Registered: Mar 2005
Posts: 6

I would like to say several words concerning Andrew Ross' article "Roads to Reality: Penrose and Wolfram Compared" just published in the Journal of Consciousness Studies, 12, No. 2, 2005, pp. 78-83. In the article the author writes in particular: "But its [Stephen Wolfram's] science is disappointing. Most of the views expressed in the main text on major scientific questions are vague and subjective, and most of the technical results have only minor significance" (p. 83), and so on in the same vain throughout the text.

I must confess that I've found Ross' commentary as incorrect in principle. The case is that having formulated his Principle of Computational Equivalence, it may turn out that Stephen Wolfram has made an attempt to construct his own meta-theoretical system, or, in other words, his own system of description of Reality. But, as follows from my Applied ADC theory [1], the intellectual products that contain meta-theoretical assertions (the MT-level intellectual products) cannot be criticized -- they can only be investigated for compatibility with the other authors' MT-level intellectual products. But, I must admit that Ross' comparison commentary has nothing to do with correct investigation for compatibility. The irony is that to carry on such an investigation, the author (here, Andrew Ross) must have his own MT-level intellectual product constructed, but Ross, obviously, hasn't.

Serge Patlavskiy
[1] "The Applied ADC Theory" at http://www.geocities.com/titanicpsf section: "Theoretical background".

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2004
Posts: 35

But its [Stephen Wolfram's] science is disappointing. Most of the views expressed in the main text on major scientific questions are vague and subjective, and most of the technical results have only minor significance" (p. 83), and so on in the same vain throughout the text.

hard to know what is meant by 'technical results' but i have to agree with the first part of the statement.

however, it should be recognized that most of the so-called major scientific questions' being 'studied' at this time are highly dubious. cosmology and even more so, the attempt to unify gravitation and general relativity has gone so far beyond the accepted requirements for scientific inquiry as to become theology. the 'darwinian mantra' has all but destroyed the field of biology. the applikcation of mathematics and compute simulation to the 'study' of social systems is a joke (albeit in very bad taste). even the exciting field of neuroscience, a subject of great interest to me, has used the tools of fNMR and PET to espouse what is essentially a new phrenology.

i personally wish stephen had not proclaimed a 'new kind of science' but rather had spoken of a 'new field of science'. and i would have preferred that he not spent time attempting to show how his science was applicable to the existing sciences whicn are, as delineated above, in a pitiful states, pursuing lines of inquiry dictated by existing dogma (not that darwin or einstein intended thier work to used as such).

i think it's past time for a fresh start in these fields (hard to do but the best and brightest researchers when the tenure decision is hanging over their head based on getting grants awarded from the old school) and it's also time for fresh fields of inquiry.

__________________
"I find it wholesome to be alone the greater part of the time. To be in company, even with the best, is soon wearisome and dissipating. I love to be alone. I never found the companion that was so companionable as solitude.". - H.D. Thoreau

"Correlation is not Causation and Big Data is not Science" - R.J. Gaylord

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged