Reminds me of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L-system.
Other interesting related theories might be https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion-limited_aggregation or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percolation_theory.
The Wolfram Physics Project
331–340 of 342 posts
Re: The Wolfram Physics Project
#332Has any commenter here read the blog post? He starts from "network that evolves through simple rules" then goes on to derive how this results in space dimensionality, time, Sr, GR, the uncertainty principle, path integral, entanglement, and makes predictions along the way.
This is regardless of the specific rule that computes our universe. Also since that rule is Turing complete, it's going to be the same as every other Turing complete rule, and since we can't produce a machine IN the universe that can simulate the universe, it kinda doesn't matter what the rule is.
Re: The Wolfram Physics Project
#333After a few iterations, I think I understand the point of this piece. It was a bit difficult to hone in on, though. The article suggests that working out the theory of something like rule production systems, and then figuring out how that theory relates to existing insights from physics, is the best path toward a Fundamental Theory of Physics. My primary source of skepticism stems from the fact that the theory of rul…
I don’t understand how this model can ever be predictive. It seems like a good way perhaps to create an approximation engine but I’m not sure what sort of predictive insights you can gain from this approach. In order to be useful, this model should either create a new testable prediction or speed up computations in existing models while retaining accuracy. It seems to be in the latter camp. I would like to understand…
I think Wolfram makes the point himself that the model may not directly be predictive in the way that states "encrypt" their predecessors. I guess the best bet is to show that there is a direct connection between his model and higher models, because then you can start to look for physical manifestations of things his lower-level model predicts that don't exist in higher-level models. Kind of like how GR keeps getting reinforced by verifying its predictions with phenomena that hadn't been considered before its advent.
Re: The Wolfram Physics Project
#334I'm a big fan of Gerard t' Hooft's Cellular Automata Interpretation. Most of the things described by Wolfram were already there, in fact, I would argue that most of the things with strict connection to real physics were already described by Gerard t' Hooft in a similar manner (energy and momentum interpretations are very similar) However, they are different in that Gerard t'Hooft has a single ontic state where Wolfra…
>where Wolfram has branching from undeterministic applications of rules. I'm not sure how Wolfram can derive unitary evolution. I don't think it's right to call it nondeterministic: every possible sequence of rules happens, separately. It seems to lend itself easily to the Many-Worlds Interpretation of QM.
I don't know if that's true, because I think the idea of a rule having causal invariance is that the many paths converge anyway into causal sequences of events that always hold.
Re: The Wolfram Physics Project
#335The most basic of the basic first step would be finding an infinite series for calculating Pi, that has only positive elements... like Ramanujan's series, but not quite, because elements of this series have to produce numbers Nk, for each step k (k=0->infinity), that satisfy the following condition: Nk/k->2Pi for k->infinity.
Until this is achieved (finally giving the complete description of this discrete space/graph of this space), nothing further can be done in physics.
Furthermore... it is not even needed to prove that this space is discrete, because uncertainty principle already proves that it is, by taking notice of the fact that in continuous spaces, quanta of action/momentum/energy can be made arbitrarily small (and, in fact, is equal to 0), which means that h can be made arbitrarily small (and, in fact, is equal to 0).
In other words, uncertainty principle only makes makes sense in discrete spaces... and, as experiments (from 100+ years ago) have already proven, h > 0 in the space this universe is made of (meaning that this space is discrete). Q.E.D.
Edit: typo and... typo with missing constant 2 from circumference formula.
Addition: Pi is Pi only because of the spatial (graph) configuration. In another uniform space, with a different configuration, circumference formula would have the form of: Nk=aCk, where a is some value (like 2), and C is the (Pi-like) constant derived from spatial (graph) configuration >alone.
Edit: Added missing k to the general circumference formula. I should really proof-read better, but I'm in a kind of hurry, so you'll forgive me an occasional mistake or two.
Re: The Wolfram Physics Project
#336Also... one of fundamental flaws of Wolfram Physics Project's meta-model is that it uses weightless graphs.
There is literally nothing in his model that can prevent his beautiful graphs from simply collapsing in on themselves, with all the points just piling up on top of each other into a naked singularity before they've even succeeded at forming any space at all!
For starters, empty space should have weighted (space-like) connections of the weight value of 1.
This accomplishes two things: a) prevents the space from outright collapsing in on itself, and b) forces the space to form a stable configuration
For b) part, imagine a 2-dimensional discrete space (graph) made of hexagonal shapes.
You will immediately notice that weighing knot (node) connections (with the value of 1) forces that space to maintain a stable spherical configuration (providing that it had formed uniformly to start with.
Expand this concept to 3 dimensions, and you'll get a similarly stable 3D configuration (that has been uniformly expanding from the very first step of 1), with 2D surface (at any distance r/step k from the center) being a very good candidate for defining a holographic principle (of some form or another) on.
Now...
... wait for Wofram to expand his model with weighted graphs... and then sue his sorry ass for stealing somebody else's idea.
P.S. One of the fundamental flaws of WPP's meta-meta-model is... Wolfram himself.
A terrible, terrible choice for managing the, literally, biggest breakthrough in physics since QM.
Re: The Wolfram Physics Project
#337Earlier quoted context omitted.
> For example, his "emulation cones" are a new name for a very old and extremely well-studied idea. The term "rulial space", similarly, is a new name for an idea that's well-developed in programming language theory. What are the names for these old, well-studied things in programming language theory, so we can look them up?
Oy, I've been dreading having to answer this question since I pressed "post" :) I've decided that I do not have the time or interest in writing the Related Work section for a paper-length blog post touching on an enormous number of fields, some of which I know well and some of which I haven't thought about in a decade. (As an aside, one real and substantive problem with trying to build a research program without taki…
I'm interested in research direction of using code-data dual algothms that modify each other and form natural selection process to formally abstract notion of evolutional open-endedness (like Turing completeness is an abstraction of algorithms notion). More details: https://www.reddit.com/r/DigitalPhilosophy/comments/dzghec/o...
Maybe you could advise some developed language or model for this task? The interesting part is to have code-data duality and enough rich language to kick start natural selection that would produce competing algorithms that would gradually become more and more complex (and gradually become closer to sentience).
Though the language might not even be Truring complete as it is. As natural assumption would be that the model should be finite in resources and it can get access to infinite time or memory only in time limit (assuming that the individual algorithms would survive for this to happen).
Re: The Wolfram Physics Project
#338Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
We know problems can be solved faster on a "quantum computer" as the term is defined; we don't know that the version of QM that our reality runs on actually allows us to create such a computer, or at least scale it up to a demonstrably (not provably! Demonstrably!) superclassical level. That's what the Quantum Supremacy debate is about.
Re: The Wolfram Physics Project
#339Of course theoretical physics of this sort will be an affront to many.
Practically speaking though, broad speculation aside, it seems reasonable to desire to just simulate, and brute force something as simple as the first 10^-150s of the universe.
Only when you must account for the language that has been constructed in the past 350 years of coarse observation does it seem like madness.
When they move forward with this, and the results of their computing displays an independently generated imprint of the cosmic background radiation, the results will be undeniable.
It likely will escape language for decades, but if they run the simulation at this granularity and come to an exact match it will reveal either that our theories are exact and precise, or where we have missed phenomena.
Bravo, from an (at least) inspirational grounds though.
Re: The Wolfram Physics Project
#340Earlier quoted context omitted.
That makes sense. I can't assess your argument given my lack of understanding. In my own experience though, deriving things from first principles, even if they've been re-invented countless other times, is a good way to build up the intellectual super structures necessary to think new thoughts. I think we should separate: - Wolfram acting as though he thought of the ideas first - Wolfram being underinformed so as to…
You say: > Wolfram [is] acting as though he thought of the ideas first. This is called plagiarism. Independent reinvention is no defense if you keep on acting as though you had the idea first. He has already been informed many times that parts of his work are not original, and his behavior doesn't change. And he knows it, on some level. He made the decision to communicate his "discoveries" in press releases and self-…
> He sued one of his employees to prevent him (the employee) from publishing a proof that Wolfram claimed he had discovered in his book.
The wikipedia article claims that Wolfram conjectured rule 110 in 1985 many years before Cook. Out of curiosity, do you have any info that disputes this?