Alamo-Girl, I definitely think you're right about this. Time for a meditation/speculation on theme:
What attracts me to Wolfram is the seriousness and profundity of his purpose. I get the sense he’s searching for one ultimate principle that can accommodate and reconcile physics and metaphysics; cosmology and ontology. As often as he seems to try to avoid the issue entirely, there seems to be in play what may be called a “religious attitude.”
He tells us he believes that “every feature of our universe does indeed come from an ultimate discrete model.” He writes:
“Some may view an ultimate model of the universe as ‘leaving no room for a god’, while others may view it as a direct reflection of the existence of a god.”
The first might be called the “formalist” approach; but the latter is distinctly platonic (not to mention Christian) in its resonance. Wolfram is aware of Plato: Plato gets eight cites in the index, but seems to appear in the main text far more often than that.
I digress. Wolfram continues:
“In any case, knowing a complete and ultimate model does make it impossible to have miracles or divine interventions that come outside the laws of the universe – though working out what will happen on the basis of these laws may nevertheless be irreducibly difficult.”
[I have a dispute with this conclusion; please see below.]
Wolfram’s remarks suggest pantheist belief, as seemingly confirmed in this passage: “Some of my conclusions … may seem to resonate with ideas of Eastern thinking. For example, what I say about the fundamental similarity of human thinking to other processes in nature may seem to fit with Buddhism. And what I say about the irreducibility of processes in nature to short formal rules may seem to fit with Taoism. Like essentially all forms of science, however, what I do in [my] book is done in a rational tradition – with limited relation to the more mystical traditions of Eastern thinking.” [Notice he omits Western cosmological traditions altogether in his analysis of relevant problems.)
Notwithstanding this qualification, Wolfram’s statements about the human condition – e.g., man is nothing intrinsically “special” in himself, but just another quite ordinary component of “nature” – have roots in a concept of the universe that insists god and the universe are one. That is, in Eastern pantheism.
Though Wolfram says such theological speculations are not material to the new kind of science he’s doing, one could argue that such constitute his fundamental “world view,” and thus supply the overriding context in which he conducts his exploration. But he has himself covered there, for he writes:
“[C]ontext can in fact be crucial to the choice of subject matter and interpretation of results in science. But the Principle of Computational Equivalence suggests at some level a remarkable uniformity among systems, that allows all sorts of general scientific statements to be made without dependence on context. It so happens that some of these statements then imply intrinsic general limitations on science – but even the very fact that such statements can be made is in a sense an example of successful generality in science….”
Everything is general. Nothing is special…. Dr. Wolfram may be falling victim to the same disease that has befallen other of his peers, colleagues, and intellectual forebears -- quite a few of whom he critiques in his book.
This disease has a name: systematic reductionism.
* * * * * *
To say that Wolfram’s cellular automata – and/or the general line of his investigation -- are fictions, however, is quite another story. I really do think and believe that he’s onto something new here, something of potentially incalculable value, the method of which he explicates with the greatest of care in the pages of A New Kind of Science.
For he is trying to get us to “retrain our intuition.” And he’s given us a tool to use to do that, if we want to use it. In the end, I suspect that the boost he’s trying to give to human intuition is the ability to refine the visual imagination, explicitly pattern recognition.
So I’m grateful to him, even if he wants to be a Buddhist about it. :^)
* * * * * *
Yet I marvel at the huge detours from Western civilizational culture and experience that this world-class scientist of our age seems to feel he needs to take, perhaps in order to be taken seriously by his colleagues and peers.
Wolfram isn’t an atheist. That must make him feel a tad uncomfortable every now and then. For perchance, being seen as committing "politically incorrect" offenses in his particular realm of thought, his peers might thereby conclude him to be somehow lacking in the objectivity demanded by his discipline. Maybe Wolfram thinks he must tread a fine line, if he wants what passes for "respectability" among his peers these days....
But in the end, I suspect his entrepreneurially-gained personal wealth can both shelter him intellectually and provide the wherewithal to pursue his projects independently, if need be.
One might think it quite odd that a great scion of the Western intellectual tradition such as (it seems clear to me at least) Stephen Wolfram would find himself in the pantheist camp.
Alamo-Girl, there is something rather strange and ironic in Wolfram’s “Buddhist business,” to my way of thinking at least. In the first place, human thinking doesn’t much matter in the Buddhist universe, at least in terms of social relations, or relations to the wider world. Any thinking that is being committed at all under such a thought regime is, in a way, designed to extinguish thought itself which, if considered as such at all, is usually identified as a reliable source of human pain.
