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

31–40 of 81 posts

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

#31

Post by famouswaffles »

kromem wrote: post #25
andromaton wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Just accept you made a weird and disingenuous comparison. It doesn't matter what it reads and it doesn't matter what you think of it. So what, a PHD in physics isn't enough to post about theories ? You don't have to believe or like his theories but your Jordan talk makes no sense here.

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

#32

Post by gshubert17 »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #29
tsunamifury wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Possibly the "Limits to Growth" report (1972) by Meadows, et al. They used a simple model of resources, population, economy, pollution, etc. Some would say an over-simplified model. The report sparked a lot of controversy. I am not aware of significant changes to their World3 model that might be useful trying to integrate climate change models with economic-resource and population models.

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

#33

Post by globalnode »

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…

As a physics noob i cant really comment on his work too much but as a person: even though he may come across as a bit eccentric... who knows if his ideas may form part of the bigger picture in a hundred years? it seems like he's backing up his ideas with computational examples. (plus i owe him for wolfram alpha when i was learning maths at uni)

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

#34

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

gshubert17 wrote: post #32
PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Possibly the "Limits to Growth" report (1972) by Meadows, et al. They used a simple model of resources, population, economy, pollution, etc. Some would say an over-simplified model. The report sparked a lot of controversy. I am not aware of significant changes to their World3 model that might be useful trying to integrate climate change models with economic-resource and population models.

I am very aware of what the Club of Rome is/was. I don't understand what the sentence means.

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

#35

Post by globalnode »

kromem wrote: post #14
mathgradthrow wrote: post #8

This is hard to read. I don't think the core narrative is implausible, but it's pretty hard to imagine someone this self-aggrandizing being a sufficiently critical adversary of his own theory, and he doesn't seem to have convinced anyone else of his claims.

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…

ok that was pretty funny

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

#36

Post by gshubert17 »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #34
gshubert17 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Possibly the "Limits to Growth" report (1972) by Meadows, et al. They used a simple model of resources, population, economy, pollution, etc. Some would say an over-simplified model. The report sparked a lot of controversy. I am not aware of significant changes to their World3 model that might be useful trying to integrate climate change models with economic-resource and population models.

I am very aware of what the Club of Rome is/was. I don't understand what the sentence means.

The last sentence said something about a computationally stable (model/state) of society. I suppose such stability would be helpful in looking for a sustainable economy or society. But I'm not clear either, on what that sentence means.

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

#37

Post by dogcomplex »

kromem wrote: post #14
mathgradthrow wrote: post #8

This is hard to read. I don't think the core narrative is implausible, but it's pretty hard to imagine someone this self-aggrandizing being a sufficiently critical adversary of his own theory, and he doesn't seem to have convinced anyone else of his claims.

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…

Even if I disagreed, this level of snark would be worth an HN award. Well done

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

#39

Post by WhitneyLand »

famouswaffles wrote: post #30
WhitneyLand wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Disagree. It’s not weird at all, and I would say quite productive, being that a billionaire crank is a potentially dangerous, with nearly unlimited ability to attempt to spread his influence countering it requires people to speak up.

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

#40

Post by [deleted] »

kromem wrote: post #14
mathgradthrow wrote: post #8

This is hard to read. I don't think the core narrative is implausible, but it's pretty hard to imagine someone this self-aggrandizing being a sufficiently critical adversary of his own theory, and he doesn't seem to have convinced anyone else of his claims.

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…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN