Wolfram's folly?
Jorn Barger
YEARS pursuing his cellular-automata silliness:
http://www.newscientist.com/opinion/opinterview.jsp?id=ns230516
Does anyone here believe him that "if people actually start to
understand what I've figured out, then I think I'll be forced to be a
very famous scientist"?
--
http://www.robotwisdom.com/ "Relentlessly intelligent
yet playful, polymathic in scope of interests, minimalist
but user-friendly design." --Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel
Tim Tyler
: I'm appalled to learn that Stephen Wolfram has spent the last TWENTY
: YEARS pursuing his cellular-automata silliness:
: http://www.newscientist.com/opinion/opinterview.jsp?id=ns230516
Wolfram's a very smart chap, who has chosen a fascinating object of study.
I would hold your horses until you can read what he has to say for himself
on the matter.
--
__________
|im |yler Index of my domains: http://timtyler.org/ t...@iname.com
Jorn Barger
> : http://www.newscientist.com/opinion/opinterview.jsp?id=ns230516
> Wolfram's a very smart chap, who has chosen a fascinating object of study.
> I would hold your horses until you can read what he has to say for himself
> on the matter.
Yes, cellular automata are fascinating-- in the worst sense of that
word! But the mathematical combinations that generate them just aren't
deeply analogous to the complexities of nature, imho, and spending 20
years chasing after analogies that you have no plausible reason to
expect just seems to me like seriously bad judgment.
The 'extreme folly' scenario that I'm envisioning is that those patterns
fascinated his mathematical intuition-- at first-- but ultimately his
_ego_ wouldn't let him admit he'd wasted all that time...
It vaguely reminds me of Thom's catastrophe theory in the 70s-- maybe
there's a useful theorem or two for pure mathematicians, but Isaac
Newton, no way...
Tim Tyler
: Tim Tyler <t...@iname.com> wrote:
:> : http://www.newscientist.com/opinion/opinterview.jsp?id=ns230516
:> Wolfram's a very smart chap, who has chosen a fascinating object of study.
:> I would hold your horses until you can read what he has to say for himself
:> on the matter.
: Yes, cellular automata are fascinating-- in the worst sense of that
: word! But the mathematical combinations that generate them just
: aren't deeply analogous to the complexities of nature, imho [...]
Not everyone agrees with you:
Digital Physics
http://digitalphysics.org/
The Finite Nature Hypothesis of Edward Fredkin
http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/finite-all.html
FINITE NATURE - Edward Fredkin
http://digitalphysics.org/Publications/Fredkin/Finite-Nature/
: [...] and spending 20 years chasing after analogies that you have no
: plausible reason to expect just seems to me like seriously bad judgment.
Nature may well be discrete and finite. We know that the lack of
visibility of any sort of spatial grid can be produced by latice
gasses when viewed on large scales. We know that cellular automata
can form reversible systems that naturally exhibit the second law
of thermodynamics.
The things that suggest that this may not be how the universe works are:
1) Indeterminism;
2) Relativity;
3) Non-locality.
1) has never been demonstrated - not is it likely to be. Deterministic
versions of physics exist - e.g. Everett's "many worlds" hypothesis.
2) is a problem - CA and relativity can't both be true. However,
Relativity may well break down at large scales - and there have
been some attempts to derive special relativity from CA:
http://digitalphysics.org/Publications/Ostoma-Trushyk/Special/
3) Genuine non-locality would destroy the theory. However there are no
signs the universe displays this. See:
http://www.hedweb.com/manworld.htm#epr for an explanation.
: The 'extreme folly' scenario that I'm envisioning is that those patterns
: fascinated his mathematical intuition-- at first-- but ultimately his
: _ego_ wouldn't let him admit he'd wasted all that time...
I'm afraid on Wolfram's side. Cellular automata are of "stupendous"
importance to our understanding and modelling of the world.
Unfortunately many people's impression of cellular automata is that
they are a toy - something to do with Conway's "game of life".
Maybe Wolfram's book will affect that impression.
Jorn Barger
> Not everyone agrees with you:
> Digital Physics
> http://digitalphysics.org/
> The Finite Nature Hypothesis of Edward Fredkin
> http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/finite-all.html
> FINITE NATURE - Edward Fredkin
> http://digitalphysics.org/Publications/Fredkin/Finite-Nature/
Oy! I remember Fredkin's essay in 'Atlantic' in 1988-- my (negative)
reaction was even stronger than for Wolfram.
Are they claiming to have predicted any natural phenomena that aren't
predicted just as well by the usual models?
Tim Tyler
: Tim Tyler <t...@iname.com> wrote:
:> Not everyone agrees with you:
:> Digital Physics
:> http://digitalphysics.org/
:> The Finite Nature Hypothesis of Edward Fredkin
:> http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/finite-all.html
:> FINITE NATURE - Edward Fredkin
:> http://digitalphysics.org/Publications/Fredkin/Finite-Nature/
: Oy! I remember Fredkin's essay in 'Atlantic' in 1988-- my (negative)
: reaction was even stronger than for Wolfram.
: Are they claiming to have predicted any natural phenomena that aren't
: predicted just as well by the usual models?
They generally make different predictions. For example one thing that is
likely to happen if there is an isomorphisc between physical space and
some multi-dimensional cellular automata is that general relativity will
turn out to break down at some point.
In his "Digital Mechanics" paper, Fredkin included a section entitled
"particular tests" - designed to illustrate what would be necessary to
confirm the theory. These boil down to:
* detecting lattice orientation (assuming a regular lattice);
* detecting lattice velocity.
Obviously if there were experimental evidence which suggested a
resolution one way or the other, the subject would no longer be
a controversial one.
Jorn Barger
> In his "Digital Mechanics" paper, Fredkin included a section entitled
> "particular tests" - designed to illustrate what would be necessary to
> confirm the theory. These boil down to:
> * detecting lattice orientation (assuming a regular lattice);
> * detecting lattice velocity.
But other than that, it has nothing new/predictive to add to the physics
world-model?!? Sounds pretty non-earthshaking...
> Obviously if there were experimental evidence which suggested a
> resolution one way or the other, the subject would no longer be
> a controversial one.
For me, it won't even _start_ being controversial until it makes a
useful suggestion.
mathieu capcarrere
>
> I'm appalled to learn that Stephen Wolfram has spent the last TWENTY
> YEARS pursuing his cellular-automata silliness:
> http://www.newscientist.com/opinion/opinterview.jsp?id=ns230516
>
> Does anyone here believe him that "if people actually start to
> understand what I've figured out, then I think I'll be forced to be a
> very famous scientist"?
>
That Wolfram is not a very likeable person has been established
quite some time ago, I would guess. That this fact implies,
at best a laugh and more usually a complete despise for his
claims is quite understandable. However, I find strange to
be "appalled" by the fact that he spent 20 years researching what
interested him. Personally, but then again I am one of these
strange guys who like useless research, I think that anything
tickling the intelligence is worth investigating. And CA's
are definitely tickling my intelligence...
Now, if you want to argue that his theory is not valid from
a scientific standpoint, go ahead. THAT would be interesting.
Mathieu Capcarrere
Tim Tyler
: Tim Tyler <t...@iname.com> wrote:
:> In his "Digital Mechanics" paper, Fredkin included a section entitled
:> "particular tests" - designed to illustrate what would be necessary to
:> confirm the theory. These boil down to:
:> * detecting lattice orientation (assuming a regular lattice);
:> * detecting lattice velocity.
: But other than that, it has nothing new/predictive to add to the physics
: world-model?!? Sounds pretty non-earthshaking...
I'm sorry the earth didn't move for you ;-)
I think the discovery (if it is ever made) that the universe has a
discrete, finite foundation would be pretty amazing. Assuming the
rule is identified, that would be the physicist's TOE.