Next, take a look at the globe under the aspect of human history. Ask yourself: In which human culture(s) did science and technology arise and find lasting sustenance and consequence? And in which culture(s) did science and technology fail to develop at all, until quite modern times -- and then only by virtue of cultural transmission from the West?
I’ve “spilled the beans” in the paragraph immediately above, haven’t I? Still, fact is, science and technology are not the intellectual offspring of Buddhism, Hinduism, Confucianism, or even Zen (although Zen may have interesting insights to afford to logic).
Science and technology have their root in the intellectual and moral traditions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. (As to the latter, Aristotle may never have made it into the Western tradition, had it not been for the “transmission belt” from great Arab thinkers such as Averroes and Alcinna.)
All of the immediately above-named cultures (I should say spiritual communities, united by their shared convictions regarding the One True God -- the “I Am That Am” that is the mysterious but fundamentally Personal -- that is, supemely intelligent and willing god -- hold that God and His creation to be quite distinct entities. God is neither contained nor constrained by the rules he makes. The artist stands apart from his creation. You cannot physically locate Picasso in Guernica. Blame Aristotle for first recording this insight if you want to.
Wolfram speaks of intelligence as somehow founding and sustaining the order of the universe, and of his conviction that, at bottom, one simple, fundamental model undergirds and empowers the structure of the universe, and was its original motive principle. The characteristics of this model are quite simple. (1) Its initial conditions are simple. (2) Its rules of conduct are simple. (3) Its model describes a system designed to unfold in time.
What I want to know, A-G, is, given his own criteria, why Wolfram seems not to have considered his own inheritance from Western culture as relevant to his problem, preferring to immerse himself in the “nirvana-dreams” of Eastern mysticism instead?
For given his description of the requirements of the fundamental model he’s trying to realize, sketched at (1), (2), and (3) above, it seems he hasn’t yet considered the major, world-transforming insight that the major cultural constituent of Western civilization has been propounding (and symbolizing) for two millennia by now.
By which I mean: Christianity. Which states (among other things) that: “In the beginning was the Word. And the Word was God, and the Word was with God.”
Symbolically, the Word, the Logos, would seem to fulfill Wolfram’s requirements. For from a rational point of view, (1) the Word constitutes the simplest of initial conditions. (2) People who read the Bible know (or should know) how simple the rules of the universe and of human being and existence really are. And (3) The rules were definitely intended to unfold over time.
* * * * * *
I could expound further, A-G. But enuf’s enuf for now. Time “to put a sock in it.” Only just want to add that Wolfram, for all his glory, winds up sounding pretty dismal in the end:
“And while at first [my work] might seem to suggest that the rich history of biology, civilization and technology needed to reach this point would somehow be wasted, what I believe instead is that this just highlights the extent to which such history is what is ultimately the defining feature of the humans condition.”
The “this point” in the immediately preceding paragraph seems to refer to a state of human existence in which human beings have become quite marginal. There have been times reading Wolfram when I’ve imagined he yearns for the day when nanotechnology can replicate human intelligence in all its ramifications, and perform all the important human functions (which subject constitutes an entire universe of inquiry unto itself, the particulars of which Wolfram does not address). Thereby (or so it seems to me) rendering God’s Human Project irrelevant and obsolete.
For man in his book will eventually, ultimately invest the best he has in the machines he creates; and thus render himself and his progeny (assuming he bothers to think about progeny at all) redundant and completely dispensable.
And in the end, man himself effectively becomes a machine in his own right. Just so he can compete with his own creations….
Thank you so much for your engaging and delightful correspondence, Alamo-Girl. God bless, and good night.
It is interesting that while science's work seems to be the discovery of these simple rules, it nowadays claims to deny the Creator of the rules. Which makes me wonder whether Wolfram is among the deniers of a Creator or just seeming to agree with them. Since he seems to be so well read in so many fields, I think it is doubtful that he does not understand the implications of his work.
If he is following Buddhism, that is not surprising. Several physicists I know are or call themselves Buddhists, and they are the quickest, most awesome physicists, nothing pedantic about them.
Science and technology have their root in the intellectual and moral traditions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. (As to the latter, Aristotle may never have made it into the Western tradition, had it not been for the "transmission belt" from great Arab thinkers such as Averroes and Alcinna.)
