The rules that created our universe | Stephen Wolfram and Lex Fridman 

I feel like a dog watching television....I should just go eat a biscuit

"There will be completely utterly incoherent descriptions of the Universe" I love this! it describes a Universe that can only be 100% known if all possible observers shared their information in an understanding way to one another.

This one is fascinating. Loved his comment about the speed of light being significantly more important to us if we were the size of planets💡

"Oh no, don't tell me there's some kind of invariance", followed by a mix of awe, wonder, and vietnam flashbacks to grad school.

This video will age well

It's amazig we can know this much about the structure of reality without knowing the actual "rules" certainly.

What he’s saying, our Universe works for us and we think our set of laws and rules are just perfect for life, but it’s only because we know this type of physics. There could be other Universes with different set of physics laws and have totally different physical properties which we cannot even imagine or comprehend but those Universes can still be having their own structure, life etc

Everything moves at the speed of casuality (which also is why there is a speed limit in the universe). The only requirement for existence is that the speed of causality is not 0, beyond that, it's irrelevant what the 'value' is, as everything is perceived relative to that value. There is an existence, therefore everything is always changing. Causality is the only force there is or can be and the only real question is how does this one force apply to everything at all times to produce the complex existence we see? It's simple in a way, but very hard to understand.

Lex, you need to include links to guests like Wolfram, particularly on topics like this. Wolfram has so much going on it's hard to find the right website to study the hypergraphs, etc.

In the post-stellar phase of the Universe, the ambient temperatures will be cold and computing will be very cheap. It seems like the rules wolfram talks about would be ideal and fertile places for exploration in a far distant future where a shining star is distant memory,

does this mean we can choose 2 dimensions as a reference point and explain the laws of the universe without having to deal with other dimensions due to causal invariance?

I have absolutely no idea what he is talking about in this clip. Others yes certainly. This one? Totally over my head!

Clicking on full episode now. Thanks for this little teaser.

Perhaps if I play this recording a few more times, I'll begin to understand.

I think I got that one part when he points out we’re not as big as planets. That part is reasonably intuitive. And what he said about hot chicks.

This gentleman should be awarded the Nobel Prize for sure

He could do voice acting. You know, something important.

That's a way of putting it yes. You have rules you exist, no rules you don't exist but at the same time you are all. Simple as that.

8:23 the ping on the Internet depends way more on the computing speed of Internet servers than on the speed of light.

If we find "the answer" is very simple, I think it will be because the simple rule is based on logic itself instead of something physical. Numbers exist outside of time, and consciousness is just a Goedel'ian sentence on top of this branch space that Mr. Wolfram has described. It moves in all directions over this logical structure of what could possibly be. Or I'm just high.

May your podcast prosper, love it and you as host lex!

This one was pretty complex and began to hurt my brain!

To say there could be an infinite number of rule sets, doesnt seem to be a fact that is in evidence. It could be that at a critical size, any additional complexity to the rules is equivalent to a simpler set.

Which language is this?

Isn't it a big paradox that the reference frame we pick, to undestand the universe, gave rise to the "rule" of reference frame picking? Because in a reference frame of some aliens, this "rule" may not be true.

Watching this repeatedly with multiple google searches. My goal is to understand 10% of it by Christmas.

Where do these rules originate?

I think Wolfram is absolutely correct. I think his space of rules applies WITHIN our own species too. Both Newton and Einstein have described gravity with high accuracy with different equations. The reason the equations are different is exactly what Wolfram said, the sensory reference frame of Newton in 1600s vs. Einstein in 1900s. They had different amounts of observational data, accumulated knowledge and experimental equipment available in their eras. Our ideas and mental world arise from and are a reflection of the material world/processes. The material world is primary. Karl Marx made this point over 170 years ago.

Maybe everyone is experiencing the universe differently to others even though the rules are the same?

You wouldn’t want to put the universe in a tube...

As soon as we can precisely answer the question "Why there is something rather than nothing", we will have discovered a theory of everything

Lex, do you think Stephen is on to something very fundamental and important with this?

Love this content

Fascinating, and reminds me of similar stuff going on with symmetry theory of valence But "I" didn't "pick" any reference frame. It is forced to happen by, as far as can be most parsimoniously described, antecedent conditions that have no capacity to identify as "I" So I don't understand what consciousness is in all this. It seems completely unnecessary. Any set of rules that (we suppose) produces it is not as efficient as rules which do not. And why is experience so reliably mediated by physics if "frames of reference" are all that exists, ontologically?

does this have relevance to the anthropic principle?

The reference frame for light/time/information based being… hmmm

Speed of light matters to humans because it allows us to see into history when looking at the stars in the universe that are far away.

Rule is for the rules to evolve while the system grow and eventually to support main rule for the system as it shrinks

I am not half as smart as I need to be to understand a quarter of this discussion. however on the plus side it reminds me of joe pesci from the lethal weapons movies, so funny. lex if you can recreate that scene at the drive through with him I'll become a patreon supporter ; )

I watch Lex podcast in only understand about 15% of what I hear if I'm lucky. Lex you're a nerd. But keep it up and one day you will run Metropolis.

Over my head!

You watch these clips and it may transfer to a Euraka moment later. When you can casually explain in layman's language one description of the 4th dimension. Or gravity as we know it. Keep exploring.

Atheistic materialism seems less and less tenable all the time.

What strikes me as incredible, as if on the verge of foolish stupidity, but I would graciously put in down to tunnel vision, is how genius mathematically minded persons fail to see their own human nature as the most wondrous creation in the universe, and they fixate over low order maths they can only imagine, subatomic physics they can't see, and cosmological problems they can't fathom that are incomparably more mundane than the human being himself, whom he does see as one to another. If you can't know yourself, then what is the point of any other knowledge? Here is a more profound question to ask oneself. If I look for a rule for the universe but exclude myself from it, is that a function of my furtive desire to control the universe as a god, which causes a myopia of tunnel vision, or something else? What rule makes a man blind to his own self? The hubris of power and control that maths, physics and engineering dangle before the narrow and closed mind indicates another rule at play. Is the ideal human a sociopath governed alone by the maths and physics he ascribes to a universe he wishes to control, but he can't control himself, or does he pay lip service to his rational religion, when in reality he recognises the divine power of love? How is it you can have two inconsistent rules at play: the mechanistic sociopathic machine and the loving human god? Which is it? Is your ideal principle to be a sociopath or a loving godlike being? This inconsistency of separating power and authority from the virtue of love, and reason and belief from the same virtue has no resolution, only two inconsistent principles of an inconsistent Scholastic Western ideology. Where is the belief system that is consistent for human beings? You can't precisely predict the weather in a location a year from now. You can't predict the exact position of several double pendulums a year from now due to chaos theory. You can't predict the exact path of a water molecule swirling in a stream. Yet, despite this obvious lack of measureable success, you have the intellectual confidence to believe you know the ancient past from the beginning up until the present, or the distant future until the end, all of which you cannot test like the weather, a pendulum and a stream. What does that tell me about the tunnel vision of a genius? Is he a deluded god, who has yet to learn his lesson of humility, if he ever will like Socrates did, while distracting himself with intellectual games which prop up inconsistent secular philosophy? What role does humility have to play in acquiring and sustaining knowledge? What role does self control have to play in directing one's desires? What role does patience have to play in fulfilling one's emotions? What role do the virtues play in the reason for the universe and, above all, man in creation? What is a man? Is he a god or dust? If he is a god, is he not infinitely more meaningful than dust? Why do you exclude what your mathematical intellect cannot explain, and thus ignores, and think you are anywhere near meaningful knowledge? Humanity is at the heart of the universe. Yet, if man is no more than gas and dust as a natural part of some arbitrary solar system, then how does the collapsed gas and dust cloud that constitutes the sun and its solar system in a gravitational well escape that well, defying the very gravity god by which it invents itself. How could man imagine that he can go to the stars and leave his gravity well together with other matter he gathers from his planet, when the gas and dust trapped in the gravity of the solar system could not by natural physics do so (or leave his planet), unless the sun were to explode and scatter the embers? With a wave of the arms, the impossible becomes reality, because he likes it that way. Science fiction. Star Trek. Fantasy with a dash of realism for intellectuals. That's what passes for knowledge nowadays, because self reflection is to look the wrong way. Which way are you looking?

where is the best place to stand to observe the expansion of space? Could you stand with a fishing pole with your line connected to a rock which is placed over the threshold of the expanding space and watch it go? what grabs something why not others? Would your arm pull you if you placed it across the invisible line of expansion? Would you be stretched? What keeps expansion from happening locally? it seems insane. But it is true. Trust me. It is happening out there. Up in heaven don't ya know

I think there should be subtitles put in . Sounds like 2 people mumbling lol

There is no universe....we are just a dream god is having.

Fk knows what on about. But if I was to guess. Everyone is wrong

my brain is short-circuiting

Lex seems like he knows he’s right but he trying to find a way to cloud his message

We didn't get the easy one we got all of them you're just cognizant of the one that worked out there's also you somewhere asking why we got the shitty rule you just can't know his thoughts both of those are true

This is nonsense. God created the universe. Please read the Bible if you would like to know more about creation!

The map is not the territory. Such extraordinary claims should come with a plan to test them. Einstein made testable predictions. Not seeing these here. Made else where?

Huh?

The people that disliked realized how uncertain are our lives and how worthless we are

It's Christopher langan all over again

Interesting watching a left handed man gesture it seems odd.

Lex, please eat some carbs. You look like you're going to faint.

I think Wolfram is a simple headed undergraduate dropout.

Is 3d because of us, for example?

Love that lex closes his eyes when he thinks, I’m here because of rogan btw I know you read theses comments so I’m sending love your way !! sorry to hear about your nan nuff love from the uk

I always imagine that our 'complex' rules are just inelegant versions of simple rules we aren't using.... that's why I always love Mr. Wolfram having the curiousity and guts to explore even the rules that others would say are "too simple" for reality.

I like Wolfram cause (my interpretation) he's letting his intuition guide him. Generally, people can get to caught up in science as to belive that you have to have proof for everything before you have the permission to think out of the box. So yes, he may be un-scientific at times, but that's how science take huge leaps. Also, he's a bad ass mathematician so he can actually provide more value than just coming up with cool ideas. I didn't fully grasp this "every way, every rule"-thing, I mean if they were able to simulate such a model. But if, and if from what I understood that it was also not just random, then that's extremely valuable. Great clip! /A guy that bought a new kind of science when it first came out and thought of it to be too un-scientific but was still intrigued

Is it just me or is this drifting heavily into philosophy

I have no idea what they talking about. But cool.

Is this interview being done in prison?

Makes duck sound.

All I know is I’m gonna rot in the ground one day.

Order ( explicate order ) emerges from chaos ( implicate order ) but requires consciousness to differentiate the two.

How much could an entity in Minecraft learn about our universe from within Minecraft? Could they derive anything about reality from outside of the game? A little math? Some computation? What if it's us stuck in a game?

Frankly I find the host kinda annoying. He's trying to understand from his POV. A good host thinks about the audience more than himself. Maybe he should do a pre-interview to understand whatever he needs to, and then do a proper interview to bridge the gap in knowledge of the audience and the expert. Right now he just comes across as interrupting buffoon who neither adds any quality questions (like wtf is invariance), nor lets the expert finish his thought.

One invariance is love. Bootstrapped in humans via endorphins on childbirth. Greedy algorithm vs a Genetic algorithm. Rewatch now.

The problem isn’t the rules themselves and why they are objectively constant. The problem is why is there an externally unchanging momentum that is complete and lacks nothing?? This question is valid because there is no such thing as “nothing”. Nothing describes what you don’t know and can’t comprehend. However just because I don’t know the complexities in the scientific methods that explain this reality, I do know that there must be an undeniable “Truth”. This must be a force so powerful that is can see the beginning in the end and the end from the beginning. What do we call this eternal force with the power to create momentum itself? Do we dare call it god?

pffffffff. "Speed of the light can be infinite and it does not affect anything in our life". If he is talking about speed of causality, which is what really meant when some one talks about speed of light. It simply means that infinite speed of light would cause any cause and effect to be apart by infinite time. SO it realy does not matter what you do or what happens - nobody would know about it. I guess in that sense it really does not matter.

what if you had an (the) exact and impartial frame of reference? what would you then conclude about the "universal rule" you found?

I can almost understand... I'm really trying to understand what all this really means. Seems very important

There is no universe it’s only a reflection on the question.

Stephen should drop turing machines and talk in terms of lambda calculus. That would make things much easier.

We are like mold trying to comprehend the petri dish.

So just being conscious beings that maintain a stable reference frame has a certain inherent 'power' it seems. No matter the frame, just having one can help us assess reality. And also maybe we give our favorite rules too much importance for being 'special' in generalized scenarios when you could be 'playing' with any rules?! Lol this shit is better than sci fi...

Stephen Wolfram will be the first of our kind to travel across dimensions. He intuitively aims in understanding the universe through a causal invariant multiway graph instead of thinking abound dimensions.

My take away: understanding how the universe works is relative to those doing the understanding. There is a lot fo scientific jargon but that seems to me to be the main crux of what he's saying.

that YES at the end concludes it all

Thank you so much. Best of luck moving the ball forward!

Thats incredible

Invite David Deutsch

This is so simple and powerful.

The rule that created our universe? Really?..There is only one rule and that rule is The Father of Lights, I Am, He created all things whether invisible, visible. The universe maker. No other is like He.