Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Wolfram Physics Project

writings.stephenwolfram.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 342 posts

Re: The Wolfram Physics Project

#311

Post by tagrun »

JoachimS wrote: post #193
jonathan_gorard wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(1) We certainly do have formal derivations of Lorentz covariance and the Einstein field equations, given in detail here: http://wolframcloud.com/obj/wolframphysics/Documents/some-re... (2) The article above already discusses the derivation of the matter contribution to the Lagrangian density, the derivation of energy-momentum tensor, and Lorentz transformations for elementary particles. (3) Both Hawking radiation an…

Reading through the paper in (3) above. If I understand the text on page 26 correctly, you predict that quantum computers will not be more efficient than classical computers: "The class of problems that can be solved efficiently by quantum computers should be identical to the class of problems that can be solved efficiently by classical computers: More precisely, we predict in this appropriately coarse-grained case t…

I haven't checked the context, but that indicates a flaw in either their framework or the way they draw this conclusion. We know for a provable fact that some problems (not necessarily interesting or useful ones) can be solved exponentially faster on a quantum computer than a classical computer: Deutsch-Jozsa algorithm (or it's generalization: Simon's algorithm) demonstrates this.

Re: The Wolfram Physics Project

#312

Post by igravious »

AgentME wrote: post #293
igravious wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't think there's a strict difference between a rule set and a rule Okay then. Why just one rule or rule set? I meant as much when I wrote what I wrote. Why a tiny/simple initial starting state and one rule (or rule set). Sure, simple elegant formal systems are enticing to our brains but why assume that of our universe? Why not even try to explain why you feel this to be true? It's a pretty huge assumption in m…

>Starting from some entirely arbitrary simple formal system and working upwards and hoping you'll bump into reality along the way is very, shall we say, optimistic. Honestly, I think this is a great way of describing what they're trying to do. I guess I think it's a little more realistic than you do: if our universe's physics could be described by a program on the order of tens of bits (I give an argument below for w…

And I've taken a virtual hammering for having the temerity to ask that they at least take the time to articulate their motivations and assumptions, at least as well as you have here, with intellectual humility and consideration for the reader.

So be it.

Re: The Wolfram Physics Project

#313

Post by kleer001 »

kleer001 wrote: post #200
sriram_malhar wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A turing machine cannot produce randomness, non-determinism.

No, but it can produce something that's unpredictable from the original code. And that's spitting distance from random.

In addition as soon as a system comes in contact with the real world randomness is nearly free and easy to get.

Re: The Wolfram Physics Project

#314

Post by inasio »

jonathan_gorard wrote: post #130
knzhou wrote: post #102

I don't see anything of substance here, besides a lot of pretty graphs. Just like Wolfram's "A New Kind of Science", we have the problem that there is a vast gulf between what you need to make flashy popsci and what you need to make a real physical theory. In increasing order of difficulty, you need to: 1. make a set of dynamical rules that matches general relativity in the low energy limit, such as recovering Lorent…

(1) We certainly do have formal derivations of Lorentz covariance and the Einstein field equations, given in detail here: http://wolframcloud.com/obj/wolframphysics/Documents/some-re... (2) The article above already discusses the derivation of the matter contribution to the Lagrangian density, the derivation of energy-momentum tensor, and Lorentz transformations for elementary particles. (3) Both Hawking radiation an…

Could you provide some details on the algorithm used to graph the plots? I'm pretty sure nothing in graphviz would result in such nice looking graphs, so probably not a spring relaxation-type algorithm. Perhaps something using the graph Laplacian eigenvectors? I recall some papers by Yehuda Koren using the technique on massive graphs

Re: The Wolfram Physics Project

#315

Post by rytill »

crazygringo wrote: post #255
hutzlibu wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting concept, but I fail to see how it can model the whole universe. Describing it, maybe, but the universe being a graph, well for a start, what is the graph made of? Is it "material" is it "information"?

Any fundamental theory of the universe will have to posit a bottom, base structure that everything else is "made" out of... ...but therefore that base isn't ever going to be made of anything itself, by definition. It just is . It is what it's described as -- no more, no less. It's not going to be material or energy. I suppose "information" is probably as good a word as any if you want to think of it that way.

there could be no bottom ... there would also never be any way to prove that the proposed bottom is truly the bottom and not just an event horizon

Re: The Wolfram Physics Project

#316

Post by dang »

tchaffee wrote: post #297
dang wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're welcome to criticize substantively. I took a quick look at your comments and didn't see any WDS. Maybe just a little.

