Рет қаралды 490,928

@nolan412 l

@nolan412 8u

@Olle Mattsson rrrjrrrrrjrjrjrrrrjrr6rrrr

@Olle Mattsson rrjjrr

@Olle Mattsson rrjrjrjrj

I'm not a physicist by any means but my curiosity has led me here after reading the memo. I'm not sure if this is already covered in the broader materials but the two-slit experiment may be a great example of this for the average enthusiast : - develop a sample rule to build space - illustrate how light occupies that space in discrete time steps spreading out leading to the wave pattern - show how the impact of "quantum measurement" by an observer can "freeze time" in a quantum frame leading to the slit pattern

How about first trying something "simple" like recreate spacetime with a single particle before going to such daring complex things as the two slits experiment?

Thank you for writing your book ("A New Kind Of Science") Stephen, jumping right into reading it! (first time to learn about it but the last time to retroactively forget it haha peace out).

This work is just pure, and revolutionary, so inspirational, dude 1:40:44 “ that means that the particles are not just there in space, and then curl, its the space that form the particles” 🤯

See Coney Island Green Theory in the book "I Have Become Space".

Love the project and am actively contributing. Please keep up with the Livestreams Stephen, we need these to develop our intuitive sense of how to build Universal models and experiment. Eager to see this develop further, I am optimistic this has big promise for physics and humankind hopefully as well :)

(59:16) So, Wolfram are about to prove Einstein was right about quantum physics after all. Second note is that Wolfram might have secured work for the next generation of theoretical physicists with this. Many interesting ideas he put on the table.

As a PhD in Physics Im fascinated by his work. It seems to solve few of the burning questions we were having. Its seems to be able to work in big (high order corrections to Einsteins' field equations) and small scales (path integral formulation).

Must say, I'm very impressed by humble Stephen Wolfram! What ever happens, if this project is leading to the unified theory or not, he is much more an inspiration than the typical physicist who is more concerned to appear as scientist, mostly by producing minor stuff which then gets blown big, who is mainly concerned of having a nice career, a nice pension, unearned reputation and not to bring physics to a new level. It's not only a waste of money also of creativity and a missed contributions to society which finances them. Think Wolfram is driven by a childlike interest, not mainly speculating to get a Nobel Prize some day. Being interested in physics since a long time, I started to detect an immense void inside the nothingness-loudspeakers in physics, who appeared ever more as emperors with no cloth, as uninspired pea counters, not having achieved much I'd say in the last 50 years, Krauss, Tyson, Carroll etc. Whereas ordinary people get impressed by some equations and complexity-talk, then putting these loudspeakers on high pedestals they don't deserve, I felt a rising skepticism towards such pretenders. We see lots of blinders in public with their nothing's. Shallow thinkers wanting to appear as new Einsteins. I think Wolfram is different here, smart, humble, interest driven, and if someone I know has the substance to expand Einsteins physics, its probably him and not the army of pea counters of orthodoxies.

Wolfram humble? bahahaha

Yea. There is a difference between caring more for ones ego than caring for science. Same go's for politics by the way...

50:30 this explanation of special relativity is truly amazing! Even as a professional physicist, I have not heard about this before. And it makes a lot of sense to me.

This is genius, and honestly the most logical explanation of the universe I have ever heard, combining the multiverse, the quantum, and the classical in a way that corresponds to the observer and attempts to explain the inherent branching of the universe, of which we are very minor but explicit segments within the orders of magnitude, but describable as an event beginning with simple principles, suggesting once again that the universe is being simulated by a very sophisticated computer running very specific generative code. If time is quantifiable at a specific smallest unit, then time might only appear to progress at a “slow" rate because we observe it, but in relative terms, a very sophisticated computer could compute the universe in “seconds" and make its conclusions in the blink of a higher dimensional being’s “eyes”. I wonder how the rules illustrated would appear if simulated holographically.

This is amazing. It's so beautiful and simple and complicated all at the same time. Thank you for sharing this with us.

Amazing work. Truly inspiring

I'm not an expert on physics but I love Wolfram's approach! Regarding dark energy, I read somewhere that photons can interact slightly with other photons. So instead of dark energy there might be an energy loss for photons over vast distances, similar to the tired light idea but that the photons interact with virtual photons in the vacuum of space.

i like the way this sort of computational approach lends itself to a better understanding of entropy, you can see how it might be balanced with naturally occurring tendencies toward order and synchronisation

So exciting to learn about! Thank you

Yea i really got inspired like that i saw many people online playing with cellular automaton and various versions of those and you could really see complexity in it and recognize parts of the world in them and that is what really attracted me to them.

Absolutely fantastic! I knew Stephen Wolfram was a genius, but I couldn't have imagined to what extend. The ideas presented here are astonishing and Stephen's way of presenting them is outstanding in terms of clarity and coherence. As of Jonathan and Max, although I haven't heard about them until now, obviously they have to be in the same ball park of geniality in order to be part of the team. Right now I'm so impressed an also inspired by this project.

Talking about intellectually demanding topics for almost 4 hours straight without a drop in energy levels... impressive. Even more considering Stephen's age.

@Peter Lustig Feynman's diagrams were similarly "mostly" graphical in nature but they opened the doors to truly understanding atomic particle interactions.

@Peter Lustig - I don't understand enough to judge further but I think you don't either: you seem way too opinionated without sufficient knowledge.

@Peter Lustig - I think the algorithm is the same as the graph, this is something he should explain better to non-initiates though. But my understanding is that the idea is that each "dot" carries the algorithm, such as {A > BBB, BB > A} in the character string example they sometimes use. It'd be nice if we could see better how that intrinsical algorithm relates to physical fundamentals anyhow, that's a part I still haven't grasped well, only very generically and intuitively, what is clearly not enough.

@Rus Miller - Quite older than me and I'm 52. Considering he was taught by Feynman... OK, I'll check Wikipedia but my guess is around 65. Let's see... OK, I was slightly wrong: he's 60 only, born on August 29th 1959.

How old do you think he is?

The low structure entropy in the beginning of the universe is compensated by the high information value of the starting bit of code that contains the 'plan' what comes. Here information entropy and thermodynamic entropy are really good in sync imo

I have been listening to this for days. Something came to me 2:41:29. The hypergraph as a thing. Could dark energy be a byproduct of Time? Think of the nodes like a bit coin. When it gets updated there is a theoretical node between the two nodes. Which pops into existence after.

I think you might genuinely have completed physics Stephen! Final boss completed, credits rolled, entering name into the high scores as we speak... It's not often I'll watch anything on KZbin past an hour long, but this blew my mind almost all the way through. Honestly brilliant work! I hope this theory continues to hold true use you develop it further and hopefully my kids will be learning about this in their science lessons at school.

Tmu

Wow, this is sick. This is modeling at another level. Hyper graph travelers. I wonder what quarks, carbon and hydrogen look like? Why on earth the plank length is such a weird boundary.

Best idea, the beginning of the theory of everything. you make my day. History in real time. Awesome.

Peter Lustig even if these ideas don't tell us the specific rule of our universe, if they are mathematically sound and we complete their development it is possible to exactly simulate the universe provided the model is complete. Whether or not that completion is possible is unknown but this project is still very new and right now the goal is to develop tools that can be used over the next decade to develop the field.

Tt

Can such a framework determine those universal constants eventually?

“Different points in Branchial Space, their natural distance Metric is expressible as something as Entanglement Entropy.” Fascinating!

Super congrats super success. Thanks a million Dr. Wolfram and all contributors. Can we get a worldwide support for extra compute power from average people to seek simple rule of computational language of universe and harness its intelligence and computing capacity on simulations of universes?

1:39:30 One of the inconsistencies between quantum field theory and general relativity is made evident in cosmology. This originates where quantum mechanics states that there's an uncertain principle about particles. This uncertain principle says that in a quantum field you don't know really how many particles there are there's this infinite soup of virtual particles and their energy density is huge. If you apply this energy density in General Relativity it will make all the Universe collapse.

3:38:10 @Wolfram wow, that is a once in a generation intellectual achievement. One comment. You don't have to bake the forward direction of the update rule into your assumptions. Causal edges can indicate that two states are causally consistent, but transitions can be bidirectional. That corresponds to the microscopic time symmetry in physics. The arrow of time arises statistically because the graph is tapered at one end and wide at the other. We are big subgraphs and we drift to what we call later time because there are more causal edges leading there. That also answers why the initial condition was simple: It doesn't need to be, the causal adjacency graph tapers at one end, that we call the past, and fans out the other end that we call the future, regardless where you start. The 2nd law of thermodynamics is derived from conservation of information. The simplest graph causally consistent in the past is the big bang and the irreducible information content of the universe. The 2nd law says that states become larger and larger by iterating the causal rule, but no new information is added. There's a bit more proof and formalism to add, so I'll join and express this fully.

I saw you on lex’s show, what you said about special relativity explained by different update speeds for nodes has been keeping me up at night. I’m back for more!

Do the graph transforms get a different result if the nodes are listed in a different order (permutate, transform, then permutate back)?

Oh God, this is like oxygen to a suffocating man! THANK you for providing a serious venue for speculative science from competent workers.

You can already see how this model should be able to unlock new forms of energy. Once the correct rule is found we could use it to teach us new particle interactions that can release new energy. It is about time the Hydrogen Bomb got an update!

I am getting a feeling of Quasi-Crystals, Lie Groups, Garrett Lisi, mixed with Syntax analysis, State diagrams, and theory of abstract languages with Finite State Automata. Also add in Conway's game of life, with symmetry analysis and Sir Roger Penrose for fun. Very interesting.

29:50 talks about - we haven't found particles in the more complicated rules - hope to do that in next few weeks

Blake Baird ?

Does the rate of expansion of our universe (in space) say anything about the amount of new nodes that the underlying rule should generate at each step?

it seems to suggest the existence of a new kind of quantum field variable which is neither local or non-local in nature, it would be more like a variable that defines its own locality through process

35:40 Re: space and time. I still don't see them as separate. Each "iteration" so to speak, could just be a measure of time (or space-time, if you like) as it inherently builds the space, ie the space itself is the time. Not so so different from Minkowski, at least in this regard, no?

50:55 Reminds of why exactly we created the new idea and application of pixels that are exactly that shape. The dimensional plane of your graph here incorporates another scope for what was supposed to be True Depth TV, an application used for future plasma based, large scale theater screens and virtualization environments..

Wow....this is a work of monumental genius if it can be proven through experiment...whatever that might look like...

Also could the initial state of the graph be infinite in size? Seems not because otherwise the possible branches would be infinite as well and also the whole graph would never be defined (unless it were somehow countable?)

I believe kolmogorovComplexity(universe)=0 and that every unique pattern occurs exactly once, such as bose condensate blobs together cuz of particles being so cold they cant be statistically independent of eachother and the blob as a whole falls into fewer possible states than the multiply of the possible states of individual particles. Another unique pattern is a specific undirectedGraph, which only counts once (there is a normalized form thats NP cost to find) despite it has permutations. Rule110 and La.a(Lb.Lc.Ld.bd(cd))(Le.Lf.e) aka the iota universal lambda, are simple models of computing, but they're not unitary. They can compute unitary and nonunitary things.

knots inside a geometric mesh behaving like particles makes sense to me, they can pull on and stretch the rest of the mesh causing gravity.

Have you tried extensively Pi dimensional space? Have you tried extensively any [physical constant] dimensional space? Like the speed of light, as a frame for dimensional space.

Real presentation starts at 15:18. Thank me later.

15:19 this has been my fear for a long time... finding out that the rule is very simple might cause a mental breakdown to me and probably others... all the turmoil, pain, suffering and death we went through would feel like a bad joke... things aren't feeling right as it is... we're all insignificant little specks living on a gigantic mass surrounded by other gigantic masses that don't crash on each other anymore... for now... I don't like to say that nothing but chance and luck is keeping us alive... and don't you dare tell me that a god is in control, I won't take that insult likely, we're past fantasy believes

How I wish I'd found this at the beginning. So much catching up to do 😯

This is so cool because it is 100% testable.

This idea has been cooking in your head all these years -- you have a very powerful subconscious mind sir!

I think conscious too :D

in my estimation this work is laying the foundation of interdimensional travel, wormhole and warp drive ..leading eventually to time travel.. thats my opinion based upon hearing it.

Maybe the combination of a rule that expands the graph and a rule that reduces the graph (less than the expansion) can lead to moving particles sort of like in the Game of Life?

perhaps even deeper; a fundamental law of the universe in that it attempts to optimally compress itself. and conversely it temporarily expands seeking a new path towards optimal compression. maybe we see time going in the wrong direction?

I’m a novice and about 1.5 hours in, and it still makes sense. Eric Weinstein’s theory lost me at minute 2. I vote for Steven!

fooflateka nope, unfortunately not

@fooflateka Speaking for non-high IQ individuals, I think that is a good thing and a sign that he is on the right track. Relativity (math aside) is pretty easy to grasp. I work in the finance industry and a hallmark of BS is when things are complicated - it is usually a sign that something is being hidden. I'm sure there were be complex math that comes out of this model. Elaborate ways of counting nodes and mapping them to things like particles & vectors...but the basic idea should be accessible and understandable to an 8th grader.

The streaming starts at 2:50 🤔

Would be quite awesome if consciousness "states" could somehow be described as such graph properties. To me it's quite weird that a conscious moment is the result of distant states/transformations of atoms/matter that don't even happen simultaneously and yet are perceived as "one" thing. Since these depictions of hypersurfaces show different universe properties what is the total set of such depictions? Could unthought depictions/hypersurfaces make yet unknown universe properties/concepts?

I see some similarities with Donald Hoffman's work. I would love to see the two projects converge into the same model.

I am 3D artist and I am interested in learning mathematics and physics. Thank you for Wolfram.

lol L b

This is a brilliant and most interesting concept. Fantastic. It will likely produce more insights for physics. But I'll tell you what it puts me in mind of - Turing machines. Let me explain. Imagine a brilliant native of the Amazonian rain forest being given a modern computer and told how to program it in Basic or Java or similar. He can understand that the machine endlessly executes the instructions in the program but he does not understand what the machine is made from. Being brilliant, he comes up with the idea of Turing machines. He realises that Turing machines could potentially perform any computation. Now, he just has to search through loads of different rules for different Turing machines, until he finds the one that the computer is made from! But he won't have discovered what the machine is actually made from! Personally, I think that's the situation with hypergraphs and real-world physics. Worth pursuing though. Might produce some new insight.

This foundation and 'simple rule' that you are describing reminds me strongly of the Mandelbrot set: z(n+1) = z(n)^2 + C and out comes this infinitely complex, beautiful structure. The identification of a likewise straightforward rule, that is likewise recursively applied, and could yield a basic of physics to encompass general relativity and quantum mechanics, as examples, in fundamentally highly aesthetic. Godspeed with your efforts.

Even more so in three dimensions.

Hello and thank you for doing this 💪👏❤️

Computational equivalence made me not care about specific rule, but rather, think how a UTM-equivalent simple rule can arise from nothingness. However, discovering the model of our particular universe would mean a lot for our predictive power, and mining the space of computational universes in general may result in useful models for the various phenomena in our own universe. It's exciting to imagine, that we eventually come to use experiences and ideas from alternate universes, to our own one.

i love your work, this is so beautiful

FINALLY someone separates space & time! However we still have to correct YEARS of what "cosmology" has done to many of the sciences.

i stumbeld on this and just listened to it all. i have to say it just makes sense. the beauty of this graphc theory (is it called like that?) is that it starts with an beginning. it could be used to describe the universe. i love the way of thinking, which is deterministic. to find the "right" rules is probably impossible. and if there is our universe, there may be anything else too. but finding subsets of possible "universes" with some functional simularities could be enlightning. its something that will become bigger, as computer and ais evolve. you will need some sort of ais to search for interesting graphcs. crazy and fascinating

one thing that may be wrong: the update step time itself is not our time. time itself must be part of the graphs theory (if i understood correctly). so space and time may be an expression of a graph, that described a graph. though that may be wrong

Are there rules that generate Lie groups? And how does the work of Mandelbrot relate to how these hyper graphs develop from the perspective of the distribution of observable patterns? I’m struck by how you see a lot of similarity to biological structures. Similarly, Fibonacci has emergent qualities where we see a proliferation of patterns in systems as diverse as shapes of galaxies and cross sections of snail shells. Is this simply a quality of naturally generated geometry?

That’s all well and good, but can you make a prediction that differs from quantum mechanics and then see if it checks out?

Complexity is an invention of the human race, and mathematics are a creation of nature. 🌌📯

55:00 "energy is the flux of causal edges through space like hypersurfaces". Since we start with only 1 causal edge and as time passes me have more and more causal edges. Does this mean that the energy of the system continuously increase over time?

@josy26 I am wondering if the updates on the node system have something like theoretical nodes that are in between the hypersurfaces that don't become a node in the system until the system gets an update via the node connection. It wouldn't break thermodynamics because all that information/dark energy was there already. Maybe a better way to say what is happening in my head is there are higher dimensions. This is going to off the rails. Trying a dozen different ways to explain. So as nodes get flipped in between the nodes are nodes that are in a higher state and are not brought "online" in the observable universe until the linkages pass their states onto the next node. Which makes those new unobserved nodes go to a lower dimension that can be observed. What I am trying to say is maybe we are getting to see extradimensionality in work as "time" imports "dark energy" space into our perceived space/time? Does any of this make sense? Writing is still a weak suite of mine since the stroke.

yeah, i see issues with deriving the first law of thermodynamics here

From the website, chapter 8.8: "We should note that with our identification for energy and momentum, the conservation of energy becomes essentially the statement that the overall density of events in the causal network does not change as we progress through successive spacelike surfaces. And, as we will discuss later, if in effect the whole hypergraph is in some kind of dynamic equilibrium, then we can reasonably expect that this will be the case. Expansion (or, more specifically, non-uniform expansion) will lead to effective violations of energy conservation, much as it does for an expanding universe in the traditional formalism of general relativity [117][75]." So apparently the first causal edge will contain all the energy that will ever exist and it will subsequently be divided with each step along the causal graph.

I would expect that for more evolved graphs, several subgraphs reach local stability as a frequent event

It seems so, I would like to see how this doesn't violate the first law of thermodynamics

1:37:45 Re: Black holes and spaghettification, does this have bear on why, in exceptionally large black holes, spaghettification does/should not occur? In other words, is there a model using these edges that can account for the different effects the properties of the black holes(eg size, mass, etc) have on observersations of nearby objects (like freezing, spaghettification etc.)?

You had me until 1:16:00 . How does observing a quantum particle relate to freezing time? From the graph it seems that the effect of the observation propagates at the speed of light, which is true in a strict sense, but I don't see how it addresses the fact that observing entangled particles gives you information about the partner in a distant location. The only way I can make sense of this is if in fact the quantum particle is frozen in its starting state, then once it is forced into another state by observation, in that moment all the intermediate steps occur all at once. This would partially explain interference with causal invariance, but I don't see how it explains the seeming random distribution over all possible final states.

You disconnect alternative computational paths. It's a bit like branching in MW but the other worlds do not happen, or at least not in any timeline you can communicate with. Until measurement all branches, all timelines were possible, after it they are not anymore.

This looks like an old idea that said everything could be explained out of a feedback function and that was the composition of output again and again.

If it was possible to observe the entire space (outside of it), then finding the rule must look somewhat akin to what the mini-Mandelbrot Sets look like when you zoom through a Mandelbrot set....

Black holes can't be pieces that gets separeted from the main piece because that means they are no longer affecting the universe. If that would happen in real, this would just be desapearing matter and space, which is not the case. I think that the phenomena that would describe a black hole, in my current understanding of your theory, is a big set of nodes that begins to indefenitely attract every other nodes around them and begin to form an area with dimension converging to infinity so everything gets lost inside that big piece of space and matter and there are so many dimensions and so many dimensions begin to be immitated that nothing finds a way to get outside of that area. Too many directions will lead to the middle of that giant piece so everything moving randomly gets to the middle, but not kinda the middle at the same time.

phenomenal cooporative work product

ELEGANCE IN YOUR TREMENDOUS EFFORT ALONE THANK YOU FOR SUCH VERY HARD WORK.

WITNESSED. Big up Stephen.

Amazing! Tank you!

I'm excited to see how the speed of light or quantum entanglement would be interpreted with this theory

Franlu Gauto the speed of light is causality. Entanglement he talks about in his book about this topic.

Thank you for the video Stephen Wolfman

Looks like data science and stochastic maths so far

First of all, it is a good idea but only that, a good idea. WIthout a mathematician support that justifies, I do not dare to say that you get a theory of everything. It s a idea that could open a path to it

lots of good theories started with backlash from the scientific field, you are doing it right, lol

@Jim Mooney Depends on who you ask ;-)

When the entire Establishment hates you, you're on to the right thing. Hmm, does that apply in Politics?

Not saying he should stop, at all, if he did we wouldn't get all those theories that did work out. But one have to remember, from a spectators point of view, that the VAST majority of theories with lots of backlash from the scientific field turned out to be bunk. To not be skeptical would be foolish. I'm interested, but highly skeptical.

How was the first connection between two points? It is not needed a high high probability to have two points with the needed characteristics to create a third point and so on? So the question is: if you need two or more points to create complexs systems, how do you explain that from a unique point, that is unique unique, there comes a second point?

this is easy 😅🔫 (Jokes aside i really cant thank you enough for this great work that you are doing)

As far as anyone went ,no one could ever answer these questions yet we know there is an answer.

Does each element in the spatial hypergraph represent one possible state of one basic element or one basic element itself?

So, fractal brains? I.e that complex fractal forms constantly repeat as you iterate any function; and the wave function of reality runs on a computational network in the form of a brain (so the brain is akin to the minibrot which infinitely iterates throughout the Mandelbrot set?) Is this why you've come up with 2.7 dimensional space; because this starting function produces a form akin to a brain? So observers (i.e. computational networks capable of consciousness) are naturally occurring iterations of the original form? I agree - this means that our universe is fundamentally mathematically deterministic; procedurally generated from a relatively simple starting function or set of functions; a vibration as it were... My question, however, is if all of reality is just a wave function with fractal complexity making up all of the physical phenomena we observe; what is the medium through which this wave permeates? Exactly what is vibrating? Also, you will find that as we iterate any wave function, fractal complexity, (i.e. the information, the 'stuff' of the universe), always arises at the fringes of singularities and gravity wells, so in this way the bio-sphere of a planet, the life and ultimate complexity which is the brain, blooms from spheres which are analogous to the forms of increasing complexity which arise around the 'edges' of singularity (i.e when a value breaks out into infinity) within the Mandelbrot set.. This is indeed exactly how the galactic web appears to us in the macro..

8:25 yes, I picked up thinking about and tinkering with things like this again due to the pandemic. Currently trying to answer the question "How can we tell if there is something or nothing in an image?".

I've been thinking about how to make a complexity classifying deep learning neural network, but I have no idea if it's possible given the nature of complexity and computational irreducibility.

2:46:40 Wow. Physics unfolding before our very eyes. Thats a rare thing.

There is no space, there is just connection. The difficulty of getting from one connection nexus to another, via complex interconnections, defines "space," "time," and the "speed of light." The confusion that graphs exist in space is just due to the way they look. They really don't need space. We just "represent" them in space. From any point or constellation of points and meta-points, all you see is the other points that connect, not space at all. (A meta-point is an entire graph considered as a point in a higher level graph. The juncture between graphs and a meta-graph is where emergent behavior can appear.)

The very first axiom is where you're going to get the most resistance. Whether space is discrete or continuous is a debate that will go on for ages.

I don't think we can claim space exists in his model, nor that it is discrete or continuous. All the model claims exists are elements, relations and update rules. Those things are the axioms. Are the elements discrete? Yes in a sense they are, but are the relations discrete? In a sense they are not. To say it is one way or the other might be a matter of how we interpret the structure itself. His model propose the existence of "stuff" and rules for the stuff. That is all, he does not even suggest what the stuff is made of more than being elements with relations. As I understand it, Wolfram claim our perception of reality is just one alternative interpretion of the "stuff" and the rules governing it.

3:26:04 "We see it as a big intellectual adventure..can we climb the big mount everest of science", as long as you have a lot of fun doing it...its unimportant if you do end up at the top or not.

He makes a remark (7:45) to Newton in quarantine in 1665; and then later on, points to his own software tools (12:10) that make the discoveries possible from the start. That reminds me of Newton's gleeful comment to his niece's husband when asked about his tools: "I asked him where he had it made, he said he made it himself, & when I asked him where he got his tools said he made them himself & laughing added if I had staid for other people to make my tools & things for me, I had never made anything..."(Isaac Newton, James Gleick). BTW, my judgment on the announcement is not flattery as the above paragraph might falsely suggest; i think it is a pretty piece of programming that lets itself the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in describing the universe.

THANK YOU FOR TRYING TO SHOW USALL HOW THE"WHOLE FRAME" WORKS !

