The Wolfram Model

90 views
Skip to first unread message

Philip Thrift

unread,
Apr 29, 2020, 4:40:56 AM4/29/20
to Everything List

The "hypergraph" stuff from Stephen Wolfram in recent news on his "new foundation" of physics has a name: The Wolfram Model.





@philipthrift

ronaldheld

unread,
Apr 29, 2020, 3:14:21 PM4/29/20
to Everything List
What will I be getting from reading these long papers?
    Ronald

Philip Thrift

unread,
Apr 29, 2020, 3:43:25 PM4/29/20
to Everything List


You will be introduced to the true formulation of the foundations of physics -  which will lead to its unification - leaving behind the deluding morass of the old mathematical-physics foundations you were brainwashed with as a student.

What else?

@philipthrift

Philip Thrift

unread,
May 2, 2020, 6:27:11 AM5/2/20
to Everything List

I roughly see how this part (gravitation in the Wolfram Model) works out:


from 

Some Relativistic and Gravitational Properties of the Wolfram Model
Jonathan Gorard
1University of Cambridge
2Wolfram Research, Inc


The Wolfram Model can be thought of as being an abstract generalization of the “Causal Dynamical Triangulation” approach to quantum gravity developed by Loll, Ambjørn, and Jurkiewicz.

The first essential step in the derivation of special relativity for causal-invariant Wolfram Model systems is to make precise the formal correspondence between directed edges connecting updating events in a discrete causal graph, and timelike-separation of events in a continuous Minkowski space (or, more generally, in a Lorentzian manifold).

The present article has demonstrated the Wolfram Model to be a novel, exciting and potentially highly fruitful discrete model for spacetime geometry, exhibiting discrete analogs of many (and possibly all) of the salient mathematical features of Lorentzian and pseudo-Riemannian manifolds in limiting cases. There exist a variety of open problems arising from this work, ranging from the possibility of computing higher-order corrections to the discrete Einstein field equations, to determining the computability-theoretic and complexity-theoretic properties that distinguish inertial and non-inertial reference frames, to developing a theory of general relativity that holds in manifolds with variable spacetime dimensions. A few of these problems are discussed in greater depth in our accompanying publication on quantum mechanics, which makes significant use of both the special relativistic and general relativistic formalisms that we develop inthis paper (especially the relationship between confluence, causal invariance and Lorentz covariance, and the derivation of the discrete Einstein field equations), and we intend to investigate several more of these questions in the course of future publications. The present work, however, has at least revealed the Wolfram Model to be a plausible fundamental model for classical relativistic and gravitational physics, and we eagerly await the implications that this will entail.



@philipthrift

Philip Thrift

unread,
May 2, 2020, 6:48:51 AM5/2/20
to Everything List



Some Quantum Mechanical Properties of the Wolfram Model
Jonathan Gorard

One intuitive interpretation of the evolution of a multiway system for a non-causal invariant system, and therefore one in which distinct evolution branches can yield non-isomorphic causal graphs, is that the system is evolving according to every possible evolution history (i.e. all possible updating orders), any pair of which may have observationally-distinct consequences. Such an interpretation brings forth strong connotations of the path integral formulation of quantum mechanics, in which the overall trajectory of a quantum system is taken to be described by a sum (or, more properly, a functional integral) over all possible trajectories, weighted by their respective amplitudes.


@philipthrift

Philip Thrift

unread,
May 2, 2020, 7:06:06 AM5/2/20
to Everything List


Here is my bottom-line assessment of the Wolfram Model:

Suppose one were to take a canonical (whatever that is) formulations of GR (Einstein field equations) and QM (quantum field theory / path integral formulation) and (re)present then in the Python language (or your favorite cool language, like Haskell) - one that has automatic differentiation / differentiable programming libraries - just as done in numerical relativity, cosmology, quantum mechanics - one would not get much more "interesting" (or useful) than the Wolfram Model.

In fact it may be more interesting and/or useful.

@philipthrift



John Clark

unread,
May 2, 2020, 10:35:28 AM5/2/20
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 3:43 PM Philip Thrift <cloud...@gmail.com> wrote:

> You will be introduced to the true formulation of the foundations of physics -  which will lead to its unification - leaving behind the deluding morass of the old mathematical-physics foundations you were brainwashed with as a student.

Will this true formulation of the foundation of physics allow somebody to solve a high school physics problem as well as the brainwashed version can, for example what will happen when you roll a ball down a inclined plane?  Before Wolfram's model can explain Quarks and Gluons and find the theory of everything it first has to tackle classical Physics 101. And it's one hell of a long way from being able to do that. So at least for the time being I'm sticking with brainwashing.

John K Clark

Philip Thrift

unread,
May 2, 2020, 2:16:42 PM5/2/20
to Everything List
Yes. But Python is better.

@philipthrift

ronaldheld

unread,
May 2, 2020, 3:42:30 PM5/2/20
to Everything List
Has this works of Wolfram been peer reviewed?
Trying to justify allocating the time to read a large paper with unfamiliar concepts.
        Ronald


On Wednesday, April 29, 2020 at 4:40:56 AM UTC-4, Philip Thrift wrote:

Philip Thrift

unread,
May 2, 2020, 5:46:00 PM5/2/20
to Everything List
50 years from now maybe the Wolfram Model will be canonical.

Likely not.

@philipthrift

Alan Grayson

unread,
May 2, 2020, 10:17:32 PM5/2/20
to Everything List


On Saturday, May 2, 2020 at 4:27:11 AM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:

I roughly see how this part (gravitation in the Wolfram Model) works out:


from 

Some Relativistic and Gravitational Properties of the Wolfram Model
Jonathan Gorard
1University of Cambridge
2Wolfram Research, Inc


The Wolfram Model can be thought of as being an abstract generalization of the “Causal Dynamical Triangulation” approach to quantum gravity developed by Loll, Ambjørn, and Jurkiewicz.

The first essential step in the derivation of special relativity for causal-invariant Wolfram Model systems is to make precise the formal correspondence between directed edges connecting updating events in a discrete causal graph, and timelike-separation of events in a continuous Minkowski space (or, more generally, in a Lorentzian manifold).

The present article has demonstrated the Wolfram Model to be a novel, exciting and potentially highly fruitful discrete model for spacetime geometry, exhibiting discrete analogs of many (and possibly all) of the salient mathematical features of Lorentzian and pseudo-Riemannian manifolds in limiting cases. There exist a variety of open problems arising from this work, ranging from the possibility of computing higher-order corrections to the discrete Einstein field equations, to determining the computability-theoretic and complexity-theoretic properties that distinguish inertial and non-inertial reference frames, to developing a theory of general relativity that holds in manifolds with variable spacetime dimensions. A few of these problems are discussed in greater depth in our accompanying publication on quantum mechanics, which makes significant use of both the special relativistic and general relativistic formalisms that we develop inthis paper (especially the relationship between confluence, causal invariance and Lorentz covariance, and the derivation of the discrete Einstein field equations), and we intend to investigate several more of these questions in the course of future publications. The present work, however, has at least revealed the Wolfram Model to be a plausible fundamental model for classical relativistic and gravitational physics, and we eagerly await the implications that this will entail.



@philipthrift


Shall we call it Bruno 2.0? AG

Bruno Marchal

unread,
May 3, 2020, 6:23:03 AM5/3/20
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
On 3 May 2020, at 04:17, Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:



On Saturday, May 2, 2020 at 4:27:11 AM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:

I roughly see how this part (gravitation in the Wolfram Model) works out:


from 

Some Relativistic and Gravitational Properties of the Wolfram Model
Jonathan Gorard
1University of Cambridge
2Wolfram Research, Inc


The Wolfram Model can be thought of as being an abstract generalization of the “Causal Dynamical Triangulation” approach to quantum gravity developed by Loll, Ambjørn, and Jurkiewicz.

The first essential step in the derivation of special relativity for causal-invariant Wolfram Model systems is to make precise the formal correspondence between directed edges connecting updating events in a discrete causal graph, and timelike-separation of events in a continuous Minkowski space (or, more generally, in a Lorentzian manifold).

The present article has demonstrated the Wolfram Model to be a novel, exciting and potentially highly fruitful discrete model for spacetime geometry, exhibiting discrete analogs of many (and possibly all) of the salient mathematical features of Lorentzian and pseudo-Riemannian manifolds in limiting cases. There exist a variety of open problems arising from this work, ranging from the possibility of computing higher-order corrections to the discrete Einstein field equations, to determining the computability-theoretic and complexity-theoretic properties that distinguish inertial and non-inertial reference frames, to developing a theory of general relativity that holds in manifolds with variable spacetime dimensions. A few of these problems are discussed in greater depth in our accompanying publication on quantum mechanics, which makes significant use of both the special relativistic and general relativistic formalisms that we develop inthis paper (especially the relationship between confluence, causal invariance and Lorentz covariance, and the derivation of the discrete Einstein field equations), and we intend to investigate several more of these questions in the course of future publications. The present work, however, has at least revealed the Wolfram Model to be a plausible fundamental model for classical relativistic and gravitational physics, and we eagerly await the implications that this will entail.



@philipthrift


Shall we call it Bruno 2.0? AG

It is just physics. It ignores the mind-body problem, and probably used implicitly, like all physicists (and they are right to this when doing physics) the mind-brae  identity thesis (which is locally true, but globally false when we assume mechanism, as Wolfram seems to do (and do in its “new science” book).

I am not a physicist, so I cannot really judge the originality, nor the importance. But seen from metaphysics/theology, it missed the qualia, and does not address the (logical) origin of the physical laws.

Bruno





 

On Wednesday, April 29, 2020 at 2:43:25 PM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote:


You will be introduced to the true formulation of the foundations of physics -  which will lead to its unification - leaving behind the deluding morass of the old mathematical-physics foundations you were brainwashed with as a student.

What else?

@philipthrift

On Wednesday, April 29, 2020 at 2:14:21 PM UTC-5, ronaldheld wrote:
What will I be getting from reading these long papers?
    Ronald


On Wednesday, April 29, 2020 at 4:40:56 AM UTC-4, Philip Thrift wrote:

The "hypergraph" stuff from Stephen Wolfram in recent news on his "new foundation" of physics has a name: The Wolfram Model.





@philipthrift

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/602c40fb-f391-4664-a067-bbb1ea121555%40googlegroups.com.

ronaldheld

unread,
May 3, 2020, 3:02:00 PM5/3/20
to Everything List

I am a physicist.   Ignoring the mind/body problems,what new predictions does his model make,and can it be falsified?
      Ronald

n Wednesday, April 29, 2020 at 4:40:56 AM UTC-4, Philip Thrift wrote:

Lawrence Crowell

unread,
May 3, 2020, 3:23:41 PM5/3/20
to Everything List
On Sunday, May 3, 2020 at 2:02:00 PM UTC-5, ronaldheld wrote:

I am a physicist.   Ignoring the mind/body problems,what new predictions does his model make,and can it be falsified?
      Ronald

I have yet to read beyond the introduction on this, so I can only make a limited statement on this. I would say that if one want to see what connection this has to deep foundations it would be to find a map between this and the Langland's conjecture. Wolfram's model looks very combinatorial, and this has connections with number theory. The Langland's hypothesis is that results in number theory, say with integer partition, Klein j-invariant functions and sporadic groups are all tied to elementary number theoretic or graph theoretic results. There may be great territory to explore here.

LC

Philip Thrift

unread,
May 3, 2020, 5:20:04 PM5/3/20
to Everything List


I am a mathematician - not a physicist - but I don't understand why there is this complaint against the Wolfram Model - but not many complaints about

Many Worlds theories - https://arxiv.org/abs/1801.08132
etc.

@philipthrift


On Sunday, May 3, 2020 at 2:02:00 PM UTC-5, ronaldheld wrote:

Philip Thrift

unread,
May 3, 2020, 5:47:02 PM5/3/20
to Everything List


Have Goldstone bosons been experimentally verified to exist?

@philipthrift

Bruno Marchal

unread,
May 4, 2020, 6:35:28 AM5/4/20
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
On 3 May 2020, at 23:20, Philip Thrift <cloud...@gmail.com> wrote:



I am a mathematician - not a physicist - but I don't understand why there is this complaint against the Wolfram Model -

Because it cannot work, nor does it agrees the fundamental question. 



but not many complaints about

Many Worlds theories - https://arxiv.org/abs/1801.08132


For a mechanist, Thea priori  question is why only those many worlds, as it *seems* to be a filtration on “all computations”. I have thought that Nature refutes mechanism, because I thought obvious that the physical universe was unique, but then physics confirms the “obvious” all computations aspect of arithmetic.
I have no clues on this, yet.

Bruno 



etc.

@philipthrift

On Sunday, May 3, 2020 at 2:02:00 PM UTC-5, ronaldheld wrote:

I am a physicist.   Ignoring the mind/body problems,what new predictions does his model make,and can it be falsified?
      Ronald
n Wednesday, April 29, 2020 at 4:40:56 AM UTC-4, Philip Thrift wrote:

The "hypergraph" stuff from Stephen Wolfram in recent news on his "new foundation" of physics has a name: The Wolfram Model.





@philipthrift

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

Alan Grayson

unread,
May 4, 2020, 7:15:18 AM5/4/20
to Everything List


On Sunday, May 3, 2020 at 3:20:04 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:


I am a mathematician - not a physicist - but I don't understand why there is this complaint against the Wolfram Model - but not many complaints about

Many Worlds theories - https://arxiv.org/abs/1801.08132
etc.

@philipthrift

No complaints about Many Worlds theories? Haven't you been paying attention? AG 

Lawrence Crowell

unread,
May 4, 2020, 7:44:26 AM5/4/20
to Everything List
Ghost fields are scalar fields that have Fermi-Dirac statistics. Popov introduced these as a way of introducing constraints to counter certain degrees of freedom in gauge theories, These are then really a way of countering four degrees of freedom of a gauge field, when there are only 2 polarizations. There is the Villars ghost that has negative norm, which could be a way of managing the negative probabilities that crop up in quantum gravitation. These are then not so much physical fields that are measured, but rather techniques for managing gauge redundancies.

Many worlds theories are not really theories, but interpretations. 

LC

On Sunday, May 3, 2020 at 4:20:04 PM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote:

Lawrence Crowell

unread,
May 4, 2020, 7:52:12 AM5/4/20
to Everything List
On Sunday, May 3, 2020 at 4:47:02 PM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote:


Have Goldstone bosons been experimentally verified to exist?

@philipthrift

Indirectly they have been verified. The coupled Z and W particles with the Goldstone bosons have amplitudes corresponding to that, rather than the case where they are massless. 

LC

Lawrence Crowell

unread,
May 4, 2020, 8:08:21 AM5/4/20
to Everything List
On Monday, May 4, 2020 at 5:35:28 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 3 May 2020, at 23:20, Philip Thrift <cloud...@gmail.com> wrote:



I am a mathematician - not a physicist - but I don't understand why there is this complaint against the Wolfram Model -

Because it cannot work, nor does it agrees the fundamental question. 



On what basis do you draw that conclusion? I am not a panegyric for Wolfram's theory at this time. I have not studied it enough to make a judgment. It appears to be a form of combinatorics combined with the sort of AI based graphs Nerode introduced to categorize the Chomsky hierarchy of grammars. This then might have at least some facet of the foundations of physics. At this time I really do not know.

LC
 

but not many complaints about

Many Worlds theories - https://arxiv.org/abs/1801.08132


For a mechanist, Thea priori  question is why only those many worlds, as it *seems* to be a filtration on “all computations”. I have thought that Nature refutes mechanism, because I thought obvious that the physical universe was unique, but then physics confirms the “obvious” all computations aspect of arithmetic.




I have no clues on this, yet.

Bruno 



etc.

@philipthrift

On Sunday, May 3, 2020 at 2:02:00 PM UTC-5, ronaldheld wrote:

I am a physicist.   Ignoring the mind/body problems,what new predictions does his model make,and can it be falsified?
      Ronald
n Wednesday, April 29, 2020 at 4:40:56 AM UTC-4, Philip Thrift wrote:

The "hypergraph" stuff from Stephen Wolfram in recent news on his "new foundation" of physics has a name: The Wolfram Model.





