How to Think Computationally about AI, the Universe and Everything
writings.stephenwolfram.com
How to Think Computationally about AI, the Universe and Everything
1–10 of 81 posts
Re: How to Think Computationally about AI, the Universe and Everything
#2[flagged]
Re: How to Think Computationally about AI, the Universe and Everything
#3I think that the "ruliad" concept here is pretty interesting. I'm not too sure how to apply it to real life, though.
"Ruliad" represents the abstract and unique object that arises from the application of all possible computational processes or rules; the totality of all potential computational processes, an infinite, complex network of all possibilities that can ever exist. Wolfram explains that our perceptions of the universe, and our understanding of the laws of physics themselves, are influenced by our specific sampling or experience of the ruliad.
Re: How to Think Computationally about AI, the Universe and Everything
#4Why are none of these things wikipedia articles? Or getting any traction in google scholar? I actually am not against what Wolfram is saying and it's interesting to see the link between general relativity and quantum mechanics in this line of thinking, but come on, something is fishy.
Re: How to Think Computationally about AI, the Universe and Everything
#5Why are none of these things wikipedia articles? Or getting any traction in google scholar? I actually am not against what Wolfram is saying and it's interesting to see the link between general relativity and quantum mechanics in this line of thinking, but come on, something is fishy.
Guess two reasons
- the theory is not mainstream, guess it is not attractive enough to study it right now
- the theory is not able to make any new predictions (yet). This has to change I think to get traction.
Re: How to Think Computationally about AI, the Universe and Everything
#6Why are none of these things wikipedia articles? Or getting any traction in google scholar? I actually am not against what Wolfram is saying and it's interesting to see the link between general relativity and quantum mechanics in this line of thinking, but come on, something is fishy.
You can see him talk to an actual physicist here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0bMYtEKjHs0
Sean Carroll is more of a "just let the guest say what they want to" interviewer, so he doesn't grill him very hard. Despite that, I think it comes across pretty clearly in the interview that Wolfram doesn't actually have any compelling reason to think that this is the way the universe actually is.
Re: How to Think Computationally about AI, the Universe and Everything
#7Why are none of these things wikipedia articles? Or getting any traction in google scholar? I actually am not against what Wolfram is saying and it's interesting to see the link between general relativity and quantum mechanics in this line of thinking, but come on, something is fishy.
the thing that is fishy is that Wolfram doesn't understand the difference between an analogy and a model.
Re: How to Think Computationally about AI, the Universe and Everything
#8This is hard to read. I don't think the core narrative is implausible, but it's pretty hard to imagine someone this self-aggrandizing being a sufficiently critical adversary of his own theory, and he doesn't seem to have convinced anyone else of his claims.
Re: How to Think Computationally about AI, the Universe and Everything
#9Related: Why philosophers should care about computational complexity by Scott Aaronson [1].
If you have even a faint interest in philisophy and have taken algorithms 101 you will find something mind-blowing in this paper. My favorite part is about how the “Chinese room” problem takes on totally different character depending on your assumptions about the type of machinery behind the black box.
Re: How to Think Computationally about AI, the Universe and Everything
#10Why are none of these things wikipedia articles? Or getting any traction in google scholar? I actually am not against what Wolfram is saying and it's interesting to see the link between general relativity and quantum mechanics in this line of thinking, but come on, something is fishy.
Guess two reasons - the theory is not mainstream, guess it is not attractive enough to study it right now - the theory is not able to make any new predictions (yet). This has to change I think to get traction.
things to predict would be "the maximum entanglement speed ζ" and "dimensionality of space won’t always be precisely 3" but he seems to be making no real effort there, I've seen other non-wolfram research on a lower bound for the speed (4x the speed of light woosh) which doesn't cite him, the dimensionality thing I don't even know what to look for. Anyway you'd think he'd do something or not whatever not my life, I met him once and he was just an eccentric yet boring dude.