i wish i knew what was so unsettling about the above opinion
i'm interested in discussion
i'm interested in discussion
(2) It reads like a middlebrow dismissal. It's critical but doesn't add much of substance on its own through the criticism. Wolfram certainly realizes that he hasn't proven his case, that current science is indeed incredibly useful, and that the current path will only be a "detour" if network- or automata-based models are proven correct in the end. That's why he says he "suspects" it "may" have led us to a detour. He certainly understands that the theory needs to be developed further. Put simply, Wolfram would probably agree with your overall sentiment, so the remarks are not insightful, but they're presented as if they'd likely be at odds with his position.
(3) Beyond style, the diction is unclear, such as the choice of the word "use-case". It's unclear to me what you're referring to. It's unusual to refer to physics as "use-cases". If that's intended as an analogy, then for me it doesn't connect or succeed.
(4) The ideas themselves are not clear. "... reveal those use-cases untouched by contemporary thought"; "an existence where every new finality conjures new questions". It's not clear what you're trying to convey with those phrases. You probably could say what you're trying to say in a simpler, more direct, and less critical way way. You might benefit from this advice: http://paulgraham.com/talk.html
> Here's a simple trick for getting more people to read what you write: write in spoken language. Something comes over most people when they start writing. They write in a different language than they'd use if they were talking to a friend. The sentence structure and even the words are different. [...] But perhaps worst of all [mistakes], complex sentences and fancy words give you, the writer, the false impression that you're saying more than you actually are.
If I was to try to rephrase what you've said in simple language, then I end up with something like: "The ideas need to work to be useful. We need to think up new ideas. I think we'll always have more questions to answer", which isn't that interesting. With the current phrasing it reads like a middlebrow dismissal.
1) sorry, it's the way i write
2) solid response:
It's critical but doesn't add much of
substance on its own through the criticism.
So then the question arises: could one of these simple
programs in the computational universe actually be the
program for our physical universe?
if the universe is programmable, then surely within the bounds of every possible permutation of computation therein must lie a representation of the universe..?
3) 'use case' and 'science as directed utility' seemed explicitly to go hand in hand
4) "... reveal those use-cases untouched by contemporary thought"
one such important use case that showed the inherent utility of relativity was understanding retrograde motion(o), this was the sort of use case i was referring to one where the contemporary thought was unable to reach insight
"an existence where every new finality conjures new questions"
here i'd agree i erred on poetics to allow for some self discovery, what i hoped to express was that every 'final theory', as wolfram puts it or finality as i put it, i think will introduce more questions mocking the title of final
relativity is sussed out and people, as wolfram attested, assume it to be true, but then later find it only reveals, seemingly by conjuring, questions they were unaware of
even einstein, the one person who stood to gain the most by espousing that his theory was 'the final theory', knew relativity to be wanting
it is my impression that i do write 'in spoken language'
when was the last time you heard a capital letter? or 'proper' punctuation?
these are the words i would use to talk to you about this topic
the diction may seem off because i avoid negative constructions:no, not, never, none,etc; with hopes that the a subsequent generation will have the patience to write out even negating prefixes: un-,i-,a-,etc;
i find removing negative constructions is a means of making discussion more inviting and less authoritative
next time someone asks if you've seen some new media, instead of saying 'no' see what reaction something like 'i've yet to have seen it' will afford
if a sentence comes easily as "which isn't that interesting" i will take whatever time necessary to rewrite in order to write out the negative
reading your rewrite:
The ideas need to work to be useful.
We need to think up new ideas.
I think we'll always have more questions to answer
i'll express it as your rewrite on one side of a colon and applicable sections from wolframs piece on the other, ctrl-f confirmation encouraged
ideas need to be useful: "provides the only successful way
we have of describing spacetime"
we need to think up new ideas: "started on my long journey
to go beyond traditional mathematical equations and instead
use computation and programs as basic models in science"
I think we'll always have more questions to answer:
"But what would such a program be like?..what’s the basic
“data structure” on which this program operates?.." and on and on
(o) http://theory.uwinnipeg.ca/mod_tech/node60.html
.. an aside, can we talk to the fact that middlebrow seems the only brow held in contempt, i feel low brow and high brow each have their accepted merits(i) but i've yet to have seen something quantified as being middlebrow used in promotion
i wonder what the says about adjudged middles
what's the alternative to detours? waiting, still, until one is shown the direct route? how will it reveal itself? what defines direct? are there direct and detour routes between wolfram's network nodes?
bones had a hard time appreciating the efforts of his predecessors(o), but does the potential of a future technology rendering a current technology obsolete, barbaric even, mean we should avoid it's utility because it's merely a 'detour'
i think the probabilistic nature of quantum bodies is an incorrect model but i wholly endorse its use in those scenarios in which results are found where they were previously elusive
i think monte carlo descision tree traversal is a misguided method but i wholly endorse its use in those scenarios in which results are found where they were previously elusive
utilise and iterate on best fit 'detours' while still seeking direct routes
my response to wolfram was asking: why call something a detour when everything is a detour, even his unfinished attempt at finalising all detours
i want to make it clear that i encourage wolfram to continue his work on his theory, but careful judging lest ye be judged
hey einstein, “Don’t waste your time working on that!” and, “Please don’t work on that.” it's merely a detour