Towards a Theory of Everything

This post may seem way off-topic, but for writing science fiction it helps to stay informed on the latest developments, as a sprinboard for our imagination. And a new approach to a "theory of everything" from Stephen Wolfram certainly provides fuel for the imagination. ("It's hypergraphs all the way down".)

I follow Joscha Bach on Twitter, and spent an hour reading a link from a tweet from him about an interesting blog post by Stephen Wolfram on Mathematics, Combinators and the Story of Computation. I was intrigued by its opening paragraph about a mathematical tool called 'combinators' (maybe discovered by a mathematician in 1920, Moses Schonfinkel). I think these combinators underlie what Wolfram believes may be a new framework he's created for thinking about physics, that will probably lead to a Theory of Everything.

Back in high school I read some excerpts of Newton's Principia Mathematica, in which he described some of the laws he'd discovered (like the inverse square law of gravity), in English.  It was a struggle to understand what he meant: expressed in English, the statements were really hard to understand, but easy to understand when expressed in modern mathematical notation.

Reading of the argument between Newton and Leibnitz regarding their (simultaneous and independent) discovery of calculus, I was struck similarly that Leibnitz's notation seemed more elegant and easier to work with than Newton's (which is presumably why Leibnitz's notation is the one we adopted).

And probably the capstone was reading the SF book Babel-17 by Samuel Delaney.

Those things made it clear to me that introducing excellent symbolism (notation) for the right concepts, coupled with rules for how to manipulate those symbols to make true statement, can produce really powerful tools for reasoning.  (That and asking the right question, or framing a problem the right way.)

But Wolfram's (long but fascinating) blog post offered me two more big ideas:

1) That there were and are people who think about symbolism and notation, and invent new ways to think about stuff. And that Moses Schonfinkel was one of those people, who also tried to distil mathematics down to a minimal framework - and through his invention of combinators reduced all maths down to just three combinators.

(A note for any computer scientists out there: combinators are equivalent to Turing machines which are equivalent to the Lambda calculus which is equivalent to cellular automata.)

2) Wolfram's claim that probably the single most important idea of this past century is that of universal computation: that in an absolutely real sense, the universe is an engine like a cellular automata, that's in operation.

His blog post also mentions his new physics project (Finally We May Have a Path to the Fundamental Theory of Physics…,and It’s Beautiful), announced and released several months ago, and today I've listened to the 4+ hours of his fascinating interview by Lex Fridman about it (Stephen Wolfram: Fundamental Theory of Physics, Life, and the Universe | Lex Fridman Podcast #124).  I highly recommend it.  Fridman conveniently breaks down the video with time coded links in the description (or you click on the "Chapters" link near the bottom of the video to call up a more graphical view of all those topic areas), if you want to just dip in.

(His explanation of the fundamental idea of his new framework, the hypergraph, is clearly described in that link above, in the section "How It Works".)  Wolfram is hoping to find "the right rule" (or small set of rules?) that would produce our observed universe and physical laws.

He says in the article:

"But in the early 1980s, when I started studying the computational universe of simple programs I made what was for me a very surprising and important discovery: that even when the underlying rules for a system are extremely simple, the behavior of the system as a whole can be essentially arbitrarily rich and complex.

"And this got me thinking: Could the universe work this way?"

To summarise some parts of the interview, I think he and his team have come up with a new mathematical symbolism for working with physics, and I think it's probably a major breakthrough.  I think it's important because it offers deep insights into quantum mechanics, as well as special and general relativity.

A few points that stood out for me:

- Space is quantised (I think he said thinks, at about the scale of 10^-100); and that there may be 10^400 or more points

- Everything is just space

- The key part of the symbolism is the idea of what he calls a hypergraph that captures the relations between points in space

- You could represent it as a graph (pairs of nodes connected by edges), but it's better to connect a node to multiple other nodes by a hyper edge (a surface?)