@philipthrift

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.

Brent Meeker

unread,
May 4, 2020, 1:32:17 PM5/4/20
to everyth...@googlegroups.com


On 5/4/2020 3:35 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 3 May 2020, at 23:20, Philip Thrift <cloud...@gmail.com> wrote:



I am a mathematician - not a physicist - but I don't understand why there is this complaint against the Wolfram Model -

Because it cannot work, nor does it agrees the fundamental question.

Sean Carroll was asked about it and said that he was not inclined to study it until Wolfram published a paper solving some specific problem.  There are always proposed Theories of Everything which purport to contain all solutions to all outstanding problems...BUT the solution is just "in there somewhere".

Brent

ronaldheld

unread,
May 4, 2020, 2:22:17 PM5/4/20
to Everything List
I do not understand the basic graph math.   Maybe do as Sean Caroll says to do?
      Ronald

Bruno Marchal

unread,
May 6, 2020, 8:08:08 AM5/6/20
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
On 4 May 2020, at 13:44, Lawrence Crowell <goldenfield...@gmail.com> wrote:

Ghost fields are scalar fields that have Fermi-Dirac statistics. Popov introduced these as a way of introducing constraints to counter certain degrees of freedom in gauge theories, These are then really a way of countering four degrees of freedom of a gauge field, when there are only 2 polarizations. There is the Villars ghost that has negative norm, which could be a way of managing the negative probabilities that crop up in quantum gravitation. These are then not so much physical fields that are measured, but rather techniques for managing gauge redundancies.

Many worlds theories are not really theories, but interpretations. 


Even 1-world theories are not really theories but interpretations. Alpha-world theories are all “interpretation”, for alpha being any cardinal in set theory, starting from zero (no world at all, like with mechanism) to large infinities.

The problem of interpretation can be handled in a theory of interpretations (which exists at least when the theories are presentable in first order logic).

Bruno




LC

On Sunday, May 3, 2020 at 4:20:04 PM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote:


I am a mathematician - not a physicist - but I don't understand why there is this complaint against the Wolfram Model - but not many complaints about

Many Worlds theories - https://arxiv.org/abs/1801.08132
etc.

@philipthrift

On Sunday, May 3, 2020 at 2:02:00 PM UTC-5, ronaldheld wrote:

I am a physicist.   Ignoring the mind/body problems,what new predictions does his model make,and can it be falsified?
      Ronald
n Wednesday, April 29, 2020 at 4:40:56 AM UTC-4, Philip Thrift wrote:

The "hypergraph" stuff from Stephen Wolfram in recent news on his "new foundation" of physics has a name: The Wolfram Model.





@philipthrift

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/fe307e62-2a33-4dbb-adeb-4ad6794e831a%40googlegroups.com.

Bruno Marchal

unread,
May 6, 2020, 8:21:00 AM5/6/20
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
On 4 May 2020, at 14:08, Lawrence Crowell <goldenfield...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Monday, May 4, 2020 at 5:35:28 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 3 May 2020, at 23:20, Philip Thrift <cloud...@gmail.com> wrote:



I am a mathematician - not a physicist - but I don't understand why there is this complaint against the Wolfram Model -

Because it cannot work, nor does it agrees the fundamental question. 



On what basis do you draw that conclusion?


On my contribution in the domain. I can explain this (I have already explain this on this list some time ago). You might read the argument in eight step, which shows that consciousness cannot be related to a computation, but only to infinities of computation (which are arithmetical objects as we know since the 1930s). You can attach a mind to a machine, but a machine cannot attach its own mind to a singular computation. Wolfram is Mechanism, + an implicit invocation in a materialist commitment or in a digital universe, but this is precisely what cannot work when we assume mechanism.



I am not a panegyric for Wolfram's theory at this time.


What I say is more about his “new science” basic philosophy. 



I have not studied it enough to make a judgment. It appears to be a form of combinatorics combined with the sort of AI based graphs Nerode introduced to categorize the Chomsky hierarchy of grammars. This then might have at least some facet of the foundations of physics. At this time I really do not know.


It is too much Aristotelian to make sense with the mechanist assumption, where the physical has to emerge from a statistic on all computations “as seen from inside” (something that the logic of provability of Gödel-Löb-Solovay makes possible to make mathematically precise).

That last work of Wolfram might help, or not, but fail to address the fundamental questions. It is still “physics” , which is nice, per se, but the way he present it, as fundamental, requires physicalism and this non-mechanism (if you are aware of my contribution, or of Plato skepticism).

With mechanism, the dream argument becomes a theorem in arithmetic, leading to a testable theory in metaphysics, a bit like the Bell inequalities makes some philosophical point made by Einstein testable. 

Bruno



To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/290dc535-8f52-45ec-9265-afac3f3e3024%40googlegroups.com.

Bruno Marchal

unread,
May 6, 2020, 8:25:02 AM5/6/20
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
The solution has to be testable to be “scientific”.

Bruno



Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

ronaldheld

unread,
May 6, 2020, 4:11:49 PM5/6/20
to Everything List
Bruno:
Am I correct that you see the Wolfram model as a Physicalist theory and not Mechanism(AR)?
      Ronald

Bruno Marchal

unread,
May 7, 2020, 10:14:57 AM5/7/20
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
On 6 May 2020, at 22:11, ronaldheld <ronal...@gmail.com> wrote:

Bruno:
Am I correct that you see the Wolfram model as a Physicalist theory and not Mechanism(AR)?

Wolfram assumes mechanism, at least in his big “new science” book. But he fails to appreciate its consequences (Shmidhuber, Tegmark, even Bostrom are more sense full on this, although they still miss some key part of the mind-body problem).

So Wolfram is Mechanism, but accompanied with the very common dismissing of the mind-body problem. There is no phenomenologies, and it is still an attempt to make everything 3p, which is the main thing that the antic theologian understood as being just impossible (and provably so when you add Church-thesis).

I am not sure why you put Arithmetical (AR) alongside with mechanism. AR is used by everybody all the time. I have added as an assumption just to avoid problem with ultrafinitists, but eventually, I have solved that problem, as I military AR to RA (I limit the arithmetical realism to Robinson arithmetic, which is implicit in the classical Church-turing thesis. My “new” definition of an arithmetical realist is anyone who agree with the teacher, against their kids, when the teacher asserts that x + 0 = x, and things like that. AR is used when we make our taxes, or buy an insurance. AR is consistent with the ultarfinitost statement that there is a biggest natural number. To be sure, to prove this consistency requires some use of the infinite, but an utlrafinists has no obligation, nor any means, to prove its consistency, as no one can do that, neither the finalists, nor the arithmetical “gods”, nor the One itself.

In my sane04 paper, I defined mechanism to be “yes doctor + Church’s Thesis + Arithmetical Realism” (YD + CT + AR), but as AR is implicit in CT, I prefer now to avoid this redundancy, especially that many philosopher put far to much in AR. 
AR is the belief that 888 is even, independently of you wishes, or of the physical laws (which all assumes AR to be just formulated).

You can also replace “yes doctor” with Theaetetus’d definition of knowledge, to go from []p to ([]p & p), but it seems to me that the thought experiment motivates better this, including the weak variants []p & <>t and []p & <>t & p. The three variants gives different quantum logics (with p’s arithmetical interpretation restricted to the sigma_1 proposition, or better (a recent improvement!) the sigma_1(a) proposition, where the “a” denotes an arbitrary oracle (in the sense of Turing).

I appreciate a lot Wolfram’s book on the Cellular Automata though.  His recent paper might be quite interesting in physics, but as metaphysics, it is still too much physicalist for being consistent with Descartes or Darwin +Turing (Mechanism).

Bruno





      Ronald

On Wednesday, April 29, 2020 at 4:40:56 AM UTC-4, Philip Thrift wrote:

The "hypergraph" stuff from Stephen Wolfram in recent news on his "new foundation" of physics has a name: The Wolfram Model.





@philipthrift

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages