Do what ? write this ?
Also, there’s opengl =P
Stephen J. Gould, who theorized Punctuated Equilibrium with the help of Niles Eldridges, found a lot of problems with natural selection and it’s extrapolations such as gradualism (but many more). He wrote a very long book called “The Structure of Evolutionary Theory”. It was an incredible in-depth exegesis in which he stripped away a lot of what natural selection means, but it’s foundation was kept intact. Natural Selection is actually a marginal activity and doesn’t happen all the time. Gould was opening up a whole new window with his theories one such field he helped structure has become known as Evolutionary Development (Evo-Devo). I would like to pick that book of his back up someday again cause I’ve most definitely learned quite a bit since then. It is a must, I think, to know logic/philosophy in greater depth to understand that book with greater effectiveness. It’s amazing how much of evolutionary theory isn’t necessarily about “natural selection”. There are intricate aspects of natural selection that have been thrown away for lack of explanation power. It has become quite small in a much larger field of inquiry of evolutionary theory. But of course it does hold a powerful place, and it’s foundation does have some significance, yet, there’s really so much more to e. theory from what I gather after reading his book.
I have to say. This was a superb comment. So much can be grasped and extrapolated by what you said here. Not so much the truth of Wolfram being this or not, but the potential (or early active) moment of history occurring now.
maybe Wolfram is amongst others that are the new mechanics.
Quite honestly, what the reviews are saying is that the ideas are old, and that the author has too big of an ego to admit that he is re-hashing old ideas with a new twist. It is not that the reviewers do not understand the main point, but that it is not an excessively new idea. Honestly, from what I have seen about the work ( I have not read it, nor do I plan on it) it seems to echo what has already been said by Goedel, Turing, and Zuse.
never underestimate marketing…
Another denier who does not know the thesis of the book.
I’m not denying anything: I’m just noting that you completly straw-manned anybody who had a negative review of the book. In addition, it does not just take “knowing the thesis of the book” to understand their reviews; rather, it takes a knowledge of theories hitherto in the subject, those of Goedel, Turing, and Zuse, to understand the complaints, and honestly, either you did not communicate clearly about the book, or it is a re-hash of the three.
For instance, a half-efficient reading of Goedel could come to this hardly revolutionary conclusion:
Why all of a sudden we should be heaping praises upon Wolfram for it, I don’t know.
As being a fan of Wolfram and AL in general, I’ll take a stab at what he has done right and done wrong. First, the right. He’s grasped that at the core of Nature cannot be induced by a finite sampling of the given phenomena we can observe, rather he concludes similarly to the Austrians in terms of following from principles or rules first thinking. That is to mean that all logical deductions are based on rules or principles by which all elements which are defined within their scope are known to behave. In the case of Austrian Economics, the logic of action governs all possible configurations of human interactions, no matter how seemingly strange. This is possible also because the conclusions based on the logic of action do not deny any possible particular configuration of said interactions. It only puts a constraint on for whom it applies to: humans. Similarly, Wolfram’s (and others before him) ideas on applying rules first thinking to the natural sciences follows the same conclusions in that each possible sphere of study must find basic deductive rules, then see what they can conclude in.
Second, what he’s done wrong. What he has done wrong is pretty simple, he mistakes his models for the rules, this is very common for all thinkers great and small as human beings are results driven animals. Thus, just having rules, and their consequences/conclusions, to show seem meaningless to us. But, the reality is that this error itself isn’t the damning issue here. The damning issue is really the presentation of the rules first thinking methodology (which Austrian Economics is part of).
Ladyattis:
Very interesting. Two questions:
-
Regarding rules first thinking, is this your term, or is there a book or essay you can refer us to that treats this subject ?
-
When you write “damning,” I assume you mean from the point of view of those opposed to this way of thinking ?
Adam
I never claimed the conclusion was revolutionary, only that it was implied by his a prioristic method.
http://www.wolframscience.com/nksonline/page-1158c-text?firstview=1
Then you should not have been condemning the reviews he got on amazon, most of them were giving him low reviews because of his work was not revolutionary despite the fact it claimed to be.
His work is revolutionary, if you understand what it is, which most of them didn’t. They did not understand the thesis and instead claimed that the arguments were stolen from other people’s research. Of course the reason such a thesis could be conceived was because of the arguments produced by these theories.
No one but him has the idea of exploring the universe of all possible computations in order to mine rules that generate complex phenomena. Wolfram employs theories like Godel’s in order to justify his method of exploring the computational universe instead of traditional science.
Ladyattis:
A few more questions:
Could you perhaps elaborate on what you mean here, maybe by analogy?
For example, mathematics seems to be a type of rules first thinking.
Let’s say that Wolfram (W) has his rules first theory (or model), and Mr. Attis (M) has his rules first mathematical theory.
Assuming that M’s mathematical theory is valid, are you saying that W’s model doesn’t meet the strict standards of M’s mathematical theory?
Or are you saying that M—as a rules first thinker—mistakes his mathematical theory for the rules?
Also, I didn’t understand about seeming meaningless. Does this refer to W’s models, or to the rules first orientation of thought?
For example, this kind of thinking seems meaningful to its practitioners and many others.
Adam
What I mean by rules first thinking is that you’re working from axioms or principles which are logically certain in terms of the elements being explored.
As for Wolfram’s views on rules first thinking, he gets the basics right, he just misapplies them in his presentations.