Of course it currently remains possible that either the laws of physics
are /not/ finitely expressible - in which case we'll never find out
the rules that govern the universe - or that there is an infinite
quantity of information in any volume of space.
I /hope/ that I live to see physics "bottom out". Finding the
laws that govern the universe is an ancient dream - and ISTM that
there's at least some chance of it being realizised in modern times.
:> Obviously if there were experimental evidence which suggested a
:> resolution one way or the other, the subject would no longer be
:> a controversial one.
: For me, it won't even _start_ being controversial until it makes a
: useful suggestion.
If you don't want any controversy, maybe you should just
sit back and let Wolfram spout his nonsense then ;-)
Rajat Datta
>I'm appalled to learn that Stephen Wolfram has spent the last TWENTY
>YEARS pursuing his cellular-automata silliness:
> http://www.newscientist.com/opinion/opinterview.jsp?id=ns230516
>
>Does anyone here believe him that "if people actually start to
>understand what I've figured out, then I think I'll be forced to be a
>very famous scientist"?
Ummm, given Wolfram's very real contributions to particle physics, I think
physicists are taking a wait and see attitude, without actually sacrificing
their natural skepticism about extraordinary claims. One of the handful who
have supposedly been given the chance to see some of the manuscript early is
Chaitin, who is a pretty well regarded mathematician, and he seems to be
impressed by what Wolfram's done. Judging from his published comments about
Wolfram's "soon to be published" book, Chaitin too advises all to wait and
see.
rajat
cefa
but I think he should research what he likes - blue sky research should be
encouraged. Even better that he should share the ideas with us.
We should all be allowed to pursue our ideas and test our own theories.
He has made enough of a contribution through Mathematica.
The fact that he doesn't hang up his boots and rest on his desert island is
his own decision I guess just swimming all day in beautiful tropical seas
drinking rum and coke and watching gorgeous sunsets with beautiful women
must get a bit boring after 10 years or so (that's something I would like to
research myself actually).
Cefa
"Jorn Barger" <jo...@enteract.com> wrote in message
news:1eyjv8y.bo486g986xybN%jo...@enteract.com...
Erik Max Francis
> Yes, cellular automata are fascinating-- in the worst sense of that
> word! But the mathematical combinations that generate them just
> aren't
> deeply analogous to the complexities of nature, imho, and spending 20
> years chasing after analogies that you have no plausible reason to
> expect just seems to me like seriously bad judgment.
I would tend to agree, but I'd certainly like to see what he has to say.
I doubt it will follow through or amount to much, but he isn't a fool,
so there's some potential in there somewhere.
--
Erik Max Francis / m...@alcyone.com / http://www.alcyone.com/max/
__ San Jose, CA, US / 37 20 N 121 53 W / ICQ16063900 / &tSftDotIotE
/ \ Maybe this world is another planet's Hell.
\__/ Aldous Huxley
Rules for Buh / http://www.alcyone.com/max/projects/cards/buh.html
The official rules to the betting card game, Buh.
Tim Tyler
: On Wed, 22 Aug 2001 16:37:25 -0500, Jorn Barger <jo...@enteract.com> wrote:
:>I'm appalled to learn that Stephen Wolfram has spent the last TWENTY
:>YEARS pursuing his cellular-automata silliness:
:> http://www.newscientist.com/opinion/opinterview.jsp?id=ns230516
:>
:>Does anyone here believe him that "if people actually start to
:>understand what I've figured out, then I think I'll be forced to
:>be a very famous scientist"?
: Ummm, given Wolfram's very real contributions to particle physics, I
: think physicists are taking a wait and see attitude, without actually
: sacrificing their natural skepticism about extraordinary claims.
http://www.stephenwolfram.com/publications/articles/particle/
: One of the handful who have supposedly been given the chance to see
: some of the manuscript early is Chaitin, who is a pretty well regarded
: mathematician, and he seems to be impressed by what Wolfram's done. [...]
Anyone can sneak peeks at individual pages at:
http://www.wolframscience.com/preview/
So far, none of the material I've seen there seems terribly controversial.
Maybe the juicy pages are being saved up ;-)
Jorn Barger
> Anyone can sneak peeks at individual pages at:
> http://www.wolframscience.com/preview/
Fascinating! ;^/
I notice here:
http://www.wolframscience.com/preview/pages/pageviewer.cgi/687
that he hopes he's doing connectionist psychology as well as physics.
(I'm totally _not_ in that camp.)
Erik Max Francis
> Anyone can sneak peeks at individual pages at:
> http://www.wolframscience.com/preview/
>
> So far, none of the material I've seen there seems terribly
> controversial.
>
> Maybe the juicy pages are being saved up ;-)
Well one issue, grievous or not, is that of self-promotion. A scientist
with a theory presents the theory to anyone who will listen, and lets
the theory speak for itself -- if it's good then it won't need any help
other than being self-consistent, making clear, falsifiable predictions,
having benefit over its predecessors, all provided it is presented
clearly and accurately, of course.
There's something fishy when a scientist is more interested in promotion
himself and boosting his fame rather than presenting his new theory
(particularly if it's the culmination of his lifework). That he seems
to be withholding the meat of the theory to garner publicity is a little
distasteful. To some extent that's part of the game, of course, but
still ...
--
Erik Max Francis / m...@alcyone.com / http://www.alcyone.com/max/
__ San Jose, CA, US / 37 20 N 121 53 W / ICQ16063900 / &tSftDotIotE
/ \ There is _never_ no hope left. Remember.
\__/ Louis Wu
Erik Max Francis' bookmarks / http://www.alcyone.com/max/links/
A highly categorized list of Web links.
Tim Tyler
: Tim Tyler wrote:
:> Anyone can sneak peeks at individual pages at:
:> http://www.wolframscience.com/preview/
:>
:> So far, none of the material I've seen there seems terribly
:> controversial.
:>
:> Maybe the juicy pages are being saved up ;-)
: Well one issue, grievous or not, is that of self-promotion. A scientist
: with a theory presents the theory to anyone who will listen, and lets
: the theory speak for itself [...]
: There's something fishy when a scientist is more interested in promotion
: himself and boosting his fame rather than presenting his new theory
: (particularly if it's the culmination of his lifework). That he seems
: to be withholding the meat of the theory to garner publicity is a little
: distasteful. To some extent that's part of the game, of course, but
: still ...
Darwin withheld his theory, and didn't publish it for /ages/.
That juicy pages are being saved up was only speculation on my part -
those pages might be being picked using a PRNG for all I know.
I don't care about self-publicity - everyone does that.
From what I have heard so far, if I have concerns they are mainly
centred about the "rule-110 lawsuit". However the full story of
that has probably yet to be told.
Rajat Datta
>There's something fishy when a scientist is more interested in promotion
>himself and boosting his fame rather than presenting his new theory
>(particularly if it's the culmination of his lifework). That he seems
>to be withholding the meat of the theory to garner publicity is a little
>distasteful. To some extent that's part of the game, of course, but
>still ...
Wolfram is publishing a book (supposed to come out any day now) about his
research, so he intends to get it out. For a lot of reasons that he's given
in interviews he decided not to go the standard academic route of publishing a
100 papers and dribbling out his results slowly. Instead, he's opted for
Darwin's approach, which is to write a single, complete work once the research
has reached a sufficient state of "completion".
He is undoubtedly promoting himself, partly because it'll get the book the
biggest possible audience he can get. Partly he wants to get his ideas out to
a lot of people to have maximum impact; partly, undoubtedly, to promote
himself. But, I don't think it's fair to say that he's withholding his
results just for promotion; I think it's taking him a lot longer than he
thought to get the book done.
rajat
Tim Tyler
: Wolfram is publishing a book (supposed to come out any day now) about his
: research, so he intends to get it out. [...]
