4 ms·

I think he's a quack trying to torture an explanation of the universe out of his pet theory that uses a lot of words to say simple things but doesn't predict an

I think he's a quack trying to torture an explanation of the universe out of his pet theory that uses a lot of words to say simple things but doesn't predict anything. If "time is what progresses when one applies computational rules" then how is the order in which the rules are applied defined in the first place? Computational irreducibility is a neat idea but i'm not sure its novel or something that explains the entire universe. My basic intro course on differential equations taught us that the vast majority of them cannot be solved analytically, they have to be approximated. I don't know if the irreducibility idea is anything fundamentally different than saying some problems are hard, whether its non analytical equations or NP hard problems.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
kouru225 2y ago
I think you’re slightly misunderstanding his concept of computational irreducibility. It’s more like the halting problem than anything: basically he’s saying that dynamic systems can’t be reduced to an equation that is easier to calculate and so you just have to simulate the entire system, run it, and watch what happens. This means we can’t ever predict the future within these systems.
- niobe 2y ago
  Well I wouldn't put it quite like that either.. because you have to be careful what you mean by 'simulate' and 'easier'. There could be multiple ways to simulate the same system, i.e. produce the same evolutionary output steps. Wolfram tends to imply there is only one most-expensive way for systems that are computationally irreducible and that way is grinding through a recursive computation. I think that's partly because the simple experiments, like cellular automata, he used to come up with this principle actually explore the 'space of simple rules', not the 'space of ordered sets of states of systems'. Of course the latter is a much more computationally expensive things to do but it seems to me it would generalise better to the universe. Because in the universe what we're really observing is the evolution of states not the outputs of rules. There may be other hidden assumptions in the principle if you assume that all systems can and do evolve from simple rules as much of Physics does. Nevertheless, you need a high bar if you're going to state universal principles. Perhaps the simplest way to state the principle is: say we set up a simple iterative computation where the input to step n, is the output of step n-1. Then there's no way to compute state n without having previously computes states n-2, n-3 etc. That's what he means by irreducible. In other words it's "necessarily recursive" which may be a better and more focused term. I'm cautious about making it mean more than that, since Wolfram tends to write in great leaps of conclusions without showing us his working. Nevertheless I enjoy following his ideas, and I did find aspects of this article quite thought provoking.
  - kouru225 2y ago
    > I think that's partly because the simple experiments, like cellular automata, he used to come up with this principle actually explore the 'space of simple rules', not the 'space of ordered sets of states of systems'. I think it’s the opposite actually. He chose to study these recursive systems because they seem to describe reality, and then when he found more evidence that they do a good job describing reality, he kept studying… so on and so forth. Basically a sort of hermeneutic circle type deal. You do a much more thorough job of describing it. I should’ve mentioned the recursive part earlier. I just kinda assume we all already know we’re talking about recursion and time steps and that’s not a useful assumption
    - kridsdale3 2y ago
      It's pretty dang hard to give the output to Fibonacci(x) for any x up to infinity without having done the work up to that point.
      - Xcelerate 2y ago
        Actually there’s an explicit formula for Finonacci(x) that involves phi. I think you can use generating functions to derive it. (But your overall point still stands.)
      - kouru225 2y ago
        Good point. We’re still not describing it perfectly. Admittedly I’m doing it by my memory of the last time I read Wolframs ideas. I think we unfortunately have to describe it using Kolmogorov complexity: what is the length of the shortest computer program that produces the object as an output? What Wolfram means by computational irreducibility is that he asserts that reality itself is the shortest length computer program that can produce its own output, and it can’t be shortened (reduced) any further without losing information. Edit: sorry I think I still haven’t fully described it. Will have to come back to it tomorrow when I’ve had some sleep
  - PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
    Your comment makes me think about statistical mechanics and microstates. That is to say ... in a complex system with properties that are a function of microstates, whether the internal structure of the microstates that correspond to a given property matter can depend on your point of view or interest in the system. Heat, for example, is a statistical property of a system, and a given temperature can correspond to a vast number of possible microstates of the system. For some purposes, you care precisely which microstate the system is in; for others, you do not, and the temperature property is entirely adequate to describe the system. Rules may describe the microstate, but may be (depending on your POV) be irrelevant to the property. Using Wolfram's model of the world, there may indeed be a cellular automata following rules that underlies the property, but there may be no reason to care about it in a given instance; instead you're interested in the "evolution of states" (i.e. values of the property). Some complexity scientists are quite taken with this idea of not needing to care about the lower levels of a system when consider higher level behavior. In their view (and rightly so, IMO [0]) you don't always need to consider the rules that drive (say) physics when considering (say) psychology. [0] except that I think that Hofstadter's "heterarchy" idea is likely to be even more accurate - interesting systems are the ones in which there are complex feedback systems between different levels of the system.
- sitkack 2y ago
  That smells like the Universe is the best Computer for computing the future of the Universe tautology.
  - kridsdale3 2y ago
    So apparently the inside of the Black Hole event horizon is just "Forty Two".
  - kouru225 2y ago
    Yes that's pretty much it
- wizzwizz4 2y ago
  Funny you should say this, because most work on the halting problem is reducing the systems down to equations that are easier to calculate.
  - kridsdale3 2y ago
    But is the theory that such work can continue forever?
    - wizzwizz4 2y ago
      There's a point at which it becomes impossible: the nth Busy Beaver number is independent of ZF, for n≤745 (ref: https://wiki.bbchallenge.org/wiki/Cryptids https://wiki.bbchallenge.org/wiki/Cryptids). So no, such work cannot continue forever. We don't know whether such work can continue up to that point. The only way to find that out is to explore the relevant mathematics, and see if we find something fundamentally irreducible. There's no long-term pattern to the proofs, despite the presence of short-term patterns. (In this sense, the hunt for Busy Beavers is computationally irreducible – but there are still easier and harder ways of approaching the hunt.)
_9hey 2y ago
He treats computation as if it is a fundamental law of nature, but I don’t find that assertion compelling. I’m also more of a pilot wave theory advocate, which although incomplete, cuts off several diseased (renormalized) branches of quantum physics.
Trufa 2y ago
I don't mean it as an attack, I honestly mean it as a straightforward question, what are your qualifications in this matter to call someone as accomplished as SW a quack?
- zaptheimpaler 2y ago
  I have studied science and engineering in school and college and know what constitutes a scientific theory. Part of it is that it has to make empirically falsifiable predictions. This was taught in a 101 level biology course im taking online now as well, it's not rocket science. That's all it takes to decipher this as quackery. There are many concepts that rhyme with "computational irreducibility" some of which I mentioned before, as I said this kind of thing is obvious after taking a few undergrad level courses. Further this idea makes no new predictions or insights. You're focused on qualifications but whats true is true and whats false is false regardless of who says it. If you read over his Wikipedia [1] page, you will see similar sentiments said by more "qualified" people: "The book was met with skepticism and criticism that Wolfram took credit for the work of others and made conclusions without evidence to support them." "Physicists are generally unimpressed with Wolfram's claim, and state that Wolfram's results are non-quantitative and arbitrary" If you really truly believe that a person cannot know a thing without a qualification or that anyone with a "qualification" must know more, i think you should really reconsider that view. What exactly are Wolfram's qualifications in the field of science, and how are they looked upon by others in that field? How many cases of unqualified outsiders to fields making huge contributions that the rest missed? What are the financial incentives around Masters programs in universities, the difficulty of courses in an average M.S program compared to the undergrad, and what does that say about the supposedly higher qualification? How many cases of scientific fraud uncovered recently by eminent, respected people? "Nullius in verba" is the heart of science and deferral to authority can sometimes be opposed to it. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Wolfram https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Wolfram
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

kouru225 2y ago

I think you’re slightly misunderstanding his concept of computational irreducibility. It’s more like the halting problem than anything: basically he’s saying that dynamic systems can’t be reduced to an equation that is easier to calculate and so you just have to simulate the entire system, run it, and watch what happens. This means we can’t ever predict the future within these systems.

niobe 2y ago
Well I wouldn't put it quite like that either.. because you have to be careful what you mean by 'simulate' and 'easier'. There could be multiple ways to simulate the same system, i.e. produce the same evolutionary output steps. Wolfram tends to imply there is only one most-expensive way for systems that are computationally irreducible and that way is grinding through a recursive computation. I think that's partly because the simple experiments, like cellular automata, he used to come up with this principle actually explore the 'space of simple rules', not the 'space of ordered sets of states of systems'. Of course the latter is a much more computationally expensive things to do but it seems to me it would generalise better to the universe. Because in the universe what we're really observing is the evolution of states not the outputs of rules. There may be other hidden assumptions in the principle if you assume that all systems can and do evolve from simple rules as much of Physics does. Nevertheless, you need a high bar if you're going to state universal principles. Perhaps the simplest way to state the principle is: say we set up a simple iterative computation where the input to step n, is the output of step n-1. Then there's no way to compute state n without having previously computes states n-2, n-3 etc. That's what he means by irreducible. In other words it's "necessarily recursive" which may be a better and more focused term. I'm cautious about making it mean more than that, since Wolfram tends to write in great leaps of conclusions without showing us his working. Nevertheless I enjoy following his ideas, and I did find aspects of this article quite thought provoking.
- kouru225 2y ago
  > I think that's partly because the simple experiments, like cellular automata, he used to come up with this principle actually explore the 'space of simple rules', not the 'space of ordered sets of states of systems'. I think it’s the opposite actually. He chose to study these recursive systems because they seem to describe reality, and then when he found more evidence that they do a good job describing reality, he kept studying… so on and so forth. Basically a sort of hermeneutic circle type deal. You do a much more thorough job of describing it. I should’ve mentioned the recursive part earlier. I just kinda assume we all already know we’re talking about recursion and time steps and that’s not a useful assumption
  - kridsdale3 2y ago
    It's pretty dang hard to give the output to Fibonacci(x) for any x up to infinity without having done the work up to that point.
    - Xcelerate 2y ago
      Actually there’s an explicit formula for Finonacci(x) that involves phi. I think you can use generating functions to derive it. (But your overall point still stands.)
    - kouru225 2y ago
      Good point. We’re still not describing it perfectly. Admittedly I’m doing it by my memory of the last time I read Wolframs ideas. I think we unfortunately have to describe it using Kolmogorov complexity: what is the length of the shortest computer program that produces the object as an output? What Wolfram means by computational irreducibility is that he asserts that reality itself is the shortest length computer program that can produce its own output, and it can’t be shortened (reduced) any further without losing information. Edit: sorry I think I still haven’t fully described it. Will have to come back to it tomorrow when I’ve had some sleep
- PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
  Your comment makes me think about statistical mechanics and microstates. That is to say ... in a complex system with properties that are a function of microstates, whether the internal structure of the microstates that correspond to a given property matter can depend on your point of view or interest in the system. Heat, for example, is a statistical property of a system, and a given temperature can correspond to a vast number of possible microstates of the system. For some purposes, you care precisely which microstate the system is in; for others, you do not, and the temperature property is entirely adequate to describe the system. Rules may describe the microstate, but may be (depending on your POV) be irrelevant to the property. Using Wolfram's model of the world, there may indeed be a cellular automata following rules that underlies the property, but there may be no reason to care about it in a given instance; instead you're interested in the "evolution of states" (i.e. values of the property). Some complexity scientists are quite taken with this idea of not needing to care about the lower levels of a system when consider higher level behavior. In their view (and rightly so, IMO [0]) you don't always need to consider the rules that drive (say) physics when considering (say) psychology. [0] except that I think that Hofstadter's "heterarchy" idea is likely to be even more accurate - interesting systems are the ones in which there are complex feedback systems between different levels of the system.
sitkack 2y ago
That smells like the Universe is the best Computer for computing the future of the Universe tautology.
- kridsdale3 2y ago
  So apparently the inside of the Black Hole event horizon is just "Forty Two".
- kouru225 2y ago
  Yes that's pretty much it
wizzwizz4 2y ago
Funny you should say this, because most work on the halting problem is reducing the systems down to equations that are easier to calculate.
- kridsdale3 2y ago
  But is the theory that such work can continue forever?
  - wizzwizz4 2y ago
    There's a point at which it becomes impossible: the nth Busy Beaver number is independent of ZF, for n≤745 (ref: https://wiki.bbchallenge.org/wiki/Cryptids https://wiki.bbchallenge.org/wiki/Cryptids). So no, such work cannot continue forever. We don't know whether such work can continue up to that point. The only way to find that out is to explore the relevant mathematics, and see if we find something fundamentally irreducible. There's no long-term pattern to the proofs, despite the presence of short-term patterns. (In this sense, the hunt for Busy Beavers is computationally irreducible – but there are still easier and harder ways of approaching the hunt.)

_9hey 2y ago

He treats computation as if it is a fundamental law of nature, but I don’t find that assertion compelling. I’m also more of a pilot wave theory advocate, which although incomplete, cuts off several diseased (renormalized) branches of quantum physics.

Trufa 2y ago

I don't mean it as an attack, I honestly mean it as a straightforward question, what are your qualifications in this matter to call someone as accomplished as SW a quack?

zaptheimpaler 2y ago
I have studied science and engineering in school and college and know what constitutes a scientific theory. Part of it is that it has to make empirically falsifiable predictions. This was taught in a 101 level biology course im taking online now as well, it's not rocket science. That's all it takes to decipher this as quackery. There are many concepts that rhyme with "computational irreducibility" some of which I mentioned before, as I said this kind of thing is obvious after taking a few undergrad level courses. Further this idea makes no new predictions or insights. You're focused on qualifications but whats true is true and whats false is false regardless of who says it. If you read over his Wikipedia [1] page, you will see similar sentiments said by more "qualified" people: "The book was met with skepticism and criticism that Wolfram took credit for the work of others and made conclusions without evidence to support them." "Physicists are generally unimpressed with Wolfram's claim, and state that Wolfram's results are non-quantitative and arbitrary" If you really truly believe that a person cannot know a thing without a qualification or that anyone with a "qualification" must know more, i think you should really reconsider that view. What exactly are Wolfram's qualifications in the field of science, and how are they looked upon by others in that field? How many cases of unqualified outsiders to fields making huge contributions that the rest missed? What are the financial incentives around Masters programs in universities, the difficulty of courses in an average M.S program compared to the undergrad, and what does that say about the supposedly higher qualification? How many cases of scientific fraud uncovered recently by eminent, respected people? "Nullius in verba" is the heart of science and deferral to authority can sometimes be opposed to it. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Wolfram https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Wolfram

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]