Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

writings.stephenwolfram.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 376 posts

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

#161

Post by tsimionescu »

ALittleLight wrote: post #47
aero-glide2 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's a good thing to have a small percentage of scientists working on whacky theories, one of them might turn out to be true.

Plus it's not like Wolfram is taking resources away from other scientists as he is funded from his company. If Wolfram wasn't doing this he'd be CEO'ing his company, there's no cost to the public for Wolfram exploring this and potentially huge gains - though unlikely.

That was true about the Wolfram Physics Project. But now, the Wolfram Institute will compete for research funding, as he explains in the blog post. In fact, this is the whole point of creating the Institute: WPP couldn't scale up as it was eating too much of his own money, and he believes he needs to scale this up to actually bring the work to fruition.

> So far we’ve basically been incubating the Wolfram Institute within our existing organization, with me effectively footing the bill. But as we launch the full Wolfram Institute we need a larger scale of support, and we’re counting on having a network of people and organizations to provide that.

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

#163

Post by tsimionescu »

throwaway81523 wrote: post #129
dTal wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

No I don't see how to implement QM as a computer program while preserving basic complexity invariants of Turing machines. That is the point of quantum computing: that the complexity classes for quantum computers are different than those for Turing machines. If you take the view that that the whole Universe is one gigantic entangled quantum state, the cellular automaton simulation would get pretty bogged down.

Quantum Computers are no more powerful than Turing Machines, complexity has little to do with this. Quantum Mechanics, being a linear theory (if we exclude measurement) is actually relatively easy to describe computationally. The computations are incredibly slow, but otherwise they are perfectly in line with any other formulation of the theory.

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

#164

Post by underdeserver »

m12k wrote: post #156
underdeserver wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My problem with Wolfram is that every time I hear him talk or read him, I end up spending 15-20 minutes and come out the other end confused. I studied physics in my undergrad, I have a graduate degree in math, I've shipped large features on planet-scale systems. I'm no genius, certainly nowhere close to Dr. Wolfram, but I don't think I'm far from your average HN reader in reading comprehension ability. I've read 35 p…

Try reading his one year update instead[1] "But now this deflection is not in physical space but in branchial space. The fundamental underlying mathematical structure is the same in both cases. But the interpretation in terms of traditional physics is different. And in what to me is a singularly beautiful result of our models it turns out that what gives the Einstein equations in physical space gives the Feynman path…

It sure sounds promising. Lots of things do. This is why we have peer review and standard publishing practices.

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

#165

Post by tsimionescu »

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…

> He’s done a fantastic job creating a new model for understanding reality, some of which suggest interesting physical structures underlying our Universe. He’s changed my understanding of evolution completely with his insights on computational irreducibility and complexity.

> And he’s laying the groundwork for understanding the meta-rules that undergird not just our Universe, but all possible Universes. It’s fantastic stuff.

What are you basing this on? This is the key point: so far, he has only vaguely gestured to such a model, built a whole mathematical tower around it, and is now claiming that this is directly applicable in vastly different domains. If this were a random forum poster saying it, it would smell to high heavens of someone who has no idea what they're speaking about noticing vague similarities between domains and hand waving a mathematical framework that would explain those similarities into being. This being Stephen Wolfram, he definitely knows something about those domains, but I still think it's almost impossible for his claims to be right.

At the very best, he has come up with a powerful mathematical abstraction, perhaps akin to Category Theory: something which can be used to model and relate extremely different phenomena, and allow insights from one domain to be used in another; but which typically doesn't in itself create much knowledge directly. Edit: to be clear, this would be an extraordinary achievement in itself. But it wouldn't "revolutionize science".

Otherwise, when you claim your model can be used equally well in the foundations of physics, economics, pure mathematics, evolutionary biology, computer science and chemistry - it's entirely on you to first prove this absolutely extraordinary claim. Making it with a gentle wave of the hand towards the future and then asking for money to get there raises all possible red flags.

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

#166

Post by d--b »

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…

Oh come on!

We call him delusional cause he has lost all humility. He is utterly convinced that he discovered the underlying mechanism of literally everything from physics to eceonomics. Delusion of grandeur is a well-known psychological condition, and no matter what you think of the science, it's hard to argue that Wolfram doesn't have it.

Why can't he just say: "hey I've got this idea, it's crazy, but you know what? I am going to pursue it and see where it leads, anyone wants to join?" Noone would be annoyed by that.

Whether being delusional affects the way you work, I would tend to think so, but you can think otherwise...

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

#167

Post by emteycz »

mayankkaizen wrote: post #153
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…

I try to read everything Wolfram has written and generally finds his writings quite enjoyable. After reading lots of hsi writings, I noticed one thing which I don't like. It seems like he always tries to belittle other giants (albeit in indirect ways) and project himself as an ultimate intellectual. Even in one of his writing about Feynman, he tried to show that even Feynman sometimed couldn't match his genius. Never…

Maybe he simply can't escape his impostor syndrome. It's not always nefarious.

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

#168

Post by emteycz »

poulpy123 wrote: post #157
m12k wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's attempting to come up with a new way to model observable physical phenomena. If that's not science, then neither are Feynman diagrams, complex numbers or even calculus. Whether it will prove useful like the above models still remains to be seen, but calling it "not science" seems ahistoric. Let's see if they can evolve the theory to the point where it can make novel predictions. If it never makes one, then the m…

When you work in a research institute, you get used of receiving messages of people thinking they have a new theoritical model explaining physics. But that's not how science works. When you're a scientist you work on a specific topic of a specific branch of a specific science. Then you publish your work in one of the mainstream revue of your field. Then if your work is interesting, other scientists use your article t…

Universities and science academies are full of guys loudly announcing their revolutions. Wolfram uses his own money for it - I respect that.

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

#169

Post by daniel-thompson »

gradschool wrote: post #139
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…

> Richard Feynman himself frequently collaborated with Wolfram By way of a historical note relevant to the current topic, there was a funny exchange between Wolfram and Feynman recorded in the collection of Feynman's letters edited by his daughter. Wolfram started a letter with "Dear Feynman", I imagine because English public school boys don't use first names that much, and floated the idea of starting a scientific i…

What the letter from Feynman to Wolfram^ actually said was:

> You say you want to create your own environment - but you will not be doing that: you will create (perhaps!) an environment that you might like to work in - but you will not be working in this environment - you will be administrating it - and the administration environment is not what you seek - is it? You won't enjoy administrating people because you won't succeed in it.

> You don't understand "ordinary people". To you they are "stupid fools" - so you will not tolerate them or treat their foibles with tolerance or patience - but will drive yourself wild (or they will drive you wild) trying to deal with them in an effective way.

I've never worked for SW but judging by e.g. the employee comments for WR on Glassdoor^, this seems pretty on-the-nose to me.

^ https://www.cantorsparadise.com/richard-feynmans-advice-to-a...

^ https://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/Wolfram-Research-Reviews-E...

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

#170

Post by scoot »

jazzyjackson wrote: post #121
ace2358 wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

John von Nuemann comes to mind, Edison of course... seems history is written by the patent submitters

And Charles Darwin (about 600 years late): https://extendedevolutionarysynthesis.com/resources/timeline...
Post reply on HN