71–80 of 83 posts
Classic Feynman: "with one exception, fall madly in love!"
Someone once said that madness was necessary for creating. Does anybody know who it was? Can't find it.
“No great genius has ever existed without some touch of madness.” -- Aristotle
“There is no great genius without some touch of madness.” -- Seneca
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> He published A New Kind Of Science in 2002 I read it, back in 2002, and was quite excited before starting, but I honestly can't recall a single thing from that book. I can't even remember if I was disappointed after reading it.
Is that Wolfram's fault, or yours?
Wolfram is damn smart. I'll give him that. He also made a pile of money on Mathematica. I'll give him that as well. It was classic "solve your own problem" entrepreneurship. He needed a better computer algebra program, so he wrote one, then started selling it.[1] But he's a crank. He wrote a couple good papers in the 80s, then hasn't done anything decent since. He published A New Kind Of Science in 2002, which was su…
This. As far as I can tell, "complexity science" is really just a dumping ground for things we haven't figured out yet. Some pattern seemingly ‘emerges’ out of nowhere? Complexity! Feedback loops causing unpredictable behavior? Complexity! Non-linear or ‘chaotic’ behavior that's difficult to interpret? Complexity! Don’t know where something starts or stops? Complexity! Self-reference or deep, recursive hierarchies doing something weird? Complexity! You can’t talk about any of them without using the phrase “don’t know”. It’s a field defined by our ignorance.
Wolfram is damn smart. I'll give him that. He also made a pile of money on Mathematica. I'll give him that as well. It was classic "solve your own problem" entrepreneurship. He needed a better computer algebra program, so he wrote one, then started selling it.[1] But he's a crank. He wrote a couple good papers in the 80s, then hasn't done anything decent since. He published A New Kind Of Science in 2002, which was su…
I think you're reading a lot more into Feynman's comment than is there. All Feynman says is that the organization of science does not inhibit complexity research.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Someone once said that madness was necessary for creating. Does anybody know who it was? Can't find it.
It's interesting because Wolfram quotes Feynman as saying: "Peace of mind is the most important prerequisite for creative work." http://www.stephenwolfram.com/publications/recent/feynman/
Niels Bohr
Richard Feynman is kind of a jerk. Edit: What I mean is: How condescending is it to write someone a letter saying that they don't understand people, and they should try falling in love?
Under ordinary circumstances, pretty condescending. However remember that:
a) Wolfram was a 26-year-old at the start of his career and Feynman was 68 years old and easily one of the most respected scientists in the world.
b) Wolfram wrote to Feynman for advice. To get any response from someone that many levels above you is doing pretty well.
c) Wolfram started it -- he was the one who talked about ordinary people being "stupid fools" whom he couldn't tolerate.
Wolfram is damn smart. I'll give him that. He also made a pile of money on Mathematica. I'll give him that as well. It was classic "solve your own problem" entrepreneurship. He needed a better computer algebra program, so he wrote one, then started selling it.[1] But he's a crank. He wrote a couple good papers in the 80s, then hasn't done anything decent since. He published A New Kind Of Science in 2002, which was su…
Although Wolfram has done quite well for himself, this is beside the point.
You might want to read both sides of the conversation:
http://elzr.com/posts/wolfram-feynman
and then read this article:
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/10.06/wolfram_pr.html
in particular, starting here:
"in the spring of 1992, he became, in his own words, a "recluse."
So, he figured out a way to get away from the administration and concentrate on the science.
I suspect that Feynman's advice probably helped Wolfram steer a clear course through all this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is partially true: during the first part of his life, Feynman really didn't have a high opinion of the intellectual capabilities of women.
Really? Can I ask what you're basing that on? I'm not disbelieving you, just skeptically curious :)
When he talks about his time at Cornell: "She went on and said, "Suppose you have another line coming in from the other side, and you want to figure out where they are going to intersect. Suppose on one line you go over two to the right for every one you go up, and the other line goes over three to the right for every one that it goes up, and they start twenty steps apart," etc.--I was flabbergasted. She figured out where the intersection was. It turned out that one girl was explaining to the other how to knit argyle socks. I, therefore, did learn a lesson: The female mind is capable of understanding analytic geometry. Those people who have for years been insisting (in the face of all obvious evidence to the contrary) that the male and female are equally capable of rational thought may have something. The difficulty may just be that we have never yet discovered a way to communicate with the female mind. If it is done in the right way, you may be able to get something out of it."
Wolfram is damn smart. I'll give him that. He also made a pile of money on Mathematica. I'll give him that as well. It was classic "solve your own problem" entrepreneurship. He needed a better computer algebra program, so he wrote one, then started selling it.[1] But he's a crank. He wrote a couple good papers in the 80s, then hasn't done anything decent since. He published A New Kind Of Science in 2002, which was su…
Thanks for the link to Cosma Shalizi's review of A New Kind of Science; I greatly enjoyed it. I'm also quite fond of this Amazon review: http://www.amazon.com/review/R6B8KO2M32P8G