wolframscience.com

A New Kind of Science: The NKS Forum : Powered by vBulletin version 2.3.0 A New Kind of Science: The NKS Forum > NKS Way of Thinking > A couple of questions
Pages (2): « 1 [2]   Last Thread   Next Thread
Author
Thread Post New Thread    Post A Reply
Simon85


Registered: Sep 2006
Posts: 13

You are not reading what I am saying....

You are not reading what I am saying.... please read my post and answer the specific question...

And actually I do understand NKS, its not hard, you fail to read what I say thats why you fail to answer my questions, and when I ask I don't want to know what NKS has to say I already know that I want someone to argue within the context of NKS on the question... read what I say context is important and stop making unsubstantiated claims about what I do or don't do which you wouldn't understand anyways and are completely ignorant of... not to mention I plain don't trust people on this forum so I would never dream of giving anything specifics...

You seem to have a set of canned arguments which is not answering the question and doesn't prove your point...

What I want is you to stand on your own two feet not NKS and stephen wolframs feet and reason with me about NKS on your own two feet which has nothing to do with throwing the book in my face.... but this seems to be a common thing since people seem to take NKS way to seriously for a theory that isn't new if you know any history at all...

I won't engage NKS on its terms since its terms, as I have been saying and keep ignoring like most people who don't grasp an area completely do, because they are incorrect, you cannot define your own logic an expect everyone to just accept it, since anyone who thinks about it won't accept it as evidenced by the lack of publications citing NKS its something like 0.387 per day so not even one per day and this is after a year. To be honest there is little to no use of the theory is most of the current lines of research further evidenced by the previous fact which with a calculator and some basic counting you can see for your self.

I f you want to prove NKS then prove it within both its own terms and classical terms if you can't then there is a problem, and just so you know since i know you care my theory doesn't run into this lovely problem... its called peer review...

Oh and to help you out please show me not from NKS make your own case for how CA will generate a cell... and see if your right... since i can say with a reasonable level certainty that you can't... and in the case of cells whats nice is all the new non NKS research and simulation is interms of detailing the complexity within which of course isn't the case since NKS says it isn't (I think that would be the response right?).

The proof of complexity can be done through simulation, and that being modeled from the real world not just generating rules on a computer and playing a matching game or another abstarct study of CA or simple systems. Thanks to the recent progress in simulation thanks to SGI and the like it makes it easier to appreciate the complexity in the hierarchies of nature and their relative levels of simplicity or complexity.

In the previous post I asked a question I did not make a cirticism...

And you have not answered... hierarchy is part the reason for complexity since systems are stacked on top of each other each made up of the other so one gets a composite complexity in the system. And I never said Hierarchy is responisible for complexity I said its part of it, ergo your ergo is meaningless (I love when people willfully misread and misunderstand).

I think the central issue is that this is supposed to be a cheerleading forum for NKS and I am the bad guy since I take issue with it in almost all respects but not quite all respects. Which seems to the main problem since people seem unwilling to answer the questions posed since they assume the only context is NKS, well logic dictates otherwise the means to convince would dictate otherwise, but you know this becuase you mastered philosophy right (well we'll give you the benefit of the doubt here, since you've given no evidence of that)

The other aspect is that one must look at the rules that govern the system ie the specific rules and primatives and then those must generate a new set of rules and primatives at the next level of complexity in the hierarchy... and on up... since there is relation between where the system fall and how complex they are if you look at them. But with in the speific area of the hierarchy the rule that governs is simple but as I said before in the two types of complexity the overall complexity increase while the specific stays low. Rather then saying all complexity is at the same level...

In the case of containing doesn't imply a greater level of complexity well in general maybe, but in the specific yes which I can prove not in posting since it would take to much room. But is obvious that the atoms are a simpler system then a cell which is simpler then a human, since the cells interact with one another to form a human.... but when one looks at a human one looks at the whole and moves down to the components which make up the whole which are simpler then the whole...

Universal CA is good for computing architectures its been very useful for the processor architecture that I have in the works, but it still cannot generate what I am talking about, since what I am looking for is the base of everything and a computational system implies a lower base then itself, ie where did the system come from, what caused it to form in this way.... and questions like that.

So what are the rule that govern everything regardless of whats their and then how do those rules evolve or change as complexity rises, since I would argue that complexity is not limited. But this is in part due to my own beliefs in intelligent design which is beyond the scope of this post, and all this shall be dealt with properly when I finish my book.

