Building A Theory Of Everything | Stephen Wolfram | Escaped Sapiens #70

This is a conversation with Stephen Wolfram about his proposed theory of everything. Stephen is a British-American computer scientist, mathematician, physicist, and CEO of Wolfram Research. He also created Mathematica, and Wolfram|Alpha & Wolfram Language, and is the Author of 'A New Kind of Science' as well as a number of other books.

Stephen's attempt to derive all of the laws of nature (including gravitation, statistical mechanics, and general relativity) rests on two key ideas:

1. The idea of computational irreducibility. In physics we usually deal with systems for which we are able to predict the state of the system at a later time as long as the initial conditions are known. For example, the trajectory of a bullet can be calculated at any point along its path. There are, however, complicated systems like cellular automata where there isn't a closed formula that lets you calculate the state of the system at some arbitrary later point. Instead you are forced to compute the development of the system one step at a time if you want to know how it evolves. Such systems are 'computationally irreducible'.

2. The idea of computational boundedness. This is the idea that we have finite computing power in our brains. There are many complex systems that scale so fast that our bounded computing power isn't enough follow every element of the system (e.g. we can't visualize the motion of the billions of cells in our own bodies, and so instead we develop an aggregated model of ourselves).

Starting with these two ideas, Stephen asks what a world with computational irreducibility would look like to a computationally bounded creature living in that world. He then builds a computational model based on hypergraphs (which you can think of as a kind of cellular automata), and from there attempts to re-derive all the laws of nature. This is an extraordinarily ambitious project, that lies somewhat outside of mainstream approaches to physics. The claim is, however, that significant progress has been made, and that this approach really is able to derive interesting aspects of the physical world. This conversation explores the key ideas behind the program.

► For more information about Stephen's work see:

►Thumbnail source images can be found here:

►Follow Stephen on X: @stephen_wolfram


A big thank you to anonymous for letting me use their space as a temporary studio.

Menu:
0:00 - Stephen Wolfram.
1:11 - Computational Irreducibility.
17:10 - What is fundamental?
18:50 -The ruliad.
22:50 - Does space and time depend on the observer?
24:50 - Stephen's two key ideas.
27:10 - What are space and time?
29:20 - What is the universe?
30:50 - What rules does the universe follow?
41:00 - Why does space exist?
44:00 - What is a hypergraph?
51:24 - Do black holes singularities exist?
54:40 - Deriving quantum mechanics.
1:02:20 - What is energy?
1:10:40 - What are particles?
1:20:50 - Impact of deregulation.
1:24:08 - Particle Pair Production.
1:32:15 - The space of concepts
1:39:42 - Was AI inevitable?
1:48:05 - Can AI solve science?

►Subscribe And Turn On All Notifications To See More:

Watch These Videos Next:
►Hacking The Blueprint Of Life | Michael Levin | Escaped Sapiens #37
►How Your Evolved Psychology Controls You | Diana Fleischman | Escaped Sapiens Podcast #28
►3 Months Lost at Sea, Human Endurance and Ingenuity | Steve Callahan | Escaped Sapiens Podcast #22
►A Blueprint For Mars Colonization | Robert Zubrin | Escaped Sapiens Podcast #5

[fingersoup]

I have to commend the interviewer for letting the guest finish his thoughts. That's all too rare these days. 😎👍

[wearemany]

Take a shot every time Stephen says “computational irreducibility” 🙂

[xqta]

Examples of computational irreducibility abound: Chaos Theory, Navier Stokes equation and turbulence, fractals . Mathematically defined: Arbitrarily small changes in initial conditions of input of a predictive function create arbitrarily large differences results caused by non linearity and/or non differentiability of the functional definition. Who needs a ruliad whatever that is?

[Mikefour]

We are all philosophers prior to scientific verification and peer review.

[Namegoeshere-ophg]

Love listening to Wolfram. Every time I do, I feel like I see a little further into the fundamental unit of nature.

[jabowery]

"Computational Irreducibility" is nice turn of phrase for differential Galois theory. But Wolfram didn't invent the concept of a mathematical distinction between mathematical models that have closed kinematic solutions and those that have only dynamical solutions.

[KaliFissure]

Finding the right hypergraph for HERE. That's all I'm interested in. Total possibilities is one kind of infinity and manifestatable is another. One is a volume, and one is a slice.
You helped me realize compactified time. Which creates minima and maxima.
How do you evade conservation?
How do you evade closure between maxima and minima?

[reachforthesky]

Sounds like CI =Complexity.

