What this project needs is someone at the center of it. A visionary. A leader. A genius. A prolix author. Can anyone think of someone???
Eric weinstein ?
The Wolfram Physics Project
71–80 of 342 posts
Re: The Wolfram Physics Project
#72Earlier quoted context omitted.
He… already knows this. https://www.stephenwolfram.com/publications/academic/
Although it's also worth noting that that page states: >Note: Since 1987, Stephen Wolfram's intellectual efforts have not primarily been reported in academic articles.
This is true, but Wolfram was certainly a "normal" professional physicist for years before striking out on his own.
Re: The Wolfram Physics Project
#73Could somebody explain to Stephen Wolfram physics is already underway and the normal way to join in is to publish your ideas in appropriate venues and submit them to peer review?
It's been waiting for a genius, a visionary, a maverick, ... Wolfram's narcissism is so extreme it's just comical. When I was really into complexity science and stuff everyone in the field would joke about it, suggesting a drinking game where you take a shot every time Wolfram refers to how he was a gifted child or started studying math in his teens or single-handedly accomplished some amazing feat. The guy toots his…
In university a professor was explaining how Wolfram formulated Physics in the 80s through finite automata instead of Mathematics, that must be the NKS. Is it actually (at least theoretically ;)) possible to calculate something with it, so that results match for instance Newtonian Physics?
Re: The Wolfram Physics Project
#74[deleted]
Re: The Wolfram Physics Project
#75Applying arbitrary iterated transformation rules on graphs is very, very cool.
But I don't think there's much in the way of existing theoretical math attacking this area.
Much will need to be invented / discovered.
Re: The Wolfram Physics Project
#76Could somebody explain to Stephen Wolfram physics is already underway and the normal way to join in is to publish your ideas in appropriate venues and submit them to peer review?
Well, his reasoning is sound enough - if his results are truly spectacular, it probably won’t matter that they weren’t published in peer reviewed venues.
At the same time, turning boring results into something fit for publishing can be very time consuming - more than the research itself, and at the opportunity cost of attacking juicier problems.
So if your goal is to utterly revolutionize a field, and you are very confident in your abilities to do so, it’s not the worst strategy in the world to just chase the ideas you’re most excited about and forgo the traditional bureaucratic paths.
Re: The Wolfram Physics Project
#77[deleted]
Re: The Wolfram Physics Project
#78Could somebody explain to Stephen Wolfram physics is already underway and the normal way to join in is to publish your ideas in appropriate venues and submit them to peer review?
Sure, let's force one of the most creative dude of this century back into the rigid pen others are allowed to play in, just in case he does something crazy and interesting.
What a lame idea, truly worthy of a mandarin.
Re: The Wolfram Physics Project
#79I wonder if this is in response to Eric Weinstein's Geometric Unity presentation he did on April 1st. Yesterday, on Lex Fridman's podcast, he mentioned how since he revealed his theory there wasnt any feedback from scientific community. BTW, highly recommend watching Eric's Portal.
I would love to see thorough, detailed analysis and critique of Weinstein's Geometric Unity theory and the latest version of Wolfram's cellular automata-like theory of reality. (Weinstein still needs to put up a formal paper, though.)
At the time of writing this comment, the majority of responses here are just calling the guy a pompous crank, rather than pointing out specific issues with the central claims of the proposal. Funny that this is on the website created by the guy who proposed the Hierarchy of Disagreement [0]. There are many comments with valid critiques, but so far there are more of the other kind.
Yeah, Wolfram and Weinstein have some eccentricities, and the intro section to this is kind of unnecessary and grating and could probably be cut out, but they're also very intelligent people who have discovered and created things which are both "new and true" (and/or new and useful) rather than merely "true or new, mutually exclusively" as people like to snidely parrot.
I'm not saying this theory or Weinstein's theory aren't necessarily irreparably riddled with holes. Just that the nature of the criticism often seems bizarre, poor quality, and directed at their personalities rather than their content, like in this comment section. It'd be much more refreshing to see it be criticized on its merits rather than its tone or the personality traits of its author.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Graham%27s_Hierarchy_of_D...
Re: The Wolfram Physics Project
#80Could somebody explain to Stephen Wolfram physics is already underway and the normal way to join in is to publish your ideas in appropriate venues and submit them to peer review?
N'ah. It's good that folks like Wolfram and Eric Weinstein are taking a different path. Sometimes that's what it takes for new breakthroughs to emerge. If nothing else it could spark new ideas or invigorate others to take bolder approaches and move outside their comfort zone.