👉 Want to stay fully informed on breaking news, compare coverage, and avoid media bias? Go to www.ground.news/drbrian and sign up through my link for 30% OFF unlimited access! 📰

@3sc4p1sm

3 ай бұрын

To discover god you have to discover everything else first, am sure the issue of irreducibility is embedded in primes

@MrPublicPain

3 ай бұрын

I saw some model runners add new data to their models and not their data sets to make the model... once they added the new data to the initail model craetion... boom... they got excellent real results so things that seem right can be 100% wrong in methodology... I wonder which Steven does?

@MrPublicPain

3 ай бұрын

I saw some model runners add new data to their models and not their data sets to make the model... once they added the new data to the initial model creation... boom... they got excellent real results so things that seem right can be 100% wrong in methodology... I wonder which Steven does? Also it strikes me that when he mentions "possible histories" that literature has pioneered this . What is a book of fiction? There are millions of duplicate paradigms. The venturi effect is reproduced no matter what the material that flows . Space, and carburetors, black holes... ? Have that shape? The flow speeds up. Of course there are "possible" histories. Of course the flow of electrons, air, water, plasma speeds up when it is "venturied" lol. Scientists need more generalisation. His explanations of space and time are awesome.

@RanjakarPatel

3 ай бұрын

Take care four this man. He no fareness four India. He fourget Martin Luther king dreams. My color good color. All color good color. No make race four man who look differencely four convenience and four huminatarian my dear. I am very very very sadness four you’re say. But you try you’re best you’re branes and even if no power four you’re neuron I hope you have gr8 mango.

@RWin-fp5jn

3 ай бұрын

Wow. This is the best physics interview-podcast I’ve seen since a long time. Happy to see Stephen is now translating his mathematical insights into unconventional physical interpretations. We badly need this, as our current 100-year old physical theories (GR, SR, QP) are based on mathematical correct approximations, but incorrect underlying equivalence relations. There are many things Stephen guesses correctly; such as dark matter actually being a yet unknown property of space. Bravo! Indeed. Finally someone who gets that we need to focus on the grid itself, not on some imaginary invisible mass. Actually the erratic erratic galactic rotation curves are the result of a LACK of spacetime in between our spiral arms. But again; happy at least the discussion is on the grid itself! We need these disruptive insights of top people! Another mathematician, Roger Penrose, made a similar deep remark, as he stresses time and again that mass fundamentally equals not energy but inverse time! In his words; ‘…If you have mass in the QP world, you have a CLOCK…’. He realises this by substituting Planck E=hf into E=MC2. To finish things off, Heisenberg already defined the other CORRECT inverse relation, namely Energy equals inverse space as per dXdP>=h/2, a polar notation constant. Do we know see what is going on? Why we fumbled for 100 years? If we take these two correct inverse equivalence relations, then Einstein’s SR now says that a speeding object contracts frontal space and time, resulting in an INCREASE in its energy (inverse space) and mass (inverse time). In in slightly different terms; the speeding object wraps continuous ST fieldlines around itself in a standing wave of a discrete quanta of inversed spacetime windings, giving the object potential and inertia. Now do we see that speed induced effects on spacetime on the one hand and energymass on the other all cancel out? Want more proof? Stephen wants to know where complex number come from in the QO world. Well, we must compensate [m/s] speed with its dual QP equivalent speed expression of [J/kg] or [J/kg=Nm/kg=m2/s2]. So, the only way m/s and m2/s2 cancel out is to use a prefix of i2=-1 at the QP side. So dual inverse physics requires math to have complex numbers. Do we now get it?

Wolfram impresses me more each year. His sense of adventure coupled with that intellect is formidable. I am excited to see where he may be going.

@TheMemesofDestruction

3 ай бұрын

He’s a pretty cool Dude. 😎

@bertdemeulemeester

3 ай бұрын

He is more or less at the peak of his intellectual ability, but man.... What a peak it is

@dimitargueorguiev9088

3 ай бұрын

Some of his expositions and conjectures are far fetched, unsubstantiated, even misleading. What I do not see in his work is the abundance of rigorous analysis and general enough mathematical proofs in his papers.

@AdamWest-qp3yp

3 ай бұрын

His arrogance is a tad off putting.. bro we don’t care how many books you wrote 😂 Google works and I can type you condescending fk

@generaltheory

3 ай бұрын

His core ideas are **actually** based on mine, and he can't call me by my name. He continues repeating my words without realizing MORE.

It feels surreal to live in a time when you can listen&watch such amazing individuals, so casually. 🤔

@zornu

3 ай бұрын

without pants

@KenLieck

3 ай бұрын

@@zornu Not exclusively.

@revelari5250

3 ай бұрын

@@zornu you got a hard-on too?

@markhuru

3 ай бұрын

Those who don’t embrace the internet will fall behind in evolution

@KenLieck

3 ай бұрын

@@markhuru without pants

first discoverded wolfram in grad school at osu in late 90s. had to use maple symbolic manipulator and dipped into mathmatica. what a powerful program. wolfram is such a fire eater and a workhorse. he never settles on status quo.

@Blue_Azure101

3 ай бұрын

It kills the MacBook lol

@warpspeedscp

3 ай бұрын

@@Blue_Azure101 skill issue

Wolfram is just amazing in that he can both brilliantly push the boundaries of scientific exploration AND explain what he is doing and thinking in the most clear and simple terms. My intuition is that people decades from now will still be discovering and acknowledging the brilliance of Wolfram's ideas.

@michelleper5065

3 ай бұрын

and not a step on a "moon" or a "mars" lol while antarctica still hidden in plain site ... my ai iphone zombies....

@joakimlindblom8256

3 ай бұрын

While I have tremendous respect for Wolfram's many accomplishments, most of the ideas that he talks about here do not originate with him. By the way he talks about things, it's easy to mistakenly think it's mostly his work and ideas, rather than the collective work of generations of scientists. I wish he presented things a bit more modestly so that casual observers get a better perspective. In terms of his work on computational irreducibility, it is an interesting perspective, but these ideas can also be framed equally well in more traditional mathematical physics terms.

@DalbyJoakim

3 ай бұрын

Wolfram Alpha is the greatest gift of all - Stephen should read ”44” by Thad Roberts which totally is researched using it and is much further ahead

@mikiafu

3 ай бұрын

That's a lot of nonsense.

@dodatroda

3 ай бұрын

😂

I’m so grateful to have access to conversations like this at my fingertips. Thank you both for your scientific contributions and even more for taking on the burden of being public intellectuals.

I always find Wolfram to be a most fascinating scholar. 6 books during the covid is just a simple example of his monumental intellect. His confidence in taking on the entire physics in a both macro and micro way is daring. I find him very genuine. I would love to see a few numerical calculations and values coming out of his computation.

@00jknight

3 ай бұрын

Specifically it's his ability to speak simply that I deeply respect and appreciate

@yeti9127

3 ай бұрын

@@00jknight and humbly..

@Barelo

3 ай бұрын

Wait, did he write 6 book in the span of 2 years?

@andrewradford3953

3 ай бұрын

Reminds me of Asimov

@JakeWitmer

3 ай бұрын

​@@andrewradford3953Yeah, but way smarter. Asimov had trouble understanding "the golden rule"

The way he thinks about computation being a limited resource rhymes with how I think about the speed of light being a hard limit on motion. A particle cannot move faster than with the speed of light because it runs out of time to move even more quickly. More generally, the speed of light is really the speed of causality, so it tells us how fast the process of applying the rules is running.

@6ixpool520

2 ай бұрын

Thanks for this. I like how you framed it. Maybe it being the limit will tell us much about the fundamental substrate of reality eventually.

@robadkerson

2 ай бұрын

It's also more accurately known as "the speed of information."

@immrsv

2 ай бұрын

And a Planck Length is the resolution (or, the smallest storable value. aka, epsilon) :D

@TheRainHarvester

2 ай бұрын

Coolcat, i like the way you think. Leave me a comment on the video, "the physical reason time slows at the speed of light". I think you'll like it.

@devilsolution9781

Ай бұрын

@@immrsv i would argue the smallest unit of length is also the smallest unit of time and at that point they become the same dimensional thing.

Fascinating discussion with Dr. Stephen Wolfram! The insight into the computational nature of time and the second law is mind-boggling. The concept that you can't cheat the passage of time due to computational irreducibility adds a unique perspective. Looking forward to diving deeper into Wolfram Physics.

@solconcordia4315

3 ай бұрын

Oh yes! Wolfram is a mad man but that's absolutely not perjorative.

@magnuslysfjord423

Ай бұрын

Is it that you can’t cheat it or that it’s incredibly computationally expensive to? As everything is incredibly entangled exponentially over time

18% of your viewers liking and subscribing is actually very good. You should know this. Congrats on that. If you want a higher percentage, maybe eliminate the imbedded ads. Definitely soils the enjoyment of the experience. People come to KZread for very specific topics and dont like being railroaded.

@joeedgar634

2 ай бұрын

So, you are saying you want to come to youtube for a very specific topic, thoughtfully and respectfully presented by some of the top minds in the world for free and you are... slightly annoyed by the occasional ad therefore you might not subscribe. Sorry buddy, I doubt if they even want you for a subscriber.

@mjantunezl

2 ай бұрын

This time, the ads, made the video unwatchable. I HAD ADS EVERY 3 MINUTES! This is the first time I have had to watch so many ads in a video.

@toxic_narcissist

2 ай бұрын

@@joeedgar634 and not only that, instead of taking 5 minutes to install an adblock, he asks Dr Keating to basically cut his entire youtube revenue. I will never get this entitlement

@Hexaglyph

Ай бұрын

@@joeedgar634 >includes embedded ads >still calls it free your notion of 'free' is extraordinarily impoverished

@joeedgar634

Ай бұрын

@Hexaglyph your notion of language is extraordinarily diminished. But as long as you get to feel smart...

This is one of my top 5 channels I watch and has been inching its way closer to the top the more i watch. I don't work for free. And i dont expect others to work for free. I have happily subscribed. Its literally the least I could do for cutting edge info.

@DrBrianKeating

3 ай бұрын

Wow, thank you!

With all due respect, the title is too click baity and there's too many advertising interruptions that go on for too long.

@kissgg666

2 ай бұрын

I agree, despite the great guest and the exciting topic, this is almost unwatchable.

I missed the bit where he changed EVERYTHING. It doesn't surprise me that he has written so many books as he has a real talent for saying a lot without conveying any new information.

@leonidsawin4578

2 ай бұрын

He dumbed a thing the brightest 0.1% of humankind are struggling with down to a form that even you can (possibly) comprehend.

@DingbatToast

2 ай бұрын

@leonidsawin4578 ah yes, the "thing" got it. Thanks for clearing that up.

@gordonfrimann246

2 ай бұрын

​@@DingbatToast The point he was trying to make must be computationaly irreducible

@DingbatToast

2 ай бұрын

As Wolfram says “Whenever computational irreducibility exists in a system it means that in effect there can be no way to predict how the system will behave except by going through as many steps of computation as the evolution of the system itself.” Which is a completely ambiguous statement, and he provides no actual proof to back this up. So, I stand by my original statement. Have a lovely weekend 🍻

@DingbatToast

2 ай бұрын

@@gordonfrimann246 precisely 😉

Wolfram is fascinating. The thing that impresses me every time is the amazing arc of his work. The best analogy I can make is of a man creating the tools to work stone to ultimately build a cathedral. The dogged pursuit of his vision of understanding reality in ways no one has done before is amazing. I do not begin to understand his work in a meaningful way, but I have to believe, that if he lives long enough, he will build that cathedral. If he succeeds the consequences for our understanding of reality are profound. If he fails, he will still learn amazing things.

Hi Brian, this was a fantastic interview, thanks for doing it. Your knowledge and ability to push back and ask relevant deep technical questions made it all the better. If there were one suggestion to improve the format it would be to remove the time constraint, I think this interview could easily have played out for another hour or so. Appreciate it must be tough if not impossible with kids and a job! But yes, thanks again and looking forward to your future videos. 👍

@DrBrianKeating

3 ай бұрын

Glad you enjoyed it!

@TQ2andDebbieDo

3 ай бұрын

I do not agree with removing the time constraint. I rarely have hours to listen to things like this. If it were another hour long, even though I love this, I would never touch it just because of time.

Wolfram is always a good interview. This man shaped my entire understanding of the universe and introduced me to determinism without even muttering the word.

i am an artist and a game developer. It strikes my as incredible how many similarities there are between this description of the universe and the way I structure a game (albeit MUCH less complicated) in the open source engine I use - Godot. Its pretty crazy really.

