5 ms·

My problem with Wolfram is that every time I hear him talk or read him, I end up spending 15-20 minutes and come out the other end confused. I studied physics

My problem with Wolfram is that every time I hear him talk or read him, I end up spending 15-20 minutes and come out the other end confused. I studied physics in my undergrad, I have a graduate degree in math, I've shipped large features on planet-scale systems. I'm no genius, certainly nowhere close to Dr. Wolfram, but I don't think I'm far from your average HN reader in reading comprehension ability. I've read 35 paragraphs in a post about founding a research institute and I don't know what was said there that couldn't have been conveyed in two or three paragraphs instead. It is my default opinion that people who use lot word when few word do trick do so to cover up the fact that they have very little content of actual value. That might not be the case with Wolfram, who has quite a track record, but to me the burden of proof is still on him.

m12k 5y ago
Try reading his one year update instead[1] "But now this deflection is not in physical space but in branchial space. The fundamental underlying mathematical structure is the same in both cases. But the interpretation in terms of traditional physics is different. And in what to me is a singularly beautiful result of our models it turns out that what gives the Einstein equations in physical space gives the Feynman path integral in branchial space. Or in other words, quantum mechanics is the same as general relativity, except in branchial space rather than physical space." Most of this stuff is mind-bending to me the same way statistical quantum mechanics, information theory or higher-dimensional physics are. But I always come away from reading about it with a feeling of "there could be something here, and I'm glad someone is exploring it further" https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2021/04/the-wolfram-physics-project-a-one-year-update/ https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2021/04/the-wolfram-phys...
- underdeserver 5y ago
  It sure sounds promising. Lots of things do. This is why we have peer review and standard publishing practices.
  - Spinnaker_ 5y ago
    This idea never sat right with me. Only one of Einsteins paper's went through the now standard practice, and he was upset that it did. Peer review is useful, but let's not pretend it's the only way forward for a theory of everything. It's a very, very modern practice. We did a lot of great physics before it existed. Nearly everything wolfram does is available to anyone who is interested (including code!).
    - m12k 5y ago
      And just to add on top of this - there is to the best of my knowledge little if any research that shows that the current practice of publication and peer review is actually effective at weeding out bad science. The current replication crisis in psychology and other fields would suggest that it's actually quite bad at it. For a community that is supposed to be based on the ideal of experimentation and falsifiability, scientists are surprisingly willing to just accept at face value, that the current process is sound, without actually scrutinizing this hypothesis.
      - codethief 5y ago
        > The current replication crisis in psychology and other fields would suggest that it's actually quite bad at it. Not saying that you're necessarily wrong but be careful not to compare apples to oranges: There is a huge difference between fields like math & physics on the one hand and fields like psychology on the other.
        xhkkffbf 5y ago
        Definitely, but both use peer review.
        codethief 5y ago
