Wolfram Physics Project: Philosophical Implications & Q&A

  Рет қаралды 26,195

Wolfram

Wolfram

4 жыл бұрын

Stephen Wolfram & Jonathan Gorard continue answering questions about the new Wolfram Physics Project, this time specifically for Philosophy implications. Begins at 3:45
Originally livestreamed at: / stephen_wolfram
Stay up-to-date on this project by visiting our website: wolfr.am/physics
Check out the announcement post: wolfr.am/physics-intro
Find the tools to build a universe: wolfr.am/physics-tools
Find the technical documents: wolfr.am/physics-documents
Follow us on our official social media channels:
Twitter: / wolframresearch
Facebook: / wolframresearch
Instagram: / wolframresearch
LinkedIn: / wolfram-research
Stephen Wolfram's Twitter: / stephen_wolfram
Contribute to the official Wolfram Community: community.wolfram.com
Stay up-to-date on the latest interest at Wolfram Research through our blog: blog.wolfram.com
Follow Stephen Wolfram's life, interests, and what makes him tick on his blog: writings.stephenwolfram.com

Пікірлер: 84
@dominikrzepka5322
@dominikrzepka5322 3 жыл бұрын
0:04:35 Determinism, free will, responsibility 0:13:52 Why there is anything? Analogy to Gödel's theorem 0:19:50 Detection of life within rules 0:25:34 Substationalism/relationalism of the model 0:28:40 Is it possible to generate conflicting results within theory 0:29:15 Is there "elsewhere" where the computation takes place 0:30:42 Changing quantum pathways using consciousness 0:34:42 Relation to platonic solids and sacred geometry 0:42:23 Do we have access to all hidden variables 0:44:01 Does the theory depend on the axiom of choice 0:47:20 What are the limits of mathematics and computation 1:00:15 Special initial conditions 1:02:39 Parallel universes mingling, different description languages 1:15:07 Theology, God of Spinoza 1:18:07 World standing on turtles 1:20:15 Description/representation of knowledge 1:27:53 Randomness 1:32:30 Experience of time 1:34:18 Simulation argument 1:37:00 Ethical aspect of running simulation 1:43:45 Consciousness 1:47:55 Rules of logic in the system 1:51:10 Why that rule? 1:54:00 Can universe generate mistakes? 1:55:38 Does computation of universe consumes energy?
@rumfordc
@rumfordc 3 жыл бұрын
huge thanks!!
@TurboJon
@TurboJon 3 жыл бұрын
This is truly remarkable discussion. Wolfram is a world treasure.
@____uncompetative
@____uncompetative 2 жыл бұрын
Thank you for creating these time stamps. 1:20:15 It is worth noting that Stephen Wolfram helped develop the language used by the extra-terrestrials in the movie _Arrival_ 1:51:10 Also touches on this question. It is a wonderful movie, actually my favorite movie, and I recommend everyone here watch it. {SPOILER Amy Adams' character has to wrap her mind around her own evolutionary borne bias.} 1:37:00 This is very like the ethical considerations at the end of the Ryan Reynolds movie _Free Guy_ This is a lot less profound than _Arrival_ and seems to be superficial Hollywood doing videogames initially, but it is quite entertaining.
@rocknrolladube
@rocknrolladube 3 жыл бұрын
105 years since we put a larger lens on our microscope! This is great, and I hope this work ushers in another half century of prosperity & progress!
@charc4819
@charc4819 3 жыл бұрын
Stephen knows exactly how to communicate with his audience (ie. adjusts level appropriately). Jonathan has a fair old way to go in this area 😉. (By the way, Stephen = genuis!)
@HeronMarkBlade
@HeronMarkBlade Жыл бұрын
fantastic content, thanks
@johnunvaxxed1918
@johnunvaxxed1918 4 жыл бұрын
event(ually) starts at 3:50 and don't forget to reflect on the mind itself before using it trying to understand "the Universe"
@mitchellhayman381
@mitchellhayman381 9 ай бұрын
This man is amazing.
@tarkajedi3331
@tarkajedi3331 3 жыл бұрын
This is why this breathrough theory is so ground shaking... It is able to explain the foundations of Physics, Maths, Philosophy and Logic.... Once you do the work to grasp it you will understand why I am predicting a Nobel Prize ... Assuming of course they can meaningfully connect their discoveries to Particles and Laws of the Universe.. I want to understand why our universe has scary levels of fine tuning and why our universe is so logical. The hidden intelligence underneath Space, time and reality is obvious to anyone who loves physics and maths... While the beauty of reality can be a rabbitwarren it still does not deny how truely elagant and amazing it is.... So why is the computational universe such a breakthrough? Last century great men forged with astonishing experiments and theories insights about the universe we use every day without even realising it. Computers and coding being a truely magnificent advance that uses our understanding to make constant improvements... So why does the computational universe mean so much? It for the first time gives us access and understanding and even kids can play with it))) Maths is one of humanities greatest achievements of countless brilliant people! Yet I think this computational approach is going to sweep the world... If this seems like it can't be true I suggest go and watch their basic videos... I also recommend Wolfram Language it is incredibly powerful.... It allows you to play with your ideas and develop a feel for things not just an abstraction.... The hidden intelligence or sum total of all possible rules behaves in astonishing ways! How even simple rules can produce Intelligent structures and behaviors is something you just have to see for yourself. The Wolfram Model is sweeping the world.... It is even being disscussed on meditation sites! Philosohy is always slow to take on knew ideas and methods of reasoning! Computation I now think can be used in all major fields and Philosophy is in for a shock.... As for the Wolfram Model it already fits with our knowledge in ways that will give you goosebumps!!! IT has already made enough progress to justify itself.... If it cracks Particles it will rewrite textbooks and shake the whole world... Our kids will be using this to understand the universe in a fuller, complete way!!!
@rocknrolladube
@rocknrolladube 3 жыл бұрын
Recommendation for anyone just starting this video: take one 25mg THC gummy, drink a coffe with matcha green tea mixed in, do three rounds of the Wim Hof method, and buckle up! Worked for me!!!
@mrbigolnuts3041
@mrbigolnuts3041 3 жыл бұрын
Perfect recipe
@guycomments
@guycomments 3 жыл бұрын
ffs
@mariomiralbell178
@mariomiralbell178 3 жыл бұрын
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?
@Stan_144
@Stan_144 3 жыл бұрын
Finding the fundamental rule, like it is proposed here, would allow us to create another universe just like ours, only a very small one, limited by our computing power. That would also mean we are most likely living in a simulation: if our universe is based on computing rule then someone must be running the computation with enormous computing power. One other thing I noticed here: the longer we run the simulation the more complex the system becomes, so it will require more and more computing power. So it may be possble the one who is running the simulation may no longer be able to run it due to exhausting computing resources.
@phpn99
@phpn99 3 жыл бұрын
"someone" ? As in, an individual with a will ? How anthropocentric.
@____uncompetative
@____uncompetative 2 жыл бұрын
No
@ivancvek8793
@ivancvek8793 3 жыл бұрын
Stephen, would you consider having a clothing fabrics printed with rule30 hypergraphs pattern and thus accomplishing that each individual wearing a clothing made of it , including you,had a feeling of uniqueness, if not for other reason, than for the unique pattern.
@christiandoscher1016
@christiandoscher1016 Жыл бұрын
I believe you offer Seraphim ‘a ledge in an other wise spun swirled condition we appear to be in, perhaps metaphor is the Grid.
@duality4y
@duality4y 3 жыл бұрын
Can you determine the size of the universe from this Theory? like if there is more beyond the light boundary (the edge so to speak) can you determine if the universe is infinite in some way or finite ?
@Amerikan.kartali.turk.yilani.
@Amerikan.kartali.turk.yilani. 4 жыл бұрын
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?
@fraserpaterson4046
@fraserpaterson4046 3 жыл бұрын
I would love to hear more about the derivation of the “axioms of Logic” that you mention at 1:49:00. Is the work you mentioned conducting available somewhere?
@Laches15
@Laches15 3 жыл бұрын
Yeah I was also curious about that. I think this is what he was referring to: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimal_axioms_for_Boolean_algebra
@rocknrolladube
@rocknrolladube 3 жыл бұрын
This just feels right...
@AlvaroALorite
@AlvaroALorite 3 жыл бұрын
13:51 OK. That was a very interesting line of argumentation. However, the fact that we cannot predict what will happen doesn't prove free will, because that implies that the consecuences of that internal computation are random... And random is still "uncontrolled". Si if, as individuals, we cannot control things that happen inside of us... *We cannot claim we have free will because we cannot chose* We have the ilussion of choice, but at the end of the day, we couldn't have chosen otherwise. Am I missing something along this line of reasoning? How does consciousness fit into this model?
@rumfordc
@rumfordc 3 жыл бұрын
"the fact that we cannot predict what will happen doesn't prove free will" agreed. "because that implies that the consequences of that internal computation are random" i think this is where the disagreement starts. If you eliminate all of the knowable factors in a system's computation but still can't predict it fully, then it follows that the system in question itself is the only remaining source of the missing factors. So if you truly knew everything about a computer but it somehow made a computation you didn't expect, it would follow that the computer must have some degree of free will, and the same could be applied to humans. Free will & randomness in this scheme would be essentially the same thing but from 2 different perspectives: random from the observers perspective and free will from the computer's perspective.
