Wolfram Science Group
Phoenix, AZ USA
Registered: Aug 2003
My suggestion is to educate yourself about the subject before offering uninformed opinions.
The word "fractal" has an actual, formal meaning. It does not mean "any pattern" or "fact".
NKS is about extending the formal systems we consider in science beyond mathematical functions and similar objects, to the broader class of formal systems represented by simple programs. New or old, program based or math based, science lives on formal sophistication and rigor and dies in its absence. If you want to do anything in science, or even just follow what others are doing in an informed way, you must learn formal methods.
If you skate by all that and lump all formalism into a "more general" category of metaphor, and try to track every formal relation with a few linguistic distinctions, you will not get anywhere. Don't have to like it, it is just true. You will remain an uninformed spectator.
Even informed consumption of science, let alone doing any of it, requires formal understanding. There is a price of admission. The level of analysis available to Aristotle does not count as science anymore. The bar rises over time. Those who don't pay the formal education price are perfectly welcome to watch and think about these things. But they are not seriously going to be participants in the process.
There are some philosophical issues touched on by science where conceptual analysis without formal methods is about all we have. Offerings in these areas by those uninformed about what formal methods actually can and can't do are rarely of any value to scientists.
It is still possible to do this sort of thing well. But by proceeding on a basis of extreme humility and caution about what is known. And leaving substantive decision between conceptual possibilities to the verdict of science, not of such conceptual analysis alone. On its own we know - empirically - that it is a wholly unreliable method.
Informed conceptual speculation can propose, in other words. Uninformed speculation essentially always is lucky to reinvent a wheel, and usually reinvents a broken half of an axle instead. Even the most informed and careful speculation will be wrong most of the time - because it is a scout. Let science decide which speculative possibility is of even formal interest, let alone which might be true.
You tell us you are mathematically illiterate, on a site devoted to improving mathematical science by incorporating computer programs as an additional kind of model. You tell us you hadn't heard of NKS a hour ago. These things are perfectly compatible with being interested and having questions about NKS and what it all means. But they are quite incompatible with expecting to teach all of us the meaning of life the universe and everything.
I think you need to be reading a lot more, and preferably studying formal methods in the sciences as well - OKS math, and NKS programs, both. As yet your statements sound naive and not interesting. I don't think you should iterate on them now trying to convince people otherwise, but should instead do a lot more homework first. That, or stick to asking simple questions instead of trying to offer complicated answers. You asked for feedback. Take it as intended.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged