What is the Big Bang in Wolfram's universe? – The Last Theory # 029

What is the Big Bang in Wolfram Physics?

There’s a straightforward answer to that question.

It’s the point in the evolution of the universe where the hypergraph goes from nothing to something.

It’s the start of the explosion that eventually yields the uncountable particles, planets, stars and galaxies of our universe.

So that’s pretty straightforward, isn’t it?

Well, yes, except that there’s one phrase above that demands further explanation: nothing to something.

How does the universe go from nothing to something?

–

Kootenay Village Ventures Inc.

[NightmareCourtPictures]

Great explanation! Even for me, someone that understands the Wolfram Model very well, this was one of the things that I wasn't super clear on (I was looking at the beginning of the Wolfram Model as a Cellular Automata with a single cell initial condition and wasn't sure how it would even create any kind of initial condition) but this makes now, perfect sense. I never considered rules that went from no nodes or edges to something with nodes and edges.

It even makes a bit of sense given the context of there are some rules that aren't complex enough to generate anything turing universal; the "obviously simple" rules...this might even be what the purpose of those obviously simple rules are...a kind of bedrock to go from nothing to something. What are your thoughts on that?

Thanks.

[stevo-dxrr]

I find myself wondering about the amount of computation it takes to model physics in this way versus the amount of computation that it takes to model physics in a more traditional reductionist fashion.

It seems to me that the main challenge is to show how this type of model can be used to generate known physics, but also to find ways of reducing the amount of computation necessary to simulate it over what would otherwise be required if one were to move in an iterative fashion applying rules.

Im really looking forward to more of these high level nuts-and-bolts overviews of each of the objects in the space of Wolfram Physics. I’m really hoping we can eventually get a video demonstrating results from the project.

[YarUnderoaker]

I tried to represent Conway's game of life in the form of a graph. Pixels presented as nodes. If the pixel is active, then the edge is directed from it to the node with the inactive pixel, if the neighboring pixel is also active, then the edge is bidirectional. It turned out that seven rules are needed for the transformation. But then I realized that I was missing the description of the empty space (inactive pixel to other one), which is very important for the game of life. Now I'm thinking how to desing such the grid of space that has additional extensions for pixels and rules that do not change the grid, but change the pixels.

[madcio]

Problem with that is that just pushes problem one level away. Sure, there is rule that says "create this and that where there were nothing before". But where rules came from?

Of course, there is always possibility it is wrong question. Casuality is feature of our universe. Something eternal (like, for example, rules) does not need cause. It just... is.

[donaldkasper]

A rule requires something to already exist to make it. Otherwise, the idea of relict, dead past universe attempts seems to be missing in astrophysics although they love the idea of multiverses and sequences of universes. But their universes are always everything we see, not part of what we see.

[dougmarkham]

In Penrose's CCC, the end of the previous universe is radiation, and space-time loses all scale of time and thus distance to preserve the speed of light as a constant. Thus, all radiation focuses on a point where photon pair collisions regenerate matter in a white hole.

In this and other cyclic models, the progenitor forms self-regenerate as part of the universes life-cycle.

If you attempt to get something out if noise, you need to then construct a theory like the inflation hypothesis to turn a quantum fluctuation into your progenitor.

Either way, no designed beginning is necessary.

[kostoglotov]

Why does the universe exist? because I'm in it. also zero is unstable.

[StuMas]

Excellent videos but, I get the same sense of 'sleight of hand' as I do with other proponents of the idea of 'something from nothing': Why aren't you counting the rules as being 'something'? True nothingness (or empty universe) would also be void of any rules. Don't even get me started on who/how the rules came to exist in the first place!

[keepinmahprivacy]

Saying "why not zero edges?" seems a bit like hand waving to get around a seemingly insurmountable problem.

[paulpoledna]

thanks for the video! how did you make the animation of the hypergraph? What tools did you use?

[djolds]

A carefully designed hypergraph being requisite for physical creation to come into existence? Now where have I heard that paraphrased before?

[OwenCampbellMoore]

Explain how to interpret the double slit experiment in this model, please!

[danielvarga_p]

Sorry Nothing does not exist, so the initiation is a bit false here.

Imagine 10 billion years from now, what happens? What happens to Humans, where Humans fit to the picture, Wolfram Physics project is nice, but still missing the key element Phsicist missed in the last 100 years (and before.) So unfortunately an another dead and, but nice tools coming along, and Wolfram and others Goddard as well, are brave enough to shake the world at least.

The sentence would be more accurate here:
"Nothing for Human existed before". For an Atom, there was something what existed, we just can not make a sense of it. It is interesting how we try to rule out Infinite at this moment, and Wolfram just goes from Fields to Ruliads so same as the last 100 years, but at least a bit more interesting. And emergent is key here but need a bit more insight.

If you interested more Bobby Azarian book can be looked at as a beginning.

[alexkool]

I am still unconvinced. What I see is two categories of examples. In one category, something came out of nothing. In other category, something came out of something. I don't see connection here. Difference between nothing and something could be limited or infinite, we simply don't know.