Talk:Stephen Wolfram

Concerning the recent edits on this page, it is simply not the case that existing complexity researchers have been following the same research agenda that Wolfram advocates in the NKS book. They do not systematically enumerate each and every computational system of some particular class, and run them to see what they do. Usually they have an agenda - eg, artificial life, "emergence" , evolution, whatever -- just go to the complexity page to see the mishmash of things that fall under the complexity umbrella. Usually, they either use mathematical methods, or do computer simulations on systems that are more complicated that those in NKS. This is not what Wolfram advocates at all.

---

Hi - it seems you are some kind of wolfram zealot. I suspect that you also have no idea what you are talking about. The point is that many people have been studying cellular automata for many decades. And complexity theory is *centrally about* the notion that simple rules generate complexity, with low-dimensional pattern formation.

It is nice that wolfram has enumerated all the cellular automata - but that is hardly a new kind of science.

My advice to you: Read some of the *other* literature on this subject. There are *thousands* of research articles on cellular automata.

Duracell 17:13, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

---

Hello. Thanks for engaging in character attacks rather than addressing my points. You an productive wikipedian. My own comments are little sharp because I am tired of people misrepresenting the NKS book. Lets try this again:

Complexity theorists typically do not systematically enumerate every computational system of a particular class, simply exploring it to see what they do.

Complexity theorists typically have a specific agenda, for instance artificial life, or the behavior of some specific natural or social system -- in contrast to studying simple computational systems in their own right, for their own sake.

Complexity theorists, when talking about abstract systems, typically rely on mathematical methods rather than exhaustive, very simple computer experiments.

True, or false? Who is the last complexity theorist to have enumerated all 4096 s2k2 Turing machines (or some similar system) and classified their behavior? What complexity theorist concentrates on computational systems for their own sake, without biasing their research to topics like genetic algorithms, pattern recognition, artificial life, etc, etc? What complexity theorist has the goal of experimentally mapping the computational universe rather than trying to deductively come up with a mathematical equation or theorem about some limited class of systems? Finally, are these all the same person, or scattered items with no overall intellectual framework to tie them together?

I know about the thousands of papers on cellular automata -- thanks, chief. And some of them are actually good. But what defines a field is not only its subject matter, but how the subject is studied and the principles that drive the field's intuition. Its like saying biology and cooking are the same because they can both talk about vegetables. Sadly too many people understand things by only by buzzwords.

Your assertion that complexity theory is "centrally" about simple rules leading to complexity is a piece of wishful rhetoric. If complexity theory was truly based on this phenomena, why do they not systematically enumerate (and experimentally study in detail) the very simplest rules possible and see what novel behaviors unfold from them? This is the scientific philosophy of studying simple programs. If you don't think this is a fruitful enterprise potentially on par with a physics or a mathematics, then your belief in simple rules is just lip service.

And, if you think NKS is about cellular automata, you have obviously not read the book yourself. So take your snooty comments -- and your crucial "point" that CA's have been studied before -- and shove them, because you clearly have no clue what you are talking about. 24.61.40.124 21:01, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"eight hallmark signs of crank science"

What are the eight hallmark signs of crank science? If no reference is provided, then this should be deleted.

---

The hallmarks of crank science are listed in the article crank (person). Ones that in my opinion apply to Wolfram are:

Grandiose claims for the validity and scope of the theory
Stated belief that a conspiracy by the scientific establishment is hindering uptake of the theory
Direct communication of the idea to the media, typically holding a press conference before going through the usual peer review process of publishing in scholarly journals

These ones are pretty obvioius. One might also add:

Comparison of the originator with Einstein, Newton, Galileo, or Copernicus

Certainly, popular media coverage of Wolfram's "New Kind of Science" was full of comparisons of him to Newton and Einstein, though I do not know if he himself has made or directly encouraged those comparisons (he certainly doesn't discourage them). --GaeusOctavius 18:08, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

rumor of stolen work?

I heard back in my math department from a professor a while back that most of the original work on mathematica was done by some other mathematicians, then wolfram did some trick with stock options, moved the ip to another company, and shafted them. is there any citable source that can confirm the existence of this rumor? anyone know the names of these other scientists? Dsol 21:48, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]