/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11564367
He said next week.
Is Christmas coming early?

god damn kids promoting their youtube/twitch channels on 4chan

You should be in school Wolfram! Not promoting your dang twitch channels or playing DOTA :)

so, just what are they about to prove today?

is this going to be big?

>>11564429
Doubt it, but it will probably pave the way.

>>11564429
>Initial condition is penis

Based physicists

Reckon he's created a portal to another dimension where all our waifus live?

>>11564367
BREAKING NEWS: physicists found a Spirograph

>>11564436

>>11564435
kek

https://www.wolfram-media.com/products/a-project-to-find-the-fundamental-theory-of-physics.html

>THE ANNOUNCEMENT

>Finally We May Have a Path to the Fundamental Theory of Physics... and It’s Beautiful

Why does a book need a clickbait chapter...

is he talking about aether theory?

what the fuck is that boomer talking about

https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2020/04/finally-we-may-have-a-path-to-the-fundamental-theory-of-physics-and-its-beautiful/

Going to need a TL:DR for this

boomer physicist discovers network science, complexity theory

>>11564367
He's finally admiting he's Arab or did he find proof that he's a Roman?

>>11564506
Just read it yourself you lazy bastard.

>>11564506
TL;DR from what I'm reading is that Wolfram finally fucking lost it, like that guy that gave a talk on (dis?)proving RH last year only to get on stage and sound like he was having an Alzheimer's episode.

>>11564506
>…and It’s Beautiful

>>11564543
hes gonna give the resident schizo some ideas

>>11564543
atiyah?

>>11564367
>no girls included
>no minorities
No one's gonna listen.

>>11564506
>>11564543 again with a more serious reply: I'm still reading it, but so far it just seems like he discovered abstract rewriting systems, plotted them as a (hyper)graph, and through the power of non-falsifiability and voodoo magic declared that their (arbitrarily chosen) 2D representation looks complex so maybe they could (somehow??) simulate the universe.
Bonus: he totally-not-on-purpose chose a graph plot that vaguely resembles a brain.

>If we ignore all matter in the universe, our universe is basically a big chunk of space. But what is that space?
>Well, I think it’s very much like the picture above. A whole bunch of what are essentially abstract points, abstractly connected together.

This reads like a vixra article with better grammar and spelling.

>>11564567
>hes gonna give the resident schizo some ideas
there's only one?!

>>11564367
>Space is discrete
K E K
E
K

>COMPLETELY DETERMINISTIC
LMFAO

>>11564598
>And this is basically how I think space in the universe works. Underneath, it’s a bunch of discrete, abstract relations between abstract points. But at the scale we’re experiencing it, the pattern of relations it has makes it seem like continuous space of the kind we’re used to. It’s a bit like what happens with, say, water. Underneath, it’s a bunch of discrete molecules bouncing around. But to us it seems like a continuous fluid.

>>11564580
Yeah

Basically, Is he trying to tell use we can't create the matrix to simulate/predict our universe, but we can create the matrix to learn how to hack our universe?

okay, so

>>11564543
>>11564580
>>11564617
We dont talk about it. Stop talking about it.

>>11564585
The more I read this the more it seems like he smoked a big fat blunt while watching NGE and procrastinating for his undergraduate CS courses and just wrote this out as a stream of consciousness.

>>11564435
first thing i noticed too

>In our models what this means is that the “mind of the observer”, just like everything else in the universe, has to get updated through a series of updating events. There’s no absolute way for the observer to “know what’s going on in the universe”; all they ever experience is a series of updating events, that may happen to be affected by updating events occurring elsewhere in the universe.
Oh cool, not only is he raping physics, mathematics, and CS, but now he's raping philosophy too.

>>11564367
>it's just Dynkin diagrams
Thank based Wolfman, for this new kind of science

>>11564543
>Wolfram finally fucking lost it
this

I don’t know what your problem is, guys.
To me all that stuff seems to totally make sense. He’s found something like cellular automata, a class of rules to create complex systems. From these systems, interpreted in the right way, he can derive the basic laws of Physics.
The question isn’t even whether the world "really is" such an evolving hypergraph. The point is that it’s an insanely powerful yet basically simple model. Same as with Turing Machines and Computers. A Computer works vastly different from a Turing Machine, but that doesn’t matter at all as far as lots of computational theory is concerned.

If everything he writes in the introduction really checks out, I don’t see how someone should prove that the universe can NOT be modelled in these terms. Even though the exact model (set of rules) will likely never be found.

>>11564692
Read the whole article. He's not made any predictions as far as I've read, all he's done is handwavily apply some geometry and topology to graph theory. He also keeps flip-flopping back and forth between whether the geometry and topology of his graphs matter or not.

>>11564692
Evidence of God if I have to be honest.

>>11564701
So how does this solve physics?

>>11564611
Sounds like he never heard about physics. Poor guy is going to be BTFO.
His automata seemed interesting. What a shame.

>This is your brain on discrete mathematics
Memes aside, it does seem like it has potential.

>>11564714
As far as I can understand, it doesn't. I'll give credit where it's due and admit that I'm some rando on 4chan while he's Stephen Wolfram, but this entire thing just seems isomorphic to saying "bro, somewhere in [math]\pi[/math] there's a sequence of continuous digits that describes your entire life!"... Yes, obviously if you have an infinite amount of information with no bias ([math]\pi[/math]: infinite decimal expansion, presumed normal; wolfram: no restrictions on which states you can start at or which rules you can apply), you can always define an encoding that'll shit out everything and anything, but that doesn't make it useful.

>>11564731
That's exactly what String Theory did, and yet Witten is lauded as a genius.

>>11564613
>hes talking about languages
KEK

>>11564751
Maybe I'm just too undereducated to appreciate the genius of Wolfram's proposal.

>>11564766
>and philosophy
kek

>>11564701
Yes, the article is a lot of handwaving; apparently more like the introduction to a 600 page tome of his on the subject? That’s why I said "if everything checks out." One can’t assess whether his derivations of all the equations are actually bonkers or not. But I don’t see why a priori they should be bonkers. Those goddamn graphs are crazy enough, sure as hell, tilt them by 20° and you get special relavitity? Why not?
I mean, often he’s basically talking about the exact *equivalent* anyways; he takes the speed of light, describes what it is in abstract terms, and already he’s pointed out where to read the speed of light in the model. That’s not bonkers, that’s just elegance.

>>11564751
not what string theory did at all you brainlet

>>11564767
Well, I'll admit that it's too early to tell if we should pass it off as a crank theory or not yet.

Directed graphs and rewriting systems. What exactly is new here? These have already been applied to physics before.

>>11564779
What's our universe's vacuum state then?

