pantheon of ancient Gods, as symbolized by the 12 signs of the Zodiac, etc. Anyway, thanks for the video. Truly fascinating.

[@jeremiahmullikin]

I got lost at rule 34. Haven't picked up the book since.

[@Iyht]

Most of what wolfram is saying many people already knew a long time a go in many fields including linguistics and cybernetics and many people have talk about it in the past, specially programmers. He also takes ownership of many of Conway's ideas(simple rules can generate complex behavior), effectively Conway's game of life, also most of his principles are tautologies, so they cant really be use to proof anything. So yep everything can be describe as a graph...ohhh wait what a genius lol

[@lucaspierce3328]

Multi-Computation as a Superposition, Replication/Duplication, & Variation and Recombination of Individual Different Rules/Programs/Algorithms via Computations(Patterns i.e. Spacetime, Geometric Topology, Dimensionality, Qualia etc) & therefore Evolutionary Algorithms or Rules of Transformations the like(Evolution, Transformation, Emergence, Change i.e. Continuous Creation and Creation/Destruction Dynamics etc)! Superposition, Self-Co-Entanglement(Nonlocality), Symmetry, Force Respectively are Meta-Laws and Equivalent, Qualitative Duality is another Meta-Law(Meta-Rules that are Inherent Aspects of All Things, the Universe & Multiverse)! Another is Conservation of All Qualities like Symmetry, Energy, Qualitative Spacetime Memory(Infinite Compactified AdS Super-Hyperbolic Dp-brane-based Super-Trace)/Information, Momentum, Overall Symmetry, Heat etc!.

[@sarfrazahmedc]

If the ruliad has to set up a bunch of 'rules' who or what is imposing these 'rules' or limits, and why are these rules 'run' in the first case or why they move forward? isn't it a serious and pertinent question? Does it not suggest a concious effort to impose rules or limits on the ruliad, setup a rule space and kickstart the computation in the realm of possibilities. We have a very putative concept and a name for such a conciousness, doesnt these descriptions all point to such an essence and existence. That for me is a serious metaphysical consideration for this setup.

[@ScientificGenius]

This is certainly a serious and pertinent question. One thing to consider is that the concept/name for the consciousness is specifically human - it is 'our slice' of the ruliad. Seeking to understand the ruliad then leads to the classic paradoxes of self-reference (e.g. Russell, Hofstadter) since we have to use the rules of our own psychology in the process. Wolfram defines the ruliad as the limit of all possible computations, which resembles Kant's categories as the conditions of all possible objects of cognition. Hence Wolfram's increasing focus on the 'computational boundedness' of the human observer. When it comes 'who' or 'what' imposes the iterative process of ruliology (the problem of essence and existence), we are creeping along the border of psychology and mythology. It depends on the kind of story we want to tell, the culture we're in, the spirit of the times. Wolfram's story, for example, is inspired by technology and the history of science. My hope is that this will be further integrated with perspectives that run parallel - but outside of - the orthodox history; viewpoints that support the Principle of Computational Equivalence which also enhance the story behind the ruliad. NKS is a 'watershed' moment and Wolfram knows that. I see his Physics Project as an attempt to grapple with the challenges that arise from that achievement (simply creating a fourth paradigm won't cut it). In the wake of quantum physics, Wolfgang Pauli investigated Kepler's watershed moment, both in terms of its scientific rationalization and its lasting impact on Western culture and psychology. I don't think Wolfram believes that he is modeling the divine mind of God through his work... but if that's what it took for Kepler, then what will it take now?

[@KALLAN8]

In Wolfram's model, the Ruliad runs ALL POSSIBLE RULES, think of it more like functions, basically saying we live in a computable space. No one is picking the rules of the Ruliad, it is the set of all rules. Moving forward in this system is only our perception of it having a past, present and future, the Ruliad itself have no imposition of time. It is not 'run' on anything, it is only our experience traversing the Ruliad that provides the sensation of running, specific rules, over time. Outside of our own perception, all those words have no meaning. It helps to remember that the Ruliad is only a model with which to compute the underlying physics of this universe, it is by no means the only possible model and is not saying the physical elements of us are actually 'emes' (or however you spell it). This is only a breakthrough achievement in so much as the model can run on a computer and is EQUIVALENT to all possible computation that exists in the universe. For example I have my own version of Wolfram's idea that does not depend on the updating rules to create the Ruliad, but simply uses relationships.

