Slashdot Mirror
Wolframania
An Anonymous Coward writes "The New York Times has had a couple of articles about Stephen Wolfram in the last couple of weeks. Is he self-aggrandizing or brilliant? Or both? And is God a software engineer?" I thought our reader-contributed review of ANKOS was quite good.
A quote from each article:
Everywhere you look, almost everyone is saying, well, even if he is wrong, he's written a hell of a book. Which I suppose is true.
He uses a classification of 256 particular 2D autometa for a lot of the examples in the book that's kind of interesting. I took the time to write some code for it to explore the various permutations. It's CGI-based and it generates a png or jpeg image, so just throw it in your cgi-bin and check it out. The comments list the various options you can send it.
www.stephenwolfram.com
Another good article about his latest work: On Forbes
Explaining the universe with equations is flawed; we should be explaining it a cellular automata, or as a computer program...
but we know that cellular automata and computer programs can be expressed fundamentally as equations..... no?
about a serious scientist claiming that his theories would replace the entire physical model of the universe ?
Some geniuses did such work, but I never have heard anyone of them making such claims without the in-depth review of others. I must admit I've never heard of any genius exaggerating his own theories so much at all.
Some people say that's a relatively sure sign for being a crackpot.
Owner of a Mensa membership card.
Yes, that's just it. I've read here and there in ANKOS and its absolutely fascinating, but is it science, or mathematics?
If we define science in terms of observation and experiment, leading to theory, and then back to observation, does the "behavior" of a machine deserve to be included?
If the book were titled "A new kind of mathematics (with scientific implications)" perhaps that would be more accurate?
Where exactly is the science in ANKOS?
Of course if it is really a NEW kind of science, perhaps we don't need observation of "real world" phenomena. But I'm troubled by that meaning of science.
Not skim it, I mean read it. I was going to pick it up for my vacation coming up, and really want to know if it's worth the effort, or do you end up with that odd "cold fusion" feeling of being fed a bucket of horse crap?
I find it very interesting that a quantum theory invoked what is a common philisophical idea: that at some point the universe ceases to exist as we know it when one reaches a new plane of existance.... the sort of end id say you get when you realize exactly how the universe works and the whole equation collapses.
There's nothing Intelligent about Intelligent Design.
Well, if he is I refuse to work with his code, not until he comes back and notates it properly.
I went to a Quantum Approaches to Consciousness meeting at NAU. One current popular theory is that matter in the universe is an uncollapsed wave equation with infinite extent until some form of consciousness observes the matter in question - it is the act of observation that collapses the quantum wave equation.
While this is not my field, it is close (I have published in both quantum mechanics and biochemistry and my PhD is in biophysically related field), and I would caution interest in so called quantum consciousness. Not because it is necessarily wrong, but because many of those who believe it want to believe it so much that they are incapable of changing thier mind. (The cold fusion field has similar zealots)
-Sean
Read Greg Egan's Distress. That's the basic concept (kinda)
Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
"One thing that I get from the book is more support for the idea that information processing may be more important to the Universe than physical matter."
What kind of a statement is that? What is "information"? Where does it reside? Where is "information" "processed"? What the hell does "important" mean to the Universe? What an absurdly useless statement.
That's sort of like saying, being a painter and having no real clue of paint. Archimedes? Newton? Maxwell? Laplace? Legendre? Einstein? It is no accident that major fields in mathematics have been opened up by
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
He is one of those rare individuals that consistantly produce.
Uhh, I hate to disagree with you but how is going into hiding to write a book "producing"? When a person is risen to the level of celebrity scientist, they are going to get press when they want it, no matter what they say. He is neither the first person to marvel at CA's and while cool, we have yet to see whether his ideas are truely significant or not.
-Sean
Here's the overriding truth of worldviews and metaphors: For at least the past five hudnred years, we in the West have taken the dominant mode of industry and "explained" both human consciousness and the Godhood in terms of it.
First, of course, industry was agriculture... and God was basically a farmer, creating and tilling the Earth, making it ripe.
Then we came upon clockworks. (Too many miss the deep pyschological impact that the idea of time-keeping had upon the world.) Nice orderly systems that run more or less regularly, mimicking the order seen in, say, the motion of planets. And here, of course, God is the ultimate watchmaker.
