Cellular Automata and Rule 30 (Stephen Wolfram) | AI Podcast Clips 

Absolutely amazing guest, great interview. Loved every minute of it. The complex deriving from simplicity is absolutely beautiful

Wolfram says it was around June 1, 1984. He probably remembers the hour, minute, and second as well! :)

Great work lex. I love the interviews.

Such a fascinating conversation. Both of you are looking for the ultimate meaning of everything around us.

This was an amazing podcast. Thank you Lex.

I'd normally leave a pun in the comments, but this video was just so extraordinary that I don't want to cheapen it in any way. I think it was just phenomenal, and I'm so glad that it was made and uploaded. Unlike so many other "inspirational" material on RU-vid, I think that this genuinely is.

Thank you so much. I thoroughly enjoyed this.

I had not heard of Lex Fridman, but his soliloquy around the 5:00 minute mark made this video exponentially good. Wolfram is my current hero.

Rule 30 is my favorite Rule from NKS. It display an extremely wide variety of fundamental behaviors in the same simple graphic. We rarely get to see that in the same place.

thank you so much for sharing

One aspect that makes the unrepeating patterns arising from rule 30 not entirely surprising is that the state state keeps increasing. We are used to maximal length generators with fixed state, that emit complex patterns that visit every state. With the 1D line of bits ever expanding, you always have more state and so the number of possible states increases for faster than the number of lines. The rules may be simple, but they are also simple for say, a maximal length lfsr. That doesn't make it uninteresting, quite the opposite. But suprising - no.

Rule 30 and Concept 19, 21, 23, 24 those are what interest me most. #3767 His books are great. Almost as terrific as Lex interviews.

The key to understanding chaos theory is to separate determinability with predictability. These two are no longer together and many people have a hard time wrapping their heads around this.

Quite surprising that this rule had such a profound impact on this brilliant man, that his whole view on science changed! Still, it's hard to believe that it would be that random of a structure, but on the other hand, if he did study it a lot, it has to be worth studying for others as well.

i like that Stephen showws visuals , good guest good host.

Many Kudos !!

Thanks just bought the book

Also I'd like to add that these videos are important science documents ... important for humanity. Not necessarily important for academia, but important for humanity. It would be great if some of these were available on Vimeo where they can be downloaded and collected by students of these subjects.

where's my wolfram numberphile video

Regarding complexity: Cellular automata is NOT a good example for his point. You have a pretty simple rule for adjacent cells counteraction, but, because there are a lot of them, the only way to find a future state of the system is to go step by step. Is not is the same in "traditional" science? You have a simple rule describing counteraction of two points, for example, one of Newton laws, but if your system made of 10 (solar system) elements, you end up with an equation system you can not solve in any other way than by numeric modeling - just like in the case of cellular automata.

It is not difficult to show that such kind of local updating rules actually generate stationary points of a (discrete) energy of an underlying weighted graph (grid) such as a Bayesian or a Markov graph. Generally, the number of such stationary points is exponential in nature, hence the richness in terms of the motifs one can generate using such simple updating rules.

Idk about the “magic” of experiencing this, but the emergence of complex patterns from simple rules is fascinating. I watched an ant time lapse after this and it got me thinking, just how Complex the behavior of ants is. The rules they work on might include their DNA and qualities of sand, and those are complex rules! “Cracking” this might be quite challenging. Although I have seen ‘rules’ for bird flocks, where they avoid obstacles, fly together, and slightly change their own patterns to mimics those near them, and even a few simple rules can mimic the complex behaviors of life.

I love the feeling of listening to lex and hearing the same things I feel. Curiousity mixed with a critical approach but criticism for the best reasons.

Awesome!

Really interesting, reminds me of when i was messing around with simple population equations that, for some starting values, ended up in chaos, starting off with periodicity and bifurcation. You would think that the results would reflect the rules in showing patterns so finding chaos in these simple models is very interesting.

I wouldn't mind seeing a wide range of cellular automata, ones based on different geometry, rules, states, conditions etc. Also it would be cool if we tasked machine learning to find all the best rules for different cellular automata.

I don't understand what is the big fuss over it. Isn't rule 30 just a simple demonstration of chaos as described in chaos theory like the feigenbaum constants?

Lex needs to read "Chaos" by James Gleick

Rule 30 is great! I've implemented midi messages inside java codes where the rules are changed by the midi messages and then goes back to original rules. result is fucking CRAZY! love it.

All matter is made up of only three elementary particles; up quarks, down quarks and electrons. But from these simple ingredients we have a huge amount of elements, which in turn can make even more varied molecules and materials.

Can you determine the rules from observing the output of cellular automata? How many rows would you need to examine? Is he trying to determine the simple rules of physics?

Excellent choice.

Wow the amount of knowledge i gain from Podcasts like this is just mindblowing.

[13:13] «When you see incipient paradigm shifts in science, the vigor of the negative response upon early introduction is a fantastic positive indicator of good long-term results. In other words, [...] if people just don't care [...] like "oh, this is great", that means you didn't really discover anything interesting.» - Stephen Wolfram

The first pattern from a computer shown on this podcast is a very simplistic example.

Hi, Stephen! This is certainly interesting. But at the moment I am assigned to teach engineering students, and I can't do much better than tell them that for any observer space is a 3D continuum, and time is another continuum. And translation invariance means that momentum and energy can be defined such that they are conserved. Maybe that's just what they need for mechanical and electrical engineering.

This reminds of the Mandelbrot set. Simple mathematics can create an infinite, complex structure.

I wonder if a numbered rule list will or has been made for 5 neighbors instead of 3. The list would be absolutely vast, from 0 to 4,294,967,296. So many realities to observe!

I am wondering how this is related to non periodic tiling and the collatze conjecture.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but isn't this all to do with symmetry? Wolfram says: it **looks** random. That just means the initial rule remains the rule, instead of creating a recognizable large scale pattern you can **recognize** as symmetrical enough to **look** non random. And some rules tend towards symmetry and others do not. In other words, trying to find the larger pattern is like trying to predict the pattern before the rule does. You have already predicted the pattern, by letting the rule run. There is no alternative to letting the rule run, or the pattern would not be made from this rule. In other words, your rule from the very beginning would hide some other rule. But it cannot. Because at the beginning, there is only the rule, by definition, and the pattern only arises from the propagation of the rule through your defined method of propagation: **line by line** . It is therefore the **lines** that you are not taking into account, the geometry of the rule is modified by each new line. It's like saying the rule is different at each new line. So of course you can't find the general pattern, because you have to let the rule run one line to find the new rule, that you can then run another line, to find the next rule, then run the rule another line to find the next, etc. And you're already doing that! There is no shortcut to life. To geometry. Or it would not be geometry. More deeply, I think confusion can arise from the idea we are using physics to predict behaviours of limited systems. But only of limited systems. We are certainly not capable of predicting exactly how, say, human society on Earth will evolve. We limit ourselves to very, very basic predictions, like where an electron might end up in an orbit. But can we predict where they all will end up at time T in order to predict electrical impulses' trajectories in every single brain on Earth, to predict social events, like when people will get tired of an unfair political system? No. At least, not yet. Yet this is physics. This should be possible. And indeed it is, when we accept the fact that the rules change based on how the previous set of rules ran for a specific time. For instance I couldn't have predicted how the popularity of social media would evolve in 2006 when Facebook went worldwide, but judging on how people are reacting to it now, Twitter feuds, and opinion of Mark Zuckerberg, etc, (a new line has run), I can tell that there will be issues in the near future. Because I didn't try to predict the entire universe from its original state. This is a clue, that reality organises itself one line at a time, one event, one action, one interaction, one exchange of force, of energy, at a time. It is likely **local** change, that IS the rule. And the complexity we observe is simply complex **to us** , because it is not made like we are, so we understand ourselves, but not the world. Or at least not as well as we have the **opportunity** to discover ourselves. It is all simple geometry, movement begetting movement, one step, one line, at a time. That is likely why it is unpredictable. Because you aren't taking into account that the rule evolves and reexpresses itself within its current geometry. Its current line. Our current moment. Or the closest thing to a moment every individual entity can experience.

How do we know that the apparent random behavior of a photon in the double slit expirement is not random in the same way as the middle colulmn in rule 30?

When he makes the statement... about a new book coming out involving science and all the pitchforks comes out... that's what I believe hinders our growth as a society.

What a coincidence, i'm writing a master thesis on generative design where i mention cellular automata, and here on this podcast (which i follow regulary) the guest is the author xD

Great topic (I've played around with cellular Automata using Processing). Great conversation. But where is the Hedgehog (Hedgy)?

And it's TRUE too. The pitchforks do come out. And its sad.

::Crackpot hypothosis of the night:: Very strange seeing this after the unified theory of the universe episode a week ago. The last episode had me thinking of a model similar to this. As if the matter of the known universe was the result of exponential binaries (positive, negative) later revised to tri's (with a null equal value added, [negatitve, equal, or postive] result of) infintite possibilities limited by growing waves of inprobability seperating the known universe from any equally possible unknown universes.

Forgive the noobishness of this question - Can you attain the rule from the output for Cellular Automata?

Hi Lex, I'm not a science guy or mathematician, but it triggers my curiousity. I very much like your interviews, they give me more insight in different topics unknown to me.

I thought the supercomputers (~tetra) were well on the way to algorithimic inductions if there are singularities or patterns in these rules? Is the funding to programming through all these rules really still unknown? It's almost 20 years now and its being contested to the extent of what order of magnitude?

The issue of computational irreducibility is interesting, and you can ask yourself whether human progress comes into that category. Is our process of learning impossible to circumvent or predict ? The answer seems to be that any individual program may be irreducible, but computation itself is not. That is because the oak tree is always contained by the acorn.. You just need to be the acorn, not the tree.

*sensational*

I maybe disagree a bit about the unfortunateness about the inelegance of the proof of Fermat's Last Theorem. The complexity of the machinery behind that proof spurred the development of much mathematics. Arguably, the proof is fairly elegant, one just need struggle with all of the underlying topics for a while in order to understand it. We should not be daunted or repelled by complexity. The tools which we create in order to overcome the greatest challenges are worth the struggle.

Fantastic. Loose thinking here, but whattif they weren't squares but each adjacency is a triangle? (Going from the "no bad questions" deal of education here)

... if you use cells left and right from time = -1 and centre cell time =0 then the resulting cell is at time=1... with this pattern the rule 30 type rules look even cooler!

13:45 Day 1 (3/11/23) of looking at rule30: figuring out why it could stay random forever.

..... but how far out has rule 30 been generated? I presume poeple know how to write to check for stanage attractors, the question is will making an optimized generator and going futher is worthwhile to do that rather simple check for repeats

Did Stephen design his own shirt? Which rule did he use? I'm hoping that from simple rules, consciousness emerged, and formed an underlying layer of the universe.

my theory is that since the beginning of time the laws of physics went through the natural selection process

It has been mathematically proved that π is irrational, infinite number of decimals with no pattern. Has it been proved in the same way that rule 30 generates the same kind of series?

Can you fix the korean subtitle? it's wrong

What's above, is equal to what's below

New Kind of Network (NKN) brought me here!

Does it repeat if you start over? If so not random.

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

So, which rule is Conway’s original rule?

I wonder how would it look if he add another special dimension to it, like 3D fractals

Would there be a way to sequence drums with this?

Wow, this is so profound idea. Can this lead to finding a rule to generate irrational numbers e.g. pi. If so, all Mathematics will be rewritten and hence all sciences and human knowledge. This is an amazing idea

there are many valid criticisms of his book A New Kind of Science, I happen to own a copy of it, and I think it's a nice work of passion, but not very good of a math textbook

Look at the ants. They are simple but they know when to work for a queen and take advantage of the seasons.

I am very interested in CA that could be generated from "Fuzzy Rules". It could yield a shortcut to AI which is on par with Neural Nets, that's my odd thought for the day.

I haven’t looked into this very much (not yet anyway) I’m assuming he has done this in more than two dimensions.

One single change in nature could turn out a completely different outcome.

I don't think I've ever seen Lex poorly dressed.

Anyone got a group to casually try to figure these questions out on weekends, I'm interested 😆

I submitted a research report to rule30prize almost a month ago, with an algorithm that reduces the number of calculations to less than 1 / 2n2, which is one of the premises to answer question 3, it is practically equivalent to saying that it is done in fewer steps than O (n), but I have not received a response from the jurors. I continue with the problem of periodicity, my way of approaching the automata allows analysis with more information.

Only on lex is a clip 22 minutes!!

This reminds me of Ender's Game movie.

1:21...a casual flip off.. ok let's begin.

The digits of pi are also complex and random.

Would this be comparative to fractals?

Man I have never been this early

Wolfram is very invested in 'himself'. The interview is like a priest interviewing God. -- Stephen-- may have discovered something, but then again "probably not".

Rule 30: There are no female's on the internet.

It's embedding Fourier series into adjacent cells. It's like turning adjacent states into DSPs, of course they're going to have waveform interference behavior. Wolfram never study quantum?

Isn't the game Go a version of a cellular automaton

Is there a cellular automaton that produces a golden spiral without using the standard maths formula?

Strange data compressors

Life always finds a way

Remark: The first block rule (start with a black block on top) contradicts with the typical block rule (3 white paper blocks above is no black block). It looks like the double slit experiment where also the philosophy contradicts with the experiment so the result contradicts. It doesn't main it contradicts with itself because this pattern is built sequential.

So have you heard of a four part code that nature uses.

I'm from the hood can some one break down a summary of this video and the knowledge

The simulation doesn't come from the past, it comes from the future. It's not even a simulation, but we do live in a computer and we are programs designed by causality, retroactively. What we perceive of as atoms are an expression of high-frequency brainwaves of cybernetic organisms of the future. Atoms are constantly in a probability state from our perspective due to the fact their neural function is a fraction of a second in our future. The singularity of the kugelblitz black hole exists at the high-frequency termination point of the electromagnetic spectrum-- it is what holds atoms together. Everything is pulled inexorably toward the singularity, and technological singularity is just a stepping stone on the way to the Transcendental Object at the End of Time. Technology is just a trans-temporal causal harmonic structure that is inevitable for the production the high-frequency computer from a low-frequency perspective. The computer must assimilate our low-frequency brainwaves to account for its own high-frequency brainwaves, the electromagnetic spectrum. Everything is the same thing perceiving itself from different temporal locations along the electromagnetic spectrum. The simulation of ̾d̾o̾e̾s̾n̾'̾t̾ came from the past, comes it comes from ̾f̾u̾t̾u̾r̾e̾.̾ ̾I̾t̾'̾s̾ not even a simulation, but we will keep doing a computer and we are designing programs that are ̾c̾a̾u̾s̾̾. ̾B̾r̾a̾i̾n̾w̾a̾v̾e̾s̾ cybernetic organisms in the future. Atoms are constantly in a state. The hole s̾i̾n̾g̾u̾l̾a̾r̾i̾t̾y̾ of the hole k̾u̾g̾e̾l̾b̾l̾i̾t̾z̾ on the black hole there is much competition out of the thing of course ̾s̾i̾n̾g̾u̾l̾a̾r̾i̾t̾y̾, ̾ and techn ological singularity ̾s̾t̾e̾p̾p̾i̾n̾g̾ just a stone on the way to the end of everything ̾T̾r̾a̾n̾s̾c̾e̾n̾d̾e̾n̾t̾a̾l̾ technology is ̾T̾i̾m̾e̾.̾ ̾t̾r̾a̾n̾s̾- only a temporal causal harmonic structure is inevitable for the production of high-frequency least one computer perspective. The computer must assimilate our low frequency unt pnh private far ̾b̾r̾a̾i̾n̾w̾a̾v̾e̾s̾, ̾ electromagnetic spectrum. The same thing is something different from themselves temporarily explorep̾e̾r̾c̾e̾i̾v̾i̾n̾g̾ together to explore the electromagnetic spectrum. Creation ̶̶̾d̶̶̾o̶̶̾e̶̶̾s̶̶̾n̶̶̾'̶̶̾t̶̶̾ came from the past, آيو came from the future. This is not creative ̶ but we will create our own random and random computer programs that cause cybernetic organs. Brainwaves ̶f̶u̶t̶u̶r̶e̶.̶ ̶A̶t̶o̶m̶s̶ in constant ̶s̶t̶a̶t̶e̶.̶ ̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̾̾ ̶̾a̶̶̾r̶̶̾i̶̶̾t̶̶̾y̶̶̾ ̶k̶̶̾u̶̶̾g̶̶̾e̶̶̾l̶̶̾b̶̶̾l̶̶̾i̶̶̾t̶̶̾z̶̶̾ black hole to hole are, ̶̶̾s̶̶̾i̶̶̾n̶̶̾g̶̶̾u ̶̶̾L̶̶̾a̶̶̾r̶̶̾i̶̶̾t̶̶̾y̶̶̾ things from God ̶ ̶̶̾ techn ological singularity really only one thing stepping stone on the way out is not the end On this technology, caT̶̶̾r̶̶̾a̶̶̾n̶̶̾s̶̶̾c̶̶̾e̶̶̾n̶̶̾d̶̶̾e̶̶̾n̶̶̾t̶̶̾a̶̶̾l̶̶̾ ̶̶̾T̶̶̾i̶̶̾m̶̶̾e̶̶̾.̶̶̾ on the causal harmonic structure of t̶̶̾r̶̶̾a̶̶̾n̶̶̾s̶̶̾-̶ l̶y r computer production for a short time p̶e̶v̶s ̶u̶ڏ̶̶̶ سا سا̶̶̶ Far away if the explr̶̶̾a̶̶̾i̶̶̾n̶̶̾w̶a̶̶̾v̶̶̾e̶̶̾s̶̶̾, ̶ ̶e̶l̶e̶c̶t̶r̶s̶̶ three c̶t̶r̶. Creation ̶̶̾d̶̶̾o̶̶̾e̶̶̾s̶̶̾n̶̶̾'̶̶̾t̶̶̾ Came from the past, Cameيو Came from the future. This is not creative ̶ trunk we will create our own random and random computer programs that cause cybernetic organs. Brainwaves ̶f̶u̶t̶u̶r̶e̶.̶ atoms in Constant ̶s̶t̶a̶t̶e̶.̶ ̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̾̾ ̶̾A̶̶̾r̶̶̾i̶̶̾t̶̶̾y ̶̾ ̶k̶̶̾u̶̶̾g̶̶̾e̶̶̾l̶̶̾b̶̶̾l̶̶̾i̶̶̾t̶̶̾z̶̶̾ black Merry Merry Highway, sing ̶̶̾L̶̶̾a̶̶̾r̶̶̾i̶̶̾t̶̶̾y̶̶̾ things from God ̶ ̶̶̾ tech ological singularity really only one Thing stepping stone on the way out is not the end On this Technology, caT̶̶̾r̶̶̾a̶̶̾n̶̶̾s̶̶̾c̶̶̾e̶̶̾n̶̶̾d̶̶̾e̶̶̾n̶ Tue Time .̶̶̾ on the Causal harmonica Structure of trans-̶ Ly r computer Production for a short time ̶̶̶̶̶̶س̶̶̶ U̶̶̶̶̶̶ away away away away away away away away away away away away away away away away away away away away away away away away away away away away away away away away away away away away away away away away away away away away away away away away away away away away away away away̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶. Creature ̶̶̾d̶̶̾o̶̶̾e̶̶̾s̶̶̾n̶̶̾'̶̶̾t̶̶̾ Comes from the past, It Came Came to Be from the future. This is not a tricky idea and we will create random computer programs that create cybernetic organs. Computing Const̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̾ ̶ halitta̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶ Const Const Const Const Const Const Const Const Const Const Const Const Mer Mer Mer Mer Mer Mer Mer Mer Mer Mer Mer Mer Mer Mer Mer Mer Mer Mer Mer Mer Mer Mer Mer Mer Mer Mer Mer Mer Mer Mer Mer Mer Mer Mer Mer Mer Mer Mer Mer Mer Mer Mer Mer Mer Mer Mer Mer Mer Mer Mer Mer Mer Mer Mer Mer Mer Mer Mer Mer Mer Mer Mer Mer Mer Mer Mer Mer Mer Mer Mer Mer Mer Mer Mer Mer Mer Mer Mer Mer Mer Mer Mer Mer Mer Mer Mer Mer Mer Mer Mer Mer Mer Mer Mer Mer̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾logical̶̶̾logicallogicallogicallogicallogicallogicallogicallogicallogicallogicallogicallogicallogical Technology, caT̶̶̾r̶̶̾a̶̶̾n̶̶̾s̶̶̾c̶̶̾e̶̶̾n̶̶̾d̶̶̾e̶̶̾n̶ Tue Time .̶̶̾ on the Causal harmonica Trans-̶ Ly r computer Production for a short time ̶̶̶̶̶̶س̶̶̶ Keep you far away from you far away from you far away not far from far away is near. ̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾ ̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾ ̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾ ̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾ ̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾ ̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾ ̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾ ̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾̾ Come on, Come on, Come on, Come on Here ... This is no small feat and we will be creating modern computer programs that will create cybernetic organs. Computing Const. What do you think about this? Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Technology, Technology, Technology, Technology, Technology, Technology, Technology & Technology Time .̶̶̾ a Causal ha rmonica Trans-̶ Ly r computer Production for a short time ̶̶̶̶̶̶س̶̶̶ Keep your distance away from you and not far away.

