2 ms·

The main thesis of the life's work of Stephen Wolfram is the idea that simple processes can produce greater complexity than the process itself. https://www.wol

The main thesis of the life's work of Stephen Wolfram is the idea that simple processes can produce greater complexity than the process itself. https://www.wolframalpha.com/examples/science-and-technology/computational-sciences/computational-complexity/ https://www.wolframalpha.com/examples/science-and-technology...

anthk 5y ago
That thesis has been critisized as being "non scientific". It maybe looks as an advertisement for Mathematica.
minihat 5y ago
It seems problematic to disentangle the complexity of an entity from the complexity of the process which produced it. If we define complexity as the Kolmogorov complexity, the two are equivalent (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolmogorov_complexity?wprov=sfla1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolmogorov_complexity?wprov=sf...) Rather, I interpret Wolfram's idea as: Surprisingly complex patterns can be produced by simple/concise rules. In my interpretation, the ultimate example of this would be the unfolding of everything that has ever happened as the consequence of the laws of physics, and some initial condition of the universe.
dandotway 5y ago
This was the thesis of Thales of Miletus approximately 2600 years ago, but for the sake of this discussion let's credit Wolfram with the idea since he seems to love credit. ;-) The human experience of computer programming shows a problem with Wolfram's thought. Wolframism in a nutshell says, 1. The complicated processes of the universe reduce to simple rules (a la Conway's Life). 2. Therefore, simple rules *produce* the more complicated processes. (Or the complicated *emerges* from the simple.) Consider now that the complexity of computer software "reduces" to simple rules for manipulating 0's and 1's executed on processors, rules like - MOVE the sequence of 32 bits from memory address A1 to register R1 - ADD the sequence of 32 bits in register R1 to register R2 ... However, these simple rules don't make complicated software---otherwise, many of us here on HN would have to find other work. Rather, complicated humans make complicated software using these simple rules. (Digression: It's of course too hard to make modern software using these simple rules, so we use complicated toolchains instead to deal with the simple rules.) Even with Conway's Game of Life, it is often overlooked that in order to actually run a game simulation, you either need to build a very complicated electronic computer to host the "simple" simulation, or you need a complex intelligent life form with a pencil and a great deal of both paper and patience to carry out the rules step-by-step. Moreover, the simple rules for Conway's Game of Life were created (or discovered?) in the complicated brain of mathematician John Conway. It seems only the most intelligent and complex minds come up with these "simple" mathematical rules like Einstein's "E=mc^2" or Newton's "f=ma". Also, I know from experience that randomly seeding Conway's Life almost never produces interesting results, such as long lived stable colonies with "gliders" frolicking to and fro. An intelligent human needs to fine tune the initial conditions for the game to get interesting universes that don't quickly become lifeless or stagnant. Interesting universes are sufficiently rare that, when found, are worthy of publishing and nerding out with your friends over. So Wolframism in its supreme form says the Universe began with simple rules and these simple rules created stars and planets, humans and their brains. But simple rules need a machine to run the rules, a machine more complicated than the rules themselves. And even given a machine to run the rules, most rule sets and most initial configurations produce dead universes.
- MathYouF 5y ago
  I appreciate your response for making me think more deeply about the idea and seeing the merits in the point of the person I replied to. The task of understanding the entire evolutionary process step by step that led to intelligent life is indeed more complex than any single thing that arose from it, as a necessity. One can't know every stage by which the brain developed and the purpose of that without also being able to understand the method by which it accomplishes those tasks. As an AI engineer though, the main question is not if I can understand what I created and how I created it, but rather can I engineer an environment that itself will produce the desired outcome. This is often the experience of modern AI engineers, try to find any who could explain exactly how any large model like GPT-3 works, or how it even came to work as it trained. It would be impossible to sufficiently describe and grasp the complexity of the entire process in a human lifetime with a human brain. Yet, one can with not too much trouble understand how to create an environment that will give rise to the same model again. Humans seem to be able to do many things, like run businesses or govern nations, without truly comprehending exactly all the moving pieces that accomplished it. I suppose this could be thought of as finding "leverage", where certain, more easily understood and controlled processes, can allow one to accomplish much harder and more complex things. While the points about the enormous complexity of evolution and intelligence are taken and agreed with, I'm not convinced that they mean we couldn't recreate them by leveraging simple processes like genetics and natural selection to recreate them artificially.

anthk 5y ago

That thesis has been critisized as being "non scientific". It maybe looks as an advertisement for Mathematica.

minihat 5y ago

It seems problematic to disentangle the complexity of an entity from the complexity of the process which produced it. If we define complexity as the Kolmogorov complexity, the two are equivalent (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolmogorov_complexity?wprov=sfla1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolmogorov_complexity?wprov=sf...) Rather, I interpret Wolfram's idea as: Surprisingly complex patterns can be produced by simple/concise rules. In my interpretation, the ultimate example of this would be the unfolding of everything that has ever happened as the consequence of the laws of physics, and some initial condition of the universe.

dandotway 5y ago

This was the thesis of Thales of Miletus approximately 2600 years ago, but for the sake of this discussion let's credit Wolfram with the idea since he seems to love credit. ;-) The human experience of computer programming shows a problem with Wolfram's thought. Wolframism in a nutshell says, 1. The complicated processes of the universe reduce to simple rules (a la Conway's Life). 2. Therefore, simple rules *produce* the more complicated processes. (Or the complicated *emerges* from the simple.) Consider now that the complexity of computer software "reduces" to simple rules for manipulating 0's and 1's executed on processors, rules like - MOVE the sequence of 32 bits from memory address A1 to register R1 - ADD the sequence of 32 bits in register R1 to register R2 ... However, these simple rules don't make complicated software---otherwise, many of us here on HN would have to find other work. Rather, complicated humans make complicated software using these simple rules. (Digression: It's of course too hard to make modern software using these simple rules, so we use complicated toolchains instead to deal with the simple rules.) Even with Conway's Game of Life, it is often overlooked that in order to actually run a game simulation, you either need to build a very complicated electronic computer to host the "simple" simulation, or you need a complex intelligent life form with a pencil and a great deal of both paper and patience to carry out the rules step-by-step. Moreover, the simple rules for Conway's Game of Life were created (or discovered?) in the complicated brain of mathematician John Conway. It seems only the most intelligent and complex minds come up with these "simple" mathematical rules like Einstein's "E=mc^2" or Newton's "f=ma". Also, I know from experience that randomly seeding Conway's Life almost never produces interesting results, such as long lived stable colonies with "gliders" frolicking to and fro. An intelligent human needs to fine tune the initial conditions for the game to get interesting universes that don't quickly become lifeless or stagnant. Interesting universes are sufficiently rare that, when found, are worthy of publishing and nerding out with your friends over. So Wolframism in its supreme form says the Universe began with simple rules and these simple rules created stars and planets, humans and their brains. But simple rules need a machine to run the rules, a machine more complicated than the rules themselves. And even given a machine to run the rules, most rule sets and most initial configurations produce dead universes.

MathYouF 5y ago
I appreciate your response for making me think more deeply about the idea and seeing the merits in the point of the person I replied to. The task of understanding the entire evolutionary process step by step that led to intelligent life is indeed more complex than any single thing that arose from it, as a necessity. One can't know every stage by which the brain developed and the purpose of that without also being able to understand the method by which it accomplishes those tasks. As an AI engineer though, the main question is not if I can understand what I created and how I created it, but rather can I engineer an environment that itself will produce the desired outcome. This is often the experience of modern AI engineers, try to find any who could explain exactly how any large model like GPT-3 works, or how it even came to work as it trained. It would be impossible to sufficiently describe and grasp the complexity of the entire process in a human lifetime with a human brain. Yet, one can with not too much trouble understand how to create an environment that will give rise to the same model again. Humans seem to be able to do many things, like run businesses or govern nations, without truly comprehending exactly all the moving pieces that accomplished it. I suppose this could be thought of as finding "leverage", where certain, more easily understood and controlled processes, can allow one to accomplish much harder and more complex things. While the points about the enormous complexity of evolution and intelligence are taken and agreed with, I'm not convinced that they mean we couldn't recreate them by leveraging simple processes like genetics and natural selection to recreate them artificially.