RE: Stephen Wolfram's A New Kind Of Science: Computing A Theory Of Everything
17-06-2010 05:08 PM
I've just finished reading the book and some of the criticism. Very breifly, here's how I see it.
There is very little that you can say is absolutely wrong (if anything at all) in Wolfram's ideas. But if you read the book, there are plenty of ideas in it that you will absolutely agree must be right.
The foundation of the science behind Wolfram Alpha and Mathematica is the idea that the universe is a computational machine. Based on a series of simple rules, enormous complexity is generated (he does't say if the universe works guided by these simple rules). In the book Wolfram talks about how much new mathematics becomes possible as our computation power increases. He estimates that the majority of the knowledge that we can gain from the universe lies hidden to us because of our poor mathematics.
Of course, there is good reason why many scientists are not thrilled with Wolfram. He is, in many ways, what they all wish they could be. He has his own very successful company (which indirectly works to test his ideas in the real world) and doesn't publish papers or write grants. He doesn't have his ideas scrutinized by his peers and is making grandiose claims about the importance of his work. I think that the grandiose claims are not very relevant, and many scientists resort to some form of it or the other. But it is certainly not in the scientific tradition to act the way Wolfram does in protecting his work from peer review and scientific criticism.
But I think the reason he does as he does is because he really doesn't give a shit about the process. We can all agree that it's bad science protocol, and when he does present his ideas, they can and must be criticized. But Wolfram is absolutely convinced that his ideas would not have come to pass if he had been encumbered by the scientific process. He is genius enough to be right. Already we are starting to see some of his ideas come true. The type of computational complexity modelling developed by Wolfram (and other scientists around the world) is being used in drug design and other molecular level applications. This is only the beginning. As Steven Hawkings said, this century will be the one of complexity science. I think Wolfram is a pioneer in the area, even if he is an arrogant bastard.
I've heard many biologists criticize Wolfram for his portrayal of Natural Selection, but I think most misunderstand what he is saying. I've even heard people think that his ideas are an attack on reductionism. What Wolfram's ideas do is introduce another way of perceiving reality- one that wasn't available to us before modern computing (actually Wolfram is repackaging an idea that has been around for some time, but it is so well thought-out that for all intents and purposes he is introducing something new). Reductionism does not apply across levels of organization that differ functionally (in quality). This difference in quality is an emergent phenomenon that reductionist science cannot transcend, but can be studied using complexity science. Dr. Wadhawan in one of his articles on Nirmukta talks about how complexity science explains much about the evolution of life. This is what Wolfram implies when he talks about the computational nature of biological evolution. Of course, his ideas are too far out for most biologists, who are concerned with questions that lie within the reductionist paradigm and are unable to comprehend the vast amount of information that lies beyond our current understanding of biology.
"Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian"
~ J.B.S.Haldane, on being asked to falsify evolution.
|