Eric Weinstein & Stephen Wolfram: Theories of Everything (357)

Are you ready for the battle of the theories of everything?

Eric Weinstein and Stephen Wolfram, two mathematical mavericks and personal heroes of mine, joined me on the show to debate their theories of everything, answer questions from the audience, and discuss the fundamental nature of the universe.

I thoroughly enjoyed this deep and wide-ranging conversation, and I hope you will, too!

Tune in.

Join this channel to get access to perks:

Intro (00:00)
Why are young people so interested in theories of everything? (06:17)
Is it possible to reconcile Eric's and Stephen's theories? (13:28)
The notion of paradigm shifts (20:07)
Too simplistic or too complex? (39:47)
Comparing and contrasting different approaches (1:07:00)
Of what value is a theory if it’s not testable? (1:16:48)
The role of AI and the simulation hypothesis (1:31:31)
Final thoughts (1:43:44)
Outro (1:49:15)

—

Additional resources:

📺 Watch my most popular videos:

➡️ Follow me on your fav platforms:

Into the Impossible with Brian Keating is a podcast dedicated to all those who want to explore the universe within and beyond the known.

Make sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode!

#intotheimpossible #briankeating #ericweinstein #stephenwolfram

-~-~~-~~~-~~-~-
Please watch: "Neil DeGrasse Tyson: Plays the Race Card!"
-~-~~-~~~-~~-~-

[kadgx]

I don't mind re-uploads, but they really should be dated with the original air date in the title and description

[JumpingCow]

Brian, I love your work and your podcasts. But I would really appreciate it if you ALWAYS include the date of original recording in your description.

[MrJustCallMeJames]

Description of the video really should have the original air date of the footage.

[persistenthomology]

I got 13 minutes into this before I realized it was just a repost of the first conversation. PLEASE MAKE THIS CLEAR IN THE TITLE OR

[benjaminandersson]

Brian, this is not the way to gain more subscribers. Cmon. Please focus on doing quality podcasts instead of clickbaiting by doing reuploads. I like you, so please take this the right way, but this is the wrong way to go about it.

[uGotGot]

With all the hours of Wolfram I’ve listened to I have never seen him so combative (for lack of a better word). That is a relative term of course, and it doesn’t change the extreme respect I have for him. Also, for a guy who isn’t living and breathing this stuff like Stephen is, it’s amazing to me how dialed in Eric is. Two incredible minds for sure.

[elbibop]

These are great scientists, awesome guys. But Dr. Wolfram is in another league. His life accomplishments speak for himself.

[rudolphosvideos]

This needs to be longer! I feel like they are just getting started. You can hear that when the end was near more needed to come out. I hear forward to more!

[JURSSICZ]

Why re-upload a video from 3 years ago?

[dustinsoodak]

As I understand it, Eric starts with smooth manifolds, constructs a space that satisfies the geometrical requirements of both QM and GR, then gets 3 types of each particle "for free" (though doesn't have enough background in computational physics to obtain things like particle masses). Steven starts with the assumption that the world is ultimately computational and that all possible computational rules exist, then shows that a surprisingly large proportion of them end up looking like smooth manifolds with the properties of QM and GR if you zoom out enough (but it hasn't been developed enough to get many details at the particle level).
I keep hoping they will collaborate, working towards deriving known physics from opposite directions.

[Rusl]

I am neither a physicist or a mathematician. (I read about spin over and over many time just to get the jist from Hawking’s book.)
This discussion was sheer brilliance! Indeed I wish to know more. Thank you guys, you make it simple.

[eightyeightkeys]

I love the back and forth here between Eric and Stephen in that it has helped further my layman understanding of these complex topics. Great show!

[MagruderSpoots]

Eric: [Something way over my head]
Stephen:This is silly

[MichaelScharf]

When was this recorded??? Can’t be new! Please add a date to the title

[Anders]

I'm an amateur when it comes to this, but the term "differential geometry" sounded limited to me. I asked Google Bard: "I got an idea that differential geometry might be too simplistic for describing reality. Because the differential of a function as far as I know tells the ratio of change, but that's a very simplistic linear notion! The change may be much more complicated than that in reality." Google Bard answered: "Yes, differential geometry can be too simplistic for describing reality in some cases. The differential of a function is a linear approximation of the function at a point. This means that it is accurate for small changes in the input, but it may become inaccurate for larger changes.

In addition, differential geometry is typically used to describe smooth manifolds, which are spaces that are locally smooth. This means that they can be approximated by Euclidean space at any point. However, many real-world objects are not smooth manifolds. For example, the surface of a rock is typically not smooth, and the geometry of spacetime is not smooth at black holes.

To describe more complex geometries, mathematicians have developed other tools, such as Riemannian geometry and Finsler geometry. These tools allow for more general notions of curvature and distance.

Differential geometry is still a powerful tool for describing many real-world phenomena, but it is important to be aware of its limitations.

Here are some examples of situations where differential geometry may not be sufficient:

When the change in the input is large
When the space being described is not smooth
When the geometry is very complex, such as the geometry of spacetime near a black hole
In these cases, it may be necessary to use more sophisticated tools from mathematics or physics.

It is also important to note that differential geometry is a mathematical discipline, and its goal is to provide a rigorous and systematic framework for studying geometry. It is not necessarily the goal of differential geometry to provide a perfect description of reality.

However, differential geometry has been shown to be very useful for describing many real-world phenomena, and it continues to be an important tool for scientists and engineers."

[neIntangible]

About 1/3 of the comments here, are complaints of a re-uploading w/o the original airing date mentioned.

[merodobson]

This is what science and humanity in general needs more of. Serious brains behind our progress exchanging ideas and teaching each other. Elevating everything in progress.

[LittleCutiePodcast]

Dr. Keating thank you for making these podcasts. Really enjoying the guests you've had on recently.

[robertcutts]

I love it at about 56 minutes in when Stephen blows Eric's mind with his discovery that Einstein's field equations in 3D space are the same as Feynman's path integrals in quantum field theory! Eric's response is priceless! "Wait a minute! What did you just say!? Lemme think about that for a minute!" But this is a perfect example of why Dr. Keating does this awesome show... so these moments can happen for ALL of us! Thanks so much to all three of you guys for bringing this enlightenment.

[Baleur]

I love how no other scientist on the planet has bothered to read Eric's theory.
It's kind of mind blowing, and if i was Eric, and i genuinely believed i was sitting on something huge, i'd be frustrated out of my mind.