We’ve got a science opportunity overload: Launching the Wolfram Institute

Post by jazzyjackson » Thu, Apr 07, 2022, 9:07 AM UTC

ace2358 wrote: post #90

pwdisswordfish9 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The joke is that the discoveries attributed to “Stephen Wolfram” are actually the work of multiple people, none of whom are actually named that.

I mean, I studied maths and physics at uni. My recollection is that science is littered with things named after specific people when in actual fact multiple people put in hours and hours of work to making these discoveries. But only one name gets slapped on it. ‘Maxwell’s’ equations are a great example. Calculus is also a prime example (d/dx f(x) vs f’(x)). I’m pretty sure Gauss was a fantastic mathematician, but too…

Post by jazzyjackson » Thu, Apr 07, 2022, 9:12 AM UTC

isitmadeofglass wrote: post #89

noizejoy wrote: post #78

Could be a fun ask HN: What would happen if Mr. Wolfram and Mr. Musk would have to share the same room for a while?

Good question. Wolfram shared some time with Steve Jobs once and Mathematica happened. /jk of cause, but it actually was Jobs who came up with the idea for the name.

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Apr 07, 2022, 9:19 AM UTC

DantesKite wrote: post #73

Man these are some low-quality comments. You’d think Wolfram was torturing gerbils or something. I don’t mind criticisms of my favorite thinkers. I enjoy watching someone being taken to task in the battle of ideas so to speak, but apparently something about Wolfram just rubs people the wrong way, because they seem to lose the ability to make cogent arguments after reading him. As a simple example of what a healthy di…

Post by morelisp » Thu, Apr 07, 2022, 9:22 AM UTC

yetihehe wrote: post #94

DantesKite wrote: post #73

Man these are some low-quality comments. You’d think Wolfram was torturing gerbils or something. I don’t mind criticisms of my favorite thinkers. I enjoy watching someone being taken to task in the battle of ideas so to speak, but apparently something about Wolfram just rubs people the wrong way, because they seem to lose the ability to make cogent arguments after reading him. As a simple example of what a healthy di…

There was once a book, "100 Authors Against Einstein"[0]. Expect opposition against everything you do. Those who are against are just typically more vocal than those who don't know yet. Those who support Wolfram typically are busy doing research and don't care about commenting, they have better things to do than answer every naysayer 1v1. I'm in the "we'll see" camp, but I don't like naysayers. [0] https://archive.or…

Post by throwaway81523 » Thu, Apr 07, 2022, 9:28 AM UTC

dTal wrote: post #108

throwaway81523 wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I can give you any number of cellular automata that model our current understanding of quantum physics right now, no problem Ok, I'm interested in seeing something like that. If you have a link, I'll take a look--thanks. (If you're thinking of 't Hooft's, then I know about it, but its predictions are in serious conflict with mainstream physics, from what I understand).

It's not really that interesting. Can you write it in a computer program? Then you can write it in a cellular automata, because many of them are Turing complete: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_110#The_proof_of_universa... https://conwaylife.com/wiki/Turing_machine And yes, this is a cheap trick. That's the point. "Porting" our current theories to some new, whacky substrate, peeking at the textbooks all the while,…