What do you think of the Wolfram Physics Project? Do you think it could be a path towards the fundamental theory of physics? Comment below.

@pablosartor6715

4 жыл бұрын

I don't think so. This isn't a "theory" but a lot of conjectures.

@EventHorizonShow

4 жыл бұрын

@@pablosartor6715 the video is an hour and ten minutes long, did you watch it or have you been following the project?

@pablosartor6715

4 жыл бұрын

@@EventHorizonShow yes, I've been following the project.

@PresidentialWinner

4 жыл бұрын

I haven't followed the project or watched the video (starting now) but it seems like a pretty extraordinary claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. We'll see. I'm sure it's a great video anyway, wolfram is a beast.

@WillArtie

4 жыл бұрын

Up to 49:55 - Amazing new way of looking at things. I love that people are exploring physics in fundamentally new and different ways. But how easy is it to build a theory from the granular back upwards? You would want to hope that your granular/tree/hyper-graph theory is correct(!), and that you have great tools, otherwise you will be going down some strange rabbit-holes. Be interesting to see where it goes. Maybe, if it doesn't turn out, an aspect of it will add something else to our collective knowledge that others can use/incorporate with Branes, Strings, Q*D/QFT etc... maybe..

Math is hard, but I'm so happy folks like this get it. I love science.

@chriskelly6574

2 жыл бұрын

You just need to want to get it. If you kick around enough you will eventually want to understand the numbers. You don't need to be brilliant just hungry. Life is a musical and we are to sing and dance as long as the music plays. Cheers.

Love the trippy space music in the background

imho... big props to anyone who is confident (and smart!) enough to buck the old guard.

@joeltraten5967

4 жыл бұрын

Michael Ferguson Hear, hear! Any system based on a priori axioms, definitions, and postulates richly deserves to be bucked. Indeed, all of the greatest advancements in human history were achieved through bucking the old guard.

@EvieDoesYouTube

4 жыл бұрын

@@joeltraten5967 But the important thing to remember here is that those advancements were shown to be correct. We don't hear about the mavericks who bucked the old guard but were completely wrong. There are plenty of people claiming "They laughed at Einstein and they laugh at me, therefore I'm as smart as Einstein". No disrespect to Stephen Wolfram intended though, I've been visiting his site for a while now and I'm hoping that one day I'll actually understand some of it.

@alangarland8571

4 жыл бұрын

@@joeltraten5967 While that is true, it's not an indication that proposed alternatives to the existing paradigm are likely to be true just because they are alternative.

@grizzlyhamster

4 жыл бұрын

Not really. Any old idiot can buck the old guard. It's doing that and being right that's the key.

@mikejo8083

4 жыл бұрын

I hear ya- the problem with bucking the old guard, is that any new perspective with advanced thought- ruffles ego’s attached to old premises, and they buck back hard...

it is the outliers who keep things honest .. thank you Stephen and Jonathan for the work you do …

Well guys you've done it again. Another great video per usual. It's amazing that no episodes disappoint. What does disappoint is the fact we still can't get a plug in so my Google assistant is A.N.N.A's voice!

Moments before im about to sleep you post this! Love watching event horizon before i sleep :)

Damn you John... I WAS about to go to sleep, now I have to listen to this first... Keep up the the great work and thank you for all the awesome content.

I have been intrigued by Nick Bostrom's concept of a simulated world. Getting more insights into how computation universe might operate is somthing I'm always looking forward towards. Also finding out Stephen Wolfram worked with Richard Feynman blew my mind!

@robertschlesinger1342

4 жыл бұрын

Wolfram went to graduate school at CalTech, where Feynman was his Ph.D. thesis advisor.

@u.v.s.5583

4 жыл бұрын

I find this theory does not necessary define the universe as a simulation. Simply the laws behind the universe are discrete. That's what they are. They don't require somebody outside this universe running a simulation on some kind of a supercomputer.

@Dragrath1

4 жыл бұрын

@@u.v.s.5583 Exactly this framework does not require any form of external simulator it is simply a statement about the underlying rules of the the universe if anything a simulation is an attempt at mimicking this formalism and the nice prospect is that this could be computationally tested unlike a number of perpetually WIP "theories of everything".

@underpowerjet

4 жыл бұрын

@@goodcat1982 Not sure what you're talking about. Which movie?

@underpowerjet

4 жыл бұрын

@@robertschlesinger1342 Yep. I listend to him on Lex Friedman's podcast. He's doing quite amazing things. Feynman would be proud.

First time I heard about Wolfram Physics. Thanks for the indepth interview!

Once I saw Steven Wolfram in the title I new it will be good. This channel is so awesome. Relaxing, engaging and fun... what a delightful combination :-)

Excellent guests, really enjoyed that! Hope you can get them on again in future!

thanks again, your the only pod/broadcaster that pretty much always gets my full attention from beginning to end. Thank you for continuesly making me realize how little i know wich makes life a bit better in turn. I came across this subject few times but never before gotten to understand what the wolfram project was and now i do.

Highly interesting video, I'll definitely look further into Wolfram physics. New ways of looking at things are precisely what drives progress. This channel is awesome.

I love the way you do commercials and adds versus everyone else. I also enjoyed the show. Keep up the good work.

Great episode. Interesting approach and I think it has a lot of merit. Digging deeper into it myself.

Under my point of view, this is one of your best interviews. It is great!

I love listening to this and the feeling of half understanding. Who am I kidding, way less than half. Still really enjoyable.

@rayzorrayzor9000

4 жыл бұрын

I too enjoyed it even though I was completely lost by the second sentence 😂😁😊😁👌😊😂😁😂😊

Godier always ask the type of question I also think about!

@michaelw4950

4 жыл бұрын

Yes, hes just like us, always seeking answers and wanting to know more

Interesting interview. I love the questions John asks he's really good at asking the perfect questions. I learned quite a bit from this episode thanks.

@EventHorizonShow

4 жыл бұрын

Thanks Strick. How’re you doing?

@stricknine6130

4 жыл бұрын

@@EventHorizonShow Doing pretty good enjoying the content y'all have been putting out. How have you guys been doing?

Regards from Costa Rica! Thanks for these videos.

Do you have a podcast? It’s be so much easier to listen on the go. Thank you.

Is this real? Another video from the Event Horizon? WOW! My favourite 😊 Emotional status: very happy

I have heard Wolfram talk about this a number of times but I am still struggling to get my head around it.

@Mr.Deleterious

3 жыл бұрын

You my friend, are not alone in your thinking 😆

@NightmareCourtPictures

3 жыл бұрын

It goes something like this. All that exists is a rule and a set of unique elements. The rule acts upon these elements, and the network changes and grows. Iterate this rule over and over and eventually the network these elements create a complex object. Have enough complex objects, and they themselves create a complicated network...which emerges it's own set of complex rules...These complex rules create more complex objects, which create more complex networks, which creates more complex rules...this process goes on and on at all scales, and really because of this emergence, then actually no unique elements exist...it's just the rule, and everything emerges from the rule. The cool thing about the rule, is that it's ridiculously simple...and all that's happening is it's being iterated over and over and over again...and that's it. You should look up Complexity Theory, and Network Theory. These two fields will help you understand how simple things create emergent behavior. All Wolfram is doing, is formalizing complexity theory to all aspects of physics

@peterpolesel4912

2 жыл бұрын

@@NightmareCourtPictures thanks for this that helps a lot.

Yeah I barely understood any of that. Big respect to scientists who can actually work enough of this out to theorize about ways that things could potentially work. I’m more of an artistic person but I seriously appreciate science. It takes all kinds!

@P3C0L4

4 жыл бұрын

"Sometimes science is more art than science, Morty" - Rick Sanchez

"...there's a very important thing that a lot of people who study physics, but don't come from mathematics don't appreciate: That physics is not mathematics and mathematics is not physics. One helps the other." ----- Richard Feynman

Thanks for another amazing episode Event Horizon/JMG. What about a future episode about the limits of the periodic table & island of stability & potential super materials besides graphene. Greetings from the Netherlands. :)

@alessandropantaleone8045

3 жыл бұрын

Hi. Table periodically present CH. 1️⃣1️⃣ 8️⃣. Evolutionists Univere =New entrances elements Chemicals...

Thank you Dr. Wolfram for the insight that Euclid's very first axiom assumes a continuous universe. (If you cut and cut and keep cutting, will you ever reach a smallest size? No, assumes Euclid, since it's axiomatic that a point has no mass. But we know if you cut water in half and half and half again, eventually you will reach a water molecule below which you cannot go and still call it water.) And yes, the Wolfram Physics Project is almost certainly on the right track. There must be discrete atoms of space,. They may be as small as 10 to the minus 100, but by the time they've conglomerated at the 10 to the minus 43 scale and larger, they begin to appear continuous to us (an example of a branchial brain observing a branchial universe, (a corollary concept of the Wolfram Physics Project concerning the nature and function of consciousness)). And the idea of computation (rather than mathematics) as the most base fundamental, a kind-of machine language of the universe, is intuitively graspable and satisfying for those of us who grew up in the information age (and who are no good at math anyway). :)

How Stephen Wolfram Will Save the World - by Stephen Wolfram

@djbabbotstown

2 жыл бұрын

Explaining the world and saving the world aint the same thing. Irreducibility gets in the way. Choice, the observer is necessary in Stephen’s model remember. That’s why there will be great resistance. Never mind the Ruleial space idea, which is a euphemism for the infinite potential of what could be crudely reduced to the word God.

Can you please please get Sabine Hossenfelder on the show ?

@EventHorizonShow

4 жыл бұрын

Yes will ask her, we’d be glad to.

@cyrilio

4 жыл бұрын

Event Horizon but she should only sing her music. No physics! /s

@royheishman2999

3 жыл бұрын

I have a crush on Sabine ....it's how she says einshteien that gets me going lol

What predictions do your theory make? Are those predictions testable? Why were these fundamental questions not broached?

@deusexaethera

4 жыл бұрын

He isn't at the point of making new predictions yet. He is still re-deriving known physical laws via a novel method.

@Almost3331

4 жыл бұрын

A youtube podcast is not the medium to evaluate a theoretical physics framework.

@BigNewGames

4 жыл бұрын

I made several accurate predictions and some that have yet to be discovered. Like I accurately predicted the outcome of the G2 gas cloud before it orbited the black hole Sgr A*. I also made the prediction that nothing can fall into a black hole, not even light. Black holes spew so much radiation that nothing can get close to a black hole, not even space or time. Black holes do not destroy the matter in a galaxy. Black holes produce energy, matter and space. The motion of the energy and gas produced by the black hole moves away from the black hole not towards them. Thus why I predicted that the G2 gas cloud would orbit the black hole and barely be affected. It did not get stretched out by the gravity of the black hole, produce a light show as it fell into the black hole like astrophysicists predicted would happen. It orbited the black hole and kept it's spherical shape, IE was barely affected. Then in October of 2019 the ALMA radio telescope released the Doppler image they produced of the gas and dust near the black hole Sgr A*. The Doppler image proved me right again. All the energy, heat and gas was moving away from the black hole. The gas and dust was not orbiting like astrophysicists predicted. Frame dragging was not occurring like astrophysicists predicted. There was no evidence of an accretion disk like astrophysicists predicted. There was no evidence of an event horizon like so many astrophysicists have predicted. All the empirical evidence showed that I was right and they were wrong. I wrote to the web site that posted the Doppler image from ALMA and explained to them how the image contradicted Einstein's general relativity because all the energy and matter was moving away from the black hole, it was not orbiting or moving towards it. It was as if the black hole was spewing matter and energy away from it. It was making mater and energy, not destroying it in a blaze of glory! The energy it spewed was so energetic that it is not observed in the visual spectrum. Einstein was wrong! Einstein was completely wrong about gravity. The Doppler image was empirical evidence showing Einstein to be wrong. The next day the web site removed the Doppler image. They too realized the implications of the empirical evidence on the scientific community who learned everything wrong! I have the Doppler image. I knew they were going to remove it so I copied the image to several locations. Here, take a look. The red to white colored gas is moving away from us (red shift). The blue to light colored blue gas is moving towards us (blue shift). The white plus sign is the location of the black hole Sgr A*. The lighter the color of gas the faster it is moving. The Doppler image shows all the gas and energy to be moving away from the black hole, not orbiting it. photos.app.goo.gl/8YaZBhFRytDgaMvR8

@horuslupercal5437

4 жыл бұрын

BigNewGames ....And you are who, exactly? Pretty big britches of you to declare Einstein as “wrong”. I’d also note that scientific consensus seems to completely disagree with you on everything you claim about black holes. Where is your math? I’d very much like to see how these hypotheses of yours play out on a page.

