This non-fiction book is thick enough to make Atlas Shrugged look like a gothic romance pocket book.
The bulk of this book recounts Wolfram's more than 20 years worth of experiments with cellular automata, and the many implications for real life which he has drawn from his experience.
To read his preface to the book, click here: Just over twenty years ago I made what at first seemed like a small discovery: a computer experiment of mine showed something I did not expect. But the more I investigated, the more I realized that what I had seen was the beginning of a crack in the very foundations of existing science, and a first clue towards a whole new kind of science.
The bulk of the theorizing seems to be centered around what Wolfram terms a "new law of nature," in his The Principle of Computational Equivalence -- which seems to assert that in all of the universe, there are only two kinds of systems, simple systems, and complex systems, and the key is that all complex systems can be viewed as 1) computational systems; and are of exactly the same level of complexity...
I'm not one of those MacArthur Prize Fellows who are officially a world class genius -- Wolfram is -- and I've never been a fellow of Einstein's old home, the Princeton Institute for Advance Studies -- Wolfram was -- but I found this book both interesting and puzzling.
It is interesting because it is SO large that Wolfram has room to really lay out his thinking step by step, with examples from every level of his experiences.
It is puzzling because everything seems to amazingly tame and totally UN-amazing.
Perhaps there is a "new" science here. It certainly is a fun read and a fun book to experiment along with on a home computer.
But I wonder how earth-shaking this book will be. Wolfram seems to believe it will usher in an entirely new paradigm for understanding reallity. Perhaps. Perhaps it is like Clark Kent -- so totally understated that the real, superhero identity is hard to see...
-- Kiss of the Sith
THE CRACKPOT INDEXTo make no mention of the points he earns for refusing to submit the book for peer review out of fear that his colleagues' brains would explode. But I'd buy the book in a heartbeat if he would bundle in the latest release of Mathematica! ;-)A simple method for rating potentially revolutionary contributions to physics.
A -5 point starting credit.
1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false.
2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous.
3 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent.
5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful correction.
5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the results of a widely accepted real experiment.
5 points for each word in all capital letters (except for those with defective keyboards).
5 points for each mention of "Einstien", "Hawkins" or "Feynmann".
10 points for each claim that quantum mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).
10 points for pointing out that you have gone to school, as if this were evidence of sanity.
10 points for beginning the description of your theory by saying how long you have been working on it.
10 points for mailing your theory to someone you don't know personally and asking them not to tell anyone else about it, for fear that your ideas will be stolen.
10 points for offering prize money to anyone who proves and/or finds any flaws in your theory.
10 points for each statement along the lines of "I'm not good at math, but my theory is conceptually right, so all I need is for someone to express it in terms of equations".
10 points for arguing that a current well-established theory is "only a theory", as if this were somehow a point against it.
10 points for arguing that while a current well-established theory predicts phenomena correctly, it doesn't explain "why" they occur, or fails to provide a "mechanism".
10 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Einstein, or claim that special or general relativity are fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).
10 points for claiming that your work is on the cutting edge of a "paradigm shift".
20 points for suggesting that you deserve a Nobel prize.
20 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Newton or claim that classical mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).
20 points for every use of science fiction works or myths as if they were fact.
20 points for defending yourself by bringing up (real or imagined) ridicule accorded to your past theories.
20 points for each use of the phrase "hidebound reactionary".
20 points for each use of the phrase "self-appointed defender of the orthodoxy".
30 points for suggesting that a famous figure secretly disbelieved in a theory which he or she publicly supported. (E.g., that Feynman was a closet opponent of special relativity, as deduced by reading between the lines in his freshman physics textbooks.)
30 points for suggesting that Einstein, in his later years, was groping his way towards the ideas you now advocate.
30 points for claiming that your theories were developed by an extraterrestrial civilization (without good evidence).
30 points for allusions to a delay in your work while you spent time in an asylum, or references to the psychiatrist who tried to talk you out of your theory.
40 points for comparing those who argue against your ideas to Nazis, stormtroopers, or brownshirts.
40 points for claiming that the "scientific establishment" is engaged in a "conspiracy" to prevent your work from gaining its well-deserved fame, or suchlike.
40 points for comparing yourself to Galileo, suggesting that a modern-day Inquisition is hard at work on your case, and so on.
40 points for claiming that when your theory is finally appreciated, present-day science will be seen for the sham it truly is. (30 more points for fantasizing about show trials in which scientists who mocked your theories will be forced to recant.)
50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but giving no concrete testable predictions.