https://community.wolfram.com RSS Feed for Wolfram Community showing questions tagged with Wolfram Fundamental Physics Project sorted by new. https://community.wolfram.com/groups/-/m/t/3631121 I am working on a model that requires a specific type of "Selection Bias" in the rule evolution, and I am looking for guidance on how to represent this using WolframModel or MultiwaySystem. The Theoretical Goal: I am trying to simulate a "stabilization" phase where the system transitions from a high-entropy state (random fluctuations) to a structured state (durable causal loops). I hypothesize that this requires a Parity-Breaking Bias (which I call "The Twist") that weights the path integral. The Mechanism I Want to Model: Instead of all branches in the Multiway System having equal weight, I want to penalize branches that are "topologically symmetric" and reward branches that exhibit a specific "Chiral Asymmetry" (Twist). >Hypothesis: This bias should force the Causal Graph to "lock" into durable subgraphs (particles/structures) rather than exploring the full infinite Ruliad. The Question: Is there a standard way in WolframModel to apply a "Selection Function" or "Path Weight" that prunes the Multiway Graph based on the topological properties of the hypergraph at that step? Context: This is part of a larger framework ("Universal Compression") linking causal graph dynamics to observer constraints. >System Architecture (Preprint): https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18421925 >Specific Cosmological Derivation: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18421691 Any pointers on how to implement a "Selection Bias" function in the evolution step would be appreciated. Matt Prager 2026-01-30T11:29:43Z https://community.wolfram.com/groups/-/m/t/3580238 I’ve been thinking about how the Wolfram model treats manifold-like behavior as an emergent, approximate property of the underlying hypergraph. In regions of extreme causal-edge density — for example near black hole interiors — the manifold approximation is expected to break down. My question is this: When the manifold structure collapses, does the distinction between different effective “universes” (different limiting foliations or rule-equivalence classes in the Ruliad) also collapse? In other words, if spatial distance and branchial distance both arise from constraints on causal reducibility, then in a region where those constraints fail (because the updating is too dense or too singular), do previously distant parts of branchial space become adjacent? The speculative idea is that a black hole interior might serve as a region where manifold structure, branchial separation, and even differences between emergent effective laws of physics lose their usual distinctions, because the underlying hypergraph is no longer well-approximated by any smooth foliation. Could this imply that a black hole is a nexus where different emergent universes in the Ruliad could become computationally adjacent in ways they normally aren’t, like an *even more* speculative variation on a wormhole? A bridge entangling parts of the Ruliad whose physics don't even look the same? I’m wondering whether anything in the current WPP formalism supports or contradicts this possibility, but this is well outside my area of study. If anyone deep into the Wolfram Physics Project has explored this rather sci-fi notion, I would be grateful to hear their musings! Brenden Martin 2025-11-22T20:03:09Z https://community.wolfram.com/groups/-/m/t/3256765 I am modeling distributed computation using Wolfram Physics project. I have actors with memory, which compute their state and send messages to each other. All of this represented by a directed graph. We can't know for sure in which order events gonna happen, and Wolfram Multiway System does perfect job simulating all possibilities, and providing states graph. However, my distributed system uses timers. Even though messages can be lost and reordered, I assume that timers **always** work for each actor. However, `MultiwaySystem` tries to apply all rules, and produce all kinds of possible states, even scenarios when timer event didn't happen. I would like to filter out such branches of state evolution, otherwise state graph gonna be too cluttered. How do I do that? I came to conclusion that there are two options: 1. Filter out resulting graph. Look at each state. If at least one of the possible applied rules is a timer rule, then disregard all others. That would require some additional filtering of the resulting graph. 2. Find a way to set priority for rules. If there is at least one priority rule that can be applied, apply only it (timer rule). Disregard others. Second options looks cleaner. I found that there is some kind of **selection function** that is used in Wolfram MultiwaySystem: https://resources.wolframcloud.com/FunctionRepository/resources/MultiwayFunctionSystem/. However, it doesn't seems like available options would suit me. Do you have any ideas how I could approach this problem? Vladimir Gordeev 2024-08-26T15:03:47Z https://community.wolfram.com/groups/-/m/t/3157847 I know things are already too complicated, but perhaps in a way they are too simple. Edges in hypergraphs are directed, which means they are 2-valued. Why not allow more general edges, like n-valued, continuous, vector/tensor valued, etc? I doubt particles are possible without topological singularities, and so far (though I haven't investigated this much) it doesn't seem to be possible--I am not impressed by "forbidden minors". Iuval Clejan 2024-04-14T00:45:54Z https://community.wolfram.com/groups/-/m/t/3085408 Hi, I am analyzing chapter 3.2 in the book "A Class of Models with the Potential to Represent Fundamental Physics" by Wolfram Stephen and I am having trouble understanding **left connectivity constraint on rule**. I would be grateful if someone could show this by example of some rule. Dominik. Dominik Krząstek 2023-12-16T11:57:11Z https://community.wolfram.com/groups/-/m/t/3036786 I am doing a bit of research in Wolfram Physics model and I would like to include this in a blog about pop-science. There is a section about the "Research Network" where I would like to indicate the persons involved in this project and all the countries where they have worked (not only necessarily their country of origin). There are two countries that I have found some fuzzy indications that some people involved in the Wolfram Physics Project have worked in them. These are Hungary and Lithuania. However, I have not been able to find anything clear. Despite being a somewhat strange question, are there any people involved in the Wolfram Physics Project that have worked or studied in Hungary or Lithuania at any point of their careers? Nodu Agga 2023-10-16T13:29:48Z https://community.wolfram.com/groups/-/m/t/2986471 I'm interested to learn more about what ideas and work has been done with respect to Lagrangian / principle of least action etc. with respect to the Wolfram Physics Project; it is mentioned in Chapter 8 of the Technical Introduction, but I'm wondering if anyone knows of any "further reading" of sorts on this topic. Thanks! Quote from Chapter 8.3: "quantum action density (Lagrangian): total flux (divergence) of multiway causal graph edges". I would be very curious to understand the derivation or connection. Robert Mendelsohn 2023-08-08T16:28:13Z https://community.wolfram.com/groups/-/m/t/2759491 Wolfram's Physics Project is a very interesting one and its recent evolution fascinates me. I think that the recent discovery of the ruliad is a good progress in the project. However, there is something I don't understand: According to Wolfram's writing about the ruliad (https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2021/11/the-concept-of-the-ruliad/), there is only one ruliad which contains all possible formal systems. I understand why there should be only one ruliad as it would contain all possible computational rules by definition. However, I can imagine a formal system or abstract situation where somehow there could be multiple rulial spaces or "ruliads". So, at the end, wouldn't it be possible that there could be other ruliads (for computational systems, I'm not talking about other possible "ruliads" containing hypercomputation)? Nodu Agga 2023-01-04T15:08:10Z https://community.wolfram.com/groups/-/m/t/2698031 Stephen Wolfram recently wrote an interesting article about his proposed relationship between mathematics and physics (https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2022/03/the-physicalization-of-metamathematics-and-its-implications-for-the-foundations-of-mathematics/#some-historical-and-philosophical-background). There, Wolfram talks about the physicalization of mathematics and adopts some sort of platonic position saying that mathematics does really exist in some sense or another because mathematics and all the relations between abstract concepts would exist in a space he calls "ruliad" (more information in the article). This reminded me of Tegmark's thesis of the "Mathematical Universe Hypothesis" where all mathematical structures would exist as separated universes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_universe_hypothesis). There's even a comment in that article asking what is the relation between Wolfram's and Tegmark's ideas, but unfortunately nobody replied. Therefore, basically my question is: Since Wolfram says that all possible mathematical concepts and structures would exist in the rulial space, and the ruliad is what makes reality and every possibility is realized by it, couldn't we say that all the universes proposed by Tegmark would exist in some way according to Wolfram's ideas? Thank you Nodu Agga 2022-11-13T19:36:22Z https://community.wolfram.com/groups/-/m/t/2677088 I have a few questions about Wolfram's theory for fundamental physics that I would like to clarify... I. First, as I understand it, and please correct me if I'm wrong, is that similar observers to us will most likely perceive at least the same "general laws" (or most fundamental laws) of physics and mathematics. But for vastly different observers compared to us, couldn't they be able to perceive vastly different general laws? II. Recently, Stephen Wolfram wrote an interesting article about his proposed relationship between maths and physics (https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2022/03/the-physicalization-of-metamathematics-and-its-implications-for-the-foundations-of-mathematics/#some-historical-and-philosophical-background). There, Wolfram talks about the physicalization of mathematics and adopts some sort of platonic position saying that mathematics does really exist in some sense or another because mathematics and all the relations between abstract concepts would exist in the ruliad (more information in the article). This reminded me of Tegmark's thesis of the "Mathematical Universe Hypothesis" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_universe_hypothesis) where all mathematical structures would exist as separated universes. (There's even a comment in that article asking what is the relation between Wolfram's and Tegmark's ideas, but nobody replied). Therefore, basically my question is: Since Wolfram says that mathematical concepts and structures would exist in the ruliad, and the rulial space is what makes reality (and every possibility is realized by it), couldn't we say that all the universes proposed by Tegmark would exist in some way according to Wolfram's ideas? Couldn't all logically possible worlds exist in some way according to this? Nodu Agga 2022-10-29T01:52:30Z https://community.wolfram.com/groups/-/m/t/2634961 How should we think about the amplituhedron wrt to the Wolfram physics project? Are the two hypotheses compatible? Could the amplituhedron tell us something about the properties of the underlying graph? Patrick Arnesen 2022-10-05T18:24:06Z https://community.wolfram.com/groups/-/m/t/2541825 I recently found out about this project and was reading through https://www.wolframphysics.org/technical-introduction/basic-form-of-models/first-example-of-a-rule/. At the bottom, the VertexCount is said to be 2^(n+1) for the n-th evolution. I believe this should be (2^n)+1 WolframModel[{{{1,2}}->{{1,2},{2,3}}},{{1,2}}, 6, "VertexCountList"]` gives `{2,3,5,9,17,33,65} How do I go about suggesting this correction? Thanks. Anand Jain 2022-06-01T18:22:33Z https://community.wolfram.com/groups/-/m/t/2486710 Looking for a way to use Mathematica to publish a blogs with Notebooks/Computational Essays that use the Wolfram Cloud to run interactive computation about the applications of New Kind of Science and the Wolfram Physics Project to clinical medical sciences. Looking for workflows were posts can be view by professionals that have limited technical background and no access to Mathematica/Wolfram Language. Timothy Hartzog 2022-03-08T01:24:44Z https://community.wolfram.com/groups/-/m/t/2485244 Does the Physics Project support Genetic Algorithms -- Selection, Cross-over and Mutation? benorden 2022-03-05T04:36:50Z https://community.wolfram.com/groups/-/m/t/2460111 Is there documentation on the thinking behind using directed hyper graphs as the atoms of the Wolfram physics project as opposed to an undirected hyper graph? I'm curious why the universe would be a directed graph as opposed to undirected hyper graphs which intuitively I feel would be appropriate. Thanks! Michael Seiler 2022-01-31T21:52:23Z https://community.wolfram.com/groups/-/m/t/2432307 In Wolfram’s and Gorard’s papers (https://arxiv.org/abs/2004.08210 and https://arxiv.org/abs/2004.14810), general relativity was derived from Wolfram models. But what is the improvement over the famous Seth Lloyd’s ‘quantum gravity from computation’ paper, which involved deriving general relativity from computational graphs and computational histories?: https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0501135.pdf Regarding general relativity, has the Wolfram physics project uncovered something that Seth Lloyd had not previously uncovered? John Johnson 2021-12-25T15:17:18Z https://community.wolfram.com/groups/-/m/t/2431784 In Wolfram’s and Gorard’s papers (https://arxiv.org/abs/2004.08210 and https://arxiv.org/abs/2004.14810), the claim seems to be that Lorentz symmetry/invariance/covariance automatically follows from causal invariance. However, what they mean with Lorentz symmetry seems to refer to a much weaker property, since there is no Lorentz group O(1,3) appearing in their paper. Regarding special relativity, If there is no true Lorentz symmetry from Wolfram models, then is there any real improvement over the pre-existing causal set theory? John Johnson 2021-12-25T05:46:31Z https://community.wolfram.com/groups/-/m/t/2397482 I am trying to understand the causal invariance property from known (physical) phenomena. Are natural ocurring cycles in astronomy, biology, geology, climate, weather but also in physics and mathematics a kind of manifestation of the causal invariance property? What about the mathematical phenomena of attractors when a system tends to evolve to a certain specific state given a wide range of initial conditions? Constantin Cozma 2021-11-01T08:15:26Z https://community.wolfram.com/groups/-/m/t/2397051 Does the Wolfram Model describe and confirm Ilya Prigogine`s theory on irreversibility and dissipative structures by which there is a cyclic mechanism (biorhythm) from unstable to stable connections? If the answer is yes, which I believe it is, then where can this process be found in the model? Constantin Cozma 2021-10-31T11:16:55Z https://community.wolfram.com/groups/-/m/t/2395893 Hello, I am trying to understand the relation between time dilation and gravity through the hypergraph model. Is gravity a function of the hypergraph density of nodes in a way that affects the local computational speed and generates a time dilation? Thanks ! Constantin Cozma 2021-10-29T06:46:36Z