@stevenmohr9863

4 жыл бұрын

What predictions has GR made? How about QM?

John, I get you're expanding your "horizons" (hehe) and whatnot with this new stuff, albeit cool, I dig it, but I really enjoy the content on your original channel.. Again, love all your work.. Can't help but feel your other channels getting dusty. Some of us love the scientific content, hypnotic back music and listening to your soothing voice on the videos on your other channel. Don't forget about us.

@Mscape7

3 жыл бұрын

This.

@inthefade

3 жыл бұрын

True. But damn this is a good conversation. I've been following everything Wolfram has said about this new physics project though.

I know you’ve touched on this topic in previous videos but I think Scholz’s Star passing trough the Oort Cloud and its ramifications could make for an interesting video.

Im early here. Regards from Argentina! I always go to bed listening to all these amazing science and great ideas! Thanks Mr Godier Ps. This theory is so elegant! Hope a lot of science can be achieved witj this new paradigm

@EventHorizonShow

4 жыл бұрын

Glad the channel helps you sleep.

@Dontlook146

4 жыл бұрын

Event Horizon it’s the voice!!!!

@federicozig6365

4 жыл бұрын

@@EventHorizonShow yes it does! I kind of dream away thinking about everything I grasp from the great content. I love all the stuff on the fermy paradox. Thanks again!

@TheRainHarvester

4 жыл бұрын

Me too. I like isaac as well but he speaks too fast to keep up. Hey, I have some emergence videos you may like as well. I got emerging heart beats with my simulator.

Just kicking my feet up brother 🤙💫

This methodology of building up models, as oppose to finding fundamental laws. Reminds me of a discussion I once had with a Lead Programmer of the Pros & Cons difference between bottom up and top down design approaches? Didn't matter bc the project was late anyway. LOL

@john-or9cf

4 жыл бұрын

David Evans And over budget, didn’t do what it was supposed to do.

Stephen Wolfram is a pretty good score for Godier.

@MisterXdotcom

4 жыл бұрын

U are saying that its like he scored the best girl in the classroom 😁 I'm joking :)

@jacobkobald1753

4 жыл бұрын

Nobody puts baby in the corner! Don't put limitations on John! Lol

@Michael_Dominic

4 жыл бұрын

I'd like to look at it as EH being a good platform for Wolfram.

@MisterXdotcom

4 жыл бұрын

I actually don't like this episode at all. A lot of useless informations, a lot of talking but nothing to say... One of the, actually it is worst episode at the EH ever!

@snaggiz

4 жыл бұрын

Gman k Of course, no good hosts will publicly say that stuff because it might make others potential guests shy away from his show. Best to leave the opinions to us fans!

nice and interesting conversation, thank a lot

Really, really interesting! 😮 I'm going to follow those ideas to see where it gets to. I really hope Kuhn isn't right this time. Thanks, JMG! Stay safe, everybody! 🖖😊

Despite much of the science going over my head this was a facinaiting listen.

As much as I love your content you bring us John, I equally love the skit dynamic you introduce at the end in in some intermissions between you and your progressively controlling AI assistant

This was very interesting. I'm no physicist but this idea seems so elegant. Almost so much that it's surprising no one came up with it sooner. It'll be very interesting to see where this project goes. The idea that gravity, relativity, quantum mechanics, all of it just comes from one simple rule applied over and over again to a system of related points is just so ingenious.

@mattpotter8725

4 жыл бұрын

I don't think this is what he said at all. He's basically saying that reality and the universe is running like a computer does, hence the talking about a computational approach. But his approach, whilst I'm not saying it's wrong, just that I'm yet to be convinced by any proof, or any predictions, seems to be to be allow anything to be described that has already been proven and so grafting every scientific discovery into his framework. I too am interested to see where this goes, but the problem with having a framework where anything is possible, just as I could write a new computer program tomorrow that is completely different to any other before, it allows anything and everything to be possible. Sure that is an elegant solution, but I don't see how that can be used to predict the current state of the universe, how it works, or make predictions that experiments can confirm. I found this interview very frustrating because I wanted to learn so much and all I really got was justification for why he's doing this and very little on what this actually means, but then I guess he wants people to sign up for his Summer Classes to find out. Sadly I won't be doing this, he needed to give me more than this. Can you honestly say you know more about Wolfram Physics than you did before, beyond that it think the universe is run more computationally than by any other of the theories we have before?

@themaximus144

4 жыл бұрын

@@mattpotter8725 I said it was ingenious not likely to be true. Also, I wasn't just referring to the interview but wolfram's announcement page. He effectively does describe there that he believes that space and matter are made up of a number of related points that have a specific rule applied to them over and over again. In doing so you can create structures that appear like 2d planes, or 3d shapes. Picking the right rule and the right collection of starting related points you can end up with structures that look similar to the shape of our universe, and even goes so far as to claim that he discovered that relativity and quantum mechanics just happen to appear within these structures. So it is what he said, just not directly from here. I posted this here though because this interview is what inspired me to go and read the announcement page in the first place. I agree to an extent though that Godier could have done a better job setting the scene for this one and getting Wolfram to actually fully describe what his theory was. Again, just to be clear, I'm not saying I think his theory is likely to turn out to be correct. I'm really not qualified to say that. What I am saying is that it's a really clever idea I'm surprised no one ever explored before. I like it for the same reason I like Einstein's theory of relativity. Not because it's true (though it did turn out to be very true in that case), but because it's really really clever, and also kind of beautiful. For all I know wolfram's idea will end up going nowhere, will be completely discredited, and be a huge embarrassment for him. That won't make it any leads ingenious or interesting tho. I hope that clears things up a bit buddy. Have a good one :)

Oh yes. Thank you Stephan, Johnathon and E.H ! 😎

Good interview, thanks for sharing

Paused to think how could iv not watched yett... and then It dawned on me it's the new one haha Thanks again JMG ... team and guests this is one if the few things I still look forward to

@EventHorizonShow

4 жыл бұрын

Glad you enjoy the show! Any guests you’d like John to speak with?

@jasoncarlmorgan

4 жыл бұрын

@@EventHorizonShow Get Sean Caroll back on to talk about his new "Biggest Idea's In The Universe" stuff. I think it'd make a good episode getting to know the "why?" behind the series.

@damianp7313

9 ай бұрын

​​@@EventHorizonShow🎉you guys managed to get everyone i could of think of over the years 🎉

A crazy idea; when speaking about space (i.e. the Universe), we consider it as having three dimensions as in up and down, left and right, and back and forth. Disregarding time in this case, when one is in space, no matter which way one goes, one can go in any direction but the motion is basically only forward. Within short distances, of course, one can move in the three cardinal directions within the dimension of time yet how do the three other (or two other) dimensions apply?

Very interesting and worthwhile interview. Stephen Wolfram's relevant papers may be found at arXiv.org , paper# 2004.08210 and on his website. Jonathan Gorard also has a few relevant and interesting papers on the arXiv as well. Their researches are novel, thought-provoking, and worth continued consideration.

This was fascinating wow deeply thought provoking, will be interesting and it sounds like quantum computation will offer good ways of testing this framework.

great interview

One of your best episodes.

@EventHorizonShow

4 жыл бұрын

Thank you. More of this discussion to come.

Why does his outro evoke a nostalgic wonder? Almost sad or longing but not quite. Maybe it stirs some of that childish wonder and mystery that I used to have but have lost to some degree. I’m not sure. Just decided to spluge what was on my mind. Great show and something I’ve never heard of. I’ll have to look more into the Wolfram Physics Project. Thanks again JMG.

Johnathan very smart guy

I have one of the early hardcover editions of A New Kind of Science. True story: I was at a Barnes and Noble, and it was on the sale cart because the cover was torn, I think it was $25. Honestly, though, it's impossibly difficult to read - just from the standpoint of it being an extremely huge, heavy book, with thin, paper, and tiny print. It needs to be on a lectern. As a result, I could never get that far into actually reading it. It would probably have exceeded my understanding pretty quickly, though. I do understand the broad outlines of the idea, and find it fascinating. I also remember the physics community being dismissive at the time, and it's sad that Dr. Wolfram dropped his research for a while. I hope this revived effort captures more people's imagination, and more interest in the physics community. Also, thanks for making these shows. This is the second one I've listened to, and the interviews are great.

"why do i own so many books?!" killed me. im gonna have to listen to this one again.

@frankschneider6156

4 жыл бұрын

Owning many books is not a bad thing, well at least it's not unless you are the other of all of them.

@jonnyroxx7172

4 жыл бұрын

I’m packing up my library as I type.

If there was no smallest unit of space then Zeno's paradox regarding Achilles and the tortoise would be correct instead of a reducto ad absurdum mind experiment.

@friendlyone2706

4 жыл бұрын

A modern Zeno would ask "Is there a shortest wavelength?"

I'm at 11:00 - how does idea of geometrical distance arise in such context? Clusters of highly-connected points?

Came for the unknown, stayed for the outro. What? Thats the only thing spinning in my head mid through all of this

Take a drink every time he says "so to speak "

@soldatwalmart9515

4 жыл бұрын

Il mail you an invitation to my funeral

Such an interesting topic with minimal info. You should interview thad Roberts hes been talking about quantized space for years.

Great video !

Thats the most interesting Video to Listen to Form me dir a Long Time. Ty.

Regarding the bucket reference: Isaac Newton's rotating bucket argument (also known as Newton's bucket) was designed to demonstrate that true rotational motion cannot be defined as the relative rotation of the body with respect to the immediately surrounding bodies. -WIKI

Disappointed there was no discussion of gravity, but otherwise one of the most interesting discussions on this channel to date. As far as what I think about the Wolfram Physics potential I have only this to say .... uuhhhh.

@agentx7138

3 жыл бұрын

Ah the old gravity that's baffled us for so long ! Curve space and it works ok but what creates the curve? If the curve is gone then a pull is needed but how can space transmit a pull force in a vacume or could it be space collapsing towards a mass making it a push oops back to the curved space.

Great episode

That's the site that any question can be quantify? I use sometimes, BUT, there was no data for the question... To be fair it was some years back but I remember when he starter the Wolfram Question Formulation Engine, or whatever you wanna call it. I"m surprise that others don't know about this project. Specially scientists or people in the academy. And for what I know there's a focus on physic but it's pure base on math and data. If your question is not formulated right you can have some random data or not input for data because it couldn't find a right formula for your question parameters. Again, A personal experience, years ago.

Very good podcast!

I love the podcasts usually, but it seems this gentleman forgot basic physics Love the people you've have on recently

A long interview that told me nothing at all. I do appreciate Mathematica as a software, alot! He's got something great going for him there. But I just don't see this cosmology thing in it. It is a great achievement to have him interviewed! One of the greatest of our time, even if I don't get his cosmological math physics ideas.

John, as a man in his mid 60s that has witnessed almost all the milestones in the modern exploration of space, I realise that I am coming to the end of my time, possibly 5 or 10 years left to me. I was thinking that maybe you might do a video that lays out what is on the drawing board for the next 5 or 19 years that we oldies may get our telescopes out and search for before we join the stars again?

I just thought about this: What if the mere presence of the fluctuating pairs of particle/antiparticle generates a kind of "pressure", and this "pressure" dissapears when actual stable matter is present? The outer "pressure" around stable matter would push everything towards the center of this stable matter, in the effect we call gravity. In this model, gravity doesn't even need to exist. It would just be a consecuence of the presence of stable matter. And you don't even need to curve space or something like that, haha. *mindblow* EDIT: could this also be applied to magnetism maybe? Something like the magnetism as a consecuece of alignment of this pair of particles produced by stable matter.

This episode was pure nerdgasm. Thanks!

