Slashdot Mirror
Stephen Wolfram Joins The Life Boat Foundation and Bets On Singularity
kodiaktau writes "This week The Lifeboat Foundation announced that Stephen Wolfram would be joining its organization. The purpose of the group is to think through scientific solutions to existential problems that might be used to save humanity from such risks as asteroids hitting the earth or some other diabolical disaster. Wolfram brings computational science to the table and has posited that the earth and universe can be understood as a computer program that can be significantly altered as we continue to advance in technology."
See subject.
Actually I don't know what I'm talking about, I'm just fishing for +mod points. Please oblige.
Why be born with such a painful, useless thing? Anyone who says otherwise is a token loli. And token lolis... need censorship.
Like Kurzweil and Co., he's a nut. But a smart nut!
Who said that all progress comes the crazy ones (or something vaguely like that). So maybe they're right (and I'm hoping for it). But (unlike him, lacking a legacy) I wouldn't bet my retirement fund on it.
Is he saying that the universe can be likened to a computer program or that a computer program can be written which can simulate the universe? Or is he exploring metaphysics and stating that the universe *is* a computer program?
He pushes the idea that the universe is all built on cellular automata. Not a stupid, ridiculous idea (and also, not his original idea)... but a little bit out there.
Wolfram brings computational science to the table and has posited that the earth and universe can be understood as a computer program that can be significantly altered as we continue to advance in technology.
Sounds a lot like bit-string physics. You might credit John Archibald Wheeler, H. Pierre Noyes, Ted Bastin, C.W. Kilmister, and David McGoveran before Stephen Wolfram.
Wolfram is a genius, I'm just not clear what "advancements" he's brought to computational science or bit-string physics. I mean, that "universe as a computer" stuff is all still theory right now, right?
Call me cynical but I fear that this will result in more Futurism with people crossing into other fields of expertise, reading papers and then holding them up as the holy grail in undoing aging and death. Sure, it's amusing but I think at best this is going to be a lot of smart people pounding square pegs into round holes all day long. At worst it's just going to sidetrack people from doing work and daydreaming about interdisciplinary possibilities (like some of the Macy Conferences did for Cybernetics).
Welp, better settle in and prepare for the crazy Kurzweil stories to fire back up!
My work here is dung.
The earth understood as a computer program... That badly?
Joking aside: this is pure bollocks. Classical physics has insolvable problems (3 particles is a no-no), quantum mechanics cannot be simulated at a low level. So how is computation going to help understand the universe? Run a few simulations with a huge pile of assumptions? I put my money on Bruce Willis and his team.
Odd, I thought it was more likely Wolfram would create a rogue AI or direct an asteroid towards the earth.
It's really sad that, if nothing is done about it, the unsustainable economic system that we have right now will lead to a collapse of our technological society long before any asteroid might hit us. The minds behind this project might better be used to solve that conundrum instead...
That is all.
If you consider the 'state' of the universe, which changes over time according strict rules, then the universe is indeed a computer.
The problem is, it's just computing future states of the universe...
A nut? That's hilarious, Wolfram is probably the smartest man alive. Like Da Vinci and others his legacy won't be truly appreciated for centuries. Read NKS and if that doesn't give you some concept of his abilities, well, I don't think anything will convince you.
I'm not really impressed by either. Wolfram made some very good software but then wrote that wretched book which was primarily a mix of either wrong ideas or unoriginal ideas. There was a strong failure to credit the work others had done with cellular automaton. I couldn't tell if that was due to his ignorance or his general self-promotional tendencies.
As to the Lifeboat Foundation I lost minimal trust in them after they got in bed with Pam Geller http://lifeboat.com/ex/boards (yes, that's Pamela "Obama is a Muslim with a Fake Birth Certificate" Geller http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pamela_Geller#Birther_views). If that weren't enough they've been involved in fear mongering about the LHC http://lifeboat.com/ex/particle.accelerator.shield. There are however other groups that are dealing with exisential risk threats in a serious and useful fashion. The Future of Humanity Institute http://www.fhi.ox.ac.uk/ which is affiliated with the University of Oxford, and headed by the very bright Nick Bostrom thinks about existential risk issues in general. Meanwhile, there are organizations focusing on specific concerns. For example, the B612 Foundation http://www.b612foundation.org/b612/ is focused on dealing with detecting and dealing with large asteroids. They have the advantage of also having a very clever name. Internet cookie to anyone who can figure out why they are called that without searching.
