People From London

"The BBC said the only thing they didn’t like about the show was those weird little animated characters and suggested maybe they could get rid of them because they would never catch on."

"I have the sh*ttest birthday—the 30th of December! Can you imagine what that was like when I was a kid in England? It was the day before New Year’s Eve. It was horrific! My sister’s birthday is on the fourth of July. It was all about strawberries and dancing in the garden in summer dresses. Mine was like, “Don’t talk about it. It’s her birthday.” It was pitch-dark (laughter). Every one wrapped presents for me that they didn’t want from Christmas. It was a terrible time to have a birthday (laughter)!"

"I based my career from the very beginning on people like Maggie Smith, Judi Dench and Margaret Rutherford. I keep thinking Maggie and Judi are going to eventually not want those parts and I’m going to move up and take them (laughter). So, hopefully, I’ll be working in my 70s and 80s. You know, character actresses. I never had looks to lose. I could keep going—Meryl Streep and me."

"There's real fear of aging in this country, which I don’t share. It seems to be an American nightmare, especially for women. There’s nothing worse than a woman trying to look like she did when she was 32 when she is 58. It’s like, “Have some dignity, guys—just go with it!”"

"Every seven years or so I look around me and I want to look at the society and I want to try and be everyone I'm seeing in the world right now. [...] And I've done this all my life. I realized I used to do this in my mother's bedroom when I was 6. I used to be everyone in my village and everyone at school and everyone in the news, and I'm still doing that same show. I'm now 56. I think I can do it in my 80s. I'll just, you know, impersonate everyone around me then in the nursing home."

"Some kids can play the piano or kick a football; I could just impersonate everyone."

"I wouldn't do anything mean spirited. If it's in the wrong spirit, or if its not honest, then I wouldn't do it. It's got to honest. Otherwise, what's the point?"

"I love having a kid [...] They don’t let you think about yourself. [The one drawback of being a mum in America is that] Mabel wants Barbie, one of those bloody awful dolls. No vaginas, no nipples and they're bulimic. This is what femininity is? [...] Ever tried to assemble a Barbie barbecue stand? [...] Fortunately, Mabel already knows that Ken's just Mr. Barbie. She already cut his hair punk style. She knows that ... Ken's an idiot."

"I never worked with a dialogue coach before, but I'd hate it if an American did a British accent and didn't do it well. It would be insulting."

"I hated the pressure that many of the children were under. Many of the kids were forced to grow up too fast, their careers were being decided for them before they were 13. If I went to an audition then they'd always choose the sweetest, prettiest kid. I wasn't obviously beautiful so I used to miss out." Ullman has also alleged that the owners taught their own children and that a certain level of favouritism seemed to exist. She also felt that the education she was receiving was of very little value. "These stupid teachers would come in and go, 'Good morning, darlings, lets all be dustbins!' I'd go, 'Oh, shut up! I wanna be a banana!'"

"My real name is Trace Ullman, but I added the 'y.' My mother said it was spelled the American way, but I don't think she can spell! I always wanted a middle name. My mum used to tell me it was Mary but I never believed her. I looked on my birth certificate and I didn't have one, just Trace Ullman."

"Sometimes you need to put your own characteristics into the actor, and you take different things from the character that you admire - sometimes you can't see the boundaries anymore."

"I think everyone sometimes feels intimidated by themselves when they see themselves on the screen."

"Stephen has gone out on a limb. He is proposing a paradigm shift. A new twist on everything.""

"There’s a tradition of scientists approaching senility to come up with grand, improbable theories. Wolfram is unusual in that he’s doing this in his 40s."

"The remarkable thing is, what we've been able to do, is to make from this very... structurally simple underlying set of ideas, we've been able to build this... very elaborate structure that's both very abstract and... mathematically rich, and... it touches many of the ideas that people have had. ...[T]hings like string theory... ..."

"What we realized is that... these theories are generic to a huge class of systems that have these particular very unstructured, underlying rules. ...[P]eople have been struggling for a long time... How does general relativity, the theory of gravity, relate to quantum mechanics? They seem to have all kinds of incompatibilities. ...What we realized is at some level they are the same theory!"

"I thought... I had a pretty good idea for what the structure of this... theory that's underneath space and time and so on might be like. ...I thought, "Gosh, in my lifetime... we might be able to figure out what happens in the first 10-100 seconds of the universe. ...It's pretty far from anything that we can see today and it would be ...hard to test for what's right ...To my huge surprise, although it should have been obvious, ...we managed to get unbelievably much further than that. ...It turns out that even though there's this ...bed of computational irreducibility that ...all these simple rules run into, ...there are ...certain pieces of computational reducibility that ...generically occur for large classes of these rules, and... the big pieces of computational reducibility are ...the pillars of 20th century physics. That's the amazing thing, that general relativity and quantum field theory... turn out to be precisely the stuff you can say. There's a lot you can't say... at this... irreducible level where you.. don't... know what's going to happen. You have to run it [and] you can't run it within our universe... The things you can say turn out to be, very beautifully, exactly the structure that was found in 20th century physics..."

"It's not... something where you say... you've got the fundamental theory of everything, then... [you can] tell me whether... lions are going to eat tigers or something. ...No, you have to run this thing for ...10500 steps ...to know ...You say ...run this rule enough times and you will get the whole universe. ...That's what it means to ...have a fundamental theory of physics ...You've got this rule, it's potentially simple... You've kind of reduced the problem of physics to a problem of mathematics... as if you generate the digits of pi."

"This is what you... learn from this principle of computational equivalence. ...[I]t's both a message of ...hope, and ...[that] you're not as special as you think you are... We're just doing computations like things in nature do computations, like those gas molecules do computations, like the weather does computations. The only thing about the computations that we do that's very special is that we understand what they are... because they're connected to our purposes, our ways of thinking..."

"If we describe... heat... the air... it's this temperature, this pressure. That's as much as we can say... People [from the future] will say, "I just can't believe they didn't realize that there was this detail and all these molecules that were bouncing around, and that they could make use of that." ...One of the scenarios for the very long term history ...is the where everything... becomes thermodynamically boring... equilibrium. People say that's a really bad outcome, but actually... it's an outcome where there's all this computation going on... molecules bouncing around in very complicated ways, doing this very elaborate computation. It just happens to be a computation that right now, we haven't found ways to understand... [O]ur brains... and our mathematics and our science... haven't found ways to tell an interesting story about that. It just looks boring to us."

"If we want to have a predictable life... then we have to build in these... pockets of reducibility. If we were... existing in this irreducible world, we'd never be able to... know what's going to happen."

"I think there is an infinite collection of these local pockets [of reducibility]. We'll never run out..."

"[In] Ancient Babylon... they were trying to predict three kinds of things.... where the planets would be, what the weather would be like, and who would win or lose a certain battle; and they had no idea which of these things would be more predictable than the other."

"[S]cience has become used to... using the little... pockets of computational reducibility ([A]n inevitable consequence of computational irreducibility... There have to be these pockets ...scattered around.) to be able to find those cases where you can jump ahead."

"If you think about things that happen, as being computations... a computation in the sense that it has definite rules... You follow them many steps and you get some result. ...If you look at all these different computations that can happen, whether... in the natural world... in our brains... in our mathematics, whatever else, the big question is how do these computations compare. ...Are there dumb ...and smart computations, or are they somehow all equivalent? ...[T]he thing that I ...was ...surprised to realize from ...experiments ...in the early 90s, and now we have tons more evidence for ...[is] this ...principle of computational equivalence, which basically says that when one of these computations ...doesn't seem like it's doing something obviously simple, then it has reached this ...equivalent layer of computational sophistication of everything. So what does that mean? ...You might say that ...I'm studying this tiny little program ...and my brain is surely much smarter ...I'm going to be able to systematically outrun [it] because I have a more sophisticated computation ...but ...the principle ...says ...that doesn't work. Our brains are doing computations that are exactly equivalent to the kinds of computations that are being done in all these other sorts of systems. ...It means that we can't systematically outrun these systems. These systems are computationally irreducible in the sense that there's no ...shortcut ...that jumps to the answer."

"[F]iguring out where those pockets [of reducibility] are... is an essential thing... in science. ...If you just pick an arbitrary thing and say, "What's the answer to this question?" That question may not be one that has a computationally reducible answer. ...If you ...walk along the series of questions... you can go down this chain of reducible, answerable things, but if you just... pick a question at random... most likely it will be irreducible. ...When we engineer things, we tend to ...keep in this zone of reducibility. When we're thrown things by the natural world... [we're] not at all certain that we will be kept in this... zone..."

"[W]e live... in the pockets of reducibility. ...I should have realized [that] very many years ago, but didn't... [I]t could very well be that everything about the world is computationally irreducible and completely unpredictable, but... in our experience of the world there is at least some amount of prediction we can make. ...[T]hat's because we have ...chosen a slice of ...how to think about the universe, in which we can... sample a certain amount of computational reducibility, and that's... where we exist. ...It may not be the whole story about how the universe is, but it is that part of the universe that we care about and ...operate in. ...In science, that's been ...a very special case ...science has chosen to talk a lot about places where there is this computational reducibility... The motion of the planets can be ...predicted. The... weather is much harder to predict. ...[S]cience has tended to concentrate itself on places where its methods have allowed successful prediction."

"That's... the big discovery of this principle of computational equivalence of mine. ...This is something which is kind of a follow-on to Gödel's theorem, to Turing's work on the ... that there is this fundamental limitation built into science, this idea of computational irreducibility that says that even though you may know the rules by which something operates, that does not mean that you can readily... be smarter that it and jump ahead and figure out what it's going to do."