The article at the head of the thread gave Jan 2002 as the expected publishing
date [ http://www.newscientist.com/opinion/opinterview.jsp?id=ns230516 ]
Amazon seems to think it will be out in October. Since the thing has been
delayed so many times I wouldn't put much store by either date.
Mike Ritchie
Mike
"cefa" <em...@nowhere.co.uk> wrote in message
news:9m5kpu$s4s$1...@sun-cc204.lut.ac.uk...
> Wolfram has certainly tried to hype up the book with some very large
claims
> but I think he should research what he likes - blue sky research should be
> encouraged. Even better that he should share the ideas with us.
> We should all be allowed to pursue our ideas and test our own theories.
> He has made enough of a contribution through Mathematica.
> The fact that he doesn't hang up his boots and rest on his desert island
is
> his own decision I guess just swimming all day in beautiful tropical seas
> drinking rum and coke and watching gorgeous sunsets with beautiful women
> must get a bit boring after 10 years or so (that's something I would like
to
> research myself actually).
>
> Cefa
design." --Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel
>
>
CALResCo
http://evolutionoftruth.com/evo/swolfram.htm
but nothing unfamiliar to most good complexity scientists
seemed suggested, only an attempt to claim as 'My
Science" what many of us have been saying for years
and which Roger Lewin outlined very well in his 1993
book 'Complexity' !
Whether Wolfram comes up with anything really new or
not, many of the ideas he pursues are already part of
the wider complexity sciences (of which CAs are a part)
and prove fruitful. CAs are isomorphic I'd say to many
of the other techniques included therein, so we shouldn't
get fixated on any one form of connectionist view. My own
modest efforts also try to integrate these sort of ideas into
a 'wider picture', for a philosophical overview see perhaps:
http://www.calresco.org/lucas/philos.htm
In general we model bits of reality - we don't duplicate it.
"The Map is not the Territory" as Korsybski said. To think
otherwise is just a delusion - even for megalomaniacs ;-)
Regards to all,
Chris Lucas
CALResCo
http://www.calresco.org/
Jorn Barger
> Came across a short outline of Wolfram's 'revolution' at:
> http://evolutionoftruth.com/evo/swolfram.htm
Woah... did you look around that site? ('Christian Automata' would
sound even more paradoxical than 'Robot Wisdom'!)
Peter Harrison
>Not everyone agrees with you:
>
>Digital Physics
> http://digitalphysics.org/
>
>The Finite Nature Hypothesis of Edward Fredkin
> http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/finite-all.html
>
>FINITE NATURE - Edward Fredkin
> http://digitalphysics.org/Publications/Fredkin/Finite-Nature/
WOW!! Thanks for these links. I have been working on my own ideas, as
can be seen on my website at
http://www.devcentre.org/alife/alife.htm
These ideas a remarkably similar, and much better developed.
Thanks,
Peter
Peter Harrison
wrote:
>But other than that, it has nothing new/predictive to add to the physics
>world-model?!? Sounds pretty non-earthshaking...
I had an idea related to this topic which would show that conservation
of energy was an emergent property of this universe, and not
nessasarily a built in law of the universe. In *theory* it might be
possible to create matter from nothing if the idea were true...
>For me, it won't even _start_ being controversial until it makes a
>useful suggestion.
The problem is that the current theories provide such a good fit to
whats observed that *any* theory - even a correct one - would have a
tough time trying to predict something new. In order to approach
finding a new theory we need to do substantial work to just discover
what a new model might predict.
In this case I find that this new way of thinking *may* provide some
insight into physics. Note I have not used the term 'theory' - since
my ideas are nothing so grand. However, when I finally get around to
completing some experiments (computing experiments, not physical
experiments) I will let you know if my ideas have panned out...
Tim Tyler
: CALResCo <calr...@aol.com> wrote:
:> Came across a short outline of Wolfram's 'revolution' at:
:> http://evolutionoftruth.com/evo/swolfram.htm
: Woah... did you look around that site? [...]
"I've come to believe," says Wolfram, "that natural selection is not all
that important."
I hope that site is not a sign of things to come. Creationists
managed to take punctuated equilbria as evidence of dissent within
the field of evolution, no doubt they won't have much trouble in
bending quotes from Wolfram like the one above to their own ends.
Tom Osborn
"Tim Tyler" <t...@iname.com> wrote in message news:GIsL8...@bath.ac.uk...
> Jorn Barger <jo...@enteract.com> wrote:
> : CALResCo <calr...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> :> Came across a short outline of Wolfram's 'revolution' at:
> :> http://evolutionoftruth.com/evo/swolfram.htm
>
> : Woah... did you look around that site? [...]
>
> "I've come to believe," says Wolfram, "that natural selection is not all
> that important."
>
> I hope that site is not a sign of things to come. Creationists
> managed to take punctuated equilbria as evidence of dissent within
> the field of evolution, no doubt they won't have much trouble in
> bending quotes from Wolfram like the one above to their own ends.
The quote could mean just about anything. There needs to be context
and perspectives around what smart people say. Jeez, "important" is
such a loaded word!
Maybe more important is the persistence of specific new alleles till
they become beneficial.
If you look backwards in time along germlines to the origin of the
new alleles, you (speculatively) can see that a kind of "buffering
against anti-selection" is more important than selection. That
buffering includes a kind of abstract social "web of support or
acceptance", and is distinct from positive pro-selection pressure.
OK, there's a context that makes selection not so core...
Mechanisms for preservation of diversity...
Mechanisms for generation of diversity...
...underly adaptation... ...pressure is just a test...
Heap on more context and viewpoints at your leisure...
Creationism is a meme, so should be discussed in a different forum
(alt.cults - if someone wished to sponsor _its_ creation or alt.memetics).
CALResCo
>"I've come to believe," says Wolfram, "that natural selection is not all
> that important."
>
>I hope that site is not a sign of things to come. Creationists
>managed to take punctuated equilbria as evidence of dissent within
>the field of evolution, no doubt they won't have much trouble in
>bending quotes from Wolfram like the one above to their own ends.
I think Wolfram is taking here the position, held also by Kauffman,
myself and others, that self-organization is the primary driver of
structure and that evolution only acts to 'choose' between alternative
forms that have arisen in other emergent ways. For more on this
see perhaps the Self-Organizing Systems FAQ that I maintain:
http://www.calresco.org/sos/sosfaq.htm
or my essay on 'Emergence and Evolution':
http://www.calresco.org/emerge.htm
It certainly isn't a creationist viewpoint of any sort, although
people often distort context to fit their prejudices and I'm sure
those people will here also !
Regards
Mark Griffith
posters in this thread, as they write things like:
calr...@aol.com (CALResCo) wrote in message news:<20010826092224...@nso-ct.aol.com>...
> nothing unfamiliar to most good complexity scientists
> seemed suggested [by Wolfram], only an attempt to claim as 'My
> Science" what many of us have been saying for years
> and which Roger Lewin outlined very well in his 1993
> book 'Complexity' !
> Chris Lucas > CALResCo
> http://www.calresco.org/
since I, like these people, find cellular automata very
exciting and promising - but as Lucas writes, hasn't this
been around rather a long time already?
The paperbook book I read in 1981 by biologist C.H. Waddington
('Tools for Thought') had been around a while - I thought
I had come to all this pretty late in the day even then for it
to be available in book form. Waddington lucidly outlined
the games of Conway and others, the implications for biology,
economics, physics and everything else following from thinking
of recursive iterations of simple rules as more fundamental
than equations. He seemed quite clear that cellular automata
were a major new way of looking at reality already 20 years ago.
Didn't Waddington's book already do much of the basic
introduction Wolfram claims is still needed, or was
Wolfram perhaps not interviewed too skilfully by New Scientist?
I'm certainly looking forward to seeing Wolfram's book!
Best wishes, Mark Griffith, http://www.otherlanguages.org