I suggest you are the most qualified to answer your own question. You might start with the Wolfram Physics pages. E.g. https://www.wolframphysics.org/technical-introduction/basic-form-of-models/the-representation-of-rules/index.html
On 10/31/24 11:29, Frank Wimberly wrote:
Some of you know that in my last position at Carnegie Mellon I was working on causal reasoning. We made a distinction between probabilistic causation (smoking causes cancer) and actual causation (dropping the bottle caused it to break). In the former case we used graphical models, specifically parameterized Bayes networks to model the causal relationships among a set of variables. In the latter case a simple directed graph suffices. In the Wolfram, Gorard, Sorkin work do they make this distinction? Frank --- Frank C. Wimberly 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, Santa Fe, NM 87505 505 670-9918 Santa Fe, NM On Thu, Oct 31, 2024, 8:46 AM glen <geprope...@gmail.com <mailto:geprope...@gmail.com>> wrote: Since we're talking about Sabine and anastomosis, I found this video interesting" This Theory of Everything Could Actually Work: Wolfram’s Hypergraphs https://youtu.be/-yzdjziS-bo?si=w5av9XcTUqjodJ5V <https://youtu.be/-yzdjziS-bo?si=w5av9XcTUqjodJ5V> "The idea that the laws of physics are a sort of computation has a rather basic problem. It's incompatible with Einstein's theories of general relativity and it's not a small mismatch. You see, any type of computation works in steps. If it doesn't, then calling it a computation is really just a weird way of talking about the laws of physics that we already use. A computation has some sort of update rule. [snip] The problem with this idea isn't just that Einstein's theories don't use graphs. But that we know you can't use graphs to even properly approximate them. The gaps in the graphs and the updates in time steps can't be hidden away. They will always be observable. And we haven't observed them. [snip] As a consequences, you can't approximate general relativity with a graph while respecting all its symmetries." She then mentions her paper: A No-go theorem for Poincaré-invariant networks <https://arxiv.org/abs/1504.06070 <https://arxiv.org/abs/1504.06070>>, which I'm incompetent to read. She continues: "The new Wolfram approach uses what they call 'hypergraphs'. Instead of just using graphs to describe space-time and particles in them, they collect these graphs into groups. So the hypergraph is really a collection of graphs. The points in this graph describe space-time and can also describe matter in the space-time, depending on their properties. But the lengths in the hypergraph are not physical. They have no length. They just quantify the relations between the points. And since they have no length, there's no problem with them becoming shorter or longer for different observers. It's actually a clever idea. I had an exchange with the guy who works for Wolfram Research who did most of this work, I think, Jonathan Gorard, in 2020. I came to the conclusion that this is indeed possible. But it's been done before. This is exactly the idea an approach called 'Causal Sets' put forward by Rafael Sorkin. As the name suggests, in this approach space-time is a set of points, like the points in the hypergraph. And these points have causal relations, which you can depict with arrows. So that gives you a graph. And this will, indeed, respect Einstein's theory. If you look at what they've [Gorard et al] been doing after that announcement in 2020, they've worked more on the relation between Wolfram's hypergraph and causal sets. Most of this work has been done, it seems, by Jonathan Gorard. He has also looked at how to use that to do general relativity and how it prevents singularities, which the causal sets people never figured out how to do. [snip] However, the causal sets people already showed that it's possible to put discretized versions of differential equations on these graphs. So maybe it isn't as difficult as it sounds. So when I look at this today, I honestly think this research program is going very well. And I think it's about time that physicists pay a little more attention to it." [Gorard et al] https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=ItG_Nz0AAAAJ&view_op=list_works&sortby=pubdate <https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=ItG_Nz0AAAAJ&view_op=list_works&sortby=pubdate> On 10/30/24 17:21, Stephen Guerin wrote: > On Wed, Oct 30, 2024 at 12:32 PM glen <geprope...@gmail.com <mailto:geprope...@gmail.com> <mailto:geprope...@gmail.com <mailto:geprope...@gmail.com>>> wrote: > > The idealists will never stop idealizing and then reifying their ideal. To Engineer is Human. But those of us who know (or merely confidently believe) reality is made up of a diverse non-wellfounded set of ... what? ... urges? ... nano-agents? ... IDK, whatever, will always anastomose that built environment ... or at least reclaim it like a hermit crab squatting in a tin can. > > > I like the visual and deeper concept, Glen. A kind of wuwei attitude. > > sequeing impermanence of political structures to over-reified software: > > Today at lunch, John Zingale lamented that the residence time of code in the system seems to be decreasing. Perhaps Anastomotic Computing is the next big thing. :-)
-- ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