Actual material of use
https://www.wolframphysics.org/archives/index
https://github.com/maxitg/SetReplace

>>11564771
>Those goddamn graphs are crazy enough, sure as hell, tilt them by 20° and you get special relavitity?
That's the thing: they're not even bonkers, they're meaningless. He states multiple times (directly and indirectly) that what matters are the edges between nodes. If that's all that matters, then no matter how much you rotate the graph nothing should change and no special insights should come out of it.

I don't even really understand the point at which he starts drawing causal graphs as pyramids and slices them to get timelike membranes: what the fuck? Why are we arbitrarily assuming that a node that happens to be below another represents time advancing? How is that fundamentally different from going to a node that's not directly vertically below us? I can't even put into words how senseless it appears to me.

Readers in this thread may also be interested in the hackernews thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22866284
One of the co-authors is responding to comments there. Hackernews posters are, understandably, sceptic.

>>11564367
>Taleb
Why doesn't he just say it, we all know he wants to: yuuuuge like my big swarthy arab cock

Do you guys think that dismissing every attempt at a new theory somehow makes you smart? Do you know nothing from the history of physics? If every (flawed) new idea was immediately dismissed, we'd still be rubbing sticks together.

Do you think Wolfram's arms are tired from patting himself on the back so hard?

>>11564826
Dude, read the article. I'm the guy actually reading the entire article and I'm not trying to dismiss this just to feel smart, it just legitimately seems (to me) to not make any sense at some points.

>>11564816
You appear to be conflating two things

1) Graphs which are generated via repeated applications of his rule

2) Graphs which represent the ordered application of the rules which generate 1 (every possible application)

Show me the particles Wolfram. Document your work, this is too abstract to parse without some better labels.
Show me the particles

https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/wolframphysics/WorkingMaterial/2019/Particles-01.nb

>>11564716

Gary posted Optimum Theory to Wolfram's Twitter and it got loads of Likes. No way Wolfram didnt see it (Gary has since deleted all his tweets unfortunately or I would show you). Next day, Wolfram says he had an unexpected discovery... then Wolfram doesnt post for months, then he comes back with this rehash of one of his old theories that gets BTFO by Optimum Theory anyway... so yeah.

>>11564840

It doesn't make sense. It's just a rehash of one of his older theories. This is Wolfram's way of reacting to Gary's Optimum Theory which was the last thing posted to Wolfram's Twitter before Wolfram went into hibernation and produced..whatever this is... I would show you but Gary deleted all his tweets, as is his style unfortunately. Gary seems to think that every social network is snapchat.

>>11564840
That's fine, but my point still stands.It's very new; to expect it to be bulletproof is asinine. Look at how long it took astronomers to find the correct theory. It took lots of different people trying lots of different ideas, and importantly, ultimately failing with those ideas. It seems common now, among scientists, to shout down new theories and ideas, and in my opinion, it hinders progress.
You're almost certainly right that the theory doesn't work. But that doesn't mean that someone can't adjust it, or use the same underlying idea to make it work.

>>11564849
Wait, never mind. Figured it out. Space is "A" and "B" and "C" are particles with an attractive force.

He's representing physics as a string of characters in this particular model.

>>11564450
lol

>>11564585
>A whole bunch of what are essentially abstract points, abstractly connected together.
great non-explanation

>>11564367
>Taleb
>Wolfram

Two borderline pseuds, why am I not surprised.

>>11564852
fuck off Gary

>>11564826
>>11564856
Physicists come up with crazy theories, but at least they put some math behind it. Their papers speak a common language and they show how known concepts emerge from the things they're proposing.

His theory seems extremely lacking in this regard.

>>11564816
Right, I didn’t get what a "moving observer" was supposed to mean in that section, either. I suppose it’s in the direction of: If the observer and the observed get updated by the same rule at the same step…
and then looking at the "speed" at which the causality propagetes towards the observer.

He’ll have attempted a rigorous deriving of these "foliages" from some actually sensible starting conditions/interpretations; the question is whether those will hold. I’m not surprised that it doesn’t make complete sense in the introduction, though.

>>11564866
make an actual argument against the content

I do a lot of amateur work in rewriting systems. What Wolfram has made here is sort of novel, but most of that comes in the form of his interpretation/applications rather than the math itself.
Graph rewriting already has a pretty long history.
Its great that its getting applied to physics, but like always Wolfram is taking credit for things that he didn't really discover.
An interesting CS application of this would be to consider "translation" models, where the initial state for one rule is "translated" into the initial state for another rule such that some global invariants hold in their structure after repeated application of each rule. The translation would itself be a terminating rule in the same graph rewriting doctrine as these rules.

>>11564367
Where/when? Give links or something pleaaase

>>11564877
I think that's the point. If he was to write it in the same language, he'd be writing a summary of what we know so far. The point is that using a different approach - starting from a computational rather than a mathematical veiwpoint - you get the same results. That is the huge takeaway - he gives a different, potentially valid approach.

>>11564902
See:
>>11564506
>>11564815

Does anyone else find it odd that this was released after Conway's death?

>>11564929
sacrifices had to be made

Seems to me wolfram has developed a modelling system which is potentially capable of modelling phenomenon in the universe. Just another tool in the toolset.

pls look at my theory

>>11564929
not odd, but ironic

>But, OK, let’s say we find that our universe can be described by some particular rule. Then the obvious immediate question would be: why that rule, and not another? The history of science—certainly since Copernicus—has shown us over and over again evidence that we’re “not special”. But if the rule we find to describe our universe is simple, wouldn’t that simplicity be a sign of “specialness”?
>To my considerable surprise, the paradigm that’s emerging from our recent discoveries potentially seems to suggest a definite—though at first seemingly bizarre—scientific answer.
>In what we’ve discussed so far we’re imagining that there’s a particular, single rule for our universe, that gets applied over and over again, effectively in all possible ways. But what if there wasn’t just one rule that could be used? What if all conceivable rules could be used? What if every updating event could just use any possible rule? (Notice that in a finite universe, there are only ever finitely many rules that can ever apply.)
>At first it might not seem as if this setup would ever lead to anything definite. But imagine making a multiway graph of absolutely everything that can happen—including all events for all possible rules. This is a big, complicated object. But far from being structureless, it’s full of all kinds of structure.
>And there’s one very important thing about it: it’s basically guaranteed to have causal invariance (basically because if there’s a rule that does something, there’s always another rule somewhere that can undo it).

