[read the whole book?] - A New Kind of Science: The NKS ForumA New Kind of Science: The NKS Forum
Pages:1
read the whole book?
(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)
Posted by: perlfan
I am posting this hear because there is no "general" section.
I am nearing page 500. I read it when I have time, but I find myself having to put it down because that is all I will do. Part of the reason is because I think the material is extremely interesting. Part of the reason is because I feel compelled to finish it (like War and Peace, eh?). :)
Anyway, in order to say that you have read the book, do you need to also read the 200+ pages of notes in the back? I plan on scanning through them, but not as carefully as the main part of the book...what say ye?
Also, how many people here have read the whole thing? I am interested in seeing how many people get through it - its like a marathon for the mind.
BTW, after I finish NKS, I am going to read through SW's "Cellular Automata and Complexity" which was published before NKS and contains the technical aspects of what is presented in NKS.
Posted by: Jason Cawley
I've certainly read the whole thing, several times, but then I helped work on parts of it, and saw drafts of it for years before it came out. I help teach it at the NKS summer program. So I am probably not in your main sample.
On the notes, you might skim the technical ones in areas you aren't familiar with or that interested in, but I recommend reading the general ones. There is as much text in the notes as in the rest of the book. It is less connected, more aphoristic in style. But there is a ton of information in them, that isn't in the main body of the text.
Certainly Wolfram decided the parts to include in each, and the main text is meant to hang together. Read the notes for depth. The second time through, with the chapter, etc. You can also use the index to find things in the notes you are particularly interested in, or to look up something that you don't quite get when it appears in the main text.
As for Wolfram's earlier works, they are worth reading, but no they do not contain anything like all the technical aspects covered in A New Kind of Science. Some of the early papers are useful as introductions. But there is far more in the book, than in them. The new material is years of work, and even subjects that appear in both places are covered in far greater depth.
Posted by: Richard J. Gaylord
i've read it 6 or 7 times (and for the technically trained person, the appendix is much more interesting than the main text and can be read independently) i return to it to read various sections every couple of weeks, especially after reading some technical article in physics which is so mundane that i need something provocative for my mind to think about. stephen's book is excellent for this purpose as it often informs me, not infrequently annoys me, and always stimulates me. and it never bores me.
Posted by: Jesse Nochella
My suggestion is that to read the book equivalent to a number of times, actually carry it around and show it to people whenever any relevant subject comes up.
It's fun. Showing people the book and what part of it you were reminded of is like, a really good addition to the conversation you're having.
That's the key to reading it a lot. Just focus on the one thing of having the book within arms reach everywhere you go, and the rest, believe me, happens automatically.
And honestly, you don't even have to not be nervous about bringing the book into a conversation. It will happen. Explain what part of the conversation reminded you of the part of the book you're showing them, you'll have a perfectly good reason to have brought it out. People will be interested.
They're not getting suckered into your NKS stuff. What actually happens is that there's this genuine interest out there that can you easily tap. Most people don't know a book like NKS exists, and so for that majority there's not really a good definite context to place that multitude of really good questions that are actually NKS related.
So I guess it's just general motivation advice I'm giving—where what you have physically near to you will get looked at more.
Reading the whole book takes some motivation, and explaining ideas is a skill. So long as you have the book physically on you, and you know how to bring it out, you will know eventually what's in there, and how to show it to people.
And then you'll have working, functional NKS knowledge.
I hope this helps.
Jesse Nochella
Posted by: janos
I am just a roadrunner, but I read the book minimum once and also the Notes. I am returning to the Notes from time to time bacuse of the many excelent Mathematica programs presented there.
It would be boost to Mathemetica to include the NKS Notes like the Book is included. Especially when it comes to Examples.
Posted by: estrabd
I just finished the main body of the book. I intend to go through the notes on the sections that interested me. I really enjoyed the book, and look forward to following this subject closely.
Posted by: Steve Zimmerman
[QUOTE]Originally posted by perlfan
[B]I am posting this hear because there is no "general" section.
>> snip
Anyway, in order to say that you have read the book, do you need to also read the 200+ pages of notes in the back? I plan on scanning through them, but not as carefully as the main part of the book...what say ye?
>> Yes; in order to truthfully say that you have read the
>> whole book, you must read the whole book.
Also, how many people here have read the whole thing? I am interested in seeing how many people get through it - its like a marathon for the mind.
>> I have read it all. To do so, I had to Xerox the endnotes in
>> order to make them bigger, or I would have gone blind.
Posted by: Garrett Neske
I have read the NKS main text and the notes (i.e. the whole book) and have done some NKS programs on Mathematica. In Bertolt Brecht's play, The Life of Galileo, Galileo states, "Science knows only one commandment; contribute to science." Such is the case as well with NKS. In order to get the most out of NKS, it is important to conduct novel NKS experiments and share NKS ideas with others, especially with those not familiar with Wolfram's work. One should schedule time to go to the NKS conferences and the NKS Summer School. NKS is not just a book, but a "new kind of science." It is not just another fad, but an important paradigm shift. Reading the book is not enough. I myself had to attend the NKS 2006 Conference in Washington and talk to many people in the field to get an idea of what NKS was all about. I suppose I am now somewhat of a "junkie," having been accepted to the NKS 2007 Summer School and presented my own biological NKS ideas at conferences. It's amazing the effect that NKS has once one really gets involved in it.
Posted by: galin
This is a nice collection of wolframs work on cellular automata (which first appeared as a number of papers in various physics journals). It is a nice coverage of cellular automata, but it would have been nice to give more credit to von Neuman for his pioneering work in cellular automata theory.
There is also an annoying habit for all of his work to concentrate on deterministic cellular automata, and the mathematics is constrained to this. Recent work has indicated that the origin of complexity in our universe is from random sources that are preserved.. not that the complexity all came from the initial conditions.
----
narconon
Posted by: Jason Cawley
Actually, von Neumann mentioned a dozen times in the index, including prominently in the note on the history of cellular automata on page 876. He is also mentioned in the second on close approaches to the discoveries of the book. The fact remains, he just did not have the idea of simulating simple CAs to see how they typically behave. His examples were quite complicated and engineered to have particular features. He deserves full credit for his CA work of course (and also, obviously, for his computer architecture), but simple crossed with CAs was not among his brilliant ideas.
As for probabilistic CAs, they are covered on page 591. Wolfram discusses mechanisms for producing randomness extensively, and his own physics ideas do not involve importing it from complicated initial conditions. Intrinsic generation of randomness from even simple initial conditions is distinct from both ongoing randomness from an external environment and randomness from complicated initial conditions. Of course he might be wrong about this, and ongoing "metaphysical" randomness might be injected continually. Wolfram wants to trace apparent indeterminacies to instrinsic generation of (pseudo, if you like) randomness if possible, because of a prior commitment to determinism. But one can do NKS without that commitment; it is perfectly seperable philosophically.
Forum Sponsored by Wolfram Research
© 2004-2008 Wolfram Research, Inc. | Powered by vBulletin 2.3.0 © 2000-2002 Jelsoft Enterprises, Ltd. |
Disclaimer
vB Easy Archive Final - Created by Xenon and modified/released by SkuZZy from the Job Openings