Yes I am quite aware of ch. 11 sec. 4 the complexity derived is still limited by the limitiations of the complexity that CA can describe which is far below the level of a cell. Unless there is some evidence of Universal CA generating some useful result ie generating a primative and rule that generates a more complex primative and rule like elements to compounds. Or better example DNA processes by which DNA become an organims. But what I would like to see is evidence of a rule that can generate from a simple CA a more complex CA by generating all rules necessary ie self contained system. Yes I know Universal CA can perform multi levels of analysis but can the rules evolve from the most simple without human interaction. And the interactions need to be such that any element can interact with any element as in Quantum Mechanics, but that is lost to view when you reach levels outside of the quantum world but still occurs under the surface.

I am not talking just about emulation I am talking about one becoming another while interacting with others at varying levels of complexity.

The other point is that of course if you break everything down to a basic level of complexity and generate enough rules to describe it all sure you can describe everything, the issue is this is just not a good idea. One is not going to find the rules for everything in CA, this is due to the limitations and the levels of complexity that are outside of the realm of science. This is why philosophy is important and ethics, when generating the basic rules of the universe all things must be related. And since philosophy and ethics regradless of what one may effect science in obvious and sometimes not so obvious ways (think early church and infulance on the view of the world as the center of the universe).

The answer lies in finding the basic rules that govern everything is taking all elments into account, which as I have said before NKS does not. Since it is clear that the way a lot of specific fields like molecular biology, neuro science... are not delt with in a sufficent manner, what I mean by this is that there is an assertion for example that the brain is a universal computer, well if you study the brain its a qunatum computer with the mind and the brain in a physical metaphysical relationship... which CA cannot deal with and which I believe and am currently trying to prove it can with a different approach, that places CA in a higher level above the most basic systems, since I have yet to see and don't quote NKS, a convicing argument for the universe being a computer, since what we see in the uninverse is far more diverse then CA can possibly concieve of. Computation is a system that is based in more fundamental rules that must be generated from somewhere and CA won't tell you that. But if one looks further and applies new methodologies of synthesis on can derive the most basic rules of reality.

All this to say generate all the rules and emulate all you like it won't get you the answer all it leads to is more rules that you have to generate. Thus a two fold approach a new ontolgy and a new math, both developed simultaneously.

(no computational cosmologies which have always failed in my opinion)

Now the reason I won't post most of the theory infact I really haven't said much besides those things which are similar to what is thought of is because I can't run the risk of the idea being stolen. I have had it happen on a number of projects from what should have been safe.

-Simon

Last edited by Simon85 on 09-28-2006 at 06:18 AM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Old Post 09-28-2006 04:23 AM
Simon85 is offline Click Here to See the Profile for Simon85 Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
Jason Cawley
Wolfram Science Group
Phoenix, AZ USA

Registered: Aug 2003
Posts: 712

Oh.

lol.

What is happening here is that a frustrated IDer upset that the progress of understanding of complexity is taking away an old (unnecessary, superfluous) argument he liked, reads a few reviews of NKS and parrots concerns he sees in them.

The hierarchy point is not yours, it was made by Kurzweil and is also made much of by Bar-Yam. Neither of whom disputes the value of NKS or the fact that computational modeling is the way forward - they just have their own specific directions they think would be fruitful next for complexity theory, and their own research programs.

If you have to write a computer simulation to show what you are talking about or model it, then you are agreeing with the basic point of NKS, not disputing it. And if you put in all the levels you want but none of them is computation universal, you will get simplicity - you will get hierarchically arranged salt in a regular lattice and the like.

If you let any or several levels be computation universal then you will get complexity, because that is where it is coming from. If you want to model in detail a universal system on four separate levels, you will end up with a model that has four separate levels - not because it is more complex, but because you are being empirical and details can matter in any universal system etc. If what you want to simulate is hierarchy, naturally you will do so with a program that includes hierarchy.

What a hierarchically arranged universal rule can do is anything a computer program can do. Including programs with 38 levels of nested subroutines and a million lines of code. That is proven - a word you might remember - as soon as one shows they are over the universality threshold - to anyone who knows what that means. There isn't a simulation you can write, any number of levels in any language etc - that can't be compiled into a CA evolution or what-have-you. That is just the elementary fact at the base of all computer science - any program of any length or design in one universal language can be translated into any other, provided the latter is universal. If the hardware exists on which you can run your sim program, then it fits in a simple rule.

So your promissory models will all fit snuggly inside an NKS system. A good model will be as elaborated as what it wants to explain, to be sure, and nobody would want to use a slow-down complier. But you think there is a difference in principle where there simply isn't.

As for the metaphysical interface of the mind, in the age of software we are past finding the mind-body problem mysterious. It is pure form - and forms exist off in the platonic ether - that both thoughts and arranged charge on glorified sand are each brought into correspondance with, and thereby with each other. There are no 0s or 1s in a computer, programs are not made of matter, they are math-like, etc. The rest of that line of thought is hopeless.

As for ethics, I am quite sure I know far more of the history and realities of the theory of ethics than you do, and that all the priors you imagine are necessary for ethics or your own particular take on them, are entirely optional or orthogonal questions, which at one time or another have been taken in the opposite sense than you suppose by this or that thinker. Simply from the variety present in the history of ethical thought, I am able to say that - you yourself have had essentially nothing to say on the subject. (And hardly showed much familiarity even with the thinker you introduced when bringing it up - it is not like the "mark of an educated mind" comment is buried deep in the Nicomachaen Ethics).

If you state a supposedly necessary connection between basic physical or reality principle A and supposed ethical consequence B, I will produce the theorist who holds A and denies B. A few contemporary idealist theists imagine there is but one basis for ethics, but they simple lack historical awareness or imagination, or are grinding their own ax. It is easy to find prior thinkers who agree with them on ethics but disagree on all of the physical or reality propositions they pretend are necessary for them. But this is quite tangential to NKS.

How do I arrive at my overall diagnosis? No substantive or original points, does not acknowledge substantive points that are new to him or adjust the argument, repeats second hand concerns without understanding their logical connectives, thinks citing Aristotle is an argument, repeats quips from reviews in theological journals, etc.

Go write your book. But do go, please.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Old Post 09-28-2006 01:13 PM
Jason Cawley is offline Click Here to See the Profile for Jason Cawley Click here to Send Jason Cawley a Private Message Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
Simon85


Registered: Sep 2006
Posts: 13

Your insights show no limits, you cannot even read what I say.... the issue here is you are to attached to NKS and you will straw-man make up stuff misread... to prove your point...

Its really amazing since you obviously have no idea what research I am talking about and I have never read the review that you are talking about actually.

In terms of your pitiful knowledge of philosophy let me assure I have plenty of sources with better credentials that agree with me then you will ever have.

You are a man stuck the past NKS is the past, your arguments have left all current research that has been done using current traditional mathematical models, and then simulating them in the computer, which is not a framework derived from NKS since that idea has been around may years before NKS.

And I don't have to write a computer sim to show what I am talking about and I never said I did. Apparently you failed all courses in basic logic and english.

And you continue to make spurious points based on info you don't have and won't get till the book is finished.

NKS is not progress in complexity it is progress in computer science with a limited explanation of complexity which if it was correct would be accepted by more people and not dismissed by as many people as it is...

As to your whole thing on ethics, it is you who lack imagination because it is you who fails to see the obvious connect, and tries with some basic logic to prove a point which is untenable by any sentient human...

"How do I arrive at my overall diagnosis? No substantive or original points, does not acknowledge substantive points that are new to him or adjust the argument, repeats second hand concerns without understanding their logical connectives, thinks citing Aristotle is an argument, repeats quips from reviews in theological journals, etc."

I don't think citing aristotle is an argument, its just fun to through it in there it has nothing to do with argument would like me to cite a new philosopher...? I have many more on the list....

You have know idea what NKS has accomplished it popularizes CA, it presents an old view of simple systems which has been know for years before hand think fractals... CA is not an NKS invention, the idea of the a universe as a computer was around before NKS, don't believe me go read a book.

"The hierarchy point is not yours, it was made by Kurzweil"

Its not his either.... actually the idea of hierarchy in nature was around for a long time, and it is a reasonable objection NKS since you have yet failed to explain how NKS would generate such a structure.

In all honesty you have not shown me through evidence that NKS can do anything outside of the book...

And just so we are clear a computer program will never ever generate life, to say it will is to misdefine what life is... you seem to have no concept of the connections of all subjects... Why don't you try studying a few subjects...

Did I ever claim the hierarchy point was mine... NO... did I get from where you say I did NO... do have any idea where anything I am talking about even comes from.... NO... why?