>>11564906
Thanks brosif

>>11564929
Unfortunate

Or wolfram actually wasnt done but nearly and felt like he had to because conway

Man as soon as qurantine is up I need to mail/email/visit my favorite historic figures that are still alive. I really have been wanting to visit Bernard Widrow, creator of LMS algo. The dudes 90!

oh, looks like he's actually live right now

https://www.twitch.tv/stephen_wolfram

>>11564978
Lol what a fucking nerd

>>11564962
Essentially: "Ok, so if you consider every possible way of modifying a graph, and make a directed graph whose nodes are the original graphs and the edges are the modifications, then you get a super graph that includes every graph you can imagine and which always converges to the same state. Because REASONS, this isn't an useless object, it is actually very useful, because if it contains everything then it must contain all structures possible; I'm not going to make any useful predictions with my graph of graphs though because we're just not there yet, but trust me it's very useful :)"

This is literally a vixra article and I'm mad at myself for wasting 2+ hours reading it and discussing it.

>>11564841
I might have misunderstood something. As you pointed out, I'm not even totally 100% sure of the differences between the 2 types of graphs (mostly because his style of writing is so incoherent and rambly), but to the best of my understanding I don't see how the geometry of the way you choose to plot your graph can have any effect on anything. At one point he rambles about not being able to slice his graph at more than 45 degrees. Why? I don't know, and honestly I think at this point I don't care. This is completely fucking unreadable.

>>11564978
>frogposters

>>11564978
>subs get access to private snapchat
Really mr Wolfram??

>>11564993
The latter type of graph is a tree representing every way of applying his rule to the first type of graph. Trees have well-defined depths.

Nowhere is he depending on how you draw a graph.

TL;DR our universe is basic cellular automata with fractional spacial dimensions

He said he’s been thinking of this since the 90’s. Why did he wait to announce this till right after Conway’s death?

>>11565009
I was just listening to the long new Weinstein interview... and he said he also released his old stuff because he didn't want to die with it

>>11565006
Sorry mate, but I don't think I can offer anything more to this discussion. Either I'm fundamentally misunderstanding something in his word salad, or you are, and I respectfully am not curious enough to find out which one it is.

Bonus hypothesis: his theory is like postmodern art - you can look at it and find whatever meaning you want. This is what I'm leaning towards.

>The universe is just a universal computer and nothing but

What an exceptionally dull result.

>>11565021
...ok

>>11564903
But he arrives at little to no results. Section 8, the one section that would be relevant, is extremely thin.

It seems to me what he's saying is that vacuum energy can be partitioned into subsets which are then acted on by an "inflationary-delflationary" urnary function and its inverse, which would then be what gives particles heat energy. Of course, the function would have to be non-periodic in order to mimic the quasi randomness of QM

>>11564367
Precedent for this so people don't think it's complete quackery:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causal_sets

>>11565045
holy shit is that you stephen

>>11565034
>But he arrives at little to no results.
He's gotten some 1000s of pages of stuff. It seems he's developed a model which spits out computational results which are in line with the results of standard physics, which obviously shows promise. Where he takes it too far he's already talking about the universe being a computer and everything being deterministic and that the universe is fundamentally irreducible computationally.

>watch Wolframs video thats WAY over your head but try your best to follow anyway
>Hey son what are you watching
>uhhhhh.... Porn

It’s almost less embarrassing to just say it’s porn than trying to explain this shit to them.

>>11565076
What's wrong with calling it porn? It's just Wolfram masturbating himself with buzzwords.

>>11565058
Hah hah you're funny. But no, that's not exactly what he said, I just extrapolated that from his article. The idea would be that the urnary function is dependent on some way of quantifying density, which would tilt it towards inflation/deflation, which would then account for the initial expansion of the universe physicists like to talk so much about. The current vacuum is then under some equilibrium of this urnary space function, such that deflation approximately counters inflation. Of course most of this is off the top of my head.

>>11565076
It's just Wolframs version of a TED talk.

>>11565058
nah because he's livestreaming rn

APOLOGIZE

>>11565097
>The virgin Wolfram
>The chad Gary

>>11565097
ayyo why he DO be lookin fine tho

>>11564367
>real world predictions
>0

Into the trash it goes, l'm pretty sure this is just string theory 2.0

Okay actual tl;dr here:
He calls a "rule" a function that takes a graph to a new graph by looking for confugurations of edges and replacing them with another configuration.
He discovers that simple rules can give complex behaviour.
Some of these rules generate graphs that, when arranged reasonably, converge to 2d and 3d manifolds. Basically the metric approximated by the shortest part of the graph converges to the metric of some manifold.
He then analyzes how curvature, distance, volume and similar quantities could be defined for these graphs, analogously to manifolds.
Then he introduces some new stuff, I didnt read from there. He talks about repeated string replacement rules and causality.
In the end he apparantly finds some analogies to physics, but I didnt get that.
The whole generating complicated manifolds from a simple rule that evolves a graph is neat though.

>>11565138
There actually are a few predictions he talked about which could potentially be detected via experiments. Mentioned something about Dark matter being the aggregation of particles which are smaller protons, neutrons and electrons.

>>11565146
so you read his rehashing of cellular automata and gave up? nice job anon

>>11565146
What's the difference between this and a three dimensional cellular automata?

Should I bother reading his A New Kind of Science?

>>11565151
It's n-dimensional now anon, extremely elegant

>>11565153
No, read this instead http://bactra.org/reviews/wolfram/

ay yo, brainlet here - i'm just here for de graphs. more specifically, where de equations to make dem graphs. i wanna build sum of dem tings in houdini.

Why make a discrete theory if automata can be continuous

>work that pretends to explain something without making a single prediction, with enough science fiction sounding words to impress people
I mean, if something called a hypergraph is used along the principle of computational equivalence to explain the dimensionality of space then it MUST be a big deal, right?
Joe Rogan is gonna love this.

>>11565160
I like the fact that it's actually really elegant, but I'm skeptical about the relevance of that property. I mean, you can literally build a turing complete computer by using cellular automata, but when it comes to wolfram so far all I can see is a bunch of complex static shapes.

This seems like a low key project to help bruteforce a bunch of pointless shapes using distributed computational power lmao

>>11565164
He just ragged on him the whole time and he even had to correct himself at the end lol

Makes me want to read him more

>>11565160
not only n-dimensional, but factional dimensional
but he admitted there's no mathematics yet that allows for different n-dimensions within the same cellular automata

I've been spewing my schizo nonsense on /sci/ for a while how our universe is a black hole of 4d space. 4d space turned 3d by intense gravitational forces. But this has got me thinking, does this mean we'll NEVER have a complete picture of the universe, because our universe is separated from the main universe by this black hole? We're obviously missing LARGE pieces of the puzzle necessary to figure out basic unified physics. Could those necessary missing pieces needed to figure this out exist in the main universe that ours has splintered off from, and are now completely inaccessible to us for all eternity?