        But peer review works completely differently in math & physics than in psychology. In math and (theoretical) physics, practically all results (claims) can in principle be reproduced (tested) by other people. Sure reviewers are usually short on time and won't verify every single detail but at the same time – being experts in their fields – they tend to be extremely good at distinguishing the "easy" arguments from more intricate ones and can usually come up with rough arguments as to why (or why not) a given new result makes sense in light of existing results & literature.
webmobdev 5y ago
Thank you for posting this - I read the article too and was left feeling somewhat "dumb" and confused by all the scientific and market speak babble thrown in there. I was doubting my own intelligence for a bit there ... :)
motoboi 5y ago
He writes in a very marketing-informed way. He clearly point to (his) previous work, clearly and repeatedly remembers the reader how amazing is the things he is trying to do, and shameless link (both in text and via hiperlinks) to his own enterprises and current initiatives. I suppose this is some kind of mental template he uses when writing (think about someone writing a paper: the forma and hidden rules, the necessary and obligatory parts). Of course I cannot vouch for his science but heck! the man is spending his own money, not trying to sell you anything (other than Mathematica) and has an impressive track record since he was a kid! Let’s give him some space to do his things.
- copperx 5y ago
  > He writes in a very marketing-informed way. I'm going to borrow this phrase. I always struggle with dismissing BS without being abrasive.
crispyambulance 5y ago
Wolfram deserves accolades for Mathematica. It's a magnificent achievement and he's kept his company alive and thriving and people use Wolfram (the company) tools everyday to do productive stuff. BUT... Wolfram (the man) is very much an outsider when it comes to physics. This started 20 years ago when he published a "A New Kind of Science". It was a lengthy but ultimately not useful exploration of cellular automata (some of the fractal-like graphics were pretty cool at the time, but that's about it). Even that was perfectly fine, a rich guy with a vanity hobby doing some weird but interesting stuff, so what? But lately he's really doubled down on the "theory of everything" stuff with his "hypergraph" idea. To be honest, it IS a bit cringe-worthy. To call this pursuit "The Fundamental Theory of Physics"... geezus, that takes a level of ego that makes one's mouth drop. But you know what, it's still fine. It's not like he is applying for grants and competing with other worthwhile science for funding. His "staff" for this endeavor are his paid employees. AFAIK, he has no collaborators in academia (and no, multi-hour Twitch streams where he firehoses PHD level math jargon to the general public DON'T COUNT as collaboration). Now he wants to launch an institute? Still fine by me as long as the funding it comes out of Wolfram's pocket and doesn't detract from more worthwhile non-vanity research.
- motoboi 5y ago
  I suppose you are not familiar with his early career as a physicist, publishing in the field since he was 15 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Wolfram#Early_career https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Wolfram#Early_career
  - gammarator 5y ago
    That doesn’t tell us much about the quality of the work under discussion.
    - motoboi 5y ago
      No. But I'm replying to the OP argument that his physics career began with the book.
bckr 5y ago
Would you say Wolfram provides low epistemic legibility[] ? [] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30802349 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30802349
biomcgary 5y ago
I really appreciated the concept of "epistemic legibility" as a virtue. Arguments are most valuable when they are clear and concise. It makes them easier to refute if wrong and easier to extend/apply if correct. As far as I know, the phrase was coined here: https://acesounderglass.com/2022/02/07/epistemic-legibility/ https://acesounderglass.com/2022/02/07/epistemic-legibility/

