/lit/ - Literature

https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2020/04/finally-we-may-have-a-path-to-the-fundamental-theory-of-physics-and-its-beautiful/

>>15108706
This is literally just Deleuze's Difference and Repetition. Wolfram is just a hack stealing from continental philosophy. Real niggas have known about the fundamental nature of reality since the 70s.

>>15108706
>Truths of the physical order may possess much external significance, but internal significance they have none. The latter is the privilege of intellectual and moral truths, which are concerned with the objectivation of the will in its highest stages, whereas physical truths are concerned with it in its lowest.

>>15108706
I love this pic so much. It'll break /lit/ as over the next few weeks we see an elaboration of it and more rigorous theories springing from thus framework.
Be sure to check out Wolfram's live-streams he's been doing. Infinitely helpful and he answers a lot of charges.

>>15108795
>This is literally just Deleuze'
No, and every single one of you dilettantes who spams this only proves he knows fuck all about what is going on. Your immediate response is to try and relate it to some memeplex you're already familiar with and then hand wave 'it's just xyz but gayer' to try and cauterize the gaping wound that is your nescience regarding all things scientific.
Stop trying to project your philosophy hacks on actually academic work. This is far beyond your little daycare-tier meme authors.

>>15108861
The whole point of the OP post is these inane little mantras have been busted wide open.
Physics now explains qualitative realities. Get used to it. It'll be fun

>>15108706
Why does this look like finite state machines?

>>15108795
By your logic, any thing that uses arrows and diagrams is Deleuze. Tell me what he "stole", then
>>15108957 based

>>15108967
>Physics now explains qualitative realities
Physics has always explained 'qualitative realities'. Wolfram's crackpottery is not physics.

>>15108706
science was refuted by Guenon (pbuh), your bugman squiggles are powerless here

>>15108967
>Physics now explains qualitative realities
Now?

what is this timecube shit

>>15108957
lmao keep raging /sci/-aspie, the more you do it the more I'll keep posting. The rulial space is literally the plane of immanence. Prove me wrong.

>>15108706
The graphic doesn't look cool at all so it will be a pass for me.

>>15108977
that's because wolfram is obsessed with FSM and other similar models since he saw the game of life back then the game of life was new.

>>15108997
explained here >>15108733

based

>>15109011
The Timothy Leary book?

>>15109001
BASED

>>15109039
the John Conway cellular automaton

>>15109011
>FSM is an abstract machine
>Deleuze talks about abstract machines
its like pottery

>>15108706
Bro, Deleuze figured this all out like 50 years ago

>>15109065
explain the deleuze connection and describe some verifiable predictions deleuze's theory makes

>>15108957
>actually academic work
it’s le ebin cellular automata memes with an extra helping of schizo. it’s about as substantial as deleuze

>>15109021
shan't be reading all that. give me a quick rundown poindexter

>>15109143
>give me a quick rundown
physicist makes genuine breakthrough on the scale of newton and einstein.

haha lines go brrrr

>>15109143
1 - Old man notices if you build legos from simple shapes they become complex.
2 - Through cognitive biases he chooses legos that make shit look like brains or galaxies.
3 - DUDE SHAPES LMAO
4 - ??????
5 - Profit!!

>>15109101
>Philosophy gives consistency to the virtual, mapping the forces composing a system as pure potentials, what the system is capable of. Meanwhile, science gives it reference, determining the conditions by which systems behave the way they actually do. Philosophy is the “counter-effectuation of the event,” abstracting an event or change of pattern from bodies and states of affairs and thereby laying out the transformative potentials inherent in things, the roads not taken that coexist as compossibles or as inclusive disjunctions (differentiation, in the terms of Difference and Repetition), while science tracks the actualization of the virtual, explaining why this one road was chosen in a divergent series or exclusive disjunction (differenciation, according to Difference and Repetition).
The model of thought (IE, philosophy) that D&G posit runs complementary to the rulial space that Wolfram describes, IE, it is the virtual plane of all compossible potentials. The process of running through the set of all simple rules to find the one rule is equivalent to the way D&G understand science as operating via exclusive disjunction. Arguably what Wolfrom is doing is literally philosophy-in-action, even if you'd prefer to call it physics. It has the most beautiful symmetry with D&G's image of thought.

>>15109178
>it is the virtual plane of all compossible potentials.
im a brainlet.

I am bewildered that there are "people" on here defending this shit. This shit is nonsense, it is not a breakthrough and it will not lead to anything. It's just Wolfram being a nut again.
If you take this shit seriously, it is obvious you do not study physics or math, have a low IQ, and should shoot yourself in the head.

>>15108706
That will be out of date in 10 years, optimistically speaking.

Homer will still be relevant in 3000 years.

>>15109205
>If you take this shit seriously, it is obvious you do not study physics or math, have a low IQ, and should shoot yourself in the head.
ahem.

>>15109210
I'm not seeing a contradiction to my post

>>15109205
>I don't know who Stephen Wolfram is, but I assure you that I'm smarter than him
And you are...?

>>15109219
t. imbecile

>>15109221
I know who wolfram is
>>15109225
I am significantly smarter than you

>>15109193
Think of it this way: In Wolfram's set of all simple rules, if it turns out that only one of those rules produces exactly the right model for the conditions of our universe, then what do you think all of those other rules are? We cannot say that "they don't exist", because it is entirely plausible that they COULD exist, it is not unreasonable to imagine a universe which emerges from one of those other rules. Rather, they exist in virtuality, they simply have not been actualised. Science rightly concerns itself only with what is actual, what is physically "here". Those other rules/potentials form the basis of philosophical or speculative enquiry as inclusive disjunctions.

>>15109221
Wolfram stopped doing serious scientific work soon after he finished his PhD.
Selling software packages turned out to be much more lucrative.

What we do every day, Pinky. We're going to take over the world.

>>15108957
cope more brainlet

>>15108706
>Still trying to make an absolute model of reality
Is like they never even understood Kant.

When all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail. All Wolfram has is a computer so everything looks like a computation. This whole notion that the universe is a computer is philosophically dubious. It's similar to Tegmark's Mathematical universe hypothesis, claiming that the universe is (rather than is just described by) a mathematical structure. In both cases there is no a shred of empirical evidence for them. How could it? Just what would that evidence resemble? The cause for this sort of reification is seeing those tools that lend clarity to the analysis of physical systems "blur into" the systems themselves within the observer's mind. Essentially, because computers and math are the best and most accurate tools for understanding physics, they seem to "disappear into" the phenomena they describe though a kind of association, because the only way that truth about those systems is communicated is through those methods.

This is plain to see in Wolfram's notion of "rulial space", which is a pure figment and a heaping load of extra theoretical assumption on top of existing physics.

It’s really not that different from my metaphysical model, my model’s basically mixing Hegel with Deleuze and mixing that with husserl then mixing that with meinong. It results in a model in which “characteristic” or property (which would be the abstract object/rules of this fellow) unfolds itself by containing itself (so in the manner that mathematically one contains both the number 1 and the process 1, just as 2 contains (1,2) and 2) and this process of self repetition causes real change, this fractal-of-the-same-repeated-differently dialectically manifests via an inherent logic which characteristics due to their inherent nature must naturally unfold. (So that the characteristic of Hot must contain the logical effect of when something touches it, it is burnt, etc ) and these summed up qualities create more or less a Logos/logic structure and these produce basically soft determinism within reality. Time is conceived of as a logarithmic circle of discrete properties(which he would define as rules ) which also have this same kind of unfolding process, wherein the center of time is always difference/the intersection of past/future.

So this conception of a neuron-like discrete properties arranged in a kind of bWo which dialectically unfolds as Logic/reason is something I play around with and you see similar ideas elsewhere. You would probably enjoy looking into Edward zalta’s abstract object theory and his computational ontology.

A discrete view of the universe is majorly retarded.

The mistake imo is that people are too focused on objects and being when the core is properties/characteristics. Which I know is going far too platonic for our science models but like, at this point where you’re defining reality as an arrangement of abstract points and you have scientists using quine’s Platonism and so forth, if you’re in for a penny you’re In for a pound. Follow the logic fully. Like numbers themselves are property and arrangement and relational signifiers in these models so it makes far more sense to me personally to treat them as properties in a total system with being as itself just a singular property which many of the nodes intersect with.

>>15109372
>The cause for this sort of reification is seeing those tools that lend clarity to the analysis of physical systems "blur into" the systems themselves within the observer's mind.
I think I'm following you, its almost a map/territory problem, right? It becomes impossible to distinguish between the model and what is being modelled. I suppose it depends on how convincingly the model can simulate the exact conditions of the universe, if its able to do that, then the confusion can be explained by the simple fact of a 1:1 correspondence between them.

For me the thing that makes this all seem implausible is the idea of causal irreducibility– because the model cannot outrun the development of the universe, we have no way of knowing whether, even if a particular rule is able to simulate all of the conditions particular to the very early stages of the universe, we have no idea if, as it increases in complexity over time, it will still have that same correspondence or symmetry with the universe as it is now. These models are so complex that is impossible to predict if it will stay in line.

>>15109448

It’s fine if you have a pluralism=monism formula like what deleuze or the tantriks/Buddhists do, since it reconciles the discrete view with the unity of experience.

>>15109470
>causal irreducibility
computational irreducibility*, sorry

>>15109156
not a single word of that is true

>>15108706
wolfram finna CHIM

>>15108706
Brainlet question - but doesn't this just create a new way of defining pi? Like, doesn't this reduce the circular geometry with an algorithmic view?

This shit literally can't derive maxwell's equations and has no notion of electric charge:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=4569&v=vVsb8E33Nbw&feature=emb_title
1:16 minutes 20 seconds in
PLEASE don't tell me you take this seriously, anons.

>>15109448
>It could be that essentially everything we can see just expands too—so in effect the granularity of space is just getting finer and finer. This would be an interesting resolution to the age-old debate about whether the universe is discrete or continuous. Yes, it’s structurally discrete, but the scale of discreteness relative to our scale is always getting smaller and smaller. And if this happens fast enough, we’d never be able to “see the discreteness”—because every time we tried to measure it, the universe would effectively have subdivided before we got the result.
Makes sense to me, idk

>>15109494
Consciousness is a liar, see Graziano or Metzinger.

Radical Pluralism is what's up. The unity of experience is yet another caricature sketched by the liar.

>>15109768
It's still early days, though. The model isn't going to be refined enough at this stage to model EVERY aspect of the universe. You're demanding it to run before it can even walk

>>15109786

This is handled by the Empirical Ego as understood by Gentile and disjunctive synthesis of Deleuze. We also have dennett’s draft model. The radical difference is the unity.

>>15109768
you've totally missed the point

>>15108706
Here’s your (you) OP
Wolfram’s unscrutinized physics/computer science work and the pop-science Twitter journalists hyping it up having nothing to do with literature. This isn’t tv or pol or mu. Stop making and bumping these low effort posts and jannies do your job.

>>15109790
Have you read The Ego And The Flesh by Rogozinski?

>>15109871

Nope but I’ll check it out, thanks! My own conception of the Ego is basically that it is difference-in-itself, basically the Ego looks upon all and says “not This” “not that” and via negativa formulates itself in the center as the heart of difference/denial of all else, thus subject is formulated by relation to Object (and vice versa ) does it go into a similar relation? Or what’s the gist?

>>15109923
I can't possibly summarize, but it does address that and goes very weird places that are hard to dismiss

>>15109857
It has to be said anon is on point with these no-nonsense put downs in shit threads lately

>>15109789
>The model isn't going to be refined enough at this stage to model EVERY aspect of the universe
pretty shit unified theory lol

>>15108706
>finally getting my life in order
>plan to brush up on my studies over the Summer and start uni in the fall
>I wanted to go all in for a phd in philosophy
>very excited
>then I hear the news
>the inestimable business mogul, theoretical physicist, mathematician, and compsci whizz Dr. Wolfram tweeted something that had all the quora accounts abuzz
>a new project :Wolfram Physics
>ohno.jpeg
>with a sinking feeling I open the tweet, already intuiting the inevitable
>it's literally the ineffable glory of existence itself graphed out with Dr Wolfram announcing 'a path to the fundamental theory of physics'
>with a heavy sigh i resign myself to realization that reality has at last been laid bare
>walk over to my pile of philosophy books that are still arranged from the time i took a pic of them for that 'post your stacks' thread
>Kant is on top
>with a heavy heart i lay him into the empty Glad® HEFTY Trash Bags | ForceFlex® 18 GALLON BAG i have spread on my floor
>Jean Borella's La Crise du Symbolisme Religieux stares up at me. ah, but Jean, it is over now, you see. your book was the last little optimistic gasp of an archaic ideology, and disproved so soon
>Hegel? now merely 'Hell No'
>Schelling?, more like Shall Not (read) now that it's all been solved through other means
>Leibniz? a Leitweight with no place in this strange, new world
>Aquinas? ;more like I-quit-this
>and so on and on through all these great minds who in an instant have one and all been utterly refuted and rendered totally superfluous
>text my mom, tell her I'm going to be studying physics instead of philosophy this semester after all
>'oh thank god' is the instantaneously reply
>'god is dead mom, i numbly type back
>order The Grand Design on Amazon
>sit staring blankly at the latest @camscience tweet
>i shall learn to love this... in time
>but what to do with my Summer now?
>then I remember hearing how PornHub Premium was recently made free
>a brief twinge of what i garnered from my forays into formalist moral philosophy flickers through me, but then i remember we're all just chemicals and equations anyways
>mfw i am finally a free, scientifically enlightened citizen