271–280 of 342 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We dont know if physical randomness truly is so. It could be pseudo random with a seed (superdeterminism)
how about Conway-Kochen's Free Will Theorem? is it compatible with superdeterminism?
I briefly read through the article. As a PhD student in theoretical physics, I can see that some basic ideas of gr and qm can be interpreted out of these graphs. But I’m not convinced why these graphs have to be generated by a single rule. I don’t see any motivation in restricting to a single rule or even procedural generation at all. It also reminds me of the casual set theory that I heard briefly from a professor a…
Wolfram claims that they don't need to be; on the contrary. Take another look at the last section of the article.
Incorrect predictions are all the rage nowadays, so here is mine: they will find an infinite amount of rule sets that could be the fundamental theory. However, none of it would be testable, so people would pick their own based on their notion of simplicity and beauty. Eventually people would start looking into common properties of the candidate solutions and transformations between them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oy, I've been dreading having to answer this question since I pressed "post" :) I've decided that I do not have the time or interest in writing the Related Work section for a paper-length blog post touching on an enormous number of fields, some of which I know well and some of which I haven't thought about in a decade. (As an aside, one real and substantive problem with trying to build a research program without taki…
Earlier you wrote 'For example, his "emulation cones" are a new name for a very old and extremely well-studied idea. The term "rulial space", similarly, is a new name for an idea that's well-developed in programming language theory.' I don't understand how things could be extremely well studied and developed, but also not exist in some fashion where you could just name and link to it in a matter of minutes rather tha…
Emulation cones go by various names, but perhaps the most common is the (bounded) reflexive and transitive closure of a reduction rules of a system. Another common name is the (bounded) reachable set.
Rulial spaces, by which I mean the particular ones Stephen seems interested in toward the end, are higher order term rewriting systems or higher order syntax. But actually, rulial space is used throughout the text in a much more general sense. I'd consider even very canonical results from PL theory, e.g. confluence of rewriting, to be non-trivial observations about a particular rulial space.
The reason for giving (or at least very vaguely hinting at) a definition for rulial spaces and emulation cones is to talk about foliations and then expressiveness. There's some connection between foliation and bisimulation that's difficult to exactly nail down, because nailing it down requires a lot more precision about the exact sort of (emulation cones we are interested in and for which) spaces. The connection between expressiveness and complexity hierarchies is immediately obvious, I think, right?
> One frustrating thing that I often find is that much of Wolfram criticism is non-specific and as it's impossible for me to bucket Wolfram I can't bucket his critics either because they tend not to provide enough detail or clarity.
Oy, no good deed goes unpunished :)
Look, I get why it's frustrating.
But, really, there's a reason that rule #0 of technical writing is to define terms before using them. The reader can only do so much.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oy, I've been dreading having to answer this question since I pressed "post" :) I've decided that I do not have the time or interest in writing the Related Work section for a paper-length blog post touching on an enormous number of fields, some of which I know well and some of which I haven't thought about in a decade. (As an aside, one real and substantive problem with trying to build a research program without taki…
Specifically just looking for a brief explanation of this line: >For example, his "emulation cones" are a new name for a very old and extremely well-studied idea. The term "rulial space", similarly, is a new name for an idea that's well-developed in programming language theory.' What's the old well-studied idea, and the well-developed programming theory idea? A one sentence reply is fine.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would like the PL theory analogue of "emulation cones" and "rulial space" please :) If these concepts don't have a single name that you can just rattle off, and that we can Google - if describing them in terms of existing theory would take serious effort - then surely identifying and naming them is a major contribution?
PL theory is a bit of a hobby of mine, but I don't really see an exact equivalent to what Wolfram seems to be describing. His rules are like rules in a term rewriting system, but the rules of rulial space are permitted to change so they may be more expressive, perhaps like a higher-order rewrite system.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have no stake in this at all and (I literally just learned what "Wolfram Derangement Syndrome" was by reading the comments that you linked to). It looks like you've said several times in the past that the people talking about Wolfram's self-obsession are practicing a "counterversion" of the same thing, but you've never explained why or how; to me, it seems obvious that being obsessed with another person who you don…
I'm talking about a collective phenomenon that accrues out of many individual contributions. Sometimes this is metaphorically called the hivemind. What builds up in these threads is an obsession with Wolfram that is even more Wolfram-obsessed than the Wolfram-obsession Wolfram is charged with. This is unmistakeable, and always happens the same way. Out of the material of these comments, a Golem arises that is a varia…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
The guy pretty much single handedly built a profitable company that enables him to pursue whatever research interests he want, and that’s been going for over 30 years. They hate him cause they ain’t him.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm talking about a collective phenomenon that accrues out of many individual contributions. Sometimes this is metaphorically called the hivemind. What builds up in these threads is an obsession with Wolfram that is even more Wolfram-obsessed than the Wolfram-obsession Wolfram is charged with. This is unmistakeable, and always happens the same way. Out of the material of these comments, a Golem arises that is a varia…
Surely there are other people this applies to much more commonly on HN? Musk and Jobs jump to mind.