It makes me sad that this shit thread about some old fart ramblings gets more discussion and comments going than the one about John Conway.

>>11565086
>urnary
Urinary?

>>11565188
I mean, accorind to Wolfram he just invented this shit like 6 months ago so its no surprise its not nearly as complex as cellular automata. Personally, Wolfram talking about finding the fundamental rule of the universe and then claiming the universe is just a giant computer and we are computations is bit eccentric, but his method and newly developed tools show great promise, particularly in applications to other more mundane and tractable studies.

I want to hear 2ker's take on this

https://www.strawpoll.me/19776653

>>11565231
I wish there were a way for the mods to see who voted for what. Through the use of 1 (one) single poll we could permanently remove all the pseuds and shitposters from /sci/.

>>11564367
Wolfram is a crank.

>In other words, from the property of causal invariance, we’re able to derive relativity.

?

We need some hardcore math nerds to confirm this. Big if true, true if big

He wants to be the next Mochizuki

>OK, so in our toy model we can derive special relativity.

lol is he for real though? Is this just some old man with dementia or there is some substance to his claims?

>>11565146
>Okay actual tl;dr here
>I didn't read from there
>I didn't get that

Thanks for nothing

>>11565207
where /sci/ meets /x/

>>11565209
because Conway is 1. dead and 2. wasn't interesting for 20 years and 3. wasn't even sympathetic

>>11564826
>sometimes good new idea sound crazy
>therefore every crazy-sounding new idea is good
>why are you guys disagreeing? you’re just being contrarians!
hopeless.

>>11565276
can we summon a suckabus with the power of cellular automata

>>11565372
see
>>11564436
>>11564450

>>11565380
fuck we have to get on this right now

what's the stable configuration for futanari

>>11564367
It's graphs all the way down faggots

>>11565308
Sooo, like Wolfram? Except for being literally dead.

>>11565207
he also mentioned that at the very start of our universe it likely had many more than 3 dimensions of space. did anyone else catch that?

big if true

>>11565412
except Wolfram saves millions of brainlets like me everyday by providing free access to wolfram|alpha so I can compute integral of ln(1-x)

>>11565403
post pictures of your butthole

>>11565422
That's a negative argument tbqh.

>>11564367
Finally!
I've been shilling some of these ideas for years here on /sci/, now that a proper bigbrain has proceeded to lay it all down good and nicely I can start ravaging your anuses about how right I was.

>>11565504
Link to your posts you based schizo

>>11565243
>>11565265
>>11565243
>>11565265
I am reading the stuff now. I think he has mad overhyped the statement that he has derived relativity. What he's done is found an analogous phenomenon in his toy models that arises due to a property he calls causal invariance, wherein the specific choices that a system takes ends up not mattering. Because of this there are multiple ways in which a system can evolve, some shorter, some faster. It turns out that by associating the fastest possible pathway with c you can apply time dilation and it spits out accurate numbers. Truth be told this seems far more a project that applies physics concepts to data and computer science rather than the other way around, but Wolfram is a bit of an eccentric and holds certain beliefs regarding the universe to be a giant computational machine. The result seems to be all there.

>>11564429
this is looking like schizo shit

>>11565504
t. wolfram

did anyone read what jonathan gorard was saying on hackernews? he's so desperate to prove to himself that working with wolfram wasn't a huge waste of time lmfao, I bet he's literally crying right now

>>11565536
>Why YES, I did prove that reality is a hypergraph, how could you tell?

>Coming soon... the book of the project

>>11565536
>he's so desperate to prove to himself that working with wolfram wasn't a huge waste of time lmfao
I mean if you just flip the script from applying Computer science/graph theory ideas to Physics and change it to applying Physics ideas to computer science its actually some neat stuff. Honestly, the different ways this stuff can be applied into different fields is probably more interesting than what they are doing now, at least in the short to medium term.

>>11565548
Wolfram, at the very least, publishes his shit for free on the internet. All the contents are already out probably.

>>11564367
>The w that appears there is a new element that’s being created, and the only requirement is that it’s distinct from all other elements.

So basically a model that eventually should predict thermodynamics basically violates thermodynamics. Congrats on this

>>11565554
jonathan, look man, I have nothing against you... you seem like a great kid, but this isn't the way to build a reputation or get respect by the community... please just dump wolfram and find a nice department to settle down in with actual researchers, he's not good for you

>>11565060
>and the guy who recreated Wolfram Alpha is the one to crack the code
There is either something twisted with the programmers of this simulation or we are not in one at all

>>11564585
Looks like a shroom to me. If you think that looks like a brain maybe you're just tarded.

The problem with this approach is that the hypergraph representation has its own set of internal rules. How can you pretend to model physics if the rules that govern the representation of your abstract models are still arbitrary and based on the physical reality you are trying to model?

There is a huge logical inconsistency being swept under the rug here.

>>11564444 (checked)
>>11564543
lmao this
fucking CS/ML niggers, they're like pic related but 10 times more obnoxious.

>>11565593
>How can you pretend to model physics if the rules that govern the representation of your abstract models are still arbitrary and based on the physical reality you are trying to model?
As far as I can tell, his models are in no way based on physical reality. Rather they are arbitrary rules similar to the game of life. These arbitrary rules when allowed to evolve create all sorts of unique and interesting patters. The main thrust of Stephen's current claims is that if you find an arbitrary rule set that creates phenomenon which can be accurately identified as basic particles then the universe probably operates on those principles. He backs this up with his current publications by noting how in a broad array of randomly generated graph systems you can see basic properties of physics such as special and even general relativity emerging by some renaming of conventional variables. In my opinion this process is similar to how Computer Scientists realized that entropy existed in their field.

Technically speaking you are correct, ultimately even if Stephan found a ruleset which created a functioning model of our universe, their would still need to be greater empirical evidence needed to be found to resoundly demonstrate that the Universe is a giant computational machine as he suggests.

>>11565593
>How can you pretend to model physics
He basically said you can't model our universe with hypergraph. Even if you knew the rules that govern our universe, you can't even compute it with a computer within our own universe. however, if you assume our universe is some variation of a hyper-graph with an unknown ruleset, then you can examine all other variations of hypergraph and you can infer a set of rules that all hypergraphs must follow, which can be used to explain some physics in our universe.

>>11565593
>How can you pretend to model physics
He basically said you can't model our universe with hypergraph. Even if you knew the rules that govern our universe, you can't even compute it with a computer within our own universe. however, if you assume our universe is some variation of a hyper-graph with an unknown ruleset, then you can examine all other variations of hypergraph and you can infer a set of rules that all hypergraphs must follow, which can be used to derive some physics in our universe, such as general relativity and quantum mechanics. yes that's right, he said you can derive GR and QM from this approach. big if true

>>11565639
>yes that's right, he said you can derive GR and QM from this approach. big if true
He did actually.

>wow it looks like something therefore physics
>just add more nodes bro that's how it works
>just hypergraph my shit up
>c = 0.2c
>We somehow derived QM and Relativity let's put those paragraphs somewhere BUT NOT ON THE TITLE OF THIS MAJOR DISCOVERY

lmao the absolute state of theoretical physics. The only difference between optimum theory and thi is that one guy is using excel while the other uses some self-made framework no one knows/cares about-

>>11565097
Gary's optimum theory is unironically superior to wolfram's thing

>>11565705

Difference between Wolfram's theory and Optimum Theory is Optimum Theory is blatantly true. You can literally see it with your own eyes, and the equations line up with what we know. Wolfram talks about how his model sort of might derive gravity, while in Optimum Theory there is no "maybe" you can see, with your own eyes, particles attract by the square of their distance. https://youtu.be/6ClC50BsK5Y

>>11565519
Universe being one big state machine. Check.
Particles having each their own execution speed. Check.
Branching and confluence of states. Check (causal invariance).
How time works outside relative frame when I tried to explain why hypotethical FTL communication wouldn't break relativity. Check (branchtime).
My very fitting methapor of c being the speed required to reach A-B points of an elastic line no matter how stretched that line is. Check.
My claim that space is an emergent property. Check
There's also some stuff about quantum entanglement and different branches of different timings (if I understood correctly) that may (or may not) be related to my idea of a shared state between different instances of reality.

Sure, he hasn't figured the actual ruleset of our universe, but to extrapolate GR and QM from these hypergraphs makes me think that Wolfram is pretty based and is onto something.

>>11565709

Fuck yeah it is. Thanks based ANON.

>>11565624
i knew there was something wrong with >>11565593.
>f you find an arbitrary rule set that creates phenomenon which can be accurately identified as basic particles then the universe probably operates on those principles.

that is exactly what i wanted to say, but i couldn't put it in words. thank you for writing this

Is there a pdf around so I can read this like a normal person would? That interactive website is a whole load of unbearable shit

>>11564444
based and checkpilled

>>11564852
who is this Gary?

>.

I like to assume that schizos are happy so I don't get blackpilled on the human condition

https://twitter.com/GaryTheOptimist/status/1250234463935594496?s=19

>>11565847

These people are insane

https://twitter.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1250137670186962945?s=19

https://youtu.be/R610XnTVwIo

Academia BTFO

https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/1250147973759225856?s=19

>>11565785
I just spent like 2 hours reading this, here's his blog post with helpful links to his more technical stuff which links to his SUPER technical pre-prints.

https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2020/04/finally-we-may-have-a-path-to-the-fundamental-theory-of-physics-and-its-beautiful/

Overall, it's 6/10 on the Schizo scale. Wolfram spits out some more eccentric stuff trying to reach for his ideas on computation, but the reach's aren't that bad and they are illustrative.

Basically, he says he has discovered a more elegant version of cellular automata that if you squint and apply some information theory to it can be said to conform to standard physics.

>>11565847
>>11565848
>>11565852
>>11565856
sometimes i wish the third impact would have happened in 2015

He doesn't SOUND crazy, and his credentials are top-notch...

>>11565867
While I did spend some time reading that website and the discussion here:

>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22866284

This particular comment seems to summarize this "discovery" pretty well:

>Not really. It's very vague -- he is just repeatedly saying "well, you could write down X in terms of graphs in this way." But you can write down anything in terms of anything. You can write a compiler in PowerPoint because it's Turing complete. You can write the Bible in Klingon. You can write about making a burrito in category theory.
>Languages are just packaging. In order to have content, you have to nail down specifics, and here the choice of language can be useful because the specifics might be more naturally expressed in some languages than others. But Wolfram hasn't begun this journey.

>>11565904
I agree somewhat. Truth be told, this stuff probably has greater implications for information theory and computer science than fundamental physics. Perhaps in 100 years, some random autist will stumble upon a basic hypergraph rule set that creates emergent phenomenon that comes astonishingly close to modeling something in our universe with reasonable fidelity. From there it is hoped that some other emergent properties can be mapped from it to our world and make a prediction. I this as less a descriptive "discovery" and more the development of a new platform and tool physicists and scientists can model and investigate their fields.

>>11565818
The poster you are responding to.
https://boards.fireden.net/sci/thread/10498790
https://boards.fireden.net/sci/thread/10524330
https://boards.fireden.net/sci/thread/10524330
https://boards.fireden.net/sci/thread/10534146
https://boards.fireden.net/sci/thread/10555395
https://boards.fireden.net/sci/thread/10563635
https://boards.fireden.net/sci/thread/10585306
https://boards.fireden.net/sci/thread/10600281
https://boards.fireden.net/sci/thread/10616117
https://boards.fireden.net/sci/thread/10624742
https://boards.fireden.net/sci/thread/10624758
https://boards.fireden.net/sci/thread/10637523
https://boards.fireden.net/sci/thread/10653499

>>11565825
>>11565847
>>11565848
>>11565852
>>11565856
Absolutely embarrassing. This is like an attempt of old, uninteresting farts to claim they're not useless anymore.
>it's more complex so it's beautiful
Taleb, why?

>>11564367
Two washed up pseuds jacking each other off.

>>11565721
Has anyone experimentally verified this? I'd be happy to on a supercomputer network I'm a part of.

>>11566417
Around a year ago someone said they were going to test this on super computer. Never heard back from them. You can reach out to me through the contact form at www.optimuminstitute.org . I don't know what will happen when we scale this simulation up, but I assume it will become more life like. We'll be able to see the particles and fields with greater fidelity. Would love to work on it with you.

The man is going senile.

>>11566444
Nah. I use a network for some neuroscience/MRI research. I admit I have no background in physics, and it's just as likely the optimum theory is woo, as is not. But at the very least it's a nice cellular automata that would be fun to run on a really large scale.

>It’s all about building model universes in the form of graphs.
>https://www.wired.com/story/stephen-wolfram-invites-you-to-solve-physics/
this is a good summary of what Wolfram is doing
(and then he lets the graphs evolve through a fixed rule and tries to see if something resembling our physical universe shows up)

these retards ever even read about chaos theory?

>>11566484

Correct. The issue is, if that is Wolfram's goal, it is alreadly done. Happened last year. https://youtu.be/6ClC50BsK5Y

>>11566484

So, the only way to get new "relevant" results from this theory is to basically bruteforce a bunch of different settings until you come up with something that hopefully resembles a physical object or property.