- Time is the sequence of applying cellular automata style rules. There may have been about 10^500 moments of time so far

- You can estimate how many physical spatial dimensions there are by how many dimensions you need to represent any specific hypergraph to avoid lots of crossings. For some hypergraphs that comes out as three.

- You can make statements about the curvature of space, and the expansion of the universe, in a hypergraph.

- Quantum mechanics, as formulated in the 20th century, falls out naturally from the representation.

- Ditto for general relativity, and also special relativity

- The new formalisation, the new mathematics, is relatively easy to learn, and there's plenty of low-hanging fruit (insights) from applying it.

"It’s always a test for scientific models to compare how much you put in with how much you get out. And I’ve never seen anything that comes close. What we put in is about as tiny as it could be. But what we’re getting out are huge chunks of the most sophisticated things that are known about physics. And what’s most amazing to me is that at least so far we’ve not run across a single thing where we’ve had to say “oh, to explain that we have to add something to our model”. Sometimes it’s not easy to see how things work, but so far it’s always just been a question of understanding what the model already says, not adding something new."

- One example is that fermions and bosons are fundamentally different because in his formulation the fermions are the particles that like to bifurcate in the hypergraph and the bosons like to join branches.

- I gather integer spin and half-integer spin particles have interesting explanations in the theory

- He has an estimate that in the hypergraph that represents our universe, there's 10^200 times more "activity" going on to "maintain the structure of space" itself, than into maintaining all the matter we know exists in the universe.

Wolfram Physics Project: https://www.wolframphysics.org/
Stephen Wolfram's Twitter: stephen_wolfram
Stephen's Blog: https://writings.stephenwolfram.com
His Books:
- A New Kind of Science
- A Project to Find the Fundamental Theory of Physics

Wolfram writes:

"Will we be able to bring together physics, computation and human understanding to deliver what we can reasonably consider to be a final, fundamental theory of physics? It is difficult to know how hard this will be. But I am extremely optimistic that we are finally on the right track, and may even have effectively already solved the fascinating problem of language design that this entails."

and

"For me, one of the most satisfying aspects of our discoveries over the past couple of months has been the extent to which they end up resonating with a huge range of existing—sometimes so far seemingly “just mathematical”—directions that have been taken in physics in recent years. It almost seems like everyone has been right all along, and it just takes adding a new substrate to see how it all fits together. There are hints of string theory, holographic principles, causal set theory, loop quantum gravity, twistor theory, and much more. And not only that, there are also modern mathematical ideas—geometric group theory, higher-order category theory, non-commutative geometry, geometric complexity theory, etc.—that seem so well aligned that one might almost think they must have been built to inform the analysis of our models.

"I have to say I didn’t expect this. The ideas and methods on which our models are based are very different from what’s ever been seriously pursued in physics, or really even in mathematics. But somehow—and I think it’s a good sign all around—what’s emerged is something that aligns wonderfully with lots of recent work in physics and mathematics."

He's also doing this all out in the open (publishing the software and papers), and inviting collaboration.

Exciting days (in a good way!) may lie ahead.

Sleeping Giants

I don't think I've written a social blog post before, here, but I read the article Why the Anglo World is Collapsing by Umair Haque today (Thursday, 2019/4/4) and felt it was important and valuable, but also not quite on the mark in every respect. So I wrote this response. (This is a slightly expanded version of a comment I left on Umair's article.) I encourage people to read the original article.

I share Umair's deep concerns, but I think assigning the cause to the ‘Anglo idea of superiority’ is off the mark. As others have commented on the article, the US and Britain are not the only countries facing very similar problems, and I’d note that Australia, which is another ‘Anglo country’, though more multi-cultural, is not in such dire straits. The imminent Federal election here will likely determine whether we follow the US down its current path, or stay true to our own ideals of mateship and a fair go for all.

I read a fascinating essay by the biologist Stephen Jay Gould, titled “Kropotkin was no Crackpot”, in which he noted that for many people, only the “Nature red in tooth in claw” message in Darwin’s Theory of Evolution was absorbed, elevating the concept of competition to stand alone on the peak. Western societies largely overlooked the part of the theory that noted that co-operation frequently occurs in nature, too. The Russians, perhaps having more experience of living things surviving in harsh conditions, were much more attuned to the idea that co-operation is often necessary for survival.

Around 2010, I saw a study which compared Japanese, Australian, and US business cultures, along multiple dimensions. One stand-out fact was that in the areas of the individual vs the group, and co-operation vs competition, Japan lay near one end of the spectrum, the US at the opposite end, and Australia was about halfway between. I think a reasonable mix of the two is far healthier than valuing one and disregarding the other.

I have heard it argued that toxic capitalism is the cause of the problem (not Superiority), and that capitalism only emerged as a result of the religious idea of Predestination — that God knew each individual’s destiny, and what happened in their life was not something that could be changed. So success and failure was not something that could be altered by helping (or hurting) another, and that in turn led to the concept that fair compensation for work done was unnecessary. That divorced labour from a fair share in the profits of that labour. The extreme end result of this is the situation we find ourselves in globally, where a tiny percentage of the population owns the vast majority of the world’s wealth, despite the fact that that wealth was created by the efforts of billions of people over centuries of effort. It can only be rationally accepted if the wealthy believe, however falsely, in their innate superiority over others.

Anglo societies also place the rule of law above all, education for all, and equality. So do many other societies (all other healthy societies, I would argue). That these values are being eroded nowadays is not due to an Anglo belief in superiority. They’re being eroded by greed; by powerful elites who have been co-operating among themselves to “Manufacture Consent” among the majority (thanks, Noam Chomsky), and to influence policy and law makers to tilt the playing field in their favour (read “Winner Take All Politics” — it’s a heartbreaking eye-opener).

Personally, I think the problem Umair has written about has several causes, and he has attributed far too much to a single one of those.

I also think that Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are right in saying that courage can fix this, in our lifetimes (within ten years?) — though it will need “Moon Shot” levels of courage, determination, and effort. I also agree 100% with Umair (and AOC!) that the zero sum thinking is a big part of the problem. How anyone can believe that zero sum conditions apply to social systems, or the world’s wealth, boggles my mind. Billions of people around the world are building and creating and inventing and helping one another. Humanity is fantastically wealthier than it was a thousand years ago, a hundred years ago, twenty years ago. It sometimes seems not so, because the 1% have taken so much of that for themselves. So, new thinking, like the New Green Deal, or Kate Raworth’s economic Donut Theory, Modern Monetary Theory, is needed to solve the problem.

At heart it’s so simple, too. Co-operation and respect is all that’s needed: for each other, and for this precious planet. Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You. Basic goodness. How can that message still not have sunk in, after two thousand years? It’s because of the power of stories.

If you’re in one lifeboat, where everyone is paddling in their own direction, where are you going to be compared to a second lifeboat where everyone has agreed to paddle in the same direction?

Another thing, too: one of humanity’s greatest strengths—the desire to socialise and belong to a group—is also our biggest weakness, when we exclude others because they’re not enough like us to be included in our group. And stories are the basis of the group identity, determining who is inside, and who is outside and alien.

The Pen really is mightier than the Sword. The stories we tell ourselves control our fate: and if we believe lies that destroy our societies rather than truths that lift us all collectively, then we have only ourselves to blame. (I remember an advanced driver training course instructor saying: “If you’re ever sliding, out of control, and see a tree ahead, don’t look at it. Look at the gap you need to get through. If you look at the tree, that’s where you’ll end up.”)

So, the stories we tell ourselves, and the fact that a powerful few have been actively co-operating to push down the majority to better themselves. In my experience, 5% of people are bad. They will take what they can without respect for others, and we let them creep into power and poison our institutions at our own risk. That’s why the US founding fathers said “The price of Democracy is eternal vigilance.” Because there really are some bad people out there, and some of them are smart, and charismatic. If we don’t oppose them when we find them, they institutionalise their mindset and corrupt all those around them.

It’s time for the sleeping giant of the vast majority to wake up and step onto the playing field.