The Age of Steam comes next and now God is the ultimate civil enginner. The Universe is a vast and complicated -- but ultimately comprehensible -- machine. It's made of discrete little bits that fall into recognizable types. If we understand the types and how they interact, we can reverse-engineer the machine.
Now we're in the Age of Information. The rising dominant archetype is the digital computer, revolutionizing our world the way that the steam engine did the 1700s. It almost goes without saying that of course some people are going to see digital computers in everything -- even the deepest bits of the Universe -- and so of course someone is going to claim God is the ultimate software engineer.
My impression is that these metaphors reveal less about God than they do about us... we don't come any closer to understanding God through them, but we might -- if we pay attention -- come closer to understanding how we understand ourselves.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
Yes, I read it. (although long, it really isn't that hard of a book -- Wolfram, like the late Stephen Jay Gould, often uses more words than he needs, and besides that the book is double spaced and full of pictures).
The real problem is that his key Principle of Computational Equivilence is simply asserted. Wolfram believes that nothing in the universe (including quantum computers!) can really be more powerful than his CA's. Maybe that's true, maybe it isn't, but I'm certainly not convinced.
Newton modest!!! Perhaps you unaware of how he treated other scientists of his era. Look into his treatment of Flamsteed, Leibnitz, or Hooke sometime. The 'shoulders of giants' quote was a dig at the small statured Hooke.
Einstien? The guy who as part of his divorce settlement gave his ex the winnings from his not yet awarded Nobel prize modest?
Don't know about Feynman ...
As to the technology bit, what technology did Newton give us? Maxwell? Einstein? Galilleo? Feynman? Darwin? Euler? [your favorite here ...]
Note I didn't ask what technology did their discoveries give rise to, but what technology did they themselves develop? (And to make my point perfectly clear, not all scientists are inventors. I am perfectly aware that some are.)
Wolfram sounds like a lot of scientists. He also sounds like a lot of crackpots. His track record should at least get him a hearing. And he should be judged on his ideas. Not on his personality nor his treatment of others.
One final thought. Wolfram's modus operandi is at least superficially similar to Newton's. Both worked alone. Both were dismissive of those whose work came before them. And at least one changed the scientific worldview big time.
Steve M
Agreed. I've run into some of those people. They get annoyed when you ask questions like "if the brain uses some big field for internal intercommunication, why don't people get interference when they put their heads close to each other".
On the other hand, biological brains perform better than we'd expect from the known number of neurons and the gate delays. We're missing something.
Einstein's theories of relativity that combine the above, are more accurate and elegant (i.e. conceptually simpler) than the two. But the more accurate predictions do not mean that the model is any closer to the 'real' workings of nature.
Wolfram's model may be even more accurate, but there can never be a conclusive proof if it really reflects the reality.
I remember a lecture by Benoit Mandelbrot I attended a few years ago. He showed the exactly same idea as Wolfram is explaining, that starting from very simple algorithms you could iterate many natural patterns. What really struck me was Mandelbrot's note on the idea of patterns themselves: "Are there patterns out there in nature, or are the patterns only in our heads?"
The latter possibility comes back to what you've explained, that the model tells more about the current society, than it does about nature. Of course, the question looks like it can never really be answered.
--
If you moderate this, then your children will be next.
See here for a page that links to about 15 reviews of ANKOS. My favorite is this review for the Mathematical Association of America.
And all along we thought God screwed up by making the world with all these problems.
Maybee he just wants to see then end result too.
My $0.02 will always be worth more than your â0.02, so
You don't need to 'create' the snowflake, you simply need to model it. Newton's laws of gravity don't made apples fall, they _model_ apples falling. Einstein's special relativity doesn't cause Mercury to precess, it _models_ mercury's precession. Schroedinger, Heisenberg, Pauli, Fermi, Hawking, whoever, all they do is build models. The better the model the happier people are calling it a law. If the rules Wolfram presents (whether they are originally his or no, it doesn't matter) model what happens then they are as valid as any other model. If the models fail then they're not. Judge _after_ you've tested the model.
FP.
Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
There are, generally speaking, two kinds of science.
Some sciences are descriptive and others are predictive. Physics is the ultimate in predictive science where temendously precise pridictions
about interactions can be calculated in advance. But there's a limit to what we can reasonably calculate. Many problems, like a Newtonian
3-body problem, have no closed solution and require numeric approximations to calculate anything. Other problems exhibit sensitivity to initial conditions and result in chaotic behavior. Precise predictions are no longer possible.
Other sciences are descriptive. They attempt to classify and organize observations into meaningful systems. Cladistics, pre-Darwin, described anatomical similarities between known species. Eventually, the resulting family arrangements were understood as evidence of underlying evolutionary processes whereby closely related species were
only recetly divergent and species with greater differences were less closely related.
Wolfram offers us a little of both in A New Kind of Science (which I have bought, browsed, but not yet read in depth). Only time will tell
if the systems he's calaloged will pay off in other disciplines. It may very well be that, once we know what to look for, natural analogues
of his systems may be all around us waiting to be discovered.
I have discovered a truly marvelous sig, unfortunately the sig limit is too small to contain i
YOU ARE NOT QUALIFIED TO COMMENT if all you've read are the reviews. So please shut up until you read the book.
For only $45 from Amazon, A New Kind of Science is physically one of the best deals I've ever seen in a book. Its size is enormous (well over 1200 pages), and the quality of the paper, binding and printing process is extremely excellent, because the high resolution illustrations required it.
"Many of the pictures in this book have a rather different character from things that are normally printed. For unlike traditional diagrams consisting of separate visible elements -- or photographs involving smooth gradiations of color -- they often for example contain hundreds of cells per inch, each in effect independently black of white. And to capure this properly required careful sheet-fed printing on paper smooth enough to avoid significant spreading of ink." ... "The book was printed on 50-pound Finch VHF paper on a sheet-fed press. It was imaged directly to plates at 2400 dpi, with halftones rendered using a 175-line screen with round dots angled at 45 degrees. The binding was Smythe sewn."
Even if you never read this book and only use it as a paper weight or prop to pick up girls, it's still the highest quality paper weight or chick magnet you'll ever find for the money. If Springer-Verlag had published A New Kind of Science, it would probably cost at least $250, be printed on cheap K-Mart toilet paper, and they wouldn't have even considered putting a fresh ribbon in the typewriter.
If you do bother reading the book before trying to write a review or refute its contents by personally attacking the author, it will certainly change your view of the universe.
-Don
PS: Here's a dynamic cellular automata snowflake generator that I wrote a while ago, inspired by Margolis and Toffoli's "Cellular Automata Machines: A New Environment for Modeling" [MIT Press, 1987]:
AethOTron: http://www.DonHopkins.com/AethOTron
Take a look and feel free: http://www.PieMenu.com
So have you ever heard of a widely-used product called MATHEMATICA?
Open the URL http://www.mathematica.com, notice where it redirects you to, learn about it, and see how laughably wrong and totally off-base you are in your accusations that Wolfram doesn't understand math.
Krapangor, I find it impossible to believe that you know much about math yourself, if you've never heard of Mathematica. But for you to say that Wolfram doesn't understand math -- that takes the cake! Ha ha ha!
-Don
Take a look and feel free: http://www.PieMenu.com
This is from the index of Wolfram's "A New Kind of Science":
Lorentz, Hendrik A. (Netherlands, 1853-1928)
and relativity theory, 1041
Lorentz contraction, 1041
Lorentz gas, 1022
Lorentz transformations, 1041, 1042
Lorentzian spaces, 1051
From the notes for Chapter 9, refereing to Page 522, History of Relativity, on page 1041:
[Mentions Galileo, Newton, Maxwell, Michelson, Morley, FitsGerald...] Already in 1904 Lorentz pointed out that Maxwell's equations are formally invariant under a so-called Lorentz transformation of space and time coordinates (see note below). [Mentions Einstein, Minkowski, Mach...]
Yet as I discussed earlier in the chapter, if a complete theory of physics is to be as simple as possible, then most things like relativity theory must in effect be derived from more basic features of the theory -- as I start to try to do in the main text of this section.
[End of quote from Wolfram's "A New Kind of Science".]
How about reading the book before dismissing it by insulting all physicists?
-Don
Take a look and feel free: http://www.PieMenu.com
That's not a problem with peer-review per se, though. Surely that's more of a problem with the way funding is assessed? If you're rich enough not to worry about funding you could presumably do some work without publishing loads of papers, and then get it peer-reviewed.
This post is strictly my own opinion and not necessarily that of my employer.
Written by S. Wolfram,
... we'll just have to wait and see.
... he is trying to drive a point home, and (thus far, I've only made it through chapter 7) is doing so in a time honored, rigorous fashion that is reminiscent of just about every theoretical mathematics, physics and engineering course I've taken.
Peer reviewed by noone,
Edited by S. Wolfram,
Published by S. Wolfram's company.
Well, Wolfram had a team of PhDs working under him, so it did go through some nomimal review and quite a rigorous check for accuracy. That is certainly comparable to the "peer review" that one sees in publishing scientific papers in scientific journals, and is arguably better than much of the "peer review" that takes place prior to such publications.
The real "peer review" will be that of other scientists now that his work is published. Can they replicate his results (almost certainly) and do the applications he outlined produce useful results to those working in the various fields of scientific inquiry his book touches upon. Quite possibly
I'm reading his book now, and it is quite fascinating. I disagree with the various calls for editors others have been making
Does that mean his conclusions are correct? No.
But it does set a very solid foundation for his thesis, and allow one to regard his theories in a solid context and an informed way, and, what is more, to understand them without first having become an expert in the field of CA.
He thinks he's discovered an overlooked tool for doing scientific analasys of systems which to date have defied calculus and other methods of analysis. He makes a compelling argument for why this is so, and provides ample data and information for anyone who is interested to duplicate and check his work.
He may not be correct, and his method of publishing may not have been within the channels the establishment generally prefers, but his publication itself appears to be in no way lacking in scientific rigorousness, and has certainly provided the detail and wherewithall for anyone to challenge it.
He may not be paying proper homage to those who came before him, or giving sufficient credit to those who have thought along similar lines (though he does cite other works and give due credit, so I'm not sure that criticism is even accurate), but his work, right or wrong, certainly appears scientifically valid. And if it is wrong, it will be rebutted quite thoroughly I'm sure, given the number of toes he has likely stepped on in persuing such a nontraditional course.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
I don't happen to have a copy at the moment, but I remember seeing this joke in Benford and Brin's Heart of the Comet... Which was first, the joke or the book?
Just curious...
--Fesh
Kill -9 'em all, let root@localhost sort 'em out.
If God is a software engineer, then Satan must be a [C++|Perl|COBOL|C#] hacker.
Also, I wonder if God uses vi or Emacs?
Which is a system functioning in a separate technology realm from industry and invention. I can't directly site the MIT study, but the result is effectively (my analogy) what's seen in child-development. Before the development of a set of social / communication skills small children will play adjacent to each other and rarely interact.
Neither of these systems (academia / industry) in practice holds the other in particularly high regard. In fact a small fraction (ca 1-5%) of engineers / scientists stay current with what's happening in 'that other area', these individuals, termed 'gatekeepers' are repsonsible for nearly all technology transfer.
the scientific system excludes certain types of claims ... it logically runs the risk of excluding the bona fide true revolutionary.... Yet in truth it does not seem to do that all that often.
I guess it depends on what you consider 'often' and 'revolutionary'. Lynn Margulis's discovery that Eukaryotic (all higher order life) cells resulted from the symbiotic relationship between prokariotic cells and viruses was actively derided in biology for a decade.
Scientists who choose not to live in the arena of academia, or corporate R&D are often the innovators who bring the most real innovations to light.
Examples:
- James Lovelock (inventor of gas-chromatograph tools, responsible for Gaia hypothesis and warning of te HCFC / Ozone problem)
- Itzak Bentov (one of 2 principal inventors of angioplasty and related less-invasive medicine one of the founders of Boston Scientific (now $2B+ sales)
- Stephen Wolfram
The common theme among these individuals is that they pursued new work in part outside of established doctrine, and to some extent this was precisely possible becuase they worked outside of 'peer review'Lovelock observed in his original book about Gaia that some kinds of research will never be taken on in academia (or the results of completed work will be rejected) because of purely social considerations. He cites the mis-evaluated concerns for safety in nuclear energy, comparing it to the actual (larger) magnitude of toxic chemical contamination risks.
For a similar example read (or google for) "Brain Sex", a summary of research documenting differences in male and female brain structure. Researchers in this field have uniformly found that because it is not 'PC' to observe that male and female cognigtion / brain structure exhibit meaningful differences, their (almost certainly valid) works are very slow to be funded or accepted.
These individuals and fields demonstrate how sometimes truly groundbreaking work can only happen outside of the established context. In these instances and many similar ones this happens when an individual can fund his(her) own work and therefor work outside of the peer review system of science.
Einstein's theories were nothing short of the demolition of... Newtonian worldview
Actually, Poincare noted the implications of both Relativity and Quantum Mechanics a couple of decades before Einstein applied the mathmatics necessary to fully illuminate the problem.
'Science' often believes the myth that it is an objective undertaking, not subject to whim or 'current fashion'. Most people who work very long in scientific fields discover that there are (wrong) articles of faith which become codified in 'the literature'. In fact 'Science' is a very human endeavour.
If peer review and scientific method alone were sufficient to accomplish all new work the examples above would not be true. They may be the exception, however they are clearly (IMHO) important exceptions.
Whether through introducing new understandings which would have otherwise been missed or effectively bringing new ideas and tools into the marketplace / policy, these are examples of where 'Science' as an institution comes up short.
None of which, by the way is intended to deny the validity of the various methods. 'Science' progresses through combinations of insight and hard work. Whether the hard work part is practiced to adhere to the rigors of peer review, or to bring an genuinely new idea to market in a form that works, the process is similar.
Linux is Linux, if One need clarify their dist: <Dist>/GNU Linux
bsds are of course just BSD
"Arguably better" how? The "team of PhDs" were Wolfram's employees, and beholden to him. Real peer review means independent peer review, sans the conflict of interest inherent in checking the boss' work....
... review his work and check it in minute detail for accuracy, I would submit that, while such is possible, it is extremely unlikely and would be incredibly self-defeating (as he would then open himself up widely to public ridicule once his unchecked work was published).
Because one of the real weaknesses in the current scientific establishment is the orthodoxy that often plagues scientific publications, in which 'peer review' often amounts to a single colleague, sometimes for reasons more personal and political than scientific, prevents a work from ever seeing the wider light of day.
Peer review doesn't necessarilly have to occur prior to publication. Indeed, it is arguably better that work be published widely, and then either vindicated or rebutted publicly, rather than this happening in the quiet of a magazine's editorial office. That too is peer review (public acceptance or condemnation of a work, public vindiciaton or rebutting of its arguments, data, and/or interpretation), and that is precisely what Wolfram's work will be subjected to, now that it has been published.
It will either stand or fall on its own merits. Wolfram's team of PhDs provided sanity checks on his work, and as I understand it were given fairly wide latitude in pointing out any errors or inconsitencies that might have arisen. That is typically what the purpose of peer review prior to publication is supposed to accomplish, to insure that the work not have any glaring and emberrassing errors prior to publication.
Unfortunately it is often used as a means of enforcing orthodoxy, which is inappropriate and antithetical to what science is supposed to be about. History is repleat with scientific work that went unpublished for years, until the scientific orthodoxy in the discipline shifted and the work suddenly became "acceptable," despite having been chanced or "corrected" in no way whatsoever. Wolfram wisely avoided this nonsense entirely, and whether his theories turn out to be correct or not, they are sufficiently revolutionary that his approach was probably quite justified.
As for the insinuation that Wolfram would pressure his people not to do what he hired them to do
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Lorenz, Edward N. (USA, 1917-)
and chaos theory, 971
and complex ODE, 879
and experimental math, 899
and fluid turbulence, 998
in Preface, xiii
Lorenz Equations
as giving strange attractor, 922
and history of chaos theory, 971
and Lissajous figures, 917
and weather prediction, 1178
To recap, the original poster Krapangor said: "Do I even have to mention the Lorentz system at all, everyone should know it. But he is just a physicist after all. I'm a proud owner of a Mensa membership card."
So it's obvious that Wolfram is aware of the work of Lorenz as well as the work of Lorentz, since he cites both of them in the index, spells their names correctly, and discusses their work in his book.
It's also obvious that Krapagnor should tear up his Mensa card that he's so proud of, if he can't manage correctly spell the name he drops, claiming "everyone should know it".
Krapagnor: If everyone should know the "Lorentz" system, then why can't you even spell it correctly? You should tear up your Mensa card, and learn to spell before you dismiss all physicists as fools. And please read the book before attempting to discredit it by insulting the author.
-Don
Take a look and feel free: http://www.PieMenu.com