@pythagorasaurusrex9853

3 ай бұрын

Sounds like "we live in a simulation"

@protobeing3999

3 ай бұрын

shhhhh@@pythagorasaurusrex9853

@protobeing3999

3 ай бұрын

we've known that for a looong time! lol@XvonPocalypse

@DJWESG1

3 ай бұрын

It's not that amazing. It's not very different to painting a picture. Or taking a photograph, or recording a video. You are in some way copying the perceived world, albeit with more vectors and functions that a simple picture or short video capturing a moment.

@protobeing3999

3 ай бұрын

@@DJWESG1 I am - originally a painter/ sculptor. I think it's fascinating that the more we learn about reality - the more it looks like a creative act. But I suppose you are postulating it's the other way around, which makes sense I suppose.

Wolfram is undoubtedly one of the most brilliant minds alive in the last few decades. His current slew of presentations are intriguing, but it would be nice to be shown some actual maths, algorithms, explanations, or (heaven forbid) testable predictions from his work. The fact that he's not tied to academia gives him a lot of freedom, but freedom to work also means freedom to utterly ignore the scientific process and just go on podcasts to claim he's solved all the problems without actually telling us HOW, in a way that can be understood, scrutinized and replicated.

@user-ph2ql2vg1d

2 ай бұрын

yes

@Franciscasieri

4 күн бұрын

he's actually solved nothing here if it doesn't agree with experiment.

As someone who started watching this channel from close to the start, Dr Keating has really improved his interviewing skils a lot. Really fantastic interview and I hope you keep it up!

10 min in: absolutely fascinating. not only does wolfram have the ability to talk at length, apparently entirely unscripted, and produce what qualifies as a brilliant piece of rhetoric, but ... there is a massive amount of information coming through ... and ... it remains almost fully accessible, even to people who know little physics. (i say this as someone who DOES know a fair bit of physics, and teaches the same) but while what he says is undeniably BRILLIANT, it isn't necessarily all CORRECT

@TheKornfeld

3 ай бұрын

You can't say something like that and not provide at least a few examples of what you're referring to. 😂 Please share!

@victorfinberg8595

3 ай бұрын

@@TheKornfeld difficult to do, unless you specify WHICH part of my post you want me to provide details for

@slouch186

3 ай бұрын

@@victorfinberg8595 What did he say that isn't necessarily correct?

@victorfinberg8595

3 ай бұрын

@@slouch186 for example, the concept that ( i paraphrase) time is simply a result of successive computations. there are certain fundamental variables, all independent of each other: - 3 spatial dimensions - time - mass - electric charge etc. why do we need to introduce the concept that time is NOT fundamental? it's also problematic, because it implies that reality is fundamentally mathematical, as opposed to fundamentally physical. i consider the claim to be an unproved, and unnecessary, assertion

I can't remember how I found this interview, but it's life-changing for me and my obsession with entropy and elementary particles 🙌

@DrBrianKeating

3 ай бұрын

Glad to hear that!

@MikeEnergy_

3 ай бұрын

Literally same . So much food for thought

I wish you would follow Lexs format. Ads and such at the start and end of the video only! An no interruptions to the talk

@carloscb3855

17 күн бұрын

I completely agree with this comment. Your interviews are great, but the interruptions by ads make them less attractive. This is my sincere opinion.

Finding out about Wolfram physics has really rocked me to my core and I'm very grateful

Superb. Stephen Wolfram is a REAL thinker. Much respect.

That is a fantastic idea that gravity is just the structure of or the fabric of space itself so if no matter existed just a uniform homogenous fundamental field of space gravity would be evenly distributed. As you introduce disturbances the gravity field with ripple and form troughs and ridges.

Writing a book while the podcast is going! I’m dyyyying 😂😂😂😂😂.

@jimpim6454

3 ай бұрын

He was like 'shit he got me ' 😂

Absolutely fascinating. Some extraordinary insights from Stephen which are remind me so much of Feynman. The ability to explain or at least give some insight into the complexity of vastly difficult subject matter. My head is still spinning...

I had trouble with physics because I couldn't see how it would work. This was long ago, but now it makes me feel I had the right approach and instead of just memorizing equations and forgetting it after the test. Some of these instructors didn't understand either on some levels either. Lol

Wolfram's life history is so fascinating and everything he does is so above the average genius..

@GoatOfTheWoods

3 ай бұрын

agreed! and bonus points for using " average genius " and making it have sense.

@v1kt0u5

3 ай бұрын

@@GoatOfTheWoods @GoatOfTheWoods StephenW is to the "average geniuses" what they are to the average brilliant, and what the brilliant are to the smart 🙌🤪

@GoatOfTheWoods

3 ай бұрын

@@v1kt0u5 Exactly

@KenLieck

3 ай бұрын

@@GoatOfTheWoods I was gonna ask "Just who *is* the average genius?" I'd love to see exactly how candidates for the title would be graded as well...

@Mentaculus42

3 ай бұрын

@@KenLieck Good question, reminds me of the “Reality Distortion Field” that Jobs was famous for is in play here. So where is Einstein on this scale or Eric Ross Weinstein who so frequently pontificates here on similar subjects. Between Eric & Stephen Wolfram both can’t be right, but both can be wrong. So who is the SUPREME UBER-GENIUS?

One thing i like about Wolfram is his breadth of knowledge when it comes to the history and provenance of science. His series on that stuff is great and it shows that he has a great idea of how scientific ideas fit with each other and which ones are important.

@ewthmatth

Ай бұрын

"his series on that stuff..." Where?

I keep fluctuating between thinking he is on a different dimension, and thinking he is completely insane - and I say that with the greatest respect.

@0626love

12 күн бұрын

he's lunatic, confirmed. He is obviously correct about entropy but even child could figure out that our universe is deterministic

Your ad reads man, so nice. I just love them so much

I have a sense that Stephen's goodness has been the foundation of his work, the essence of mathematics is truth.

@goldwhitedragon

3 ай бұрын

How so?

Epic performance by Stephen Wolfram, exactly as I expected. Thank you Brian!

@DrBrianKeating

2 ай бұрын

Glad you enjoyed it!

Captivating indeed. I can’t wait to see part 4! Although, I not entirely certain it will be me watching it.

One of the best interviews I have ever heard. Both men are amazing, thank you both

@DrBrianKeating

14 күн бұрын

Wow, thank you!

That is a pretty good definition of time. From my physics, nuclear and mechanical e, background… I would say time is the change in relationship between physical things. This incorporates the computational steps Wolfram suggests but also includes the notion that if there was nothing physical in the universe, then we don’t have a universe and we don’t have time.. just having a potential energy of no form existing and not changing would be a state where time does not exist.. no one can know if that state ever existed before the Big Bang. 1/x^2 vs 1/x discussion.

I have a question. Mr Wolfram states that temperature has nothing to do with the second law. The question is; How many possible configurations can a system have at 0 deg K? I will say only one. At 0 K all motion stop. If molecules move, they possess energy, kinetic energy. If they have energy, temperature must be higher than 0 K. So I can agree that second law have a boundary, but as I understand, it is related to temperature. Can someone help me out here?

@Gennys

2 ай бұрын

Well I'm not him but I think I can take a stab. I think the point he's making is that they are only related in the fact that they are emergent properties of a system that has matter. Temperature doesn't make any sense outside of having matter interacting with other matter. While entropy itself is a much lower level conceptualization of there being states of the system that change over time and what the rules of those states tend towards. They aren't tightly coupled as concepts and it's not obvious that either one requires the other perhaps.

@oddvardmyrnes9040

2 ай бұрын

@@Gennys.. Hmmmm. Entropy don't happen on its own. Well, one might say it depends on the type of matter. Actinides decay that is true, but that is caused by them being created by interacting with other matter (neutrons) thus becoming radioactive. Trying to keep up with Mr Wolfram is hard. Maybe harder than the capability of my intellect, but I will give it a try. Entropy of matter can only be caused by two things. Chemically or kinetic interactions. The result is the same. Alteration in energy states that manifest into lower equilibrium. If this is true, then temperature is related. I have to confess that I am grappling here. Maybe I miss something. What role does photons play? Let's ask; Gamma radiation dependent on temperature? No. It moves in 0 K space. What happens when it hits matter? Energy transfer if it hits a nucleus. Result? Increase in temperature. Same with lower frequency radiation. EM radiation causes temperature increase and alpha/beta radiation does to. Am I in the woods here? I am sure that I am rambling & need help. Dependent on who you ask, some of them will say; yep, a lot😬, ⁣ but I love to let my mind wonder.

@magnuslysfjord423

Ай бұрын

Entropy is a higher level concept in itself caused by irreducibility. The farther away one is from the beginning of when the rules started; the more “encrypted” they are due to the complexity of the rules that have been applied over each iteration. Pseudo example For n in 100: If n modulus 3: 2+3^n Else: 2+ 3^n*2 Is less complex than For n in 1000 The reason why that causes more entropy is because there’s more information to unpack. Hence, the concept of “uncertainty” and “chaos” are historically used. Temperature is what we subjectively experience but it seems more like it’s related to the density of the functions that are being applied as entangled rules. The lower temperature indicates there’s less rules being applied to the system

@oddvardmyrnes9040

Ай бұрын

@@magnuslysfjord423 .. Takk skal du ha Magnus. Men ingen ser ut til å vite svaret jeg spør om. Hvor mange molekylære konfigurasjoner kan et lukket system ha ved 0 grader K? Etter din forklaring må svaret bli mindre med temperaturen, men hva er grensen? Jeg prøver å forstå entropi. Jeg klarer ikke å se at fenomenet er adskilt fra materie, og dermed temperatur.

Matter & Energy feels like they might just be stable and unstable "structures" or "entities" made of "condensed multidimensionally curved space". Gravity is curved space and matter "generates" gravitational fields...and matter and enetgy are convertable. P.S.: Mathematica has been my main "Workspace" & also my "Playground" for decades. Thank You Wolfram.

Great conversation again Brian

"Time is the inexorable progress of computation." That's succinct and profound.

@teckyify

3 ай бұрын

That is his stone old automaton model of the universe. I found it never convincing and reductionistic. There is a reason why not everyone is running around like he found God. 😂

@jacobostapowicz8188

3 ай бұрын

Time is preservation of the order of operations. -me a non educated construction worker @24 years old. These guys are boring and take the long way to discover the obvious and people are look oooh so smart!

@karlbarlow8040

3 ай бұрын

@jacobostapowicz8188 Ah! A brother in the craft. I'm a Bricklayer myself. Keep on keepin' on.

@jacobostapowicz8188

3 ай бұрын

@@karlbarlow8040 Awesome, I mainly do roofing and always tell people i would not want to mess with a mason or a framer! We think about things out there whilst building. 💪

@karlbarlow8040

3 ай бұрын

@jacobostapowicz8188 I think it's the 3D, real world, problem solving nature of the job that makes our minds agile and logical enough to get to grips with anything. Years ago, I got to know a guy who was bricklaying in the 1920's and he and his mates had just the same interest and deep appreciation of the wonders of the universe. I'm pretty sure you are sharper than I was when I was 24. It's good to know the tradition goes on 👍

You're a good dude Dr. Keating. Thank you for your channel :) Dr. Wolfram is a super cool dude too! :D

@v1kt0u5

3 ай бұрын

Super cool Brainiac! ;D

Truly a fantastic explanation of these concepts!👏👏

Agree as time is how we measure/perceive change and entropy ignores an absolute certainty that energy is persistent and exists in many forms, as in it never ceases to exist it changes form. Take into account special relativity and the seemingly limitless size of the universe then for any proton/electron to view all other matter in a state of entropy would require all matter to have always existed in a state of entropy otherwise the forces of gravity/magnetism/light energy would still be affecting it (from afar) and that would also flow back.

I love his analogy of entropy and encryption!

@NeverTalkToCops1

3 ай бұрын

Rather obvious, I'd say. Stronger encryption means higher entropy.

@actsnfacts

3 ай бұрын

@@NeverTalkToCops1 What is obvious or not is observer dependent, I think. It wasn't so obvious to me before but now I can't help but see it as the most natural proposition ever! Obviously!

@mkhosono1741

3 ай бұрын

Bell labs, entropy, phones, and information share a common history.

@chemistchemist6438

3 ай бұрын

@@mkhosono1741 Right. This is why I love Shannon's information theory. He was the one who really discovered the ultimate meaning of Entropy and saw the connection between his theory and Boltzmann's entropy based on probability. Definitely a connection in between information in the universe and its probabilistic nature.

@hyperduality2838

3 ай бұрын

@@chemistchemist6438 In a communication system messages are predicted into existence according to Shannon's information theorem using the concept of probability. Predicting messages into existence is a syntropic process -- teleological. Entropy = average information. Syntropy = average mutual information. Sine is dual to cosine or dual sine -- the word co means mutual and implies duality. Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy). Certainty (predictability, syntropy) is dual to uncertainty (unpredictability, entropy) -- the Heisenberg certainty/uncertainty principle. Probability waves or electro magnetic waves, light require the receiver of a message to predict reality into existence -- syntropic. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Syntax is dual to semantics -- languages. If mathematics is a language then it is dual.

Great episode! Stephen blew my mind like 3 times, something you and your guests do consistently on this show. Keep up the great work, ignore the haters.

@DrBrianKeating

3 ай бұрын

Thanks! Will do!

@samirsupnekar

3 ай бұрын

Ignore the Big Bang Theory!!! 😊

This is the best video I’ve ever seen . By Jove I think he’s cracked it ! Density of activity in the network . Beautiful ❤

interesting points... 15:14 what is time 20:30 temperature & heat 24:32 what is entropy 31:19 3 big theories of 1900s 50:03 neutrinos are dark matter 54:30 blackholes 58:01 if brain processing 1000x 1:05:08 space & time not same 1:06:47 qm magnitude & phase not same 1:10:30 time dilation

this is the type of shit you watch when you want to seem like a man of science intellectual without ever having to actually crack open a textbook

@dhardy6654

3 ай бұрын

Yes and typing a reply is the same as publishing and getting likes is peer review. And if nobody acknowledged the reply it means my comment is 100% correct and it destroys everything in science.

@ycombinator765

3 ай бұрын

@@dhardy6654 🤣🤣🤣

@laurentiubucur9586

2 ай бұрын

Agree! All this crap is to sell that stack of books. Addressed to amateurs and time loosers😢

@mostexcellentlordship

Ай бұрын

I, for one, am a complete and utter science intellectual and yet here I am. Not feeling so hot about your hypothesis now huh, Mr. Big Shot? I have smitten down this demented bulwark of inferior cognition with the equivalence of a mental exhalation. My vastly superior inhalations would easily spell the end of you. Please refrain from being inferior in my presence in the future. It displeases me. If you wish to develop yourself and be more like me I suggest you do not attempt and give up proactively, because it is not possible. More people should proactively remove themselves from my presence in order to reduce my displeasure, but alas, while I harbor a great many skills and powers of grand importance and impact I have yet to acquire the ability to mentally control inferior humans. This is because it is only possible for me to control those who are equal to me, but there are none. This explains my lack of total mind control soundly and perfectly but I digress. Have an acceptable day, good sir.

Wolfram Rocks!

thanks, looking forward for more content like these

i have a question pertaining to quantum entanglement, we are using a equation of equilibrium and kind of dividing it with two entanglement particles and hence they should have equal and opposite spins. I suspect the moment we observe and we confirm the observed particle was left spin and the unobserved will be right spin particle, I suspect the universe is not transferring any information between particles rather the moment any one of it is observed at the same time they both are being materialize of same spin instead of opposite spins, there is no possibility of information transfer rather generate the same out put for both situation, whether you choose to observed chosen particle or you chose to observe destroyed particle, you will always find same outcome, if let say you chose to see a particle and concluded it was left spin , i insist if you skip that particle and try to observe it's entangled particle which you was not observing before, you will be surprised to find that even that spin is left, so despite its entanglement particles but universe has decided same spin for both particles at same time and put restrictions that you can only observe one out of these two. The basis of my argument is a religious text book and some personal experience of reality.

What prevents people from subscribing is reposting old videos as new ones. Every video I see now, I have no idea if it's new or not - weirdly, some trust has been broken.

@ESS284

3 ай бұрын

Just remembered why I unsubscribed lol yeah

Im not a scientist and I probably had to listen to it 3 times, but Wolfram is a fascinating character. I believe I understood what he explained. It would explain a lot of mysteries, if true. As observers, we cant really get what we see. Maybe AI will someday.

@Prometheus4096

3 ай бұрын

Wolfram also isn't a scientist!

@palnagok1720

3 ай бұрын

...we can only consciously process about 2K bits of info each second...this is rather small...one part in 200 million is what we are aware of...we don't have a clue what reality is.

@nilskp

3 ай бұрын

@@Prometheus4096 why not?

Much of this discretization of space discussion reminds me of the work of Harold Aspden. I think his "G Frame" concept is an extremely simplistic view of what Wolfram is digging into.

Basically, laws can be broken depending on the way the observer sees the law. The universe has a self correcting system that is something breaks on one level can be corrected on the others to keep the entire system going. Thanks for sharing this as it is important for us to all move forward.

@aniksamiurrahman6365

3 ай бұрын

I don't think you got it right.

@sunbeam9222

Ай бұрын

@@aniksamiurrahman6365 what's the point of commenting that if you don't offer an alternative? Genuine question, what even is your point in doing so? And please would you care to clarify then? Eager to hear another view point.

@aniksamiurrahman6365

Ай бұрын

@@sunbeam9222 Ever heard of a little activity called "learning physics"? Try that first, aye?

@sunbeam9222

Ай бұрын

@@aniksamiurrahman6365 lol so you're one of those flies that spread all other KZread contributing nothing but "you're wrong" or " go learn " types of comments. Ok then iif that's your kick, enjoy.

@aniksamiurrahman6365

Ай бұрын

@@sunbeam9222 And u r one of those who's all talk and no walk. By ur reply alone I can see u know no physics at all. I can't take charge to educate illeterates from ground up.

Keating, don't fool yourself, ask Stephen to obtain peer review of his ideas. He started claiming to know QM and ended up claiming he doesn't.

@FredPauling

3 ай бұрын

Which peers would provide an unbiased review? Seems like a tough choice when the ideas are so radical. Peer review would be more useful once there is a testable thesis, an experimental design, and some results. Before that, it's just an interesting framework that seems to have properties that could explain reality.

@TheMrk790

3 ай бұрын

@@FredPauling well he has a base theory, where he claimed he could rediscovee QM and he could not show the math. Thats not even review. Thats just people wanting to see the math and not the claims.

@37:00 sw: "planck length is more a question of units" - planck constant has dimension of action, whose conjugate factors are related by heisenberg inequality. for example, stephen's 10^400 "computational steps" in a universe only ~14bya impIies an unrealistic energy per step

I enjoy the perspectives and the perspectives you bring! It is starting to seem that fundamentally a recurring theme is sweeping across the minds. This theory is quite close to pan-consciousness, although significantly rooted in scientific facts.

Around 1:21:00 the way he words our relation to time is so profound.

@dg-ov4cf

3 ай бұрын

Sounds like genuine schizobabble to a neanderthal with no physics knowledge such as myself

From philosophy and observation to mathematics. Fascinating

your channel is great has informative topic one thing i dont like is you have ads within the video not talking about youtube ads (premium user) but video ads you personally make , over all great youtube channel 😀

0:59:51 that problem exists generally, even if you don't use Wolfram physics. Our regular atoms also change all the time, with every breath we change some of our atoms, everytime we eat or drink something we get new atoms and every time we go to the toilet we lose some atoms. After something like a year, almost no atom is the same. To say it dialectically I am the same and nkt the same as a year ago.

My thought on "dark matter" is somewhat similar. When we view the behavior of distant galaxies, we are looking back at times when the so-called gravitational "constant" was greater than it is here and now... as the universe was far less spread out than it is now.

@aniksamiurrahman6365

3 ай бұрын

Dark matter behaves very similarly for our own galaxy too. It behaves very similarly, despite how far it is, to galaxy and galaxy cluster. What's your take on that?

@Giant_Meteor

3 ай бұрын

@aniksamiurrahman6365 All that dark matter seems to be, is a variable tossed into equations in order to make observations of distant events fit with our equations. We have this gravitational constant that seems to work great for predictions of all experiments done here on earth, but seems to fit less with observations of distant events of large bodies. I'd be more amenable to the possibility that we don't have a right understanding of gravity or time, or that we don't understand how large distances affect our observations of distant events in respect to time, or whatever, than that the bulk of the universe is made of some otherwise completely undetectable matter, that somehow amazingly seems to have no measurable effect on our experiments done here on earth. Most of the galaxy we live in is quite distant.

@lubricustheslippery5028

3 ай бұрын

Brian knows more about the practical observations of dark matter than Stephen, and Stephen have an more theoretical and historical view. Observations of stuff like the bullet cluster is problematic with the view that dark matter is more that the physics is wrong than it being something like an particle. I don't know enough to say what view is wrong, only that they make sense form the different backgrounds of Brian and Stephen.

@lubricustheslippery5028

3 ай бұрын

My little crazy idea of what dark matter is, was something Wolfram almost said. Namely that fluctuations in the dimentionallity of space is changing the inverse square law and thus the strength of gravity at bigger distances.

@iankrasnow5383

3 ай бұрын

The phenomenon you're talking about is dark energy, not dark matter. The two concepts aren't actually strongly linked beyond the name. Secondly, the cosmological constant isn't thought to change over time as far as I know. Thirdly, I believe the concept of Dark Energy and the cosmological constant actually would work quite nicely with Dr. Wolfram's approach. I don't think he's trying to refute that. What he's trying to refute is that the universe is made up mostly of matter that can't interact with other matter except via gravity. He thinks that some fundamental process other than an undiscovered particle might be responsible for the odd behavior of galaxies. And he's extremely vague about what this might look like. I certainly wasn't very convinced from just this conversation.

Wolfram is talking about computation and at the same time saying that entropy does not require for the concept of energy (24:35). Energy quantifies the system capacity to accomplish physical work. Without physical work, we cannot even know (compute) the entropy of the system! Entropy concept by itself only give us information about the current state of the system. However, what really matter is the entropy variation, which tells us about whether the system gain or loss information. To change the system information in just one bit, any computer machine must dissipate (at least) 2.9×10^−21 Joule of energy (at room temperature), which is called Landauer's principle (already verified with experiments) = k_B T ln 2, the Boltzmann constant by the system temperature by logarithm of 2.

@rokko_hates_japan

3 ай бұрын

These scientist, while brilliant, are often stuck in one way of thinking. he seems to think about reality as if it actually IS math and like a computer. Instead of the truth, that these are human constructs simply used to represent reality in an attempt at comprehension. calling space discreet, is just silly. same with anything "quantum" related. it's just brushing up against the limits of our tools or capacity to see, but does not necessarily have any relation to reality. scientist have been wrong about everything for as long as humanity has existed. after a while they develop new tools and make a new model. it's just funny knowing that, and yet each generation thinks they are somehow finally correct.

@seekerofthemutablebalance5228

3 ай бұрын

@@rokko_hates_japan right, I agree although I think most scientists know that their theories are just descriptions of their interpretations of how they think the universe works but then they talk about it as if it's definite and direct like they are explaining how to make a cake. I think they need to emphasize the uncertainty aspect more and that it's just an attempt to explain one theory in terms people might comprehend

@6ixpool520

2 ай бұрын

I think the implication is that entropy is a mathematical artifact of the statistical aggregate of the behaviours of the quantized fundumental constituents of the universe. He likens it to the gas laws, which while useful for calculating macroscopic events, doesn't really mean anything at a quantum/molecular scale.

@oddvardmyrnes9040

Ай бұрын

@@rokko_hates_japan.. My thoughts too. Question asked in my separate post are not answered.

Thank you both!

@DrBrianKeating

2 ай бұрын

Thanks so much! *What was your favorite takeaway from this conversation?* _Please join my mailing list to get _*_FREE_*_ notes & resources from this show! Click_ 👉 briankeating.com/list

Great Stuff! Would love a video of Stephen walking through the history of the second law!

@DrBrianKeating

3 ай бұрын

Great suggestion!

The part around 1:11:00 about time dilation being due to "consuming compute resources" by moving; reminds me of this vector-based "spacetime" explanation: You always move at the speed of light in spacetime. If you are stationary, your velocity is pointed completely in the direction of time. Whereas when you move spatially, some of your fixed speed is spent on moving through space, and the time component of your velocity vector is decreased. In this context, what is speed of light in Stephen's model? Is it essentially an expression of the unit of computation resources used by a node to compute one step?

@6ixpool520

2 ай бұрын

The speed of light is probably the speed of computation in the model if I were to guess. I wonder why that would be the limit within this framework though? What dictates the amount of computation that can be done?

@flashpeter625

2 ай бұрын

@@6ixpool520 If we take the analogy with the velocity vector in spacetime, it is not just the maximum limit of computation, it is THE amount of computation done in every step. You can't go higher, you can't go lower either. So it would essentially be a (universal? local?) constant, a quantum of computation. And speed of light in space would be derived from it, a mere emergent phenomenon.

@TheRainHarvester

2 ай бұрын

Watch the video, "the physical reason time slows at the speed of light". It's 2 minutes that explains everything.

When you are a hammer, everything looks like a nail. (when you are a mathematician, everything looks like a computation)

First Law: You can't win. Second Law: You can't even break even except at absolute zero. Third Law: There is no such thing as absolute zero.

The Second Law, like the First Law in their full generality are axioms of phyiscs. The conservation of energy is an axiom of physics. In its appearance in mechanics or in E&M, it may be "derived": energy is a constant of motion or an integral constant of a dynamical equation. That may be shown. Similarly, the Second Law may be shown for particular thermodynamic systems. But it is axiomatic in full generality.

@user-ph2ql2vg1d

2 ай бұрын

nope

Exactly. Our anthropocentric perspective has led to fundamental misunderstandings. The existence of time as part of four dimensional space-time, for example. Time t is a convenient shortcut for applied physics but believing in time is superstition.

Finally found your channel. Loved your Lex Friedman interview.

Time is an unavoidable cost to computation. The question that implies is that there is a universal balance sheet, which, on one side lies the cost of progression. So what is that progression? Is it towards, away, or some other, unknown vector?

Stephen Wolfram may be on to something that will hopefully course correct modern physics and quantum mechanics. Great podcast, @DrBrianKeating

@aniksamiurrahman6365

3 ай бұрын

I very deeply doubt. All what he is saying has been explored by others. Henceforth, either these theories failed to predict anything observable, or, for a very few cases, those prediction didn't bear out in reality.

That "open the pod bay doors!" always gets me unprepared! :D

To simulate a vat of warm water you need a way to program it in a fluent time passing manner. This would basically be a pool-table simulation. In programming the issue is to make the time flow and not tick. If time in a computer simulation ticks it will be subjet to aggregating integral error. I wish he could go deeper in the programming aspect it self in how to consider a particle bouncing more than once in a single frame/update cykle. Is there an approach of doing this in so called (P) time? I have always thought you can only enter the computing of heat within the realm of (NP) it feels like (P) vs (NP) and Maxwells deamon is interlinked with the way we makes modells of heat.

@niclassmedberg6985

2 ай бұрын

An NP deamon would it use more usefull energy than it can tap the pool table of?

God bless Stephen Wolfram!

Just mind-blowing!! His explanation of time-dilation as a consequence of computational effort to move in space rather progressing through time just knocked me out.

@1:10:26 Did he just say time dilation is essentially that, there is a certain bandwidth for processing movements (recreating yourself in another location) and the effect/passage of time, and if you move fast enough, you’re essentially causing more displacement calculations, taking bandwidth from time calculations, resulting in the dilation. Why was my first thought: “That’s exactly like setting off a bunch of TNT on a Minecraft server to tank the frame rate of the server, overload it with calculations so that as everyone else (the player observer) ages at the same rate, the server only processes a fraction of server time due to the explosion calculations”.

@walter--

3 ай бұрын

For me he lost some credibility there. That was a very strange thing to say. It sounded like an analogy, but I had the impression he was serious.

@walter--

3 ай бұрын

For me he lost some credibility there. That was a very strange thing to say. It sounded like an analogy, but I had the impression he was serious.

@walter--

3 ай бұрын

For me he lost some credibility there. That was a very strange thing to say. It sounded like an analogy, but I had the impression he was serious.

@walter--

3 ай бұрын

For me he lost some credibility there. That was a very strange thing to say. It sounded like an analogy, but I had the impression he was serious.

@walter--

3 ай бұрын

Oeps; quadruple post ;-)

Great to have Stephen Wolfram grace your pod again (Wolfram Part III), and without needing to use a beauty filter -ahem... Maybe in a future cast, the question could be asked for what is a possible foreseeable product outcome of the wider Wolfram Physics Project that might could be added to the broader human experience, novelty or utilitarian? Will this lead to better design outputs of AI, or faster space travel or instant intergalactic communication, what say in some oblique future of theory of mind and self-aware AI, once the 'Emergence' has initiated and introduced new calendar time cycles for A.I.Sapiens 2.0 to observe, and outlying Sapiens 1.0 to terrorize.

One of the best, sometimes different way of thinking leads to great achievements.....

Very cool Dr Keating 👍

Brilliant. I’m so glad Wolfram had time to figure this all out between books. -He’d be impressed how long it took me to write this

thanks for solving the problem of Entropy

Steve from Gamers Nexus is gonna love this video 😊 btw first time commenter but i just realized youre brian keating and so gotta thank u cuz i know i read some of your stuff at some point lol (been a physics nerd since i was like 2 y/o)

The problem I have with this notion of "time is a computational process" is that the idea of a "process" is something that *unfolds in time*. So it's circular.

@NightmareCourtPictures

3 ай бұрын

its not circular. Thats exactly what it means. Time, is the progression of a system changing states. when the system stops progressing, "time" stops. because the system is non-isolated, we dont notice this. say we have a system in front of us like particles in a box, and lets pretend we could stop all of its particles from moving. Well we observers of the system dont say time stops, because we humans as a system ourselves, has not stopped. The problem in defining time as existing independent of underlying processes, is a feature of us relying on us observing systems in isolation, which is not possible because we are part of the system. its a basic flaw in the assumptions of traditional physics, and also why theres an observer dependence in every major physics theory.

@Zeuts85

3 ай бұрын

@@NightmareCourtPictures Very well stated.

@user-ph2ql2vg1d

2 ай бұрын

that is not necessarily the problem, you do spot a circularity but that is inherent in the English words we are using here. the trick is to see computation itself as a block world thing, i.e. as a graph (which sound profound but isn't - pretty much anything that is discrete mathematics can be though of as a graph - the real question to ask is: but it is profitable to do so?)

@user-ph2ql2vg1d

2 ай бұрын

@@Zeuts85 no, all of what he said was beside the point

I’m a huge fan of Stephen Wolfram - had him on my podcast too this week - we discussed how to create more polymaths, entrepreneurship, working on long term innovation projects and reimagining education!

@xmathmanx

3 ай бұрын

The entrepreneur aspect is by a million miles the lamest aspect of wolframs work, if he had no business success at all his ideas would be just as valid and wonderful

@m1ar1vin

3 ай бұрын

Thanks. I'll tune it.. didn't know about you before

@DanielleNewnham

3 ай бұрын

@@m1ar1vin Thanks - hope you enjoy it

@sunnyinvladivostok

3 ай бұрын

@@xmathmanx It's unlikely he'd be able to pursue his ideas to the extent he does without the freedom granted him from his business success :/

@xmathmanx

3 ай бұрын

@@sunnyinvladivostok nope, almost every great thinker, scientist, philosopher etc etc was not very rich

Is the mathematics very simple in the computational model and does this say something about how far the model can approximate ?

Question for Dr. W, regarding computational irreduciblity if you ever get to have him on your show. If we photo coppied our universe down to the plank length and ran both universes for like 30 years or something, would they be identical? In other words, if we run the same universe as a perfect simulation, would we get the same results every time?

@6ixpool520

2 ай бұрын

I think that's the implication. He goes into how branchial space (the quantum waveform) reconverges and forms coherent structures (the waveform "collapse") in some of his other interviews. The maths is beyond me but what I gather from how he explains it is that being observers at the scale that we are, quantum mechanics is barely felt because the summation of the diverging branches across branchial space statistically evens out to a universe that has "collapsed" onto one state. Similar to how the pressures of gasses are "one number" is a statistical aggregation, and not the ground truth that each gas particle has its own momentum.

A brilliant show. If the world in its core in a sense are built upon statistics- then a universe might create itself! Given enough time. A little bit too Boltzmann ! I like this phrasing 😊🎸 next level- is that: let’s judge the book also by the hole cover 😊

Oh my god, the first advertisement that actually made me want to look into a product more. Ground news is like someone took all the suggestions from Eric Weinstein about Russel/emotive conjugations and build a product around it.

Undoubtedly brilliant - thank you. It appears to me that LLMs are not the path to an AGI that can intuit science, but that Wolfram is closer to that (and possibly X-AI) than ChatGPT.

If I could subscribe multiple times I would! Looking forward to more great episodes 🙏

The idea that the apparent level of entropy is relative to the computational capacity of the observer/system is absolutely fascinating. But also feels intuitively obvious in hindsight? Far beyond my ability to determine if it is correct though.

@iankrasnow5383

3 ай бұрын

The Maxwell's Demon paradox that Dr. Wolfram mentioned was proposed in 1867 and basically resolved with the advent of information theory in the 1940s. I wish he'd commented on that part. Basically, computation has some minimum amount of energy associated with it, as does measurement. In theory, if you knew the position, velocity, etc. of every molecule in a box, then you could predict how it will change over time. However, you would create much more entropy (in the universe, just not the box) than you've reduced simply through the act of computation. And as the system grows, the amount of computation grows exponentially faster. You can build a Maxwell's demon for a quantum system made up of a few entangled particles today, granted it takes a lot more energy than you could recover. But we could reduce it someday to a negligible amount of energy. However, for something the size of a small box filled with room temperature air, even with the theoretical maximum efficiency in information storage and computation, your computer would collapse into a black hole many many orders of magnitude larger than the observable universe.

@i.ehrenfest349

2 ай бұрын

And does it add anything? Or is it more of a truism?

@user-ph2ql2vg1d

2 ай бұрын

to the extent that it is correct, it is obvious and not novel to the extent that it is not correct, it is original with this genius

I think there's some incomplete reasoning going on here. Entropy is formally the log of microstates for a given macrostate. A higher entropy state therefore has more microstates. Since after any physical event the more probabilistic thing is the system acquiring a macro state with more microstates associated with it, entropy usually increases. For large number of particles, the number microstates of certain macrostates dwarf those associated by other more 'special' macrostates (think of a room with hot air on one side and freezing on the other) so much that the chance of entropy decreasing is infinitesimal. Probability seems to be a good enough reason why we don't have mixed freezing and hot rooms nor smoke combining with hot air and water vapor to become fuel. I don't see why the need to frame in terms of the computational boundedness of the observer. Even if we had perfect information about molecules we'd still see fuel turn to smoke and the temperature move from hot bodies to cold bodies for large objects. The second law is a probabilistic statement for which the macroscopic probability of violation is a limit tending to 0. When you have small enough systems you will see the other probabilities emerge.

@Hailfire08

3 ай бұрын

Well said

@mostexcellentlordship

Ай бұрын

Yes. What he said.

Some interesting statements: min 24:38 Definition of entropy: How many different configurations are in a system. Described by two to the power of a large number = exponent. The logarithm gives me the exponent and that is what entropy means. The concept of entropy has nothing to do with energy or temperature. min 15:08. What is time? Time is the inexorable(not stoppable) progress of computation. You cannot leave out a step. In other words, for me, the future cannot be predicted. min 15:40 Time is a parameter in an equation. If you know the equation, you can calculate the position of the planet at any time. But then he talks about computational irreducibility. This means that you can not calculate back to the original position of a particle. min 17:00 Computational irreducibility says that you cannot cheat the passage of time, you cannot jump ahead by using a smarter computer. -->This does not sound very intuitive, as we all try to get a better weather forecast. Otherwise, it is good to know that the future is not predetermined and predictable. The proof for "Computational irreducibility" is missing for me or I don't understand it. min 21:42 Heat is the randomized motion of molecules. min 23:17 My aphorism is,: "dark matter is the caloric fluid of our time" --> Maybe min 22:10 The second law is essentially a computational statement that start simple to describe, will typically become complicated to describe. It's kind of like encryption.

I still believe that computational deduciability can be overcome and that entropy is the general amount of extrapolated randomness at any relative moment in the given system, which is relative to the perspective of the observer.

Gonna catch this on Spotify!!!! 🙏❤🙏❤

@DrBrianKeating

3 ай бұрын

Can you do me two fast favors? Please leave a rating and review of my Podcast! On Apple devices, click here, scroll down to the ratings and leave a 5 star rating and review apple.co/39UaHlB On Spotify it’s here spoti.fi/3vpfXok Thanks!

@leeFbeatz

3 ай бұрын

@@DrBrianKeating I will right now on my account!

@leeFbeatz

3 ай бұрын

@@DrBrianKeating just rated my overall view of this channel……. Unfortunately 5 stars is all it goes to 🙏

@leeFbeatz

3 ай бұрын

@@DrBrianKeating I guess it’s 0/7 /1 in binary as zero can mean two different things (0 didn’t consider rating, 0 couldn’t rate it lower and be disconnected with, initially, the value of Doctorial conversations in nature of education; 1; 2; 3; 4; 5) = 7 digits available in the binary of 0-5……. I guess 5 or all digits could be considered having 2 separate derivatives of the 1 digit product to be sound with the first 2 zero products in available variables/binary digits

@leeFbeatz

3 ай бұрын

@@DrBrianKeating therefore no empty space”- Dr. Brian Keating and colleagues….. “therefore light” Eric Weinstein

Time does not exist in the universe, we created the concept of time based on the movement of the planet around the sun. What really exists in the universe is the notion of periodicity which under our human intelligence we see as what we call time.

@NightmareCourtPictures

3 ай бұрын

Precisely. Thank you.

@minimal3734

3 ай бұрын

I agree that time is an artifact. But I think without it there is also no periodicity. Just pure geometry remaining.