What I find remarkable was the Planck accepted Einstein's papers for publication. Planck was about 47 years old at the time - old enough to be rigid in his thinking. But he somehow went ahead and published the papers.

@lasttheory

11 ай бұрын

Yes, Planck's behaviour _was_ odd, wasn't it? And admirable. He just couldn't bring himself to accept photons - otherwise he'd surely have been given the credit for discovering them himself - but it's as if he were self-aware enough to _know_ that he had to get himself out of the way and allow a new generation to take his theories forward.

@carlosgaspar8447

11 ай бұрын

Don't think Einstein mentioned light as particles in 1905 (photons was not a term till much later). All he said was that light energy came in small packets or quanta. Isn't much of history simply invented.

@TheWooTubes

11 ай бұрын

I'm 63. Half my degree was physics and half was computer science. I don't find the idea that reality can be modelled with processes very surprising at all. That's what the equations were doing too but I find it easier to think in hypergraphs than equations. That's what I was doing before I heard about Wolfram Physics. Computerists have been obsessed about trees for far too long. Graphs are a much more natural fit to Shannon's 'information', which we now call data. Functions are data too, like mass is energy.

@lasttheory

11 ай бұрын

@@TheWooTubes Yes, I had the same response when I first found the Wolfram model. To anyone deeply familiar with both physics and computation, it's not surprising at all that this approach might work.

@inthefade

10 ай бұрын

As a non-physicist I’ve had the intuition that reality would at a fundamental level resemble some sort of n-dimensional cellular automata. 25 years later I wish I had pursued studying physics.

I'm a former physics professor and worked out of CERN. It took me about an hour after being introduced to Wolfram physics to understand that there was something there. All of the things that itched at the back of my mind for my entire career are addressed

@lasttheory

2 ай бұрын

Yes, exactly! There's something about this that makes me think: this could be the forward. Thanks for letting me know that you had the same thought too!

Einstein didn't write a paper about quantum mechanics. He was antagonistic to this field throughout his life.

@lasttheory

3 ай бұрын

Yes, you're right, Einstein always resisted aspects of quantum mechanics such as indeterminism. But he _did_ help launch the field. His 1905 paper on the photoelectric effect was the first to take seriously the idea that light is quantized, in other words, that light has particle-like properties as well as wave-like properties.

I did a hybrid bachelors degree of applied physics and mathematics and was continually ridiculed by my tutors in each area for attempting to use the modes of thought of one discipline in the other. Result: did a masters in engineering and waved goodbye to academia with two fingers.

@lasttheory

11 ай бұрын

I wonder how many others were driven to leave physics or leave academia for similar reasons?

@samc3405

8 ай бұрын

To me it looks more like Academia kicked you out.

@renegadedalek5528

8 ай бұрын

@@samc3405 Possibly, but I prefer to think that it was entrenched paradigm thinking on their part. They had a formula to get you to a certain level - anything else was forbidden. I could be wrong, but that's just the embodiment of scientific thinking.

@samc3405

8 ай бұрын

​​@@renegadedalek5528 It's definitely an "entrenched paradigm", no questions about it, but that's how academia functions and after Kuhn one can even say that's the only way it can function. I spent my twenties in that world before leaving for greener (for me) pastures. No hard feelings.

@DarkSkay

5 ай бұрын

Sounds like dogma. Isn't it essential for philosophy and science to stay open-minded towards the discovery of new ways to look at things? To live with the quite uncomfortable working assumption that there will most probably never be a 'last theory', but a stream of ideas and theories which are based on undiscovered mechanisms behind them, that there will always be more work and wonder, always be more to explore?

I entirely agree! Wolfram’s work has been life-changing for me. I don’t see conventional physics in the same way as I did.

@lasttheory

9 ай бұрын

Thanks Ken! Good to hear from another enthusiast for this new approach!

@thedouglasw.lippchannel5546

3 ай бұрын

How about trying CIG Theory? To entice you to study up on CIG Theory, the following is what the Theory purports to accomplish: 1) Solve/resolve the confusion surrounding the Double Slit experiment and place it's solution on a firm ground with reality 2) Offer up that new found reality 3) Redefine matter; Redefine Space 4) Combine the fundamentals 5) Bring back a cohesive concept of Conservation of Energy as regards Dark Energy and the accelerating Universe 6) Offer up a new science of pressure 7) Explain Dark Matter 8) Explain Dark Energy 9) Offer a solution to the Horizon Problem 10) Offer a solution to the Core-Cusp problem 11) Offer a solution to the Mott Problem 12) Offer a solution to Quantum Tunneling 13) Offer a coherent explanation of Red Shift anomalies 14) Provides for a Theory of Quantum Gravity 15) Provides for the distinction between the Classical World and the Quantum World 16) Redefines the Correspondence Principle 17) Offers up a quantification of an atomic mass unit and it's potential spatial quantity 18) Maintains consistency with the idea of Quantum Decoherence 19) Maintains consistency with the idea of Superposition 20) Explains why the Universe is Accelerating 21) Explains 'Why" E=mc2 22) Explains "why" large things are large and small things are small 23) Offers up a solution to the Neutrino mass problem 24) Provides a solution to the Measurement problem 25) Expands on the concept of Virtual Particles 26) Provides a new and dynamic view of the Night sky 27) May explain Sonoluminescence 28) Contains & maintains "Black Holes" within the theory 29) May provide insight on entanglement 30) Contemplates all permutations of all fundamentals in one "Conceptual Equation" 31) Redefines Einstein's Field Equation in terms of the "=" sign, as opposed to a proportionality only 32) Maintains consistency with relativistic theory 33) Is based on sound logic 34) Vacuum Catastrophe 35) More

It's not just that Wolfram Physics hasn't made verifiable predictions. Rather, it isn't a theory at all, just an idea of a form that a fundamental theory would take. No specific hypergraph updating rule sets have been proposed, and Wolfram admits they may never be discovered. That's why it's not comparable to Einstein's concrete theories. However, the lack of response from professional physicists is still extremely frustrating. They say "don't get excited yet, wait until we look at it and tell you if it's good". Then they say "this isn't peer-reviewed; I'm not wasting my time looking at this!" not caring that it leaves 99.99% of us unable to form an opinion.

@lasttheory

9 ай бұрын

Yes, I agree with all of this. As you say, the Wolfram model is not a theory, it's a framework within which we can _search_ for a fundamental theory of physics. And as you say, physicists really need to take a look at this! The Wolfram model is at least _consistent_ with General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, as far as we can tell so far. That makes it at least worth a look, surely? Thanks for the comment!

A work colleague and I were discussing this very question the other week. He has a degree in physics whereas im just a commoner. His explanation was that Stephens work isn't attached to any university amd therefore there is a snobbish ignoring of it.

@lasttheory

12 күн бұрын

Right, yes, exactly. I suspect that the antagonism between Stephen Wolfram and academic is mutual. Jonathan Gorard, on the other hand, is working within academia, at major universities like Cambridge and Princeton. I hope that'll bridge the gap and get these ideas a fair hearing. Thanks Samuel!

So glad I found your channel and looking forward to diving in! Love your insights and overviews of concepts.

Wolfram defines the Ruliad as the "entangled limit of all possible computations," representing the culmination of all possible Turing machines with all possible initial states. He then posits that our physical universe is essentially a sampling from this vast object. While this is a captivating idea, it seems to conflate the realm of all computational possibilities (potentiality) with the actual, observed behaviors and phenomena of our universe (actuality). Drawing an analogy, consider Jorge Luis Borges' "Library of Babel," which contains every possible combination of letters, spaces, and punctuation marks. While every conceivable book can be found within this library, it doesn't mean that the library is the source or cause of any specific book written by an author. Similarly, even if every possible behavior of our universe could be found within the ruliad, it doesn't necessarily mean the ruliad is the source or cause of our universe's specific behaviors. The assertion that our universe is a sampling from the ruliad, and that certain attributes of observers can lead to the emergence of general relativity and quantum mechanics, is intriguing. However, it's essential to differentiate between the vast space of computational possibilities and the specific realities we observe. The mere existence of all possibilities in a theoretical construct doesn't provide a causal explanation for the specific phenomena we witness. In essence, while the ruliad might encompass all computational possibilities, it doesn't inherently explain why our universe manifests in the particular way it does, any more than the Library of Babel explains the specific content of a novel.

@lasttheory

9 ай бұрын

Yes, that’s well put. (I like the Borges analogy!) Jonathan Gorard describes the ruliad as more of a thought exercise than as a true reflection of the nature of the universe. Stephen Wolfram goes further, seeming to suggest that all the infinite possibilities truly exist. I think you’re right that this latter interpretation leaves us with a lot of work to do to explain the specific universe that we observe.

@DrWhom

8 ай бұрын

W V Quine talks a little about Borges library in Quiddities. He points out that the length of the books can be limited to a manageable length (say 500 pages), since if that is not long enough for any topic at hand, there will be another volume in the library that picks up the tale where the other left off. Also, the texts can be printed in binary - there is less information per tome, but no worries, another one will continue it as we just saw. Still, that makes for a sizeable library (combinatorics is a bitch). But we may reduce the length of each book to fewer pages, say 50 or 5 or 1. Or we may prefer to work with strips of paper with say 17 characters on them. Not much per strip, but there is always one that continues where another left off. Or actually, we only need two bits of paper, one with a zero and one with a 1. The whole notion of such a library (or the ruliad or whatever) is a romantic illusion - behind the curtain it is nothing more than the admittedly powerful notion that anything at all can be expressed with two symbols.

I have followed this Physics project since Wolfram established it. I frequently listen to his Working Sessions. I like Jonathan Gorard and Xerxes Arsiwalla.

@lasttheory

Жыл бұрын

Yes! I got to talk to Jonathan Gorard recently on Paul Borrill's Clubhouse _It's About Time._ Fascinating conversation!

@Ruktiet

Жыл бұрын

Jonahan Gorard is an absolute genius in every sense of the word.

If there's any predictive physics in Wolfram's theories, I highly encourage him to submit them to a scientific publication for review and a critical evaluation. Until then comparing them to Einstein's 1905 papers is a stretch beyond imagination.

@lasttheory

4 ай бұрын

Thanks Gokhan. To be clear, I'm not comparing Wolfram Physics to Special Relativity, or Stephen Wolfram to Albert Einstein. I'm just saying that it's hard for radically new ideas to gain acceptance in physics, and always has been. And there _is_ physics in the Wolfram model. Here are two published papers from Jonathan Gorard that are a good place to start if you're interested: www.complex-systems.com/abstracts/v29_i02_a03/ www.complex-systems.com/abstracts/v29_i02_a02/

The most powerful and amazing visions of modern commology are Wolfram's formalism and Donald Hoffman's theory of consciousness... the next 200 years will be about these two revolutionary concepts...

@lasttheory

Ай бұрын

I hope you're right, Ivon, about Wolfram, at least (I'm less familiar with Donald Hoffman's theory of consciousness). Thanks for watching!

A fantastic channel! I especially liked the video(s) of where the Universal computer might be located and how large it is etc. I would be curious to know Wolfram's ideas in the context of the emerging physics paradigm now being seen as part of computational information theory... is there much divergence there? Wouldn't a hypergraph just be a useful representation to describe all physics as information?

@lasttheory

Жыл бұрын

Thanks so much! And that's a great question about how Wolfram Physics fits into computational information theory. I'm hoping to talk to Jonathan Gorard, one of the founders of the Wolfram Physics Project. He's in a better position than me, in academic physics, to answer your question. Coming soon on this channel!

@inthefade

10 ай бұрын

In Wolfram’s physics the hypergraph IS physics. The idea is that the universe is entirely computational and computationally irreducible.

Similar to how thermodynamics was conceived to explain the then revolotuinary steam engines, and it was thought that heat and entropy would explain all physical fenomena, now we have computational physics and information theory, conceived thanks to the digital revolution, and history repeats itself... It's just a fashion trend

Einstein's framework yielded real results we could all see. If Wolfram did that, no one would have a problem

@lasttheory

3 ай бұрын

Thanks for the comment! I do disagree. Einstein's theories yielded _no_ results, initially. It's easy to imagine in retrospect that we could all immediately see the observational proof, but the historical reality is that we _couldn't_, at first. Einstein didn't make any immediately testable new predictions. He did eventually, and the evidence accumulated, over years and decades. But at first, Einstein's theories had the same status as Wolfram's: they were just ideas.

Great summary and comparison, it reminds me of a quote from Moneyball: the first ones through the wall always get a little bloody.

@lasttheory

2 жыл бұрын

Thanks! Yes, it's a strange dynamic: every field tries to destroy those whose discoveries advance it the most!

@randallrobertson7190

2 ай бұрын

​@lasttheory apologies for what is most likely pseudoscience. However. I must ask. Is there anything to Scalar Physics or is it hogwash? Also I love a good CT, so if you have either time or interest. kzread.info/dash/bejne/hIh5ua6MhNy7mcY.htmlsi=WXNmVtH3N1Pr2hMZ

The subject of light, history of the theoretical framework that evolved over time from 18th century is fascinating. It was a constant struggle. Now we have kind of stuck to the duality paradigm, but it would be nice to hear from you, how did we get there and how things are now. Is Wolfram model bringing any new insights to the theory of 💡?

@lasttheory

2 жыл бұрын

Yes, the history of our theories light _is_ fascinating, isn't it? It's going to be a while before I get to where particles (including photons) fit into Wolfram Physics, but light - specifically the speed of light - is pretty fundamental to the structure of space and time, too. So I'll get to it, for sure, and I'll try to weave in the historical context, too. Thanks for the suggestion!

@AdrienLegendre

11 ай бұрын

There is no duality; it is a metaphor.

I see physics transform into an area of the complex systems theory, a truely 21st century paradigm whose evolution owes much to Wolfram's trend setting ideas and his emphasis on complex graph computation over approximate solutions of differential equations.

@lasttheory

3 ай бұрын

Right, yes, thanks Hank. I agree. We've ignored complexity for centuries because we just haven't been able to handle it; now that we have computers, we _can_ handle it at last!

I was stupid enough to buy Wolfram's book 20 years ago. He seems to have achieved the same breakthrough as the string theory believers - from physics to metaphysics. Not even wrong.

@tim57243

11 ай бұрын

​@Daniel Abednego Using a floatation tank to explore Wolfram physics isn't much different from using LSD for that purpose. A true theory of physics can be understood without doing things that remove the ability to think clearly.

@davidrandell2224

11 ай бұрын

“The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy “, Mark McCutcheon for proper physics.

@tim57243

11 ай бұрын

@@davidrandell2224 Um, no. I fetched the Kindle preview for McCutcheon's book and in that preview he doesn't describe his new physical theory. He complains a lot about existing physics, gainsays ordinary claims like the moon causing tides, but at no point in the preview does he say anything about his new physical theory. I fully expect the entire book to continue in that vein. If he had something good, he would describe part of it in the preview to sell his book.

@davidrandell2224

11 ай бұрын

@@tim57243 A proton is a collection of 1836 expanding electrons and add a bouncing expanding electron makes a hydrogen atom. Electron mass (9.11) multiplied by by 1836 equals the proton mass (1.67). “G” calculated from first principles- the hydrogen atom- in 2002. All atoms and atomic objects are expanding at 1/770,000th their size: multiplied by earth’s radius equals 16 feet per second per second constant acceleration; d=1/2at^2 major part of the gravity equation ( Atomic Expansion Equation, page 107.) No energy, charge, photons, waves, spin, fields, potential, quantum,quarks, space, time, space- time,etc. All Standard Theory/Model was replaced by Expansion Theory in 2002. Try to keep up. Gravity is simple Galilean relative motion: the earth approaches the released object. 180 from the noise- Newton’s LUG, Einstein’s GR, etc- we have all been taught. Imagine the Cause of gravity finally understood!

Sitting here watching this, reminds me of string theory - which I am also uncomfortable with. I do wish you all the best of luck proving this. Asking me to believe because you said so and why it's really revolutionary just doesn't do it for me. Publish and prove it independently. Thank you.

@Jianju69

11 ай бұрын

I don't think he's saying that. More like, "This guy Wolfram might be pulling an Einstein on the Physics world, who knows?"

@inthefade

10 ай бұрын

Computational irreducibility is inevitable.

@TheDavidlloydjones

10 ай бұрын

@@Jianju69 Everybody knows. It's just Wolfram being Wolfram again: publishing well known old stuff at interminable length and claiming it's original and his. He tried it with his big book, which simply worked a couple of paragraphs of Fredkin to death, and everybody laughed. Same again: there is no Wolfram physics simply because there is no Wolfram physics. Feh!

@Jianju69

10 ай бұрын

@@TheDavidlloydjones I'll freely admit the farthest I've delved into "Wolfram Physics" is to learn about hypergraphs, and then merely the rules and not any applications.

@Zeuts85

5 ай бұрын

You can evaluate it for yourself with your own logic. I think once you see things from the Wolfram perspective, it will be obvious to you that it's on the right track. It simplifies everything in a way that preserves our understanding of how physics operates at the level where we can measure it. It resolves multiple fundamental questions such as "what is the simplest possible element?" and "when and how did time 'start'"? When you can't rely on authority to show you what is most probable (as in this case), you must use the power of your own reasoning.

Is Wolfram Einstein? Probably not. But all it takes to be taken seriously is to make a prediction that can be verified. I am open minded, but the burden of showing that Wolfram Physics is the way to go lies with Wolfram.

Has it made any new predictions that already accepted physics can't make, and have those predictions been confirmed? If not, then I think it's best to remain skeptical.

@lasttheory

Жыл бұрын

Right, that's the test, for sure! And no, Wolfram Physics hasn't yet made any predictions that differ from conventional physics. And yes, it's always good to remain skeptical! I would say, though, that this is true of _every_ theory of physics in the early stages of its conception. No theory can make accurate predictions until it has been fully developed. Even Einstein's General Theory of Relativity made the _wrong_ prediction of how far light would be deflected by the Sun's gravity (fortunately, Einstein was able to further develop his theory and correct his prediction before the measurement was actually made and his _second_ prediction confirmed). Wolfram Physics has the additional hurdle that the nodes and edges of the graph are at scales far, far smaller than the Planck length, so they'll never be directly observable. In my video _Beware invisible things_ lasttheory.com/channel/012-beware-invisible-things I urge caution, just as you do, at regarding the graph as _real_. That doesn't mean that Wolfram Physics will never make predictions. It seems highly likely that one day it will. I think the theory is worth exploring even before that day arrives... otherwise that day _won't_ arrive. Thanks for the comment!

@tommylakindasorta3068

Жыл бұрын

@@lasttheory Thank you for responding. I was doing some reading on the web (dangerous, I know) and one of the issues that came up was Wolfram's apparent refusal to submit any of his work for peer review. I think that's the most likely reason why his ideas aren't being taken very seriously. That is a problem only Wolfram himself can resolve.

@lasttheory

Жыл бұрын

​@@tommylakindasorta3068 Right, yes, it would be good to see more peer reviewed papers in mainstream journals. Having said that, Jonathan Gorard has published papers on Wolfram Physics, e.g. in the peer-reviewed Complex Systems journal. Just one proviso: this journal was founded by Stephen Wolfram himself!

@tommylakindasorta3068

Жыл бұрын

@@lasttheory Like you, I'm not a fan of institutional gatekeeping. But I also understand the need for collaboration in science, and at the moment it seems like Wolfram isn't interested in playing outside his own sandbox. It doesn't mean he's wrong, but it isn't really science at this point.

You completely got me at the beginning. I posted a criticism, then watched a bit more and saw you were misleading intentionally. Lol. Also, it was 17 years before the prize, not 16.

@lasttheory

Жыл бұрын

Thanks for watching! Sorry to mislead you... it's fun to do that sometimes! And clearly I'm going to have to get better at arithmetic...

@pjmcneill

11 ай бұрын

@@lasttheory Great reply, sir!

The last theory is: THERE IS NO LAST THEORY! There will always be ANOTHER theory.

@lasttheory

Жыл бұрын

Your last theory is self-contradictory, of course: if there is no last theory, how can this be the last theory? But all the best theories are self-contradictory: as Gödel proved, no mathematical theory can be both complete and consistent!

@davidrandell2224

11 ай бұрын

“The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy “, Mark McCutcheon for proper physics.

@simonmultiverse6349

11 ай бұрын

Godel makes me giddy.

I absolutely love this, but am waiting for a full Standard Model representation in cellular automata. Does that exist yet??

@lasttheory

11 ай бұрын

Thanks! And good question. No, sadly, a full Standard Model representation is a long way off. It's possible that, in the Wolfram model, particles are persistent knots in the hypergraph, but for the moment, this is just speculation. Even if it turns out to be the case, modelling such persistent knots might be beyond our computational capacity. It's important that the Wolfram model get to particles, but I'm not sure how it'll do so.

So .. What is the equivalent of a solar eclipse and the moon's gravity bending light with wolfram physics? I heard wolfram talk about "fractal dimensions" ie space of not 3d rather 3.03d .

@lasttheory

3 ай бұрын

Good question. We're not quite there yet. Wolfram Physics _can_ reproduce matter bending light. See my video kzread.info/dash/bejne/Y6ieyqdphZDTl8Y.html for Jonathan Gorard how to derive General Relativity from the Wolfram model. but, as you say, that's not new. And you're right, dimension variation is a candidate for possible novel predictions. See my video kzread.info/dash/bejne/ioCo2rqkpcrKZdo.html for Jonathan Gorard on this and other possibilities for evidence for Wolfram Physics. Some proof that things aren't the way the existing theories predict and might be the way Wolfram Physics predicts would be awesome. I hope there's _some_ glimmer of it soon! Thanks for the question, George!

I wonder if there’s a link between Wolfram’s program and Deutsch’s Constructor theory.

@lasttheory

9 ай бұрын

Good question. I don't know anything about David Deutsch's Constructor Theory, but I confess that at a first glance I'm a little skeptical, as I generally am of theories specifically designed to solve issues in quantum mechanics. I'd be happy to be convinced that there's something here!

@snarkyboojum

9 ай бұрын

@@lasttheory Look into it. It’s not designed to solve problems in quantum physics and even if it was, Deutsch has real credibility there as a founding father of quantum computing. I highly recommend all his books too.

I think wolfram physics are deeply intuitive and obvious, and what everyone already believes deep down.

@lasttheory

4 ай бұрын

Yes, thanks Adur. It's kinda weird how much more intuitive it is than conventional interpretations of general relativity and quantum mechanics, even for someone like me who _likes_ those older theories!

Given the current situation, that is, the great development of The computing techniques, it makes sense to use them to develop models of the foundations of the natural sciences, starting from physics. Why not?

Between Wolfram physics (full topology) and aether theories (full continuum), I choose aether every time.

@lasttheory

10 ай бұрын

You may be right! I'm betting on discrete rather than continuous, but I'm happy to be wrong. I only hope we find out soon!

I've always had a notion that our beloved physics equations are only "hugging onto" something more fundamental - like the theorized epicycles of the pre-Copernican model of the solar system. I've never like time as a concept, and especially not in equations. It is clearly useful, but so were the epicycles! That pesky lowercase 't' shows up and inexorably makes the thing tick forward - all the while making the output follow curves of varying complexity and reason. In fluid mechanics, the theoretical underpinning of turbulence is almost pathetic, where fitting curves, sub-grid models and parametric tweaking (among much else) must be utilized to even get an output that doesn't completely diverge over the domain. I somehow got my hands on Benoît Mandelbrots "The fractal geometry of nature" in early life and have had the concept of the fractal with me throughout my physics degree. Calculus to me has always been a placeholder, and any theory utilizing it must be at best an approximation (like the epi-cycles), since at its central tenant it's simply wrong; Stuff does not get smooth when you zoom in. Everything is jagged and unsmooth, and our universe behaves discrete, making the limit hypothesis also just a useful, but ultimately incorrect theory. Few things have lifted my spirit and peaked my interest as much as wolfram physics, and I'm learning as much as I can! Thanks for this channel, your interview with Gorard are great!

@lasttheory

2 ай бұрын

Thanks, Malcolm, I really appreciate that! I suspect we'll look back on continuous models of physics and think, well, that was the best we could do at the time, without computers, but it was never more than a crude approximation to the discrete reality.

Google sprinkles in a few new KZread channels to my viewing habits and this one popped up today. It made me pull "A New Kind of Science" by Wolfram, first edition, 2002 off the shelf where I found my bookmark on page 749. Not sure why I stopped reading there but it must have been over ten years ago. I certainly agree with his ideas on cellular automata, especially in biological systems. But can he recreate the existing laws of physics with simple algorithms? Any new theory must explain what we know and, hopefully, explain some things we didn't know. Regardless, this is an interesting topic worthy of a revisit. Carry on, sir.

@lasttheory

11 ай бұрын

Thanks! Stephen Wolfram has made much progress since A New Kind Of Science, with the help of Jonathan Gorard. They have some compelling results, such as the derivations of aspects of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics from the hypergraph. Definitely worthy of a revisit!

@DrWhom

8 ай бұрын

I rather fear you do not know much about biological systems, then.

The problem is that Wolfram did not find proper initial conditions and rules after running (according to rumors) several million simulations

@lasttheory

Жыл бұрын

You're right, Wolfram's is not a complete theory, for sure! There's so much in it, though, that's promising, regardless of the initial conditions and rules we might choose. For example, Jonathan Gorard's derivations of aspects of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics from the graph doesn't depend on particular rules. Thanks for the comment, Yarov. I hope we'll see further progress on the initial conditions and rules soon!

@renegadedalek5528

Жыл бұрын

Does it make predictions? Are those predictions accurate? If Yes to both it is a theory in embryo. may I cheekily suggest you want to binge watch the entire series after seeing the teaser trailer rather than watch each episode on a weekly basis.

I'm a great admirer of Prof. Wolfram and I find the Mathematica so exciting in so many aspects! I have used it since version 4. Anyway, Einstein published! Why won't Wolfram? He's known as such a prolific writer why not? So, we just have to wait until his framework finally tells us something that is not already known, all the while we have to take his word for it. Is this how science is done today? While I've enjoyed watching his interviews, and I don't mind his gigantic ego, it makes me wonder if it's talking or him. Will it ultimately turn out that his framework is just another derivation of current frameworks, while other eyes might see this in the meantime, if they could see some published work.

@lasttheory

2 жыл бұрын

Great questions, thanks William! Yes, Albert Einstein did publish, on paper, which was the primary communication medium of his day. And Stephen Wolfram has published, too, on the web, which is the primary communication medium of _his_ day. Not, admittedly, in a peer-reviewed journal. But maybe there are ideas that don't fit into the straitjacket of academia, with all its strict requirements as to the precise formatting of footnotes? There's so much more to say on this... thanks for raising the issue!

@PareshMathur

2 жыл бұрын

@@lasttheory if precise formatting of footnotes is stopping him I think we can easily crowdfund a typesetter. Hell I'll do it for free, I think I know enough LaTeX

@ailblentyn

2 жыл бұрын

I am not qualified to judge Wolfram’s ideas, but it does seem that every time I hear an interview with him he is very excited because his approach is just on the verge of reproducing important physics. He does a lot of promising.

@lasttheory

2 жыл бұрын

@@ailblentyn Yes, you're right, Wolfram Physics looks promising but so far hasn't delivered any verifiable results. I think we're going to have to be patient! Relativity wasn't verified (by measuring the deflection of light from distant stars due to the curvature of space-time close to the Sun) for many years after Einstein first proposed it. Wolfram Physics faces an even more daunting hurdle: the nodes and edges so small that the effects of the graph on larger scales are going to be difficult to measure. That said, computational irreducibility _doesn't_ mean that we'll never be able to measure large-scale effects that depart from current theories. It's a huge challenge, but progress so far is promising enough to pursue it! Thanks for the reminder that any theory of physics must make falsifiable predictions!

@TheWooTubes

11 ай бұрын

I don't have any problem with someone sharing their 'laboratory notebook' with the world, before they've reached any conclusion and publishing later when a stable state is reached. That's quite brave and it allows others to join in with collaborative science for mutual benefit. It's slightly less appealing if someone might take all the credit for, and profit from, any ideas other people put forward. I haven't read the small print on Wolfram Physics yet but I've seen it be a problem in FOSS development. Social Capital accrual can have the Intellectual Property rights of the Wild West.

I still haven't seen a clear connection between Wolfram's hypergraph and the universe. I've seen cool-looking evolving graphs, but why should this be a model of reality at all? Where are the particles? Where are the laws of motion? Where is the action principle? I haven't seen anything except some intuition and hope that there will be persisting structures in the graph. OK, even if some day we have the computational power to find some persisting structures, I will still need to see that these structures "move" in a way that obeys, e.g., momentum conservation. There is just TOO much still needed before we have any reason to believe that these pretty graphics have anything to do with physics. To draw an analogy between Einstein and Wolfram is premature, if not scandalous. I admire Wolfram, I like him, I love Mathematica, he has done so much good in this world, he's a true genius. But let's not jump the gun, I don't think the new physics project has taken off, and I don't know if we will ever have the computational power to make any verifiable predictions with it, simply because it requires enormous brute force to compute anything with it.

@lasttheory

7 ай бұрын

These are good questions. Unfortunately, accounts of Wolfram Physics rarely go so deep as to answer these questions, but there _are_ answers! There is much in general relativity and quantum mechanics that has already been well modelled by Wolfram Physics. For example, for an account of how Jonathan Gorard has been able to derive Einstein's equations, i.e. general relativity, from the Wolfram model, see my video _How to derive general relativity from Wolfram Physics_ kzread.info/dash/bejne/Y6ieyqdphZDTl8Y.html Particles is more difficult. Wolfram Physics hasn't got there yet. For an introduction to why, see my video _What is a particle in Wolfram's universe?_ kzread.info/dash/bejne/qmaHlK6wiKycd6w.html You'll notice that the derivations of general relativity and quantum mechanics don't take any computational power. Jonathan Gorard has derived the results using good old-fashioned mathematics, applied to the hypergraph. Again, particles are more difficult. I suspect they _will_ take significant (perhaps unattainable) computational power to discover. You're right that we need much more before we can be confident that Wolfram's approach is right. But the ability to derive general relativity and quantum mechanics is, in my mind, a very strong connection with reality, and reason enough to at least take the Wolfram model seriously. Not enough people know about these results! Hope that helps. I'm really excited about this new approach, which is more than I can say for any other approach to physics in my lifetime. Thanks for watching!

There is only one shape in our universe that can describe both a particle and a wave and that is a corkscrew. And, a corkscrew wave/particle has a basic ingredient in our 3D world that it is either travelling with a clockwise or alternatively an anti-clockwise action. This gives us two opposing actions which is also equal to the number of opposing charges that we have in this universe. If we're bothering to look for a mechanical basis than I can't see why we should skip passed this naturally occurring process of opposition?

@rokko_hates_japan

4 ай бұрын

Because it's too simple and elegant. You can't get grant money or woo the masses with such a practical idea 😆

@himmeldrachen1

Ай бұрын

Now that is interesting! Has there been any more work done on this concept?

I am not very knowledgeable about this, but if it just describes computational rules, then it cannot be the last theory. The last theory would describe the computer that performs these computations. Or am I missing something?

@lasttheory

3 ай бұрын

Thanks Hans! Stephen Wolfram's theory doesn't involve an actual computer running these computations. Rather, it's a model, describing the universe _as if_ these computations were being performed (just as Newton's laws of motion describe the universe _as if_ the mathematical equations he came up with were being solved by a mathematician). This is a fascinating question, so I created a trilogy of videos about it. Take a look here: _The computer that runs the universe trilogy_ kzread.info/head/PLVwcxwu8hWKng3gsKKzmSw56ehIjENyh9

I can't comment on Wolfram physics because I'm reading through Wolfram's books at the moment and I'm far too early in that journey to say anything useful. However, I can comment on this line of reasoning and two things occur to me: 1. Anyone who claims that their new wonderful theory overturns physics, no matter how bonkers, can make this same comparison. 2. Just because Einstein overturned Newtonian mechanics doesn't mean that a Newtonian approach isn't useful for a lot of things, the knowledge that the "old physicists" have is still useful and so the threat of a new framework making them redundant is not so great.

@lasttheory

3 ай бұрын

Thanks Geoff! Two good points! 1. Yes, absolutely. It's important that the new theory actually _be_ wonderful! I've dedicated the other 50+ videos on my channel to exploring whether Wolfram's framework is, indeed, wonderful. 2. And yes, absolutely. You can derive Einstein's equations from the Wolfram model. In other words, Wolfram Physics doesn't _overturn_ General Relativity, rather, it gives a lower-level explanation of General Relativity.

2:01 a steam engine does not generate energy, neither does mass say how much something weighs but I get what you were trying to say

@lasttheory

2 ай бұрын

Thanks Julius! Yes, I'm being a little loose here, but I stand by my looseness. Energy _does_ come out of a steam engine, even if you have to put energy in, e.g. in the form of coal. Here on Earth, things with more mass _do_ weigh more than things with less mass. And according to KZread analytics, Earth is where _most_ of my viewers live ;-)

But this analogy works for anything that isn't considered the "mainstream". Just as an example another totally different kind of reconception of physics is exploring the role of consciousness and its part if any in fundamental reality. The analogy you gave applies equally as well to someone doing that kind of reconception. Whether its Wolfram physics or any other framework what needs to be done is apply as good of criticism to it as possible. The better the criticism the sooner we can find out what is wrong with it or see that it actually does hold up and therefore warrants more of our attention and criticism. One of the main things that puts me off about Wolfram is the way that he engages with criticism and what appears to me to be a lack of self awareness. Like anything else if someone tells me about "this new thing that's amazing in everyway and is the answer to so much" the very first thing I'm going to do is try to figure out what is wrong with it, not what is right. I'm not going to go looking for those that have good things to say about it but those that have serious issues with it. If none of that is convincing to me then that is a good sign that there might be something there after all. We live in a very different time from 1905. For anything that I believe, whether its mainstream or entirely outside of it I can at any point in time find good criticism of it in a matter of seconds on the internet. The only thing that surprises me is people's unwillingness to do that very thing. We'd much rather spend time trying to find the best arguments for why we are right, not why we are wrong. Which at least to me appears to be the case with Wolfram.

@lasttheory

3 ай бұрын

Thanks, Michael. I agree with much of what you say. I would ask you, though, to have some forbearance with Stephen Wolfram's communication style. I agree, it's not good to be dismissive of criticism. In the end, however, we have to judge new ideas not according to how good or bad a communicator their progenitors are, but according to how good or bad the _ideas_ are. And that's what leads me to believe that the Wolfram model is promising: the _ideas_ seem good to me.

# Part 1 The idea that reality is a quantum superposition is a relatively new one, but it is gaining traction among physicists and philosophers. It is based on the observation that quantum particles can exist in multiple states at once, until they are observed. This means that the universe itself could be in a superposition of multiple states, and that our observations collapse the wave function and create a single reality. This idea is consistent with the occult perspective of Consensual Reality. In occultism, it is believed that reality is created by our thoughts and beliefs. When we agree on something, it becomes real. This is similar to the idea of quantum superposition, in which the universe is in a state of flux until we observe it. Wolfram's work on Branchial History also supports the idea of a quantum superposition reality. Wolfram argues that the universe is constantly branching into multiple possible futures. These branches are all equally real, but we only experience one of them. This is similar to the idea of a quantum superposition, in which the universe is in a state of superposition of multiple states, and our observations collapse the wave function and create a single reality. So, what does this mean for us? It means that we have the power to create our own reality. Our thoughts and beliefs shape the universe, and our observations collapse the wave function and create a single reality. This is a powerful idea, and it has the potential to change the way we think about the world. In this view, reality is not an objective thing that exists independently of us. Instead, it is a shared construct that is created by our minds. When we observe or define something, we are essentially creating it within our shared imagination. This idea has implications for our understanding of free will. If reality is created by our observations, then we have more free will than we thought. We can choose which reality we want to experience. This idea also has implications for our understanding of consciousness. If consciousness is what collapses the wave function, then consciousness may be more fundamental than we thought. It may be the force that shapes the universe. # Part 2 FOIA requests could be helpful in uncovering more information about the US government's involvement in occult research. There have been a number of reports that the government has conducted experiments in this area, and it would be interesting to see if any of these reports can be verified. Some occult methods have been used to develop useful technology. For example, the US military has used remote viewing techniques to gather intelligence. Additionally, some companies have used sigil magick to improve their sales. Occult methods are not unscientific by any means. They are simply different from the methods used in traditional science. Occult methods often involve working with the subconscious mind, and they can be very effective and consistent when used correctly. Many of the techniques used in occultism eventually evolved into sound psychological principles. In fact, the methods which survive use are based on a deep understanding of the nature of reality, humanity, and our place within it. However, occult methods take work. They are not a quick and easy way to get results. I believe that the government's approach to occult research was flawed. They were looking for a quick and easy way to develop new weapons and technologies. However, occultism is not a weapon. These skills require a deep understanding of the underlying principles, and they require a lot of practice. The government has taken some shortcuts in their occult research. They have focused on the quick results, and they have neglected the more difficult and spiritual aspects of occult practice. This has led to some of the government's known occult experiments being unsuccessful, while others such as meditation were coopted to harmful ends. I think it is important to remember that modern occult research is still in its early stages. We are only beginning to understand the potential of these methods, and we have a lot to learn. I believe that if we are willing to put in the work, we can make significant progress in this field of research. I think it is important to talk about research that bridges the gaps between objective and subjective realities, and to share our knowledge and experiences. I believe that by working together, we can make significant progress in nearly all fields of academia. I believe that it is equally important to study occultism in a rigorous and scientific way. We need to understand the principles behind occult techniques, and we need to continue to develop ways to use these techniques safely and effectively. I believe that this research could have a profound impact on our understanding of the world and our place in it. # Part 3 My perspective on the role of intention in observation is that it is essential. Our intention shapes what we observe and how we interpret it. For example, if we are observing a person's behavior with the intention of understanding their emotions, we will experience different things than if we are observing them with the intention of understanding their motives. Intention can also be computed. There are a number of methods for doing this, such as eye tracking, facial expression recognition, and speech analysis. These methods can be used to track the observer's attention, identify their emotional state, and understand their goals. However, it is important to note that intention is not always easy to compute. There are many factors that can influence intention, such as the observer's past experiences, their cultural background, and their current state of mind. As a result, it is often difficult to accurately measure intention with computational methods. Despite these challenges, I believe that intention is an important concept that can be used to improve our understanding of observation. By understanding the role of intention, we can better understand how our own observations are shaped. The idea of a quantum superposition reality is consistent with the Material Atomics Framework by Michael Shilo. In the Material Atomics Framework, reality is seen as a dynamic system of interconnected parts. These parts are constantly interacting with each other, and they are constantly changing. This means that reality is not a fixed thing, but is constantly in flux. The idea of quantum superposition is also consistent with the Material Atomics Framework. In quantum mechanics, particles can exist in multiple states at once. This means that reality itself could be in a superposition of multiple states. However, the Material Atomics Framework also goes beyond quantum mechanics. It suggests that there are other aspects of reality that have not yet been fully understood. For example, the Material Atomics Framework suggests that there is a field of energy that permeates all of reality. The Material Atomics Framework is a complex and challenging theory. However, it is also a theory that has the potential to revolutionize our understanding of reality. If the theory is correct, then it could mean that we are living in a much more complex and interconnected world than we ever imagined. # Conclusion I believe that the bridge between the occult and mainstream science is closer than many people think. There are already many people who are working on bridging this gap, and I believe that their work will continue to bear fruit in the years to come.

@jeffbrownstain

10 ай бұрын

The tldr of this is that Wolfram only proved what some of us intuit.

@rokko_hates_japan

4 ай бұрын

Nonsense. Quantum is meaningless. It's simply a measurement at a particular moment in time. Superposition is just another way to say "magic," because people want to believe it.

