Wolfram's New Kind of Science

[gopunk]

i think this is my first post in this forum, but i thought this topic might get more attention here than elsewhere...

has anybody else heard anything about this book? all i have is this article in WIRED about it... sounds like really interesting stuff

for those who don't know, wolfram says "My purpose in this book is ... to introduce a new kind of science that is based on the much more general types of rules that can be embodied in simple computer programs". in other words, the study of how computer programs can embody things like our universe.

 

[KevinF]

I was reading about this a while ago, and thought it was interesting.

Check out this link for more info.

I believe that "simple computer programs does not refer to those of the "Hello World" type, but rather programs that do things like the game of life (No, the other game of life, not the board game).

 

[gopunk]

I believe that "simple computer programs does not refer to those of the "Hello World" type, but rather programs that do things like the game of life (No, the other game of life, not the board game).

yes of course hehe, it would be amusing for it to be "hello world" program though...

it seems like a really interesting field, sorta related to AI in a way... i think i want to study it

 

[Bulldozer2003]

Hmm, I am on the edge of saying "Scientology" From what I saw on the website it looks liek something filled with information gained from other people, made for the intent of making lots of money. Hence the reason you have to BUY the book to find out what the h3ll they are talking about.

 

[zephyrprime]

It's very rare for any science book to make a lot of money so can that really be the motive?

 

[Shalmanese]

There was a thread about this a while back when he gave an interview. Basically, I ragged him for trying to credit himself for the discoveries.

Its all pretty bog standard CS and math theory.

 

[gopunk]

Originally posted by: Bulldozer2003
Hmm, I am on the edge of saying "Scientology" From what I saw on the website it looks liek something filled with information gained from other people, made for the intent of making lots of money. Hence the reason you have to BUY the book to find out what the h3ll they are talking about.

i find this improbable since he is already rich from mathematica.

but you are right, wolfram has a thing with taking credit. but i dunno, he got a PhD from cal tech at 20, so i figure he's gotta be worth his salt.

 

[Shalmanese]

I think Wolfram is doing a good job in providing Mathematics resources to the public but he is not doing too well as an acadmeic. What Wolfram is detailing in his book is neither new nor science. Until they can prove to me that the movement of an electron is defined recursivly, he is just taking credit for other people work.

 

[Howard]

IIRC, wolfram means quick or something like that.

 

[Calundronius]

Article in Wired about Wolfram's book.
I don't know...it sounds very interesting, But I'm not sure if I believe it. History is full of scientists and mathematicians who decided they were going to use math and science to find some sort of fundamental law...Pascal (I think it was Pascal) was rumored to spend his last days trying to prove God's existance using statistics...Netwon had similar goals. Hawking is still trying to find a unified theory.
I think this may be just another case of a brilliant man over-estimating his brilliance.

 

[Shalmanese]

Hmm... in my mind, anything that has been worked on for 10 years and has NOT been peer reviewed is probably going to be shot down by most of the science world on numerous flaws in reasoning. Its hard work inventing a new paradigm and being isolated from the science community does not help.

 

[Davegod75]

saw an aritlce in business week about this also....interesting

 

[CTho9305]

From what I read in the Wired article, i see nothing wrong with the theory.... is there any reason that the universe must be complex at the "lowest" level, whatever that is?

 

[exp]

Everything Shalmanese has posted is spot-on. The contents of this book should be taken with a HUGE brick of salt. And as for the inflammatory title: there is nothing new about Wolfram's analytical style...history is littered with individuals like him--some succeed (e.g. Einstein) while most are kicked to the curb and soon forgotten. Similarly his methodology (if you can even call it that) does not satisfy even the most rudimentary definition of science. Presumably the title of the book was designed to be as controversial as possible in the hopes of grabbing the public's attention...otherwise it reeks of megalomania.

For now I'll reserve judgement until I pick up a copy later this month. The only part I am really interested in anyway is his take on evolution (and anything else from the field of biology).

 

[rgwalt]

I heard he wrote about something contridicting the second law of thermodynamics. As a chemical engineer, either I don't buy it, or I find it very disturbing... not sure which though.

Anyone have a copy of the book?

Ryan

 

[Chaotic42]

Originally posted by: Shalmanese
Hmm... in my mind, anything that has been worked on for 10 years and has NOT been peer reviewed is probably going to be shot down by most of the science world on numerous flaws in reasoning. Its hard work inventing a new paradigm and being isolated from the science community does not help.

Andrew Wiles learned this the hard way while trying to prove the Taniyama-Shimura Conjecture (I can only imagine how badly I messed up the spelling). 8 years of isolated work, and flaws were found. I think that he patched it, but I don't know if it was solid or not. Anyone know?

