Jonathan Gorard: the complete first interview

0:00 The complete first interview
0:17 The founding of the Wolfram Physics Project
13:32 From clockwork to computation
23:09 Why I took a chance on Wolfram Physics
31:29 Why hypergraphs might be a good model of the universe
40:51 Graphs v hypergraphs
46:40 How to draw the hypergraph
53:43 Why I changed my mind about computational irreducibility
1:02:38 Causal invariance v confluence
1:14:51 How to find causally invariant rules
1:18:49 How to find interesting & plausible rules
1:25:57 One rule to rule them all?
1:32:00 Is the universe a tautology?
1:41:09 How to derive quantum mechanics from Wolfram Physics
1:55:32 How to derive general relativity from Wolfram Physics
2:07:54 How _special_ is general relativity?
2:12:51 A toy model of particles
2:19:19 Are electrons too big to simulate?
2:23:47 Where's the evidence for Wolfram Physics?
2:36:51 Beyond physics

I’ve heard from many of you that you’d like the whole of my conversation with Jonathan Gorard in a single video.

So here it is, the complete first interview.

These three hours are a brilliant exposition of Wolfram Physics from a figure whose contributions to the project are second to none.

—

Jonathan Gorard

Images

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.

[NightmareCourtPictures]

"Wake up kids, we have a Last Theory upload."

[MarkoTManninen]

Pure gold. My favourite new generation scientist, J.G. Thanks for your effort, both.

[tokrv]

👍 You had the best interview with Jonathan. I would love to hear another one

[couldntfindafreename]

This is the best interview with Jonathan out there. Watching it for the 5th time, still getting new knowledge out of it. Please, please try to arrange for a new interview each year, so we can hear about any further advances. - Thanks!

[alphaomega]

The new kid on the block for sure. Great times ahead. Seen him twice and sense greatness. Makes me want to take it serious.

[hankseda]

Informative and candid interview! Well done 👏

[User]

Yay finally get to see the whole thing. Thanks for interview.

[hypercube]

Your perspectives and videos have been very helpful. Thank you.

[justincgs]

Thank you so much for posting full length interviews vs the shorts.

[ShahryarKhan-KHANSOLO-]

Loved this interview! <3 Jonathan is amazing

[clivebarrell]

A fantastic source of inspiration and thinking. Keep up the great work.

[TheGreenboxal]

The physical <> computational correspondence clicked for me when I realized how distributed computing is inherently bound by special relativity, and you can directly observe the effects here (and you have to work around them).

[Anders]

Great to hear an explanation of theoretical physics. Lots of complexity in how things have developed.

[diegoalejandrosanchezherre]

He must put an eye in holography and the information black hole lost paradox, the firewal vs complementaity and the deep black hole physics, looks like he is brilliant, maybe can find an interplay between the wolfram physics and the topcis of holography

[harriehausenman]

sry for being so late, that one took me a while 😄
Great editing! 🤗 Can't imagine how many micro-decisions had to be made 🤭
I think subtitles would be great and make it much more accessible.
Also chapter marks could help.
All in all: A historic document, in my book 😍

[Stadtpark]

13:53 nine minutes of gold: on computationalism and constructivism

“people confuse the substrate of a model for a statement about ontology”


22:39 “… there are situations in which you can prove formally: No experiment that you can in principle do, could distinguish wether the universe is discrete or continuous”, “it keeps running away from you”

31:30 nine more minutes of pure gold: wanting rewriting rules that preserve distance in the causal structure (- otherwise you would lose a notion of locality)
- the hypergraph is what drops out naturally / obviously

40:55 implementation: how to do the plumbing

46:44

Edit: I finally have time to continue with this video.
1:34:14 The multiverse is more trivial than the universe. - Intuition: There is some content to the universe. // In my own words: You have to have starting conditions; you can’t just start with rules and arrive at our universe; the rules have to act on something preexisting. You can have a multiverse from nothing, but you can’t have “our” universe from nothing. It’s like a (random number?) “seed” in a sandbox-(computer-)game, that distinguishes this universe from all possible universes.

1:39:01 Where to place the computational burden? Bottom Up, or Top Down? The role of the observer in “slicing the Ruliad”.

1:41:10 Being more realistic about the nature of the observer: GR and QM were a start, what’s the next logical step? The observer imposes a coarse graining / “fake rules”: the observer imposes causal invariance post-hoc.

1:50:13 getting QM for free (- I’ll have to rewatch that a few more times.)

2:10:47 GR is more generic / less “special” than one might have hoped for: it applies quite “naturally” to a large part of possible hypergraph rewriting rules; it doesn’t narrow down / pick out “our” universe; vice versa: our type of universe might not be uncommon in the hypothetical space of reasonably constructed universes.

2:12:58 particles

[djbabbotstown]

So this is the interview from last year?

[rauckr]

Jonathan seemed to suggest that the presence of computational irreducibility of a phenomenon leads to the ability to coarse-grain the behavior of it. Is he suggesting that this is universally true? Would that mean that Rule 30 would also follow this behavior?

[michaelsoliman.]

Moin Moin.
Dies anyone know a definition of causal edges.
I am still struggling with the difference of causal to graph structure.
My idea is, that the causal graph does correspond to spacetime, and the hypergraph to its Riemannian manifold.
But I do not see, where the maps/Atlasses are coming from.
Do your know a video exploring that.
That would be great 🐯
.
Tschüß, Michael Soliman.

[VladislavGoryachev]

Is the second interview coming up, or this is the end of our journey? I am most interested in the topic of WHERE the computation is happening ))