[@underherboot]

Why does something or someone have to impose the rules? Why can't the rules just exist because, or derive from essential properties and relationships between physical objects? Your question is essentially the same as asking why anything exists at all. Of course they are valid questions, but scientifically unanswerable. Philosophy and theology can only provide consistent but untestable/unprovable answers to these questions.

[@Kowzorz]

I agree that this is a pertinent question. I am reminded of Plato's ideals of form, only in a sort of dual sense of pure rules instead of pure form. Wouldn't it be wild if the universe was merely the spectrum between the two "real" ideals of form and rules?

[@DavidGBlair]

I can’t decide if this is really revolutionary or just a crank. Has Wolfram actually derived any true and interesting results?

[@ScientificGenius]

Cellular automata are inherently interesting but Wolfram believes some of them, like Rule 30, are revelations. I'm trying to give context as to why he would think this. So the truth and intrigue of his findings lie within a framework that may or may not be of interest.

[@da33smith37]

I am still looking for a single motivating example. Something like Feynman would lay out in the first four minutes of a lecture. This kind of presentation does hand waving on topics people barely understand, hoping they will feel awed, duping them into thinking they understand something when they don't. Of course, an algorithm or Turing machine has nothing to do with whether you actually execute it. But the interesting things about computational processes are not even hinted at here. Asserting that I can't possibly understand because I'm not in the right fish tank makes exactly zero progress towards helping me understand. Suggest you start with the apocryphal aphorism in mind, "if you can't explain it to a 6-year-old, you probably don't understand it yourself."

[@ScientificGenius]

Hey, thank you for your comment. These videos were a true learning process for me. I'm grateful that others have taken the time to observe and respond. Your recommendation is apt: I have spent the past year thinking about how to communicate better. I have a new 60 minute video that will be out next week. Not only is it entertaining, I'm confident that it succeeds in eliminating (or reducing) hand-waving while also providing many motivating examples. Hopefully, you will agree! -Dante

[@da33smith37]

@@ScientificGenius I will subscribe and see if it pops up 😊

[@001variation]

3:29 I think you mean “jumping the gun”, not “jumping the shark”

[@ScientificGenius]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jumping_the_shark love your account pic btw! Yin-and-yang will feature heavily in my upcoming videos (stay tuned)

[@yifuxero5408]

Very good as far as it goes, but (per R. Penrose), Consciousness is non-computable. Hello? Haven't gotten the message yet? You can experience Pure Consciousness "In-Itself" by accessing "Mahamritunjaya mantra - Sacred Sounds Choir". Listen to it for 5 min per day for at least two weeks. Wolfram is hung up on computations. Pure Consciousness transcends computations.

[@abjee1602]

Do you have irrefutable evidence to back your claim?

[@pappaflammyboi5799]

Ruliad: hocus-pocus...

[@tommylakindasorta3068]

Not having read his book, I'm not clear on the benefits of Wolfram's new science. What is it supposed to do for us that the current science can't do?

[@ScientificGenius]

Good question. I think it's clear that Wolfram has done some very creative work in the field of computer science, particularly in his analysis of families of cellular automata. So on one hand, this 'does' something in that field as it is presently understood and practiced by people other than Wolfram. But on the other hand, he isn't satisfied with this result alone. He goes beyond this modest 'doing' of computer science and claims to have made discoveries that transcend the paradigm altogether. At this point, Wolfram's perspective on what he's doing departs from what everyone else perceives. He appears to be speculating and must disclose (albeit implicitly) the metaphysical presuppositions of his personal interpretation. Simply put, Wolfram is claiming that his new science does a lot more than it appears to be doing. Because he has remained convinced in the face of both serious criticism and dismissive ridicule, he has garnered some sustained interest from more charitable and open minds. Science is a harsh business but we should all focus on mutual understanding. So I am presenting my own understanding of Wolfram, not to convince anyone that he is 'right' but to encourage others to be creative and discover whatever truth may lie behind his convictions.

[@tommylakindasorta3068]

@@ScientificGenius Thanks for responding. I'm intrigued by the subject, but some of it seems closer to philosophy or religion than science. For example, Wolfram's refusal to participate in the scientific process by submitting scientific papers for peer review. It sounds like Wolfram has some issues with the scientific community, and perhaps they are valid. But I'm not clear on what Wolfram is offering as a replacement. How would it be possible to develop a new science without peer review? Isn't that what keeps scientific research from going off the rails into fantasy?

[@ScientificGenius]

​@@tommylakindasorta3068 Wolfram became obsessed with cellular automata in the 1980s. When he published NKS in 2002, it was as if he descended from his mountaintop to share his discoveries with the world. So yes, there is a religious narrative somewhere in that! NKS wasn't as subversive as Wolfram thought it would be. It contains plenty of science but mainly in the trivial sense of analysis (clarifying what we already know) rather than synthesis (adding to what we know). The reception was deeply frustrating for Wolfram, especially given his attention to clarity and detail when writing NKS. Why can't we see what Wolfram sees? Is it because his genius far exceeds the common mind? Or has he run off the rails into fantasy? In either case, his peer review would not be favourable. As for your question about what he offers as a replacement for science: it seems to be more of a reorientation towards what we already consider to be scientific. For example, the computational model of time would open up new areas of research that are not yet obvious to us. This is why my first video about Wolfram focused on his intuition, or as I suggest in this video, moving to a new aquarium. The products of NKS seem to be less important than what Wolfram sees in them; an ironic situation that seems to be slowly distilling itself through Wolfram's increasing focus on the computational boundedness of the human observer. My next video will be about Paul Feyerabend and scientific anarchism. Perhaps it will add some colour and context to Wolfram's perspective.

[@tommylakindasorta3068]

@@ScientificGenius That sounds fascinating. I look forward to your next video. And thank you again for your time.

[@tupacalypse88]

If anyone is interested all his books and papers are on his website free of charge.

[@rauckr09]

I find your ideas opaque. Perhaps I need to review some of your other material to follow the thread of your thoughts.

[@ScientificGenius]

I would be curious to know if that helps clarify things. I'm experimenting with ideas, aiming to create one video per month in 2022. Critical feedback can greatly influence my next project. I really appreciate the feedback, and would benefit from further specification if you have the time.

[@eriklintsev]

From bacteria to Bach, by Dennet

[@ferrantepallas]

fascinating gibberish

[@cjg196]

You are stretching very far to associate Buckminster Fuller with the occult (Pythagoreans). He was very explicit that all of his knowledge must be derived from reality and what can be directly observed and explained. That his knowledge of reality must be operational, act-uponable (sic). Fundamentally, he was Aristotelian, reality first and with the deepest respect for mind and its ability to discover the generalized principles omnipresent in reality.

[@ScientificGenius]

Hi, thanks for your message. You are entirely correct - Bucky derived Synergetics from experience and intuition, even though he was familiar with the basics of Greek philosophy and the history of science. I am preparing a new video right now that addresses this. Stay tuned!

[@drscott1]

👍🏼

[@shawnburnham1]

8:00

[@atmanbrahman1872]

None of this is new. Welcome to the Thomist Synthesis. Wolfram is just rediscovering the wheel and calls it a squirrel.

[@TheNaturalLawInstitute]

Criticisim: This video is a wonderful example of why we shouldnt study philosophy at all, and should stick with math, programming, physics, engineering, economics, and law. It misses the entire point. Wolfram is brilliant but is his own worst enemy, because like many people on the autism spectrum (myself included) he sees the leaves on the trees, the trees, and the forest and can't figure out how to talk about the forest without discussing every leaf. Wolfram's insight on one hand is simple: He is part of the operational (intuitionistic) revolution that failed in the early part of the 20th outside of physics, and later caused the reform of some of psychology. He's reforming mathematics (the science of measurement) by basing his work on markov chains (sequences of operations that change state) instead of sets, and restoring mathematical logic to realism (operations) from idealism (sets). And he's extended that to adversarial (evolutionary) computation through parallelism. And while he can't seem to communicate it clearly, what he's saying is that the whole universe and all that emerges from, it, is explainable rather easily by simple rules (markov chains) that produce combinatory permutations, that determine what is computable (evolutionarily possible) and what is not computatinoally or mathematically reducible. Thereby illustrating the emergent complexity of all complex phenomena in the universe. Now, some of us teach what wolfram is saying but starting with the rather obvious limits of mathematics. Then we move to the obvious limits of operations and states. Then we move to environmental effects on operations and states. Then we move to adversarial compeition between different rules (operations and states) in one or more environments. Now, in computer science we describe arithmetic, formulae, computation (sequential code), functional code, and simulation code, and evolutionary (self modifying) code. And the net result is that worlfram is ending mathematical platonism, restoring mathematical operationalism, by founding mathematics on computation (realism, naturalism, evolutionary computation). ... that's as much as I feel like writing. But wolfram is probably overstating 'a new kind of science' but he's not overstating the importance of fixing the problems of the limits of mathematics caused by the late 19th century re-platonization of math by cantor and sets. And he is taking advantage, as did mandelbrot, of the harsh reality that without computers we cannot necessaily humanly compute models (outcome states) given how slow we are at ordinary number crunching.

[@nevetstrevel4711]

Why reject philosophy then?

[@___Truth___]

What do you mean by intuitionistic, in terms of it being outside of physics. Surely you’re not talking about intuitionism in terms of math? That’s the only form of intuitionism that I can remark & that comes to mind as operational…

[@superfiredeath4444]

what a stupid thing to say

[@lights473]

You're absolutely wrong. There is no science or economics or law or mathematics without a philosophy at its foundation. It is philosophy that comes before all of these things. There is no science or math or law or economics without philosophy. Once you destroy philosophy, you destroy all these other fields that depend on it.

[@MrVontar]

You do realize all the topics you mentioned are derived from philosophy? Logic itself is created from philosophy which all of science and math is based on, so I don't think I agree with you

[@soniahazy4880]

🪷🫧🎨🎲🙏🧞‍♂️🫧🌷

[@Achrononmaster]

Wolfram sounds like an ideological fruitcake. We've known since Gödel and Turing that mathematics on its own terms transcends computation. But even ancient philosophers (amateurs, so probably superior to people paid to do thinking) intuitively understood subjectivity is not objectifiable, so cannot be mathematized, so trivially cannot be computational. Computationalism is a perfectly fine paradigm for measurement and observation. This is a good science paradigm, with some limited use, when you have a powerful enough CPU/GPU to hand, but it is no prolegomena for any metaphysics.

[@ScientificGenius]

Thanks for the comment - Wolfram is definitely going beyond the limtis of his domain by making highly speculative claims. And yet he believes to have a basis for these claims within his domain of computation. This is where metaphysics enters the picture, i.e. can we tell if Wolfram's findings actually support his claims? He makes repeated efforts to defend this connection but, as you said, it's all very ideological. On the flip side, does anyone understand computation quite like Wolfram does? I don't think we can dismiss the work he's done and it's fascinating in its own right. So, I think it's up to us to come to grips with Wolfram's claims as they stand. Such is the nature of scientific genius!

[@underherboot]

Great post! Can you explain how Godel/Turing show that mathematics transcend computation? Roger Penrose seems to use this fact to prove that human consciousness cannot result from a computation (alone), but I never understood his argument. I'm both superficially familiar with Godel's incompleteness theorem, Turin's halting problem and their connection, but not well enough to make the transition to how mathematical understanding can transcend computation. I would appreciate any pointers. Thanking you in advance.

[@ericpmoss]

I think the phrase you are looking for is "cannot be OVERestimated", or "SHOULD not be underestimated" -- probably the latter. In any case, I can't listen to Wolfram any more. Video after video, decade after decade, and they all go in circles.

[@jim01q]

What's with the concentration-camp look?

[@ScientificGenius]

Depression... idk

[@user-ru5xz3lz9c]

Secret of the illuminati 1🤫

[@LuisAldamiz]

Kepler was right. Sad but revealing that Wolfram is just another Platonist. The "computer" is Reality.

[@tiago.alegria.315]

Kinda nonsense

[@TheVincent0268]

is rule 30 a variant of this? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bifurcation_diagram en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logistic_map

[@KALLAN8]

No, Rule 30 is simply one specific setup for a Cellular Automata system. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellular_automaton

[@fleshanthos]

As soon as you said "philosophical" I was out. Go smoke your banana peels.

[@danellwein8679]

thank you for this ... really good ..