The Last Theory

In my conversation with Jonathan Gorard about the founding of the Wolfram Physics Project, I said that I don’t like String Theory.Now, I’ll admit, I don’t really understand String Theory.It’s highly mathematical. And I’m not much of a mathematician. Actually, that’s an understatement. I’m not a mathematician at all.So if there’s a problem in the relationship between String Theory and me, it might not be String Theory, it might be me.Sadly, admitting that I might be part of the problem doesn’t change anything between us. I still don’t like String Theory.Here’s why.–I release The Last Theory as a video too! Watch here.The full article is here.Kootenay Village Ventures Inc.

In 2019, Jonathan Gorard and Max Piskunov goaded Stephen Wolfram into pursuing his ideas for a new kind of science.This led to the announcement of The Wolfram Physics Project in 2020.Last week, I talked to Jonathan Gorard about the revolutionary ideas that have come out of the project.In this first excerpt from our conversation, Jonathan talks about his instrumental role in the founding of The Wolfram Physics Project.We cover why the time was right in 2020... and why it had been wrong in 2002 when Stephen Wolfram published his book A New Kind of Science.We talk about how Wolfram Physics might take over from string theory, why Jonathan likes string theory... and why he doesn’t.It was a true pleasure to talk to Jonathan about what might prove a pivotal moment in the history of science.—Jonathan GorardJonathan Gorard at The Wolfram Physics ProjectJonathan Gorard at Cardiff UniversityPeople and ProjectsThe Centre for Applied CompositionalityThe Wolfram Physics ProjectStephen Wolfram’s announcement of the projectMax PiskunovSetReplace on GitHubConcepts mentioned by JonathanIrreducibilityUndecidabilityUniversalityCurrent algebraRegge theoryGauge theoryStandard ModelString theoryPoincaré groupMirror symmetryCalabi–Yau manifoldK3 surface—ImagesCalabi–Yau manifold CalabiYau5 by Andrew J. Hanson, Indiana University, who allows use with attributionFeynman diagram Feynmann Diagram Gluon Radiation by Joel Holdsworth, public domain—I release The Last Theory as a video too! Watch here.Kootenay Village Ventures Inc.

Wolfram Physics models the universe as a hypergraph.Maybe I’m just seeing things, but it seems to me that hypergraphs are everywhere: physics, chemistry, biology, neurology, ecology, sociology, technology.What I want to know is:Why?Why are hypergraphs everywhere?—Molecular structure Styrene-butadiene chain2 by Guido Raos, professor of chemistry, Politecnico di Milano, Italy licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0Metabolic pathway BRENDA pyrimidine metabolism by BRENDA – The Comprehensive Enzyme Information System licensed under CC BY 4.0Brain image Neurons & glia by The Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) licensed under CC BY 2.0Pelagic food web An in situ perspective of a deep pelagic food web by C. Anela Choy, Steven H. D. Haddock and Bruce H. Robison licensed under CC BY 4.0Social graph Partitions in my social graph by Matt Biddulph licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0Internet map Internet map by Matt Britt licensed under CC BY 2.5Feynman diagram Paarbildung by Ivan Baev licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0—I release The Last Theory as a video too! Watch here.The full article is here.Kootenay Village Ventures Inc.

As you’ll know from Episode 8: Where’s the computer that runs the universe? ( read ⋅ listen ⋅ watch ), I have my doubts about the existence of a computer that’s whirring away, applying Wolfram’s rules to Wolfram’s graphs, performing the computations required to run our universe.This computer, if it exists, is necessarily invisible to us, and as I warned in Episode 12: Beware invisible things ( read ⋅ listen ⋅ watch ) we should be wary of what we can’t see.Still, I want to revisit this idea of a computer that runs the universe.I want to come at it from a slightly different direction.Rather than adopt the stance of the monkey with its hands over its eyes and insist that if I can’t see it, it’s not there, let’s suppose that there is a computer that runs the universe and ask a simple question:How big would it have to be?—Other episodes I mention:Episode 8: Where’s the computer that runs the universe? – read ⋅ listen ⋅ watchEpisode 12: Beware invisible things – read ⋅ listen ⋅ watchEpisode 15: Where to apply Wolfram’s rules? – read ⋅ listen ⋅ watch—I release The Last Theory as a video too! Watch here.The full article is here.Kootenay Village Ventures Inc.

Here are answers to some fundamental questions about hypergraphs:A hyperedge can connect any number of nodes: one, two, three, four, seventeen or any other number.And a hypergraph can include any of these different kinds of hyperedge, or all of them.Let’s take a look at what this means for Wolfram Physics... and at some of the beautiful hypergraphs it allows us to generate!I release The Last Theory as a video too! Watch here.The full article is here.Kootenay Village Ventures Inc.

In previous episodes, I’ve been simulating Wolfram Physics using graphs.But you may have come across simulations of Wolfram Physics using hypergraphs.What’s the difference?What is a hypergraph?—This epsiode refers to previous episodes on dimensionality:How to measure the dimensionality of the universe audio ⋅ video ⋅ articleAre Wolfram’s graphs three‑dimensional? audio ⋅ video ⋅ articleWhat are dimensions in Wolfram’s universe? audio ⋅ video ⋅ articleand previous episodes on space:What is space? the where and the how far audio ⋅ video ⋅ articleThe expanse: dimension, separation & explosion audio ⋅ video ⋅ article—I release The Last Theory as a video too! Watch here.The full article is here.Kootenay Village Ventures Inc.

Confession time: I haven’t been entirely honest with you about applying a rule to a graph in Wolfram Physics.I’ve explained precisely how to apply a rule, but I’ve been strangely silent when it comes to where to apply the rule.I know, it’s unlike me to be silent, right?Time to come clean.It turns out that the question of where to apply Wolfram’s rules is not as easily answered as you might think.This seemingly straightforward question will take us into the philosophy of time, causality, consciousness, contingency and determinism.And it’ll lead us towards some of the most important concepts in Wolfram Physics: the multiway graph, branchial space and causal invariance.Check your breathing apparatus: we’re going deep.I release The Last Theory as a video too! Watch here.The full article is here.Kootenay Village Ventures Inc.

In his General Theory of Relativity, Einstein combined the three dimensions of space with the one dimension of time in what we now know as Einstein’s equations.Ever since, physicists have thought of space and time as effectively the same thing: components of four-dimensional space-time.This might be the biggest blunder physicists have ever made.Stephen Wolfram, on page 22 of his book A project to find the Fundamental Theory of Physics, calls it the “one ‘wrong turn’ in the history of physics in the past century”.Space-time is dead.Here’s why... and how physicists got it so wrong for so long.I release The Last Theory as a video too! Watch here.The full article is here.Kootenay Village Ventures Inc.

We’re used to thinking of space as continuous.A stone can be anywhere in space. It can be here. Or it can be an inch to the left. Or it can be half an inch further to the left. Or it can be an infinitesimal fraction of an inch even further to the left. Space is infinitely divisible.The graphs of Wolfram Physics, however, are discrete.If, as Stephen Wolfram proposes, the universe is a graph, then you can’t be just anywhere in space. It makes sense to think about a node of the graph as a position in space. It makes no sense to think about anywhere in between the nodes as positions in space. This space is not infinitely divisible.It’s as if a stone could be here in space, or here in space, but nowhere in between.So which is it?Has every physicist from Leucippus to Einstein been right to insist that space is continuous?Or is Wolfram right to up-end millennia of settled science and insist that space is discrete?I release The Last Theory as a video too! Watch here.The full article is here.Kootenay Village Ventures Inc.

We humans have always been fond of invisible things.Poltergeists, fairies, unicorns, the Yeti, the Lost City of Atlantis.Just because you can’t see them, it doesn’t mean they aren’t there.Scientists, no less than any other humans, suffer from this fondness for invisible things.Phlogiston, miasma, ether, strings.Just because you can’t see them, scientists have insisted, it doesn’t mean they aren’t there.Beware these invisible things.As I explore Wolfram Physics, I’m aware of certain invisible things that we believe in now, but we’re going to have to let go, if Stephen Wolfram is right.And I’m also aware of the temptation to replace this old set of invisible things with a new set of invisible things.Here’s why we’d do well to resist.I release The Last Theory as a video too! Watch here.The full article is here.Kootenay Village Ventures Inc.