2 ms·

Maybe the choice of title was a bad move on Wolfram's part? Your argument makes sense; it doesn't predict anything, or show any hint of science. Based on what I

by cr0sh 9y ago

Maybe the choice of title was a bad move on Wolfram's part? Your argument makes sense; it doesn't predict anything, or show any hint of science. Based on what I recall of the book (I did read it - everything except the appendix/notes), and what I've read of this new article (I didn't finish it - I will read it in full at a later point, though), it can't predict anything. What I mean is that these simple rule programs can't be run any faster than the universe in which they are running. So you can't say "I predict this simple rule set will eventually draw a butterfly" (or whatever) - because you couldn't run it long enough for that to occur. In a way, it's a simulation (or emulation) problem; just as you need a more powerful computer to run software to emulate a system in real time, provided that system is less powerful - you would need to do the same in order to run these simple programs. In essence, since the theory espoused in NKS (more or less - at least, that is what I got out of it - and maybe I am wrong) is that the universe at its base level (quarks? dunno) is composed and operates and creates based on these simple rules, in order to go faster than our universe (and catch up), you'd have to have a more powerful system than whatever the universe is running on (conjecture, I know - and Wolfram noted this as well IIRC). So right now - just like if you were wanting to emulate a PS4 on a contemporary PC - the only way you can do it is non-realtime; you have to be satisfied at running the system at a slower rate. What is interesting about this - and this is pure speculation - let's say you are running "rule 30" on a computer, and unknown to you, it is actually computing a new universe (that is, simulating it) - to you, it is happening much more slowly than realtime - but to anyone "inside" that universe, they can't relatively know that they are running slower - their sense of "time" is "normal"... I'd like to encourage you to read the book in full and maybe this new article as well. Yes - it's a real long slog. And maybe it is nothing more than a giant ego stroke on the part of Wolfram; I don't really know what to think about it anymore. But you might walk away (to get some aspirin for your headache?) with something to think about and ponder - even if it is completely wrong, or you think so, or whatever - simply reading it and understanding it might lead you to your own discoveries and ideas.

leephillips 9y ago
That's an interesting point of view. I've never heard this work described that way before. If that's the correct interpretation, though, (and I think you've implicitly acknowledged this), the NKS work is, perhaps, some kind of metaphysical speculation, with some demonstrations to support it -- but not any kind of science, since, as you say, it can't predict anything. Also, in that case, it would be unfair to demand that it produce a prediction, of course.
- xrange 9y ago
  >I've never heard this work described that way before. One way to summarize the thesis of book would be to say: Historically, we've analyzed natural phenomena and tried to fit equations to the data. But Nature may be doing something analagous to running simple programs instead of solving equations. What are the implications of this? Complexity and "randomness" comes about from the "programs", not from their initial inputs/conditions. And predicting behavior of programs is harder than predicting behavior of systems of equations, which sucks. >but not any kind of science I think many people who aren't familiar with the book are thinking that "a new kind of science" means "a new branch of science" like we have physics, chemistry, biology, and now this new "computery" science. But the book is actually about looking at nature with the new perspective of "programs", that previous generations of people didn't have a reference frame for. And some of things that we think are "complex" might actually be following simple rules (or can better be modeled as such).

by cr0sh 9y ago

leephillips 9y ago

That's an interesting point of view. I've never heard this work described that way before. If that's the correct interpretation, though, (and I think you've implicitly acknowledged this), the NKS work is, perhaps, some kind of metaphysical speculation, with some demonstrations to support it -- but not any kind of science, since, as you say, it can't predict anything. Also, in that case, it would be unfair to demand that it produce a prediction, of course.

xrange 9y ago
>I've never heard this work described that way before. One way to summarize the thesis of book would be to say: Historically, we've analyzed natural phenomena and tried to fit equations to the data. But Nature may be doing something analagous to running simple programs instead of solving equations. What are the implications of this? Complexity and "randomness" comes about from the "programs", not from their initial inputs/conditions. And predicting behavior of programs is harder than predicting behavior of systems of equations, which sucks. >but not any kind of science I think many people who aren't familiar with the book are thinking that "a new kind of science" means "a new branch of science" like we have physics, chemistry, biology, and now this new "computery" science. But the book is actually about looking at nature with the new perspective of "programs", that previous generations of people didn't have a reference frame for. And some of things that we think are "complex" might actually be following simple rules (or can better be modeled as such).