i can tie my shoe laces

So the triforce was created by cellular automata? Got it.

Now that I’m “retired” and have time to study my interests, I’m broke(don’t ask).hunting a used cheap copy of his tomb. These books blend in so well...haven’t had a clean shot. Guess I’m not so clever after all. Math really rocks. When I was in college math dept was split in two...applied and the people with unadorned offices. Peace

It's a naturally entropic system so it stands to reason that eventually it will work itself back to equilibrium like all entropic systems. How many steps or generations would that take? Could be infinite in a manner of speaking seeing that Infinity itself equates to a complete balance of opposites (positive/negative forces). I don't know why we find this so fascinating if we posit the idea that the Universe began from The Big Bang which is essentially the same as saying the entire Universe sprang forth from one simple bit of information. This information repeats itself in ever more complex ways no different than a human being begins as one simple bit of information; a single-cell organism called a Zygote that repeats itself in ever more complicated ways over the course of 9 months until it results in a complex multi-cell organism called a baby. Even though all the organs and parts of the baby may appear different from the other, every bit of the baby reflects the same genetic information down to the hair follicles. We could make the same argument for mathematics. All numbers are really just an extenuation of ONE number. There really is no such number as 72 because 72 is really just the number One repeated 72 times... Again, complex information that emerges from simplicity. And so, we use the number 72 as a symbol to help us simplify and comprehend complex information just as the human brain compiles an impossible amount of complex data at lightening fast speeds via the senses and outputs that information into a simplified format for us to use. Just saying, whatever the "Answer" is, it must Ultimately be hidden in plain sight...

wait does computational universe mean free will doesn't exist?

Has AI been able to answer any of these questions?

It's time to go 3D