Kind of strange, I keep subscribing and keep getting unsubscribed. Anyway, I love your work and have done numerous episodes on my channel on Wolfram and the implications of his theory and I would love to have you as a guest to talk about your goals for your channel. Maybe that would help you get a few more subscribers, as I believe what you are doing is very valuable

@lasttheory

2 жыл бұрын

That's weird! If you continue to have problems subscribing on KZread, you can also subscribe at lasttheory.com and I'll send you an email whenever I put out a new article/podcast/video. And yes, I'd love to join you on your channel! Thanks for your kind comments. If you send me a message at lasttheory.com/contact we can discuss further!

I have heard of it; hasn't everyone?

@lasttheory

9 ай бұрын

You've heard of it? That makes me happy, thanks Rick! I've yet to come across anyone in real life who has!

How might James Clerk Maxwell thought of Einstein's theories, if her were still alive?

@lasttheory

3 ай бұрын

It's always tempting to speculate that earlier, brilliant scientests would be blown away by later, brilliant scientists' new theories. But the reality is often that the old guard can never quite bring themselves to accept the new theories. Einstein's a good example: he could never quite bring himself to accept quantum mechanics.

Cool... I once glinced at what Wolfram performed a lecture about "Automata and fractal". There is an Wolfram's Physics! I have my own theory about this cosmos. I think cosmos is one, and there's nothing that can escape this cosmos to outside. Then every creatures input their power or force to Cosmos, and Cosmos which is an environment as to the creature or an individual or a subset forces feedback to the creature. And it reminds me of "Mandelbrot's Set". And its formula of the set; f(x)=z²+c; is quite similar to the formula "E=mc² + E_kinetic". And recently I learned "Bohmian Physics = Pilot wave theory = Bohm's quantum physics". Based on the video that shows the below; one bouncing waterdrop inputs its bouncing force to the surface of a waterpool that is covered by very little silicon-oil, and the waterpool is fluctuating, which means it waves, and the wave force back again to the waterdrop. I think quantum tunneling is possible when the force from the waterpool to the waterdrop accumulates enough for the waterdrop to jump over the system's wall. I think, One closed system has a rule of FEEDBACK; because an object and its environment is not separate, actually is a whole one; which can be formulated by "Mandelbrot's set" and "E_static = mc² + E_kinetic" I'm also interested in Self-replication and Automata from John Von Neumann, Wolfram, and Conway.

@lasttheory

Жыл бұрын

According to Wolfram Physics, particles may be effectively self-preserving automata. It's amazing how these ideas in computation may come to represent real phenomena in physics!

Cool channel!

@lasttheory

2 жыл бұрын

Thanks Juan! I'll keep the videos coming!

1. The structure of the universe is space-time; 2. Space and time are fundamentally the same thing; 3. Physics is complex mathematical equations; 4. Some people have ears which stick out massively, although not as far as the size of the universe.

@simonmultiverse6349

Жыл бұрын

If I fell into one of those ears, would I be stretched like wet spaghetti, then go beyond the event horizon, so that the only evidence of my existence would be a slight increase in the mass of the black hole?

@lasttheory

Жыл бұрын

I can't comment on ears, but I do disagree with 1., 2. and 3.! For 1. and 2., take a look at my video _Space-time is dead_ kzread.info/dash/bejne/la6e0Maih9XeYqQ.html - maybe I'll persuade you that space and time are _not_ fundamentally the same thing? For 3., I agree that for the last few hundred years, physics has been based on mathematical equations. But Stephen Wolfram might be changing that. This might be a turning point in physics, a transition from mathematics to computation. Let me know what you think!

@rokko_hates_japan

4 ай бұрын

Computations are just maths happening over time.... I know he thinks that the time element is essential, but it's still math.

Some random thoughts: What is the computational power of the universe? Does it ever make mistakes?

@lasttheory

5 ай бұрын

Good questions, Neale! I don't think we know yet how computation happens: see my video _What is the multiway graph in Wolfram Physics?_ kzread.info/dash/bejne/g6KXp6RvmZXUhbw.html However it turns out, it'd be fascinating to answer your first question: what is the computational power of the universe. As for mistakes, I think if it _did_ make mistakes, i.e. didn't perform computations quite the way we predicted, then that'd be a sign that our _theory_ is mistaken. We'd have to revise our theory to take account of the "mistakes". After all, it's the _universe_ that's the measure of whether any theory of physics is correct or mistaken!

@rokko_hates_japan

4 ай бұрын

No such thing as a mistake my friend. Because there is no correct way nor is there anything to compare to.

This is a facile presentation. To this day, Newton’s gravitation and Maxwell’s equations are used to this day. It’s a matter of context and domain.

@lasttheory

9 ай бұрын

I completely agree with you, Rob, about Newton and Maxwell. Their contributions to physics are timeless. I don't think calling Einstein's contribution revolutionary - or Wolfram's contribution potentially revolationary - in any way detracts from earlier physicists' achievements.

@TIO540S1

9 ай бұрын

@@lasttheory Perhaps that’s not how you meant it, but the visualization of a bunch of old physicists bemoaning their now archaic knowledge has that implication. Einstein’s work was of a revolutionary level rarely achieved (Newton perhaps, or Galileo, Archimedes, even Maxwell) but it did not render previous physics useless. Admittedly, it can be difficult to acknowledge gaps in paradigms learned over a lifetime. I’m 69 and have to be constantly on guard against that tendency. As to Wolfram, he’s clearly brilliant and also clearly flawed in some respects. I highly respect his many accomplishments. Hardly a day goes by when I don’t use Mathematica (now, unsurprisingly, the Wolfram Language) or Wolfram System Modeler and I’m just starting on his “Second Law” writing. Of course, it has the typical “I have seen what no one else has seen” flavor. Even if that’s true, there’s something distasteful about having to constantly declare it.

You're absolutely right about this. If you spend any real time studying Wolfram physics, the insights abound. Its remarkable. Its strange, to be in the place where you've understood a fair amount of this theory, and are now watching the rest of the world _not getting it. Its like being trapped in a bubble of the future suspended in an ocean of the past.

@lasttheory

Жыл бұрын

Yes, it's strange hearing spurious objections to Wolfram Physics, such as that it's unrelated to reality. I think the objectors just don't know that you can derive General Relativity and aspects of Quantum Mechanics from the hypergraph. That doesn't mean that Wolfram Physics is _right,_ but it does mean that it's definitely worth looking into!

@MarkDStrachan

Жыл бұрын

@@lasttheory I see you're putting a lot of energy into promoting the theory, and I think that's great! The theory needs and deserves that attention. I was thinking about ideas many people have in their heads that could be changed by Wolfram physics in a useful way. If people could get an insight that changes the way they see the world, that could really help with viral promotion of the theory. I think the point of opportunity here is "many worlds" quantum mechanics. Its an idea that has penetrated the popular psyche, in which every choice made in the world results in the universe bifurcating into a new branch via transitive closure, and so the universe becomes the multiverse, and every sci-fi screen writer goes nuts over the idea. Wolfram's branchial space literally cuts the link to that transitive closure to the entire universe, so that decision branches only happen "locally." Instead of the entire universe branching as one great monolith, the universe now branches locally. The universe can branch in two different locations with two different local branches that have nothing to do with each other. Then, eventually, every branch merges, so we get one global reality, with a multitude of shimmering temporary mini branches all over the place, which trend toward stabilization. Giving regular people the intellectual credit and recognizing that they could individually modify their mental architecture about how the universe works, and pointing out to them that the need for many worlds quantum mechanics goes away with branchial space--that could be an idea that gives individuals a good shock - a good kick in the pants change in their world view, and if you can do that and make that viral, it could carry along a wave of viral curiosity about Wolfram's ideas. What do you think?

@lasttheory

Жыл бұрын

@@MarkDStrachan Yes, this is good stuff, you obviously understand branchial space really well. I'm going to start digging into the multiway graph in a future episode, which'll be out November 24. I'm going to be stressing exactly what you say, that this is _not_ like the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. These are difficult ideas to communicate, but I'll do my best!

@MarkDStrachan

Жыл бұрын

@@lasttheory Well, or perhaps I misunderstand it well. But perhaps you'll indulge my rambling a bit here and I can give my perspective on all this, and maybe it will help? These are beautiful and abstract concepts and architecture, and they are a challenge to absorb--but I think branchial space is an excellent tool to aid in one's understanding of quantum coherence, quantum entanglement and quantum mechanics in general. I think the key may be to compare and contrast multiverse or many-worlds quantum mechanics and the capabilities of branchial space, because in some ways they are similar but in other ways they are different. I'll try to compare and contrast them here: I think the key similarity is that both involve "branching" - you can have superposition of states computing alternative versions of the universe simultaneously, based on different configurations of spacetime that have 'branched' into superposition, and this happens in both theories. Its really useful to think of spacetime as a graph when trying to understand what many-worlds is suggesting. Its saying that any time you have a local superposition, you drag the entire spacetime graph in by transitive closure into a new set of spacetime branches--many-worlds quantum mechanics implies that the number of universes is constantly exploding with every new opportunity to branch, and the branches never resolve. The key difference between branchial space and many-worlds is that super positions can happen locally in branchial space, and super positions can happen locally, because the whole structure is a multi-way system. You can think of the rule updates across spacetime, as a multi-threaded computation, where each chain of time, or causality--i.e. a linear spacetime thread--can move independently to any other chain of causality (though they may interact.) This lets you slide everything past everything else--it gives you degrees of freedom that allow spacetime dilation to occur--its like each thread of local spacetime is a fibre, and you're holding them in a bundle, and those fibres can translate past each other while inside the bundle(like a handful of uncooked spaghetti), depending on how you observe them (Or foliate them.) The independence also cuts the links that would otherwise cause spacetime to clone the complete transitive closure of the spacetime graph in a branch action. That's not necessary with branchial space, and its the key insight that chops up the continuity of space in a way that's not part of many-worlds quantum mechanics. So, decisions in your universe that cause a local spacetime branch, only effect those local areas of causal chains, which may spread out at the speed of light, but the speed of light, only spreads your influence so far--so here I'm considering "local" to mean within your light cone. For example if we have a toy universe, with 7 different causal chains that caused a superposition, locally, in wolfram physics, this might cause 7 different local branches, that are each independent. Lets say, each branch has two optional configurations a, and b. If we were looking at this type of branching in many-worlds, the total number of worlds would be 2^7, or 128, because you'd need branches for every decision's effect on every other decision making 128 possible combination of each of the two branches, multiplying each other for all seven decisions. In wolfram physics, you just have 7 separate, temporary, independent branches, and they all resolve into 1 universe over time. In many-worlds your branches persist, so the number of universes is constantly exploding with every new branch. If we added an 8th decision, we'd double the number of universe in one go, to 256. In wolfram physics that number stays constant at 1, no matter how many branches occur. The other key difference between branchial space and many-worlds, is that every branch in branchial space eventually merges back to the main trunk, over time. That's what keeps Wolfram physics universe a universe and not a multi-verse. So each small branch becomes a little hyper-crystal in this mathematical space, with local symmetries, and a temporary lifespan. Global spacetime is full of these shimmering crystals of superposition coming into and out of existence. Many-worlds, explosively creates many entire universes, until there's an infinite number of them and its full of paradoxes and makes no sense. I don't think the people that came up with many worlds quantum mechanics had the intellectual architecture to create the moving parts of Wolfram physics, because they ignored computation, and the moving parts of wolfram physics make much of the functionality of the universe make a lot more sense. Thinking of the universe computationally, and mathematical descriptions just as simplifications or symbolic representations of the computationally reducible parts of the system, its a whole new way of seeing the world. I think Wolfram has made a major contribution here, and I hope academia can eventually catch up.

