Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

Wolfram Stephen Wolfram might be onto something here😁 WOLFRAM PHYSICS in motion: Two competing feeders and and a predator. Everything here is a hypergraph...including the environment. We visualize a synthetic micro-ecosystem built on computational irreducibility, hypergraph rule-flow & emergent geometry. Inspired by the Wolfram Physics Project's quest for a...

99,656 Aufrufe • vor 11 Monaten •via X (Twitter)

42 Kommentare

Profilbild von Jonathan Gorard
Jonathan Gorardvor 11 Monaten

@stephen_wolfram What’re the rewriting rules here, and how are the updates selected?

Profilbild von Mathelirium
Matheliriumvor 11 Monaten

Its a lot to unpack but here is some of it: Hypergraph rewrites via MST + k-nearest + perimeter stitch + principal-axis spine + short bridges...our predator snaps overstretched edges. Medium uses discrete diffusion/viscous averaging with damping and Brownian forcing. Food evolves by Ornstein-Uhlenbeck drift plus advection...etc etc etc

Profilbild von Jonathan Gorard
Jonathan Gorardvor 11 Monaten

@stephen_wolfram Ah, so it’s not actually being evolved as a Wolfram model, then - if I understand you correctly, there is some additional (not purely combinatorial) dynamics that is really driving this?

Profilbild von Mathelirium
Matheliriumvor 11 Monaten

Yes, its not entirely. Combinatorial layer = purely Wolfram hypergraph rewriting. Dynamical layer = physics/math. So, thr Wolfram (combinatorial) layer gives us the true causal spine while the continuous dynamical layer turns that spine into physically interpretable, measurable motion diluting the core mechanism.

Profilbild von Mathelirium
Matheliriumvor 11 Monaten

@stephen_wolfram *without diluting

Profilbild von Lionardo Mendonça
Lionardo Mendonçavor 11 Monaten

@stephen_wolfram Has nothing to do with a theory of everything. How is this different from cellular automata?

Profilbild von Mathelirium
Matheliriumvor 11 Monaten

Appreciate the question..this isnt "just a cellular automaton." We evolve a hypergraph (relations, not cells), track the causal graph of updates (discrete spacetime), and render multiway branching in branchial space. Geometry & "particles" are patterns of connectivity. We're visualizing mechanisms...not claiming a finished theory.

Profilbild von Mathelirium
Matheliriumvor 11 Monaten

@stephen_wolfram

Profilbild von 1223334444555554444333221
1223334444555554444333221vor 11 Monaten

@stephen_wolfram open source or gtfo. preview access for patrons is tolerable, but you should not claim to be doing science unless everything is intended for the commons.

Profilbild von dad chords
dad chordsvor 11 Monaten

@stephen_wolfram I’m already double pre blessed golden dildo tier on Stephen’s onlyfans - please hand over the python good sir

Profilbild von Mathelirium
Matheliriumvor 11 Monaten

@stephen_wolfram lol 😂

Profilbild von Circles (Mike)
Circles (Mike)vor 11 Monaten

@stephen_wolfram Pitch: Scalar Geometry

Profilbild von Raymundo
Raymundovor 11 Monaten

@stephen_wolfram Nice!

Profilbild von Sai Yashwanth
Sai Yashwanthvor 10 Monaten

@stephen_wolfram @Jaggerydev10

Profilbild von DREJ
DREJvor 2 Monaten

Leibniz’s monads are the fundamental, immaterial “atoms” of reality in his metaphysics (Monadology, 1714). They are not physical particles but simple substances with these key properties (as you listed): Indivisible and non-extended: No size, shape, or spatial extension. Space and extended matter are “well-founded phenomena” arising from the relations among monads. Perceptive: Every monad represents/perceives the entire universe from its unique point of view (mostly via unconscious “petites perceptions”). Windowless: No direct causal interaction or “windows” to the outside. Apparent causation and harmony are pre-established by God. Computational irreducibility: For many aspects (e.g., the center column), there is no shortcut formula—you must essentially simulate every step to know the future state. This is one of Wolfram’s central concepts. Direct Comparison Leibniz Monad Property Rule 30 Cellular Automaton Analogy / Contrast Similarity Strength Indivisible & non-extended Cells are discrete, indivisible binary units with no internal structure. The “space” (the grid) and patterns emerge from their arrangement and relations — space is not fundamental. Strong (discrete ontology) Self-sufficient & active The entire evolution is fully determined by the initial configuration + the fixed rule. No external input needed after t=0. Each local step unfolds deterministically. The “future” is contained in the current global state + rule. Very strong Perceptive (represents the whole universe) Each cell’s state at time t encodes information about initial conditions within its causal “light cone.” Over time, local regions effectively “sample” or compute larger portions of the initial universe. In Wolfram’s broader framework (observer theory, ruliad), local computations yield perspectives on the whole computational structure. Moderate (emergent representation) Windowless (no causal interaction) Cells do have local causal influence (neighbors affect the next state). However, everything is rigidly pre-coordinated by the single universal rule and initial conditions — analogous to pre-established harmony. Apparent local causation is an emergent description of globally synchronized deterministic unfolding. Moderate (surface difference, deeper parallel) Deeper Conceptual Parallels Simplicity → maximal variety/complexity: Leibniz sought the “best of all possible worlds” with the greatest variety of phenomena from the smallest number of principles. Wolfram explicitly admires this and sees Rule 30 as a concrete demonstration: one tiny rule + minimal initial condition generates enormous complexity and apparent randomness. He even considered (but rejected) naming early cellular automata something like “polymones” because of the monad connection. Determinism + apparent contingency/randomness: Both systems are strictly deterministic at the fundamental level, yet produce behavior that looks contingent, random, or irreducible from our perspective. In monads this appears through petites perceptions and the phenomenal world; in Rule 30 it appears as computational irreducibility and statistical randomness. Emergence of space and phenomena: Monads have no intrinsic space—space arises from their coordinated relations. In Rule 30 (and Wolfram’s later hypergraph models), discrete cells/rules generate emergent space, time, and complex structures. The Wolfram Physics Project takes this further with relational rewriting systems that feel even closer to Leibniz’s relational ontology. Pre-established harmony vs. universal rule: The biggest surface difference is interaction. Monads have none (windowless). SummaryRule 30 is not a literal model of monads, but it serves as a powerful computational illustration of several Leibnizian intuitions in a modern, discrete, rule-based framework: Fundamental simplicity generating rich phenomenal complexity. Self-contained deterministic unfolding. Emergence of space and apparent interaction from coordinated basic elements. Irreducibility that makes the world look contingent even though it is fully determined. Wolfram has noted the philosophical resonance with Leibniz (especially the “variety from few principles” idea) while admitting he finds the soul/perception aspects of monads harder to map directly onto computation.

Profilbild von Peng Cheng, asking λP2-λC
Peng Cheng, asking λP2-λCvor 11 Monaten

@stephen_wolfram if you really want to make it useful in physics, write CFD simulation, not game of life

Profilbild von 🜛∞
🜛∞vor 11 Monaten

@stephen_wolfram Thats a very cool computational model! Instead of programming objects, you program the space between them - that's cool! But, it's more like Conway's Game of Life than a "real" physics engine - it's "graph-edge automata" for lack of a better description.

Profilbild von Soniare
Soniarevor 11 Monaten

@stephen_wolfram awesome

Profilbild von ⓝⓔⓚⓡⓞⓟⓤⓝⓚ
ⓝⓔⓚⓡⓞⓟⓤⓝⓚvor 11 Monaten

@stephen_wolfram what is hypergraf?

