Building A Theory Of Everything | Stephen Wolfram | Escaped Sapiens #70 

His theory aligned with Donald Hoffman simulation theory, it was funny to watch wolfram do several U-Turns in their recent talk 😅

I have listened to Waffleram many times.He has cleverly figured out something that he never fully explains .Is anyone else hoping he delivers an amazing treasure but cannot convey it . Am I always missing something 😢? If they are derivable ,please open up and derive them fully

Too many words, what Stephen has to say is that for nonlinear chaotic systems, we cannot make predictions when the Lyapunov exponent is high

Let's build particle physics out of cellular automata!

Thank you!

7:58 : ".....and it turns out this interplay between the computational irreducibility of underlying systems and our computational boundedness as observers of those systems, that seems to be the key thing that basically leads us to the laws of physics that we have". This statement confuses me too much, please explain!

Thsnk you!

Very interesting!

I had one question for Stephen Wolfram: is there a limit to how much spacetime can be curved due to the presence of mass? If this were so, there would be an upper limit on the "size" of the black hole (the apparent mass inferred via its gravitational effects), since any additional mass accretion would no longer be able to increase the gravity due to the black hole. I don't think we have found an upper limit to the size of black holes - not yet anyways.

Great interview, thanks ! Just listened a second time, this might be the first theory of everything Ive heard that includes the Platonic Realm as an actual structural support. I like it !

Is hypergraph a particular type of hype?

I want to see Shane ask more questions, like when he said 54:50, explore possibilities.

Only 7 mins in. CIR sounds like nonlinearity, the source of chaotic time evolutions of surprisingly simple systems of coupled equations. You can't just "plug in 1000,000" and get the right answer here also. Looking forward to hearing how CIR is new and interesting.

Is a ruliad some kind of number wheel?

Is there a reason why pauli exclusion can not be extended with "no two fermions can be compressed to a volume that would be their event horizon"? If it is that a black hole made from two femions would be equlivent to two fermions existing in the same quantum state, and prohibited by quantum dynamics. Then maybe the event horizon is a mathmatical thing that isn't real and exist in our universe, as tachyons being mathmatical things with immaginary mass and don't exist in our universe.

No lie… that was low key 🔥

I do not think Mr Wolfram explain what he is doing were well. Ok he start with graph and then what? He never say

We are all philosophers prior to scientific verification and peer review.

He's trying to say it's dynamic.

It's about the grand law of nature, focusing on the only concept of 'hype graph' would've been way more informative.

@18:45 Stephen overlooks that not all things follow all rules all the time? And also that *perception of* what is going on is another way around "rules". Materialism is a fundamentally flawed perspective to figure out this problem.

Stephenwolfram is avery brilliant saipan on escape sapian only

Wild

21:40 You are unaware of your personal Ruliad. It takes others to know more about yourself than you do your own self. 2 is a powerful statement

A lot of yapping and tongue wagging by Wolfram, but nothing really explained. I understand chaos and probability theories with a mixture of the laws of physics but beyond that, this computational irreducibility is gobbledygook.

The fact that LLMs make the same kind of models that brains do is non-obvious, but it's surprisingly simple to explain. It's a consequence of the Free Energy Principle. I highly recommend Fields et al. Free Energy Principle for generic quantum systems. It shows that two quantum systems interacting through an N-qubit quantum channel can be considered Bayesian observers making models of each other. The FEP is a scale-free, background-free phenomenon. It applies to everything that exists. It does not say how observers form the models, but it can show that necessarily they can be seen as doing so. So, it's a bit of a weird answer, but ChatGPT forms models that are the kind of models we form because it cannot not to. The main innovation behind ChatGPT, Transformers, provided an efficient learning architecture allowing parallelization of training and thus efficient use of GPUs and web data.

i never see any concrete anything out of this guy. show me one damn calculation.

Super fluid convection and conduction may be the unifying theory, it's a medium that allows anything to form, as long as there is enough convection energy to drive evolution towards complex energy state arrangements.

