Hear what God of Israel YAHUSHUA-YAHUWAH (Son and Father are ONE) saying to our generation by His chosen prophets: Trumpetcallofgodonline. com ; Letter called "Purify Your Faith, and Come to the Father as It is Written": EXCERPT: "Only in the Bible and through these very Letters, of which I have given to My prophet of the end of this age, shall you find Him and know Him."
the part about snowflakes is not good at all - what i (and probably most people) find fascinating about snow flakes it the actualy symmetry and structure of these creations - why would someone believe that structure is a defining property of our reality - not much seems structured anyway; the human way of thinking is basically the one trying to find similarities, but who can guarantee that there are any...
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I don't know what he's yammering on about. His manner of talking and accent are annoyingly pretentious. "Automata, mathematica, brahnch, exahmple, rahther, ok, so well, exahmple, ok, well, so ...."
I can't force myself to relisten to an hour and a half of this to try to see if he's really saying something worth hearing.
@ElecEng91 I understand that he's British. There are many people with a wide range of British accents that I have no problem listening to. I found THIS man annoying to listen to, his accent was the LEAST of it. First of all, he is EXTREMELY repetitious, saying "ok, so well, ok, so well" over and over and over. His repeated use of pretentious sounding vocabulary, such as "mathematica" instead of "mathematics" has very little to do with being British and very much to do with being pretentious.
Just because you are educated and use educated words when explaining something complex doesn't make you pretentious. When things are constantly refered to in a scientific manner, you begin to talk a bit that way. You spend so much time talking and hearing people talk that way it rubs off.
@MagiMysteryTour knowledge is power,I have never wasted any time in my lifetime,looking at peoples flaws,were all flawed,do little things were not aware of,I'm sure if I spent a day with you,I could tell you things about yourself,you wouldn't like,likewise you could do the same with me,I always look beyond when i meet a person.
This has changed my life, particularly in the view of physics and quantum mechanics, as I will get my degree, I want to help in revising and simplifying physics. I know that as new generations will begin to study this, our perspective of this world and science will make another paradigm shift as it did 400 years ago. In the future, people will laugh at how we thought invisibility, deep space travel to get to a star, anti-gravity, perpetual motion, even walking through walls was impossible.
@TKgeniusHELLTX perpetual motion is totally impossible... but invisibility is already something we use, and plasma / condensate physics may eventually give rise to "walk through walls" technology!
@BorrahAlive true, but if your research He-3 super fluid, you'll find some fascinating properties that naturally do not exist in nature. Perpetual motion theory has flaws. Currently I proposed that there must be revisions in the definition as well as the understanding in gravity as a macro continuum of the electromagnetic fields given off by quantum mechanical forces. So for now, we cannot disapprove any theory till it is fully tested and looked over. Keep your optimism up my friend.
Exactly WHERE does the pattern, cease to be a pattern? Without a rule-change, there doesn't seem to be a source for the randomness. He just kind of races past the core question of the entire "simple set of rules" to pi, primes, etc...
@bdogshredder Remember that you can find patterns everywhere, and Wolfram also never says randomness, but rather apparent randomness (it seems random to us, but it might have an overall structure that is infinite, or close to infinite, and then it repeats itself).
This video has impacted me greatly. I am pondering how this could be used in studying brain development/ mental illness etc. This is very enlightening, thanks!
@ToddAndelin It actually is used in studying the brain. What one does in cognitive science is to look for patterns in the brain, and say that this particular pattern yields this particular behavior. The problem is that one does not find the underlying rules for why those patterns arise. The models of Wolfram can possibly provide patterns to compare with brain-scans and thus be able to find the underlying rules.
@Scientisticsoviet That's an impossibility, it's like using statistics to prove the Earth is flat. Oh wait, something like that has already been done before. Guess it goes to show that history tends to repeat itself.
@greghar2003 Generally when one uses statistical hypothesis testing to disprove hypotheses rather than prove them.
In any event, my idea was that one could possibly express/model natural selection as a set of simple rules; Much like what is done in "The game of life" type computer simulations.
look at these mollusks. look at these snowflakes. therefore i'm doing a "new kind of science" and overturning newton. what an arrogant windbag! You've been staring at that monitor too long, amigo.
@kritikalmass3 Hehe. That caused me too lose attention for a while when I noticed the excessive use of hand motions, and my analytic mind started trying to figure out if there was any connection with what he said and the motions. :P
Wolfram is really good, but he's soooo full of himself. He's got the I've-been-doing-this-my-whole-life-and-it's-so-important-to-me-that-it-must-be-the-foundation-of-the-entire-universe disease.
@MacLaurin83 Well, don't you think it's the other way around, that he has been doing it his whole life because he is convinced it is the foundation of the universe?
@lllspectatorlll Nope I don't. He'd reasonably have to know a bit about it before coming to conclusions. But It's probably not black-or-white, could be a combination, and the two feeding each other. He gets interested which makes him think it's really important which makes him even more interested etc.
@kritikalmass3 There is also no reason to allow yourself to be irritated by that. If his rolling gestures keep his statements flowing, so be it. This guy is cracking the codes of life, physics and geology without saying "umm" every 5 seconds. I've never heard such an idea-dense presentation of this length. Let the profundity of content drown out the minor visual distraction.
what people cannot understand or at least most people? ~is not everything or anything, last forever it can change indefinately into something completely different? but as it is it doesn,t last in the same state forever nomatter what it is even rock even steel even the universe but this is what makes life so beautiful and mysterious and makes us and everything else grow because of this very reason try to grasp this because it is true its a fact and always has been its what is and always will be,
@137P0359997 It's pretty "deep" to describe a lecture by Stephen Wolfram, inventor of the most technically complex piece of computer software ever written as "having no scientific value".
Stephen, please don't rock back and forth and ask for approval by saying ok all the time. Otherwise, pretty clear concurrence with the nature of biological systems. Pretty obvious stuff to you and me ... yes, others need these explanations. Good job.
@dropintheforest Yes pretty obvious stuff to me too so i guess that means you, me, and stephen get it. Of course the peasants won't understand it. What a pity.
Wait am I high? didn't he say at about 33:00 that they are all trivalent systems or whatever, each node connects to 3 others? how does the amount of dimensions effect the amount of nodes connected if they are all still only connected at 3 points? seems there would be the same amount of nodes regardless of the spacial dimensions they extend in to.. *continues watching, lol*
if it's possible: to know the rule of the universe, run that rule in a computer, build a big enough computer to run the rule out to our universe's size. Then it is possible that we are nothing but a program model of the universe. This guy is pretty smart though.
@Revstoningpot but you cannot simmulate equal or higher amount of elements on a machine built from that elements. or something like that :D
if you have million atoms from which you could by nanotechnology built any machine, i suppose you could not simulate million atoms in real time inside that machine. if yes, you would probably create another universe inside of this one :)))
@fkh000 well of coarse you'd need a universe sized computer to keep track of every particle. In any case the simulaton universe would have to be smaller than the simulators universe. it's reaching but probable.
@Revstoningpot I think there's a conceptual argument for its plausibility... inventing a virtual universe... a system which can be classed as modelling the principles of a need not be quite so difficult.
As for current science fantasy... a quantum computer may allow us to construct the machine in an external universe.
@vapourmile well, at any rate, one needs to figure out the universe first. I think it would be hillarious if science did find out that 100% yes me are a computer simulation.
Stephen Wolfram is bringing generative formal logic into a new era. This concept of formal logic as any induction is going to create a revolution in both the way we think about formal logic and mental sciences. This is a really big deal. This is the biggest deal. People like Sebastian Seung, Angela Belcher, Caig Venter, David Chalmers, Stephen Wolfram make me feel like sticking around a bit longer.
Its not all that new but one should always listen to Wolfram because he is a deep and passionate thinker. The question he poses is whether the Universe is discreet or continuous or to put it into another way, are "real numbers" for real?
@jugzter I respect Wolfram's smarts . I can honestly say that you are bang on with this. He can be a real shit and some of his notions are nutty as hell. He ignores those who came before him and sues people, go figure, unlike Newton and most other scientists. he don't seem big on giving credit where it's due.
Most of these ideas are not new . Some of it's cool, but it ain't original.
I guess he's in it for the fame. Pity. I could of course be wrong.
All those information described by Sir Wolfram....what a wonderful world !
I wonder how far those ideas can be explored and twisted into the computer and what will emerge from all this complexity ... I suggest you people to read John D. Barrow's book The Grand Theory in which he discussed the computational irreducibility concept. Another point of view...
My question : how do arise physical constants through complexity emergence ?
man, God is over. It was a great conceptual technology that allowed us to deal with bigger social groups than ever before, but we have something even better now.
Oh, this video also has creationism crap in the comments section, how surprising... :/ But I guess it's good that uneducated people are interested in science videos. :)
To bad he didn't show any of the 3d fractals, with a more or less organic apereance , as shown in various movies on Youtube.
And what about the upcomming use of the binairy language by theoretical physisists and mathematicians, to describe the processes at it's fundamental state. Like M-theory / string theory ?
From this point of view an integration of sciences must be on the way and Steven Wolframs new platform could be the fundament of this integration.
He mentions that random patterns come from simply equations which is true but those patterns are always contained within those systems and so therefore gives no credence to evolutionary processes as required by macro-evolution, it simply explains variation within a system not from one system to another. Love the work done tho, the program looks like it has alot of potential.
The presumed evolutionary changes that occur from one animal into another. Like a cow becoming a whale, scales turning into feathers ect. The systems are closed and are not gaining any additional information is what I mean.
@Uaz31 You're misunderstanding a lot of terms here, namely "system", "closed", and "information". What you've said literally makes no sense by the definition of the terms you've used. Would you like some help on what these constructs mean, and don't?
Oh I know very well what the terms mean. He starts out claiming that these answers could give a explanation for evolutionary processes and its a bit misleading because like I said it only would explain the variations already within a system not from one system to another, thats all I was pointing out.
@Uaz31 "Oh I know very well what the terms mean." If you think that information theory makes any sort of trouble for evolutionary biology, or if you think that a cow (for example) is a "closed system", or that evolution means "one animal into another" we're already very much off track. (Not that there's anything wrong with that, these ideas can be challenging.)
Maybe we should start from the beginning, can you give us a brief explanation what you think biological evolution is?
He was relating the equations to biology, I suggest you watch it again in slow motion. Evilutionary biology is not a science its a religion and it has its own problems none of which give any credence to its credibility. Yes the cow is in a closed system in the sense that its not receiving additional information into the genome allowing for macro evilutionary changes. Evilution does imply "one animal changing into another"
@Uaz31 Your first mistake (and again it's a common one) is thinking of evolution in terms of individuals rather than populations. A cow will not adaptively become a whale, nor will a bacteria become a man. The genetics within a population however will via selective pressures be varied to adapt populations to their environments. Raw information is fed into our genes via mutation, and any variation resulting in improved fitness (the ability to reproduce) will be propagated. Anything confusing?
I know you will now try to claim evilution is only variations yes but it specifically implys the variations from one kind into another, which doesn't happen. Micro variation does happen but its only within a kind. Biological evilution is a religion geised as a science. When you give God like properties to space, time and matter that is a religion not a science.
Its a more proper way to define a species in relation to other types of animals and not just different types of the same animals as the word species is confusingly used to describe both. An example of kind would be a horse vs a dog. Species is used to not only discribe this but also the variations within a kind, like a pony in relation to a horse. It has a evolutionary connotation. To me species refers to those within a kind.
@Uaz31 Genetically a dog is virtually identical to a fox, are they a "kind"? What about a bear, dogs are very close genetically to bears, are they a part of the same "kind"? What's the definition? Is it a percentage of genetic difference? How about lizards and snakes, virtually genetically identical? Examples aren't a definition, what's the definition?
The fox could be, its a definate possibility. A pygmy of the larger canine perhaps. Fact is most if not all "canine" are from the same original family of canine. How do you think we got the Chihuahua? It doesn't take many generations to create a new "species" of dog.
Bears are not related to the dog in any way. They are a kind of their own. Humans are closely related to a block of wood too genetically. Bears are in no way genetically identical to dogs anymore than we humans are to a coffee table.
@Uaz3 Bears are a "kind" and dogs are a "kind", but what is this "kind"? How many genetic differences do we need to define a "kind", if any at all? You seem to be saying that genetic makeup is irrelevant, so what is the determining factor? Looks? Just... seems like a good idea? Someone told you? What? So you say that dogs and bears are different "kinds", why are they different "kinds"? How did you make that assessment?
"Kind" means exactly what it refers to and that is a kind of animal. How many genetic differences do we need? All of them. There is a common mention that monkeys are 98% genetically identical to humans but this is not true they are only 98% of a single strand of less than 1% of the dna. So one can say we are also 98% identical to wood using the same method and this goes for all other comparisons as well.
The dna in a dog compared to a bear is radically different, they are simular on some levels yes, but so would a rat or any other animal on those comparisons. The dna is the determining factor and it is not identical between the two animals, if this were so they would actually be the same animal but they are not.
Just because an animal has eyes a nose and ears doesn't mean its related to another kind of animal it just means they have a common designer and not a common ancestor.
@Uaz31 A designer intent on deception, due to making it appear as though all life has a genetic common ancestor?
In any event, until you define "kind" or admit that there is no definition, I will not be continuing this conversation. If you have any questions to ask of how evolution or any other scientific topic works then I'll be happy to help, but if you're unwilling to learn then I'm wasting my time with you.
He doesn't make it appear anyone has a common ancestor, thats what people who reject God make up in their own minds in order to not have to feel they are in some way ultimately accountable to God.
I already defined "kind". Its exactly what it means, different kinds of animals. One kind is a horse another kind is a elephant. 2 kinds of animals.
@Uaz31 No, a dog isn't a cat. Then again a calico isn't a tabby either, and a tiger isn't a lion. A pit bull also isn't a great dane, and a red fox isn't a grey fox. What was your point?
Since you define "kinds" as whatever we say they are, how useful do you think that concept is for actually understanding anything? I can happily say that all chordates belong to one "kind" while you cay say that a calico and a tabby are different kinds. How is this concept useful in any way?
Its meant to understand that they are different "kinds" of animals. What is so hard to understand about that? Like I said the word "species" is vague as used by evilutionists to distinquish not only different kinds of animals but also animals within the same kinds. Its been manipulated just as the term micro evilution has which is better termed as micro variation as there is no evolutionary processes happening as evilutionary ideology suggests.
You point out lingual restrictions, not flaws in evolutionary theory. We cathegorize in order to "stack" information, allowing our short term memory to be more effective, and to enable ourselves to communicate more in less time. However, our cathegories will always remain inaccurate, rather than clearly defined by nature.
What exactly are you arguing? That the theory of evolution is false?
Do you deny that certain traits are heritable, and that evolution is a necessary result of this?
First of all variation within a kind is not evilution. Of coarse certain traits are heritable and no evilution is not a result or a cause of this.
The root of the problem is that Darwinians, such as yourself disquish macro and micro evilution as one in the same. However, they are not. As I already mentioned micro never becomes macro. Variations are only those already within the genome, never is any new information being added from without. RNA is copied not new.
@Uaz31 Macroevolution is per definition microevolution over an extended period of time. The difference is one of approach. Microevolution is reductionist, while Macroevolution is holistic. Each approach has its own advantages in explaining the different, sometimes complex aspects of evolution.
If you do not suport the theory of evolution, you should not use its terms, and give them new meanings. If you are simply trying to say that all possibilities for development can be found in the genome,
at any given time, then I suggest you suply some proof, making your claims falsifiable, and more than simple claims.
I would appreciate it if you made an effort not to make so many spelling mistakes, and to choose words that make sense. If you are dyslexic, I apologize.
Yes, and monkeys flying out of my butt is by definition monkeys flying out of my butt.
Micro evilution is termed wrong its properly termed micro variation because that is what it is, variation within a kind of animal. Macro evilution is nothing but science fiction, its never been observed and is only a theory, and a lame one at that.
@Uaz31 The axiom of your conclusion, is that the genome is what you call a closed system. This is new to me, and I hope you can link me to some creditable source. If not, then this discussion will reach an early end, as we might as well wish new laws of nature into existence. Why do we asume the genome to be plastic? Because we have observed relatively large changes within species, over short periods of time. We can also follow trails of evolution back through history. Examples?
No Avraks thats not what I said. Please try to read slower. I said "they are closed IN THE SENSE that" now you can take that out of context all you want but only makes you a obvious liar. I know what they are and what they are not. Ill try to clarify again, they are not receiving any new information at all in any way.
@Uaz31 It is your belief, that the genome is a closed system in the sense that macro is not happening, or as you last claim, that it does not receive any information at all? If the latter is the case, my argument still stands, and I ask you this:
The genome is heritable, and consists of DNA, or RNA. Mutations within the D/RNA, due to meiosis or D/RNA replication, will not be heritable, and the original genome attempted copied to the creature in question, wil be copied to its offspring?
In all the studies done Im aware of, the only beneficial mutations were those that had resistances and they were only resistant because of a loss of information not a gain. In other words because they were different by lacking thereof they became resistant, it wasn't because they gained some new information. Rearran
What a cringe-inducingly bad intro this show has. But the content is marvelous, and of course, that's what counts.
wishpishh 1 week ago
What a fantastic lecture! Content like this justifies a free open internet.
OldSchoolSkill 1 week ago
Hear what God of Israel YAHUSHUA-YAHUWAH (Son and Father are ONE) saying to our generation by His chosen prophets: Trumpetcallofgodonline. com ; Letter called "Purify Your Faith, and Come to the Father as It is Written": EXCERPT: "Only in the Bible and through these very Letters, of which I have given to My prophet of the end of this age, shall you find Him and know Him."
