Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Laboratory >

Wolfram: A New Kind of Science

Page: 1(2)

Henningjohnathan

18:53 / 17.06.04

I like the point about Newton's Laws of Motion. It does break down in certain conditions so that's why Einstein came up with Relativity...but that also breaks down in certain conditions thus we get Quantum mechanics (which was a much larger jump than the one between Einstein and Newton).

22:02 / 17.06.04

Aha. But at each stage we lose understanding to gain results.
Wolfram took a big step in providing results with no chance of understanding.

Humanity cannot comprehend how the universe works.Full stop. We either become more than human through the use of tools..or we pack in ubderstanding as a bad job.(either way Wolfram is right)

Even as a whole. At the moment it is impossible for any one person to know all humanity has learned. Our sensory apparatus and our conciousness are geared to survival on this planet. At our speed. At our scale. We have a tiny little world view and an biological urge for finding things out.

It`s time to abandon understanding and get results. The two are not mutually exclusive. More results can only increase understanding.

Mankind can use computers to get results. We can improve the quality of life for the whole world. A small price to pay for a little understanding.

For a short while empirical methods are more useful. IF they reach a dead end then we can use theory.

meanwhile people are starving, wars over fossil fuels and drugs etc....

Wolfram/empiricism is activism. Endless debate over the meaning of wave-particle duallity is getting us no-where.

(*sigh* I started off trying to explain wolframs world view to people who had never read the book. Now I`m a rabid empiricist.)

13:18 / 18.06.04

You are fighting a battle that was lost a long time ago. Wolfram is no worse or better than any other modern scientist. Wolframs methods start with a few simple rules and applies them many times. At least the few simple rules are within understanding.

I think you do have a point when you say that we abandoned understanding a long time ago, but it is a touch dualistic for me. There are different levels of understanding and, more importantly, tractability. I think that by repeating this defence of Wolfram, you are ignoring much of what I have said by way of criticism. Since you have already stated that cellular automata are not susceptible to analysis, claiming that the rules that set them up are simple is a touch misleading, even though it is correct.

Humanity cannot comprehend how the universe works.Full stop.... Even as a whole. At the moment it is impossible for any one person to know all humanity has learned.

Again, this all-or-nothing gambit seems like a dodge to me.

It`s time to abandon understanding and get results. The two are not mutually exclusive. More results can only increase understanding

And I'm suggesting that there are very good reasons why you can't separate the two, or ignore one at the expense of the other. When do your models work? When do they break down? What are the critical features? For cellular automata you have no hope of answering these kinds of questions.

Mankind can use computers to get results. We can improve the quality of life for the whole world. A small price to pay for a little understanding.

Yes. Think of all the puppies. Seriously, I think it is a little premature to launch into a defence of efficacy, if that is part of the claim under dispute.

17:20 / 18.06.04

Again Lurid I agree. I`m not ignoring your criticism. You seem to be saying that we require a blend of logical deduction, empirical evidence and good models. Wolfram ignores the logical deduction on the grounds that some things don`t act in a logical manner. I agree it`s a big hole in his method. I`m not going to argue against the philosophy of science.
(although I may well of misunderstood what you are saying)

but. He does very well at models and evidence. If the theory isn`t there yet what stops us from using the models? Most people can use a television without knowing exactly how it works. If Wolframs methods can produce new technology I think it should be used. Mathematics has no way of modelling this type of system but you can bet that logical deduction will catch up pretty soon. And if it doesn`t...what difference does it make?

Why can`t empiricism come first and deduction later?
Quantum mechanics and relativity appeared because theory didn`t match with the results. (yes..I know Wolfram is offering computational methods as an alternative to logical deduction...he`s a very naughty boy). Why not use Wolframs methods to do things and then work out why thay work? What happens if the universe is composed of things that don`t work in a logical manner? What if understanding is not an option?

08:52 / 21.06.04

He does very well at models and evidence. If the theory isn`t there yet what stops us from using the models?

Nothing at all. If it works, then fine. But few people apart from Wolfram is convinced by the evidence.

I think, to an extent, we are taking at cross purposes. So when you say,

Mathematics has no way of modelling this type of system but you can bet that logical deduction will catch up pretty soon.

You mean standard, shall we say Engineering, math? I would hesitate to make the distinction you are making, in part because I think it leads you to misunderstand the point of Conway's Game of Life (and the subsequent implications for cellular automata). When Conway designed it to be resistant to mathematical analysis, he would have been using "math" in the same way I do, which includes "logical deduction".

This intractibility is a core problem and leads to a kind of heads I win, tails you lose situation. As the following,

What happens if the universe is composed of things that don`t work in a logical manner?

Then modelling them using rigid rules on a computer is unlikely to be of any benefit.

16:20 / 21.06.04

I also think we are talking at cross purposes.
The distinction I`m making is for this thread only.
It`s hard to discuss something without drawing a line somewhere so I kind lumped conway in with Wolfram.

We probably don`t have a similar definition of logical reasoning either.

Google `remote sensing automata` for papers. As far as I`m aware no-one actually using Wolframs stuff has abandoned logical reasoning. I don`t know...but I`m sure people in other research areas have accepted Wolframs methods too.
(and now I`m gonna waste valuble net time to look them up...don`t worry I`m not gonna dump a million links here...just interested in your few people but Wolfram comment...it`s possible that the one field of science I keep close tabs on is the ONLY one who takes him seriously)

18:29 / 21.06.04

That never happened. I was distracted by a web site on Go, physics and automata. (only a Godel and a conciousness away from perfect mad scientist porn)

But found a quote that sums up my viewpoint.

"In the John Nash biography movie A Beatiful Mind (Universal DVD 2002) when John Nash loses a game of Wei-Qi as a Princeton mathematics graduate student, he says to his victorious opponent:

"... You should not have won. I had the first move. My play was perfect. ... The game is flawed. ...". "

Wolfram says the universe is flawed.
I think it might be.
Certain greeks think a perfect game is possible.
Lurid falls into a big grey area. (possibly just a really big reallity tunnel)

Page: 1(2)