Thanks for this. I'd heard about this project from other sources and so I thought I'd have a listen to what they had to say. I'm not an expert or anything. I thought it was interesting what they had to say about 5.6 dimensional spaces for example as an alternative to 5 or 6 dimensional spaces - and this being a legacy of calculus back to Newton's day. And they say they lack the maths to be able to do this at present? I'm aware of Network Theory and how you can have say 7.2 'average degrees of separation' - and this is just 'average connections per node'^7.2 = 'number of nodes in a network'... So there's already some use of fractional exponents in netwrok theory. So it's interesting they use Network Theory as well. But a 'degrees of separation' implies there is a loss of the full potential of network connections - otherwise the degrees of separation would always be '1' between one node and any other node... So I think that's interesting in both what creates structure and maybe what you have to lose (in terms of network connections) in order to make structure. But network theory itself seems to relate to numebr theory, for example you can have an expression for the number of connections per node that also shows the number of missing connections per node: 1 = 1/degrees of connection + 1/degrees of separation. So for example if the degrees of separation is '7.2', the 'degrees of connection' here would be roughly '1.2'. The example I gave here, if say applied to the global population of 7 billion people, seems to work like a 'power law' where the distribution of connections conforms to a 'pareto distribution' of the form x^-1. The integral of x^-1 gives ln(x). And ln(ln(x))/ln(x) of x = 7 billion gives you 1/7.2 roughly. The figure of '1.2' then becomes interesting but I'd probably have to diverge off into politics... But this x^-1 for of distribution also appears in the distribution of Prime Numbers. Where ln(x) gives you roughly the average gap between primes up to a given number: so for example if 'x' is 10^10 then you have roughly an average gap of about 23 between Primes. The figure of '1.2' relates to ln(x/ln(x))/ln(x) which gives you roughly the number of primes up to 'x', which in the case of 10^10 is about 400 thousand primes. So it's interesting you can relate primes to network theory in this way. A more accurate prime counting function is Li(x) rather than x/ln(x). But Li(x) is just the integral of 1/ln(x). And 1/ln(x) is already in the equations above - so would Li(x) be better than 1/ln(x) in the above network equations...? And what about something more accurate as a Prime counting function than Li(x)? Suddenly the link between calculus and networks seems to matter. But like they said near the end of this video - perhaps there is a limit to the complication of answers we can get out using simple questions?... It always seems to come back to the Reimann Hypothesis (required for counting Primes using computation). Anyway. I don't know. Cheers! :)

What a treat this is

maybe phrase the concept of the progression of computation can be interpreted as time should be phrased a little bit differenty. as we learn from stephen, the universe is all about causal consistency. but causality itself implies time in "if A is true and b is also true, THEN C must be true" the logical vector is perhaps responsible for the emergence of time. so what it really is, is preserving causal consistency. and the reason for thinking the universe is in essence mathematics, is actually its underlying principle, logic itself.

To us dummies... is a quick answer that the hyper-graph is a step forward from Feynman diagrams? Math that can tame exponential/factorals of entanglement?

It's not a pun. It was the result of intuitive steering from our subconscious connection with the universe's knowledge database. It's like the way most scientists come up with new ideas - it just pops into their head from the mist while doing something completely unrelated (and usually mindless or repetitive). That's the universal consciousness speaking to the subconscious area of their brain.

So the number of nodes of the hyper graph changes ? And what powers/motivates/causes the changes of states ? Geometry is an emergent phenomenon of hyper graph topology ?

Take a shot every time he says.. “Space!” 😆

Very cool, I wonder what your guests think of the recent studies that suggest the universe isnt even expanding at uniform rate? That should pretty much invalidate everything we know if true right? IT was in Anton Petrov's video, a recent study that said that, and also something to do with the electromagnetic force being different in other galaxies? WHAT? the laws of physics are different in different parts of the universe? I wonder if this connects to any of the work the guests are doing, if they are trying to find alternative theories, this stuff might be what they're on about? If true this could mean alternative physics in the same universe which would mean we could have crazy stuff without the need for parallel universe, they could exists in this universe. Thats crazy.

@catmeme2446

4 жыл бұрын

I think Sabine hossfielder did a interview with one of scientists that did the paper kzread.info/dash/bejne/dGWh2buxm8uzlZs.html

Please invite them again, this is extremely interesting

Stephen Wolfram's bedroom probably has a sign on the door: 'The Wolfram Suite'.

I always thought the way we can observe time flowing is by observing the universe expanding. It’s the physical representation of the flow of time.

