Freethought & Rationalism Archive

crazyfingers · 06-19-2002, 08:40 AM

Interesting article.

Quote:

For instance, a simple equation can describe how an apple accelerates its descent to earth with time. But how can equations explain the apple's supple curves, its unique splotches, or the cause of the fleeting breeze that loosed it from the branch? How can the bare laws of physics yield a universe so rich and varied?

These are questions that have led many to theology, but for Wolfram they inspired a scientific quest. It was a quest that led him to explorations - staring for hours at random patterns on a computer monitor, for instance - that might be difficult to distinguish from madness.

<a href="http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/170/metro/A_challenging_view_of_the_universe+.shtml" target="_blank">A challenging view of the universe</a>

Friar Bellows · 06-19-2002, 09:11 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by crazyfingers:
<strong>Interesting article.</strong>

Interesting. Here are some more reviews of Wolfram's book (including some more technical reviews):

<a href="http://www.math.usf.edu/~eclark/ANKOS_reviews.html" target="_blank">Reviews of "A New Kind of Science"</a>

[ June 19, 2002: Message edited by: Friar Bellows ]</p>

Steven S · 06-19-2002, 03:36 PM

Freeman Dyson's opinion on ANKOS is interesting:
<a href="http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/10.06/wolfram.html" target="_blank">http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/10.06/wolfram.html</a>
So far, the people I know who are interested in complexity haven't said a whole lot of nice things about Wolfram's book.

Steven S

echidna · 06-19-2002, 10:22 PM

Forgive me if I can�t really understand what�s so revolutionary about his science. I�ve only skimmed the article & a few of the reviews, but I share some of the reviewers� comments that calling it a �new kind of science� is a bit of a misnomer.

Isn�t it simply a variant on the degree to which one can reduce a system to understand its behaviour ?

06-20-2002, 04:46 PM

echidna,

It's not a new kind of science. It's simply a creative expansion upon the very same science that has been done for a long time.

NumberTenOx · 06-21-2002, 10:51 PM

I bought it, and have only just cracked it. I must say I'm curious.

However, I'm not sure that I'm ever going to be able to have a solid opinion on whether it's really revolutionary or just meaningless. I hope to learn a little and have my imagination stimulated, but I'm not an expert in any of the fields he tackles.

Why is it important, at this point, to say either:

It will change science as we know it, or
It's a bunch of crap that will fade into oblivion?

Why not throw it in the hopper for awhile and see what cooks up? Why just dismiss it or, for that matter, praise it now?

If nothing else, he's a smart guy with some different ideas. Why is that bad? Maybe his methods will help someone solve some tough problems, maybe not. Are we suppose to place bets now?

If nothing else, he's claiming the world as we know it is - in its essence - simpler and easier to understand than we might imagine. He's not invoking a diety or other metaphysical mechanism.

Basically, you've got to give him points for standing up there and trying. I want to understand the nature of the universe - perhaps a pathetically difficult goal for me. But I'll stand on anyone's shoulders to determine how far I can see, without passing judgement on their contribution to science as a whole. That's for history to decide.

case · 06-21-2002, 11:20 PM

Sounds like this book borders dangerously close to being the start of a paradigm shift. And isn't there a universal law that states that anyone that claims to be starting a paradigm shift is completely full of crap?

Great, now I have to go get this book...

John Page · 06-22-2002, 06:14 PM

I was intruiged by the review I read in the New York Times <a href="http://query.nytimes.com/search/full-page?res=9A07E2D81F3BF93AA35755C0A9649C8B63" target="_blank">link here</a>.

My first reaction was, hey, this might be an interesting read. But isn't this just another intelligent design argument dressed up? E.g. if the universe is just a giant tomato

then who or what made it like that?

I'm intruiged by the "proof" that a simple cellular automaton can be used to compute anything conceivable. What's conceivable mean? Sounds a bit tautological to me.

Perhaps I have to read the book, but all I could see from the review was the proposal that reality acts like a simulator, i.e. to get from one point in spacetime of the simulation to another you invoke a transformation.

Friar Bellows · 06-25-2002, 12:25 AM

Here's an amazon.com review of "A New Kind of Science":

A New Kind of Review
by "a reader"

I can only imagine how fortunate you must feel to be reading my review. This review is the product of my lifetime of experience in meeting important people and thinking deep thoughts. This is a new kind of review, and will no doubt influence the way you think about the world around you and the way you think of yourself.

Bigger than infinity

Although my review deserves thousands of pages to articulate, I am limiting many of my deeper thoughts to only single characters. I encourage readers of my review to dedicate the many years required to fully absorb the significance of what I am writing here. Fortunately, we live in exactly the time when my review can be widely disseminated by "internet" technology and stored on "digital media", allowing current and future scholars to delve more deeply into my original and insightful use of commas, numbers, and letters.

My place in history

My review allows, for the first time, a complete and total understanding not only of this but *every single* book ever written. I call this "the principle of book equivalence." Future generations will decide the relative merits of this review compared with, for example, the works of Shakespeare. This effort will open new realms of scholarship.

More about me

I first began writing reviews as a small child, where my talent was clearly apparent to those around me, including my mother. She preserved my early writings which, although simpler in structure, portend elements of my current style. I include one of them below (which I call review 30) to indicate the scholarly pedigree of the document now in your hands or on your screen or committed to your memory:

"The guy who wrote the book is also the
publisher of the book. I guess he's the only
person smart enough to understand what's in it.
When I'm older I too will use a vanity press.
Then I can write all the pages I want."...

It is staggering to contemplate that all the great works of literature can be derived from the letters I use in writing this review. I am pleased to have shared them with you, and hereby grant you the liberty to use up to twenty (20) of them consecutively without attribution. Any use of additional characters in print must acknowledge this review as source material since it contains, implicitly or explicitly, all future written documents.

Skepticwithachainsaw · 06-25-2002, 10:26 AM

Hmm, i've been looking at some of the stuff surrounding the books, including the amazon reviews and I have to say I'm pretty skeptical, but I haven't read it so I can't really judge.

He seems to have some interesting new ideas (just how new exactly I'm not sure) but he seems to ignore the point of science, empyrical tests. I mean has does his theory predict accurate results or am I rather missing the point of the book?

06-21-2002, 10:51 PM	#6
NumberTenOx Regular Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Bellevue, WA Posts: 284	I bought it, and have only just cracked it. I must say I'm curious. However, I'm not sure that I'm ever going to be able to have a solid opinion on whether it's really revolutionary or just meaningless. I hope to learn a little and have my imagination stimulated, but I'm not an expert in any of the fields he tackles. Why is it important, at this point, to say either: It will change science as we know it, or It's a bunch of crap that will fade into oblivion? Why not throw it in the hopper for awhile and see what cooks up? Why just dismiss it or, for that matter, praise it now? If nothing else, he's a smart guy with some different ideas. Why is that bad? Maybe his methods will help someone solve some tough problems, maybe not. Are we suppose to place bets now? If nothing else, he's claiming the world as we know it is - in its essence - simpler and easier to understand than we might imagine. He's not invoking a diety or other metaphysical mechanism. Basically, you've got to give him points for standing up there and trying. I want to understand the nature of the universe - perhaps a pathetically difficult goal for me. But I'll stand on anyone's shoulders to determine how far I can see, without passing judgement on their contribution to science as a whole. That's for history to decide.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-19-2002, 03:36 PM	#3
Steven S Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Raleigh, NC Posts: 167	Freeman Dyson's opinion on ANKOS is interesting: <a href="http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/10.06/wolfram.html" target="_blank">http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/10.06/wolfram.html</a> So far, the people I know who are interested in complexity haven't said a whole lot of nice things about Wolfram's book. Steven S

06-19-2002, 10:22 PM	#4
echidna Veteran Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 2,832	Forgive me if I can�t really understand what�s so revolutionary about his science. I�ve only skimmed the article & a few of the reviews, but I share some of the reviewers� comments that calling it a �new kind of science� is a bit of a misnomer. Isn�t it simply a variant on the degree to which one can reduce a system to understand its behaviour ?

06-20-2002, 04:46 PM	#5
Synaesthesia Guest Posts: n/a	echidna, It's not a new kind of science. It's simply a creative expansion upon the very same science that has been done for a long time.

06-21-2002, 11:20 PM	#7
case Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Missouri Posts: 420	Sounds like this book borders dangerously close to being the start of a paradigm shift. And isn't there a universal law that states that anyone that claims to be starting a paradigm shift is completely full of crap? Great, now I have to go get this book...

06-22-2002, 06:14 PM	#8
John Page Veteran Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: US Posts: 5,495	I was intruiged by the review I read in the New York Times <a href="http://query.nytimes.com/search/full-page?res=9A07E2D81F3BF93AA35755C0A9649C8B63" target="_blank">link here</a>. My first reaction was, hey, this might be an interesting read. But isn't this just another intelligent design argument dressed up? E.g. if the universe is just a giant tomato then who or what made it like that? I'm intruiged by the "proof" that a simple cellular automaton can be used to compute anything conceivable. What's conceivable mean? Sounds a bit tautological to me. Perhaps I have to read the book, but all I could see from the review was the proposal that reality acts like a simulator, i.e. to get from one point in spacetime of the simulation to another you invoke a transformation.

06-25-2002, 12:25 AM	#9
Friar Bellows Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: arse-end of the world Posts: 2,305	Here's an amazon.com review of "A New Kind of Science": A New Kind of Review by "a reader" I can only imagine how fortunate you must feel to be reading my review. This review is the product of my lifetime of experience in meeting important people and thinking deep thoughts. This is a new kind of review, and will no doubt influence the way you think about the world around you and the way you think of yourself. Bigger than infinity Although my review deserves thousands of pages to articulate, I am limiting many of my deeper thoughts to only single characters. I encourage readers of my review to dedicate the many years required to fully absorb the significance of what I am writing here. Fortunately, we live in exactly the time when my review can be widely disseminated by "internet" technology and stored on "digital media", allowing current and future scholars to delve more deeply into my original and insightful use of commas, numbers, and letters. My place in history My review allows, for the first time, a complete and total understanding not only of this but every single book ever written. I call this "the principle of book equivalence." Future generations will decide the relative merits of this review compared with, for example, the works of Shakespeare. This effort will open new realms of scholarship. More about me I first began writing reviews as a small child, where my talent was clearly apparent to those around me, including my mother. She preserved my early writings which, although simpler in structure, portend elements of my current style. I include one of them below (which I call review 30) to indicate the scholarly pedigree of the document now in your hands or on your screen or committed to your memory: "The guy who wrote the book is also the publisher of the book. I guess he's the only person smart enough to understand what's in it. When I'm older I too will use a vanity press. Then I can write all the pages I want."... It is staggering to contemplate that all the great works of literature can be derived from the letters I use in writing this review. I am pleased to have shared them with you, and hereby grant you the liberty to use up to twenty (20) of them consecutively without attribution. Any use of additional characters in print must acknowledge this review as source material since it contains, implicitly or explicitly, all future written documents.

06-25-2002, 10:26 AM	#10
Skepticwithachainsaw Junior Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: In your Imagination Posts: 69	Hmm, i've been looking at some of the stuff surrounding the books, including the amazon reviews and I have to say I'm pretty skeptical, but I haven't read it so I can't really judge. He seems to have some interesting new ideas (just how new exactly I'm not sure) but he seems to ignore the point of science, empyrical tests. I mean has does his theory predict accurate results or am I rather missing the point of the book?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.