The chances that this project will degenerate into some WOLFRAM@home or cryptomining sort of thing is extremely high lmao

>>11565563
>So basically a model that eventually should predict thermodynamics basically violates thermodynamics. Congrats on this
The whole idea is that an element in such a graph represents nothing that we know of. It’s not a particle, it’s not a location in space, it’s just an abstract point in a graph. Hence, no problem with just creating arbitrary new elements in the graph.

>>11566499
>https://youtu.be/6ClC50BsK5Y
everything is 2D?

>>11566553
thank you

>>11566543
>Hence, no problem with just creating arbitrary new elements in the graph.

This is your brain on theoretical physics, meme mathematics and string theory

>>11565852
Wtf ahahaha

>>11566432
what do you want to model with it?

>>11566553

Nope. Based Gary (who is different than Gary) modeled it in 3d. Its at 1:20 in the video. Matter antimatter pair production spontaneously emerged from it. Not kidding. And it was not expected either.

>>11565524

his work on cellular automation also looked like schizo stuff but lots of useful stuff came out of it for cellular biology and some other good stuff to do with procedural generation and random number generation

>>11566555

3d is at 1:20 in the video. First time Based Gary ran it spontaneous matter antimatter pair production emerged. Seriously. And wasnt planned either. No one knew wtf they were even looking at at first.

>>11566569

Not much. Just everything.

>>11566432
have you done 3D automata yet?

>>11566589

Me? I wish. I don't have the programming background for it, not unless you have a 3d spreadsheet.

>>11566589

BUT another ANON going as Based Gary (not me, different Gary) did program 3d. Its at 1:20 in the video. First time he ran it in 3d, matter antimatter pair production emerged. Its in the video. Was not planned. Was a huge HOLY SHT moment.

>>11566589
This is based gary's CA https://anonfile.com/P92bi5lfnb/optimum_py
I would like to also clarify that no one except Gary believes that this simulates anything. Including matter antimatter pair production.

>>11566579
Is there old code available recreating the double-slit experiment, or any other experiments using this automata? I see in the /sci/ archives a fair bit was done recreating Gary's work. So I want to run some things on a supercomputer, but prefer not to recreate everything from scratch.

>>11566593
>>11566598
I have supercomputer access, but I'm also shitty at programming :- /
I just run quantum chemistry software packages and shit. I liked that video where the 2-D automaton made a dz orbital. I wonder if it can make the D2h d orbitals too...

>>11566593
time to email wolfram and colaborate

>>11566608

Based Gary would be the guy to write the code. I will message him on his youtube. Make sure to message me at The Optimum Institute website.

>>11566576
lold
>>11564367
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbfFt2uNEyQ

>>11566580
He's lucky that humble scientists give him a pity [You] in their introduction every time they'll do something with a CA, that's it.

>>11566608
>I wonder if it can make the D2h d orbitals too...

Yes. Easily. Has been done.

>>11566584
But can it do fractional dimension?
Can it do 2.5D?

>>11566622

Wolfram has earned that. Wolfram Alpha, Mathematica, and his work popularizing cellular automata & computation theories are noteworthy.

Wolfram did important work on classification of cellular automata

>>11564613
Kek. I just started working in a medical lab (as a sys admin) and my boss is a 68yo physicist boomer. Occasionally he randomly interrupts our work, pulls us aside to the blackboard and starts giving us an hour long lecture on a random subject.
Everyone is afraid to go and ask him something, not because he's a terrible boss, on the contrary, but because they're afraid to be stuck for an hour long lecture on economics.

>>11566640
You mean the numbering?

ITT: people staring at game of life, pattern recognition fooling into thinking meaning is in there.

>>11566697
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xP5-iIeKXE8

>>11565848

he tries to mimic steve jobs, thats a sure sign of a crank.

>>11564367
So basically he expanded on the idea of a Lindenmayer system and called it a TOE? Poor Wolfram seems to have finally lost his marbles.

>>11566608
The system diverges quite rapidly. Unless your system can handle arbitrary precision arithmetic you will overflow whatever datatype you're using within a few thousand iterations, so running the standard automaton on a supercomputer is pointless. HOWEVER, I've found that you can normalize the grid after every iteration so that the sum of the squares of all values on the grid is 1 and still preserve the general behavior of the automaton. I don't believe what's shown in the video represents an orbital as the colors are representative of change in magnitude rather than phase, but qualitatively the automaton looks like it tends towards eigenfunctions for the Helmholtz equation, so with some work you might actually be able to create something analogous to an orbital. Someone already posted my shitty code (including the 3D version) in this thread if you really want to try it out. >>11566604

>>11566616
No need.
I'm not a good programmer when it comes to high-performance computing; ideally you would want someone who understands how to efficiently implement CUDA algorithms.

>>11566729
from his site:
>Maybe that's why we are liked by world-renown mathematician, Stephen Wolfram, of Wolfram Alpha and world-renown physicist & New York Times science contributor, Sabina Hossenfelder.
kek he can't even get her name right

>>11566730
>CUDA algorithms
no idea what those are :- /
>the system tends towards eigenvalues of the Helmholz equation
this makes sense. When I first saw the CAs last year, I showed them to an applied maths grad student at my college who specializes in diff eqs and he said it looked like Gary had stumbled upon a CA representation of PDEs. He mentioned that such CAs have been used previously to solve PDEs, but didn't show me any examples. I would ask him again, but he moved away.

>>11566747
>diff eqs and he said it looked like Gary had stumbled upon a CA representation of PDEs

Accurate. What college if you don't mind my asking?

>>11566753
I used to live at a graduate residential "college" at a Canadian university. They sell themselves as being something like what the colleges in the British system are, but imo it was pretty dumb. I just lived there because rent was cheaper than dorms or apartments near campus. Fortunately, I was evicted at the last August. I hear they shut down the dining hall for coronavirus and they're basically letting 100 residents fend for themselves, all cooking with in a single communal kitchen with two stoves. The maths student was one of the few people there I actually liked (most of them were arts types of some sort). He was a smart cookie. I believe he finished his masters and entered a PhD program at Oxford.

>>11566730
hey Based Gary. I'm going to bed now. Feel free to send me a message on YT if you want to talk about running the 3D automaton on a supercomputer. I am not knowledgeable enough, but I have your python code now and I'm basically on plague mode for coronavirus, working on studying programming and reading textbooks and shit, so maybe I will have time to do something.

>>11566743
>being happy Fräulein Hossenfelder likes you
the absolute state of Gary

>>11566766

Will do. Thanks for chatting. Goodnight & be well.

