'A New Kind of Science': You Know That Space-Time Thing? Never Mind

The New York Times ^ | June 9, 2002 | GEORGE JOHNSON

[SauronOfMordor]

Here is another pathetic, desperate straw for egghead atheists to cling to, in their never-ending quest to talk themselves out of the existence of God, so that they can be Real Important.

It might actually show the opposite -- especially if the code snippit for the universe contains a copyright statement ... 8-)

[dread78645]

I can't imagine writing anything without =
Oh, yes I can: (eq force(* mass acceleration)).
Did I remember it right?

'eq' is test for equality, assign is 'setq'.
(setq force (* mass acceleration))

"Very clothes, but then I don't Lispth."

[PeaceBeWithYou]

That would be Donsen's Law.

[John Jamieson]

I think you're right....it's been too long.

[TheLooseThread]

So this is just a fancy way of saying that we really are all living in the matrix....

[L.N. Smithee]

Here is another pathetic, desperate straw for egghead atheists to cling to, in their never-ending quest to talk themselves out of the existence of God, so that they can be Real Important.

Don't worry. Every prediction that whizbang scientific discoveries from great thinkers would force believers into atheism has failed thusfar. The latest was the Human Genome project, which ended up turning the dangling legs of some labcoated fence-sitters over to the Intelligent Designer side.

[Maelstrom]

He's saying the universe isn't analog,
It's Digital, Man!

[Pietro]

"The world expressed by the language of math always seemed somehow not quite right to me after I found out that the circumference of a circle divided by the diameter is an irrational number."

I've always felt the same way. The number that did it for me was i, the square root of -1. It's called imaginary, because it can't exist in the world of real numbers and yet is critical to higher math equations. I always saw that as the chink in the armor of science.

At any rate I think Wolfram, and those mentioned by others here, have hit upon a more accurate dscription of EVERYTHING because it is non-linear. Now if they can do it in about 42 dimensions, 264 colors, and modulating terabit bandwidths they might be getting somewhere. As a start.

[Erasmus]

I think Dr Steven Wolfram and Dr. Frederick Kantor need to talk.

[Erasmus]

Come to think of it, Benoit Mandelbrot too.

[berned]

Thanks for the great LINK on # 67, Smithee! Don't you sense, amongst the science-types, not merely a desperation to disprove the Bible account of Creation, but a palpable TERROR that it might be true?

After the Genome shocker, they should have started asking hard questions about what thin ice "evolution" now sits on, but instead, they merely latch onto the next lame-brained "theory" like this one, which will be chewed over for awhile, then discarded with all the others.

After each one of their lil' "theories" is cast aside as useless, they always express relief that there is now a brand-new one which gives them "hope" to still disbelieve God's Word.

[eno_]

In LISP, "eq" tests for identical symbols. Nothing to do with equations. To test for identical value, especially numerical value and type, you could use eql, or equal, or equalp. Still, none of these has anything to do with an equation, i.e. the result could be "nil" indicating the arguments are not the same ("same" depending on which comparison operator you use).

Equations are things you can use algebra and calculus on to solve for a particular variable, and obtain a function that tell you the value of that variable based on other values. The vast majority of computer programs do no symbolic manipulation on equations. They calculate, they compare, they store, and they branch. In fact it is a key result of Wolfram's work that once a fairly low level of complexity is reached, a program (in the very very general sense of the word) is hopelessly specialized, and that only very simple combinations of rules result in unexpected and interesting outcomes.

[eno_]

It might actually show the opposite -- especially if the code snippit for the universe contains a copyright statement ... 8-)

Better watch out for those clickwrap licenses!

[tcostell]

From my understanding of the article, it sounds to me like the author has discovered the not too particularly earth shattering idea that the universe is non-linear.
All of those books on fractals as Chaos theory said the same thing a few years ago without this authors grand sounding claim to have re-defined the universe. Can you, or anyone one else tell me why I should invest my copious (not) free time in reading his work? Most of the published reviews seem to gloss over the concept as they usually do with similar topics.

I'm an Economist, so while I may lack the specific training, I can usually muscle through the math if given time, so I'd appreciate any explanation from someone with a better understanding than the average book reviewer.

Thanks.

[Billy_bob_bob]

Wolfram is not claiming to have "re-defined" the universe. He is claiming to have come up with a new set of tools that can be used to better understand specific parts of the universe. The ultimate proof of the validity of the theories presented will be if someone is able to create a wholly new technology, application, equation or science using these theories. We should find out within the next thirty years or so.

[berned]

And this is another pathetic, desperate straw for mush-for-brains religionists to cling to, in their never-ending quest to talk themselves into believing everything they've been told, so they don't have to criticaly think about the universe.

I agree! People shouldn't believe everything they are told...like:

"We are the Scientific Community and we attest that the universe has three dimensions... Anyone who says anything other should be ridiculed"...

"Wait-- make that FOUR dimensions...anone who says anything other must be laughed at..."

"Wait, make that TEN dimensions..."

"The Speed of Light is ALWAYS 186,000 mps. It can NEVER be anything less..."

"Oh, wait, some guys in a laboratory slowed it to 0 mps??... er...well...uh..."

"The theory of Evolution is a FACT... We're gonna find those missing links any day now... Anyone who says anything else must be ridiculed thoroughly..."

We shouldn't believe stuff like that?

[tortoise]

"The Speed of Light is ALWAYS 186,000 mps. It can NEVER be anything less..."

Hey rocket scientist, the speed of light IS always 186,000 miles per second IN A VACUUM. It moves slower in any other media. Using your broken understanding, you would say that Cerenkov radiation proves that things can move faster than the speed of light.

It is interesting how someone who knows so little about science thinks they know what science actually says.

[Gorzaloon]

I'm an Economist, so while I may lack the specific training, I can usually muscle through the math if given time, so I'd appreciate any explanation from someone with a better understanding than the average book reviewer

You are uniquely suited to understand it better than I. A few years ago, another "new" book came out, as another derivative of Chaos, and Economics studies and projections figured _prominantly_ in it. The book was titled "Complexity".

I felt that the touting of a "Bold new Science" on the jacket was a bit like a Geo Metro equipped with a speedometer that maxes at 165.

Chaos was the "New paradigm shift". It did influence me and my career greatly, presenting me with a new way to look at engineered material structures and surfaces. It appears it greatly influenced the current author, also. But I doubt the derivatives of the pioneering work of Lorenze,Sierpinski, Kock, Mandelbrot, et al will amount to as much of a real world everyday impact.

Now, if I ever find certain Strange Attractors in the Stock Market and the Lottery, I shall be on here with a more pretentious Freepname! :-)

[berned]

It is interesting how someone who knows so little about science thinks they know what science actually says.

I see. That would be kind of like people who've never seen the inside of a Bible who think they know what IT says, huh?