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

371–376 of 376 posts

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

#371

Post by emteycz »

morelisp wrote: post #370
emteycz wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody has to listen to Wolfram. Close his graphomaniac blog and forget about him. On the other hand, academic credit (not merit) will get you much further than money in many cases - and the lack of it (while not lacking merit) is a serious impediment on the progress of many scientific projects. The difference? Socialism. Wolfram uses his own taxed income to further his goals, while meritless scientists use the broke…

Bourbaki's academic credit doesn't get Bourbaki grants.

It does. The people assigning grants know and will take it into account.

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

#372

Post by isitmadeofglass »

jazzyjackson wrote: post #123
isitmadeofglass wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I know Mathematica was first on the NeXT, but never considered their meeting; anywhere I can read more about that?

I believe that it’s mentioned in some of Wolframs blog posts, but my search failed me. But it’s covered by the guardian here https://amp.theguardian.com/theobserver/2011/dec/11/steve-jo...

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

#373

Post by [deleted] »

fristechill wrote: post #214
logicchains wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>But he’s on the side of science and reason, so he’s our ego-maniac. Humility and the ability to recognise and accept when we're wrong is one of the fundamental characteristics of science. People with big egos are the enemies of science.

Humility before the truth is vital but not necessarily humility as expressed in one's public statements. Indeed psychoticism was identified by the psychologist Hans Eysenck as one of the traits of genius, including scientific genius. Psychoticism is a package which includes associative thinking, creativity, disagreeableness, lack of empathy, antisocial nature, introversion, coldness, aggression, high self-esteem. The…

[deleted]

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

#374

Post by aj7 »

esperent wrote: post #71
teruakohatu wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Practically it can lead to better encryption like I linked above, superior understanding and prediction of weather This is the problem. Maybe it will, but as of yet nobody has figured out a practical application beyond "helping us appreciate nature" (replace nature with any chaotic system). We are pretty good with weather prediction and getting better all the time. The fundamental problem is the chaotic nature. CA…

> This is the problem. Maybe it will, but as of yet nobody has figured out a practical application beyond "helping us appreciate nature" (replace nature with any chaotic system). Why is this a problem? Doing maths purely for its own sake is as valid and useful as painting a picture, or cooking a delicious meal instead of just eating dry bread. If that's not good enough for you, there are plenty of examples of maths t…

You are certainly right. But what I was referring to was CA being linked to physics, but without any tangible link.

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

#375

Post by aj7 »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #119
esperent wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is the problem. Maybe it will, but as of yet nobody has figured out a practical application beyond "helping us appreciate nature" (replace nature with any chaotic system). Why is this a problem? Doing maths purely for its own sake is as valid and useful as painting a picture, or cooking a delicious meal instead of just eating dry bread. If that's not good enough for you, there are plenty of examples of maths t…

It's a problem when someone is claiming that a technique Solves the Big Problems when it clearly doesn't. Maybe it will one day, and no one is saying it's not an interesting avenue to explore. But making grandiose claims is not doing science. Making novel falsifiable concrete predictions is science, and Wolfram hasn't made enough of those to justify the extreme self-regard.

I think it is fair to assert that if maybe one day it will solve big problems, that it should have solved a little problem already.

Quantum mechanics rapidly gained credibility because once its formalism became established, it was easy to show how classical mechanics came out of it in a limit.

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

#376

Post by aj7 »

aero-glide2 wrote: post #43
aj7 wrote: post #28

I’ve had more downvotes sharing my opinions about cellular automata on HN than on any other topic, so I won’t make any here. Rather, I’d like to point out that I personally have not seen a single theory, not a single piece of a theory, known to be productive in explaining experimental data, recast with underlying cellular automata theory. If I am simply showing my ignorance, please enlighten me. Meanwhile, the clock…

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.

We should also note when high credibility scientists work on something for a while and then drop it altogether.
Post reply on HN