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

A book from Alan Turing and a mysterious piece of paper

blog.stephenwolfram.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 95 posts

Re: A book from Alan Turing and a mysterious piece of paper

#31

Post by scottlocklin »

tlb wrote: post #16
scottlocklin wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I dunno, I think it's pretty easy to judge the value of not easily testable wacky conjectures. I don't think much of Penrose's idea that brains are quantum gravitic computers either, and that is vastly more close to being testable, and Penrose's achievements and track record in actual science are also vastly more impressive. Putting that aside; computer guys seem to think "computability" is important in physics. I do…

The conjecture that our universe is isomorphic to a CA is absolutely testable. When we find a CA that behaves just like the universe, we'll know it's true. If we find a completely different way of computing it that doesn't map to a CA, we'll know it's false. Computable physics would be extremely useful. Even with coarse approximations you can only integrate the Schrödinger equation among hundreds of particles. So you…

> ... Computable physics would be extremely useful.

Yeah, undoubtedly, but that has nothing to do with it being true.

Wolfram doesn't make the case, at all, that it might be true, nor does he suggest any reason a CA might be a better model than the Schroedinger equation, or a way of searching for CA oriented models. The fact that modeling physical equations is difficult on a Turing machine is probably telling you something interesting about nature, rather than telling you to dispose of equations as models of reality.

The whole thing is about as useful as Tipler's idea that God is a supercomputer at the end of the universe. Maybe thought provoking for certain kinds of people, but not helpful at all in the business of figuring out how the universe works, or useful things to do on a computer. It's basically an exotic form of science fiction with a higher than average cognitive load.

Re: A book from Alan Turing and a mysterious piece of paper

#32

Post by jakear »

thebooktocome wrote: post #15
gcbw3 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it's an openly debated topic, ranging from a simple accident to bullying by the state and other conspiracy theories. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Turing#Death

"Bullying by the state" is not a conspiracy theory. He was actually, objectively punished by the state in a manner that is considered cruel and inhumane by modern standards.

GP may be referring to the actual definition of “conspiracy theory”, in that there are many theories of state conspiracy against Turing.

Re: A book from Alan Turing and a mysterious piece of paper

#33

Post by knodi123 »

c3534l wrote: post #24
stupidcar wrote: post #19

A real shame that Wolfram gives credence to "handwriting analysis" pseudoscience in what is otherwise an interesting piece. > “The writing style is entirely different. Personality-wise, the writer of sample B has a quicker, more intuitive thinking style than the one of sample A.” How can anybody of Wolfram's intelligence unquestioningly accept this nonsense?

Because handwriting analysts tell people they are an accepted branch of psychology and there is not enough time in the day to question everything. At some point, I heard handwriting analysis was pseudoscience, so I looked into it and they were right. I've not looked into whether quantum physics is pseudoscience because the people in my life who appear to be experts in the subject tell me it's real and I don't feel li…

my magic 8 ball says "Insightful"

Re: A book from Alan Turing and a mysterious piece of paper

#34

Post by maynordgayle »

This guy is borderline fraud. Far from your typical scientist.

The way he plays people by distorting historical facts about personal encounters or other personal events.

Example: He claims to know person x, which is correct, he may know person x. But often than not I have seen how he almost always puts in his sugar lies. Knows X and he knows why X did this or took this course of action.

All I can say, beware of this guy and his many anecdotes he shares about loving people that “he knows” or claims to know.

Re: A book from Alan Turing and a mysterious piece of paper

#35

Post by galonk »

I know SW is famous for his arrogance/egotism, but it still kills me how he always discusses everything in terms of Mathematica's programming language, instead of mathematical notation or pseudo-code. It's like giving a linguistics lecture using the made-up language you invented with your twin.

Re: A book from Alan Turing and a mysterious piece of paper

#36

Post by twic »

If you follow the link to the obituary for Nicholas Kermack in the Eton Chronicle, then turn to the next page, you will see that at the time it was edited by Roger Clarke, who went on to be a film reviewer for The Independent, and also someone called Boris Johnson.

Re: A book from Alan Turing and a mysterious piece of paper

#37

Post by tazjin »

galonk wrote: post #35

I know SW is famous for his arrogance/egotism, but it still kills me how he always discusses everything in terms of Mathematica's programming language, instead of mathematical notation or pseudo-code. It's like giving a linguistics lecture using the made-up language you invented with your twin.

This seems unsurprising to me. Presumably the language he designed fits his way of thinking, and he uses it to express his thoughts.

As long as you still understand it he succeeded in using it to communicate, and with some people that's a lot better than them not communicating at all because they have to use someone else's language.

If someone comes up with an amazing construct in an invented language and gets any outside eyeballs on it that can understand it, someone will transcribe it into a more common notation anyways.

Re: A book from Alan Turing and a mysterious piece of paper

#38

Post by avip »

stupidcar wrote: post #19

A real shame that Wolfram gives credence to "handwriting analysis" pseudoscience in what is otherwise an interesting piece. > “The writing style is entirely different. Personality-wise, the writer of sample B has a quicker, more intuitive thinking style than the one of sample A.” How can anybody of Wolfram's intelligence unquestioningly accept this nonsense?

Equally interesting - have you read the research that (dis)credits handwriting analysis, or you just unquestionably accept that it's nonsense?

Similar to other personality-related pseudopseudosciences, there's enough contradicting research to form any opinion (or, more commonly, to support your pre-existing one) [1] [2].

I think the popularity of this method is mainly the result of Forer effect [0]

  [1] https://sci-hub.se/https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/019188699290220J?via%3Dihub
  [2] https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/3af1/3afd31c55f87c2b1871afe6fc6633e2a2df0.pdf
  [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnum_effect

Re: A book from Alan Turing and a mysterious piece of paper

#39

Post by TheGallopedHigh »

teilo wrote: post #14
masteranza wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed. Not only can one get a glance of a unique perspective of one of the founding fathers, but also a lot of important facts not covered in many other textbooks. One of such facts are the low heat capacities of atoms that do not fit any classical theory. This fact alone is able to kill most of the "alternative" interpretations of quantum mechanics that the popular media sell-off as "science" nowadays.

Where can I read more about this?

I believe you should be able to read about it in the aforementioned book

Re: A book from Alan Turing and a mysterious piece of paper

#40

Post by radicaldreamer »

maynordgayle wrote: post #34

This guy is borderline fraud. Far from your typical scientist. The way he plays people by distorting historical facts about personal encounters or other personal events. Example: He claims to know person x, which is correct, he may know person x. But often than not I have seen how he almost always puts in his sugar lies. Knows X and he knows why X did this or took this course of action. All I can say, beware of this…

Are you talking about Stephen wolfram? His eccentricities are well known... at the same time, his accomplishments are undeniable?
Post reply on HN