Could you kindly consider a less loaded term than WDS? TDS is often used to gaslight and / or too easily dismiss people who have valid concerns about the world's most powerful leader. And surely in the both of these cases it is an exaggeration. The people who lash out at Wolfram as a person are extremely biased and not objective. That does not make them deranged or mentally ill. Perhaps the exaggeration is an indicat…

* DS as a trope long predates T. I'm using it in a lighthearted way that isn't malicious and certainly not literal. It's obviously not a claim that anyone is mentally ill. That's why the exaggeration is deliberately so silly.

I get your point, though, since as I'm always telling commenters, intent doesn't communicate itself on the internet and the burden is on the commenter to disambiguate (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...). In a case like this, though, I'm not sure that changing it is the best thing to do, because there's also a cost to the precedent that sets.

Re: The Wolfram Physics Project

#317

Post by dang »

jmilloy wrote: post #305
dang wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm talking about a collective phenomenon that accrues out of many individual contributions. Sometimes this is metaphorically called the hivemind. What builds up in these threads is an obsession with Wolfram that is even more Wolfram-obsessed than the Wolfram-obsession Wolfram is charged with. This is unmistakeable, and always happens the same way. Out of the material of these comments, a Golem arises that is a varia…

You seem very interested in this WDS concept. In fact, I would say it is interesting. But I think citing "please reply to the argument instead of calling names" will be less confusing. Here, calling names is short-hand for criticising/analysing the individual instead of the argument. To my eyes, the collectively specific hn analysis of Wolfram may be interesting , but it is not relevant to moderation of the content.…

I'm happy to answer but don't understand. I'm confused about which specific things fall in which buckets you use the words 'interesting', 'the argument', 'moderation', and 'the content'.

I do sometimes post out of personal interest or for fun—not often, but it's an old habit. My comment upthread was definitely one of those. If it were just moderation I would have said something more procedural.

Re: The Wolfram Physics Project

#318

Post by gdm85 »

The concept of "connectives" as explained in Frank Herbert's Whipping Star book comes to mind.

One critic remark to make: I am not impressed by the "complex looks" of the hypergraphs because the initial premise is that it does not matter how we visualise them.

Re: The Wolfram Physics Project

#319

Post by crazygringo »

rytill wrote: post #315
crazygringo wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any fundamental theory of the universe will have to posit a bottom, base structure that everything else is "made" out of... ...but therefore that base isn't ever going to be made of anything itself, by definition. It just is . It is what it's described as -- no more, no less. It's not going to be material or energy. I suppose "information" is probably as good a word as any if you want to think of it that way.

there could be no bottom ... there would also never be any way to prove that the proposed bottom is truly the bottom and not just an event horizon

If a theory's predictions are 100% consistent with experiment, then it becomes the bottom for all practical purposes, since all we have is practical knowledge. Saying we can't prove it's the bottom would mean as much as saying we can't prove the universe is on the back of a stack of giant tortoises. Technically true, but of no practical importance.

Of course, if a theory doesn't agree 100% with reality, then there's more to find in a practical sense, in which case "not having reached the bottom" is true by definition.

Re: The Wolfram Physics Project

#320

Post by lukifer »

lliamander wrote: post #250
lukifer wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At times, Eric has quite the way with words; yet on Lex Fridman's podcast, he really struggled to communicate Geometric Unity in a way that's even slightly accessible to a layperson, despite Lex's patient prodding: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIAZJNe7YtE I actually find his brother Bret to be the opposite in his manner, far more measured and comprehensible: though he'll occasionally forget that you might not know…

I love listening to Heather and Bret when they talk about biology. What irks me most is when Bret starts talking about how our society isn't sustainable and that we need to rethink society by incorporating insights from game theory and evolutionary biology. On that score, he is frustratingly vague. I don't even think I would likely agree with him, but without something more concrete there's nothing there for me to an…

Totally understood. I don't think Bret claims to have a good answer to the problem. I think his thesis is that we're in such uncharted territory, facing multiple existential crises, that none of the thought technologies that helped us up to this point (religion, democracy, capitalism, even scientific materialism) are necessarily going to suffice for us to survive/thrive into the 21st century.

The common-ancestor driving force of those social technologies are genetic selection pressures, which he argues we should consciously and intentionally counter-act. One might fairly claim that that's a quixotic pipe-dream, given that our nature has been shaped by that force for a billion years; but the highly plausible opposing argument is that the alternative is extinction (if not of the species, then perhaps of civilization).

For more proactive ideas on constructing a social operating system for the 21st century and beyond, take a look at the "Game B" model from Jim Rutt, Jordan Hall, and many others:

https://medium.com/@memetic007/a-journey-to-gameb-4fb13772bc...

https://medium.com/@jordangreenhall

Post reply on HN