3 ms·
He really isn't pioneering much though. He talks about graph automata like he invented them, or that he was the first to see that simple rules could generate ve
by Nevermark 7y ago
He really isn't pioneering much though. He talks about graph automata like he invented them, or that he was the first to see that simple rules could generate very complex behavior.
But he wasn't.
I am not saying he hasn't done anything interesting, but it is actually hard to tell exactly where any original work begins, even for someone somewhat familiar with the area of computing related to graph transforms (me), because in his writing he implies he did so much more than he did. So it isn't clear where his contribution line starts.
It rubs me so wrong I can't read anything he writes anymore.
This may be one aspect of the negative reaction of some physicists too.
- pacala 7y agoThat is a fair criticism. The tone is off-putting. Partly because of the tone, I considered NKS a load of pointless drivel for 20 years. Yes, absolutely, he didn't invented graph automata. But he's the one willing to propose graph automata as a model of the Universe, and work out some technical details. Or, at least, he's building tooling to experiment with graph automata in this context such that someone else can work out technical details. Or fail to do so. Or fail to do so and prove this is a dead end. While I'm not familiar with what kind of graph transforms work is done these days, I would have hoped that if someone re-created some version of Lorenz transforms on top of graph transforms, I would have heard of it. The discussion would be more constructive, or destructive as a manner of speaking, if someone would point out that either Stephen is wrong, or old news, on the handful of technical points he is making. https://www.wolframphysics.org/technical-introduction/potential-relation-to-physics/motion-and-special-relativity/ https://www.wolframphysics.org/technical-introduction/potent...