The Wolfram Physics Project

Post by ldlework » Wed, Apr 15, 2020, 11:16 PM UTC

Rury wrote: post #261

How is what’s mentioned here, not just the old idea of determinism demonstrated or shown from a different perspective? I always thought science was biased toward the assumption that the universe follows basic deterministic rules, and the purpose of doing science was to find the nature of those rules. What I mean by this, is that when we do science, we are trying to determine the nature behind things - are we not? The…

Post by ncmncm » Thu, Apr 16, 2020, 5:38 AM UTC

AgentME wrote: post #247

I've always liked the idea that the universe worked something like a cellular automaton at its lowest level, but I was always uncomfortable with how that presupposed a specific grid and a very rigid system of time. This system of hypergraph-rewriting excites me because it seems like a more generalized form/alternative to cellular automatons that fixes these issues. And then it's super exciting to see that you can get…

Post by Meditato » Fri, Apr 17, 2020, 12:42 AM UTC

abnry wrote: post #211

thomashobohm wrote: post #194

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…

Yeah, I am not seeing the mirroring claimed. Salesman projects a reality distortion field. Potential buyers end up complaining about the RDF during the latest product advertisement. It is clearly a reaction, and in that sense a "mirror", but they aren't copying the behavior by projecting a reality distortion field themselves.

Post by mikhailfranco » Fri, Apr 17, 2020, 2:59 PM UTC

ur-whale wrote: post #75

Applying 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.

Post by gjvc » Fri, Apr 17, 2020, 5:49 PM UTC

jjoonathan wrote: post #199

mnemonicsloth wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> no more Wolfram Derangement Syndrome comments, please. They're off topic because they're always the same, and they compose into a weird counterversion of the very thing they're deriding. If you really can't stand it then kill the thread. But Wolfram is a bad actor in a discipline that runs on reputation. He needs to be talked about.

Agreed. Not talking about it sends a very clear message of implicit endorsement and agreement. In contrast, talking about it teaches those who haven't encountered him before how he works. Without that knowledge, one is liable to either get swept up in his aggressive, self-centered reality distortion field or reject him outright as blogspam. Neither response is appropriate. He deserves positive attention for his ideas…