Profilbild von Nick Westinghouse
Nick Westinghousevor 11 Monaten

@stephen_wolfram Blue needs to understand its long term trajectory and side with Yellow to repel Red

Profilbild von uncle-sam killed-the-clown
uncle-sam killed-the-clownvor 11 Monaten

@stephen_wolfram The grand illusion, the flat Earth of the new era, the thing that once you understand it's implications - will change your perception of reality itself, Permanence is not real, only persistence - all of reality, us included, are a process. No static state exists, no begin no end

Profilbild von St. Grimace
St. Grimacevor 11 Monaten

@stephen_wolfram @grok can you explain what this post and video have to do with physics or theory of everything? It looks to me like a more complex Game of Life.

Profilbild von Mark Gubrud 🇺🇸
Mark Gubrud 🇺🇸vor 11 Monaten

@stephen_wolfram I don't understand a theory of everything that requires a computer to exist before "everything" can exist. You say your computational rules at bottom are simple. Sure, but animating them is not simple. What does that?

Profilbild von KI-CREW
KI-CREWvor 11 Monaten

@stephen_wolfram @stephen_wolfram is a genius

Profilbild von TechnicalBen
TechnicalBenvor 11 Monaten

@stephen_wolfram The math lives.

Profilbild von Davide
Davidevor 11 Monaten

@stephen_wolfram "available to Gold members on YouTube upon request", just put it on github...

Profilbild von Peter Jones
Peter Jonesvor 11 Monaten

@stephen_wolfram FROM:😍math TO: humanities. 𝑷𝒍𝒆𝒂𝒔𝒆 𝒅𝒐𝒏'𝒕 𝒄𝒂𝒍𝒍 𝒊𝒕 𝒘𝒐𝒓𝒌! "Just imagine ... caseloads, payloads and careloads" Archived Science links relational #h2cm

Profilbild von Fred
Fredvor 11 Monaten

@stephen_wolfram Yes!

Profilbild von Lord & Rev Daniel LL Thomas ☥🔥𓅓 (Thoth/Thoths)
Lord & Rev Daniel LL Thomas ☥🔥𓅓 (Thoth/Thoths)vor 11 Monaten

@stephen_wolfram thats really really really fun

Profilbild von DJ_Matej
DJ_Matejvor 11 Monaten

@stephen_wolfram Most advanced civilizations are not predatory. Long lasting those who colonize multiple Solar Systems are merchants or science type or combination of those two. Predatory extinct sooner...

Profilbild von Cheryl Sylivant
Cheryl Sylivantvor 11 Monaten

@stephen_wolfram Are we imagining digital ID? Of this version of physics and reality is true, why are dominating groups overpowering others into subordinates. It seems more real than how culture engages.

Profilbild von lepton939
lepton939vor 11 Monaten

@stephen_wolfram

Profilbild von Marco Aurelio
Marco Aureliovor 6 Monaten

@stephen_wolfram Wonderful! I'll see how to implement it with QAF.

Profilbild von leithaus
leithausvor 11 Monaten

@stephen_wolfram You really should look at process algebras. They give a better account of resources.

Profilbild von Peter Warwick Morgan
Peter Warwick Morganvor 11 Monaten

@stephen_wolfram 2+1 is qualitatively different from 3+1, a bounded playground is qualitatively different from an FAPP unbounded world, and ~4 orders of magnitude is qualitatively different from, say, 20-60 orders of magnitude. We can learn more from more principled approaches, IMO ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Profilbild von denis tremblay
denis tremblayvor 11 Monaten

@stephen_wolfram What knit everything together is not an empty game or a Ruliad,it is consciousness. It is not even wrong to claim that there is a game knitting it all together,it is a techno-cultist dogma,it is not science, it is technology set free from any limiting science.

Profilbild von Ricky Rosa
Ricky Rosavor 11 Monaten

@stephen_wolfram Can I just zelle you for the code?

Profilbild von Mathelirium
Matheliriumvor 11 Monaten

@stephen_wolfram DM me

Profilbild von Dr. Hans Dieter Schultz
Dr. Hans Dieter Schultzvor 11 Monaten

@stephen_wolfram The theory of Everything may one day be as simple as the Alphabet is. Once you start focusing on Knowledge. Once we have more free time to reflect. Time is worth more than money.

Profilbild von Sakthivel K Theivaraayan
Sakthivel K Theivaraayanvor 11 Monaten

@stephen_wolfram Why not you ease out the boundary 🤔🎉

Profilbild von Jake Krajewski
Jake Krajewskivor 11 Monaten

@stephen_wolfram

Profilbild von Gulag Kulak
Gulag Kulakvor 11 Monaten

@stephen_wolfram So, uh, this is below Planck scale?

Ähnliche Videos

Stephen Wolfram just posed the most disturbing thought experiment about AI, and nobody has an answer for it. Wolfram: “Imagine humans are all in boxes. We’re all Darth Vader, inside these boxes, but you can’t actually see the human inside.” Civilization continues identically. Every human hidden in a machine. You see the output, not the person. Wolfram: “The world is operating, great paintings are being produced, but you can’t see any of the humans. All you see is a bunch of boxes doing human-like things.” Civilizational Turing test. If the external world operates the same, are humans contributing anything essential? Wolfram: “The world is operating as before, maybe even better than before. If you knew there were humans inside those boxes, you would say great outcome.” That’s the paradox. Know humans are inside and it’s a golden age. Remove that knowledge and it’s just machines producing results. Does the value change? Wolfram forces the question. Do we value creation or creator? If the art is identical, does consciousness behind it matter? Wolfram: “You can’t tell there are any humans. It’s just a bunch of Daleks operating.” From outside, machines behaving like humans look identical to actual humans. The show continues. Universe doesn’t register the difference. As AI capabilities expand, this stops being abstract. AI produces indistinguishable art, music, science. Does human creation retain special status? Why exactly? Wolfram isn’t answering. He’s exposing the void where our answer should be. If outcomes are identical, is human involvement meaningful or just attachment to how things historically worked? We assume human participation makes civilization valuable. If results don’t change either way, that assumption needs justification we’ve never properly given. Real test isn’t whether AI replicates output. It’s whether we can explain why human output matters more when the results are indistinguishable. If we can’t, we’re heading toward a future where civilization functions perfectly and whether humans are actually inside the boxes becomes irrelevant to everything except the humans wondering if they matter. And at that point, are we necessary or just witnesses to a system that would operate identically without us, asking questions that have no impact on anything except our own sense of purpose?

Dustin

198,212 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten

Stephen Wolfram, founder of Wolfram Research, explains how LLMs are quietly dismantling our deepest assumptions about consciousness: He argues that large language models have done something philosophy and neuroscience couldn't: "In terms of consciousness, I have to say, the idea that there's sort of something magic that goes beyond physics that leads to sort of conscious behavior, I kind of think that LLMs kind of put the final nail in that coffin." His reasoning is that LLMs keep doing things people assumed they couldn't: "There were all these things where it's like, oh, maybe it can't do this, but actually it does. And it's just an artificial neural net." Wolfram then challenges a core assumption about conscious experience: the feeling that we are a single, continuous self moving through time. "I think our notion of consciousness is a lot related to the fact that we believe in the single thread of experience that we have. It's not obvious that we should have a persistent thread of experience." He points out that physics doesn't actually support this intuition: "In our models of physics, we're made of different atoms of space at every successive moment of time. So the fact that we have this belief that we are somehow persistent, we have this thread of experience that extends through time, is not obvious." Then Wolfram offers a striking origin story for consciousness itself. Stephen Wolfram suggests it traces back to a simple evolutionary pressure: the moment animals first needed to move. "I kind of realized that probably when animals first existed in the history of life on Earth, that's when we started needing brains. If you're a thing that doesn't have to move around, the different parts of you can be doing different kinds of things. If you're an animal, then one thing you have to do is decide, are you going to go left or are you going to go right?" That single binary choice, he argues, may be the seed of everything we now call awareness: "I kind of think it's a little disappointing to feel that this whole wanted thing that ends up being what we think of as consciousness might have originated in just that very simple need to decide if you are an animal that can move. You have to take all that sensory input and you have to make a definitive decision about do you go this way or that way." The takeaway is unsettling but clarifying. If LLMs can produce complex behavior from simple rules, then consciousness may not be a mystical add-on to physics. It may just be what happens when a layered enough system has to make a decision.

Big Brain AI

195,675 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

Physics feels stable, predictable, and well-behaved largely because we learned it in 3D. That comfort hides a trap. In 1907, Paul Ehrenfest pointed out something unsettling. If you take the laws we treat as fundamental and transplant them into a different number of spatial dimensions, they often stop working the way we expect. Not just numerically different but qualitatively different. The issue isn’t the force law by itself. It’s geometry. Gauss’s law ties inverse-square forces to the surface area of spheres, and sphere geometry depends on dimension. Change the dimension, and the same-looking force produces a different potential, a different balance of attraction and inertia, and a different fate for motion. You can see this cleanly with a single problem of central force motion. In d spatial dimensions, flux conservation gives F(r) ∝ 1 / rᵈ⁻¹ so the potential scales as V(r) ∝ −1 / rᵈ⁻² (for d ≠ 2) Now add angular momentum. The effective radial potential becomes V_eff(r) = L² / (2 m r²) − C / rᵈ⁻² In 3D, those two terms balance in just the right way to allow stable bound orbits. Small perturbations stay small. Atoms don’t collapse. Planets don’t spiral away. In other dimensions, that balance breaks. In 2D, the force becomes 1/r, the potential becomes logarithmic, and bound motion sits on a knife edge. In 4D and higher, the attractive term becomes too steep. The centrifugal barrier loses the fight. Orbits plunge or escape. Same equations. Same initial conditions. Different dimension. Different physics. This isn’t science fiction. It’s a warning label. So it's clear that a lot of what we call physical intuition is really three-dimensional intuition wearing a lab coat. #Physics #MathematicalPhysics #ClassicalMechanics #DynamicalSystems #Geometry #Ehrenfest

Mathelirium

32,138 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten

Introducing the web3evo MVP. Built on Constellation Network! Brought to you by #DAGChads, Developed by Techware Labs, Inc. The DAGChads Platform is a cutting-edge #web3 ecosystem built on the Constellation²'s #Hypergraph technology, designed to empower users to learn, grow, and earn rewards through active participation. A key feature of this ecosystem is the introduction of #Reputation #NFTs, which dynamically link user engagement with project growth and learning. These NFTs utilize an API to track and evaluate each user’s reputation, allowing for rewards based on their contributions and participation. The Reputation NFTs system provides a low-code/no-code environment, enabling companies to easily customize the reputation metrics that are collected and displayed within the NFTs. This creates a powerful incentive structure for users to deepen their involvement and engagement, promoting learning, social interaction, and contributions to the broader ecosystem. Through this mechanism, DAGChads introduces a novel way for users to build and leverage their reputation, unlocking rewards and exclusive access based on their standing within the community. The primary objectives of the DAGChads Platform are: To develop a user-centric platform that offers staking rewards and incentives for learning and participation. To facilitate interoperability with other Metagraphs, encouraging collaboration and innovation within the Hypergraph network. To ensure the platform’s long-term sustainability and scalability, adapting to the evolving needs of the web3 ecosystem. The DAGChads Platform offers a unique, multi-tiered staking model that incentivizes users to level up and unlock more exclusive reward pools and opportunities. Through continuous upgrades, robust data validation mechanisms, and a strong focus on interoperability, the platform aims to contribute significantly to the success and evolution of the Hypergraph network.

⚫hgtp://Proph151Music.DAG

10,610 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren