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

How to Think Computationally about AI, the Universe and Everything

writings.stephenwolfram.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 81 posts

Re: How to Think Computationally about AI, the Universe and Everything

#21

Post by WhitneyLand »

haskellandchill wrote: post #4

Why are none of these things wikipedia articles? Or getting any traction in google scholar? I actually am not against what Wolfram is saying and it's interesting to see the link between general relativity and quantum mechanics in this line of thinking, but come on, something is fishy.

Really, this is the reason:

“…theoretical physicist Wolfgang Pauli, was known for his colorful objections to incorrect or careless thinking.

Rudolf Peierls documents an instance in which "a friend showed Pauli the paper of a young physicist which he suspected was not of great value but on which he wanted Pauli's views.

Pauli remarked sadly, 'It is not even wrong'."”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong

Re: How to Think Computationally about AI, the Universe and Everything

#23

Post by zug_zug »

I'm trying to evaluate this and like everyone else I'm unconvinced defaulting to doubtful (great claims need great evidence).

Perhaps it would help if he had clarified what he meant by:

`So then here’s the big result. What observers with those characteristics perceive in the ruliad necessarily follows certain laws. And those laws turn out to be precisely the three key theories of 20th-century physics: general relativity, quantum mechanics, and statistical mechanics and the Second Law. `

So it sounds like he's saying that if you take an arbitrary system of generating infinite rules and apply it to itself, you'll make a system that shares traits of our universe, which if true is actually fascinating in itself. Curious if any advocates can speak to evidence of this claim.

Re: How to Think Computationally about AI, the Universe and Everything

#24

Post by coder-3 »

jfengel wrote: post #15
kromem wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't think it's implausible? Reading this line didn't set off any red flags? "And that the structure of space and everything in it is just defined by the network of relations between these elements—that we might call atoms of space. It’s very elegant—but deeply abstract." How about this one, shortly after describing "in the history of science there's four models": "But now there’s something even more: in our Phy…

It's really distressing that I can't tell this from the usual physics crank gibberish. He's smarter than that. Or at least he used to be. It's scary because I was never as smart as he used to be. I could be even more off base with even less to back it up, and equally unable to see that.

Raw IQ doesn't mean you'll have good epistemology. His brain lets him reach deeper abstractions than most but it doesn't mean what he comes up with is grounded in base reality. If you're worried about being off-base, try:

- Contact with reality (feedback). Predict, try, did it work?

- Having a good reasoning framework. For some it's 1. Religious text, 2. what others they respect think, 3. reasoning for understanding. This is not the worst but not the best. Perhaps a better one would be 1. Science/rationality, 2. religious/philosophical/spiritual texts, 3. first principles thinking

- Humility, you don't know anything unless you have great reasoning and empirical evidence to back up what you're saying. Even then, when faced with complexity (i.e. unless you are dealing with the most atomic/simple concept), you're still almost certainly wrong.

Re: How to Think Computationally about AI, the Universe and Everything

#25

Post by kromem »

andromaton wrote: post #13
kromem wrote: post #12

It's pretty wild to have gone from watching a lecture from Neil Turok (who is currently my favorite theoretical physicist with a "here's my idea for what physics currently has wrong with its model") and looking at Wolfram's rambling. Between this and the recent "techno-optimist" rant, I get the sense that maybe we shouldn't give popular voices platforms for things outside the scope that made them famous in the first…

Wolfram has a PhD in physics. *Jordan

Indeed. Here's his dissertation: https://thesis.library.caltech.edu/2597/

Does it maybe read a bit different from the post above?

Roger Penrose has a Nobel Prize in physics. But his consciousness collapse interpretation and "consciousness arises from microtubules" interpretations aren't taken very seriously, nor is his fecund universes cosmology.

And his work on those things is arguably much more rigorous relative to what Wolfram is doing here - but still falls short of what serious theories by serious theoretical physicists involve.

A dissertation extending views of particle physics under the supervision of Feynman is a very different story from reinventing physics 40 years later with the 'superpowers' of your own mathematical language as best expressed by what happens to generative AI rendering a cat in a party hat.

Re: How to Think Computationally about AI, the Universe and Everything

#26

Post by tsunamifury »

nologic01 wrote: post #17

Its harsh to say it, but Wolfram tried his best at a computational theory of everything and failed. We didn't know this is in the eighties, when the first cellular automata ideas were conceived. So it was a worthy thing to explore in earnest. But it did not work. There is nothing to show for it. It did not strike a vein. These things happen. All the time. You have a great startup idea but no market fit. In this case…

You might really enjoy All Watched Over By Machines of Loving Grace. He wasn’t the first to try this, and many failed before him. Most people don’t know that the entire concept of the “ecosystem” comes from a computational view of ecology.

It’s bigger problem than just to this. It’s that we’ve based everything off the Club of Rome style mindset of society and it’s all failed. But we haven’t figured out another way. So climate change, politics, democracy and marketing all continue to try to figure out the computational stable state of society.

Re: How to Think Computationally about AI, the Universe and Everything

#27

Post by kromem »

jfengel wrote: post #15
kromem wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't think it's implausible? Reading this line didn't set off any red flags? "And that the structure of space and everything in it is just defined by the network of relations between these elements—that we might call atoms of space. It’s very elegant—but deeply abstract." How about this one, shortly after describing "in the history of science there's four models": "But now there’s something even more: in our Phy…

It's really distressing that I can't tell this from the usual physics crank gibberish. He's smarter than that. Or at least he used to be. It's scary because I was never as smart as he used to be. I could be even more off base with even less to back it up, and equally unable to see that.

The key is the oft repeated "deeply abstract."

The whole thing reminds me of a book written by one of the researchers who was first reviewing the Dead Sea Scrolls.

An expert on his field, he eventually writes a book about how everything was actually connected to magic mushrooms. But the key is - it's all using abstract references and coded language.

So much like how online "pedophile investigators" suddenly saw flying in Chicago deep dish pizza as code for child trafficking because triangles are coded symbolism - it becomes a self fulfilling abstraction.

Redefine first principles off a presumed conclusion with enough abstraction and you can magically arrive at that conclusion from those first principles in ways no one can understand unless they embrace your abstractions! Crazy, right?

Re: How to Think Computationally about AI, the Universe and Everything

#28

Post by IAmGraydon »

There’s something I’ve always enjoyed about Wolfram’s willingness to put the rules aside and formulate theories based on intuition and out-of-the-box thinking. I don’t think he’s right here, but it’s that kind of thinking that sometimes leads to important scientific discoveries.

Re: How to Think Computationally about AI, the Universe and Everything

#29

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

tsunamifury wrote: post #26
nologic01 wrote: post #17

Its harsh to say it, but Wolfram tried his best at a computational theory of everything and failed. We didn't know this is in the eighties, when the first cellular automata ideas were conceived. So it was a worthy thing to explore in earnest. But it did not work. There is nothing to show for it. It did not strike a vein. These things happen. All the time. You have a great startup idea but no market fit. In this case…

You might really enjoy All Watched Over By Machines of Loving Grace. He wasn’t the first to try this, and many failed before him. Most people don’t know that the entire concept of the “ecosystem” comes from a computational view of ecology. It’s bigger problem than just to this. It’s that we’ve based everything off the Club of Rome style mindset of society and it’s all failed. But we haven’t figured out another way. S…

> It’s that we’ve based everything off the Club of Rome style mindset of society

What is this supposed to be a reference to?

Re: How to Think Computationally about AI, the Universe and Everything

#30

Post by famouswaffles »

WhitneyLand wrote: post #18
andromaton wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wolfram has a PhD in physics. *Jordan

That doesn’t provide any guarantees that he’s not evolved into, a crank with money. Looking at Physics historically there are multiple examples of scientists who did productive and fully credible work in their prime and later ended up stuck on crank theories.

It doesn't prove anything. It does make his Jordan comparison disingenuous at best. It's weird enough to gatekeep posting theories (nobody has to believe or even seriously consider them!), even odder to do so for a PhD holder in the field.
Post reply on HN