Watch:
" youtube.com/watch?v=YZPmTH6sloo"
"youtube.com/watch?v=lutJYDxP6ys"
"youtube.com/watch?v=R9ike7PKd8U"
Regards.
TrumpetCallofGodLT 4 weeks ago
That first kid made me think they should have a minimum toefl score to be allowed to ask questions!
mayonasepatty 1 month ago
so this guy is trying to become the new newton
andwhatfire 1 month ago
My gut feeling is this will revolutionize R&D and exponentially increase the rate of technological breakthroughs.
ptevans01 2 months ago
the part about snowflakes is not good at all - what i (and probably most people) find fascinating about snow flakes it the actualy symmetry and structure of these creations - why would someone believe that structure is a defining property of our reality - not much seems structured anyway; the human way of thinking is basically the one trying to find similarities, but who can guarantee that there are any...
necrowizzard 3 months ago
@necrowizzard The point is that the complex behavior in our world is based on simple rules, that's the basic point here.
astroboomboy 2 months ago
Comment removed
Tarkvinius 3 months ago
AMAZING VIDEO! Possibly the best video on youtube!
JCarter3000 3 months ago
I can't believe that the ultimate answer to the life the universe and everything is 40 and no 42.
ilmale 3 months ago
fuck yea he said it. i dont really know what. but
harddancelove 4 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I don't know what he's yammering on about. His manner of talking and accent are annoyingly pretentious. "Automata, mathematica, brahnch, exahmple, rahther, ok, so well, exahmple, ok, well, so ...."
I can't force myself to relisten to an hour and a half of this to try to see if he's really saying something worth hearing.
MagiMysteryTour 4 months ago
@MagiMysteryTour It's called British English, punk. Live with it.
sesc79 3 months ago
@MagiMysteryTour
He's British... are you surprised that he has a British accent?
Damn, you're stupid.
ElecEng91 2 months ago
@ElecEng91 I understand that he's British. There are many people with a wide range of British accents that I have no problem listening to. I found THIS man annoying to listen to, his accent was the LEAST of it. First of all, he is EXTREMELY repetitious, saying "ok, so well, ok, so well" over and over and over. His repeated use of pretentious sounding vocabulary, such as "mathematica" instead of "mathematics" has very little to do with being British and very much to do with being pretentious.
MagiMysteryTour 2 months ago
@MagiMysteryTour
Just because you are educated and use educated words when explaining something complex doesn't make you pretentious. When things are constantly refered to in a scientific manner, you begin to talk a bit that way. You spend so much time talking and hearing people talk that way it rubs off.
Look up "wolfram mathematica".
ElecEng91 2 months ago
@MagiMysteryTour "mathematica" is a computer program that he invented! that's why he says mathematica and not mathematics.
adzrolls 1 month ago
@adzrolls he gave a presentation at TED,its really great,check it out.
inagod 1 week ago
@MagiMysteryTour knowledge is power,I have never wasted any time in my lifetime,looking at peoples flaws,were all flawed,do little things were not aware of,I'm sure if I spent a day with you,I could tell you things about yourself,you wouldn't like,likewise you could do the same with me,I always look beyond when i meet a person.
inagod 1 week ago
finally a smart - intelligent person
DBogable 4 months ago
Emergence Emergence Emergence!!!
Aryanpars 4 months ago
This has changed my life, particularly in the view of physics and quantum mechanics, as I will get my degree, I want to help in revising and simplifying physics. I know that as new generations will begin to study this, our perspective of this world and science will make another paradigm shift as it did 400 years ago. In the future, people will laugh at how we thought invisibility, deep space travel to get to a star, anti-gravity, perpetual motion, even walking through walls was impossible.
TKgeniusHELLTX 6 months ago
@TKgeniusHELLTX perpetual motion is totally impossible... but invisibility is already something we use, and plasma / condensate physics may eventually give rise to "walk through walls" technology!
BorrahAlive 5 months ago
@BorrahAlive true, but if your research He-3 super fluid, you'll find some fascinating properties that naturally do not exist in nature. Perpetual motion theory has flaws. Currently I proposed that there must be revisions in the definition as well as the understanding in gravity as a macro continuum of the electromagnetic fields given off by quantum mechanical forces. So for now, we cannot disapprove any theory till it is fully tested and looked over. Keep your optimism up my friend.
TKgeniusHELLTX 5 months ago
Exactly WHERE does the pattern, cease to be a pattern? Without a rule-change, there doesn't seem to be a source for the randomness. He just kind of races past the core question of the entire "simple set of rules" to pi, primes, etc...
bdogshredder 6 months ago
@bdogshredder you should read the book, he'll take his time to explain that.
TKgeniusHELLTX 6 months ago
@TKgeniusHELLTX Thank you-I'll check it out.
bdogshredder 6 months ago
@bdogshredder Remember that you can find patterns everywhere, and Wolfram also never says randomness, but rather apparent randomness (it seems random to us, but it might have an overall structure that is infinite, or close to infinite, and then it repeats itself).
astroboomboy 2 months ago
He is kind of a dick.
bdogshredder 6 months ago
It's computationally irreducible how much Stephen Wolfram loves himself.
onebluebear 6 months ago
This video has impacted me greatly. I am pondering how this could be used in studying brain development/ mental illness etc. This is very enlightening, thanks!
ToddAndelin 6 months ago
@ToddAndelin It actually is used in studying the brain. What one does in cognitive science is to look for patterns in the brain, and say that this particular pattern yields this particular behavior. The problem is that one does not find the underlying rules for why those patterns arise. The models of Wolfram can possibly provide patterns to compare with brain-scans and thus be able to find the underlying rules.
astroboomboy 2 months ago
Wouldn't natural selection actually be the simple set of rules that generates complex biological systems?
Scientisticsoviet 6 months ago
@Scientisticsoviet That's an impossibility, it's like using statistics to prove the Earth is flat. Oh wait, something like that has already been done before. Guess it goes to show that history tends to repeat itself.
greghar2003 6 months ago
@greghar2003 Generally when one uses statistical hypothesis testing to disprove hypotheses rather than prove them.
In any event, my idea was that one could possibly express/model natural selection as a set of simple rules; Much like what is done in "The game of life" type computer simulations.
Scientisticsoviet 6 months ago
Incredible! How could anyone dislike this???
aarongrooves 7 months ago 3
Your effort is tremendous. Your talk is very enlightening. Thank you and best of luck, Stephen.
MrVuHNguyen 7 months ago 3
This windbag could be a World-Class bagpipe player.
DancingSpiderman 7 months ago
look at these mollusks. look at these snowflakes. therefore i'm doing a "new kind of science" and overturning newton. what an arrogant windbag! You've been staring at that monitor too long, amigo.
mtheorysux 7 months ago
new technology rocks
Measonz 7 months ago
@kritikalmass3 Hehe. That caused me too lose attention for a while when I noticed the excessive use of hand motions, and my analytic mind started trying to figure out if there was any connection with what he said and the motions. :P
So annoying, I hate my brain.
fuunguus 8 months ago
This guy is really interresting.
exxalte 8 months ago
Wolfram is really good, but he's soooo full of himself. He's got the I've-been-doing-this-my-whole-life-and-it's-so-important-to-me-that-it-must-be-the-foundation-of-the-entire-universe disease.
MacLaurin83 8 months ago 3
@MacLaurin83 Well, don't you think it's the other way around, that he has been doing it his whole life because he is convinced it is the foundation of the universe?
lllspectatorlll 8 months ago
@lllspectatorlll Nope I don't. He'd reasonably have to know a bit about it before coming to conclusions. But It's probably not black-or-white, could be a combination, and the two feeding each other. He gets interested which makes him think it's really important which makes him even more interested etc.
MacLaurin83 8 months ago
@kritikalmass3 There is also no reason to allow yourself to be irritated by that. If his rolling gestures keep his statements flowing, so be it. This guy is cracking the codes of life, physics and geology without saying "umm" every 5 seconds. I've never heard such an idea-dense presentation of this length. Let the profundity of content drown out the minor visual distraction.
ianwfirestone 8 months ago
Cool
Search otomata in google it's awesom
It's a simple program and put starting positions but it can evolve forever I think
jangofet555 9 months ago
@jangofet555 Is it more awesom if you spel it automata?
ianwfirestone 8 months ago
Watching this and trying really hard to understand what he's saying has got to send anybody's IQ up a few points.
elpresidio 9 months ago
crazy bastard!
(in a good way)
secretagent229 9 months ago
Cool stuff ! Very astute indeed.
faunflynn 9 months ago
Smart guy but sneakers with that outfit?!? I mean really.
matrags 10 months ago 3
what people cannot understand or at least most people? ~is not everything or anything, last forever it can change indefinately into something completely different? but as it is it doesn,t last in the same state forever nomatter what it is even rock even steel even the universe but this is what makes life so beautiful and mysterious and makes us and everything else grow because of this very reason try to grasp this because it is true its a fact and always has been its what is and always will be,
55painterman 10 months ago
We are in the MatriX!
Al2006essandro 10 months ago 10
@Al2006essandro And the matrix is in us! (WE ARE THE MATRIX)
lslinger 8 months ago
Smart, little dry to digest, but smart.
This guy kills God, Nature, and anything else you "believe" in.
id104335409 11 months ago
Comment removed
rysw19 11 months ago
Comment removed
rysw19 11 months ago
Comment removed
johapet 1 year ago
That phone call tee'd him off, LOL.
OldMusicSoul 1 year ago
It's not clear to me that there is anything intrinsically new in his thinking and lots of stuff is just asserted and not proven...
AlloBruxelles 1 year ago
0:26:20
alexgee86 1 year ago
@alexgee86 26:20 without the zero if you want to point out the time
princeofexcess 1 year ago
Alan Turing was here 60 years ago. And R.Dawkins and Mandelbrot 30 years ago. Its not new science!?
NEVERSTOPJAMIN 1 year ago
Comment removed
NEVERSTOPJAMIN 1 year ago
Bravo!
etyrnal 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Be Naughty lady Travel around the world benaughtyman.info
jenitadias 1 year ago
every modern warfare 2 player wants the Earth's K/D.....
Ir0nF1st924 1 year ago
Reverse engineering the universe … I like it!
CasperBHansen 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Need to marry you Be Naughty girls benaughtyman.info
ranitamalshika 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Wolfram Alpha <3
SteamSkyLight 1 year ago
Comment removed
SteamSkyLight 1 year ago
Rule 42:
the answer to life, the universe and everything.
TheatreCritic 1 year ago 3
@TheatreCritic Rule 30:
Refutes rule 42 intrinsically
FreeMasonG 1 year ago
@TheatreCritic the joke is not even funny, dumb reference
plutoend99 11 months ago 2
Comment removed
TheatreCritic 1 year ago
when can we get the universes' SDK ?
walter0bz 1 year ago 33
@walter0bz ask google. i heard they own it.
rysw19 11 months ago
:A°SASçOcskcefcftwyu940dgklw43t9u0giwdkoL43T90UPGWDOp4390uwgdE4P9GP9OQY34WJ9gjopeOJ90Wrajlppjrppppppppppppppppppppppppppd
I ACTUALLY TYPED THIS IN THE SEARCH BAT TO GET TO THIS VIDEO LOL
hitlaparodiez 1 year ago
@hitlaparodiez
lolololololol@@@@!1111
GodDammitZach 1 year ago
no sir, its a Carl Sagan quote :) personal favorite actually.
sh83982 1 year ago
Well, if it is a simulation, I guess I'll jack my mother's car, tonite, and go GTA on the State Capitol Lawn.
phrankus2009 1 year ago
ok so we are a giant sims game.....that sucks!!!
kreno11234 1 year ago
What is his definition of complexity??? What's the NEW idea??? Pointless lecture. No scientific value detected.
137P0359997 1 year ago
@137P0359997 It's pretty "deep" to describe a lecture by Stephen Wolfram, inventor of the most technically complex piece of computer software ever written as "having no scientific value".
vapourmile 1 year ago
if you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe.
sh83982 1 year ago
@sh83982 Is this an original comment? I love it... very clever.
vapourmile 1 year ago
@sh83982 Carl Sagan FTW.
Actually he's probably the most influential person in my life.
Aresftfun 1 year ago
Stephen, please don't rock back and forth and ask for approval by saying ok all the time. Otherwise, pretty clear concurrence with the nature of biological systems. Pretty obvious stuff to you and me ... yes, others need these explanations. Good job.
dropintheforest 1 year ago
Comment removed
jkcjkcjkcjkcjkcjkcjk 1 year ago
@dropintheforest Yes pretty obvious stuff to me too so i guess that means you, me, and stephen get it. Of course the peasants won't understand it. What a pity.
[ ] sincerity
[x] sarcasm
jkcjkcjkcjkcjkcjkcjk 1 year ago
@jkcjkcjkcjkcjkcjkcjk
What are you talking about?
dropintheforest 1 year ago
Wait am I high? didn't he say at about 33:00 that they are all trivalent systems or whatever, each node connects to 3 others? how does the amount of dimensions effect the amount of nodes connected if they are all still only connected at 3 points? seems there would be the same amount of nodes regardless of the spacial dimensions they extend in to.. *continues watching, lol*
spongah 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Free Energy is real and it's here but the coverup is strong, if u r interested in a REAL free energy magnet motor
just go to LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM and download the blueprints ,it's probably the ONLY working magnet
motor out there. Join the free energy revolution!!
baccaratbargaineq 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The big bad Oil corporations r trying their best to stop free energy technology from spreading to common ppl.
We need to put an end to this corruption ,start generating ur own electricity now.
Visit LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM and get the blueprints . Join the Revolution!!
affluenceclm 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Free Energy is real and it's here but the coverup is strong, if u r interested in a REAL free energy magnet motor
just go to LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM and download the blueprints ,it's probably the ONLY working magnet
motor out there. Join the free energy revolution!!
despinapjr 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Free Energy is real and it's here! The Big Oil companies r doing everything they can to stop this
information. If you want a Free energy magnet motor , get the blueprints at LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM , Join the energy revolution!
narragansettharco 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Free Energy is real and it's here! The Big Oil companies r doing everything they can to stop this
information. If you want a Free energy magnet motor , get the blueprints at LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM , Join the
revolution!
porscheghcje 1 year ago
if it's possible: to know the rule of the universe, run that rule in a computer, build a big enough computer to run the rule out to our universe's size. Then it is possible that we are nothing but a program model of the universe. This guy is pretty smart though.
Revstoningpot 1 year ago
@Revstoningpot but you cannot simmulate equal or higher amount of elements on a machine built from that elements. or something like that :D
if you have million atoms from which you could by nanotechnology built any machine, i suppose you could not simulate million atoms in real time inside that machine. if yes, you would probably create another universe inside of this one :)))
fkh000 1 year ago
@fkh000 well of coarse you'd need a universe sized computer to keep track of every particle. In any case the simulaton universe would have to be smaller than the simulators universe. it's reaching but probable.
Revstoningpot 1 year ago
@Revstoningpot I think there's a conceptual argument for its plausibility... inventing a virtual universe... a system which can be classed as modelling the principles of a need not be quite so difficult.
As for current science fantasy... a quantum computer may allow us to construct the machine in an external universe.
vapourmile 1 year ago
@vapourmile well, at any rate, one needs to figure out the universe first. I think it would be hillarious if science did find out that 100% yes me are a computer simulation.
Revstoningpot 1 year ago
Stephen Wolfram is bringing generative formal logic into a new era. This concept of formal logic as any induction is going to create a revolution in both the way we think about formal logic and mental sciences. This is a really big deal. This is the biggest deal. People like Sebastian Seung, Angela Belcher, Caig Venter, David Chalmers, Stephen Wolfram make me feel like sticking around a bit longer.
daftrhetoric 1 year ago 3
terrible introduction
daftrhetoric 1 year ago
Its not all that new but one should always listen to Wolfram because he is a deep and passionate thinker. The question he poses is whether the Universe is discreet or continuous or to put it into another way, are "real numbers" for real?
suhailski 1 year ago
@drapiher ne diyon la inciland'lı
tutumasallah 1 year ago
I reproduced this program in 2 hours, very easy to program.
3dload 1 year ago
@3dload
really? I know nothing of programming. Is this usually done in mathematica? where can i run some of my ideas?
ToddAndelin 6 months ago
özet geçin piçler, ne anlatıyor adam?
tutumasallah 1 year ago
@tutumasallah Allskonar sniðuga hluti!
drapiher 1 year ago
Comment removed
cowboy81069 1 year ago
He's is bald! Clearly more evolved than me... who is not bald.
offthericta 1 year ago
Stephen Wolfram is an ego maniac ass hat who doesn't give credit to the people who actually did the important work.
jugzter 1 year ago
@jugzter I respect Wolfram's smarts . I can honestly say that you are bang on with this. He can be a real shit and some of his notions are nutty as hell. He ignores those who came before him and sues people, go figure, unlike Newton and most other scientists. he don't seem big on giving credit where it's due.
Most of these ideas are not new . Some of it's cool, but it ain't original.
I guess he's in it for the fame. Pity. I could of course be wrong.
faunflynn 1 year ago
@jugzter 'Ass hat.' Great phrase. Perfect. Being a genius don't preclude you being an Ass hat.
faunflynn 1 year ago
my computer does not have enough computing power to run mathematica......darn
yejiahua 1 year ago
Comment removed
yejiahua 1 year ago
Abosolutely awesome. Simplicity breeds complexity.
LanceWinslow5 1 year ago
freaking brilliant!
calebp9503 1 year ago 2
All those information described by Sir Wolfram....what a wonderful world !
I wonder how far those ideas can be explored and twisted into the computer and what will emerge from all this complexity ... I suggest you people to read John D. Barrow's book The Grand Theory in which he discussed the computational irreducibility concept. Another point of view...
My question : how do arise physical constants through complexity emergence ?
frenchem67 1 year ago
If you guys want to see more awesome documentaries/talks check out the playlist in my channel!
PhyzzixMan 1 year ago
no need to buy the book after that lecture.
tommy007b 1 year ago
TRUTH!!!!!!!
naesnavillus 1 year ago
when you want to have fun
rayhv1 1 year ago
More!!!
Agent I Agnet O
DieTubeAgenten 1 year ago
The answer to everything is not 42, it's 30!
Fuligginoso 1 year ago
'well'....
djslug1984 1 year ago
man, God is over. It was a great conceptual technology that allowed us to deal with bigger social groups than ever before, but we have something even better now.
ouch2112 1 year ago
well ,this was very interesting!
farerse 1 year ago
Cellphone at 20 minutes. Why do people not understand to turn it off? Morons.
ashleylovesdaddy 1 year ago 2
tl;dr
madichelp0 1 year ago
Oh, this video also has creationism crap in the comments section, how surprising... :/ But I guess it's good that uneducated people are interested in science videos. :)
lainet 1 year ago
very interesting but this is too much for my 15 year old brain haha
HakerzTM 1 year ago
he always brings up those black n white triangles, he explains them but in another language lol he's tooo smart
HakerzTM 1 year ago
@HakerzTM
What didn't you understand? =)
avraks 1 year ago
To bad he didn't show any of the 3d fractals, with a more or less organic apereance , as shown in various movies on Youtube.
And what about the upcomming use of the binairy language by theoretical physisists and mathematicians, to describe the processes at it's fundamental state. Like M-theory / string theory ?
From this point of view an integration of sciences must be on the way and Steven Wolframs new platform could be the fundament of this integration.
etiennealive 1 year ago
@etiennealive So what's up next ?
etiennealive 1 year ago
Most interesting ! Thanks for posting !
etiennealive 1 year ago
He mentions that random patterns come from simply equations which is true but those patterns are always contained within those systems and so therefore gives no credence to evolutionary processes as required by macro-evolution, it simply explains variation within a system not from one system to another. Love the work done tho, the program looks like it has alot of potential.
Uaz31 1 year ago
@Uaz31 What do you mean by "macro-evolution"?
FairCogent 1 year ago
@FairCogent
The presumed evolutionary changes that occur from one animal into another. Like a cow becoming a whale, scales turning into feathers ect. The systems are closed and are not gaining any additional information is what I mean.
Uaz31 1 year ago
@Uaz31 You're misunderstanding a lot of terms here, namely "system", "closed", and "information". What you've said literally makes no sense by the definition of the terms you've used. Would you like some help on what these constructs mean, and don't?
FairCogent 1 year ago
@FairCogent
Oh I know very well what the terms mean. He starts out claiming that these answers could give a explanation for evolutionary processes and its a bit misleading because like I said it only would explain the variations already within a system not from one system to another, thats all I was pointing out.
Uaz31 1 year ago
@Uaz31 "Oh I know very well what the terms mean." If you think that information theory makes any sort of trouble for evolutionary biology, or if you think that a cow (for example) is a "closed system", or that evolution means "one animal into another" we're already very much off track. (Not that there's anything wrong with that, these ideas can be challenging.)
Maybe we should start from the beginning, can you give us a brief explanation what you think biological evolution is?
FairCogent 1 year ago
@FairCogent
He was relating the equations to biology, I suggest you watch it again in slow motion. Evilutionary biology is not a science its a religion and it has its own problems none of which give any credence to its credibility. Yes the cow is in a closed system in the sense that its not receiving additional information into the genome allowing for macro evilutionary changes. Evilution does imply "one animal changing into another"
Uaz31 1 year ago
@Uaz31 Your first mistake (and again it's a common one) is thinking of evolution in terms of individuals rather than populations. A cow will not adaptively become a whale, nor will a bacteria become a man. The genetics within a population however will via selective pressures be varied to adapt populations to their environments. Raw information is fed into our genes via mutation, and any variation resulting in improved fitness (the ability to reproduce) will be propagated. Anything confusing?
FairCogent 1 year ago
@FairCogent
I know you will now try to claim evilution is only variations yes but it specifically implys the variations from one kind into another, which doesn't happen. Micro variation does happen but its only within a kind. Biological evilution is a religion geised as a science. When you give God like properties to space, time and matter that is a religion not a science.
Uaz31 1 year ago
@Uaz31 What is the definition of a "kind"?
FairCogent 1 year ago
@FairCogent
Its a more proper way to define a species in relation to other types of animals and not just different types of the same animals as the word species is confusingly used to describe both. An example of kind would be a horse vs a dog. Species is used to not only discribe this but also the variations within a kind, like a pony in relation to a horse. It has a evolutionary connotation. To me species refers to those within a kind.
Uaz31 1 year ago
@Uaz31 Genetically a dog is virtually identical to a fox, are they a "kind"? What about a bear, dogs are very close genetically to bears, are they a part of the same "kind"? What's the definition? Is it a percentage of genetic difference? How about lizards and snakes, virtually genetically identical? Examples aren't a definition, what's the definition?
FairCogent 1 year ago
@FairCogent
The fox could be, its a definate possibility. A pygmy of the larger canine perhaps. Fact is most if not all "canine" are from the same original family of canine. How do you think we got the Chihuahua? It doesn't take many generations to create a new "species" of dog.
Uaz31 1 year ago
@FairCogent
Bears are not related to the dog in any way. They are a kind of their own. Humans are closely related to a block of wood too genetically. Bears are in no way genetically identical to dogs anymore than we humans are to a coffee table.
Uaz31 1 year ago
@Uaz3 Bears are a "kind" and dogs are a "kind", but what is this "kind"? How many genetic differences do we need to define a "kind", if any at all? You seem to be saying that genetic makeup is irrelevant, so what is the determining factor? Looks? Just... seems like a good idea? Someone told you? What? So you say that dogs and bears are different "kinds", why are they different "kinds"? How did you make that assessment?
FairCogent 1 year ago
@FairCogent
"Kind" means exactly what it refers to and that is a kind of animal. How many genetic differences do we need? All of them. There is a common mention that monkeys are 98% genetically identical to humans but this is not true they are only 98% of a single strand of less than 1% of the dna. So one can say we are also 98% identical to wood using the same method and this goes for all other comparisons as well.
Uaz31 1 year ago
@FairCogent
The dna in a dog compared to a bear is radically different, they are simular on some levels yes, but so would a rat or any other animal on those comparisons. The dna is the determining factor and it is not identical between the two animals, if this were so they would actually be the same animal but they are not.
Uaz31 1 year ago
@FairCogent
Just because an animal has eyes a nose and ears doesn't mean its related to another kind of animal it just means they have a common designer and not a common ancestor.
Uaz31 1 year ago
@Uaz31 A designer intent on deception, due to making it appear as though all life has a genetic common ancestor?
In any event, until you define "kind" or admit that there is no definition, I will not be continuing this conversation. If you have any questions to ask of how evolution or any other scientific topic works then I'll be happy to help, but if you're unwilling to learn then I'm wasting my time with you.
Good luck.
FairCogent 1 year ago
@FairCogent
He doesn't make it appear anyone has a common ancestor, thats what people who reject God make up in their own minds in order to not have to feel they are in some way ultimately accountable to God.
I already defined "kind". Its exactly what it means, different kinds of animals. One kind is a horse another kind is a elephant. 2 kinds of animals.
Uaz31 1 year ago
@Uaz31 I'll make this as absolutely simple as I possibly can: How are you deciding what animals belong to a "kind"?
FairCogent 1 year ago
@FairCogent
I already answered your question 3 times.
Let me ask you a question. Is a dog a cat? If not then how do you distinguish them? If so then how do you distinguish them?
Uaz31 1 year ago
@Uaz31 So what you're trying to tell me is that you just look at different animals and decide that they're different kinds?
FairCogent 1 year ago
@FairCogent
Read the comments below and you didn't answer the question.
Uaz31 1 year ago
@Uaz31 No, a dog isn't a cat. Then again a calico isn't a tabby either, and a tiger isn't a lion. A pit bull also isn't a great dane, and a red fox isn't a grey fox. What was your point?
Since you define "kinds" as whatever we say they are, how useful do you think that concept is for actually understanding anything? I can happily say that all chordates belong to one "kind" while you cay say that a calico and a tabby are different kinds. How is this concept useful in any way?
FairCogent 1 year ago
@FairCogent
Its meant to understand that they are different "kinds" of animals. What is so hard to understand about that? Like I said the word "species" is vague as used by evilutionists to distinquish not only different kinds of animals but also animals within the same kinds. Its been manipulated just as the term micro evilution has which is better termed as micro variation as there is no evolutionary processes happening as evilutionary ideology suggests.
Uaz31 1 year ago
@Uaz31
You point out lingual restrictions, not flaws in evolutionary theory. We cathegorize in order to "stack" information, allowing our short term memory to be more effective, and to enable ourselves to communicate more in less time. However, our cathegories will always remain inaccurate, rather than clearly defined by nature.
What exactly are you arguing? That the theory of evolution is false?
Do you deny that certain traits are heritable, and that evolution is a necessary result of this?
avraks 1 year ago
@avraks
First of all variation within a kind is not evilution. Of coarse certain traits are heritable and no evilution is not a result or a cause of this.
The root of the problem is that Darwinians, such as yourself disquish macro and micro evilution as one in the same. However, they are not. As I already mentioned micro never becomes macro. Variations are only those already within the genome, never is any new information being added from without. RNA is copied not new.
Uaz31 1 year ago
@Uaz31 Macroevolution is per definition microevolution over an extended period of time. The difference is one of approach. Microevolution is reductionist, while Macroevolution is holistic. Each approach has its own advantages in explaining the different, sometimes complex aspects of evolution.
If you do not suport the theory of evolution, you should not use its terms, and give them new meanings. If you are simply trying to say that all possibilities for development can be found in the genome,
avraks 1 year ago
at any given time, then I suggest you suply some proof, making your claims falsifiable, and more than simple claims.
I would appreciate it if you made an effort not to make so many spelling mistakes, and to choose words that make sense. If you are dyslexic, I apologize.
avraks 1 year ago
@avraks
Yes, and monkeys flying out of my butt is by definition monkeys flying out of my butt.
Micro evilution is termed wrong its properly termed micro variation because that is what it is, variation within a kind of animal. Macro evilution is nothing but science fiction, its never been observed and is only a theory, and a lame one at that.
Uaz31 1 year ago
@Uaz31 The axiom of your conclusion, is that the genome is what you call a closed system. This is new to me, and I hope you can link me to some creditable source. If not, then this discussion will reach an early end, as we might as well wish new laws of nature into existence. Why do we asume the genome to be plastic? Because we have observed relatively large changes within species, over short periods of time. We can also follow trails of evolution back through history. Examples?
avraks 1 year ago
@avraks
No Avraks thats not what I said. Please try to read slower. I said "they are closed IN THE SENSE that" now you can take that out of context all you want but only makes you a obvious liar. I know what they are and what they are not. Ill try to clarify again, they are not receiving any new information at all in any way.
Uaz31 1 year ago
@Uaz31 It is your belief, that the genome is a closed system in the sense that macro is not happening, or as you last claim, that it does not receive any information at all? If the latter is the case, my argument still stands, and I ask you this:
The genome is heritable, and consists of DNA, or RNA. Mutations within the D/RNA, due to meiosis or D/RNA replication, will not be heritable, and the original genome attempted copied to the creature in question, wil be copied to its offspring?
avraks 1 year ago
@avraks
Not all of the information is copied correctly yes but your suggesting mutations are adding new information I presume and thats just not the case.
Uaz31 1 year ago
@avraks
In all the studies done Im aware of, the only beneficial mutations were those that had resistances and they were only resistant because of a loss of information not a gain. In other words because they were different by lacking thereof they became resistant, it wasn't because they gained some new information. Rearran