A theory I have been working on for decades, has me hypothesizeing that space is a physical thing that add opposing force to the bits we call matter. Such as planets, stars, solar systems, galaxies, and so on. The latter being chaos force, and space being order force. Or Ying & Yang. With the center where Ying and Yang meet, being the balance that gives regulation & stability to the inner bits, between layers of space. Think of space being unimaginable infinite large pieces of clothes in a pile. And the bits we call the known universe of matter are between those pieces of clothe of infinite size. Gravity is nothing more than those space clothe trying to get the wrinkles out. Wrinkles that matter we call the universe make. And also the big bang is something I no longer hold to be true. I believe space has punchers, we know to be black holes and white holes. It is my theory that matter travels between the clothes of space, by way of those holes. Which would add answers to the problems with thermal variations at the edges of the known universe. Also why speed of acceleration can be different. And why galaxies are going to very suspific points. Add in that what we know as the material universe, is but just 1 in countless other material universes. In the same layers of space, as our own. And gives credence to multiverse theory, by way of layers of space clothe, and the holes that transfer matter between them. A lot of assumptions of the modern day sciences & physics can be more easily found. Which would change how we do math and come up with theories. Too many scientific theories, I believe have way too much imagination. And not enough substance.

The infinitesimal intersects the infinite. The two are opposite sides of the same coin, so to speak. Cardinal Nicolas of Cusa demonstrated this in the 15th century in his De Docta Ignorantia. Brilliant work.

JMG!!!!!!

This talk reminded me of a song called "down in it" by nine inch nails.

The problem with wolframs hypergraph explanation is I'm not sure it can explain gravity waves which we know exist and can observe.

spacetime (a system that we’re part of) evolves quantum mechanically towards many states until all possible states have been tried.

The Wolfram Physics Project is the most important computational work being done imho and the ramifications will likely take decades to unpack. Particle physics is and has been stuck in gluon molasses for almost 100 and def 50 years, since standard model really. This is because it is a simplification of the true physical system. The fix is easy though. All probability should be turned into actual activity but fluid flow and so partial and mixed vector regions. Not probability but percentage. A photon becomes an actual sphere which has radius expanding at c with membrane of sphere the wave components as we usually measure. Membrane thickness is wavelength. Bohmian reasons decide which atom of detector unit will burst the energy bubble. Phase relations might have to line up. And change to part of the bubble affects the entirety as it is a singular object/process. You can’t burst half a bubble nor half burst a bubble. The wave if it hits resonant chamber of matching size becomes entrapped. Detection. Collapse of wave. If photons are ejections of electron energy why do they have both a positive and negative component? Because we live on minimal single sided surface and so 4pi, two orbits, are needed to complete a world line. kzread.info/dash/bejne/fImfx7Gbna3MYaw.html Neutron decay cosmology is inevitable. Geometry requires it.

my problem with this idea is that the motions of points seemingly have to have their own rules, which in turn would mean more underlying foundations. Why not come to the conclusion that reality is fractal?

Is there a Cliff Notes explanation of what his theory is? I learned a lot about what he disagrees with and why, but I'm not clear on what his new physics actually is. I admit I'm not a genius, I'm just a printed circuit board designer and a guitar player, so I'm sure this is a bit over my head. But at least with Relativity and Quantum Mechanics I have a working understanding of what those theories are suggesting. Clearly string theory turned out to be a dud when they could find no evidence for Supersymetry, but at least I could understand the concept. After watching this I have no more of an idea what he's suggesting about our universe than when I started the video. Could somebody please throw me a bone?!

What I got out of this is Simulation Theory + String Theory = Wolfram Theory

Great CH!!!

And I was gonna go to sleep! You evil evil science people! Haha, put down the uni work...ima listening to event horizon first at 3am! Thanks from the UK!

Wolfram flat out gets it. Him, like myself, is simply having a difficult time fully expressing what he sees and understands. He has fully read, heard, and experienced it all and is now trying to put it into understanding. He is on exactly the same track of understanding that I am. Some of the most recent discoveries are proving it.

@williamblack4006

Жыл бұрын

Narcissist.

Excellent!

How. Did the first program begin

This fascinate and excite. 😂

This is awesome JMG! Love stuff like this :) EDIT: lol "stuff like this" - and it may be the answer to everything....

I swear, when we get to wherever good little boys and girls go when they die, I bet god is going to say "Yeah, I've just been letting you guys figure out how you think the universe works, and then I make it work that way until you come up with a better idea. It's much more interesting to watch that way."