Computation and the Fundamental Theory of Physics - with Stephen Wolfram

Seems like a very nice and probably brilliant individual but he never actually explains how you get the laws of physics from patterns of computation. Yes I suppose with enough binary operations you can simulate anything - but, that explains nothing and predicts nothing. I cant find a single video that really shows how you get from computation or cellular automata to GR or QM. Could you actually show me how you derive E=mc2 from your work. Then I will be impressed.

Nice overview and I like the some deeper thoughts Stephan hints to. Yet despite all this hype, this computational model seems to be merely a new "convenient fiction" (to use the words of Kastrup) helping us make a model of the world, updating the former phyiscal models. But: what is the ontological meaning of it? If everything is an output of calculation, what is it that calculates, and how are the results of that calculations transferred into the physical world we observe with you senses? We are experiencing everything within our consciousness - how does this key aspect come into this computational theory? So, yes this can develop into a promising update to our physical models but I feel this is far away from anything that could be called a "theory of everything".

I asked chatGPT if the aristotlelian concept of "prime mover" in wolfram hyperpraph is the "rewriting"...
I just wanted to align the two metaphysics, but chatGPT did not like my movement:
-----
In Stephen Wolfram's model of the universe, the concept of the "prime mover" is not explicitly equated with the rewriting process or any specific aspect of the model. The "prime mover" is a term that originates from Aristotle's philosophy and represents a transcendent and unchanging source of motion and causality in the natural world.
---
ok... yes... I understand that wolfram is not tracking metaphysics... he will not address why something exists? why the hypergraph of space atoms is rewritten? How many space atoms are recruited for emerging the behavior of an electron?

Well... it seems that stephen's model is "materialistic".... he did not address this.... IT SEEMS that stephen's model first creates (rewrites) disembodied points into "morulas" that represent "kind of matter" then... in future rewritings it creates LIFE (things that metabolizes) and then, eventually, it creates CONSCIOUSNESS (observers?)
I guess stephen does not have time or interest in reading donald hoffman and colleagues postulating not "desimbodied points in a hypergraph"... but rather the terrible named "conscious agents" (it is not consciousness... they have no "agency") donald needs to rename all he is doing or he has a terrible plan of being misunderstood (like when odysseus said my name is "nobody"!!!)

Hypergraphs are mathematical structures that generalize traditional graphs by allowing hyperedges to connect multiple nodes. While hypergraphs offer a broader representation of relationships, they also introduce complexity and challenges that can make them less suitable as a theory of everything in the context of physics or any fundamental theory.

Here are some challenges and problems associated with using hypergraphs as a theory of everything:

Complexity: Hypergraphs can become very complex as the number of nodes and hyperedges increases. This complexity can make it challenging to develop clear and concise mathematical models, and it can also make calculations and predictions more difficult.

Lack of Unification: The fundamental goal of a theory of everything is to provide a unified framework that explains all physical phenomena, from the microscopic to the cosmic scales. Hypergraphs may not inherently provide a unified approach to explaining diverse physical phenomena, and reconciling different fundamental forces and particles within a hypergraph-based framework could be nontrivial.

Consistency with Observations: Any theory of everything must be consistent with well-established experimental observations and empirical evidence. Constructing hypergraphs that accurately model all known physical phenomena and predicting new phenomena is a significant challenge.

Quantum Mechanics and Relativity: A successful theory of everything needs to encompass both quantum mechanics and general relativity. Integrating these two fundamental theories within a hypergraph-based framework would require addressing the discrepancies and challenges that arise at the intersection of these fields.

Mathematical Formalism: While hypergraphs provide a flexible mathematical formalism, it may not naturally capture the mathematical structures and relationships that have proven successful in describing physical phenomena in existing theories like quantum field theory and general relativity.

Predictive Power: A theory of everything should be able to make accurate predictions that can be tested experimentally. Developing predictive models based on hypergraphs would require identifying the relevant physical laws and constants and deriving the necessary equations.

Emergent Properties and Complexity: Many physical phenomena, especially in complex systems, exhibit emergent properties that are difficult to capture using simple mathematical models. Hypergraphs might struggle to represent emergent behaviors effectively.

Consistency with Existing Theories: Any new theory of everything must also be consistent with the predictions and successes of existing theories in relevant domains.

While hypergraphs have their applications in various fields, including complex systems and network analysis, their suitability as a theory of everything in physics requires addressing these challenges. The pursuit of a theory of everything remains an active area of research, and multiple approaches are being explored, including string theory, loop quantum gravity, and other quantum gravity theories.

I am a 73-yr-old scientist. In my opinion, this is one of THE most important single lectures ever given. It entirely changes our understanding of everything.

I didn’t understand the first simple rule. The explanation was pretty terse.

There are a lot of strategies to make tongue-wetting profit that the average joes don't know. . Personally, the financial-market for me seems the only way forward with my long time horizon (accrued roughly $457k in gains since Mid 2021 ) but if you don’t have that fortune of time it’s a tough market out there almost nowhere feels safe!

every time I listen to a Wolfram talk, my life is changed :P

The first minutes of the video really reminded me of the intro of the Daft Punk take on Giovanni Giorgio. They really seem to have similar voices.

Wolframs computational theory is disconnected from empirical observation, much more so than string and M theory are. All we hear about are the mathematics. Thus cannot work.
You see, the universe is NOT computing in the simple sense that computers do, something else, ultimately more holistic is going on. You cannot even represent quantum mechanics in a normal computational form due to the non commutability of the heisenberg matrices, but rather require a probability amplitude instead - quite a different thing entirely to how computer programs work.

Admirable! I follow Eastern teachings, and my teacher says he is more of a program than a person.

Like Jonathan Pegaeu says "Science is nested in Religion"

The Universe, at the base level, is just about 111 "If, then" statements. The Hypergraphic will identify them.

To learn more Wolfram thoughts on about college, AI, and the Computational Universe. Watch our interview with him.

interesting.

incredible discoveries…wolfram simultaneously creating an incredible framework & me stumbling into a portion of the multi-graph where wolfram explains it in a 1-hr video - the website on this topic is excellent as well

If you can see this comment, we are part of the same universal hypergraph ;P

I love that this allows for unification of language between several fields, we can surely only be closer to reality's way of speaking by letting the language itself evolve.

He said at some point that light could travel faster than the speed of light, that it would just be very very unlikely.
If that were the case, as distances get longer, wouldn't one expect to see variations in the speed of light, in something resembling a normal distribution?
I does sound like a testable prediction (one that I would not expect to see confirmed). For example, when observing some event in a distant star, wouldn't it be faintly observable before and after expected? Can't say if there's some event that would be sudden, instantaneous enough to test it.

So fascinating . One idea is to create new words , another way is to teach numbers to toddlers in a different way than we do now . I love this man's mind .

i think the better way to explain it is the basic construct that is used in lambda calculus can be used as key tool where the basic propositional calculus or predicate calculus where logic can be used as an computation where and and nand and xnor gate can be used to compute any thing from strings or numbers or anything but the basic construct which is not being any of the wolfram video please tell it in another video if iam wrong be kind and correct me where the schools teach computers as pure number system but functional programming and cellular automata tells that gates and every thing used in computation is a function but dont even try to open the mathematical portal from here because the inversion is not allowed as function in lambda calculus but in group theory it does switching a number and getting a answer is thought in many schools but composition of function which does the magic makes Turing complete from gta to arithmetic and even word-processing is done by considering everything and a function and construct are developed and a higher grammar is used in computation even 1 2 3 and even everything is an function from true and false are also function which are developed but how the cellular automata is related the rules are related to lambda calculus and physics the rules emanate from simple rules but not hard encoded or is inside the code and after the graphs develop emanate and develop the computational algorithm and theory is enumerated no video in you tube tells this basic information correctly i guess if i am wrong please correct me i never shy away to learn even i fail

Brilliant.

Why am I remembering Isaac Asimov's Foundation Trilogy? Computational science for prediction figured heavily.

Agreed. Very interesting and inspires thought and consideration. How would rotation occur in the updating process? None of the flow charts of updating even hint at rotation.

Yep, you just completed the universe.

I see two paths from here:

A) Searching for hypergraph rewrite rule that yields features of our universe (as early as possible in its execution, so as to be a practical physics model).
B) Search for path from nothing to something: how the simplest possible rewrite rule that produces universal computer, could have arisen from nothing?


If all universal computers are computationally equivalent, philosophically, I'm more interested in "B", but pragmatically, also interested in "A".