"What's happened is, for 300 years people basically said, "If you want to make a model of things in the world, mathematical equations are the best place to go. In the last 15 years: it doesn't happen. New models... most often are made with programs, not with equations. ...Was that ...going to happen anyway? Was that a consequence of my particular work and my particular book? It's hard to know for sure. ...Was there a chain of academic references? Probably not."

"It's a lot easier for one person to have a crisp new idea than it is for a big committee... It can happen that you have a great idea but the world isn't ready... for it. ...This has happened to me plenty. ...It's actually a pretty good idea, but... either you're not really ready for it, or the ambient world isn't... and it's hard for the thing... to get traction."

"Can we use programs instead of equations to make models of the world? ...[I]n the beginning of the 1980s ...I did a bunch of computer experiments. ...It took me a few years to really say, "Wow, there's a big important phenomenon here that lets... complex things arise from very simple programs." ...[A] bunch of other years go by [and] I start of doing ...more systematic computer experiments ...and find ...that ...this phenomenon ...is actually something incredibly general... [T]hat led me to this... principle of computational equivalence... [A]s part of that process I said, "OK... simple programs can make models of complicated things. What about the whole universe?" ...and so I got to thinking, "Could we use these ideas to study fundamental physics?" ...I happened to know a lot about traditional fundamental physics. ...I had a bunch of ideas about how to do this in the early 1990s. I made... technical progress. ...I wrote about them back in 2002."

"I think Computation is destined to be the defining idea of our future."

"I'm committed to seeing this project done. To see if within this decade we can finally hold in our hands the rule for our universe, and know where our universe lies in the space of all possible universes."

"Could it be that some place out there in the computational universe, we might find our physical universe?"

"It's always seemed like a big mystery how nature, seemingly so effortlessly, manages to produce so much that seems to us so complex. Well, I think we found its secret. It's just sampling what's out there in the computational universe."

"I had a very selfish reason for building Mathematica. I wanted to use it myself, a bit like Galileo got to use his telescope four hundred years ago. But I wanted to look, not at the astronomical universe, but at the computational universe."

"It's clear that we can go further than the quantum mechanics that I've known for the last fifty years."

"It was the spring of 1978 and I was 18 years old. I’d been publishing papers on particle physics for a few years, and had gotten quite known around the international particle physics community (and, yes, it took decades to live down my teenage-particle-physicist persona). I was in England, but planned to soon go to graduate school in the US, and was choosing between Caltech and Princeton. And one weekend afternoon when I was about to go out, the phone rang. In those days, it was obvious if it was an international call. “This is Murray Gell-Mann”, the caller said, then launched into a monologue about why Caltech was the center of the universe for particle physics at the time."

"Problem 9. What is the correspondence between cellular automata and continuous systems? Cellular automatat are discrete in several respects. First, they consist of a discrete spatial lattice of sites. Second, they evolve in discrete steps. And finally, each site has only a finite discrete set of possible values. The first two forms of discreteness are addressed in the numerical analysis of approximate solutions to, say, differential equations. ... The third form of discreteness in cellular automata is not so familiar from numerical analysis. It is an extreme form of round-off, in which each "number" can have only a few possible values (rather than the usual 216 or 232)."

"Computational reducibility may well be the exception rather than the rule: Most physical questions may be answerable only through irreducible amounts of computation. Those that concern idealized limits of infinite time, volume, or numerical precision can require arbitrarily long computations, and so be formally undecidable."

"Cellular automata are discrete dynamical systems with simple construction but complex self-organizing behaviour. Evidence is presented that all one-dimensional cellular automata fall into four distinct universality classes. Characterizations of the structures generated in these classes are discussed. Three classes exhibit behaviour analogous to limit points, limit cycles and chaotic attractors. The fourth class is probably capable of universal computation, so that properties of its infinite time behaviour are undecidable."

"The only difference between an artist and a lunatic is, perhaps, that the artist has the restraint or courtesy…to conceal the intensity of his obsession from all except those similarly afflicted."

"The artist, like the idiot or clown, sits on the edge of the world, and a push may send him over it."

"Hell has a climate, but no situation. It lies in the spirit, and not in space."

"The Rich Man's Banquet, which was to last for a decade, had now begun: the feast, it was recognised, went to the greediest."

"They loved him, I think, because, with all his merits, he showed them to be rich: looking at his portraits, they understood at last how rich they really were."

"Everywhere men have unlocked the prisoners within, and from under the disguising skins the apes have leapt joyfully out."

"How simple-minded of the Germans to imagine that we British could be cowed by the destruction of our ancient monuments! As though any havoc of the German bombs could possibly equal the things we have done ourselves!"

"Educ[ated]: during the holidays from Eton."