Registered: Mar 2005
Roads to Reality... but only without incorrect criticism.
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 , 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.
 "The Applied ADC Theory" at http://www.geocities.com/titanicpsf section: "Theoretical background".
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged