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.
One remarkable thing about this book is how carefully Wolfram uses language. He is always explicit about his context. In speaking of experimental science, he will always say things like, "Experiments demonstrate..." or "Observed data support..." Speaking of axiom systems like math or logic he will say things like, "It can be proven that..." or "It has been shown that..."
And when speculating -- even about issues pivotal to his thesis -- he makes that clear as well. Here is an excerpt (emphasis mine) from one of his sections on extrapolating from thoughts based on discrete computer math to continuous reality:
"...[A]s I have discussed several times in this book, it is in many cases clear that the whole notion of continuity is just an idealization -- although one that happens to be almost required if one wants to make use of traditional mathematical methods.
"Fluids provide one obvious example. For usually they are thought of as being described by continuous mathematical equations, But at an underlying level real fluids consist of discrete particles. And this means that whatever the mathematical equations may suggest, the actual ultimate computational capabilities of fluids must be those of a system of discrete particles.
"But while it is known that many systems in nature are made up of discrete elements, it is still almost universally believed that there are some things that are fundamentally continuous -- notably positions in space and values of quantum mechanical probability amplitudes.
"Yet as I discussed in Chapter 9 my strong suspicion is that at a fundamental level absolutely every aspect of our universe will in the end turn out to be discrete. And if this is so, then it immediately implies that there cannot ever ultimately be any form of continuity in our universe that violates the Principle of Computational Equivalence.
"But what if one somehow restricts oneself to a domain where some particular system seems continuous? Can one even at this level perform more sophisticated computations than in a discrete system?
"My guess is that for all practical purposes one cannot. Indeed, it is my suspicion that with almost any reasonable set of assumptions even idealized perfectly continuous systems will never in fact be able to perform fundamentally more sophisticated computations."
[ANKOS, p. 729-30]
"...my strong suspicion...", "My guess...", "...my suspicion..."
Wolfram maintains this strict use of language throughout the 227,580 words of text, and 283,751 words of notes on the text. Facts are stated as such, usually with notes to where they are experimentally demonstrated. Proofs are called such, usually with abbreviated examples of the proof and notes to where the full proof can be found. And Wolfram's own speculation is presented in terms of his beliefs built within the context that he elaborates on in each section.
Really, for just $48 [!] I've never seen a book like this in my life.
-- Kiss of the Sith