Because you are ignorant of what is out there in science and math that is not NKS as you continue to prove by failing each case to answer any question I pose and the most obvious explanation for that is NKS can't answer them.

"If the hardware exists on which you can run your sim program, then it fits in a simple rule."

Where's the hardware?

"As for the metaphysical interface of the mind, in the age of software we are past finding the mind-body problem mysterious. It is pure form - and forms exist off in the platonic ether - that both thoughts and arranged charge on glorified sand are each brought into correspondance with, and thereby with each other. There are no 0s or 1s in a computer, programs are not made of matter, they are math-like, etc. The rest of that line of thought is hopeless."

You obviously haven't read much on that idea since there is a lot more to the theory then your gross oversimplification and there has been some interesting recent progress... but oh yeah I forgot, you only read things connected to NKS so you wouldn't know...

Oh yeah one last thing on the ethics point my view of ethics in not based on theory... sorry... so your theory is wrong...

"I am able to say that - you yourself have had essentially nothing to say on the subject. (And hardly showed much familiarity even with the thinker you introduced when bringing it up - it is not like the "mark of an educated mind" comment is buried deep in the Nicomachaen Ethics)"

wow so you know where your own quote came from, good for you... did you think that was lost on me or something...

I am surprised... they must have thought competent for this position but all you are is an NKS cheerleader and a wannabe philosopher who thinks philosophy is about read it all and then being able to quote it, while accusing everyone else of knowing nothing.

As to the newness of my theory.. what did i say... that I haven't and will not present the entirety on this forum... but you read that as thats my whole argument... Go back to english 101...

Take a logic course... re-read philosophy... and then read science and try to read and comprehend more areas then you currently have which is none...

Again if my questions are so useless then you can explain to me how a cell is a universal computer and how its level of complexity is at the same level as a person when it isn't and there are enough mathematical models of it to prove that...

Try again....

you'll get it eventually....

-Simon

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Old Post 09-28-2006 03:45 PM
Simon85 is offline Click Here to See the Profile for Simon85 Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
Jason Cawley
Wolfram Science Group
Phoenix, AZ USA

Registered: Aug 2003
Posts: 712

Moving on from the silliness, I might with maximum charity make up a similar position and use it to illustrate points about NKS and common misconceptions about it, where they come from etc.

Practical modelers are already convinced they need to use computer programs to model complicated phenomena. But typically have no awareness of theoretical computer science or how the methods they are using actually work, at bottom. Oh they known how to program and they know how to model and their subject matter, not the point. They don't know what happens when the code leaves their hands and the hardware takes over.

What happens is their own elaborate mental conceptions of things as articulated in their code, are munged beyond recognition to make it more tractable for the particular machine they run it on. Nobody has to make new hardware to implement their latest idea about hierarchy or synching or network connectedness or what have you. The same underlying fixed instruction set is quite sufficient, and compliers translate everything into the few simple rules their computer actually "groks". It does the operations it understands enough times in the right order, to get exactly the same behavior or answer your own abstractions would have.

Now, when a modeler says, to model aspect X of my particular complicated phenomenon, I need to put X into my abstractions, that is fine and in no way contrary to NKS. NKS does not pretend that all complex systems have been modeled, but merely that modeling them will be done with computer programs and if they are sufficiently complex will involve irreducible amounts of specific detail, because the real systems depend on their details, etc.

But when someone instead claims that no simple rule can do what their computer program does, then they just show their ignorance of theoretical computer science and how their program actually works here in the real world.

And this is incredibly common. Because reseachers fixate on the techniques they learn. They think those will slice bread and anything that doesn't use them will not. But it is obvious from the fact that fixed instructions suffice to implement them, that somewhere out in the enumeration of programs using only those fixed instructions, each and every one of their specialized programs exists. If you just ran through the possible memory states of your laptop in order, you would at some point hit a Windows installation with Mathematica 5.2 installed, etc. That space is just enourmous.

Too enourmous for blindly raking through possible programs to be of much use, if the systems being sought for are specific enough. But since even quite simple and therefore short ones already do arbitrarily complicated things, we have in fact two directions in which we might proceed, not one. We can look at some empirical system and mimic its components programmatically - and that is modeling and NKS - or we are run through classes of programs seeing what they do, looking for cases close to some phenomena we see empirically. And that is search and is also NKS.