>Bruh cell complexes
>first year algebraic topology

this is fucking stupid

Did he forget who wrote about self-configuring self-processing language first?

>>11566579
>the equation was literally Matter = Energy / Space
the fucking madman

>>11566499
lmao are they really simulating the universe in minecraft now

>>11566798
keep reading bruh

>>11564367
The maximum speed of entanglement is a neat idea, as is a perfectly trapped state black hole analogue. I don't like the arbitrariness of a "maximum speed of rule change". How are you going to define a rule? So the part I like I guess are the emergent formation of a space and of a state space simultaneously. Do you necessarily need cellular automata for this? No clue. But cellular automata seem like a huge mess to properly classify and discuss. It seems all neat equations were simply derived from the consideration of evolving graphs with intact causality. Also seems to me that the graph theory could be rewritten in terms of linear algebra as every connection is simply a vector.

Glad that I don't have to touch it, but interesting.

Also this whole promotion tour is
>intellectual dark web e-thot
tier

>>11567040
Oh yeah. I forgot.
>FUCK WEINSTIEN AND FUCK TALEB AND FUCK "male" E-THOTS

It's so simple that even I understood it, and I'm an uneducated retard. Is based Wolfram a friend of brainlets?

>No predictions
Being a theoretician is fun!

Guys, what if the universe is a hypergraph embedded on a superspace, and Maxwell's equation fall out of the math whenever you integrate sphere-like objects on the superspace. No, I can't actually demonstrate that in equations, I just think it would be neat.

T. Physicist

>>11565520
That isn't an insight at all. Physicists have described causal phenemona via light cones since Einstein.

What if you used such a model, with a given set of rules, but instead of taking a single fixed initial state, you considered all states an other graph goes through when applying another set of rules on it.
Say, you take a single node with no vertice, you apply ruleset A to it, and you use each state generated this way as a starting point for your model with ruleset B.
Trying to make sense of what could be a "initial state space", in which moving in a direction would be not moving through time nor space nor branches but through initial conditions.
In some graphs generated by a given ruleset, after very large amounts of steps the graph becomes more and more finely granulated, to a point where it can be seen as somewhat continuous. I was wondering whether, after such an amount of steps, you could move in an "initial state" direction in a somewhat continuous manner, without having the graph at a given time completely changing instantly. Am I able to convey what I mean correctly though? I feel like my question, whether it's dumb or not, somewhat makes sense.

>>11564429
Its pop science fancy shape midwit shit.

>>11566730
Hi based gary. What initial conditions are needed for an oscillator, both the standing and moving kinds, as shown in your youtube videos?
Thank you,

>>11566663
based boomer wasting people's time for no reason

>>11567632
>without having the graph at a given time completely changing instantly
meant : If you take f(S,t) as the graph given by applying ruleset B to the initial state (graph) S for t steps, would the function g defined for a given fixed and large amount of steps t by g(S) = f(S,t) be ""somewhat continuous"" (to be defined, if possible, but I assume my point is understandable) on maybe some specific subsets of the space of initial states?
Actually, you can scratch the idea of generating this initial state space with a ruleset and just take any space of graphs

>>11564367
>yuuuuge
god boomers can be so cringe at times

>>11564367
/lit/ here. Quick rundown?

>>11567632
>Say, you take a single node with no vertice, you apply ruleset A to it, and you use each state generated this way as a starting point for your model with ruleset B.
Wolfram speaks about this in the last section of his blog/technical book. He fully admits that there is no fundamental reason why the Universe could operate under one single rule of evolution continuously, and that with every single update the universe could implement an entirely new set of rules. He then goes off on some mumbo jumbo about about the importance of man that I didn't give a fuck about. The main result would be that you would form something he calls rulial or rule space that would obey the properties of information transfer speed, "time dilartion," and line integration etc. etc. But I think that is the section of his research that is least developed. So if you have nothing better to do, load up the mathmatica files and have fun.

>>11567689
Famous and successful schizo mathmatician/computer scientist/guy who plays with digital boxes who bails out /sci/ on a daily basis with his products has gotten so bored with corona virus and the passing of his friend, that he has decided to publicly release his pet theory of physics to the public. It's some 800 pages of technical information for lay people and some 120 pages of technical information for high level scientists.

>>11567710
Okay. Is it a good theory?

>>11567724
Yes, it's likely to change physics as a whole. Almost certainly nobel prize worthy.

>>11564367
I actually think this will be useful to visualise a artificial neural network, and perhaps better debug errors.
Don't be surprised if google use something similar without even realising it.

>>11567724
Don't listen to anyone in this thread. More cranks than a flat earth conference.

>>11564947
he looks like an Epstein

>>11567809
no

>>11567835
Holy fuck, the dude was hot.

>>11567835
Very slovenly. What is the deal with jews and not grooming properly? Somebody get this guy a razor and a comb.

>>11564613
pretty good comic. why does this happen?

>>11565308
>3. wasn't even sympathetic
why?

>>11567724
Yes

>>11567694
Oh neat, read that part just now, it's not exactly what I was asking for but it's much more interesting. In the end it was more about "moving through initial states space" than "moving through ruleset space", but you could see the "ruleset A to determine initial state then ruleset B for the rest of the model" bit as a very specific an limited case of the second one I guess, where there you only change the ruleset once.
I however am not sure if I understand what I read correctly, the part about Universe description.
Is he talking about the Universe as the entire graph?

>The universe is effectively using all possible rules. But as entities embedded in the universe, we’re picking a particular foliation (or sequence of reference frames) to make sense of what’s happening. And that choice of foliation corresponds to a description language which gives us our particular way of describing the universe.

For some time I've been having fun thinking about (for science fiction generating purposes) something along the lines "we live in a 'slice' of the entire Universe, moving in a given direction through a multidimensional time" a multidimensional time in which any direction taken leads to a "continuous" timeline, which would be equivalent to having a different set of laws of physics, just like we could potentially imagine a set of laws of physics which would correspond for us to "time going backward", going in the opposite direction in a multidimensional time. Each direction would have its own set of laws of physics, but all of them would make sense together and be the result of just one set in multidimensional time.
The text I quoted made me think of that for a discrete universe, it looks vaguely similar, but I may actually just not understand what I read and loosely linked the ideas together.

it's habbedin again

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVsb8E33Nbw

>>11567910
>and be the result of just one set in multidimensional time.
meant : and be the result of just one set of laws of physics in multidimensional time

*frontal lobes activated*

>>11564613
does this happen because they can't find new results in their field so they go on to other fields and think they can expand because "I was smart enough for physics", but in reality they stopped producing results because their advanced age has dulled the brain too much to be creative?

