3 ms·

> Practically it can lead to better encryption like I linked above, superior understanding and prediction of weather This is the problem. Maybe it will, but as

> Practically it can lead to better encryption like I linked above, superior understanding and prediction of weather This is the problem. Maybe it will, but as of yet nobody has figured out a practical application beyond "helping us appreciate nature" (replace nature with any chaotic system). We are pretty good with weather prediction and getting better all the time. The fundamental problem is the chaotic nature. CA does practically help us in anyway there. Fractals on the other hand has so many practical applications. Just the other day I was applying factual theory to the prediction of criminal activity. Maybe all CA needs to do is help us appreciate nature and simple machines.

esperent 5y ago
> This is the problem. Maybe it will, but as of yet nobody has figured out a practical application beyond "helping us appreciate nature" (replace nature with any chaotic system). Why is this a problem? Doing maths purely for its own sake is as valid and useful as painting a picture, or cooking a delicious meal instead of just eating dry bread. If that's not good enough for you, there are plenty of examples of maths that was considered useless at the time but ended up finding a use years, decades, or centuries later.
- teruakohatu 5y ago
  > Why is this a problem? Doing maths purely for its own sake is as valid and useful as painting a picture, or cooking a delicious meal instead of just eating dry bread. Nothing is wrong with this at all. I never wrote nor even implied there was anything wrong with this. If you had read to the end of my comment you would have seen I wrote: > Maybe all CA needs to do is help us appreciate nature and simple machines. So looks like we are in agreement in appreciating the beauty of maths.
- TheOtherHobbes 5y ago
  It's a problem when someone is claiming that a technique Solves the Big Problems when it clearly doesn't. Maybe it will one day, and no one is saying it's not an interesting avenue to explore. But making grandiose claims is not doing science. Making novel falsifiable concrete predictions is science, and Wolfram hasn't made enough of those to justify the extreme self-regard.
  - spindle 5y ago
    I strongly agree with the spirit of what you're saying, but: > making grandiose claims is not doing science. Making novel falsifiable concrete predictions is science It seems to me that making grandiose claims is absolutely essential to science every now and then. A good example is when Einstein made the grandiose (and unfalsifiable) claim that the mathematical theory of relativity already worked out by Lorentz and Poincare and whoever was best seen as the denial of the existence of simultaneity etc., a claim which obviously turned out to be very fruitful since it lead to General Relativity. However (and this is one reason I so strongly argee with the spirit of what you're saying), (a) there isn't room for very much of this stuff, (b) Einstein was much better at it than Wolfram is, and (c) Einstein was listened to because at the same time (ha ha) as he was making grandiose claims he was making unarguably gobsmacking breakthroughs in atomic theory and quantum mechanics.
  - aj7 5y ago
    I think it is fair to assert that if maybe one day it will solve big problems, that it should have solved a little problem already. Quantum mechanics rapidly gained credibility because once its formalism became established, it was easy to show how classical mechanics came out of it in a limit.
- CrazyStat 5y ago
  > Why is this a problem? Doing maths purely for its own sake is as valid and useful as painting a picture, or cooking a delicious meal instead of just eating dry bread. It's a problem because Wolfram named his book A New Kind of Science, not A New Kind of Doing Maths Purely for Its Own Sake. If Wolfram just went around saying "hey, cellular automata are fun and interesting for their own sake` he wouldn't get the hate he does.
- aj7 5y ago
  You are certainly right. But what I was referring to was CA being linked to physics, but without any tangible link.

esperent 5y ago

> This is the problem. Maybe it will, but as of yet nobody has figured out a practical application beyond "helping us appreciate nature" (replace nature with any chaotic system). Why is this a problem? Doing maths purely for its own sake is as valid and useful as painting a picture, or cooking a delicious meal instead of just eating dry bread. If that's not good enough for you, there are plenty of examples of maths that was considered useless at the time but ended up finding a use years, decades, or centuries later.

teruakohatu 5y ago
> Why is this a problem? Doing maths purely for its own sake is as valid and useful as painting a picture, or cooking a delicious meal instead of just eating dry bread. Nothing is wrong with this at all. I never wrote nor even implied there was anything wrong with this. If you had read to the end of my comment you would have seen I wrote: > Maybe all CA needs to do is help us appreciate nature and simple machines. So looks like we are in agreement in appreciating the beauty of maths.
TheOtherHobbes 5y ago
It's a problem when someone is claiming that a technique Solves the Big Problems when it clearly doesn't. Maybe it will one day, and no one is saying it's not an interesting avenue to explore. But making grandiose claims is not doing science. Making novel falsifiable concrete predictions is science, and Wolfram hasn't made enough of those to justify the extreme self-regard.
- spindle 5y ago
  I strongly agree with the spirit of what you're saying, but: > making grandiose claims is not doing science. Making novel falsifiable concrete predictions is science It seems to me that making grandiose claims is absolutely essential to science every now and then. A good example is when Einstein made the grandiose (and unfalsifiable) claim that the mathematical theory of relativity already worked out by Lorentz and Poincare and whoever was best seen as the denial of the existence of simultaneity etc., a claim which obviously turned out to be very fruitful since it lead to General Relativity. However (and this is one reason I so strongly argee with the spirit of what you're saying), (a) there isn't room for very much of this stuff, (b) Einstein was much better at it than Wolfram is, and (c) Einstein was listened to because at the same time (ha ha) as he was making grandiose claims he was making unarguably gobsmacking breakthroughs in atomic theory and quantum mechanics.
- aj7 5y ago
  I think it is fair to assert that if maybe one day it will solve big problems, that it should have solved a little problem already. Quantum mechanics rapidly gained credibility because once its formalism became established, it was easy to show how classical mechanics came out of it in a limit.
CrazyStat 5y ago
> Why is this a problem? Doing maths purely for its own sake is as valid and useful as painting a picture, or cooking a delicious meal instead of just eating dry bread. It's a problem because Wolfram named his book A New Kind of Science, not A New Kind of Doing Maths Purely for Its Own Sake. If Wolfram just went around saying "hey, cellular automata are fun and interesting for their own sake` he wouldn't get the hate he does.
aj7 5y ago
You are certainly right. But what I was referring to was CA being linked to physics, but without any tangible link.