Wolfram Physics Project: Working Session Tuesday, Aug. 4, 2020 [Empirical Physical Metamathematics] 

I got 20 minutes in and had to stop. This guy shouldn't be livestreaming, he should make stand alone videos so he can edit out all the "ums", the testing, the forgetfulness, the random code testing, etc. From what I gather he's attempting to use some kind of AI modeling in order to generate mathematical proofs from existing mathematical proofs. Sort of like mathematical proof mapping and then letting the AI look for patterns in the proofs to generate more and then to use the more to develop, I'm guessing, some kind of unified field theory. It won't work. He'll run into the curse of dimensionality. It's like he's creating mathematical Bible codes. With any sufficiently large data set you can derive effectively infinite inferences from it. Mathematics is sort of like perspective, you can shift your perspective in mathematics as easily as you can with anything else. Like this: I feel really tired. I want to stay up. Both of those statements can be true at the same time. Math works in a similar way in that each form of mathematics is just an arbitrary rule set. Rational numbers, integers, whole numbers, natural numbers, these are just random rule sets for numbers. Numbers can be used in any modeling system you like. You could make a base 10 system or a base 50 system or even a base 0 system. No system of mathematics is true beyond the scope of its own rule set. We try to derive rule sets from nature that we quantify as physics, but like I've discussed before you can have artificial physics, differential physics, even extraversal physics. Physics itself is not static. For example all earth ice is freshwater. But the ice on Europa is salty... also likely electrically charged in a way that wouldn't even work on our planet! Every planet has its own physics. Every layer of reality has its own physics. Molecular physics is not the same as orbital physics. They can share some similar properties, but they're not identical. Changes in physics normally happen when material goes against the grain. Those things we call anti-particles for example, they're exactly the same as any normal particle, they're just not moving in the same rotational flow as the majority of matter. Like planets in orbit versus rogue planets. Both are planets, but rogue planets are like anti-planets. If an anti-planet collides with a orbital planet... they'll destroy each other. No. That's not possible. Nothing can be destroyed. If energy can't be destroyed, then neither can physical matter, so where is it? Space. It's not empty. Space is a hyperfluid, meaning it's comprised of matter that's been effectively dusted below the sub-atomic! The matter is still there! All space is matter! It's just made up of particles that have an effective mass potentially millions, or even billions, or even infinitely smaller than the mass of an electron! The particles are so tiny they just flow right through normal matter like it's not there! The particles are so tiny that only the mass of an electron can actually impact them. That thing you call electromagnetism, that's just wave patterns in the hyperfluid generated from the movement of energy mass. The particles are so tiny that only energy has any effect on them. To our physical state, that matter is effectively non-existent. It can't functionally impact us and we can't functionally impact it. In the same way that you cannot build a microprocessor with your bare hands. You have to build machines that manipulate matter smaller than you can see or interact with directly. You can't create electromagnetic fields without energy because energy is the only thing that can impact that layer of physical reality. It may not be uniform. There could be different states of hyperfluid. Space may not all be space like we think of it. The space beyond our galaxy for example is likely NOT the same as the space in our galaxy. There's likely variation. Infinite possibilities, infinite potential states, infinite perspectives... they're looking for "one" inside of infinity. Granted you can give infinity curvature and trap it within itself, you can even rotate it bi-axially to create a hyperstate particle, creating an effective "one" from infinity. But then you just have binary. What can you create with a binary system? Infinity. Even when you manage to simplify infinity into a single state you just wind up with a new form of infinity that can be derived from it. This is the basis of Paradox Mathematics. Which I stole. From the future. Which is now. There's a monoverse behind us, an omniverse in the present and a multiverse ahead of us. Just ignore the other earth in tandem rotation, you can't see it because it's always behind the sun orbiting at exactly the same speed. Did you know the year ~isn't~ 2023? Also you can replicate an entire planet from any point in the time stream. Or not. Or both. Depends on your temporal perspective. I can shift mine.

😊

😊

what the frig woke up and this was here too

Reality is Perspective Dude. Chill out. Everyone knows all thought is utter nonsense. Just flow with it.

Same here, woke up and this played.

@@DoctorBeees wtf, i literally just woke up to this too! fell asleep while working at my computer.

To be honest I think it was all the "ummm"'s and "uhhhh"s that woke me

they say you learn while sleeping due to the theta frequency your brain is in

When I was half-dreaming, the shit they're talking about made sense. Now that I'm awake, I have no idea what is about.

me too and the video is half watched

i had fallen asleep while working at my computer and just woke up to this

yes 😂

indubitably.

yes 😂

🤔 how do I know if I have a Rubix® Cube? Not an equals you'd find in a Lisp.

...of a cube with a black box of rules.

...given a cube's move by move sequence, is it a valid sequence?

Human propensity for random hypothesi.

"banana" -> "🍌", "aaa"->"an" 🤷‍♂️ I should play.

@Spurdo Spärde First the definition from Wolfram MathWorld: "The principle of computational irreducibility says that the only way to determine the answer to a computationally irreducible question is to perform, or simulate, the computation." The next step is to prove that Pi is an irrational number, meaning no largest predictable decimal, and this has already been proved in mathematics.

@Spurdo Spärde It's the same with the d(n) formula for Pi that I mentioned. It directly computes the n:th decimal of Pi. Notice that it's not the speed of the calculation that's the determining factor here. The fact that for sufficiently large n the formula has to be calculated is what makes it computationally irreducible. Compare that to for example 1/3 = 0.33333... where for all n the decimal is known. That's not computational irredicibility.

@Spurdo Spärde My point is that as I see it, computationally irreducibility means that the actual value of a formula has to actually be calculated for it to become known. So even if you have an algorithm of O(1), unless you already know the answer, the algorithm has to be computed for the actual value to become known.

@Spurdo Spärde But that definition becomes problematic considering parallel computation. A sufficiently parallel algoritm will compute any algorithm in one step. Even the factorial calculation you mentioned is computationally irreducible. Because what is for example the value of 43245552311! ? It has to be calculated to be know in the general case. The same with even 2^n for large enough values of n. Trivial, yes, but that is my idea of computational irreducibility.

@Spurdo Spärde But isn't computational irreducibility about computation? In math it's valid to say for example that x = Pi and it's perfectly defined. In computation, the values have to be actually calculated. But okay, I'm unsure about my parallel computation claim. Maybe I should call my idea computational necessity instead of computational irreducibility.

writings.stephenwolfram.com/2020/06/exploring-rulial-space-the-case-of-turing-machines/

The set of all possible rules that define how a system progresses.

Explain, this sounds awesome

@@crowlsyong It's a no periodic planar tiling (a tesselation that never repeats, over infinite distance) composed of a single shape - a 10-sided polygon. It does use mirror images. But someone found out Joe to do this without mirror images using an 11-sided shape. And in this context, Einstein means "one stone" in German - not the German physicist who loved to get stoned on the spacetime of the Universe.

Yeah, I think I learned that in high school @@asmithgames5926

i kidnapped your dog😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