>>11567953

>>11567971
Sometimes.

>>11567643
They're just oscillating values inserted artificially. They're not emergent unfortunately.

>>11567953
what did jonathan gorard mean by this?

>>11568012
ayatollah lamo

>>11568012
ayatollah lmao

>>11567985
I see, that's unfortunate. But thanks for letting me know.

>>11568012
Ask him, they're live on twitch right now.

>>11564598
/thread

>>11568063
What channel?

>>11568080
twitch.tv/stephen_wolfram

>>11567953
el hermano...

so uhhhhhh
are we getting sex robots or not

>>11567724
After reading through his shit it seems like it will be a viable theory. It will fulfill the basics needed to be a competing theory, but it will not become mainstream. I think it answers too many questions of too many disparate theories, which implies that it is more fundamental than a physical description of reality. Further it has a few prediction and none of which are easily testable. He merely has a series of interesting coincidences. In the end I think it will be the equivalent of string theory and pilot wave theory. A complete theory which can stand on its own, but it lacks verifiable evidence. It will have huge benefits for graph theory and computer science, though.

>>11565852
>>11565856
For people that claim to despise academia they sure do really care about opinions of academics.

without reading the thread...did he bruteforce variations of cellular automata rules until a pattern popped up that kind of resembled physical laws in a poetic way, just like he have done before? Is that it?

>>11568351
pretty much

>>11568351
Yeah, pretty much. Nothing attention worthy, he just compiled 1000 pages in a mathematica notbeook of ramblings on cellular automata. Lmao

>>11568012
based

>>11568351
Yeah, except he got some kid to write up actual formalized proofs for some of his stuff. I took a look at his 60 page quantum paper and It does more there than just saying "look at this coincidence" He does a bunch of graph theory stuff to claim that the summation of nodes and shit is mathematically equivalent to the path integral formulation of quantum.

>>11568351
Nailed it.
.
>>11568391
>the summation of nodes and shit is mathematically equivalent to the path integral formulation of quantum
There is truth to that though. He's not generating any insight or so, but it's true. I used this correspondence (although a much tamer version of it) in my final thesis to design quantum systems for specific purposes.

I just started playing around with his conceptual model and concluded that chakras are real, love is a force, and the soul is just 10 wave equations undegoing transformations whose eigenvectors fully describe the spirit.

Does all this mean we'll get better video-games?

>>11568476

>>11567250
But in doing so, they are making assumptions about spacetime that Wolfram's models don't require.

>>11568612
>they are making assumptions about spacetime that Wolfram's models don't require
Wolfram's assumption is that the universe is discrete and based on tiny nodes/particles.

>>11568219
I love this take. Wolfram’s far more interesting to listen to in the livestream than I would have expected. All of his blog posts are full of constant puffery.

>>11568648
Wolfram's assumption is that what we can know about the universe is discrete and described in terms of hypergraphs.

>>11568734
If we can know everything which is completely and utterly idiotic, then that assumption surely would be one of those.

>>11565403
based

>>11568748
How so?

>>11568748
And assuming you are >>11568648
This part of the Q&A session addresses your take on his assumptions.

https://youtu.be/rbfFt2uNEyQ?t=10740

>>11564611
So just spin foam/loop quantum gravity?

>>11565416
this is why physicisnts never even had a chance!
Fucked from the getgo
Multidemsnional?
HJA FUCK THAT
WE 3 DIMENSIONS ALWAYS N FOREVER
JK JK
thats gay

actually truth is, we was fractals from the start.


I just finished reading it and...wow...this nigga figured it out. He really did it. Well. Will do it. he's like 90% there. Just gotta find our universe in the haystack now

>>11564751
The thing with Witten is that he's a great mathematician, not a great physicist.

>>11564791
>These have already been applied to physics before.
Can you give a source or example? I'm surprised to hear this is the case.

>>11568959
They're similar for sure. Wolfram's describes the emergence of networks as well as using them as a framework. So it ends up doing 10^120 things for every one thing LQG describes.

>>11568965
I suspect there are parts of our observable universe that are less than 3 dimensions, and that black holes are portions of our universe that have collapsed into 2 dimensions. The space approaching a black hole is fractional dimensional, that is somewhere between 3 and 2 dimensions. It's possible even Earth is less then exactly 3 dimensions of space, tho I suspect it's very damn close to 3.
I wonder tho, if anything greater than 3 dimensions can be part of our "observable" universe.

My intuition says no, that anything greater than 3 is not observable in our universe, but WTF do I know?
I'm just talking out of my ass here.

>>11564947
>I showed you my theory don't ignore me

Having read the introduction of the release...

What the FUCK? I actually thought about a graph theoretical approach to physics a few weeks ago.

Having read the introduction of the release now...
What the FUCK I thought about a graph theoretical approach to physics a few weeks ago.

>>11564997
What did you expect from a Jew?

>>11565016
Whose milkers are those? Is it perhaps some tradthot?

>>11565045
>which would then be what gives particles heat
What do you mean quasirandomness? QM is as random as it gets.

>>11569053
Wolfram has been pushing this idea for a long time, some of those figures in the OP are at least 15 years old.

Though today, when he started talking about causal invariance in relativity, I was like, wow, that's a lot like path integral formulation. And then it was. That was pretty satisfying.

>>11565148
>Mentioned something about Dark matter being the aggregation of particles which are smaller protons, neutrons and electrons.
How can an electron be smaller than another electron? Who's the retard here? Me or him?

>>11569105
I have no idea what that guy is on. But Wolfram's theory is fully deterministic, so randomness would be a manifestation of unpredictability, rather than indeterminism.

>>11565217
Exactly. He writes Urnary 4 times. I assume he means unary function. It would be the only thing making sense.

>>11565177
Wait, there are continuous automata?!

>>11565403
No, we need muscled amazonians and monster girls first.

>>11569212
If I get it right Smooth Life would be such an example. Much more interesting: SmoothLifes structures look like weird graphs embedded in continuous space. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaIgKXwzTQQ

>>11569136
I meant to write particles that are smaller than protons, neutrons, and electrons.

>>11569268
Oh and PS: RIP John Conway if we already talk about cellular automata.

>>11564598
Wolfram is not saying that space is discrete. Wolfram wants to model space with a discrete model. This might work even if space is continuous.

>>11569376
No, he is saying that space is discrete.

>>11565870
Why 2015? It all went to shit in 1914.

>>11565856
The absolute fucking brainletism in that thread holy shit.

>>11567953
What an impressive expression of the phenotype.

>>11569410
Where?

Whats going on here?
What do the bracketed numbers mean?