m12k 5y ago

Try reading his one year update instead[1] "But now this deflection is not in physical space but in branchial space. The fundamental underlying mathematical structure is the same in both cases. But the interpretation in terms of traditional physics is different. And in what to me is a singularly beautiful result of our models it turns out that what gives the Einstein equations in physical space gives the Feynman path integral in branchial space. Or in other words, quantum mechanics is the same as general relativity, except in branchial space rather than physical space." Most of this stuff is mind-bending to me the same way statistical quantum mechanics, information theory or higher-dimensional physics are. But I always come away from reading about it with a feeling of "there could be something here, and I'm glad someone is exploring it further" https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2021/04/the-wolfram-physics-project-a-one-year-update/ https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2021/04/the-wolfram-phys...

underdeserver 5y ago
It sure sounds promising. Lots of things do. This is why we have peer review and standard publishing practices.
- Spinnaker_ 5y ago
  This idea never sat right with me. Only one of Einsteins paper's went through the now standard practice, and he was upset that it did. Peer review is useful, but let's not pretend it's the only way forward for a theory of everything. It's a very, very modern practice. We did a lot of great physics before it existed. Nearly everything wolfram does is available to anyone who is interested (including code!).
  - m12k 5y ago
    And just to add on top of this - there is to the best of my knowledge little if any research that shows that the current practice of publication and peer review is actually effective at weeding out bad science. The current replication crisis in psychology and other fields would suggest that it's actually quite bad at it. For a community that is supposed to be based on the ideal of experimentation and falsifiability, scientists are surprisingly willing to just accept at face value, that the current process is sound, without actually scrutinizing this hypothesis.
    - codethief 5y ago
      > The current replication crisis in psychology and other fields would suggest that it's actually quite bad at it. Not saying that you're necessarily wrong but be careful not to compare apples to oranges: There is a huge difference between fields like math & physics on the one hand and fields like psychology on the other.
      - xhkkffbf 5y ago
        Definitely, but both use peer review.
        codethief 5y ago
        But peer review works completely differently in math & physics than in psychology. In math and (theoretical) physics, practically all results (claims) can in principle be reproduced (tested) by other people. Sure reviewers are usually short on time and won't verify every single detail but at the same time – being experts in their fields – they tend to be extremely good at distinguishing the "easy" arguments from more intricate ones and can usually come up with rough arguments as to why (or why not) a given new result makes sense in light of existing results & literature.

webmobdev 5y ago

Thank you for posting this - I read the article too and was left feeling somewhat "dumb" and confused by all the scientific and market speak babble thrown in there. I was doubting my own intelligence for a bit there ... :)

motoboi 5y ago

He writes in a very marketing-informed way. He clearly point to (his) previous work, clearly and repeatedly remembers the reader how amazing is the things he is trying to do, and shameless link (both in text and via hiperlinks) to his own enterprises and current initiatives. I suppose this is some kind of mental template he uses when writing (think about someone writing a paper: the forma and hidden rules, the necessary and obligatory parts). Of course I cannot vouch for his science but heck! the man is spending his own money, not trying to sell you anything (other than Mathematica) and has an impressive track record since he was a kid! Let’s give him some space to do his things.

copperx 5y ago
> He writes in a very marketing-informed way. I'm going to borrow this phrase. I always struggle with dismissing BS without being abrasive.

crispyambulance 5y ago

Wolfram deserves accolades for Mathematica. It's a magnificent achievement and he's kept his company alive and thriving and people use Wolfram (the company) tools everyday to do productive stuff. BUT... Wolfram (the man) is very much an outsider when it comes to physics. This started 20 years ago when he published a "A New Kind of Science". It was a lengthy but ultimately not useful exploration of cellular automata (some of the fractal-like graphics were pretty cool at the time, but that's about it). Even that was perfectly fine, a rich guy with a vanity hobby doing some weird but interesting stuff, so what? But lately he's really doubled down on the "theory of everything" stuff with his "hypergraph" idea. To be honest, it IS a bit cringe-worthy. To call this pursuit "The Fundamental Theory of Physics"... geezus, that takes a level of ego that makes one's mouth drop. But you know what, it's still fine. It's not like he is applying for grants and competing with other worthwhile science for funding. His "staff" for this endeavor are his paid employees. AFAIK, he has no collaborators in academia (and no, multi-hour Twitch streams where he firehoses PHD level math jargon to the general public DON'T COUNT as collaboration). Now he wants to launch an institute? Still fine by me as long as the funding it comes out of Wolfram's pocket and doesn't detract from more worthwhile non-vanity research.

motoboi 5y ago
I suppose you are not familiar with his early career as a physicist, publishing in the field since he was 15 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Wolfram#Early_career https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Wolfram#Early_career
- gammarator 5y ago
  That doesn’t tell us much about the quality of the work under discussion.
  - motoboi 5y ago
    No. But I'm replying to the OP argument that his physics career began with the book.

bckr 5y ago

Would you say Wolfram provides low epistemic legibility[] ? [] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30802349 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30802349

biomcgary 5y ago

I really appreciated the concept of "epistemic legibility" as a virtue. Arguments are most valuable when they are clear and concise. It makes them easier to refute if wrong and easier to extend/apply if correct. As far as I know, the phrase was coined here: https://acesounderglass.com/2022/02/07/epistemic-legibility/ https://acesounderglass.com/2022/02/07/epistemic-legibility/