Mitchell Feigenbaum (1944–2019), 4.66920160910299067185320382…

https://www.wolframscience.com/nks/notes-0-1--citations-and-...

In developing the ideas described in this book I have looked at many thousands of books, papers and websites—and have interacted with hundreds of people (see page xiii). But rather than trying to give a huge list of specific references, I have instead included in these notes historical information tracing key contributions. From the names of concepts and people that I mention, it is straightforward to do web or database searches that give a vastly more complete picture of available references than could possibly fit in a book of manageable size—or than could be created correctly without immense scholarship. Note that while most current works of science tend to refer mainly just to very recent material, this book often refers to material that is centuries or even millennia old—in some ways more in the tradition of fields like philosophy.

>But then I can't imagine a layperson having any idea what almost any of the sentence you quoted means anyways so your point seems pretty moot.

You're not being honest here. If you can't imagine it, it is because you're not trying. People walk away with impressions, even if they don't retain the facts. He always writes to give an impression, not to give facts. Facts are always the cover for the impression.

Here's another example from the article:

>But what is actually going on in a phase transition? I think the clearest way to see this is by looking at an analog in cellular automata.

Is he being honest here? Is this actually the best way to understand a phase transition? And is this cellular automata the one he should be using?

Of course! It's His Holy Cellular Automata. It must be introduced, even if only in passing.

Yeah, "it's fine." He knows what he knows, and you can't fault someone for speaking to what they know. But it is a grating and self-serving stylistic choice, and it does undermine his message. But if you're an investor or someone looking for a savior to worship or a bandwagon to jump on, he's certainly got all the answers for you.

I was being honest. Please don't tell me I'm lying; assume good faith. I still claim that his wording 'Wolfram Language gets it right' versus 'Wolfram Language got it right' would leave a layperson with the impression different than what you claim.

I could be wrong. I'd be willing to make a (nominal) bet about the outcome of a reasonable proxy if you're interested in testing our disagreement. I'm not claiming near-certainty tho. I don't think you're 'definitely' or 'obviously' wrong.

For the second example, I think his cellular automata is a pretty good way to see a phase transition. I'm also interpreting his claim pretty charitably, e.g. not that it's literally the clearest way for anyone to see, let alone understand generally, for whatever reference class of 'people' would possibly be the best definition to use in this case. I think you're splitting hairs pretty finely here.

I do agree that his writing style is "grating and self-serving". There's lots of evidence that that's the case, just in the comments on this post alone. I think part of that interpretation is warranted and valid. I think another, significant, tho lesser part is confirmation bias.

Stephen Wolfram definitely doesn't have all the answers for me, or likely anyone. I'm pretty confused why you wrote the last sentence in your reply to me. I think my comment was pretty anodyne. You seem to have pretty strong feelings about it.

I'm also unsure why you'd think an "investor" would be particularly interested in him or his companies. Wolram basically sells enterprise software and related services. It doesn't seem like a likely undervalued opportunity for significant growth.

I'm also unsure why you think anyone would "worship" him as a "savior". I don't regardless.

I'm happy enough to wish him and anyone that's jumped on his bandwagon well tho. I think he's got a very good point about the likely benefits of engaging in what I'd call 'exploratory computational discovery', as he describes in NKS. Yes, he uses much stronger and strident language to describe the same thing, and I think the magnitude of his claims are too large, but I do think his point is underrated, even significantly. I'm more skeptical of how much low hanging fruit there's likely to be from applying methods like what he advocates, but not radically so.