5 ms·

Can anyone who has actually read NKS comment on the value of its contents? I've seen a lot of criticism[0], most concerning being the lack of mathematical rigo

by cliffy 9y ago

Can anyone who has actually read NKS comment on the value of its contents? I've seen a lot of criticism[0], most concerning being the lack of mathematical rigor in the work[1]. Seems damning considering the author's background in math. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_New_Kind_of_Science#Reception https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_New_Kind_of_Science#Receptio... [1]: http://crd-legacy.lbl.gov/~dhbailey/dhbpapers/dhb-wolfram.pdf http://crd-legacy.lbl.gov/~dhbailey/dhbpapers/dhb-wolfram.pd...

seibelj 9y ago
It makes a really good doorstop EDIT - to all the downvoters, I read like 40% of it but all of the criticism you can easily find about it[0] is accurate. 10 years or so later it makes a really good doorstop, I have used it for that several times, it's super heavy with thick pages. I have used it as a source of knowledge exactly zero times and a doorstop probably 8 times, so it's utility to me is overall pretty high. I think you can get used copies for about $4, so it might be a good investment.[1] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_New_Kind_of_Science#Reception https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_New_Kind_of_Science#Receptio... [1] https://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/1579550088/ref=dp_olp_used?ie=UTF8&condition=used https://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/1579550088/ref=dp_ol...
- ScottBurson 9y ago
  I bought it new. Fucking waste of money.
  - cr0sh 9y ago
    I bought it new, too - twice. First time, because I was reading it and found that it was bound incorrectly (text repeats for about a good third of the book) - so to finish reading it, I had to buy a new copy. I did finish it (everything except the appendix/notes - though I did read a few of those, which are fascinating as well, and wholly attributed) - I do not consider my purchase a waste of money, either.
    - ScottBurson 9y ago
      I admit I didn't get very far in it, and maybe I didn't give it a fair chance, though you are one of the few people I've seen reporting that they found value in it (and that's great; I'm glad someone has). But I had known about cellular automata since the early 1980s when I read about Ed Fredkin's work in the area. I don't remember now what the first pages of NKoS say, but I do recall, after reading a little of it, concluding it didn't seem worth continuing.
  - qubex 9y ago
    Likewise.
steverb 9y ago
I bought it when it came out, and read it (mostly) cover to cover. I remember it as an interesting exploration into cellular automata, and how complex behavior can arise from simple rules. I think a lot of the hate came because of the title. Disclaimer: I'm neither a scientist, nor a mathematician.
- edbaskerville 9y ago
  Basically, the hate arose because the book (not just its title) implied that Wolfram was newly inventing a bunch of ideas that had been invented mostly by other people over the prior several decades. His revolutionary idea, that "complex behavior can arise from simple rules", wasn't his and, even if the news still hasn't yet reached many people, hadn't been revolutionary for decades. Gary William Flake's "The Computational Beauty of Nature" is an accessible alternative with interesting ideas, pretty pictures, and no hyperbole: https://mitpress.mit.edu/sites/default/files/titles/content/cbnhtml/index.html https://mitpress.mit.edu/sites/default/files/titles/content/...
  - steverb 9y ago
    I haven't looked at it past the one reading, so I may have edited my memory of Wolfram's bombast. I do remember it at times reading like a sales pitch for Mathematica though. :-)
  - cr0sh 9y ago
    Wolfram noted, seemingly ad-nauseum (it felt like every other page - more often than the Mathematica plug) - how the ideas he was presenting weren't original. The sheer quantity of referenced footnotes in the back of the book, scattered all over the text, bears that out as well. Seriously - it was one thing that stood out when I read it, because I was always flipping to the back trying to read the footnotes, it became apparent that to do so was going to make reading the book take several times longer for me (I don't have that many years to dedicate to reading a book).
  - qubex 9y ago
    The Computational Beauty of Nature (as I have remarked ad nauseam elsewhere) is my all-time favourite book and reading it proved to be a pivotal watershed event in my life (back in 1998 when I was in high school). I'm glad I'm not the only person to constantly recommend it!
ska 9y ago
It's a really good example of what happens when you don't have a good editor (or don't let them do their work). It contains an interesting overview of some of the ideas and work done in cellular automata, made significantly worse by the authors seemingly pathological need to lay claim to work that was not his, and inflate the importance of work that was. It's entirely reasonable to decide you can't get past the tone and sheer tonnage of blather to dig for the good stuff hidden inside. As you note, it's also not very rigorous (and sometimes worse) but that's mostly forgivable in a lay text like this, and would be entirely addressed if it had a good set of citations. It's interesting to contrast this with another book that came out around the same time, Stephen J. Gould's "The Structure of Evolutionary Theory". They are of similar size and scope, but Gould does a much better job of presenting some of his own ideas in the larger context, and giving both credit and useful pointers into that context. As far as ANKS goes, I've always thought that there was probably a very nice 250 page book hidden inside it. It's just well hidden.
xrange 9y ago
I found it to be a very interesting book. The criticisms basically boil down into three categories: - I don't like Stephen Wolfram and his personal style offends me. - This isn't new material because there were academic papers that covered some of this material scattered throughout the literature. - Stephen should have been more generous in giving credit to previous work. ...If nothing else, get a copy to look at all the great pictures, and ignore the text if it bothers you. >most concerning being the lack of mathematical rigor in the work This book is about how very very simple programs can end up producing complex results. You can easily write the program for simulating the cellular automata in any programming language and check that you get the same picture as shown in the book. You don't have to accept anyone's philosophy of math and their opinions on the Axiom of Choice when it comes to uncountable infinities. It is completely formal. In fact, the best reason for getting the book is to encourage you to write tiny little programs to see the results for yourself. http://math.wikia.com/wiki/Mathematical_rigor http://math.wikia.com/wiki/Mathematical_rigor
- jerf 9y ago
  My primary criticism with the book is that it repeatedly unto belaboring the point claims to be "a new kind of science", when in fact it turns out it's merely a somewhat interesting tour of some corners of recreational mathematics that has had zero impact on the world and will likely continue to have zero impact on the world. As a book of recreational mathematics it's pretty fun. As a "New Kind Of Science" it's atrocious.
  - xrange 9y ago
    >As a "New Kind Of Science" it's atrocious. Investigating nature starting with the premise that the "laws" may be imperative procedures instead of pure functions doesn't seem orthodox (for 2002), so isn't that "new"?
    - DanBC 9y ago
      Boids (1986) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boids https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boids Langton's Ant (1986) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langton%27s_ant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langton%27s_ant Avida (1993) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avida https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avida Tierra (early 1990s) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tierra_(computer_simulation) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tierra_(computer_simulation) Fractal Geometry of Nature (1982) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fractal_Geometry_of_Nature https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fractal_Geometry_of_Nature I dunno, some of these seem to be doing it much earlier than 2002.
xrange 9y ago
If one were to try to make a judgement on whether to buy a copy of this book based one one or two images in the book, I'd recommend looking at the photos on page 423 and then 424: https://www.wolframscience.com/nks/p423--biological-pigmentation-patterns/ https://www.wolframscience.com/nks/p423--biological-pigmenta... ...then you could start to read the on-line version to see if Stephen Wolfram's writing style rubbed you the wrong way.

by cliffy 9y ago

seibelj 9y ago

It makes a really good doorstop EDIT - to all the downvoters, I read like 40% of it but all of the criticism you can easily find about it[0] is accurate. 10 years or so later it makes a really good doorstop, I have used it for that several times, it's super heavy with thick pages. I have used it as a source of knowledge exactly zero times and a doorstop probably 8 times, so it's utility to me is overall pretty high. I think you can get used copies for about $4, so it might be a good investment.[1] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_New_Kind_of_Science#Reception https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_New_Kind_of_Science#Receptio... [1] https://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/1579550088/ref=dp_olp_used?ie=UTF8&condition=used https://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/1579550088/ref=dp_ol...

ScottBurson 9y ago
I bought it new. Fucking waste of money.
- cr0sh 9y ago
  I bought it new, too - twice. First time, because I was reading it and found that it was bound incorrectly (text repeats for about a good third of the book) - so to finish reading it, I had to buy a new copy. I did finish it (everything except the appendix/notes - though I did read a few of those, which are fascinating as well, and wholly attributed) - I do not consider my purchase a waste of money, either.
  - ScottBurson 9y ago
    I admit I didn't get very far in it, and maybe I didn't give it a fair chance, though you are one of the few people I've seen reporting that they found value in it (and that's great; I'm glad someone has). But I had known about cellular automata since the early 1980s when I read about Ed Fredkin's work in the area. I don't remember now what the first pages of NKoS say, but I do recall, after reading a little of it, concluding it didn't seem worth continuing.
- qubex 9y ago
  Likewise.

steverb 9y ago

I bought it when it came out, and read it (mostly) cover to cover. I remember it as an interesting exploration into cellular automata, and how complex behavior can arise from simple rules. I think a lot of the hate came because of the title. Disclaimer: I'm neither a scientist, nor a mathematician.

edbaskerville 9y ago
Basically, the hate arose because the book (not just its title) implied that Wolfram was newly inventing a bunch of ideas that had been invented mostly by other people over the prior several decades. His revolutionary idea, that "complex behavior can arise from simple rules", wasn't his and, even if the news still hasn't yet reached many people, hadn't been revolutionary for decades. Gary William Flake's "The Computational Beauty of Nature" is an accessible alternative with interesting ideas, pretty pictures, and no hyperbole: https://mitpress.mit.edu/sites/default/files/titles/content/cbnhtml/index.html https://mitpress.mit.edu/sites/default/files/titles/content/...
- steverb 9y ago
  I haven't looked at it past the one reading, so I may have edited my memory of Wolfram's bombast. I do remember it at times reading like a sales pitch for Mathematica though. :-)
- cr0sh 9y ago
  Wolfram noted, seemingly ad-nauseum (it felt like every other page - more often than the Mathematica plug) - how the ideas he was presenting weren't original. The sheer quantity of referenced footnotes in the back of the book, scattered all over the text, bears that out as well. Seriously - it was one thing that stood out when I read it, because I was always flipping to the back trying to read the footnotes, it became apparent that to do so was going to make reading the book take several times longer for me (I don't have that many years to dedicate to reading a book).
- qubex 9y ago
  The Computational Beauty of Nature (as I have remarked ad nauseam elsewhere) is my all-time favourite book and reading it proved to be a pivotal watershed event in my life (back in 1998 when I was in high school). I'm glad I'm not the only person to constantly recommend it!

ska 9y ago

It's a really good example of what happens when you don't have a good editor (or don't let them do their work). It contains an interesting overview of some of the ideas and work done in cellular automata, made significantly worse by the authors seemingly pathological need to lay claim to work that was not his, and inflate the importance of work that was. It's entirely reasonable to decide you can't get past the tone and sheer tonnage of blather to dig for the good stuff hidden inside. As you note, it's also not very rigorous (and sometimes worse) but that's mostly forgivable in a lay text like this, and would be entirely addressed if it had a good set of citations. It's interesting to contrast this with another book that came out around the same time, Stephen J. Gould's "The Structure of Evolutionary Theory". They are of similar size and scope, but Gould does a much better job of presenting some of his own ideas in the larger context, and giving both credit and useful pointers into that context. As far as ANKS goes, I've always thought that there was probably a very nice 250 page book hidden inside it. It's just well hidden.

xrange 9y ago

I found it to be a very interesting book. The criticisms basically boil down into three categories: - I don't like Stephen Wolfram and his personal style offends me. - This isn't new material because there were academic papers that covered some of this material scattered throughout the literature. - Stephen should have been more generous in giving credit to previous work. ...If nothing else, get a copy to look at all the great pictures, and ignore the text if it bothers you. >most concerning being the lack of mathematical rigor in the work This book is about how very very simple programs can end up producing complex results. You can easily write the program for simulating the cellular automata in any programming language and check that you get the same picture as shown in the book. You don't have to accept anyone's philosophy of math and their opinions on the Axiom of Choice when it comes to uncountable infinities. It is completely formal. In fact, the best reason for getting the book is to encourage you to write tiny little programs to see the results for yourself. http://math.wikia.com/wiki/Mathematical_rigor http://math.wikia.com/wiki/Mathematical_rigor

jerf 9y ago
My primary criticism with the book is that it repeatedly unto belaboring the point claims to be "a new kind of science", when in fact it turns out it's merely a somewhat interesting tour of some corners of recreational mathematics that has had zero impact on the world and will likely continue to have zero impact on the world. As a book of recreational mathematics it's pretty fun. As a "New Kind Of Science" it's atrocious.
- xrange 9y ago
  >As a "New Kind Of Science" it's atrocious. Investigating nature starting with the premise that the "laws" may be imperative procedures instead of pure functions doesn't seem orthodox (for 2002), so isn't that "new"?
  - DanBC 9y ago
    Boids (1986) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boids https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boids Langton's Ant (1986) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langton%27s_ant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langton%27s_ant Avida (1993) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avida https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avida Tierra (early 1990s) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tierra_(computer_simulation) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tierra_(computer_simulation) Fractal Geometry of Nature (1982) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fractal_Geometry_of_Nature https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fractal_Geometry_of_Nature I dunno, some of these seem to be doing it much earlier than 2002.

xrange 9y ago

If one were to try to make a judgement on whether to buy a copy of this book based one one or two images in the book, I'd recommend looking at the photos on page 423 and then 424: https://www.wolframscience.com/nks/p423--biological-pigmentation-patterns/ https://www.wolframscience.com/nks/p423--biological-pigmenta... ...then you could start to read the on-line version to see if Stephen Wolfram's writing style rubbed you the wrong way.