Wolfram Physics Project Update and Q&A (Jan. 19, 2021)

This is a Wolfram Physics Project update with a Q&A!
Originally livestreamed at: / stephen_wolfram
Outline of Q&A
0:00 Stream starting
4:40 Stephen intro & update
1:10:45 since turing-complete systems can emulate other systems, isn't in a sense true that every turing-complete can represent our universe? Thus many rules might well represent what happens.Also could you discuss about the complexity of translating between different computational models that represent the same thing? if I can emulate a cellular automata step with an exponential number of turing-machines steps, doesn't it make the cellular automata more poverful?
1:16:00 On my wishlist for this update: (1) A succinct overview of the preliminary general and specific findings so far. (2) Challenges at the moment (3) Development of Wolfram technologies specific to the Physics project
1:19:46 [Question] Wolfram Math to English translator?
1:24:52 Can it be considered that Universe calculation will be reduced to a trivial state, and from there start just like from initial condition? reminding Penrose CCC equiv
1:26:55 Hello Mr Wolfram,What are your views on the theory of the Universe being a simulation as proposed by Nick Bostrom
1:33:35 What would it mean for the Wolfram Physics Project if quantum computers are going to work?
1:39:00 How much "time" is there between; 1) The start of our Universe's Automata Rule and 2) The Inflation of the Big Bang?
1:50:00 hello Dr. Wolfram would you kindly elaborate a little bit on your ideas of brachial space and how it may relate to ideas of ads/CFT, and the possibility of using same to send information? thanks!
1:58:00 Hello, what happens to the dimensions of space on sub-Planck sizes?
2:02:15 ​will you talk about the connection to the lowest dimensional space of the monster group as it relates to superstring as it relates to wolfram physics?
2:00:00 Another thing that's really interesting is the metamathematical conclusions that's coming out of your work as a kind of lucky side-effect, could you speak a little about this?
2:07:59 My naieve question: if some constants of nature can be calculated via math, is the universe itself a machine doing these calculations for us with reality as a result?
2:08:17 When generating the computational hyper graphs how do you ensure that the algorithm which determines the rendering placement does not interfere with your observations?
2:09:29 Speed of light is different depending on the medium it travels through i.e. vacuum, water etc, what medium is rulial space in this context?
Stay up-to-date on this project by visiting our website: wolfr.am/physics
Check out the announcement post: wolfr.am/physics-announcement
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/

[@brasiljan1]

I love how he explains everything in rather simple and discrete terms. Just fenomenal. He explains it simply, so he must understand what he is talking about

[@tarkajedi3331]

At 53 minutes in that point about Combinators just blew my mind sir!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! OMG !!!!

[@sid_edwards]

Incredible work by Stephen, Jonathan, and the Wolfram team. Very compelling ideas.

[@ashutoshpadhi2782]

Can somebody explain me what these guys are doing? Why these guys are ignored by main stream physics academia where everyone is obsessed with string theory even though not working for last 2 dacades.

[@sid_edwards]

@@ashutoshpadhi2782 I am not a physicist and very much a dilatant on the subject so take this with a grain of salt, but here's the gist as I understand it. To date, physics has had a hard time reconciling the two most prevailing theories that explain the universe we live in; relativity and quantum mechanics. Both frameworks work well, but only when we make certain assertions about the nature of reality (i.e., dimensionality of space, energy density, etc.) This project aims to create a framework with very few assumptions; or as Stephen would describe "a structureless structure" (his recent articles on combinators is a great example). I think everyone involved has been blown away at the implications and the types of questions this theory has generated so far; at least I certainly am. As to why it's not more widely talked about, there's a lot of historical tension between Wolfram and the physics community at large, which I'm sure plays a role, but my sense is many of the prominent physicists either have their own competing theory they are working on, disagree with the notion of reality being fundamentally computational, or haven't read/ tried to understand it. Sabine Hossenfelder basically said so herself on a recent PBS Spacetime episode. So far, this theory has generated more "good explanations" and questions than anything else I've come across so far. If you're interested, here are a couple helpful links to get started. writings.stephenwolfram.com/2020/04/finally-we-may-have-a-path-to-the-fundamental-theory-of-physics-and-its-beautiful/ www.wolframphysics.org/technical-introduction/

[@ashutoshpadhi2782]

@@sid_edwards thank you so much for replying in such a detailed way.

[@dvlORangl]

Please do a Q&A on the project regularly similar to your broader science ones!

[@tarkajedi3331]

Amazing video!

[@epolanowskirn]

Thanks for answering my question. I am trying to get a better grip on the idea that information is not lost when it "enters" a black hole, rather it encounters brachial space (somehow) and is carried away intact (to somewhere) :-). Hence, can information be 'carried' in brachial space, and if so, what would that look like. Ty again!

[@Anders01]

I find it fascinating that all computation can be done with NAND gates. Would it be possible to use a binary tree of NAND gates to achieve all possible kinds of computation? (Infinite loops can be constructed by allowing the binary tree to be transfinite.)

[@epolanowskirn]

Thank you too Johnathan:-)

[@silberlinie]

What can Stephen's New Physics approach say about the distinction between gravity and inertia?

[@parmenides9036]

Not sure If I have misunderstood, but I don't see why putting the physics laws (as constraints) into the manifold finder is a problem. Triviality is irrelevant if the new manifold gives Canonical representations of quantum gravity. How is that different from Ads/cft? Ads/cft would be considered a trivial representation of the known laws of physics but it predicts certain quantum gravity effects. Unless solving quantum gravity requires fundamentally new laws it should be fine?

[@aoabali]

I hear a lot of talk about 'causal' things but I don't hear nothing about entropy. Maybe I missed, I don't know but it seems to me to that the notion of entropy would be key. It is where thermodynamics meets information theory. It must be relevant.

[@overreactengine]

Entropy is macroscopic behavior and will be a bulk measurement of a simulated multiway graph. Similar to heat arising from molecular movements, we'd expect entropy to arise from the internal operations. Those measures are very coarse though and not very interesting for looking at the finer structure, in the same way that heat is relevant but not entirely useful when looking at internal structure of a molecule It's safe to assume that entropy will be discussed later wrt this model, but right now it's not a very useful (ie overly simplistic) concept

[@diamondisgood4u]

4:40 start

[@philiprice6961]

Its been fascinating seeing this play out. Interesting and inspiring, even for an idiot classicist!

[@dsm5d723]

If you truly know the MIND of an Ancient, you are no idiot. Taleb is good about logic and data. Look at the Old Babylonian math here by NJ Wildberger. It is the most beautiful thing I have ever seen, as a former Classics student. Dimensional Gauge Symmetry, or the rational prime proof for ACTUALLY building things instead of using Complex Analysis to thing static charge potential into numbers. Really, learn pure number theory as an Ancient architect with these videos. Is this not math for building houses that will not fall on their inhabitants after the builders are gone? UNLIKE the internet, which is made of math? Hammurabi is my God-King, and the Melchezidek prototype.

[@hadanojiyuu]

theoritical physics should be really hard

[@rustycobalt5072]

Why?

[@coenraadloubser5768]

@@rustycobalt5072 Because what's the fun if you can see the bottom of the glass?

[@wolfram77]

12:00 Can dark matter be related to higher dimension