When you have a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.
And when you have a 20th-century binary computer, everything looks like a 20th century binary computer program.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Is he saying that the universe can be likened to a computer program or that a computer program can be written which can simulate the universe? Or is he exploring metaphysics and stating that the universe *is* a computer program?
Yes
Is he saying that the universe can be likened to a computer program or that a computer program can be written which can simulate the universe? Or is he exploring metaphysics and stating that the universe *is* a computer program?
Read up on bit-string physics and digital physics.
... now you can parade in the sci-fi authors. Oh, and Raymond Kurzweil.
I am not a physicist but I would probably try to explain it this way: Information isn't free. We know that. It "costs" something. We can call its most basic unit to be a "bit" but I'm not aware of any really solid equivalences between bits and energy. But if you knew this relationship, you could rewrite a lot of physics with the "bit" as one of the fundamental units of physics and get rid of -- say -- energy. You would represent energy as some complicated set of inequalities or equivalences that are written only with references to bits.
Now let's jump WAY ahead. To the really far out there part. If (and I believe that's a BIG if) you can then express these as Turing machines and you have a complete set of rules to compute with, you're getting closer to building a very accurate (if not perfect) simulator. Gravity, relativity, everything gets bundled up into one neat little Turing Machine that quite simply predicts the future. Perhaps you could simulate atomic movement in vacuums at a fraction of the cost of our current simulator -- and superior (the hope is perfect) accuracy! The final dream, of course, is to simulate the universe perfectly from the Big Bang onward and merely predict the future. It's not hard to see the problems with all of this, however. A simple exercise is to imagine I built this machine yesterday and as the machine begins to compute yesterday and today's events, it's computing itself computing itself computing itself computing itself
My work here is dung.
Well the bunker seems useful. But why didn't they come up with something like a new energy source that has pleasantly high energy return on investment, that is probably too hard, I wonder what they will power their lifeboat with though, probably its oil, gas or nukes for the next 100000 years.
The other stuff is irrelevant, apart maybe from the Bioshield.
Oh, here is a trick question - is it "sustainable"?
Je me souviens.
There isn't any difference, really.
A computer by a basic definition is a system that operates upon inputs in a defined way. Wolfram definitely believes that the universe is definable.
A computer by a more traditional definition is turing complete, which the universe (by virtue of turing complete systems existing inside of it by the millions/billions) is as well.
The universe is software running on the hardware of physics, in a manner of speaking. This is assuming of course that physics governs the universe, and that the universe didn't create physics. However if you read/watch some of his stuff you'll see that he believes that to be the case (the very end of his TED talk on Alpha he talks about having built some universe simulators).
Look, I know it's a bit far out, but haven't we pretty much concluded even if the Big Rip doesn't happen and that protons don't decay, entropy will eventually cause the heat death of the universe? I mean, I realize that it's around 10^14 years out and won't really be a concern if we can't escape the earth in the next 1.4 billion years or so. Don't get me wrong, I think humanity is perfectly capable of saving itself from asteroid bombardments and the death of stars. But, my (admittedly limited) understanding of what's going to happen to the universe keeps me from really getting excite about projects like this.
On the other hand, the goal here is to make sure we live long enough to face these problems. And that's pretty important.
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
Remember that he wrote A New Kind of Science at night, while he continued to run a successful multi-million dollar software enterprise during the day. The peer review jury is still partly out on ANKOS, but his highly original ideas continue to thrive and spur further research. His deep insight that true chaos devolves from ordered deterministic processes (e.g. cellular automatia) across all of nature is nothing short of astounding. Focused he is. Obbsessive and a bit eccentric, certainly. But a nut? Not by a long shot. Same goes for Ray K.
"No fear. No envy. No meanness." Liam Clancy
He says that computer programs provide a *type* of understanding that was not previously possible because it would take an entire man's life to do the calculations.
A key idea in New Kind of Science is (paraphrased) "Computational Complexity". For special initial settings in the environment, if you keep iterating results *on top of each other* you get patterns of complexity far beyond the initial starting block. For the most obvious example, a "fairly small genome" produces billions of unique people because each day's experience layers on yesterday.
Another key idea is that this resulting complexity can't be shortcutted - there's no single equation (yet!?) that just spits out the pattern, not universally. So the only way to get that output is to do the crunching.
