I actually think he has a picture in his mind thats very hard to explain. I think iI get the idea he's trying to express but I'm not sure how should it be explained. Still Wolfram is an OG

@GDMartin

Жыл бұрын

Needs more than 6 minutes. Go check out him on lex Friedman for explanation further. Also look into Donald Hoffman’s idea on the universe

@SawYouDie

Жыл бұрын

Look into Wholography another theory of everything

@nsambataufeeq1748

3 ай бұрын

Trippy stuff

@dylanpaul7371

Ай бұрын

He's basically found a way to research and investigate the structure of the universe by researching and investigating a computer-made representation of the most fundamental causal network possible.

If you get to a place where you understand everything you neve longer exist, I vibe with that.

@jimbojimbo6873

6 ай бұрын

Same

@homelessrobot

5 ай бұрын

I don't think its that you no longer exist, its that you exist in a way that is incompatible with seperating yourself from the rest of the universe. Sounds a lot like Buddhism

@dylanpaul7371

Ай бұрын

Wolfram posits that it is impossible to "know everything" because to know "everything" would at the very least mean experiencing the universe till its very end. Wolfram's concept of computational irreducibility means there are always going to be components of the universe that are not understandable no matter what our technology level is.

It's similar to conversations about dimensions. I'm sure that's not what he means but it's like our little piece of the ruliad is at a right angle to other pieces. Other "dimensions."

This is what a theory of everything will look like. It will be some object that contains all possible realities, and this model is for some reason concious. A theory of everything wont be a single equation

So the ruliad as I understand it is every possible rule/path/decision point In existence. Everything that happens and will happens falls into a slice of that gran tree so to speak. Makes me wonder whether there is any free will, can’t see how there is

@homelessrobot

5 ай бұрын

you'd have to define free will in a physical context to even really ask the question in ernest. Otherwise you are comparing incomparable things and any intuition you have about the comparison is not well informed. But also consider other things that 'don't exist' in this context: motion, gravity, time, electromagnetism, space. According to this theory it all emerges out of this simpler structure, and none of it is baked in.

@mkhosono1741

3 ай бұрын

Wolfram describes it in other interviews as " we don't have free will but you can't plug in an equation and get the output immediately. You must unfold each rule before you can see it's result."

@memegazer

Ай бұрын

That doesn't make sense to me. I suppose the way I view the ruliad is that it is literally everything that is possible. That is not determinism necessarily. It may very well be possible rules sets exist, and some include free will. The trouble at this point with the ruliad, is it is easy to imagine the concept, it is an entirely different thing to actually arrive at the fundamental rule set of our universe. And even then assuming that rule set has infinite variablity, you would still be left with the problem of knowing the exact random seed that produced our current configuration. At any rate, doesn't make much sense that evolution would naturally select for an "illusion of choice" If there was no degree of freedo that actually existed, then there would be no survival benefit it seems to me the would be no need for the "illusion". I honestly don't think brains would have ever evolved if you were just as likely to survive without one bc any benefit was just an illusion, it doesn't make sense to me how there could be any selection pressure for brains considering they are not cheap in the biomechanical sense.

@memegazer

Ай бұрын

@@mkhosono1741 I suppose that depends on how one thinks about time.

TL;DR: if you were to model reality fully in a representative way like computation, and dedupe it, it is the totality of what that could be

what he is calling "Ruliad" is called "Brahman" in Vedanta. It is the exact same "thing", except its not a "thing" in traditional sense

Bro loves his fucking automata.

The ruliad must exist? Why? Is it to explain why our universe has certain rules and not others? I can think of a different reason. The universe was designed. Surely you can classify parts of reality that demand a designer.

@dylanpaul7371

Ай бұрын

The ruliad exists regardless of anything. It is a conceptual model that maps all possible permutations of possibility. You can create a "ruliad" that maps an ATM machine or an ant colony. Whether the "universal ruliad" is physically actualized in some sort of fundamental process or underlying system I think is probably up for debate?

Ruliad is just another name for "God" that is palatable to "Atheists" to compete with the other great prophet of another "Atheist" religion ... Ray Kurzweil with his AI "Singularity"

@DrWhom

7 ай бұрын

no

@JwalinBhatt

7 ай бұрын

@@DrWhom I think science differs from religion/god in one aspect, which is that it has no say on morality. Science does not say it is ok to take people as slaves, god/religion does.

@homelessrobot

5 ай бұрын

If you play this game long enough everything is god and nothing is god and the concept of god is entirely meaningless. Which isn't actually the case, but its where grandiose generalization usually lead people.

@hobocraft0

Ай бұрын

Agree, the universe from a computer's perspective.

Okay fine, so everything is subjective. But being that we are humans, what does the whole thing mean, subjectively, to us? If the answer to everything is that we are just too human to understand anything, given that it is humans you are "explaining" things to, you are just talking over our heads. Maybe instead of telling us we are too human to understand, you should be learning how to communicate with humans.

@dylanpaul7371

Ай бұрын

The purpose of the ruliad and Wolfram's other computer science related endeavours is to explore the universe through computation rather than through physical observation. It's that simple. That's all it is.

@crawkn

Ай бұрын

@@dylanpaul7371 Wolfram at least makes a pretense of relating the ruliad to physics, i.e. physical reality. If it is a purely mathematical construct, with no intentions of modeling reality, and he understands that, then his claims of application to physics are disingenuous. What you refer to as "explor[ing] the universe through computation rather than through observation" misses the purpose of observation. Observation is not a standalone method of exploration, it is an initial data-gathering step, necessary to accurately model that which is observed. You can't ask a child who has never observed a giraffe to draw one, recommending a process of drawing all imaginable animals. It would be rather inefficient, and success highly improbable.

All of it is Bull shit .nobody knows anything for a fact .

@nsambataufeeq1748

3 ай бұрын

Doesnt hurt to try

@dylanpaul7371

Ай бұрын

It's a fact that you can map any system, including a universe, using a conceptual structure like the ruliad. No ifs, ands, or buts about it.