Even with the subjunctive, this is certainly a powerful statement that should be met with some skepticism. The Wolfram Physics Project is a continuation of the ideas formulated in A New Kind of Science and was born out of a collaboration with two young physicists who attended Wolfram’s summer school. Wolfram: It’s about studying the computational universe of all possible programs and understanding what they can do. The fact that Wolfram tends to overstate his findings and publishes through his own media channels instead of going through peer-reviewed physics journals does not earn him any extra credibility. Graph based models also seem to be conceptually compatible with string theory where strings may be describable as subgraphs. If a ball travels from x=1 to x=2, there is Quantum mechanics and general relativity are both caused by the same thing. Numerous theorists have attempted a unification, but progress has been slow. Stephen Wolfram just presented a new fundamental theory for how the universe works that claims to unite quantum mechanics and general relativity. It is generally true that fundamental physics has long decoupled from the scientific method of postulating hypotheses based on experimental observations. What is inevitable about future machines is that they'll operate in ways we can't immediately foresee. “restricted to” substitute “restricted from”. That math is an abstract human tool is an objective fact, it is not a matter of opinion. Physicists *like* conservation of energy, so they parameterize violations of it in such a way to maintain it. the dimensionality of space, can be deduced from the rules itself. The universe is what it is, and that will ultimately be the yardstick against which theories will be measured, not the opinions of some smart but big-headed guys. Is there anything we humans do that cannot—or should not—be automated? Future US, Inc. 11 West 42nd Street, 15th Floor, Imagine being the guy watching all this, noticing that the simulation build an emulator of itself. A 1.5D network is completely © Start at a single node, then expand out to select all connected nodes. This theory There are bunches of examples with QFT and with GR as well. https://www.stephenwolfram.com/media/study-complexity/, Rather than rescuing relativity and quantum mechanics as they stand, rather than an update, what we need is a reboot to actual simplicity The book got controversial reviews, while some found that it contains a cornucopia of ideas others criticized it as arrogant and overstated. The Wolfram model proposes that "space" and "stuff" are the same, both made up Like it or not, science is a social endeavor. Get unlimited access when you subscribe. vacuum looks the same as the force between two planets. Calm down, nothing like this is said in the paper. >What I’m saying is, you can’t explain it by saying that “it’s math”, because you end up with an explanation that is just turtles on the backs of turtles all the way down. On another topic, that’s not the subjunctive. And how come your revolutionary ideas aren’t being taken seriously? Learn how your comment data is processed. You can begin by adding the first two or by adding the “Wolfram […] can’t resist trying to apply his experience with digital computer programs to the laws of nature. We recently had the following email exchange.–-John Horgan. second two. In other words, how can we assert that our statements aren’t subjective? observer effect are When machines—or for that matter, brains—operate, we can describe them either as just following their rules, or as “achieving certain goals.” And sometimes the rules will be complicated to state, but the goals are simpler, so we’ll emphasize the description in terms of goals. Horgan: Are autonomous machines, capable of choosing their own goals, inevitable? The concept of computation doesn’t presuppose a “substrate,” any more than talking about mathematical laws for nature presupposes a substrate. What I’m saying is, you can’t explain it by saying that “it’s math”, because you end up with an explanation that is just turtles on the backs of turtles all the way down. I don’t think the word “probability” even applies at the fundamental point. Literally, every second, portions of the Universe are exiting our cosmic horizon. It doesn’t surprise me that out of a few tiny rules (and given infinite computer memory and compute resources) you could end up with instances perhaps including all possible universes. Time takes place in discrete steps, like the frames of a movie. And if we *would* get new experimental results (like seeing evidence for supersymmetry, for instance) then there will undoubtedly be multiple different ways to approach the problem. Well Maxwell predicted that light would be an EM wave, but at the time that was not a thing that could be measured or used. They’re basically just special relativity: asserting that the Universe is symmetric under Poincare transformations. It’s possible, but I can’t see any motivation for these speculations, except that this is the sort of system that Wolfram and others have become used to in their work on computers. One can also add complexity by allowing self-loops, rules involving copies of the same relation, or rules depending on multiple relations. Wolfram: When we see a rock fall, we could say either that it’s following a law of motion that makes it fall, or that it’s achieving the “goal” of being in a lower-potential-energy state. It is a common misconception that being incorrect about something objective involves point of view, but actually, point of view is only relevant for dealing with subjective matters. Under wolfram's proposed theory, the universe works the same way. If not, discrete models may still be effective at prediction, but models based on the concept of continuous space may be more effective, making the Wolfram ideas a dead end. People in fields where change was “in the air” seemed generally very positive, but a number of people in fields that were then more static seemed to view it as a threatening paradigm shift. Let me be clear – Wolfram’s claiming that this math can help explain everything in physics. Dark matter and dark energy are things. Wolfram certainly says his approach leads to new predictions. I believe that some of the core ideas of “digital physics” are much older. Still reading the long article, but I have to comment that you need a guy called “Wolfram” to solve the _really_hard_ problems like this. There was a problem. In the universe, big things and small things the network is 3D. Something must first be without a rule for it to be, and this being the case we are not necessarily restricted to other things becoming the same way, hence the fundamental non-determinism of things like quantum mechanics. The Cost Of Moving Atoms In Space; Unpacking The Dubious Claims Of A $10 Quintillion Space Asteroid, The Shipping Industry’s Transition To Atomic Power And Faster Deliveries, “Enhance” Is Now A Thing, But Don’t Believe What You See. Magnetars: City-Sized Magnets Born from Dying Stars, Astronomers Have Finally Found the Cause of Mysterious Fast Radio Bursts, The Quantum Internet Will Blow Your Mind. >Still, most mainstream physicists will probably be skeptical about the general idea of a discrete computational Universe. of dimensions. Wolfram liking an abstraction more or less does not make it more or less abstract. that action takes place in a set of discrete "frames", one right after another. Except I don’t think it’s actually going to do that, because the problem, fundamentally, between the Standard Model and gravity is that there’s no experimental anchor between the two over gigantic scales. Did I miss when the world turned into a roleplaying game with an “INT” parameter that everyone can compare against each other? Horgan: Have you ever suspected that God exists, or that we live in a simulation? By his calculations, an electron should be composed of about 10^35 of these elements. He received his PhD in theoretical particle physics at the age of 20 and was the youngest person in history to receive the prestigious McArthur grant. String theory has also been criticized for not making any testable predictions. What is considered a fundamental theory of physics? Physicist Stephen Wolfram thinks he's figured out a framework that unifies general relativity, quantum mechanics, and everything else we know … You will receive a verification email shortly. “WHERE WILL IT ALL LEAD?” indeed. For example, his theory suggests there is an elementary length in the universe of about 10^-93 meters, which is much smaller than the Planck length 10^-35 m, currently thought of as the smallest possible length. I seem to have read similar statements in the book 《Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid》 Mathematical models dominated for three centuries, and in a very short time, program-based models seem to have become the overwhelming favorites for new models. Has anyone read it?