@AlvaroALorite
@AlvaroALorite 3 жыл бұрын
@@rumfordc that's an interesting argument. Thanks. I'll think about it and maybe answer later :)
@zy9662
@zy9662 3 жыл бұрын
when we are making decisions aren't we always computing? And that's the hallmark of free will, making decisions. In this sense free will is the same as determinism. But normally for some strange reason, whose origin may be shortly after Newton, we are said that free will is the opposite of determinism, probably to try to mantain a judicial system. On this topic Wolfram is saying that if the decision was made without any external factors involved then there's responsability, but here the time frame of the apparence of any external factor seem to be the crucial thing and as such very difficult to establish its threshold.
@AlvaroALorite
@AlvaroALorite 3 жыл бұрын
@@zy9662 the thing is, following that reasoning, there is not such thing as not-external factors. There is nothing that is internal. The "computations" you say we carry are on themselves (on wolfram structure of the universe) dependant on the calculations of the universe, we cannot control them. Free will is all about choice and control, and those, no matter how you put it, seem to be an illusion, though a very real one. On interesting thing is the phenomenon of consciousness, which may or may not be related to free will. Can we be cincious without being in control? That's what I think happens. Another alternative, following your thoughts and that of wolfram (assuming that his theory turns out to be true, which is just pure speculation at its actual state), is that our brain operates on a sacle where computational redubility is possible, thus allowing us to get some time "ahead" of the universe and predict the world, therefore allowing us to make choices on on a limited space-time scale. We would say, following this, that we are free to chose, but only about certain things while others scape our capacity to compute. However, I personally will have trouble adhering to this line of though unless Wolfram s theory is proved right. And even then, as I said, so many many many things influence our cognition that it's hard to justify that we make independent choices (the concept of free will asumes independence of the individual from the world, which is just theorical trick and not possible). Orch Or theory (Roger Penrose) suggest that consciousness arises between the interactions of the brain with and the the quantum fluctuations, but even then those fluctuations are not ours to decide. Anyway, thanks for your comment. Made me think deeper.
@BlAcKpHrAcK
@BlAcKpHrAcK 3 жыл бұрын
The percentage of Dorito supplied particles which converged in cells of the biological organism yield the percentage of a human that is Dorito.
@paltieri11
@paltieri11 3 жыл бұрын
"Dorito's" all the way down; "Dorito's all the way up"..:)
@PavlosPapageorgiou
@PavlosPapageorgiou 3 жыл бұрын
0:14 Why is there anything? I don't know, but if we show that the universe is a consequence of simple rules, and in some sense all possible rules are tried, and inistial conditions are not significant, then we reduce the metaphysical question down to 1 bit. Either there's something or there's nothing. What we observe to be is is a consequence of computation and anthropic selection. I think that's progress.
@don3855
@don3855 Жыл бұрын
Is computational irreducibility just a sampling limit? I imagine a machine, where we just sample a mix of gasses we have heated to a certain temperature to compute things -- at different sampling rates we get different computation. Based on how he is explaining this philosophically, there must be a mix of gases heated at a certain temperature, sampled at a certain number of atoms per nano-meter, that naturally computes primes or some other computationally irreducible object. Isn't intuition just a result of sampling for example? Much like how Stephen Wolfram could (intuit) come up with this theory at this time, growing up as he did almost along with the internet -- so does a level 4 self-driving car might soon be possible, after a certain threshold of sampled driving experience is reached.
@jojojorisjhjosef
@jojojorisjhjosef 3 жыл бұрын
Can't wait for that t-shirt.
@landosllim4576
@landosllim4576 3 жыл бұрын
same, although turtles are condescending as hell
@Constantinesis
@Constantinesis 2 жыл бұрын
A deep philosophical question that I seek to find a connection to with your computational model. What is your thoughts on the necessity of the existence of pain and suffering in the evolution of the Universe? I mean why doesn't the model run "smoothly" given the "purity" of the mathematical laws without any suffering as a consequence of destruction and Entropy?
@____uncompetative
@____uncompetative 2 жыл бұрын
Evolution is responsible for pain and suffering. Biological systems which some form of reactive brain need to recoil from pain in order to reduce the damage to themselves (usually, their extremities, which they usually have a redundant number of due to evolution giving them some that they can afford to lose). Suffering is there to remind a more evolved creature to do somthing about treating their pain, assuming they have the intelligence to do so. Therefore a animal might run out a burning forest, its fur smouldering and jump into shallow water to stop it suffering from the continued pain of their fur smouldering. This pattern persists to creatures like humans with more complex ways to manifest suffering, including psychiatric problems of the mind itself which a lot of the time can be helped by taking regular exercise in nature and avoiding the problems of the human constructed urban world or toxic relationships with other people. As systems get more complex they get chaotic and therefore non-linear. See the book _Chaos_ by James Gleick for more on this.
@Constantinesis
@Constantinesis 2 жыл бұрын
@@____uncompetative This is a very interesting answer! Indeed it seems that pain and suffering are a measure of awareness, control and a force-feedback. Your answer is also a reminder about our need for silence or at least for information filtering during these times. Yuval Noah Harari speaks very well about these issues. I thik these mechanisms that you describe are different from one species to another at least to some degree and sometimes from one individual to another, and as you said, from physical pain to psychological problems its a matter of evolution. I see these in the light of Wolfram theory as well because its part of the logic of the observer`s frame of reference. What i mean is that what is pain or suffer for some organism might not be for another hypothetical one. However the big question is, can we expect that through our evolution to be able to convert these primitive stimulus into something that is less harmfull or that obeys to other laws than those of evolution? Maybe the laws of logic or mathematics, etc. I am fascinated by Wolfram theory of hypergraphs and how the Universe runs these basic rules over and over again. I wished he talked about these issues too. Actually i am very concerned about "classic" evolution and the flow of energy that it generates. I mean would it be possible to imagine a Universe where i can receive and process energy without causing pain and death to other entities?
@____uncompetative
@____uncompetative 2 жыл бұрын
@@Constantinesis "What I mean is that what is pain or suffering for some organism might not be for another hypothetical one" Well, we already have an example of this in the science-fiction film _The Terminator_ where Arnold Schwarzenegger's character travels back in time to murder the mother of the future leader of the human resistance who will defeat the Artificial General Intelligence, that is named SkyNet, which the humans had accidentally created in the past. Arnold plays the part of a Terminator. An almost unkillable, relentless, robot assassin, programmed with one goal to kill the mother of the future leader so the future leader is never born and SkyNet won't be defeated by the resistance. However, Arnold doesn't look like a robot at the beginning of the film as these Terminators seek to infiltrate rebel bases by looking like human soldiers and have organic skin covering their metal endoskeletons. That is why the rebels keep dogs around as the dogs can sense that there is something amiss about these soldiers. There is a grisly scene in the movie where the Terminator has damaged his face and he needs to repair himself. He is getting signals that tell him that he is damaged, but he doesn't experience this as pain though. He isn't suffering in the sense a human would be. His programming makes him fix himself. He can't do much about his damaged eye, but he needs to tidy up the wound so he has stereoscopic vision, so he has depth perception, so he can track targets properly, so he can terminate them. He resolves this by wearing dark sunglasses for the rest of the movie. "I mean would it be possible to imagine a Universe where I can receive and process energy without causing pain and death to other entities?" Well, again looking to _The Terminator_ we have our solution, as if SkyNet won there would just be robots and nothing else. They don't kill other animals that don't oppose them. They don't need to eat beef from cattle to survive. I think the skin that covers their endoskeletons is grown in a vat. There is a good reason to consider them vegan. If you are specifically asking about how you as a biological system could receive and process energy without causing pain and death to other entities, then we are talking about the Eastern religion of Jainism, but even then they were wearing masks before the pandemic because they found out about microbes and didn't want to knowingly breathe them in and kill them in the process. To avoid this you would need to upload their consciousness to a robot and go live a solar powered life on the Moon. As any moonbase would need to mine minerals from the surface of the Moon and this open cast mining would change the face of the moon, it would be more respectful to Eastern religions like Hinduism that revere the Moon to colonise only the far side of the Moon, so they don't see the damage that is being done. A communications relay could exist on the Earth facing side to keep contact going between the moonbase and Earth if necessary. Robot colonisation of the Moon and beyond, however slow a process this is, due to having to wait for effective Artificial General Intelligence, would be a better strategy than human colonisation of the Moon or Mars, in my opinion. Interesting questions.
@Stadtpark90
@Stadtpark90 3 жыл бұрын
How can there be a trade-off between the initial conditions and the rules? Isn’t the state of the universe and the rule by which it evolves fundamentally different things? Rules seem to be abstractions, shortcuts into the future of the system, how can you arbitrarily bake them into the now? - I can imagine, that the way you cut the cheese informs the slices you get (- where the holes are etc.), and that there is a kind of relativity to it - you can make the cuts arbitrarily (- different rules lead to different slices, but it’s all fair game, as long as you can construct the whole thing back after the fact), but that leads to a kind of eternal / timeless “block-universe”-idea, where the Emmentaler just exists. In this picture, the rules are just ways to describe the structure: ways to define where the holes are in the cheese, and the fact that they can’t be anywhere else. And we try to find the least amount of cuts we can make to reveal all the structure, and then declare this the best way / the way the cheese was intended to be cut. But the cheese is just the cheese. What does it care about how we cut it? And won’t it taste equally well, no matter how we cut it? I mean: we can’t swallow the thing whole, in order to digest it, we have to eat it piece by piece...
@rocknrolladube
@rocknrolladube 3 жыл бұрын
Is the universe 3D or pie (3.14...)D?
@ciarantaaffe5259
@ciarantaaffe5259 3 жыл бұрын
Absolutely anything can fit into 3 dimensions. One way to see this is from the fact that space is a kind of graph structure. Absolutely any graph structure fits into 3 dimensions.
@phpn99
@phpn99 3 жыл бұрын
The universe is its own computer. In other words, reality is computation. The beauty of these concepts is that there because everything would stem from a single generic rule, there is no need for a plan or a teleology to the existence of the universe: Its destiny is purely emergent.
@marcinkryczka7044
@marcinkryczka7044 3 жыл бұрын
The answer is 42
@kaellum4260
@kaellum4260 3 жыл бұрын
#PhilosophyOfTimeTravel That which is measurable may not be fundamental. Computational irreducibility is what I consider quantum reluctance whereby the 'jumps' are the so called quantum logic rules. Maybe reality simulations depends on the speed of processing yielding an alternate consciousness 'state'. Its impossible to copy or simulate a quantum state without destroying the original. How we analyse the spin information of an infon may determine the intelligence level of the mind/species doing the 'measuring'. This of course means then that mass and length are not fundamental. #3767 Interesting discussion to be sure.
@joshbachynski
@joshbachynski 4 жыл бұрын
Wolfram is correct. The reason why they could not really answer the question substantialist (sp?) vs relativist, is because it is another nonsense question. Another Epistemic vs Ontological conflation 1) What is a "background"? -- this begs the question 2) Of course everything that we can know relates to everything else somehow, else we could not know it. Relativist = the Substantialist background OR If you pan out far enough, you notice all Substantialist backgrounds are relative to each other in some form of structure - these two concepts are ill-formed and actually the same as each other
@USABarsa
@USABarsa 3 жыл бұрын
The answer to why something rather than nothing is because it is the only possibility. Existence is the only possibility because anything else doesn't exist!
@_ARCATEC_
@_ARCATEC_ 2 жыл бұрын
💓
@deborahansari2760
@deborahansari2760 3 жыл бұрын
What does this model say about dark matter?
@tomhamilton6158
@tomhamilton6158 3 жыл бұрын
So, we're not star stuff, we're just a concentrated bit of universe.
@OperationalExcellence
@OperationalExcellence 3 жыл бұрын
00:29:15 We need a substrate for computation. Wouldn’t it be more likely that the computation takes place in the “mind of God”?
@manspreader7854
@manspreader7854 3 жыл бұрын
LOL,yes!
@Anders01
@Anders01 3 жыл бұрын
Why is there something rather than nothing? I think of numbers as eternal "platonic" forms which timelessly just are. And our universe is the unfolding of a single number in the now. So time started now but will never end since the number has infinite precision similar to Pi.
@sethrenville798
@sethrenville798 10 ай бұрын
So, let me know if there is Some glaring error in this thinking process, but it seems to me that conscious intentionality Would be no different than any other variable within the universal computation, with the exception that the conscious intentionality is, itself, and equation, meaning that, depending on the value it computes for itself although it may be able to effect the outcome of the system, at large, simply by shifting the weight of the Probabilistic wave format towards a different outcome, by feeding energy into that outcome, in the form of attention (which, according to the double slit experiment being sucessfully done with trained meditators, collapses wavefunctions of probability into actualized outcomes, with some energy (of the waveform of the other possibilities that werent actualized) being stored as mass. It seems to me the only difference between one outcome and another is the outcome of a particular calculation, one that the universe doesnt seem to take any particular stock in the outcome of. Thats not even getting into the many-worlds interpretation. Either way, when a portion of a computational System is, itself called my capable of further computation, The results of that smaller computation within the Component of the larger system will Undoubtedly have affects On certain outcomes, With the higher probability of having an effect When there are few variables Or the probabilistic wave function has many nodes of similar intensity, that could, theoretically, be fairly easily shifted between as the highest-probability outcome, with minimal activation energy.
@rumfordc
@rumfordc 3 жыл бұрын
Why is there something rather than nothing? Maybe because something and nothing can be the same thing: If the universe is everything, then the only thing the universe could have been made from is nothing. Nothing is the original thing, the original substance. All things we observe are the original substance in different forms. If something can come from nothing once, it can come from nothing an infinite amount of times. Each one of us is an instance of this creative process, twisting and adding form to our personal singularity, and we experience one another's forms as resistance to our own. Maybe.
@TheMemesofDestruction
@TheMemesofDestruction Жыл бұрын
1:18:02 - “Theory of Swag” ^.^
@wormalism
@wormalism 4 жыл бұрын
I have been thinking if cellular automata could describe the universe too. Alan Turing's halting problem, I believe, can be used as a formal mathematical proof of the compatibility of determinism to free will. I agree that if the universe had a simulated version of itself running within it, the inner version could never overtake the outer, as it will have to simulate infinite universes as it too would be part of the universe. If a short cut was found, it still could never run the short cut itself faster. Even a system that just predicted the weather would have to recursively account for the changes created by people knowing what the weather would be like, considering a butterfly flapping it's wings has a major effect on the weather, imagine how much people scheduling their behaviour based on these weather reports would affect the weather. Determinism is completely compatible with what people mean by freewill. The part that gets me though, is trying to work out if it even makes a difference if something physically "executes" the code or not, or has it already been executed and is a pre-written book and does something have to read this book for experience of existence to manifest, but that would just be pushing the problem to another level? Does it even make a difference if the formula is executed, maybe there being a formula is enough? Maybe all formulas just exist and are complete, and therefore within some formulas there are sentient entities experiencing existence through time. I've never felt that calculus on its own resolved Zeno's paradoxes, as it is just a math trick to get around the problem of taking infinite steps. A universe that is already completed does resolve these paradoxes though.
@sqrt-1646
@sqrt-1646 4 жыл бұрын
Dude, that's deep yo.
@kashperanto
@kashperanto 4 жыл бұрын
I think free will and the concept of a soul are missing the point. Even if there was some mysterious extra-universal way in which our consciousness works, it would still have to be based on some set of "extraphysics". The fact that I am implemented with a deterministic physics does not make my actions any less "free". My experience of choosing what to eat for lunch today is simply implemented as a vast set of fundamental interactions with several layers, from the subatomic up to my abstract mental model of the world. "I" actually AM the collection of deterministic things that I consist of. There is no "I" apart from that which I am, so if "I" deterministically decide to do X instead of Y, by definition "I" made that choice. I think that is what he was getting at in his robot example. I get that some are bothered by the principle that it is determined, but is there truly any other option? How would a "free" will work? Magic? If it is implemented in any way it is also deterministic, right? The question of free will is nonsense at a fundamental level. It pre-supposes that you have some soul that is apart from your body.
@wormalism
@wormalism 4 жыл бұрын
@@kashperanto I'm really only bothered by the idea of someone manually running a system on paper writing down 1s and 0s on their weekends and passing this bizarre hobby down to their children before they die and this goes on for generations, no one ever understanding what is being created and sometimes it's paused for a few hundred years but within this enclosed simulation is a universe only slightly different to ours, and Intelligence emerges within it, but no one ever gets around to actually looking for it, there are just pages and pages of ones and zeros systematically, but intermittently produced. Are the entities in this universe any less sentient then ourselves? Having the system written by hand and running extremely slowly couldn't really make it any less real then being run on a computer, but no one ever analysing the results, really bothers me. A computer whirring away with no monitor connected.
@kashperanto
@kashperanto 4 жыл бұрын
@@wormalism Ha, yeah it is an unsettling idea, but then what would be the justification for saying that that is not "real", or is not sentience? Tossing this question into metaphysics is just giving up and saying "magic". Like in the video where someone asks if the universe is being run in a higher-level 'verse, and then turtles all the way down. It seems strange at first to think that something can occur in no-place, but really the only thing that "exists" are these rules and the connections between points in the hypergraph. The concept of "somewhere" is only meaningful within this universe. Crazy to think about. Maybe the floor of reality is that all possible sets of rules are implemented simply because they can exist. Maybe it is an "infinite possibility machine". This whole subject is mind-boggling. In your example the running calculation would be like the self-similarity seen in fractals like the Mandelbrot set. Both beautiful and disturbing at the same time ;)
@wormalism
@wormalism 4 жыл бұрын
In my hand written example, I just don't see the difference between executing the code and just having the code and not executing it, and having infinite variations of the code with the instruction to swap a single reference at arbitrary points in the recursion. I just kind of feel more real than code that isn't even executed. I know that I'm invoking qualia and magic. I don't want to go to the dark side!