Because the notion inherent in reason/logic/mathematics is of a traceable link between initial rules/parameters and agents of a system and their interactive expression over time. If the sheer complexity of those interactions is too much to predict, that is because of your inability to hold sufficient computational complexity for the variety of potential outcomes

[TroyYoung-hgqd]

I have listened to Waffleram many times.He has cleverly figured out something that he never fully explains .Is anyone else hoping he delivers an amazing treasure but cannot convey it . Am I always missing something 😢?
If they are derivable, please open up and derive them fully

[ShiyrChadash]

If Absolute = All-inclusive

then,

By definition, there can be only one all-inclusive or Absolute Being (Life), in which all relative beings live, move and have their Being.

Therefore, Love is the conscious recognition (namaste') of our shared Being.

Peripheral Attention = wave like
Focused Attention = particle like

[FXK]

7:58 : it turns out this interplay between the computational irreducibility of underlying systems and our computational boundedness as observers of those systems, that seems to be the key thing that basically leads us to the laws of physics that we have".
This statement confuses me too much, please explain!

[minhsp]

Too many words, what Stephen has to say is that for nonlinear chaotic systems, we cannot make predictions when the Lyapunov exponent is high

[JohnnyTwoFingers]

@16:45 Stephen gets lost in language ("cannot *solve* society"). I'm surprised he makes such fundamental errors!

[SteamPunkPhysics]

Space and time shouldn't be conjoined? Yeah, no kidding... Once again, famous people are now finally saying what I've been screaming from the rooftops for 20 years.

1:12:00 Particles as topological defects, eddies and black holes.

Yes, exactly but you need to stop thinking GR is greater than fluid dynamics and instead accept that inviscid fluid dynamics is how we arrived at GR. You're just not aware of the history of MacCullagh's influence on GR through Mie and Hilbert. (and that EM was fluid dynamics from the start) There's no need to wait 100 years. I can explain exactly why and how particles are black holes and topological defects and point you to numerous papers in fluid dynamics that will show you the mechanics responsible for it. I didn't come up with it, 100 other scientists across a variety of fields have, but we're just overspecialized and compartmentalized too much to properly communicate. The issue you're running into with the concept is that there's a scale based perspective where a particulate-like substrate can be more like a crystalline structure or granular (mechanically gear-like) at one scale and a fluid at another. It's merely an issue of scale.

...well that and the superstitious fear of the word aether. Sorry if you just had to cross yourself upon reading that offensive word I just wrote.

[bettyeldridge]

Here is a qubit:
In Fischer’s own words:
“What I propose is that normality, creativity, schizophrenia, and mystical states, though seemingly disparate, actually lie on a continuum. Furthermore, they represent increasing levels of arousal and a gradual withdrawal from the synchronized physical-sensory-cerebral spacetime of the normal state. Specifically, there is a retreat first to sensory-cerebral spacetime and, ultimately, to cerebral spacetime only. The gradual withdrawal from physical spacetime is an expression of the dissolution of ego boundaries, that is, the fusion of object and subject, and it implies that an existence solely in spacetime is an oceanic experience, the most intense mirroring of the ego in its own meaning.”
In summary, we can see that for any individual perception of the universe (as Self or mind) can occur as an internal or external experience. It is our rich internal experiences that have puzzled researchers in consciousness as the so-called “hard problem” of consciousness. At the extreme parameter in either direction, we experience an encounter with the Absolute. Along the continuum, we may experience varying forms of an I-Thou dialogue uniting reaching either extremely hyper- or hypo-arousal states.

[andthefunkybunch]

"You sly dog!" You caught me monologueing!"

[mykrahmaan]

"From outside blackholes look the same".

How many has he inspected before concluding they look the same?

And exactly where? In the lab or at home?

[Curleyguitars]

Only 7 mins in. CIR sounds like nonlinearity, the source of chaotic time evolutions of surprisingly simple systems of coupled equations. You can't just "plug in 1000, 000" and get the right answer here also. Looking forward to hearing how CIR is new and interesting.

[christopherellis]

Having listened to W trying to describe time, I got the impression that he didn't know what it was. The motion of matter in space. Speed equals distance divided by time. Therefore, time is distance divided by speed . i.e., Space: Motion:: Time: 1
The rest is either memory or imagination.

[davidchung]

I had one question for Stephen Wolfram: is there a limit to how much spacetime can be curved due to the presence of mass?

If this were so, there would be an upper limit on the "size" of the black hole (the apparent mass inferred via its gravitational effects), since any additional mass accretion would no longer be able to increase the gravity due to the black hole. I don't think we have found an upper limit to the size of black holes - not yet anyways.