Turing’s theorem.. duh

These are the kind of conversations I wish I'd listened to as a teenager, an honest description about what math and science are rather than the rather shallow and somewhat disingenuous utilitarian sales pitch schools dish out.

I don't think you can construct a real particle from an infinite sum of quantum field fluctuations because of the computational irreducibility of the goldbach conjecture.

@16:45 Stephen gets lost in language ("cannot *solve* society"). I'm surprised he makes such fundamental errors!

Don't be silly.

I wonder if it is made necessary because you can't be definitive about your calculation being a representation to the true underlying steps and if it contains within it the uncertainty that your model may not be precisely equivalent to what you think you're modeling and not simply coincidentally matches what empirical methods of inquiry were satisfied and stopped quantifying deviation as a net expected value not accountable as a random variable. So in other words, hypothetico-deductive methods being at their essence, arbitrary in nature with no driver to minimize that arbitrariness, and worse, it seems so many researchers consider reductionist approaches as so much a knee jerk that Michael Levin even universally skips the all important step of allowing research design to flow from the ontological justifications given a predetermined most appropriate epistemological stance--but instead he emphatically jumps to "perturb the system," which is tantamount to "endorsement of blindly applying reductionist methods to complex systems that all but guarantee your answer cannot be correct but also even worse, that you think you even should get an answer that had any validity to model the actual system. You wouldn't use stoichiometric calculations to predict mood or anything even beyond the macromolecular domain because you know that steric factors are orders of magnitude greater than electrostatic interactions and it's not that domains with predominant charge or whatever isn't valid at that abstraction, but it is so overwhelmed and made irrelevant by each other of complexity being mediated by different mechanisms entirely. But this "presumption to the applicability of reductionist hypothetico-deductive methods without having let it flow from a syllogistic examination of what you want to know, how that exists within the relevant episteme: scientific method that will bring about its own need to be superceded. We're starting to look to science with a misapprehension of the purpose of science in the first place: by its very definition, scientific method cannot aim as a goal to arrive at "correct"; it's is only a framework that is premised on its being a consistent framework that can orient your inquiries towards hopefully an incrementally increasingly correct direction, but in order to arrive at actual correctness, you are always going to need more than once syllogistic step, so if you did happen to arrive at correct, it's either the end of times or if it is correct, then it was accidentally discovered and not scientific.

loved Wolfram's book "A New Kind Of Science"

What better rules than the ten commandments?

46.05: atoms of space. Are there protons, electrons, neutrons, quarks, leptons and bosons of space too?

This computational irreducibility makes me think of the Bible and our geometric spiritual growth, where we comprehend over time. 😮

You did not invent Turing’s Theorem 🤣

Sounds like a promising mathematical model. Let's see if the gold standard of better data-fitting can get other physicsts to take a look… And some implications described are remarkable, given the blinding paradigm. Indeed, a BH should have a surface over a "hole punched in it" and topology is key to fixing the threefoldly inverted paradigm which blinds physicsts. Different mathematical models are still just mathematical models - not understandings of mechanism. And the current paradigm underlying them all is as invisible to physicsts as was the Geocentricism of dark-ages astronomers. All these MMs are great, as long as one remembers Newton's "hypotheses non fingo" honesty. Some, of course, always knew that Earth isn't in the middle, no matter that interpreting epicycles "proved" that planets were embedded in Crystal Spheres. Likewise, some of us have always known the simple mechanism by which all phenomena appear. Physicsts do data-fitting, and understand the mathematics. Listen to physicsts if you want to know exactly (or even only the probabilities of) how much, where and when. Listen to those with an understanding of mechanism if you want to know the why and the how of things, and (eventually) come up with better Mathematical Models. Note the progress made by the generation of physicsts who's reading list extended eastward. That progress came from having their thinking loosened up a bit. None were trained in the basics necessary to understanding what they were reading. When understanding of the mechanism of the fundamental finally seeps through the firewalls of the Physics echo chamber, it will be a description of the simplicity from which complexities emerge … and as long as interpretations and models get more complex, the further physicsts are getting lost in mathematics.

By Jove! I think he’s cracked it!

Non-warpable 3d space and linear progressing time is fundamental, the curvatures in perceived spacetime are displacements of motion flux competing kinetically for this fundamental space (energy density warps the vacuum, and the vacuum has a degree of permittivity and permeability which gives this fake "space" like material a warpable space time dilation factor, stress energy contraction and curvature) the general relativistic space is not a real space, but a competing quantity of motion flux.

Is biological Evolution an LLM? Is DNA a collection weights that give the next organism, that fits the environment?

Interesting podcast -- and as much as I agree with Wolfram that “computationally irreducible rules based computational steps” have to take its course to decide is outcome, however, we are of the view that we should be be to predict/theorize those steps using a formula with some description of the outcome as well, In other words it is both! This is where we have gone a step further and formulated those steps as part of our TOE and I would be glad to collaborate with him as well In any case, under our TOE, it is a fine structure constant (FSC or hidden variable ) and it’s flip sided golden ratio governed 2/3:1/3 rule driven least action formula of our CPT(α,Φ) function within our CPTiad (equivalent to ruliad) as explained in my articles link below and exhibits In other words, our TOE is a CPT(α,Φ) function operated cosmic  dance, where α ends up splitting the frequencies of QVF as 137 dipoles using Riemann Zeta function( including its corresponding Fourier/Mobius transformations), in such a way that the electric field of each dipole gets rotated as nπ cycles (using Euler’s identity eiπ ) before getting rotated by their magnetic field (by 90 degrees) so that their combined least action (A) can be twisted to flow along the eigen-valued nodes of Ramanujan graph(equivalent to Wolfram's hyper graph), using the 2/3:1/3 rule of α (ratioed by its flip sided golden ratio Φ)! Stated otherwise, this idea of embedding CPT function within our TOE with 10+ META DUALITIES of the Langsland/Banach-Tarski paradox of our SOE/TOE engine is what differentiates our approach! For example, We imagine our Universe as the Riemann Zeta function governed LMFDB universe (that is a motivic/metamorphic/Galois representation based SU 2/SU3/SU4 symmetrical engine. In other words, Z(1) is the fundamental frequency of this Universe’s TOE engine that is QVF/ZPE sourced, FSC(α)-Einstein-Bohr-HV-Maxwell Daemon governed frequency of Riemann's zeta function Ζ(S) with a singularity of S=1+0i, that is made up of his harmonic oscillating zeros(S=1/2+it stacked on his 1/2 critical line, before being transformed as a 137 frequency-spin momentum matched dipole, using our FSC(α)-GR-PLA+5 AITGE origin formulas(see exhibit) In other words, our TOE/SOE engine is the one that is transforming the Riemann's zeros into an artistic unit charge SU2 dipole(see visual), by contracting/expanding its electric flux as the center of mass (as r = αR), before rotating its magnetic flux by 90 in such a way that it can be extended into the left plane as a paired unit charge, using the "only possible analytical continuation of Zeta". Sure enough, this engine function is nothing but universe's wave function only, transforming itself from position/time space into frequency/momentum space, using the Fourier transform operator -- ψ(k) = ∫ ψ(t) e^-iwt dt - This brings us to our next point about CPT function This "one & only allowed analytically continued/functional equation allowed symmetrical dipole" is what limits/constrains the ∞ pole of Riemann sphere to a value of 137 cycles( per Laurent/Cauchy residue including the α=r/R,=fe/fp=we/wp logic of our CP function as explained in my post and attached one page exhibit for details lim t→ ∞ CP(1/2 + ti) = 1/α cycles of dipole In other words, this CPT function proof(lnkd.in/drGQ44Mt) for Riemann hypothesis is a polynomial in the convex region of the Riemann Sphere only (thanks to the "one and only allowed analytical continuation logic of dipole & its 137 cycle ratio logic"), limiting/constraining the ∞ pole of Riemann sphere to the convex region - which brings us to our TOE below Turns out, this is what also makes our TOE as the best candidate (compared to all other TOEs), as we visibly see the signatures of FSC and golden ratio throughout nature (link) Simply put - Ours is the only TOE that is anchored on this FSC/golden ratio governed CPT(α,Φ) function mechanism! In other words, for any TOE path to become a final TOE, it must be anchored on this FSC/golden ratio governed CPT(α,Φ) function mechanism end to end (in one form or the other)! This doesn't mean that ours is the only path - and the classic example is how we have integrated Ads/CFT duality of string theory with these 10 dualities of our CPT(α,Φ) function mechanism with the hypothesis that they toggle between CFT-boundary of the lower CP1 plane to & AdS-Bulk upper CP2 plane! This is where we want to extend it to all the other best in class features from all other TOE paths using this integrated program - which brings me to the list of our “top 10 CPT(α,Φ) function caused, META DUALITY PROOFS”, including our recent additions of Ramanujan graphs & Jones/Khovanov homology knots, as summarized below 1. Riemann zeros of dipole/quadrupoles(1/2+ti) 2. Hodge hyperbolic structures(H3 quotioned by K&A L-functions 3. Hodge P-adic parabolic structures (P(N) quotioned by K&A L-functions ) 4. Thurston structures(T(N) quotioned by K&A L-functions ) 5. Polytopes(PT(N) quotioned by K&A L-functions 6. Spectral vertices of Ramanujan graphs G2xK2 Q by Ramanujan L-function 7. K knots of Jones polynomial (&Feynman’s paths/Riemann surfaces) 8. HK knot states of Khovanov homology 9. Prime square roots of Knots theory 10. Irreducible representation of Poincare particles Similarly, if I may summarize the manifestations of these 10 CPT(α,Φ) caused dualities by mapping the lower CP1 plane to CFT-boundary & upper CP2 plane to AdS-Bulk 1. Imagine, as the CPT(α,Φ ) function starts limiting the “Riemannian ∞ quantum spherical universe” into a compact polynomial region of the lower plane (whose WF is modeled using a metamorphic/automorphic Riemann zeta function with a SU2-3-4 symmetry) -- it is automatically cut into infinite slices of irreducible diploid circular spheres at an exact moment when the Zeta function starts crossing the origin. of CP1 2. Also imagine, as these infinite slices get squeezed (1 & 4 at a time) into an exact radiused symplectic geometric asymmetric taurusized cylinder of the CP2 plane (folded from the unit square of CP1 plane)", acting as the Hilbert’s countable infinity hotel. 3. Now, as they get squeezed into an “exact radiused symplectic geometric asymmetric taurusized cylinder”, the electric field starts getting rotated 90°(by the magnetic flux), thus transforming it into an “domino effected ellipsoid”. 4. Now as we analyze the cross section of each “domino affected ellipsoid", we can clearly see these 10 geometrical dualities. 5. Turns out, our CPT(α,Φ) function is the one that rotates these 10 geometrical dualities “galoistically and knotistically” before reassembling them in CP2 as a classical sphere. In other words, CPT(α,Φ) does it all in real time by auto-collapsing/landing/toggling the particle as soon as zeta function starts crossing the origin in CP1 plane, so that it can shift it into the next lattice of CP2. This simultaneous shift is what gives us the feeling that these dualities are orbiting smoothly like the frames of Muybridge’s Horse in Motion. Simply put, Our top 10 CPT(α,Φ) caused dualities, along with our earlier framing of FSC as an AoC/HV/Maxwell daemon(lnkd.in/gtU2Rdix is what makes CPT(α,Φ) function as the META PROOF of Riemann hypothesis with a symbiotic symmetrical fractal causality to10+C-old unsolved problems incl. 5+ $5MM CI problems&10 biz ideas(lnkd.in/gyeftuYk) as explainer in this summary (www.linkedin.com/pulse/summary-our-firms-10yrs-toe-work-wa-request-world-form-prabakar-k25sc/?trackingId=3oeFnfoaRT61kGCCQ7VNNQ%3D%3D) Welcome complementary POVs

There is causation between your rouliad and your hyperuliad because it is a strange loop or a strange feedback loop. Our universe is just a particle or a singularity in the next couple sets of higher orders of magnitude in existence just as the particles in our body and everything else are a universe and so are singularities. This is the way the universe grows and multiplies as well as disappears and evaporates. Somewhere in one of the particles in your body there is a living being on a planet much like this thinking that it is not causal to the one that it is part of named Wolfram. Now imagine what would happen if they weren't then we would not have any particles.

The math everyone is looking for is in base twelve.

The only way to counter 2nd. Law of Thermodynamics and computational irreducibility is to target only PREVENTION OF EVIL (exhaustively defined as DISASTERS, PREDATION, DISEASES ~ which include all birth defects, all weapons manufacture, all violence ~ and DEATH), which is finite, as the sole purpose cum criterion of proof of all knowledge. Note the most fundamental difference between this target, PREVENTION of only the EVIL, and the goal of SCIENCE ~ PREDICTION of ALL future events. That renders "search for knowledge" a finite task, that hopefully, can be achieved by present generation. Life thereafter would only be exploring the universe to terraform and populate all celestial bodies with the 100% CERTAINTY that all negative possibilities are PREVENTED by a system of indicators and rectifiers of certain evil, if left unattended, that guatantees it. The answer to the question "are the LAWS OF NATURE deteeministic or probabilistic?" is a very clear one: Neither. Nature doesn't have any such law, but it permits DISCOVERY of the sources of all evil which are finite, hence can deterministically be countered, while leaving all positive events unpredictable. POSITIVE, thereby, is meant as in the common, lay person's, usage and NOT in the various mutually contradicting usages of the term in science and mathematics (increase of anything ~ even diseases or violence in arithmetic, result confirming suggestion in experiments or tests, charge of protons in physics and 3 of 6 directions in space as defined by the Cartesian system, which has absolutely no physical meaning ~ all mutually incompatible and contradicting with the common usage) Positive surprises are even more enjoyable than positive certainties. So it is very good that not all future events are PREDICTABLE. Science, all hitherto search for knowledge rather, has set the wrong goal as target. That is the reason why the entire human race, from antiquity to present day, from Thales of Miletus to Stephen Hawking and still continuing, has failed to derive the mathematical model for even a single natural phenomenon that could PREDICT accurately when it may harm life function, let alone PREVENT such.

Charlatanism at his best!

Oh dear. Being smarter than the system is a Schroedingers sin

I have a perfect explanation for how the universe was created and I even have an idea of how to describe it mathematically and maybe even prove it empirically but I need some help developing the theory

Steve has really been pushing this scheme all over the Internet without being able to submit definitions or proof. It sounds cool and all but c'mon.

"Theory of nothing" sounds pretty close to "Theory of everything"

Time is what gives space its discreteness or at least we do because time is continuous as well it is consciousness or the present moment that gives it its locality and this is necessary for form movement growth and all other things that happen within space to happen.

Metaphysical Illusion. Reality is fundamentally noncomputational.

22.22 "We believe in the second law of thermodynamics" is confirmation that SCIENCE, like all other religions, is a FAITH.

Wolfram can imagine a lot but prove nothing. Is he talking about one tule or an infinite set of rule? He doesn’t seem to know.

Stephen' s explanation of virtual particles is nonsensical. Either the host should learn physics or he should have a physicist present At one time, I advised Stephen to leave physics and go into business even he is a genius. He did I strongly believe he should have a Nobel Prize in physics for the tools he developed for scientific research Most of my colleagues agree

Space is continuous but it is time or the present moment that causes it to be discreet time is continuous as well and it is measurement that causes it to be discreet. Measurement differentiation and identity in other words consciousness which is the subjective form of your ruliad differentiating itself. As subjectivity is required for differentiation and it is how you compute the difference between an infinite area or volume and an infinite number or multiplicity. Actually there is no difference it is just the way to show they are the same.

Your ruliad is literally the place where randomness and order come together in probability.

The rulliad is only half of it if you think it's computational. That would never explain qualia which is not just something to do with consciousness as it is the thing that gives numbers their values. Only numbered things can be computed things that are continuous and wave like cannot be counted, except by the numbers, one 0 and infinity. What is a computation. It is counting add counting alone can never count infinity and they cannot count a unity order a nothingness. I never said you can't calculate it or solve it though. That's why geometry is considered mathematics. The thing that you're calling the ruli add is what I call the point of paradox and it is the point where nothing is an Infinity are joined in this physical universe which is a potential Infiniti or number and multiplicity. This is why they cannot join relativity and quantum physics. It is the same reason computation alone is not sufficient to describe the universe for one thing this universe is computation as it is something instead of nothing which they duality just as infinity and nothing are, gotels famous theorem states that you cannot solve an infinite computation no problem from within it basically. Nothingness is a Continuum and a unity and infinity is a complete infinity and a singularity. The quantum and quantum physics isn't about size it's about number. Rodger Penrose's geometric explanation of the universe is the closest to my own explanation. Which is this that existence is a self causal feedback strange loop that is fractal in nature and it is the point where number and continuums meet and this place where that happens is you're ruliad. Or at least you're really at is half of it if you're saying it's just computational because that is the number half. And although I am stating this as half there are actually three things involved since there are two different dualities involved. But in our frame of reference since we are one of the dualities because we are the universe literally then only the other two matter in this. Because basically we are the ruliad. The point of paradox is the point where the present moment that we call now exist. And that is what ties both nothing is an Infiniti together and it explains for the oscillations of light and the arrow of time in causality as well. It also explains things like quantum entanglement and such

I have figured out a way to compute and explain for gravity, light, thermal energy, time, causality, life, mass, number, identity, consciousness, paradox, entropy, space, nothingness, infinity, and existence. I'm not a mathematician but I have used the equations from people who are to create simple axioms are things taken for granted like the effects of relativity in quantum physics and such a through processes of logical symmetries I have figured out how to show how everything causes everything else in a chain of causality growth and multiplication that is self causal in an infinite or an infinite series a strange feedback loops there are one gigantic feedback loop in of itself. It explains where light comes from what the purpose of consciousness in life and entropy are and why the speed of light is what it is and why the universe is the size it is and why the Planck lengths are what they are even though I know most of this has already been described but it hasn't all been described the way I will do it by explaining why this is in the first place as well. I have also figured out the reason why time moves in the direction it does and other things as well. I have even figured out how to put Infinity into a hierarchy of different sizes. But since I'm not a mathematician or a physicist and I don't really know algebra so I don't know how to write equations and I don't know the language used everything I have figured out is based on logic and things like set theory and number theory and geometry. Have you even figured out a way to show the difference between the golden ratio and its digits and the Fibonacci sequence and their relationship to the prime numbers. It's really funny because quantum gravity is very simple and I am so surprised no one has even thought of it yet. And the reason is they do not understand that consciousness is just as fundamental as any of the physical properties they calculate for and they are not completing their calculations. Furthermore the problem with infinity and not being able to use it in their calculations properly it's because of their way of renormalization is not correct. Or let's say it is but it does not but it does not work at all frames of reference and objects. Since light has a finite velocity this should tell them something more than it does about existence. I'm not speaking just about causality as some things are outside of causality at least physical causality. It is the point where it becomes physical that is important.

My thorium is the the universe is a reflection off his head

I have listened to Waffleram many times.He has cleverly figured out something that he never fully explains .Is anyone else hoping he delivers an amazing treasure but cannot convey it . Am I always missing something 😢? If they are derivable ,please open up and derive them fully