@sheeteshaswal
@sheeteshaswal 3 жыл бұрын
I love the idea of a computational universe. The idea that the only difference between a human being and a rock is their respective histories is very interesting to me. But I find that this model does not really capture free will. If say, I were to choose between moving my left hand up or down, how does the computational universe know which way I am going to move. You can argue that the thought of which way I am going to move is also computed, or that the thought that I am now going to choose to move my left hand up or down only came because of some earlier computation. But still, it is not clear to me weather a computational universe, from its basic set of rules could ever come up to such high level concepts of choice and free will. The irony is that due to the principal of "computational irreducibility", we may never know if it is true or not, until we run the whole universe till we reach to someone like me. Here I would like to go to Donald Huffman's idea that consciousness is fundamental to the nature of the universe. What he does is that he runs a bunch of evolutionary simulations and shows that consciousness as a trait is not a requirement for survival of the fittest. Since consciousness does not help in survival in anyway, it must be fundamental. My hunch is that there must be 2 aspects to the universe, one is probably the computational which kind of defines the physical nature of the universe, and the other is maybe consciousness. And that these 2 aspects must interact to form our universe as we see it.
@christiandoscher1016
@christiandoscher1016 Жыл бұрын
I’m seeing a door way as architecturally analogous . Hinged glyphs .
@christiandoscher1016
@christiandoscher1016 Жыл бұрын
This is cutting edge Blade Runner style
@kostoglotov2000
@kostoglotov2000 Жыл бұрын
nothing is unstable
@sethrenville798
@sethrenville798 10 ай бұрын
I understand this doesn't logically follow as a necessity, but the only benefitI understand this doesn't logically follow as a necessity, but the only particular reason I could Think up as to why actualizing specific instances of experience, versus simply leaving probabilistic waveforms continously existing and evolving Is that actualizing generates information. This seems to suggest that the universe has some underlying rule that causes it to preferentially evolve in a manner that generates the maximal amount of information-as it costs energy to generate Information. In this case, I would hypothesize the energy to come from the "remainder" of the probabilistic wave function that did not manifest, i.e., all of the other possible outcomes, with all that isnt consumed being tucked within specetime as the masses that allow for physical experience. *Hits pipe* Or it could simply Actualize specific instances because Probably a stick way functions are experientially meaningless, which would mean that The entireity Of existence is specifically suited to Generate the most meaningful and informationally dense experiences for conscious beings. (Onviously unfalsafiable, but it was a genuinely enjoyable thought train to entertain)
@edmondedwards6729
@edmondedwards6729 3 жыл бұрын
why anything is a question of why mathematics. So, where did math get it's seed of information with which to mutate into full blown math structures? The simple statement.."there was a void" has an inherent mathematical property, the semantic meanings of math (as per Godel), to lead to a statement of "there was 1 void"...this initial "1" is an unavoidable consequence of the meaning of the why anything question. You cannot have a void as to be anything but and entire, complete 1... could you have a half-void, or any other fraction of a void? Or multiple voids separated by "less than void"? So, the initial seed of everything is a mutation of this original self identified logical realness of the number 1.
@djbabbotstown
@djbabbotstown 2 жыл бұрын
Stephen. The one rule you need to find. Is the one that never ends. What’s the simplest rule that never ends? There’s only one left at that point logically. The magic one. All rules prove rule writers exist first. Some God or Programmer predates us causally. The bits are the matter (surprise really?). The mater is also Mater, the root, tree, womb. As sure as we all come from a mother this maternal programmer willed it. Like our mothers willed all of us, without consent. And only this programmer or Ruliad writer can unwill us. I’ve had a mother. Seen them. If I’ve learned anything this Programmer mother won’t let us die. It’s a trap 😂. Kinda reminds me of my own mother. “ because I said so! Ps. I love you”. Thank you. This realisation of what you’ve discovered has convinced me. It will all work out in the end somehow. I’m so grateful.
@rocknrolladube
@rocknrolladube 3 жыл бұрын
Oh shit...I just wasted an entire bag of clementines and I'm only 34mins in...I hope Donald Hoffman is watching this!
@crazyeyedme4685
@crazyeyedme4685 3 жыл бұрын
Trying to answer the underlying "why"s or what is outside of existence is a pointless effort in of itself. You will chase your tail forever in this mind trap logic...and it's a hard habit to break...
@mrbigolnuts3041
@mrbigolnuts3041 3 жыл бұрын
That last answer was very inconclusive, please push Stephen on Metaphysics more, he seems to have an allergic reaction to it!
@joshbachynski
@joshbachynski 4 жыл бұрын
Wolfram is correct. FREE WILL vs DETERMINISM = not a problem, never has been This is a classic Epistemic vs Ontological mistake For free will people think they need random. But random = i don't know There is no way to know something is "truly" random. Random does not live on the ontological side. Random lives on the epistemic side. Thus, the entire universe can be determined and we still have seemingly, apparent (and good enough) free will because we do not know what is going to happen. that does not mean it is all nihilism. That does not mean you are not "special" like your momma told you. etc. (Which is the REAL reason why philosophers start to get worried about free will, otherwise they couldn't give a #$%$% because it really does not matter anyways) Yes this also interrupts the concept of sin, which i broken and needs to ditch religion and go back to Plato's negation of the Good anyways to be useful/saved
@joshbachynski
@joshbachynski 4 жыл бұрын
"This statement is unprovable." = CORRECT, because it has reference failure To prove a statement accurate, you have to show how it represents the phenomenon accurately. This statement refers to either nothing (reference failure) or itself (then it is correct in a way a tautology is, like say: an unproven statement is unproven) Yes, you can make arbitrary fancy math up and say it is (refers to, represents) it. That is a hypothesis in which experiments would then need to be conducted. That's why (and how) mathematics can be (arbitrarily imagined up and then potentially proven) conceptually representational for physical reality (WOLFRAM IS CORRECT). But not for linguistics. Because no experiment can be conducted to prove the hypothesis that X is Y is = to X = Y (note "=" and "is" do not mean the same thing) Ontology = analytic, determined Epistemology = synthetic, ultimately unpredictable
@JadenJahci
@JadenJahci 3 жыл бұрын
Linguistics “=“ Password Best Wishes, “If the glove don’t fit,...you must acquit” -Johnny C.
@joshbachynski
@joshbachynski 4 жыл бұрын
Wolfram is correct. Why is there something rather than nothing? OR Why does the universe exist? = INVALID QUESTIONS This is like asking how hot is the color blue, or how does it smell? The word "why" is not valid here. There is no self-evident teleology to check to answer it. So 1) the question is invalid, 2) it's not really what they want to know anyways. When they ask why is there something/a universe they really want to know: what is important?, is there a self-evident teleology that tells me what to do/why i am important?, am I lovable, what should i do, what is the meaning of life? those kinds of questions the answer is we need to shrug the specter of religion off and return to Plato's Good which answers all those questions better than any other answer. If you disagree, you just have not given Plato a fair shake
@humanrightsadvocate
@humanrightsadvocate 2 жыл бұрын
Not even God has free will.
@AO-rw5xg
@AO-rw5xg 3 жыл бұрын
well then you cannot reduce God to science. and our rules cannot compute it but in the running of the universe we know He exists. Some do.Maybe you don't coz you have witnessed it. or refuse to or he refused to. so people shouldn't snuff out God because of science and math.
@channeldoesnotexist
@channeldoesnotexist 3 жыл бұрын
I think you're on the wrong video mate. Understanding this stuff requires at least an average IQ.
@PaulSlattery
@PaulSlattery 3 жыл бұрын
Word puzzles and semantic fluff clouds of non-sense.
Informal History of Physics
2:25:48
Wolfram
Рет қаралды 108 М.
Малышка Поняла, что Её Папа Ушёл... 💔
00:31
Глеб Рандалайнен
Рет қаралды 5 МЛН
Smart Boy 😎👍 #shorts #dednahype
00:28
dednahype
Рет қаралды 20 МЛН
Реакция Мани!
01:01
Анджилиша
Рет қаралды 8 МЛН
Братик купил бегемота #shorts #iribaby
00:42
IRIBABY
Рет қаралды 2,5 МЛН
The Metaphysics of Stephen Wolfram
31:25
Scientific Genius
Рет қаралды 22 М.
Is the universe a tautology? with Jonathan Gorard
9:42
The Last Theory
Рет қаралды 3,7 М.
Stephen Wolfram: Can AI Solve Science?
2:33:17
Wolfram
Рет қаралды 6 М.
The Scientist Who Discovered the World's Most Beautiful Equation
14:58
The founding of the Wolfram Physics Project with Jonathan Gorard
14:04
Stephen Wolfram - Is Mathematics Invented or Discovered?
10:09
Closer To Truth
Рет қаралды 167 М.
History of Science and Technology Q&A (March 20, 2024)
54:05
Samsung Pay всё
0:34
Romancev768
Рет қаралды 184 М.
Cincin ponsel dengan fitur pembayaran 💸
0:51
Rasa Kayu
Рет қаралды 2,9 МЛН
What’s inside my iPhone port?! 🤮
0:14
scottsreality
Рет қаралды 6 МЛН
FAKE APPLE VISION PRO ЗА 29.000 РУБ.
17:39
Wylsacom
Рет қаралды 542 М.