Hacker News Reader

Comment by d--b | Hacker News Reader

I guess one of the most fundamental difference between Wolfram’s model for fundamental physics and traditional physics is that Wolfram’s doesn’t have the concept of measure or of continuum at the fundamental level. Space and time, according to Wolfram’s model of the universe, are emerging properties of ‘the network’. Without such things as space and measures, there is no numbers in the fundamental “equations” that drive the system.

While I am not a big fan of Wolfram’s physics (I think it’s a bit backwards that he took something that he knows very well and somehow finds that it’s how the universe works), I kind of like the idea that space and time emerge from something more computational.

I think that’s what the article should have been focused on...

View on HN

>I think it’s a bit backwards that he took something that he knows very well and somehow finds that it’s how the universe works

That's in a sense how every model works. All theoretical models of the world are human inventions that aid in making sense of the world in terms familiar to us and nothing more. If you get good results from thinking the world is made of atoms, then the world is made out of atoms. When someone comes along and explains the same thing with strings, then the world is made out of strings. Models are just 'manners of speaking'. It might very well be that you have a dozen entirely different, but equally accurate fundamental ways to talk about a thing.

Well yes in a way. But it somehow makes the claim more dubious.

It’s like when you go see an osteopath and they tell you that your stomach problem is due to your bad posture...

It's so sad to see that he is taking an interesting question and turns it into a sales pitch of his computational universe theory.

It's as if Stephen Wolframs mental horizon starts getting more and more restricted over the years since he tries to frame everything he sees in terms of his physical theory.

Or maybe he has an interesting theory he understands deeply, and think its valuable to show how this theory can give insight to the problem in question. Why be so cynical?

I had that view initially. And then I followed his writings for quite a few years and it started getting old.

And long. Loooong. His sales pitches seem to always go in circles. Computational irreducability here, causal graph there, namedrop Wolfram Language a few times with pretty pictures, make sure that "in our models" Einsteins theory and quantum mechanics are mentioned as special cases and "surprisingly everything works out beautifully". Yeah no right.

Time to move on. I've read enough of his 20-mile-long self-praising sales pich novels. He is just going in circles.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com