He was trying to prove TS because it states that all elliptical equations are modular, and Fermat's Last Theorem can be written as a non-modular eliptical equation, proving that it has no valid answers.

 

[CTho9305]

Originally posted by: Chaotic42

Originally posted by: Shalmanese
Hmm... in my mind, anything that has been worked on for 10 years and has NOT been peer reviewed is probably going to be shot down by most of the science world on numerous flaws in reasoning. Its hard work inventing a new paradigm and being isolated from the science community does not help.

Andrew Wiles learned this the hard way while trying to prove the Taniyama-Shimura Conjecture (I can only imagine how badly I messed up the spelling). 8 years of isolated work, and flaws were found. I think that he patched it, but I don't know if it was solid or not. Anyone know?

He was trying to prove TS because it states that all elliptical equations are modular, and Fermat's Last Theorem can be written as a non-modular eliptical equation, proving that it has no valid answers.

TS conjecture you didnt misspell it

 

[tantalus0]

Originally posted by: Shalmanese
Hmm... in my mind, anything that has been worked on for 10 years and has NOT been peer reviewed is probably going to be shot down by most of the science world on numerous flaws in reasoning. Its hard work inventing a new paradigm and being isolated from the science community does not help

I think Pavlov spent at least 10 years doing tests to flush out his conditioning theory. Granted, this may seem to be a simple concept, but it was revolutionary in its day.

 

[Shalmanese]

Pavlov was doing work in Psychology, a new field in its infancy where you could basically spin all kinds of BS and have it turned into a paradigm. Wolfram is trying to set a new paradigm for physics, the oldest and most rigidly defined science of them all and the most testable. That is a BIG difference.

Plus, science now has become big buisness and the myth of the brilliant genious simply does not hold water anymore. Behind any big scientific breakthrough is a HUGE team, not a lone man.

 

[daddyo]

Andrew Wiles learned this the hard way while trying to prove the Taniyama-Shimura Conjecture (I can only imagine how badly I messed up the spelling). 8 years of isolated work, and flaws were found. I think that he patched it, but I don't know if it was solid or not. Anyone know?

IIRC, Fermats Theorem was solved. At least that's what I remember after reading the book. This would lead me to believe his patch was unsuccessful.

I also have a bad habit of reading books and forgetting much of what I've read shortly thereafter.

 

[Chaotic42]

Originally posted by: daddy-o

IIRC, Fermats Theorem was solved. At least that's what I remember after reading the book. This would lead me to believe his patch was unsuccessful.

I also have a bad habit of reading books and forgetting much of what I've read shortly thereafter.

Since TS appears to have held up, I'm not sure that valid values exist. If they do, they're hellacious.


Edit: Here's an interesting site

 

[bmd]

Originally posted by: Chaotic42

Originally posted by: daddy-o

IIRC, Fermats Theorem was solved. At least that's what I remember after reading the book. This would lead me to believe his patch was unsuccessful.

I also have a bad habit of reading books and forgetting much of what I've read shortly thereafter.

Since TS appears to have held up, I'm not sure that valid values exist. If they do, they're hellacious.


Edit: Here's an interesting site

From my latest info, Wiles' 'patching' of his proof was indeed successful, but I may be incorrect.

 

[daddyo]

He was trying to prove TS because it states that all elliptical equations are modular, and Fermat's Last Theorem can be written as a non-modular eliptical equation, proving that it has no valid answers.

Ok, now I get it. This is where the thread went off course. This is incorrect.

Here is a piece of the transcript from the Nova article on Wiles

PETER SARNAK: Frey showed how starting with a fictitious solution to Fermat's last equation -- if, indeed, such a horrible beast existed -- he could make an elliptic curve with some very weird properties.

KEN RIBET: That elliptic curve seems to be not modular. But Shimura-Taniyama says that every elliptic curve is modular.

STACY KEACH (NARRATOR): So, if there is a solution to this equation, it creates such a weird elliptic curve it defies Taniyama-Shimura.

KEN RIBET: So, in other words, if Fermat is false, so is Shimura-Taniyama. Or, said differently, if Shimura-Taniyama is correct, so is Fermat's last theorem.

I don't quite understand the logic, but there it is. Wiles did patch the TS resolution, hence Fermat was solved.

 

[singh]

Here's an interesting analysis by Ray Kurzweil

Article

 

[Chaotic42]

Originally posted by: daddy-o

I don't quite understand the logic, but there it is. Wiles did patch the TS resolution, hence Fermat was solved.

Yeah, this is OT and I appologize because I brought it up.

One last thing.

Fermat's Last Theorem is that there are *no* valid answers. So if TS is *correct* FLT has no solutions. To say that FLT is correct is to say that there are no valid answers.