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

Alpha Geek

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 40 posts

Re: Alpha Geek

#31

Post by taliesinb »

knowtheory wrote: post #23
taliesinb wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

No, you're making the assertion first, that everyone positively asserts that the universe is continuous, and second that computer scientists see algorithmic systems as being simulations of analytical systems. 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 abov…

Re: NKS theory of physics. You're right, it's far from convincing. But it is intriguing speculation, and I think he adequately hedges it as such. Some fascinating partial results are that the natural restriction he introduces for graph automata to be deterministic are enough to induce special and general relativity. That's pretty eery!

Re models: now we're getting into epistemology. I don't think the aim you ascribe to scientists to "prove them (models) to actually be fundamentally connected with the manner in which reality functions" has much meaning when one is talking about, say, quantum field theory. How do I connect the mathematics of QFT with what is "really going on"? You can't. It just is.

Re: Alpha Geek

#32

Post by taliesinb »

kunjaan wrote: post #7
riffer wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

http://www.amazon.com/review/RUGSCP3XBNBUV/ref=cm_cr_dp_perm...

Can you guys recommend other books on CS that touch on the topics mentioned in the review?

I assume you've read GEB. That wanders all over the map, and is fascinating for it.

"Complexity" by Roger Lewin is a sort of journalistic take on the early history of the slightly vague field of complexity science. But its fairly interesting.

"The Computational Beauty of Nature" by Microsoft R&D dude Rob Flake might also be a good candidate.

"The Jaguar and the Quark" by Gell-Mann, complexity theorist and Feynman nemesis, is enjoyable too.

A complexity theorist friend of mine also recommended Rudy Rucker's "The Lifebox, The Seashell, and the Soul" to me, but I haven't read it.

"Darwin Among the Machines" by Freeman Dyson's son (!) is frigging great, but that's now getting off topic.

Re: Alpha Geek

#33

Post by thret »

programnature wrote: post #26
taliesinb wrote: post #13

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.

My theory is they are popular just because rants are more entertaining than reason. People just want to high-five the person who expresses their hate most eloquently.

+1

Re: Alpha Geek

#34

Post by bambax »

It seems wrong to frame the problem as "mathematics vs. cellular automata". The old kind of science (OKS?) is not as much about mathematics as it is about the scientific method of verification by experimentation.

If you want to setup a new kind of science, you have to devise a new verification method that is not experimentation-based. If you think you can go without experimentation altogether then it's not science at all (cf. pre-Copernic philosophical ramblings, à la Descartes).

It seems what Wolfram does with "NKS" is build new things; it builds those things by "finding them in the computational universe" (a universe that its automata explore).

Creating new ringtones is fine, funny and (moderately) interesting, but it's NOT science — not because ringtones are trivial, but because there is no concept of right or wrong in the ringtone universe. You cannot invalidate a melody.

Laws of nature expressed in mathematical formulas are verified everyday; if you want to demonstrate that nature is in fact made of cellular automata gone wild, you have to actually recreate nature (or parts of it) and show that it's indistinguishable from the real thing.

Although I don't know much about anything and haven't read NKS, I don't see any claims of this sort coming from Mr. Wolfram; I certainly didn't see it mentioned in the article.

Re: Alpha Geek

#35

Post by pitchups »

taliesinb wrote: post #31
knowtheory wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, you're making the assertion first, that everyone positively asserts that the universe is continuous, and second that computer scientists see algorithmic systems as being simulations of analytical systems. 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 abov…

Re: NKS theory of physics. You're right, it's far from convincing. But it is intriguing speculation, and I think he adequately hedges it as such. Some fascinating partial results are that the natural restriction he introduces for graph automata to be deterministic are enough to induce special and general relativity. That's pretty eery! Re models: now we're getting into epistemology. I don't think the aim you ascribe…

> "Some fascinating partial results are that the natural restriction he introduces for graph automata to be deterministic are enough to induce special and general relativity. That's pretty eery!"

That sounds remarkable indeed; can you point to an online reference that has more info on this? thanks.

Re: Alpha Geek

#36

Post by pygy_ »

primodemus wrote: post #12
derekp7 wrote: post #8

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?

Turing proved the existence of non-computable reals, so the two are not the same. Also Chaitin's constant is a non-computable real number with a precise mathematical definition. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaitins_constant

The Curry-Howard isomorphism states (and this has been proved) that for each formal proof in math, there is a corresponding computer program that halts, and reciprocally.

This means that it is possible to express the proofs of your statements in code.

On the other hand, non-halting programs are AFAIK beyond the reach of formal logic, and as consequence, the set of logical proofs (or more accurately, its isomorphic twin) is a subset of the set of all computer programs.

Re: Alpha Geek

#37

Post by mikk0j »

knowtheory wrote: post #18
taliesinb wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, this is a mischaracterization of what Wolfram is saying. Wolfram says: why consider computer programs to be valuable as mere approximations to the underlying analytic models, when you can consider computer programs themselves to be an entirely new and unexplored land of complex and interesting models. Traditional computer science considers computer programs to be merely a means to an end. A quite delicious irony…

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.

A program, just like human intelligence, is always means to an end. Whether it passes the Turing Test or not does not change this.

Re: Alpha Geek

#38

Post by coolgeek »

"We live in a period when technology looks very organised. But that’s a fluke, a feature of the history of engineering that reflects what we’ve learned to build. When we start just going out into the computational universe and finding stuff that works, it’s all going to look a lot more bizarrely random."

This parallels my understanding of how humans will perceive the post-singularity world.

Re: Alpha Geek

#39

Post by hessenwolf »

riffer wrote: post #3
nvictor wrote: post #2

always reminds me of the most rated comment his book got on amazon...

http://www.amazon.com/review/RUGSCP3XBNBUV/ref=cm_cr_dp_perm...

So guy with no respect for formal education fails to cite that much of what he writes has been done before? Stands to reason.

Re: Alpha Geek

#40

Post by kunjaan »

taliesinb wrote: post #32
kunjaan wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you guys recommend other books on CS that touch on the topics mentioned in the review?

I assume you've read GEB. That wanders all over the map, and is fascinating for it. "Complexity" by Roger Lewin is a sort of journalistic take on the early history of the slightly vague field of complexity science. But its fairly interesting. "The Computational Beauty of Nature" by Microsoft R&D dude Rob Flake might also be a good candidate. "The Jaguar and the Quark" by Gell-Mann, complexity theorist and Feynman nem…

Great Stuff. Thanks!
Post reply on HN