I get the sense that this guy is leaning into a more deductive platonic-solid/monad way of explaining the world that reminds me a little bit of counter-cultural magic-type explanations (although more rigorous no doubt). Or maybe just a synthesis and conversation with the inductive reasoning that seems to have defined 20th century culture, with its hyper-accurate, yet contradictory specializations.

Well.. that gives me some thing to think about lol… thank you sir

Glad he's not my professor. I wouldn't be able to follow.

While the work is unquestionably fascinating and may turn out more interesting results, it's worth noting that Stephen Wolfram has a history of making grandiose statements about his work with regards to its wider importance (even claiming to have discovered things that have been known for a long time), and at the same time refuses to adhere to the accepted peer review process. So please do take his opinions with a grain of salt.

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.

What a great speaker. Throw a coin in it, and it goes.

Causal invariance.. having problems with that concept!! 😂 do not act as if you invented social relativity! You use that and reason backward to make those same conclusions… How space actually folds, you are in to something there.. the real question is how to make space interconnect in the way a certain graph depicts, for whatever use,.. and it will not surprise you that that has uses😁 Think fields instead of discrete matter, we’re fields are a property of spacetime.., we do not now what a straight line is, indeed… shortest distance between two points in space, that indeed may be curved….

I stop at the 22 min mark, then you became unbearable… your representation of time is a representation and a very very limited one, hardly making any sense… time is very different then what your analytical mind does to reality. You disintegrate instead integrate! Very 3D way of thinking….

Water.,, what a great analogy, great that we haven’t in abundance here, nd in almost all forms too.

Atoms of space are not disembodied points, but it is ok to represent space in that way,..

Reproduce! If you produce something new, then you may boast! I qualitatively concluded that space is something, has mass even. Space is discreet, indeed, that one you got right.

Notice that your companionable language is restricted to the categories we humans use and have invented, that language is the main constriction. Math uses a small best if the words/categories we invented, namely how stuff relates to eachother. People really think with their hair, so when I look at you, I understand how you came to talk and present your thoughts in the way that you do…

I get the impression that your wonder of the natural world makes your mind more chaotic then it needs to be… after road traffic flow you really start to ramble, become chaotic… making it hard to listen to you… and you keep repeating yourself more and more, obviously trying to cause impression that you have more today then you actually have… you try to inflate your self importance, and Ilse right through that…

Idealized two bodyproblem, so indeed, the computational universe we can make invert, very l8mited. We’re a whole planet will be in just a few decades s still beyond us! Even the weather is not predictable so there is reallyno reason to boast the way you do here. What a hubris’s!

It is not what this computation says, that it must be very complex to make universal computer, only that it isvery much possible that such a thing could Beverly much simpler, and probably indeed is…

You repeat yourself a lot, and your simple message does not get more complicated by that. You diminish your narrative by that. The message is profound enough in it’s self! You lack feedback from audience… obviously. You presume what others might think, what is an affront to me. You have really zero idea what my thoughts are! The reverse, getting from complex back to simple, is the real challenge.,,

Can big language models relate to this topic if we think them as a ideas computation?

Tjezus, really likes to hear himself talk, rambler. Get to the point man!

X 有一个表示未来的大写锥体（很多东西不在那里扩展）和小写锥体是我们有选择地学习的东西，很多我们忘记了，因为没有意义。有趣的是，唯一的时刻，事件，“现在”在一个点横截面，它分裂了膨胀的、出现的上锥体和消失的下锥体。然而，在时空维度中，我们可以很容易地意识到在不同的许多事件实例中还有许多其他锥体：现在“A”、“B”、“C”等单独出现，这对我们的传感器来说是特别的，例如感觉、体验，听，闻，看和观察成真。好像我们的五个愿望或祈祷是否可以回应。不怕。它为我们打开了更多的开关，让我们能够应对挑战。接下来，将是我们将在来世中看到的更有趣的情节（5 个传感器被证实为不朽的 5 个支柱的基础）。

How many decades before people wake up and see the significance of Wolfram's findings?

Interesting thing about the event horizon would be that not only inside of a black hole can't influence the outside universe, but also outside can't influence the inside. So things falling into black hole can't really influence the inside (the other side of current event horizon), so what do they do? Maybe they just form some sort of new layer of a horizon? And black hole doesn't form just a single event horizon, but layers of them?