4 ms·

(Replying to myself because my post is too old to edit.) I see I've been upvoted and then downvoted again. I've read comments on HN that were critical of Step

(Replying to myself because my post is too old to edit.) I see I've been upvoted and then downvoted again. I've read comments on HN that were critical of Stephen Wolfram (either calling him a self promoter or that his work is derivative of well-known CS theory). Is this the reason for the back and forth voting? Personally I'm keeping an open mind about Wolfram, but allow me to point out that any of the following could be true: 1. That Wolfram is a crank and the connection between fractals and superconduction is equally bogus (or at least does not require "a new physical law" to explain). 2. Otherwise if Wolfram is right about the significance of universal computation in physical laws, this may be a manifestation of the kind of emergent property you might expect to find. 3. There could be no relation there. All I'm saying is that I'm slightly more inclined to believe either #1 or #2 more than #3.

jerf 16y ago
Wolfram's a volatile topic not because his ideas are considered intrinsically wrong, but for some combination of the following: 1. He rather insultingly takes about an order of magnitude more credit than he should; his share is not zero, but it is not commensurate with the amount he took and 2. For all the wonderful ideas in "A New Kind of Science", it's pretty darned short on testable predictions or useful explanations, where by useful I literally mean "suitable for some use". And I mean any use, including scientific or even just as a framework for thinking about things. The link between fractals and superconductivity is interesting and tantalizing, but the credit should mostly go to the people working on fractal theory and the people working on superconductivity; a lot of us perceive a mention of Wolfram as wedging a name into the discussion that really shouldn't be there.

jerf 16y ago

Wolfram's a volatile topic not because his ideas are considered intrinsically wrong, but for some combination of the following: 1. He rather insultingly takes about an order of magnitude more credit than he should; his share is not zero, but it is not commensurate with the amount he took and 2. For all the wonderful ideas in "A New Kind of Science", it's pretty darned short on testable predictions or useful explanations, where by useful I literally mean "suitable for some use". And I mean any use, including scientific or even just as a framework for thinking about things. The link between fractals and superconductivity is interesting and tantalizing, but the credit should mostly go to the people working on fractal theory and the people working on superconductivity; a lot of us perceive a mention of Wolfram as wedging a name into the discussion that really shouldn't be there.