So it does have all kinds of uses - evolution being also among the obvious - you don't get elephants without first having amoebas.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
I mean really, we have a human race which is eating itself out of house and home, destroying the environment and every other species and the entire biosphere at a rate never before encountered in the history of life on Earth, AND rapidly acquiring ever greater capabilities to destroy itself on a daily basis while retaining the basic ethical outlook of fire-wielding cavemen. Meanwhile these people are wasting their time wool-gathering about infinitely more remote possibilities like asteroid impacts and total hypotheticals like 'technological singularity' which may well simply not even exist. Doc, don't you realize there are 50,000 nuclear weapons on hair-trigger alert pointed at us every day and that a reasonably systems analysis of US and Russian nuclear 'defense' systems indicates there's roughly a 50/50 chance we will set them off within the next 30 years? Seriously?
This kind of speculation is perhaps intellectually interesting, but the probability that it is in any way a meaningfully useful line of inquiry is remote in the extreme. Can we please have SOME degree of effort put into what is clearly threatening us today? What fool worries about getting his mortgage payment out on time when there's a HUGE FIRE BURNING THE LIVING ROOM! Duh!!!???
"Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -- Jefferson
What happens to society when a significant number of people:
- get their power from solar cells and geothermal
- have automated greenhouses (scaled up Aerogardens like the Aero Grow folks make) which provide much of their food needs (anyone run the numbers on how much seaweed one could grow in a tank the size of a typical house window?)
- make tchochkes (and small useful objects as well) using a makerbot or reprap or diylilcnc
- capture rainwater and filter / purify it, use grey water for washing and minimize their sewer bill w/ a composting toilet
Bonus points for those who are able to use excess energy to generate hydrogen which is then used to power their vehicles.
William
Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
If the Universe IS doing calculations, then it is as accurate as possible. You can't possibly get closer to calculating what the laws of physics say should happen than by the calculation actually being what actually does happen.
But that means the universe is either infinite, to hold infinitely long registers, or the real laws of physics don't include any infinite precision expressions. A finite universe can't, for a simple example, be multiplying some number times Pi, an infinite non-repeating decimal. Since non-truncating values are used in a tremendous number of physics formulas, the math we think describes the Universe can't possibly be what a finite Universe is using.
There are ways to keep physics related math from entailing any infinities. Planck's work,setting a minimum size for movement and duration for actions, is an example. Maybe, there will eventually be a Grand Theory of Everything, or Unified Field Theory, with no pesky infinities. But it's interesting that, if the Universe IS in some sense a computer, then a finite Universe simply HAS to have something like Quantum Mechanics, because time and space can't be infinitely divisible.
To a mathematician, the fact that QM seems to work isn't a rigorous proof that the Universe is indeed finite - all we can say for sure is that if the Universe allows infinities, then a QM like theory isn't strictly necessary. To a cosmologist, dimensions such as the Planck length are pretty strong suggestions that the Universe is finite, and that a GTU or UFT or whatever will eventually be found if we are only smart enough.
Who is John Cabal?
perspective, the the project faces, the bottoms butt 0f progress. on baby...don't Users all over The Mechanics. So I'm shower Don't just All our times have Conversation and That FreeBSD is
Don't noone compare themself to DaVinci
---lame
can he save us from ourselves? That would solve eveything.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
The idea that the universe can be understood as a computer program is essentially unfalsifiable. Given that at any moment the set of all observations we have at our disposal is finite, it is trivial to build a Turing machine that produces that exact set, regardless of the actual underlying mechanics. Even if, say, the universe contained some magic oracle that solved the halting problem for Turing Machines, we could never actually verify that it does. It could just be some machine that runs the input TM for a number of steps greater than what the universe can store, and then gives up and says it never halts.
I believe that seeing the universe as a computation could be useful to gain new insights, but it's just a way to think about things, not something that can be formally tested.
Existential problems... I hate it when problems threaten the philosophy of Existentialism.
Oh? What? You mean to say threats to humanity? Then say that.
Stop misappropriating my language.
CAPTCHA: irritant
A finite universe can't, for a simple example, be multiplying some number times Pi, an infinite non-repeating decimal
Sure, it can. You don't have to know pi to infinite digits in order to use it mathematically. There's no reason a finite universe can't compute using pi.
His deep insight is simply that true chaos devolves from ordered deterministic processes (e.g. cellular automatia) across all of nature. He demonstrates this systematically in his book, A New Kind of Science. The book elucidates the results of hundreds of computer experiments that use cellular automatia to echo various aspects of the natural world from physics to biology, often in clearly visible ways with wonderful fractal graphics. IMHO he shows incontrovertibly that natural chaos is sometimes the output of rather simple rule-based systems. He posits quite plausibly, but has yet to prove, that the chaotic (in the mathematical sense) universe that we experience is better understood as the output of a simple rule-based system or, if you prefer, program. Current models all use differential equations, of course.
The book is very approachable. Since the book reflects ideas that he maintains are completely novel (Not everyone agrees on this, by the way.) he strove to make it readable by any reasonably educated person. This made sense for him to do since, he maintains, there are no prerequisites needed to understand his new kind of science. If he proves right ANKOS will rank with Newton's Principia Mathematica. It is a fascinating and provocative read, especialy for those of us who are computer minded. Time will tell if it is a work of sublime genius.
"No fear. No envy. No meanness." Liam Clancy
Knowing who Steven Wolfram is, and what he's done for others, or more directly *to others*, I want to have nothing to do with him. He might be credited for being a bit sharper than the standard egg, but that doesn't mean the yolk isn't festering inside. Just like William Bradford Shockley Jr. (one of the co-inventors of the transistor), he is to be praised for the field he specialized in (physics), but scorned and derided for other fields he advocated (Adolph Hitler style eugenics). Back to Wolfram, he knows his way around computers. Good. Keep him there, and strictly limited to that. His other ideas are as another poster put it: applying the same hammer to everything that looks like a nail. Hey Steve: keep selling the math software and don't quit your day job.
I'm better than Leonardo daVinci in that being still living, there's still the non-zero probability[1] that I could further the advancement of society. daVinci, being dead, can not[2].
[1] granted, probably not that high, since I'm posting on slashdot...
[2] discounting the discovery of any lost works.
[3] j/k
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Interesting post, a couple of minor thoughts though:
Pi and such aren't needed for the calculations of the universe, nor do you need infinite registers. Pi and other numbers that describe ratios and the like are products of the universe's calculations. We use those numbers because they are in fact useful to us and our understanding but they are merely part of the outcome and don't actually need to be in the method/function that's running. As for infinite registers, the universe itself is the computer: both processor and memory. The function runUniverse() only needs to run locally and let the efforts spread to the rest volumetrically like a sphere expanding at the speed of light through the dataset (or, space/matter). It doesn't require exterior storage.
Just my 2 cents
(cents, not the symbol since slashdot still can't even display extended ascii?)
No, that link you posted to a web comic we've all seen a hundred times is not "obligatory."
Why don't you work on saving humanity FROM humanity instead of some plug-in for your proprietary Mathestupidica ?
Yours In Krasnoyarsk,
K. Trout, algebraic topologist
There isn't any difference, really.
A computer by a basic definition is a system that operates upon inputs in a defined way. Wolfram definitely believes that the universe is definable.
Universe (!Inputs)
Unless of course you're willing to admit the possibility of a transcendant force. In which case you might actually be able to define some sort of function for the universe.
"In 2008, diagonalization was used to "slam the door" on Laplace's demon." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantor%27s_diagonal_argument
(Not *exactly* the same as what I'm saying... I think... but point's the same)
That's not the definition of a computer.
And no, the universe isn't a computer, and no, it is't an expression of math.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
". This is assuming of course that physics governs the universe, and that the universe didn't create physics."
do you really not see why that is nonsense? seriously?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Or is he exploring metaphysics and stating that the universe *is* a computer program?
The good news is that, yes it is a computer program. The bad news is that it is Windows ME.
She can go first next time.
How do you know this hasn't already happened?
So, you're saying, that given enough input data, a Turing machine or equivalent computer can predict, with perfect accuracy, specific instances of radioactive decay, since specific instances of radioactive decay are "in the universe", and everything in the universe is, per your description, computable?
The Easier-to-Explain Existential Risks (remember an existential risk is something that can set humanity way back, not necessarily killing everyone):
1. neoviruses
2. neobacteria
3. cybernetic biota
4. Drexlerian nanoweapons
The hardest to explain is probably #4. My proposal here is that, if someone has never heard of the concept of existential risk, it’s easier to focus on these first four before even daring to mention the latter ones. But here they are anyway:
5. runaway self-replicating machines (“grey goo” not recommended because this is too narrow of a term)
6. destructive takeoff initiated by intelligence-amplified human
7. destructive takeoff initiated by mind upload
8. destructive takeoff initiated by artificial intelligence
Wolfram's argument for exploring the space of discrete computations as a source of models richer and cheaper than continuum math needs wider endorsement. Much of the criticism is the inverse of a long recognised problem: shooting the message when you really want to shoot the messenger (and that only because you know the reputation rather than the person).
And your critique of totalising narratives has long been well understood in the postmodernist framework, but pomo too has been so badly misrepresented as to have hidden its useful contributions. It's not just the physicists who try to formulate the whole world in their terms. You should be much more afraid of the accountants and lawyers doing likewise without hint of oversight.
-- Our systemic servants do not good masters make.
Wolfram pushes his principle of computational equivalence which says that anything you can find in one discrete system you can find in any other (which can be shown to emulate a universal Turing machine). His preference for 1D and Conway's, my and others' preference for 2D cellular automata for exploring some of that space is much more a statement about human visual perception. He actually suggests that a simple graph (formal math term for network of nodes and links) is a more likely candidate, but they are much harder to get your head (and your algorithms) around.
Personally I find his strong notion of computational equivalence only distracts from the need to find smarter exploration strategies in a space of boundless possibility, although it has some value as a "weak" principle analogous to the weak anthropic principle.
-- Our systemic servants do not good masters make.
Look what happens when you pile too much mass someplace! Eventually the entire region of space just segfaults! And time doesn't even flow at the same rate for even short distances! Looking at the universe, I'd guess it was some rushed freshman-year science project.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
On a somewhat related topic, NPR did a bit on one of the foundations for people who wanted to freeze their heads or bodies in liquid nitrogen in hopes of defeating death. The guy in charge didn't even manage to preserve his customers for a decade before running out of money. So far the Egyptians 3000 years ago have a better track record, and exactly as much success in defeating death.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Steven Wolfram apparently doesn't know the first thing about the practical nature of programming, if the thinks that nature can be programmed practically.
In his world, we'll just mod the universe and it will do what we want.
In my world, I change one line of code and I'm sending a special-purpose computer back to the factory to be disassembled and un-bricked.
Someone ask him where the documentation on the Universe is. Because that "reverse engineering" stuff is precisely how we get into these messes.
A little bit pretentious of them, isn't it? Wolfram will fit right in.
The problem is that, as you point out, his accomplishments are in designing and selling software. The problem is that Wolfram likes to push himself as a scientist and he is not, he is a businessman and software developer. A clear sign of this is that rather than publish in reviewed journals he has published his own book. If you have valid scientific contributions self-publishing is unnecessary and has very negative connotations because it is frequently the only way the kooks can get their work published.
"I've seen this kind of thing before, where the people at the top of a particular discipline start acting as if all other science is secondary, is only an aspect of their chosen discipline."
A poem from my website: http://www.pdfernhout.net/
The Circle of Knowledge
All philosophy is anthropology; :-)
All anthropology is psychology;
All psychology is biology;
All biology is chemistry;
All chemistry is physics;
All physics is math;
All math is philosophy.
I first published it on slashdot I think: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1847578&cid=34100224
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
They're going to save humanity. Why? If there's no one else out there, then we're going to go on, living our grumpy little lives. If there's someone else out there advanced enough to talk to, then they'll discover it too.
Sometimes I think we should take all of our great art, pack it up into a ruddy great rocket, and nuke ourselves back to the stone age and try again.
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
Seems like someone is finally going to answer the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything.
Existential problems are: guilt, anxiety, despair, suicide.
This looks more like solving problems that don't exist.
Mathematicians also have this tendency to view CS as just a branch of math, and algorithms as something that can be expressed as "just" a series of formulas.
Why do you consider that inaccurate? I'll agree that programming itself certainly isn't just math, but I would consider computer science to be a specialized branch of mathematics.
IMHO he shows incontrovertibly that natural chaos is sometimes the output of rather simple rule-based systems
As a lot of other people here have pointed out, this claim is neither controversial nor original to Wolfram.
However, it is simply fallacious to say that, because a lot of complex natural phenomena derive from simple rule-based systems, therefore the whole universe is a simple rule-based system.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Seems to me a lot of people are going to have pie on their faces when the Singularity actually happens. Then again, at that point it won't really matter.