Thank you for this bit of historical insight. Seems Islam took a wrong turn somewhere, though.
All of the immediately above-named cultures (I should say spiritual communities, united by their shared convictions regarding the One True God -- the "I Am That Am" that is the mysterious but fundamentally Personal -- that is, supemely intelligent and willing god -- hold that God and His creation to be quite distinct entities. God is neither contained nor constrained by the rules he makes. The artist stands apart from his creation. You cannot physically locate Picasso in Guernica. Blame Aristotle for first recording this insight if you want to.
This subject-object separation is indeed quite Western and our conceptual treatment of the physical world as though it is apart from us has allowed our great strides in scientific understanding IMHO. Now for the "but" ... I would suggest that to believe any real-world situation is resolvable into two, and only two, alternatives is highly artificial and unduly restrictive. What I am driving at in my Redneck Intellectual way is there is a deep mystical tradition among all religions whereby the mystic very convincingly achieves at times seeming near-oneness with an ineffable something that completely belies apartness. Do we now have a third alternative? Is it possible that physicality is infused in some poorly understood way (by our sciences) with/by GodStuff, that all that we see is sacred? Does the artist indeed stand apart from his creations? These are of course a rhetorical questions -- you know what I think.
BTW, I’m sorry it has taken so long to reply, I’ve been out of town until just yesterday – and there is so much “meat” in your posts, I wanted to mull them over really well before attempting a reply.
I wonder if Wolfram’s religious attitude isn’t but a form of naturalism with a twist. In the Western religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) there is a distinct separation between the spiritual realm and the natural realm. I understand that the Eastern religions are focused on a oneness which is the universe, and in some beliefs, when a spirit departs one form it is recycled into another – a kind of naturalism with a conscience which is homogeneous to the whole.
Looking at it that way, a spiritual realm and a Creator would be excluded per se because the view only marginally exceeds the pure naturalist view of “all that there is.” That is, Wolfram would only wander beyond all things physical into some form of intelligence to the extent necessary to accept what he believes to exist, i.e. a primordial algorithm.
And that’s where I believe he hesitates and thus falls short of what he could achieve. He specifically eschews a separate spiritual realm or Creator (emphasis mine:)
I agree with you, that his theological speculations constitute his fundamental “world view,” and thus supply the overriding context in which he conducts his exploration. And whereas he excuses himself in the quote you mentioned, as you observe the disease is systematic reductionism!
I do agree that we should not throw the baby out with the bath water. Wolfram’s new kind of science is a giant step in the right direction, IMHO. And yes, I agree with your assessment that world class scientists in our age are compelled to explain all things in naturalist terms in order to be taken seriously. Wolfram dares to make a step beyond and will no doubt suffer for it!
I wonder if he actually senses the need to go beyond the “Buddhist” limitation but restrains himself. What you observe about the irony of it is so very true: human thinking doesn’t much matter in the Buddhist universe, at least in terms of social relations, or relations to the wider world. Any thinking that is being committed at all under such a thought regime is, in a way, designed to extinguish thought itself which, if considered as such at all, is usually identified as a reliable source of human pain.
If he does sense the full picture, with all his personal success, perhaps he will eventually throw caution to the wind and say what needs to be said, that the primordial algorithm is a creation and not a Creator, that God is – outside of the natural realm, i.e. the creation (space, time, energy, momentum, geometry, etc.)
The Scripture you quote is one of the most revealing IMHO: In the beginning was the Word. And the Word was God, and the Word was with God. That passage in John 1 goes on to say that Christ is the Word made flesh and that all that was created was by Him. The Bible tells us repeatedly that He spoke it into being.
In my view, the Word is the “DNA” of God, and the Bible is one of His names – a description of Himself. After four decades of walking with the Lord, the beauty and simplicity of it is become clear to me.
As you observe, Christianity meets Wolfram’s characteristics for the model:
(2) Wolfram: Its rules of conduct are simple, to which you observe People who read the Bible know (or should know) how simple the rules of the universe and of human being and existence really are
(3) Wolfram: Its model describes a system designed to unfold in time, to which you observe The rules were definitely intended to unfold over time.
And that’s where Roger Penrose runs right past him by observing that artificial intelligence has its limitations and that the algorithm itself, in many instances, exists apart from our own ability to sense it. For instance, when even our greatest minds stand awestruck by the implication of complex numbers and the Mandelbrot set.
Thank you oh so very much for this wonderful conversation!!!