An Amateur approach at Undergraduate level is based primarily on basic experience, (a bit of Newtonian Agricultural experience), and Introductory Courses, so immediately, this endeavor is begun at higher, (Mezzanine?), levels of qualifications. Undergraduate preparations and Philosophical Orientation are usually asserted (by qualified Professors) in the manner in which it is intended to be completed, in the first few weeks of University, because the really effective Research and re-view of Science and Methodology begins at PhD levels. (Not Amateur except as it applies to relevant Commentary, ..of the kind Newton devised and developed and practiced, for himself, thinking for himself.., no KZbin, Google, or alternative psychological/medical sources etc) Newton had every reason to be ruled by fear of chaos, so the search for permanent reliability in a metastable environment and culture seems like enough motivation to explain his actions, if not the totality of his achievements. So if by communication/commentary, ..on the equivalence of temporal Superposition-point Singularity positioning, in relation to The Calculus, ..natural verisimilitude due to the sustained metastable sum-of-all-histories, ..wave-package probability in potential possibilities of e-Pi-i interference positioning resonance imaging function, ..cause-effect of holographic existence.., is at least a comprehensible orientation to conscious awareness of observable phenomena here-now-forever, ..and then the methodology of Math-Phys-Chem and Geometry in rational and reasonable statement of approach / position.., .. is placed in the related student-level, QM-TIMESPACE Principle In-form-ation Math-phys Chem format of Geometrically superimposed resonances, context. In other words, over to you..

Please add links in the description to the sites mentioned.

in school when we learnt BASIC in class 5, after LOGO, i found the IF command most interesting. the fact that a computer could make a choice (even though deterministic) seem magical.

Easily the most fascinating video I have ever seen on KZbin. Steven Wolfram, next step: Explain Consciousness! Please go after it!

consciousness is self relection in kind of logical way (without feeling and emotions).

1:36:53 when try to make a qubit you are freezing it in order to prevent its relation from the surrounding universe. Got it. In a sense we are not capable yet, of cut off such relation, if we do so, then a black hole will be generated. My question is, if a we can’t prevent a qubit's relation from the surrounding universe then, quantum computing will always work with a particle in at least a two-state indeterminancy?

36:35: "OK, lets talk about time...." :-) great stuff, thank you

que locura!!

Can you determine speed of light from your theory ?

Yes he can, i think he wrote it in his book or one of his other vids

Your seed rule, by virtue of being a rule, contains at minimum the principle of replication. Without this principle, there is no potential to actualize, no time and certainly no space. As soon as there is “I exist” + "I replicate", you have "extent", "time" and “substance” (which is the same thing as "potential", which also entails "change/variation"). As a metaphor, as can be seen in a virus: Even when there is no sense and no intent there is at least the teleology of "I replicate", because this teleology is the ontology of all rules. What is a rule at its ontological core, except the principle of replication/recursion ? Anything beyond this conceptual base, yields morphology. So you won't find that substance, time and space *emerge* from (as a product of) the seed rule, because they are already the essence of the seed rule; what you discover by tweaking your seed replication model, is the shape of things; you only discover how different rule morphologies express themselves (are computed) in time, and therefore the characteristics of their narrative / mathematics. So before you carry on with this pursuit, there is still the naked essence of this seed to determine : How does one go from nothingness, to “I exist, therefore I am a rule" ? I think this is solved by stating that the rule property is consubstantial to existence (i.e. that "to exist" means "I am a rule”). Now, if we imagined as a thought experiment, a universe containing nothing than an immutable fabric, one would not observe replication/growth/potential, as we do. Such a universe could not exist. The universe has to be made of something that not only yields morphology, but also movement/noise/disturbance within this morphology. So your seed rule also has to contain motion as part of its essence. And this is plausible, because by virtue of it being a rule, your seed is extensive even if this extent is initially virtual. The definition of change/motion is key here. To my mind, "motion" at this generic level, would imply that it is induced by replication itself. So the meshes you create are not only spatial, they represent the dynamics of a system. Now, the seed being the substance of space, motion and time, by virtue of being a composition rule, must also be the substance of computing. That is, the concept of rule entails replication, which necessarily entails computation. So all of these things have to be consubstantial with your seed. Existence, space, replication/motion/computation, time, are all attributes of the same thing, the First Rule. As soon as the seed appears, replication, ensues, and therefore motion/computation/variation. But even if your First Rule is singular, its growth/reproduction does not necessarily produce a fully discrete universe. If matter and beings are patterns travelling through a discrete fabric (like cellular automata), it is conceptually valid to state that these patterns/waves produce a continuum, the same way that ideas extend beyond the words, characters and utterances used to express them.

Wolfram

Рет қаралды 17 М.

Wolfram

Рет қаралды 24 М.

Qarapaıym Qanal

Рет қаралды 2,3 МЛН

MineGirlZ

Рет қаралды 10 МЛН

Wolfram

Рет қаралды 11 М.

Первый в Политике

Рет қаралды 371 М.

Olle Mattsson2 жыл бұрын