The Wolfram model - Jonathan Gorard

26/05/20
Online seminar in the "Newton 1665" series.

[@Danhec95]

I *almost* understood all the basic ideas of the model! Great explanation Jonathan

[@insightfool]

Ya, this really helped me too.

[@stevelangridge1755]

“Great question” = a question I know the answer to ha ha! But leaving aside my own facetiousness, 90% of this went over my head and Gorard is probably the smartest person I have ever come across.

[@tarkajedi3331]

I have been studying this for a month or so after being a huge fan of NKS .... This helped me so much and wish I had seen this first !!! Great job sir!!!!!!!!!!!!

[@tarkajedi3331]

Once you can connect the model to familiar waters the possibilities become very exciting.

[@LuisAldamiz]

Wow! You guys are onto something: even if you'd be wrong, you'd still be right in the opening of intellectual pathways, of developing tools, of opening the box of how-to think about all this and incorporating Chaos Theory to Fundamental Physics.

[@tarkajedi3331]

This has turned the Physics world upside down for a reason! It is a way for us to really make progress again after Relativity and Quantum mechanics has given us our current world))) The genius of this is its open science aproach and I honestly belie they have cracked it.. On a simple intuition level, a gut level if you are familiar with Physics and its level of maths you will appreciate what I am saying!!! One of the big things for me is it means much more accurate Quantum measurements and even the possibility of WARP Drive!!!!

[@LuisAldamiz]

Don't mention the war...p drive...

[@guterflex7967]

I totally agree with you. Although I am not proficient at physics or the math talked about here, I understand what they are trying to do and what kind of findings they had so far and it seems like this is totally going to be the next big thing, even bigger than Einstein's work or Quantum Mechanics. If this truly will work the way I suppose it does, then we will be able to "complete physics", and rather quickly as well, as far as I see.

[@nickw3867]

This is the man who found relativity and the path integral in Wolfram's computational models.

[@verystablegenius4720]

If you mean by "finding" , slipping it in by sleight of hand and hiding it with gargantuan amount of irrelevant complexity , yes, he did do that.

[@verystablegenius4720]

Call me when they make ONE non-trivial prediction.

[@verystablegenius4720]

He did pick up grandiose mannerisms of Stephen Wolfram with empty promises and grand gestures though, I can tell you that !!

[@nickw3867]

Don't be so hard on yourself, cutting edge research is complex and definitely isn't for everyone. Newtonian physics still works, and you can get a great job predicting the orbits of the planets or designing bridges!

[@verystablegenius4720]

@@nickw3867 LOL ... You are right, I'd know nothing about cutting edge research ... and you inferred that just from my skepticism. Kudos! The difference between you and me is this: I don't roll over in awe when I hear technobabble ... I also know spectacular discoveries do not emerge out of sheer will or money. Wolfram and Gorrard are just a pair of other researchers with no special status. In fact, because of the way they avoid the peer-review system, they should be treated even more critically.

[@spuriustadius5034]

Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems like this is all about coming up with a discrete "hypergraph" formulation of all physical models and the hypothesis is that we "just" have to select the right parameters to get our universe. That's quite bold and interesting, and I am glad they're trying to show they're on the right track by claiming that there are "Large classes of hypergraph transformation systems that are provably compatible with [all known physics]". But what do they really mean by "provably compatible with". This thing is supposed to reproduce special relativity (for instance) in the case of continuum limits, but I don't see how this is _actually_ done? It seems they're just claiming similarities rather actual equivalence to known theory or maybe these people are so smart they think it's trivial and left as an exercise for the reader?

[@spuriustadius5034]

@Dole Pole OK, but that's not good enough. We have theories which are already very accurate. Any new theories must either go further than current theory (by predicting new phenomena) OR be a "better" approximation to reality than current theories. "Better" here could mean simpler or more accurate. That said, even if this is all a loose approximation, it is interesting. The problem I have is that it purports to be a "theory of everything". That seems inappropriately grandiose.

[@imgayasheck595]

@@spuriustadius5034 theories are like tools, they work to an incredible extent but they don't explain why things are the way they are. I see this as an attempt to provide a mathematical structure from which the world we see comes out more or less effortlessly.

[@tarkajedi3331]

Just some advice if you are having some difficulties getting your head around it the key step is to understand, really understand the hypergraph and build up from there to understand rewriting and so on.... Honestly Jonathon is brilliant and his grasp of things is impressive. I always believed in a logical causal universe even if the rules themselves are all possible rules.... Make sure not to be fooled by Jonathons humble introduction. His grasp of this is significant.... Physics departments I am sure right now are all scrambling!!! There is some big chasms to jump still like particles but for some reason I am confident!!!

[@lopezb]

The notation is wrong from the beginning, confusing a pair and an ordered pair. In Set Theory, a "relation" is a subset of ordered pairs. {a,b} is a pair, (a,b) an ordered pair. They are not the same.See Halmos' book.

[@sburnett06]

This is 'sacred geometry' for the computer science crowd.

[@BessieOscar-e6b]

Hernandez Jessica Davis Angela Martinez Thomas

[@danscieszinski4120]

How many epicycles can you possibly add to deny real transcendent spaces so your definition of ‘real’ is the block 4D universe we engage? Branchial space is just the many worlds of many worlds. The ruliad is just another term for Hilbert space. It’s fun to map existing ideas to knew vocabulary, but until you make a measurable prediction that’s all your doing isn’t it?

[@GEMSofGOD_com]

Dear Jonathan Gorard / anyone really, what the heck is Alephs, please strategize a periodic table of cardinalities and stuff OR I WILL

[@DcTurner]

From 57:18 onwards - guy asleep at the bottom 🤣🤣🤣

[@StephenPaulKing]

Check out: arxiv.org/abs/1009.5028