21–30 of 40 posts
In the article, Dr. Wolfram claims that computer programs, not mathematics, is the best way to model the universe. However, hasn't Lambda Calculus (and therefore functional programming) shown that the two are the same?
I came across Scott Aaronson's review of NKS a few days ago and loved it: http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0206089 . I would recommend reading that to anyone who is also looking at Wolfram's work.
My theory is that that review, and Shalizi's, are as popular as they are because nothing is more convenient than learning one doesn't have to actually do the work of considering a (set of) new ideas and perspectives.
That being said, I took a look at your website and GitHub (not to mention your employer, Wolfram Research) and it's obvious you know what you're talking about - I don't think you should be being downvoted as heavily in this thread as you are. Plus you made a Futurama reference, so you're obviously a cool dude.
My point is, let's all avoid implying that people who don't agree with us aren't qualified to discuss this subject. I think both of us are, and Wolfram is a pretty polarizing subject - one that all sides need to keep civil about sometimes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That doesn't make sense in the context of my comment, and besides, i don't think that's true. If you take the Turing Test to it's logical conclusion, a program that is indistinguishable from a human intelligence is a human intelligence. There's no means to some other end. The program is the intelligence. This is also something that Turing came up with in the 40s & 50s. Not exactly novel.
Uh... well, I'm getting Wolfram's take right. So you don't think my analogy is true? It's just an analogy. But it's clear that it has methodological implications for how one does science: For example, if you think computers are just a way to simulate continuous systems, it would not occur to you to sample random programs and see what they do. It would not occur to you to enumerate simple programs. And you wouldn't th…
The first i am agnostic to (although i do like the feynman quote at the top of http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0206089v2 which was linked to above), and the second is most certainly false, as i have indicated above.
The evidence in NKS to support wolfram's assertion that the universe is a simple program is circumstantial at best, and so his windmill tilting quests for the program that is the universe seems quixotic at best, and arrogantly foolhardy at worst.
Analytical modeling, algorithmic modeling, or whatever other model someone wants to use to represent reality are models until you can prove them to actually be fundamentally connected with the manner in which reality functions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
http://www.amazon.com/review/RUGSCP3XBNBUV/ref=cm_cr_dp_perm...
There seems to be a strong inverse correlation between claims of having read the book and actually having read the book. I haven't read the whole thing, but I've read enough to know that this particular Zuse-head is bullshitting. I'll list just a couple of errors that would be impossible to make if one had read even most of the book. Wolfram often pedantically reiterates the same points, so keep in mind that these th…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My theory is that that review, and Shalizi's, are as popular as they are because nothing is more convenient than learning one doesn't have to actually do the work of considering a (set of) new ideas and perspectives.
Well, I wrote my thesis about cellular automata, and I promise I've considered Wolfram's set of ideas and perspectives. So while I can't prove anything about the popularity of Aaronson's review in general, your hypothesis is demonstrably false in at least n=1 instance. That being said, I took a look at your website and GitHub (not to mention your employer, Wolfram Research) and it's obvious you know what you're talki…
But, let me say, you're right. But I do think its part of their popularity. Also the fact that they're both very entertaining and erudite writers. And sure, there are plenty of valid criticisms, and they make them.
Off to read your thesis..
I came across Scott Aaronson's review of NKS a few days ago and loved it: http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0206089 . I would recommend reading that to anyone who is also looking at Wolfram's work.
My theory is that that review, and Shalizi's, are as popular as they are because nothing is more convenient than learning one doesn't have to actually do the work of considering a (set of) new ideas and perspectives.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There seems to be a strong inverse correlation between claims of having read the book and actually having read the book. I haven't read the whole thing, but I've read enough to know that this particular Zuse-head is bullshitting. I'll list just a couple of errors that would be impossible to make if one had read even most of the book. Wolfram often pedantically reiterates the same points, so keep in mind that these th…
It would have been nice if you had listed that disclosure first, so I could have skipped over your comment entirely.
Wolfram just has an arrogant position that he somehow brought them down from the mountain top for us mere mortals to consume. He didn't. He isn't. Smart man? Yes. Good ideas? Yes. Novel? No.
Did Wolfram ever get around to giving credit to Zuse and Fredkin? http://shell.cas.usf.edu/~wclark/ANKOS_zuse_fredkin_thesis.h...
In the article, Dr. Wolfram claims that computer programs, not mathematics, is the best way to model the universe. However, hasn't Lambda Calculus (and therefore functional programming) shown that the two are the same?