3 ms·

I'm not knowledgeable enough to have an opinion on the physics project, but I find it interesting how polarized HN is about it. For some people it's a whole ne

by vasco 5y ago

I'm not knowledgeable enough to have an opinion on the physics project, but I find it interesting how polarized HN is about it. For some people it's a whole new world that will lead to new findings, for others it seems like they compare it to them having invented a new language and acting busy "translating" everything that was already discovered to this new language and being surprised they can. Funny how even mathematics and physics can be so subjective when most people can't actually work through the math themselves and only depend on "expert" opinion.

tsimionescu 5y ago
I think it's hard to take anyone seriously when claiming that they have a new model that will revolutionize the foundations of particle physics, molecular biology, metamathematics, economics, evolutionary biology, complexity theory, and others. Of course it's possible, but the magnitude of the claims about vastly disparate fields feels more like someone who only has a bird's-eye view and sees shallow similarities. Importantly though, neither I nor anyone commenting on Wolfram's plans and thoughts are engaging in mathematics or physics. If anything, the arguments around are mostly to do with the philosophy or sociology of science - looking at how discoveries have usually worked throughout history and comparing that to Wolframs work. To go into the math, you must have some belief that it is worthwhile to spend your time to do quite difficult work, and most arguments around here are about why his work currently doesn't seem to pass that mark. EDIT: to put a number on how difficult engaging with the actual maths and physics would be, according to the article, the Wolfram Research Project has currently published 700 pages worth of discoveries. To be honest about my own feelings, when I see him claiming his new model will explain what mathematics is - it makes me think he's only a few years away from claiming it explains the meaning of life and why there is something instead of nothing. Perhaps even squaring the circle and computing the number of angels that fit on the head of a pin...
aj7 5y ago
You will find, I think, the gradient you allude to, to be inversely proportional to the level of physics that the reviewer has attained. Now this could have “political” implications: people with a lot invested in conventional physics might be hostile as a means of protecting that investment. But I think not.
d--b 5y ago
I don’t think that’s true. People are both extremely annoyed by the arrogance of the man and very cautious at criticizing the science he’s doing. Since Shannon, a computational approach to fundamental physics has been appealing. But the way Wolframs maps his own obsession with cellular automata to anything is suspicious. The claims of breakthrough are also suspicious since I don’t think any if the claims have had a chance to be tested experimentally.
pasadenasunset 5y ago
You raise an interesting issue. If we can accept that substantive scientists vary in their involvement in self-marketing, does the degree one engages in popular self-marketing affect the kind of attention one receives? And the validity of criticism within that attention set? Related to your point, if Wolfram hadn’t had the history he did, would Hacker News general suspicious reaction still be present? And would his status affect our perceptions of validity of the criticism. Granted, what drew me to this thought was the recent treatment of Eric Weinstein, an occasional podcast collaborator (if hostile) of Stephen Wolfram. I won’t rehash it all here, but a critic of Weinstein who is trained in physics countered him in writing. Then when Weinstein moved onto another area, the critic submitted another arxiv piece attacking his second product (an econ talk given in Chicago). Now, I don’t think much of Weinstein, but the critic’s second attack created doubt about the motives of his first. Was this a defense of science, or a serial attacker obsessed with Eric Weinstein? Circling back, I think these issue will inevitably arise when a person is actively self marketing their contribution to science, whatever its quality.
- roelschroeven 5y ago
  > Related to your point, if Wolfram hadn’t had the history he did, would Hacker News general suspicious reaction still be present? Without Wolfram's history, would he even be mentioned here?

by vasco 5y ago

tsimionescu 5y ago

I think it's hard to take anyone seriously when claiming that they have a new model that will revolutionize the foundations of particle physics, molecular biology, metamathematics, economics, evolutionary biology, complexity theory, and others. Of course it's possible, but the magnitude of the claims about vastly disparate fields feels more like someone who only has a bird's-eye view and sees shallow similarities. Importantly though, neither I nor anyone commenting on Wolfram's plans and thoughts are engaging in mathematics or physics. If anything, the arguments around are mostly to do with the philosophy or sociology of science - looking at how discoveries have usually worked throughout history and comparing that to Wolframs work. To go into the math, you must have some belief that it is worthwhile to spend your time to do quite difficult work, and most arguments around here are about why his work currently doesn't seem to pass that mark. EDIT: to put a number on how difficult engaging with the actual maths and physics would be, according to the article, the Wolfram Research Project has currently published 700 pages worth of discoveries. To be honest about my own feelings, when I see him claiming his new model will explain what mathematics is - it makes me think he's only a few years away from claiming it explains the meaning of life and why there is something instead of nothing. Perhaps even squaring the circle and computing the number of angels that fit on the head of a pin...

aj7 5y ago

You will find, I think, the gradient you allude to, to be inversely proportional to the level of physics that the reviewer has attained. Now this could have “political” implications: people with a lot invested in conventional physics might be hostile as a means of protecting that investment. But I think not.

d--b 5y ago

I don’t think that’s true. People are both extremely annoyed by the arrogance of the man and very cautious at criticizing the science he’s doing. Since Shannon, a computational approach to fundamental physics has been appealing. But the way Wolframs maps his own obsession with cellular automata to anything is suspicious. The claims of breakthrough are also suspicious since I don’t think any if the claims have had a chance to be tested experimentally.

pasadenasunset 5y ago

You raise an interesting issue. If we can accept that substantive scientists vary in their involvement in self-marketing, does the degree one engages in popular self-marketing affect the kind of attention one receives? And the validity of criticism within that attention set? Related to your point, if Wolfram hadn’t had the history he did, would Hacker News general suspicious reaction still be present? And would his status affect our perceptions of validity of the criticism. Granted, what drew me to this thought was the recent treatment of Eric Weinstein, an occasional podcast collaborator (if hostile) of Stephen Wolfram. I won’t rehash it all here, but a critic of Weinstein who is trained in physics countered him in writing. Then when Weinstein moved onto another area, the critic submitted another arxiv piece attacking his second product (an econ talk given in Chicago). Now, I don’t think much of Weinstein, but the critic’s second attack created doubt about the motives of his first. Was this a defense of science, or a serial attacker obsessed with Eric Weinstein? Circling back, I think these issue will inevitably arise when a person is actively self marketing their contribution to science, whatever its quality.

roelschroeven 5y ago
> Related to your point, if Wolfram hadn’t had the history he did, would Hacker News general suspicious reaction still be present? Without Wolfram's history, would he even be mentioned here?