3 ms·
I don't buy this for a minute. With all due respect your comment reads as so much noise. Are you rejecting the premise? Then identify the premise and rebut it.
by memetomancer 4y ago
I don't buy this for a minute. With all due respect your comment reads as so much noise. Are you rejecting the premise? Then identify the premise and rebut it. Are you citing Wittgenstein or Chompsky, or just name dropping for the borrowed prestige? Since there is lots to chose from in their respective oeuvre, which arguments are you indicating? How does Wolfram run afoul of Kolmogorov?
I'm asking in earnest. Perhaps you know your stuff after all and we can get some signal here. Otherwise, I'm sorry to say but your comment comes across as empty, fluffy posturing that does not add much.
- standardly 4y agoguys its Chomsky not Chomp
- Nomentatus 4y agolmgtfy: He's contradicting Chomsky on creativity (so do I) but without acknowledging that Chomsky ever existed or wrote. Ditto Wittgenstein on ordinary language, for example defining games - you can't just hand wave away ordinary usage, as Wolfram does without ever acknowledging that Wittgenstein ever lived or wrote. Kolmogorov has a specific definitionor of complexity as instantiated by Turing machines. Simple rules can create complex swirling patterns (something Turing covered in predicting correctly how animal hide coloring patterns are generated.) Note that K complexity, W on games and definitions, and Chomsky on "creativity" are not obscure doctrines but perhaps what they're best known for. You don't have to agree with any of these doctrines, perhaps, but you're not philosophically literate if you are truly unaware of them, as he seems to be. Belay your slurs and imputed motives.