7 ms·

In other words, "If you believe my unproven theory of physics, and also had access to an unavailable amount of computing power, there might be a way to go faste

by btilly 6y ago

In other words, "If you believe my unproven theory of physics, and also had access to an unavailable amount of computing power, there might be a way to go faster than light." Most scientists take a full stop at "my unproven theory of physics". He has yet to come up with testable predictions. Let alone trying to test them. Only then there might be a point in listening to the rest. See https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/physicists-criticize-stephen-wolframs-theory-of-everything/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/physicists-critic... for more.

naringas 6y ago
might it be a mathematical (and unphysical) theory??
- ianai 6y ago
  Or call it a mathematical model. It’s possible to work within a model and establish truths that follow within it as verifiably true assuming the conditions of the model. That’s actually a pretty interesting way to work in mathematics - ie whether you’re adding the point at infinity in complex analysis or not makes the topology similar to a sphere or plane, respectively.
  - dfischer 6y ago
    Most of physics is a mathematical model. Stephen Wolfram is creating computational models. It’s a natural evolution of reasoning about the universe with the potential to ask if the structure of the universe is computational itself.
uoaei 6y ago
Theory exists independently from any necessity to verify it, per se. I don't think he's ever said anything like "this is a theory that can be used to predict the dynamics of material reality".
- 8bitsrule 6y ago
  Hypotheses, conjectures, speculations (however baroque) exist independently. The question is: what is needed for them to become 'theories' in math or science. A basic test is comparison to agreed-on facts. Prediction is considered to be a strong test because it uncovers -new- facts. Else: what's the point?
BluSyn 6y ago
> Most scientists take a full stop at "my unproven theory of physics" Not convinced that's true. Considering how many physicists still keep talking about String Theory, even though it hasn't produced a single testable prediction after 30+ years.
- btilly 6y ago
  You have a point. String theorists did go off of a deep end. But most scientists did not follow them down that course.
- djaque 6y ago
  > hasn't produced a single testable prediction after 30+ years Not completely true. It is able model some aspects of quark gluon plasma. [1] Not a high energy theorist myself, but this is the retort some of my friends would give. It also is well motivated by an entire human history's worth of experimental data which any new theory needs to reproduce. Wolfram fails even to show that this is the case for his work. Note: I'm also not a "true believer" of string theory, but comparing it to Wolfram isn't fair. > Not convinced that's true. Besides making a point about string theory, do you really have a reason to believe that? I know many high energy physics folks myself and work with some of them. I have never met someone that does this professionally that has given Wolfram's theories a second thought. [1] https://www.bnl.gov/rhic/news/091107/story2.asp https://www.bnl.gov/rhic/news/091107/story2.asp
A_No_Name_Mouse 6y ago
> He has yet to come up with testable predictions. Let alone trying to test them. Only then there might be a point in listening to the rest. He is not presenting this as a scientific theory. This is a keynote speech for NASA folks. Just like science fiction is not science, it may still inspire scientists and be worth listening to IMHO.

by btilly 6y ago

naringas 6y ago

might it be a mathematical (and unphysical) theory??

ianai 6y ago
Or call it a mathematical model. It’s possible to work within a model and establish truths that follow within it as verifiably true assuming the conditions of the model. That’s actually a pretty interesting way to work in mathematics - ie whether you’re adding the point at infinity in complex analysis or not makes the topology similar to a sphere or plane, respectively.
- dfischer 6y ago
  Most of physics is a mathematical model. Stephen Wolfram is creating computational models. It’s a natural evolution of reasoning about the universe with the potential to ask if the structure of the universe is computational itself.

uoaei 6y ago

Theory exists independently from any necessity to verify it, per se. I don't think he's ever said anything like "this is a theory that can be used to predict the dynamics of material reality".

8bitsrule 6y ago
Hypotheses, conjectures, speculations (however baroque) exist independently. The question is: what is needed for them to become 'theories' in math or science. A basic test is comparison to agreed-on facts. Prediction is considered to be a strong test because it uncovers -new- facts. Else: what's the point?

BluSyn 6y ago

> Most scientists take a full stop at "my unproven theory of physics" Not convinced that's true. Considering how many physicists still keep talking about String Theory, even though it hasn't produced a single testable prediction after 30+ years.

btilly 6y ago
You have a point. String theorists did go off of a deep end. But most scientists did not follow them down that course.
djaque 6y ago
> hasn't produced a single testable prediction after 30+ years Not completely true. It is able model some aspects of quark gluon plasma. [1] Not a high energy theorist myself, but this is the retort some of my friends would give. It also is well motivated by an entire human history's worth of experimental data which any new theory needs to reproduce. Wolfram fails even to show that this is the case for his work. Note: I'm also not a "true believer" of string theory, but comparing it to Wolfram isn't fair. > Not convinced that's true. Besides making a point about string theory, do you really have a reason to believe that? I know many high energy physics folks myself and work with some of them. I have never met someone that does this professionally that has given Wolfram's theories a second thought. [1] https://www.bnl.gov/rhic/news/091107/story2.asp https://www.bnl.gov/rhic/news/091107/story2.asp

A_No_Name_Mouse 6y ago

> He has yet to come up with testable predictions. Let alone trying to test them. Only then there might be a point in listening to the rest. He is not presenting this as a scientific theory. This is a keynote speech for NASA folks. Just like science fiction is not science, it may still inspire scientists and be worth listening to IMHO.