5 ms·

If someone wants to read something that is more like a classical physics paper there are these two papers by Jonathan Gorard: https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/

by carlob 7y ago

If someone wants to read something that is more like a classical physics paper there are these two papers by Jonathan Gorard: https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/wolframphysics/Documents/some-relativistic-and-gravitational-properties-of-the-wolfram-model.pdf https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/wolframphysics/Documents/so... https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/wolframphysics/Documents/some-quantum-mechanical-properties-of-the-wolfram-model.pdf https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/wolframphysics/Documents/so...

jonathan_gorard 7y ago
Cheers!
bhouston 7y ago
Are these going to be submitted for appropriate peer review?
- jonathan_gorard 7y ago
  They already have, as I said in response to your other version of the same question :)
  - nil-sec 7y ago
    I’ve read through your GR part. Just to counter all the negativity here, congrats for pulling this off! I felt your papers do a much better job in explaining what’s actually the idea. Probably would be better to directly link to them here on HN. I’m a bit rusty but everything you write seems very reasonable to me. One thing I was a bit nervous about, and correct me if I’m wrong, is that you seem to somewhat artificially put in “causal invariance” by restricting all hyper graphs you consider to those that have this property. This isn’t obvious from the rule itself and it seems like it could just go wrong at one point deep into the time evolution. Are you worried about that? Edit: Additionally the model seems very flexible. To the point that I’m unsure whether it’s surprising to be able to recover GR and other properties. I’m out of my depth here but given that string theory seems to face a similar problem of model selection have you looked at equivalences between those or does this not make sense in your eyes?
  - igravious 7y ago
    "Perhaps the single most[0] significant idea conveyed within Stephen Wolfram’s A New Kind of Science, and the initial intellectual seedling from which the contents of the book subsequently grow, is the abstract empirical discovery that the “computational universe” - that is, the space of all possible programs - is far richer, more diverse and more vibrant than one might reasonably expect. The fact that such intricate and complex behavior can be exhibited by computational rules as apparently elementary as the Rule 30 and Rule 110 cellular automata, which are so straightforward to represent that they can easily be discovered by systematic enumeration, is profoundly counterintuitive to many people.[1]" "However, once one has truly absorbed and internalized this realization, it leads to an exceedingly tantalizing possibility: that perhaps, lying somewhere out there in the computational universe, is the rule for our physical universe[2]. If an entity as remarkable as Rule 30 could be found just by an exhaustive search,then perhaps so too can a theory of fundamental physics.[3] The idea that there could exist some elementary computational rule[4] that successfully reproduces the entirety of the physical universe at first seems somewhat absurd, although there does not appear to be any fundamental reason (neither in physics, nor mathematics,nor philosophy) to presume that such a rule could not exist. Moreover, if there is even a remote possibility that such a rule could exist, then it’s slightly embarrassing for us not to be looking for it. The objective of the Wolfram Physics Project is to enact this search.[5]" [0] There is in fact only one idea in that book, and this is that idea. But is this an original idea? When computer scientists and mathematicians come up with novel results in programming language theory or type theory (or whatever) what is to stop them claiming that they are empirically exploring a "computational universe"? [1] Probably, but not to programmers, or the computationally literate. [2] An extraordinary leap within the context of the introduction. Though note, neither is this an original idea, that the universe may be "digital" is not an idea original to Wolfram and it redates his magnum opus by I don't know how many years. Note there are actual physics projects that seek to kick the tyres this hypothesis. Have you got that so far? A recasting in lofty terms of an unoriginal idea followed by a a giant leap to another unoriginal idea which serves only to motivate the project. [3] So you say, but this is a giant non-sequitur. [4] Why just one rule? And the rule hardly runs itself. What does it run on? Great you have a generalised term-rewriting system (how completely un-novel). "What rewrites the terms?* How is this not the first question you ask yourself? [5] Hey, why not just say: “You know that "it from bit" idea? We have a hunch that term rewriting hypergraphs is the way to go. These are our explorations. We've encountered stuff that echoes contemporary physics.” Why not write the intro like that? Not grandiose enough for you? === Any sufficiently worthy "it from bit" project must answer the following questions. (1) Given that we know that any sufficiently powerful computing system can emulate any another what motivates your choosing this particular computational system and model? (2) Demonstrate convincing physics (not toy models) (3) Make testable predictions – this is not something for "down the line", this is what theories of anything must do. No predictions, no dice, no matter how nice. (4) Is it software all the way down? If so, how? If not, what is the hardware and what does that imply? (5) I would direct this last point at all TOE-heads like Wolfram and Weinstein and whoever. Why does it have to be simple? Why does it have to be elegant? Why is it always encoded in the formal systems you happen to play around with (geometry for Weinstein, term-rewriting systems / cellular automata for Wolfram). === I think the wider scientific community needs to call time on savants like Weinstein and Wolfram.

by carlob 7y ago

jonathan_gorard 7y ago

Cheers!

bhouston 7y ago

Are these going to be submitted for appropriate peer review?

jonathan_gorard 7y ago
They already have, as I said in response to your other version of the same question :)
- nil-sec 7y ago
  I’ve read through your GR part. Just to counter all the negativity here, congrats for pulling this off! I felt your papers do a much better job in explaining what’s actually the idea. Probably would be better to directly link to them here on HN. I’m a bit rusty but everything you write seems very reasonable to me. One thing I was a bit nervous about, and correct me if I’m wrong, is that you seem to somewhat artificially put in “causal invariance” by restricting all hyper graphs you consider to those that have this property. This isn’t obvious from the rule itself and it seems like it could just go wrong at one point deep into the time evolution. Are you worried about that? Edit: Additionally the model seems very flexible. To the point that I’m unsure whether it’s surprising to be able to recover GR and other properties. I’m out of my depth here but given that string theory seems to face a similar problem of model selection have you looked at equivalences between those or does this not make sense in your eyes?
- igravious 7y ago
  "Perhaps the single most[0] significant idea conveyed within Stephen Wolfram’s A New Kind of Science, and the initial intellectual seedling from which the contents of the book subsequently grow, is the abstract empirical discovery that the “computational universe” - that is, the space of all possible programs - is far richer, more diverse and more vibrant than one might reasonably expect. The fact that such intricate and complex behavior can be exhibited by computational rules as apparently elementary as the Rule 30 and Rule 110 cellular automata, which are so straightforward to represent that they can easily be discovered by systematic enumeration, is profoundly counterintuitive to many people.[1]" "However, once one has truly absorbed and internalized this realization, it leads to an exceedingly tantalizing possibility: that perhaps, lying somewhere out there in the computational universe, is the rule for our physical universe[2]. If an entity as remarkable as Rule 30 could be found just by an exhaustive search,then perhaps so too can a theory of fundamental physics.[3] The idea that there could exist some elementary computational rule[4] that successfully reproduces the entirety of the physical universe at first seems somewhat absurd, although there does not appear to be any fundamental reason (neither in physics, nor mathematics,nor philosophy) to presume that such a rule could not exist. Moreover, if there is even a remote possibility that such a rule could exist, then it’s slightly embarrassing for us not to be looking for it. The objective of the Wolfram Physics Project is to enact this search.[5]" [0] There is in fact only one idea in that book, and this is that idea. But is this an original idea? When computer scientists and mathematicians come up with novel results in programming language theory or type theory (or whatever) what is to stop them claiming that they are empirically exploring a "computational universe"? [1] Probably, but not to programmers, or the computationally literate. [2] An extraordinary leap within the context of the introduction. Though note, neither is this an original idea, that the universe may be "digital" is not an idea original to Wolfram and it redates his magnum opus by I don't know how many years. Note there are actual physics projects that seek to kick the tyres this hypothesis. Have you got that so far? A recasting in lofty terms of an unoriginal idea followed by a a giant leap to another unoriginal idea which serves only to motivate the project. [3] So you say, but this is a giant non-sequitur. [4] Why just one rule? And the rule hardly runs itself. What does it run on? Great you have a generalised term-rewriting system (how completely un-novel). "What rewrites the terms?* How is this not the first question you ask yourself? [5] Hey, why not just say: “You know that "it from bit" idea? We have a hunch that term rewriting hypergraphs is the way to go. These are our explorations. We've encountered stuff that echoes contemporary physics.” Why not write the intro like that? Not grandiose enough for you? === Any sufficiently worthy "it from bit" project must answer the following questions. (1) Given that we know that any sufficiently powerful computing system can emulate any another what motivates your choosing this particular computational system and model? (2) Demonstrate convincing physics (not toy models) (3) Make testable predictions – this is not something for "down the line", this is what theories of anything must do. No predictions, no dice, no matter how nice. (4) Is it software all the way down? If so, how? If not, what is the hardware and what does that imply? (5) I would direct this last point at all TOE-heads like Wolfram and Weinstein and whoever. Why does it have to be simple? Why does it have to be elegant? Why is it always encoded in the formal systems you happen to play around with (geometry for Weinstein, term-rewriting systems / cellular automata for Wolfram). === I think the wider scientific community needs to call time on savants like Weinstein and Wolfram.