5 ms·

Charting a Course for “Complexity”: Metamodeling, Ruliology and More

• quantified 5y ago
  > I haven’t explicitly thought of myself as pursuing “metamodeling” in the past (and I only just invented the term!). No knock on the author and his rral accomplishments but it’s a well-established term [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metamodeling https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metamodeling] for example. Much of my career has been metamodeling for certain kinds of analytical applications.
  • hvocode 5y ago
    Reinventing known things and claiming that they’re novel is sort of his shtick. That said, he often does do interesting work - it just takes quite a bit of patience (which many people don’t have) to wade through the fluff and self-congratulating to get to the interesting technical meat of his writings.
    • potiuper 5y ago
      Like the shortest axiom for classical propositional logic using NAND in the Chapter 12, which is the last chapter, on page 773 in New Kind of Science with no proof or references?
      • potiuper 5y ago
        It does have a proof on pg 810, but it's still at the back of the book.
        • potiuper 5y ago
          See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimal_axioms_for_Boolean_algebra https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimal_axioms_for_Boolean_alg... for claim dispute.
    • quantified 5y ago
      > Back in 1985 I was pretty much a lone voice expressing the potential for studying complexity in science James Gleick in his book Chaos Making a New Science somehow notes quite a few people’s efforts that predate 1985 without noting him.
    • SkyMarshal 5y ago
      > wade through the fluff and self-congratulating I wish someone would provide a Cliff's Notes to Wolfram's 20,000 word blog posts. I'd like to see what he's figured out, but not at the cognitive load cost of having to wade through all that crap.