3 ms·
My view on a "New Kind of Science" (NKS): NKS is not a theory (at least not in the sense physicists used it pre-string theory), it's an idea (with a misleading,
by Maro 17y ago
My view on a "New Kind of Science" (NKS): NKS is not a theory (at least not in the sense physicists used it pre-string theory), it's an idea (with a misleading, non-informative and sensationalist name). It's also not a discovery. Nevertheless, I think that it's a very interesting idea (nobody is saying it's rubbish) and I and many other physicists have, after reading the book been playing around with and talking about related ideas. I also think writing 1000+ pages about it was complete overkill, the relevant scientific result (the Turing-complete CA) could be presented in a 10 page paper while the more general argument in 100 pages.
I personally think S. Wolfram fits the bill in terms of being a fiercely independent thinker and being financially independent. I meant to write that he does not follow through with his ideas, but that would be untrue, as he has spent large amounts of time simulating his CAs and examining their output. So I won't say that, but I will say that he seems to prefer publicity and sensationalism ("New Kind of Science"), ie. short-term success over discourse with scientific peers and coming up with actual physical theories that withstand the test of time. (He has written physics paper when he was young, but not recently).
- jacquesm 17y agoI fully agree with the sensationalist impression, he really is a sucker for attention (recognition?). Also, to name your book 'a new kind of science' takes hubris to a whole new level. It would have been a lot more classy if he would have simply written up his findings in a 2 or 300 page volume and left it to others to give it its place. But that's what you get when you don't need an editor because you've already made it. Still, if you cut all that out you're left with some pretty neat and insightful ideas about cellular automata and how some things could work.
- zkz 17y agoI somewhat agree. For an interesting viewpoint on the NKS discussion, check this NKS review: http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-reviews/AOUPSNSAAC8DM/ref=cm_pdp_rev_title_1?ie=UTF8&sort_by=MostRecentReview#R3BKMWOENGE704 http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-reviews/AOUPSNSAAC8DM/re...
- jacquesm 17y agohttp://www.kurzweilai.net/articles/art0464.html?printable=1 http://www.kurzweilai.net/articles/art0464.html?printable=1
- billswift 17y agoWolfram's 1994 book "Cellular Automata and Complexity" (http://www.amazon.com/Cellular-Automata-Complexity-Collected-Papers/dp/0201626640/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1250433555&sr=8-1 http://www.amazon.com/Cellular-Automata-Complexity-Collected...) covered most of the same ground as NKS, but was a collection of papers and was a lot more readable; even it was almost 600 pp.