Posted on 09/04/2002 11:23:46 AM PDT by betty boop
Hello beckett! Does Wolfram offer anything new? I’m hardly the person to ask that question, for I don’t have a background in either mathematics or the sciences, and so am not steeped in the relevant literature. One of the reasons I wanted to read this book was to try to correct this problem!
The sense I get from reading it, however, is that Wolfram is not trying to promote new, developed theories that attack thorny problems in math and science, or that strike down existing theories wholesale, but rather is trying to show us a new way of seeing things, of imagining alternative concepts and methods so that heretofore intransigent problems can be attacked from a new perspective. He tells us throughout that this “new science” is in its very early stages; so he’s merely pointing out the new direction, and bidding us to Go Look! for ourselves. Generally what he does is to indicate what he sees as potential shortcomings or inconsistencies of existing methods, and making suggestions on how math and science could perhaps advance by "retraining the intuition" and trying out some new things.
I gather what is really new here is that he’s essentially applying the concepts and techniques in computer modeling to other fields. I can see how this guy could look pretty “pasty” and nervous – he’s said to have been a “night owl” for the past 20 years, looking at millions of graphical “pictures,” doing his programming, trying to design ways to make his cellular automata emulate other dynamic systems, etc., etc. I think perhaps in his own mind he believes that certain universal cellular automata could be modified and/or reconfigured in a way that would make them useful as a kind of “master decryption key” to unlock the secrets of the universe that so far have been withheld from human understanding.
Whether or not this sort of thing will work in the end, neither he nor we know for sure at this point. But I can see this effort as conceivably proving to be an enormously useful exercise. For by studying the behavior of systems just as systems -- that is, without reference to the details of particular systems -- perhaps new insights can be gleaned with very broad applications to systems generally. This sounds eminently reasonable to me.
Speaking from the background I do have (philosophy), I’d say this book is enormously valuable as a work in epistemology. He tries to avoid engaging issues of metaphysics, mostly successfully, sticking to the rationalist approach of modern science.
But this book, if its theories and methods hold, has extraordinary implications for cosmology. Wolfram acknowledges that he “believes that every feature of our universe does indeed come from an ultimate discrete model.” He is as aware as any of us, however, that he himself has not yet found it, and that it may not even be possible for it to be found with empirical methods. Further, he acknowledges there may be limits to the sorts of things he’s doing in this book, for he says, in the Endnotes for Chapter 8: “Implications for Everyday Systems,”
“In the early chapters of this book what I have said can mostly be said with absolute certainty, since it is based on observations about the behavior of purely abstract systems that I have explicitly constructed. But in this chapter, I study actual systems that exist in nature, and as a result, most of what I say cannot be said with any absolute certainty, but instead must involve a significant component of hypothesis. For I no longer control the basic rules of the systems I am studying, and instead I must just try to deduce these rules from observation – with the potential that despite my best efforts my deductions could simply be incorrect.” [Itals added.]
In a certain way, this passage evokes Eric Voegelin for me….
It may be said, perhaps, the Wolfram engages in a certain amount of “proselytizing” and/or self-promotion. But the guy’s no megalomaniac, IMHO.
Truly I liked -- like -- this book. I find the Endnotes particularly fascinating. I just keep dipping into them, for the panoramic view of the history of human knowledge that they provide, especially in the fields of math and science; but Wolfram treats perennial philosophical problems, as well. He goes back to the ancient world, then brings you “up-to-date” on current issues/problems in, say, quantum field theory….
Pretty heady, amazing stuff! We’ll have to wait for his scientific peers to weigh in (assuming he has any! :^) ), and I expect that will take time. Wolfram is a pioneer. Perhaps others will follow him where he’s gone to, in due course. All my best – bb.
It's going to be a while. Active scientists and mathematicians wouldn't have had the time to slog through this book and find the inspired nuggets as yet. All the reviews I have seen so far indicate superficial reading by the critic.
Except yours. You seem to be in synch with Wolfram. Do you know him personally or . . . are you actually Wolfram in person?
LOL, RightWhale!!! No, and No!
Perhaps I'm just naturally sympathetic to him. In the first place, I don't have an "ox" for him to "gore" -- meaning, being a non-scientist, there's no way that I could react to him defensively, which I might do if I were a scientist, and my pet theory was coming under seeming attack. I'm just trying to understand what the man is saying, and just find statements like the following one exciting and intriguing (which is relevant to your Reply #35 on this thread):
"Present-day physics almost always assumes that space is a perfect continuum, in which objects can be placed at absolutely any position. But one can certainly imagine that space could work very differently....
"In our everyday experience space nevertheless appears to be continuous. But then so, for example, do fluids like air and water. And yet in the case of fluids we know that at an underlying level they are composed of discrete molecules. And in fact over the course of the past century a great many aspects of the physical world that at first seemed continuous have in the end been discovered to be built up from discrete elements. And I very strongly suspect that this will also be true of space.
"Particle physics experiments have shown that space acts as a continuum down to distances of around [Planck length].... But there is absolutely no reason to think that discrete elements will not be found at still smaller distances."
Here's the big kicker for me coming up next:
"And indeed, in the past one of the main reasons that space has been assumed to be a perfect continuum is that this makes it easier to handle in the context of traditional mathematics...."
To my way of thinking, this is like trying to make the universe fit our categories, instead of the other way around. Elsewhere Wolfram notes that the calculus fundamentally assumes perfect continuousness. So it seems reasonable to infer that models premissed on calculus may not be sufficiently accurate in describing "what is," and indeed may be systematically ignoring aspects of reality necessary to the behavior of what is being observed.
THEN a page later, a HUGE kicker: "...[I]f the ultimate model for the universe is to be as simple as possible, then it seems much more plausible that both space and its contents should somehow be made of the same stuff -- so that in a sense space becomes the only thing in the universe."
WOW. Needless to say, this looks like pretty radical stuff...at least to me. If the insight is incorrect, then nothing's been lost. But if it is correct, then we humans have got some big-time exploring to do.
Thanks so much for writing, RightWhale. best, bb.
This is where Wolfram and I would part thinking. In my view he should have kept going, it's even more fundamental than that.
IMHO, he should have followed Descartes, and grasped to comprehend zero - nothing - Ayn Sof.
At the most fundamental level of thought, it makes no sense to me to root anything to a physical law or geometry.
My two cents...
But it is my strong suspicion that such purposes in fact have very little to do with the real reasons that these particular features exist.
Perhaps evolution is part of a larger system, and the scientific emphasis on detail and numerical evidence occludes it.
It is difficult to explain much of modern human behavior using evolutionary arguments or the painful field of evolutionary psychology. Why does someone become a starving artist? Nietzsche's vague Will to Power provides a more meaningful answer than evolutionary rationalizations.
Wherefore all the social changes we've seen in our lifetime? Why do we develop the technology we do, and the art? What is the implicit goal of humanity? Ah, well. Survival of the fittest explains it all.
As CAs, renormalization, chaos, and many other new ideas are applied to the workings of the brain, "I suspect" (Wolfram) we will see a revolution in human understanding.
At the most fundamental level of thought, it makes no sense to me to root anything to a physical law or geometry.
Interesting comment. My first reaction was that it is not that kind of book. But you raise the question, can theology (or, in science, those multiverse sorts of questions) be perceived by extrapolation.
I would make only the general statement that extrapolation of a process (like CAs) gives a warmer feeling than equations that "blow up" at a point.
I was objecting to circular reasoning. In this case, he was attributing all within space including space itself as manifestation of space.
It's the same kind of circular reasoning that invalidates "quantum universes from quantum fluctuations" - i.e. the spawning of new universes is theorized based upon the known physical laws of this one.
IMHO, to really grasp the concept of "all that there is" one has to remove all things existing because all of these (space, time, matter, energy, momentum, geometry) are qualities of the extension of field (gravity, electromagnetism, strong and weak atomic force.) They don't pre-exist.
And to do that, it seems we must start from zero. True, the concept is theological also - but it is the point at which I believe the greatest simplicity of algorithm can manifest - probably geometric in form.
Fascinating, A-G. Wolfram devotes Chapter 10 to a discussion of human perception. It appears that so much of what we know -- or think we know -- is at some fundamental level structured or "colored" by various constraints in the mechanisms by which we sense and perceive our world. Not trying to be cute here, but if Descartes is right about the zero, then fundamentally there must be something more than nothing in the universe -- in this case, the intelligence it took for him to grasp the insight.
Maybe the only sense it makes to root anything at all in physical laws or geometry is that there is something about the structure of human consciousness that somehow makes it naturally easy for us to do this. And so we do.
At bottom, the universe seems to be fundamentally, ultimately paradoxical and mysterious. In a certain way, it seems that the only things that exist for us in the universe are those things of which we can become conscious. For us, nothing else exists.
Maybe at some truly fundamental level, all there is is consciousness, or as Wolfram prefers, intelligence. I'm not sure, but his reduction of intelligence to computation may not be very enlightening in the long run. For the focus on computation suggests, to me, that he is more interested in the formal transactional process than he is on what is being "processed." Which is reminiscent of German Idealism -- there were times when I thought I was dealing with the Second Coming of Hegel! :^)
Still working all this stuff through, though. This, and a lot else, from other sources. Thanks for writing, A-G. best, bb.
Hahahahahahahahaha monkey!!! Is it time for the discussion of crop circles yet??? (Wolfram actually spends quite a bit of time on extraterrestrial intelligence.) I've got to run for now, but will try to come back later tonight. (Plus you have another reply up that is very interesting....) best, bb.
It appears that so much of what we know -- or think we know -- is at some fundamental level structured or "colored" by various constraints in the mechanisms by which we sense and perceive our world
So very true - and the concept of space and time are IMHO the greatest stumbling block to much of our scientific inquiry - Cosmology, Physics, Origins, etc.
Not trying to be cute here, but if Descartes is right about the zero, then fundamentally there must be something more than nothing in the universe -- in this case, the intelligence it took for him to grasp the insight.
Again, so very true - and no doubt resulting in cogito ergo sum.
Uncharacteristically, Rose seem befuddled by Wolfram. They never quite got onto the same wavelength. Wolfram does not have a gift for explanation. My impression was that the verbal compromises required to simplify ideas do not come easily to him. He's clearly brilliant, but a bit off-putting in a way. He has that odd combination of diffidence and superiority that one sometimes notices in the very smart.
To answer your question, I don't think Rose ever got out an incisive question because I don't think he succeeded in getting the gist of Wolfram's ideas.
I'm reading Roger Scruton's excellent Descartes to Wittgenstein at the moment. Then I have the Skeptical Environmentalist and Gould's The Structure of Evolutionary Theory in train, both of doorstopping heft. Maybe after that I'll get to Wolfram, if my brain still works.
The first few times I saw Rose, about subjects I knew something about, he seemed rather doofy. But I came to see that he does a decent job with almost everyone, and gets great guests. I'm not surprised he had trouble with Wolfram.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.