@lasttheory

Жыл бұрын

@@MarkDStrachan There's so much here! I'm going to have to do a lot more thinking about branchial space as I get into this. And yes, it's clear that causal invariance - the coming together of different paths through the multiway graph - is key. Thanks for your insights, Mark; much more to come on this.

Except Einstein was in fact trained as a mathematician and physicist. He was deeply steeped in the research of his scientific predecessors.

@lasttheory

3 ай бұрын

Yes, thanks Glen. You're right, Einstein did know a few things about mathematics and physics, albeit not all that much by today's standards. Stephen Wolfram and Jonathan Gorard, the progenitors of Wolfram Physics, _also_ know a few things about mathematics and physics, a whole lot more, in fact, than Einstein did in 1905. It's not what you know, it's what you _do_ with it. Or, as Einstein himself once said: "Imagination is more important than knowledge."

@glenrotchin5523

3 ай бұрын

@@lasttheory prior to Einstein physics was an experimental science. He turned it into a theoretical science. The very notion of a ‘thought experiment’ was inconceivable (literally) prior to Einstein. Physics is about physical reality after all. The methodology was to experiment and then explain what was happening and why. Nowadays it’s precisely the other way around. Think something up and then devise an experiment to explain it. That seems to be Wolfram’s approach as well. Actually, as far as I can tell, he works exclusively in the virtual informational realm. So it’s not even certain there will be any relevance or application to the ‘real’ world. It’s gotten to the point that scientific ‘thinkers’ calling themselves ‘physicists’ deny the very existence of the physical world. Call me old fashioned but I have my doubts (as with untestable string theory) we will get anywhere with this approach.

Umm no. Einstein wasn’t awarded the Nobel prize for relativity or quantum mechanics. He was awarded it for the Photoelectric effect.

@lasttheory

26 күн бұрын

Yes, exactly! I didn't go into the detail here of how the Nobel committee just couldn't bring themselves to recognize quantum mechanics or relativity, even though, in recognizing Einstein's work on the photoelectric effect, they implicitly endorsed the idea of a photon, i.e. quantization. All this reluctance reinforces my point: it was hard for the old guard to change their minds when Einstein came along.

@GoatOfTheWoods

12 күн бұрын

You haven't even listened past the first 40 sec to realise it was meant as sarcasm. He literally says that.

What if Einstein had a blog and KZread?

@lasttheory

Жыл бұрын

Yes, exactly! Stephen Wolfram is revolutionizing not just our ideas about physics, but our ideas about how science is done: not solo, not in the isolation of an ivory tower, but publicly, collaboratively, online.

@LadenChannel

Жыл бұрын

@@lasttheory Listening to Wolfram’s explanation of chat GPT

Agree

"Time" is the same as the plane of the horizon, except that the time plane is moving and we are stuck on it.

I disagree. Wolfram ideas are not so from causal networks camp, which is becoming quite noticable. However, Wolfram is never sited

@lasttheory

Жыл бұрын

Thanks for the comment! Yes, there's plenty of other work out there at the intersection of computation and physics. I hope Wolfram's never being cited will change... his project's contribution is significant and might prove extremely significant in the future!

As I understand it, wolfram hasn't completed his theory yet, let alone made verifiable predictions from it. So as one of many unproven ideas, why would it be well known? Yes it's a little disturbing if it turns out space and time emerge from a network, but I'll bet if he unifies quantum mechanics and relativity with a theory that can explain everything that has happened between t=0 and t=13.7e9 years, people will listen!

@lasttheory

Жыл бұрын

You're right, there's nothing close to a verifiable prediction yet. But there are signs that Stephen Wolfram's approach could yield physics as we know it. Jonathan Gorard has been able to derive results in general relativity and quantum mechanics, for example, from the graph, along with a few assumptions, including causal invariance. That seems to me worth paying attention to! Thanks for the comment, Andy, I appreciate the feedback.

@DrWhom

8 ай бұрын

" it's a little disturbing if it turns out space and time emerge from a network" umm, no, the physics community has been well aware that something like that must be the case. However, halfbaked handwaving does not constitute an advance - all of us do that while shaving. Nobelists 't Hooft and Penrose have both published their own attempts, somewhat less halfbaked than Wolfram's...

Wolframs TOE was debunked by a 19 year old Scott Aaronson at the time. His argument is that Wolfram’s theory is based on classical cellular automata that could never give rise to the quantum nature of the Universe.

@lasttheory

8 ай бұрын

Thanks for the comment. Maybe you could take a look at my latest video? Jonathan Gorard has a pretty compelling path from the Wolfram model to quantum mechanics which he explains in just over 10 minutes. I’d be interested to hear what you think!

Computations suppose what must be explained to begin with :A SEMANTIC SURPLUS which is everywhere as the grounding roots in linguistic, in natural sciences, in physics,in maths. A semantic conversion and a semantic turn is necessary which A.I. scientists dont seems to understand at all.Consciousness is grounded in this meanings surplus which must be understood as being "meanings" transcending any possible computations. Consciousness is not only intentional but it is an "appeal" and a "call". This call is the other and it is also the one. The most fundamental in maths is a semantical surplus which is observed and not created. Maths transcend any computations. As a Star does not dwell in a telescope. Maths is not computations it is music from this semantic surplus which stay unexplained. Godel knows it, Peirce knows it Goethe knows it Grothendieck knows it as Cantor did, Shai Haran knows it and Mochizuki knows it too . Wolfram dont even see it. He hate the word "semantic" and even say it almost because he does not need any "semantic" concept discussing with Gorard which is more cautious about the Ruliad concept. The only A. I. genius who understand this semantic surplus and align all his concepts on it is Anirban Bandyopadhyay whose basic concept make Wolfram notion appear simplistic. If you look for a new Einstein look for the book "nanobrain" and forget Wolfram.

@lasttheory

3 ай бұрын

Thanks, Denis. I wonder if you'd be interested in my other project, Open Web Mind, where I'm exploring the possibilities of the knowledge hypergraph? Take a look at www.youtube.com/@openwebmind

@denistremblay8029

3 ай бұрын

@@lasttheory Thanks for your good work i will go with your informative site thanks I will have a look soon ... And i will comment...

@lasttheory

3 ай бұрын

@@denistremblay8029 Thanks, Denis, I look forward to hearing what you think!

ALL I CAN SAY IS: U ARE REALLY GOOD.

M

I would have to learn what this is before having an opinion about it. It took me years to understand Einstein's basic ideas (not the math, just the general ideas). I know more needs to be discovered. They don't know how to make gravity "fit" with the other forces for a theory of everything. The string theorists got stuck.

@lasttheory

11 ай бұрын

Thanks, Becky. And of course, I can't help but say it, following this channel is the best way to learn more about Wolfram Physics!

You point out that Einstein could think outside of conventions because he was a young man. You also point out that since he was a patent clerk rather than a physicist in academia, this allowed him to think outside the box because he had no vested interest in the status quo. I would add that the fact that he was a Jew in an intensely antisemitic society also facilitated him thinking outside the box because he was aware that there was no point in seeking the acceptance of his peers. He was never going to be accepted by his peers. That is very liberating. Einstein was very conscious of his fragile place in gentile society, and that he would always be an outsider. As he famously said: “If my theory of relativity is proven successful, Germany will claim me as a German and France will declare me a citizen of the world. Should my theory prove untrue, France will say that I am a German, and Germany will declare that I am a Jew.”

Happy to see i am not the only one who thinks Stephen Wolfram will change science forever!

@lasttheory

Жыл бұрын

Yes, these could be exciting times!

@TheDavidlloydjones

10 ай бұрын

@@lasttheory These are certainly exciting times and Wolfram is very good at pretty graphics. He's also an annoying, pretentious, and derivative little kid, and he should stop it.

I notice that you are ignoring the fact that he was right! His mathematics are still perfect! Science doesn't care about your feelings! (Opinions and Beliefs) are emotions! Education is greater than Opinions and Beliefs combined. E>(O+B) =QUANTUM LOGIC The only question is can you apply them to yourself?

Go ahead, patent clerk. Make my day.

It's physics, Jim, but not as we know it.

@lasttheory

Жыл бұрын

Ha! Yes it is

Then, according to Wolfram, theory of relativity is wrong? No space-time?

@lasttheory

9 ай бұрын

No, according to Wolfram, relativity is _right._ Indeed, Jonathan Gorard has been able to derive Einstein's equations, i.e. General Relativity, from the hypergraph. Here's his crucial paper: Some Relativistic and Gravitational Properties of the Wolfram Model www.complex-systems.com/abstracts/v29_i02_a03/ But you're hitting on something when you say "no space-time". It's not that the equations of General Relativity are any different in Wolfram's universe from the way Einstein formulated them. It's just that the concept of "space-time", which has been misdirecting physicists ever since, turns out not to be the right way of looking at it. In the Wolfram model, space and time are _very_ different things: space is the hypergraph itself; time is the step-by-step evolution of the hypergraph. More on this in my video _Space-time is dead_ kzread.info/dash/bejne/la6e0Maih9XeYqQ.html THanks for the questions!

Henri Poincare published the theory of relativity two month before Einstein. Einstein plagiarised Poincare.

@lasttheory

Жыл бұрын

Yes, it's interesting how the credit is assigned - and misassigned - in physics. I think Einstein deserves enormous credit, but I agree that there were plenty of others who didn't get nearly the credit _they_ deserved.

@nickleader7985

11 ай бұрын

I was thinking the same thing. Thank you for mentioning this particular fraud.

@DrWhom

8 ай бұрын

not according to Poincaré himself

What is generating the hypergraph? A computer? Sounds like turtles on turtles...

@lasttheory

4 ай бұрын

Turtles on turtles indeed! Take a look at my video _How big is the computer that runs the universe?_ kzread.info/dash/bejne/dGhhs8iviZqWZ5M.html where I talk about this directly (there's even a picture of turtles all the way down!) The problem you point out, however, is a problem with _all_ theories of physics. Asking "Where's the computer that generates the hypergraph?" in Wolfram's theories is like asking "Where's the mathematician who solves the differential equations?" in Newton's theories of motion. The mathematics in Newton's theories is just a _model_ of how, e.g., the Earth moves around the sun. There's no actual mathematican solving the differential equations to determine the position of the Earth at any time. Similarly, the hypergraph in Wolfram's theories is just a _model_ of how the universe evolves. There's no actual computer applying the rules to determine the state of the universe at any time. Take a look at another video of mine _Where's the computer that runs the universe?_ kzread.info/dash/bejne/n2qkq5unlNare5s.html for more, and thanks for the question!

@lanceatone

4 ай бұрын

@@lasttheory Thanks, I'll check your other videos out!

What prediction does Wolfram physics make that current physics does not and that can be experimentally verified? This is the fundamental question that is not addressed and therefore this video does not show that Wolfram theory has any value.

@lasttheory

3 ай бұрын

Unfortunately, it's not possible to address every question about Wolfram Physics in a single 7-minute video! Fortunately, however, I have an entire channel of videos on the topic, if you're interested in finding out more. To answer your question, Wolfram Physics doesn't make any specific, novel predictions yet. Here's why I don't think that _too_ big a problem: kzread.info/dash/bejne/hnyA05Nwp7ybnqw.html _Why scientific theories need not make predictions._ And here's Jonathan Gorard on the kinds of predictions that Wolfram Physics _might be able to make:_ kzread.info/dash/bejne/ioCo2rqkpcrKZdo.html _Where's the evidence for Wolfram Physics?_ Hope that helps!

All physics model are equivalent. Unless they produce testable results or new insights. Conway already proposed the celluar universe back in the 1970's with his "Game of Life". A hyper-graph is simply a Hyped-up-Game-of-life(higher diamensions). Nothing new here.

@lasttheory

3 ай бұрын

Thanks Neil. I do have to disagree. Not all models are the same. Conway's Game of Life, for example, can't reproduce the laws of physics (indeed, it was never intended to be a theory of physics), but the Wolfram model _can_ (it can reproduce General Relativity; it can reproduce aspects of Quantum Mechanics). When we look at new ideas in physics, we do need to distinguish between those that are promising and those that are not.

@neilhankey2514

3 ай бұрын

The problem here is that you are just curve fitting your model against known theory's. And in any case where are the particles? I'd be most impressed if it predicted something new and testable but the best it seems to offer is a better explanation of Quantum physics, when of course this is correct. My issue isn't just with Wolfram Physics, its with esoteric theory's sucking up founding for more than 30 years going exactly nowhere! Finally, my math isn't good enough to distinguish hyper-graphs from graph theory it's self@@lasttheory

@lasttheory

3 ай бұрын

@@neilhankey2514 I agree, Neil, that there's a long way to go before the Wolfram model yeilds a fully-fledged theory. Novel predictions and a concept of particles are certainly needed in the long run. But I think you may be confusing Wolfram Physics with other ideas. There's no curve-fitting: that can only be done with highly-parameterized theories like String Theory. Indeed, the Wolfram model yields General Relativity with just three basic assumptions and no curve-fitting. And it has sucked up very little funding: the Wolfram Physics Project has been funded by Stephen Wolfram himself, and though Jonathan Gorard has been trying to bring the framework into mainstream academia, there's some resistance to it. I agree, esoteric theories _can_ suck up funding and go nowhere. I'm hoping this isn't one of them!

The same applies to Darwinian evolution in our day.

Title: "You Don't Know Anything About This? Well, I Do Know Something About That!" Comment: "Interesting title choice! It caught my eye because it assumes I don't know much about this topic, but funnily enough, I do have some knowledge about it! It's always fascinating to see different perspectives and information, and I'm glad to add my bit to the conversation. Great content as always, and I'm looking forward to learning even more with each video you post!"

@lasttheory

4 ай бұрын

That's great that you're already familiar with Wolfram Physics! I'm hoping this will be true of more and more people. Thanks for watching!

😎

@lasttheory

2 жыл бұрын

Thanks for following!

All I hear is mumble mumble hyperlinks mumble mumble computation. Perhaps nobody had heard of Einstein in 1905, but his key ideas could be articulated succinctly, his logic was concise, and he made verifiable predictions: muons live longer when they move fast, a fission chain reaction goes boom, starlight gets deflected by the sun. Without insightful ideas, or incisive reasoning, or verifiable predictions, it's hard to see what might distinguish Wolfram besides grandiose aspirations.

@lasttheory

4 ай бұрын

Yes, I agree, David, we do need insightful ideas and incisive reasoning. Wolfram Physics isn't at the stage of verifiable (novel) predictions yet, but there are plenty of compelling pointer. I'll add links to your other comment leading some papers you might want to take a look at if you want the truly hard mathematics. For overviews of the core ideas of Wolfram Physics, I have dozens of other videos on this channel. And do remember that it took many years after 1905 for Einstein to predict that, to take one of your examples, starlight gets deflected by the sun, let alone for observations to be made to confirm this phenomenon. Physics is hard!

With all the respect but making analogies with 1905 is extremely far fetched. There was a specific experimental reason why quantum theory of light was necessary. There is NO such reason for attempting to reformulate physics as cellular automata on hypergraph.

@lasttheory

3 ай бұрын

Thanks for the pushback, Tom! To be clear, I'm not saying that Stephen Wolfram's model is the _same_ as Einstein's 1905 papers. They're absolutely different beasts. I'm just trying to explain why Wolfram Physics has attracted so little interest from academic physicists, from a historical perspective. But I will push back on your pushback a little. It's easy to see the need for Einstein's 1905 papers in retrospect, but no one saw the need at the time. Planck already had the equations for black body radiation, which pointed clearly to quantum emission of light, but he saw no need to postulate photons. _No one_ was worried about whether the laws of motion needed revision close to the speed of light or whether energy and mass are equivalent. Einstein's papers came out of nowhere, not out of any need. And I could argue the opposite for the state of physics today. General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are clearly incompatible. Our explanation of the collapse of the wavefunction - that it's caused by an observation - is clearly poorly defined and philosophically abominable. No one really knows what happens at the Planck scale. No one really knows what happened at the Big Bang. I'd say there's a much stronger need for a model like Stephen Wolfram's that might solve this difficulties today than there was for Einstein's papers in 1905. Thanks for the comment, and let me know what you think!

This argument is misleading - plenty of people propose nonstandard theories - Einstein having success doesn't imply any of them are worthwhile.

@lasttheory

8 ай бұрын

Yes, that’s right. I’m drawing a parallel here, but it’s not an argument. The _argument_ for Wolfram Physics will rest on its ability to model the universe in an intuitive way. Thanks for the comment!

6 minutes about Einstein, 2 about Wolfram. The case Einstein was not the most extreme, and this case proves nothing. The dichotomy light as wave or as particle had existed since at least the 17th century, Huygens supporting the wave aspect, Newton the particle aspect. Let's not forget how much H. A. Lorentz and H. Minkowski contributed to the special relativity theory. And then Penrose's prove that consciousness can not be of algorithmic origin.

@lasttheory

11 ай бұрын

There's a lot in your comment! I was drawing an analogy, so yes, there's more about Einstein than about Wolfram. I'll go into Stephen Wolfram's life in more detail in future videos. And yes, physics has swung backwards and forwards between particles and waves, and yes, there are plenty around Einstein who should get more of the credit for relativity. Still, I don't think that detracts from Einstein's achievements. Incidentally, I disagree with Penrose's algorithmic argument against consciousness. I countered it in my book _The Human Computer_ way back in 1997. The big thing Penrose misses: randomness.

I can't belive how many channels that know zero physics and don't care enough to fact-check any claims make these stupid claims with no basis whatsoever. Misleading the public is not an appreciated service.

@lasttheory

11 ай бұрын

Thanks for the comment. If there's anything in my video that you think isn't right, please let me know! I'd be very happy to discuss what I've said what I've said, and if anything's wrong, I'll certainly correct it.

@davidrandell2224

11 ай бұрын

“The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy “, Mark McCutcheon for proper physics.

Problem is everything is interpretive. I like cellular automata, and I can think of ways self replicating geometries might play into things like the expansion of the universe and dark energy. However the problem with wolframs ideas is that it is interpreting something we don’t know yet. Ofcourse the rules of the universe are simpler than the complexity we see. And we might one day get them to hell lets say 10 simple one liner rules. But you cant find them through brute force and as a person involved in computation he knows you can’t do that. So why claim he has a theory? A theory that cannot be tested and makes no predictions is not a theory. If you tweak the rules of a Turing complete system you can find ways to replicate this world as is done in video games too. Just because you look for the one that looks like this one, does not mean you are getting anywhere. He is chasing his own tail. You can’t find anything you dont program, because we don’t have the computational power for it.

@lasttheory

10 ай бұрын

Thanks, Kian, these are good questions. You're right, what Stephen Wolfram has isn't a theory... but he doesn't claim that he has one. What he has is a framework that could be used to _find_ a theory. That's why he calls his project: "A Project to Find the Fundamental Theory of Physics". And I hear you when you say that randomly searching for a rule isn't going to work! But they're doing far more than that at the project. For example, they're looking at whole classes of rules to determine whether the hypergraphs they generate could accurately model our universe. Jonathan Gorard has proved that rules that follow a few basic assumptions can reproduce Einstein's equations of General Relativity, as well as aspects of Quantum Mechanics. I'm hoping to take a look at these derivations soon in my videos. They're crucial in giving us confidence that the Wolfram model is at least on the right track to finding a fundamental theory of physics.

@kianfallah2406

10 ай бұрын

@@lasttheory thank you so much for your reply. I will root for the project, as it is far more interesting to live in a world we understand. Hopefully they are far more smart and cunning than I can imagine and have come up with ways to gap the computational needs to test for fundamental rules. I hope this time they actually publish their findings in a scientific journal in a way scientists can examine later on independently. Again thank you for your response. And good day.

If Wolfram is right then Einstein's wrong.

@DrWhom

8 ай бұрын

nope

Comparing Einstein and Wolfram is ridiculous. Wolfram is a salesman.

@lasttheory

9 ай бұрын

Yep, thanks Glenn. It's not my intention here to say that Wolfram is Einstein. I agree, he's certainly not! My point is that we need to be open to revolutionary ideas, and, in my mind, the Wolfram model has the potential to be a revolutionary idea that works. Also (and I'm going to whisper this) I suspect that Einstein himself was something of a salesman.

?.. ohwhy do you call this physics… What problem has he solved? Einstein created concrete distinctions or a physical quantities. “ Wolfram Physics” seems to be mathematics… A methodology of recursion. Is that physics?

@lasttheory

9 ай бұрын

These are important questions, thanks Randy. You're right, Wolfram Physics is mathematics (or, more specifically, computation). But only in the same way as General Relativity is mathematics. Both give concrete results. Indeed, Wolfram Physics gives General Relativity: you can derive Einstein's equations from the hypergraph. And I think Wolfram Physics _does_ solve particular problems. For example, Wolfram Physics, as well as giving General Relativity, gives Quantum Mechanics: you can derive aspects of Quantum Mechanics from the causal graph. This solves real problems: the incompatibility of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics in existing physics, not to mention the question of how the observer collapses the wavefunction. There's a long way to go before this framework gives us specific predictions that differ from existing theories. But there's much more that's concrete in Wolfram Physics than there seems at first glance. There's so much to it that it takes some work to get there, but I'm slowly working through all the important results to come out of the framework on this channel. I hope you'll follow along!

Seems like strong confirmation bias/survivorship bias to associate the two things. People come up with revolutionary ideas all the time -- but 99.99999% of them are just wrong. Don't cherry pick the correct one to compare to a new one.

@lasttheory

9 ай бұрын

Right, most new ideas are wrong, for sure. Of course, that doesn't mean that we should reject all new ideas. It just means that we need to use our judgement in assessing whether each new idea is promising or obviously nonsense. I'd invite you to take a look at this particular new idea, Zac, because it seems to me extremely promising. I'm not basing that on nothing, I'm basing it on having taken a look at it and finding it the only idea in physics in my lifetime that seems like it could take us forward. If you're interested, I have 45 other videos on this channel going into Wolfram Physics in more detail. I hope you'll take a look!

Not an argument. Novelty is not evidence of truth, and physicists are not gatekeepers of physical knowledge. Today, everyone has heard of Einstein's theory not because they know, or understand it, but because the phrase "Einstein"s Theory of Relativity" is a meme. The fraction of the population who know enough about it to discuss it is minuscule. The reason that no one has heard of Wlofram's theory is because there are only a handful of people on the planet who are capable of understanding it.

@lasttheory

7 ай бұрын

Thanks for the comment! You're right, of course, that novelty is not evidence of truth. And you're right that "Einstein's Theory of Relativity" is a meme. I don't think it's fair to say, though, that everyone has heard of it _because_ it's a meme. It's a meme because it was an extraordinary advance in our understanding of the universe. _That's_ why everyone has heard of it: because it's important and it's right. And it needed physicists to recognize that it was important and right. As for only a few people on the planet understanding Wolfram Physics, well, I'm working on that! I don't think it's all that difficult to understand the basics. In many ways, it's much easier to understand than both Einstein's special and general theories of relativity (though, of course, it does ultimately include them). I hope you'll follow my channel and let me know whether you agree!

@da33smith37

4 ай бұрын

​​@@lasttheoryA pointer to material of substance would be appreciated. I watched this video hoping it would say something substantial, but it did not. For example, following Einstein I can demonstrate relativistic time dilation based on the constant speed of light. This can be done in less than 3 minutes (although the ramifications take longer). Tell us something insightful please.

@lasttheory

4 ай бұрын

@@da33smith37 Yes, thanks David. There's more to Wolfram Physics than I can fit into a 7-minute video, for sure. I do have plenty of other videos introducing the core ideas of Wolfram Physics: check them out on this channel. And if you'd like to go straight to the hard mathematics and physics, check out Jonathan Gorard's derivations of general relativity arxiv.org/abs/2004.14810 and aspects of quantum mechanics www.complex-systems.com/abstracts/v29_i02_a02/ from the hypergraph. I'll continue to explain these ideas in future videos. I hope you'll follow along!

@da33smith37

4 ай бұрын

@@lasttheory Thanks 😊

Ah yes, favourable comparisons to Einstein. One of classic red flags for recognizing crackpottery.

@lasttheory

3 ай бұрын

Again, to be clear, I'm not comparing Wolfram to Einstein. They're very different people with very different ideas in very different times. I'm just trying to illustrate why, historically, it has sometimes been hard to get new scientific ideas to be taken seriously.

Bit off the chart dude. This is a terrible analogy. Wolfram has been known for years, his ideas have been scanned by many experts, but he wrote some powerful algebra software (not free licence, though he could easily GPL it) so gets to strut around thinking he is the new A.E., so... bit of a non-self aware grifter? Also, to compute you gotta have substrate. Did Wolfie ever imagine maybe spacetime *_is_* the substrate? So he's reinventing the wheel starting with a more complicated wheel. justsayin'.

@lasttheory

9 ай бұрын

Thanks Bijou! Without getting into the positives and negatives of Stephen Wolfram's character, I'd just say that I think the physics community might profit from taking a closer look at his model. The merits of a theory bear little relation to the merits of its progenitor's character. I would disagree about space-time, though. Space-time, specifically Einstein's equations, can be derived from the hypergraph in the Wolfram model. Here's Jonathan Gorard's paper on how this works: www.complex-systems.com/abstracts/v29_i02_a03/ And in a couple of weeks, I'll have an excerpt from my conversation with Jonathan on how this derivation works. The point here is that if the hypergraph is what the universe is, you don't need space-time as a substrate: the hypergraph _is_ space. Thanks for watching and thanks for your comment!

“Why have we never heard of Wolfram’s physics?” - because a) it has yet to prove or explain anyting of significant, even to reproduce or add insight to existing theories, let alone explain something new; and b) because he refuses to publish his ideas in the mainstram scientific peer-reviewed journals, but instead funds his own books. His “new kind of science” is only new in the sense that it avoids the scientific method, of facing scientific srutiny, explaning new experimental observations or predicting new behaviours. It is just sa “new kind of simulation”. Wolfram is a great computer scientist, great business man and great self-publicist. But his new kind of science is really nothing more than an old kind of (computational) snake oil.

@lasttheory

9 ай бұрын

Thanks, Paul. I've been looking at Wolfram Physics for a couple of years now, and, sorry, but your claims are just not true. It _has_ reproduced existing theories. For example, it reproduces General Relativity. Here's the relevant paper: www.complex-systems.com/abstracts/v29_i02_a03/ It _does_ add insight to existing theories. For example, in reproducing aspects of Quantum Mechanics, it provides a coherent explanation of the role of the observer, something that has always been missing from the Copenhagen or any other interpretation. Again, here's the relevant paper: www.complex-systems.com/abstracts/v29_i02_a02/ And yes, you have a good point when you say that Stephen Wolfram prefers his own books to mainstream, peer-reviewed journals. The above papers, from Jonathan Gorard, _are_ published and peer-reviewed, but I'll admit that Complex Systems is not exactly a mainstream journal. Still, Wolfram's ideas are freely available on the web, so more open to scientific scrutiny than much academic research. And if you think that the Wolfram model avoids the scientific method, I'd be interested to hear how you feel it's unscientific? Peer review is certainly _not_ scientific. Take a look at my video on how it's suffocating science kzread.info/dash/bejne/oXphlLODeNybY7A.html or, if you prefer a more academic take on this, Adam Mastroianni's essay on the rise and fall of peer review www.experimental-history.com/p/the-rise-and-fall-of-peer-review

@lasttheory

9 ай бұрын

Hi Paul, one more thing, I'd love to hear how you came to think that Wolfram Physics is snake oil. Are there places you've heard this discussed? I'm asking because I'd like to talk to the people who've put these ideas out there. It'd make for a good discussion, perhaps for publication on this channel! Anyway, I'd be very grateful if you're able to let me know any sources. Thanks! Mark

Because the online text explaining your physics is riddled with mistakes and inconsistencies, and we are to busy to try to guess what you might be trying to tell us. Learn to proofread. Peer review hurts, but you are in dire need of it...

@lasttheory

8 ай бұрын

Sorry if you've been finding mistakes and inconsistencies! Are you talking about issues with text on The Wolfram Physics Project website? I'm not affiliated with the project in any way, so I can't help you with that, I'm afraid. But if you're talking about issues with text in my videos or on my website lasttheory.com, please do let me know! I'd really like to fix any mistakes or inconsistencies. Thanks!

Yeah Wolfram want's be another Einstein. That's all I see. This dude as a big ego

@lasttheory

5 ай бұрын

I hear you, Francesco. But isn't that true of many of the people who've made important discoveries in the past? If you have a big ego, it doesn't necessarily mean you're wrong.

Low energy nuclear reactions, exotic vacuum engineering, etc. is censored.