As for the specific bugaboo about hierarchy, partly in comes from previous ideas in complexity theory, specifically the investigation of fractals. The same appears prominently in NKS - just look at rule 90 and you will see how easily simple rules create intricate hierarchial forms. Whenever the cause of something does not depend on a scale, it may operate at multiple scales, and similar patterns may therefore be seen on those multiple scales.

Generalizing, power laws are one of the simplest possible mathematical forms data can take, right after lines and exponentials etc. This was a fruitful idea, mostly due to Mandlebrot. But it is not the essence of complexity (specifically), because complexity arises without it, and it can give forms that are quite simple.

People reasonably try to get additional mileage out of techniques they learned to deal with such cases. That's fine, and it involves no erroneous claims about what programs can or cannot do.

It is also quite possible for systems to have different simple rules on different levels of analysis. In classic systems theory terms, we simply do not regard them as the same system. A system is a formal abstraction out of a mass of particulars. It attempts to keep the essential generators of some phenomenon, while dropping accidental details. (A fine classic Aristotlean distinction, incidentally).

When the essential features are retained, the system behavior remains as it was. We say that system (or aspect of the behavior) is separable. If a rate of change depends only on a previous quantity, you always get exponentials, e.g. Which sort of thing they occur in does not matter, the form depends only on that relation existing between prior quantity and rate. Obviously, that relation may have physical limits - then the behavior will be true within them but other factors will enter beyond them, etc.

There is nothing wrong with wanting to build nested computer models of some empirical system - or for some technological purpose. I advocate and use them - each level being a simple rule, the whole a program etc. But claims that X cannot be done or that no program exists with such behaviors except when started that way, are unsound, as a matter of known theorems. You might make a search claim about it. You can't make an existence claim.

Anything any program can do, some simple program can do. That is the basis of the "new" in a new kind of science. It is the reason to expect arbitrarily intricate behavior may arise from simple components - which we clearly see it does, incidentally, metaphysical longing for gaps notwithstanding. It is the reason to expect computer models to be the way to move science forward. It is the reason formal experiment can will and does aid irreducible empirical work. It is the reason it is a new science with plenty to do dealing with intricate real cases that depend on details, instead of being over already with everything already done.

Science cannot be dictated to, and sound philosophers do not try. It goes where the truth can be found, and doesn't care a straw whose ox is or is not gored in the process. Whether of prior method or fashion, or of philosophical conviction or desired conclusion. Even sound theologians fully understand this, do not comically pretend to know things beforehand that no one knows, and recognize truth as the highest criterion. "X can't be because I don't like the consequences" is a whim in fiction, not seeking the truth, and nobody can possibly take it seriously.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Old Post 09-28-2006 03:54 PM
Jason Cawley is offline Click Here to See the Profile for Jason Cawley Click here to Send Jason Cawley a Private Message Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
Simon85


Registered: Sep 2006
Posts: 13

What theologians have you read? My basis of ethics is not based on any human standard... can you figure it out now?

I never said philosophy dictates science in anything I have said... but apparently you are able to read things I don't say, and don't think...

What exactly are you trying to do? I hope your not trying to prove something since if you are it escapes me... but I am also only paying as much attention as is needed or dictated by the level of argument.... the low level of argument... well what do we expect from someone who debates science and doesn't know science...

Can't you figure out the game yet....?

I don't take NKS as a work of science, its pure work of ego... its based on interesting idea which doesn't hold up... those who believe are hopelessly mired in the dearth of evidence for it in the natural world...

Any simulation that has been performed on NKS terms take for example AI, current AI based on traditional models is a 100 times better...

Current math explains far more then what NKS can explain, and with some adjustment that will stay the case...

I have no misconceptions about NKS, the questions are designed to get you to answer them with in the framework of NKS... and apparently you don't know how to answer them since you seem to ignore them...

Well either way congats you failed the test, you failed to answer any questions I asked you failed to present much outside of NKS, by saying oh I am just making up stuff to knock it down, which is incorrect and I have told you why but as with any ideologist like yourself reason logic and anything else can be twisted and shaped to fit your world view... my friend of moral relativity and ethical unknowns, master of philosophical trivial...

"Anything any program can do, some simple program can do." you don't know that and can't prove it... oh wait you don't need proof, just accept it and everything will be fine...

enough of this drivel, I expected more out of the forum moderator, but hey.. you can't have everything...

And could you please stop slobbering all over this forum its physically painful...

