Why I took a chance on Wolfram Physics with Jonathan Gorard

Jonathan Gorard admits that it was a risk, for his academic career, to work on the Wolfram Physics project.

In this third excerpt from my recent conversation with Jonathan, I asked him how he thought about that risk and why he decided to take it.

He told me that the opportunity to work with Stephen Wolfram on this new model is a bit like being given an opportunity to work with von Neumann and Ulam on cellular automata, or with Turing, Church and Gödel on computational models, back in the early twentieth century.

So I asked Jonathan whether he thought, as I do, that the reframing physics in terms of computation feels like we’re in a scientific revolution, as important as the reframing of physics in terms of mathematics several hundred years ago.

“It’s a strong statement,” he replied, “but I don’t think it’ll end up being too inaccurate.”

For me, the opportunity to talk to Jonathan about Wolfram Physics feels a bit like being given an opportunity to interview Dirac, Heisenberg, Pauli or Schrödinger back in the early days of quantum mechanics.

These are exciting times.

—

Jonathan Gorard

People and Concepts mentioned by Jonathan

Image credits

For images from the Los Alamos National Laboratory: Unless otherwise indicated, this information has been authored by an employee or employees of the Triad National Security, LLC, operator of the Los Alamos National Laboratory with the U.S. Department of Energy. The U.S. Government has rights to use, reproduce, and distribute this information. The public may copy and use this information without charge, provided that this Notice and any statement of authorship are reproduced on all copies. Neither the Government nor Triad makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any liability or responsibility for the use of this information.

Kootenay Village Ventures Inc.

[kostoglotov]

It is reformulating physics in terms of computation, absolutely, thats why it is so exiting, it is a principia moment for the 21st century.

[kostoglotov]

Thanks Mark for interviewing Jonathan and thank you Jonathan for you brilliant work. Start a podcast so your fan base can follow you; I have never seen you and Newton in the same place, makes one question your true identity.
Lastly can protons and electrons decay? I hope they do so that Roger Penrose is right about CCC

[TheMemesofDestruction]

“True Love, priceless. For everything else there’s Wolfram Alpha.” ☮️ ❤️ ^.^

[SerbanTanasa]

I have been following Wolfram, Gorard & Arsiwalla for a few years now. I think fundamentally, the computational universe model has to be closer to the underlying reality than the "equations" model.

However, I still struggle to see the practical relevance of what's been accomplished so far. I have seen them suggest that GR and Quantum models "emerge" out of their model, but so far I think we're very thin on novel, testable predictions.

Admittedly, if the scale at which these discrete graphs work is below Plank length, that might be hard, but if that's the case, how's one untestable mathematical abstraction (Wolfram computational model) more fruitful than another untestable mathematical abstraction (say String Theory)?

[TheSensualSerpien]

Peter Woit's dismissal of Wolfram's theory in another video here on YouTube, essentially proves that people who have invested their entire careers in the assumption that the symbols of their conceptual spaces actually reflect reality, will always try to float one-sentence refutations to project the illusion that Wolfram is merely a crank and not worth the time of the people who are doing "real physics". Woit's statement was to the effect that "I have absolutely no sympathy for Wolfram's theories; I've spent about 10 minutes looking at this and it's just not possible everything I've observed and come to believe could be wrong". Another criticism leveled is "it's just like string theory, it can't be empirically demonstrated, so why bother?" Yet, plenty of bright minds are expending energy pursuing it simply because (to paraphrase Witten) "the math works so well that from it we can derive already-known equations and phenomena, thus string theory shouldn't be ignored". The future will show that Wolfram is on the right track.

[peterhall]

I think Jonathan's analysis is on the money in terms of his professional risk. The computational dimension to quantum information theory really did bring to the fore the whole computation thing - 20 years earlier it was a different story. In a sense this is a bit like what Russell and Whitehead did with formal axiomatic systems - their 200 (?) page (I can't remember after all these years) that 1+1=2 was a stake in the ground for formal systems. Demonstrating how you can get the Einstein field equations out of the discrete system is a similar stake in the ground. I am yet to read Jonathan's big paper (plus all the other others) to really get my mind around the detail but having followed Stephen for a very long time this is an exciting intellectual development and it may have surprising spin offs in other areas. I must say that Jonathan is a superb communicator of these abstract ideas and his infectious enthusiasm should be bottled and sold !

[JasonCunliffe]

Next ::: >>> Computational Electro BioLogy

Michael Levine interviews, research & presentations
"Intelligence goes _All the way down (in scale)"

& study up on
Gap Junctions

[mz-dzyn]

explain in a new video the creation and life of one Silver or Iron Atom from Big bang until today and also inside Wolfram Physics explain the creation and life of one Silver or Iron Atom from Big bang until today answer question ... in these two models where does energy come from to maintain one Silver or Iron Atom in perfection for 8 billion years.

[williamschacht]

Using computers to solve systems of equations is not cheating. It is just an approximation.

[krzysztofwos]

The notion that if you pursue this project, it may torpedo your academic career is a testament to how indistinguishable from religion science has become. Or perhaps, has always been. Whether it's the Catholic Church or the Church of String Theory, it's dogma through and through. Precisely the same phenomenon can be observed in AI research. Stephen Wolfram is the best example of why it is extremely important to pursue an independent source of wealth if one wants to be free to think for oneself.

[pghislain]

My god you have a big problem: you thing so much about your carrer, academic record, go after premiums... but a physicist should develop a thinking by yourself that can or may lead you to discover new insides. I am surprise how many learn by heart bits of discour about systems (teories) without the required distance betweem them, the theory and the real world. So when I ask how you test your conjecture, they say Ooo... its note mine, I say whatever, they answer, its not mine and the autor should provide those testings. I never propagate without many quotes and distance any speculative theory (unprove). There are so much do study and discover. Start to meditate and relax. The underlining ideas will popup in you like in a soda on a calme beach amazed by the beauty of nature. Try that. Give you a break to let your brain and your subconscient put order in your permanent shaker. May be you will find something genial that "must be thrue" ! That the way.

[mrrandom]

Konrad Zuse already wrote a long paper discussing the idea of 'computing space' back in the 60s and many other scientists since. Yet here are Wolfram and Gorard speaking as if such ideas were novel. What has the real novel contribution of the project to fundamental physics been so far? Still next to nothing, besides pretty pictures. Pretentious people are not great. it's not the way of the scientist.