-Simon

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Old Post 09-28-2006 04:20 PM
Simon85 is offline Click Here to See the Profile for Simon85 Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
Jason Cawley
Wolfram Science Group
Phoenix, AZ USA

Registered: Aug 2003
Posts: 712

Just disrupting at this point, nothing actually said, doesn't understand the concept of universal, at no point remotely specific enough to actually be making any sort of claim (and no, I can't figure it out yet, there are about a thousand varieties not one), pretends to be asking question when there isn't a single question in sight, etc.

You've been asked repeatedly to leave, invited to finish your supposed book, invited to make your own forum, etc. What's the point? This is over.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Old Post 09-28-2006 04:41 PM
Jason Cawley is offline Click Here to See the Profile for Jason Cawley Click here to Send Jason Cawley a Private Message Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
Simon85


Registered: Sep 2006
Posts: 13

Read the posts then a question would be insight...

I have asked numerous times for you to demonstrate to me in specific how would CA and NKS generate so much as a living cell?

No general examples or broad statements I want a specific pointed answer...

If CA is software which you seem to say that it is where is the hardware that makes this run in the universe?

Clear enough...

And by the way I don't need an invitation from to finish my book... thanks though...

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Old Post 09-28-2006 04:53 PM
Simon85 is offline Click Here to See the Profile for Simon85 Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
Jason Cawley
Wolfram Science Group
Phoenix, AZ USA

Registered: Aug 2003
Posts: 712

Asked and answered, repeatedly.

With any system above the threshold of universality, to model it explicitly you have to mimic each detail of its construction empirically in a computer program, dropping any aspects you find are accidental or can be profitably omitted to simplify the problem etc. Every such involved model as a piece of computer code can be compiled to simpler rules etc. You just never understood the universality point nor the empirical detail point. Your not getting it is not my not answering.

As for a rule for the universe, which is of course speculative and is not a CA, the universe is the hardware obviously, and its laws or update rules are the laws of nature and are what we mean by a rule for the universe in the first place. Which is no different from any other law of nature in relation to the universe etc. This is entry level philosophy of science.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Old Post 09-28-2006 05:23 PM
Jason Cawley is offline Click Here to See the Profile for Jason Cawley Click here to Send Jason Cawley a Private Message Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
John Bentham

Shanghai, China

Registered: Oct 2006
Posts: 3

The ideas! Forget about the other stuff

I have not read the whole book at all (I have just been reading it online.) I have read some really interesting reviews. I am not a really smart science guy with a theory of everything that is better than everyone else’s. I do have some questions about this debate and the nature of it.


"What theologians have you read? My basis of ethics is not based on any human standard... can you figure it out now?"

I don’ know what you are talking about. Are you stating that you have access to some non human standard of ethics? You repeatedly state that Jason gives no proof and only uses self-referential arguments to bolster his case. Here you don’t give any argument at all that I can follow. You just ask if it can be figured out. No I can not figure it out. You have a theory that you refuse to put forward for fear that it would be stolen so you don’t seem willing to actually make your case. While your idea could be the most amazing idea ever which can be proven beyond any reasonable doubt for all of humanity forever period, period, period, it seems illogical to enter into a debate while you are unwilling to truly make your case and expect others to be swayed by your ideas.


"What exactly are you trying to do? I hope your not trying to prove something since if you are it escapes me... but I am also only paying as much attention as is needed or dictated by the level of argument.... the low level of argument... well what do we expect from someone who debates science and doesn't know science..."

Jason clearly stated that he was not trying to prove anything and that NKS was a possible model of how things might work which he has reason to believe might be a good model. You may come up with a better model and then we could see how well it lined up with the universe as we observe it.

"Can't you figure out the game yet....?"

Is this a hoax? It occurred to me that you may be pulling our legs and that you are not as unusual as you are making yourself out to be, but that you are having some fun with the rest of us by seeing how riled up you can get the folks at NKS.

"I don't take NKS as a work of science, its pure work of ego... its based on interesting idea which doesn't hold up... those who believe are hopelessly mired in the dearth of evidence for it in the natural world..."

What do you base that statement on?

"Any simulation that has been performed on NKS terms take for example AI, current AI based on traditional models is a 100 times better..."

How do you quantify that “100 times better?”

"Current math explains far more then what NKS can explain, and with some adjustment that will stay the case..."

What do you base that statement on?

"I have no misconceptions about NKS, the questions are designed to get you to answer them with in the framework of NKS... and apparently you don't know how to answer them since you seem to ignore them..."

"Well either way congats you failed the test, you failed to answer any questions I asked you failed to present much outside of NKS, by saying oh I am just making up stuff to knock it down, which is incorrect and I have told you why but as with any ideologist like yourself reason logic and anything else can be twisted and shaped to fit your world view... my friend of moral relativity and ethical unknowns, master of philosophical trivial..."



Simon you often suggest that Jason’s English comprehension is deficient or that he would do well to well to attend some remedial English classes and yet you do not seem to have done us the courtesy of running either a spell check or grammar check on your posts. These types of insults make it hard to tell if you have genuine concerns about this idea or if you are just trying to get people bent out of shape.

"Anything any program can do, some simple program can do." you don't know that and can't prove it... oh wait you don't need proof, just accept it and everything will be fine... "

I don’t think that is what Jason is saying. Are you intentionally misinterpreting what he is saying or did you not understand it or have I missed the point?

"enough of this drivel, I expected more out of the forum moderator, but hey.. you can't have everything...

And could you please stop slobbering all over this forum its physically painful..."

This seem like such an emotional response from you I found Jason’s comments also often emotionally charged although I thought he did a slightly better job of keeping it to the issues, but I thought that both of you were unnecessarily disrespectful of one another. These types of statements are the type of stuff that reflect no real desire for truth but rather an emotional attachment to a particular point of view even in the face of evidence that contradicts that view. I don’t see how you can reduce yourself to this type of insult and still claim that you are really interested in the “truth” or being able to “prove” some idea. Simon it would seem logical and polite to wait until you are ready to fully present your case in a coherent way before expecting anyone to agree with you. I think that you raise some very valid points about complexity. Can it arise from such simple sets of instructions? What are the moral spiritual and philosophical implications of this theory? Where do these instructions come from? I believe that Jason did address some of this. I gather that he does not address it to your satisfaction but you do not say why. It would seem more logical to me if you were to refute the statements that Jason does make instead of simply repeating the same question over and over. What in either of your opinions do the insults you have sent towards one another contribute to our collective understanding of the implications of these ideas?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Old Post 10-05-2006 08:34 PM
John Bentham is offline Click Here to See the Profile for John Bentham Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
Tony Smith
Meme Media
Melbourne, Australia

Registered: Oct 2003
Posts: 168

Thanks, John

It really needed sombody fresh to the topic to call Simon out over this. As an oldie I've just watched in amazement as Jason did a more than admirable job of responding charitably to somebody with a totally closed mind and irrelevant agenda.

Maybe now we can get back to quibbling over details of the NKS program, accepting that they are what this forum exists for. Just how useful and accurate NKS is might take generations to determine, but at least there are enough positive hints to more than justify continuing effort.

But how to deal with those entrapped in received wisdom may not be a problem than NKS can shed much direct light on, although I'm still optimistic that general principles which emerge from the study of complex systems can have something useful to say about matters more philosophical.

__________________
Tony Smith
Complex Systems Analyst
TransForum developer
Local organiser

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Old Post 10-05-2006 10:30 PM
Tony Smith is offline Click Here to See the Profile for Tony Smith Click here to Send Tony Smith a Private Message Visit Tony Smith's homepage! Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
Jason Cawley
Wolfram Science Group
Phoenix, AZ USA

Registered: Aug 2003
Posts: 712

It is not worth trying to respond to someone no longer present. As I think the length of this pretty fruitless thread shows, I can be pretty patient - but my patience is not unending. The previous poster is no longer welcome here. If someone more reasonable can find anything of merit in anything he raised (other than what I've already allowed and discussed, I myself cannot) and wants to carry on discussion of it, that's fine, though I suggest a new thread and a narrower focus on whatever point you think that is. My first sentence in this thread still applies, in my opinion.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Old Post 10-06-2006 04:50 PM
Jason Cawley is offline Click Here to See the Profile for Jason Cawley Click here to Send Jason Cawley a Private Message Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
Post New Thread    Post A Reply
Pages (2): « 1 [2]   Last Thread   Next Thread
Show Printable Version | Email this Page | Subscribe to this Thread


 

wolframscience.com  |  wolfram atlas  |  NKS online  |  web resources  |  contact us

Forum Sponsored by Wolfram Research

© 2004-14 Wolfram Research, Inc. | Powered by vBulletin 2.3.0 © 2000-2002 Jelsoft Enterprises, Ltd. | Disclaimer | Archives