Paul C. Meehan
PCM Solutions Ltd
Registered: Mar 2011
Re: Is Wolfram a super-duper genius?
Originally posted by David Brown
Does NKS represent a profound way of thinking that is substantially new and comprehensive?
I am my own reality-check. – Stephen Wolfram
Academic politics and scientific politics are as hardball as anything in Washington. When someone goes off in a different direction like this, people get upset. It’s the same in every field. It’s only after they are good and dead that we declare them geniuses. – Gregory J. Chaitin
Is Wolfram’s NKS an immensely great achievement? Is Wolfram basically correct in his self-assessment? Has the scientific establishment hugely underestimated Fredkin and Wolfram?
Consider Fredkin’s paradigm: At some level, all of nature is an information process. The most fundamental laws of nature deal with information representation and information flow. Nature is finite and digital. The natural multiverse is mathematically isomorphic to some Turing machine. Conservative logic is a comprehensive model of computation that models several fundamental principles of physics.
See “Conservative logic” by E. Fredkin and T. Toffoli http://strangepaths.com/wp-content/...vativelogic.pdf .
See Fredkin’s web site http://www.digitalphilosophy.org .
Consider Wolfram’s paradigm: NKS is one of the greatest books ever written. The Principle of Computational Equivalence is the world’s most important insight concerning physical nature and human nature. The ultimate physics of reality should replace time, space, and energy by information representation and signal propagation below the Planck scale. Wolframian physics is more fundamental than quantum physics. The primary way to understand physical nature is to think in terms of informational systems, computer simulations, and emergent complexity from simple rules and feedback systems. Wolfram is on a par with or perhaps better than Socrates, Archimedes, Copernicus, Galileo, Leonardo da Vinci, Newton, Gauss, Einstein, Pauli, Fermi, Darwin, Pasteur, Edison, Tesla, Turing, von Neumann, Crick, Brenner, Bardeen, and Feynman.
Why might Wolfram be correct in his self-assessment? Consider the Wolfram Triumphant Hypothesis:
Two of the major problems in the logical foundations of quantum mechanics are (1) the infinite self-energy of the electron and (2) the ambiguous self-energy of the electron. M-theory solves the first of these two problems, and the M-theoretic calculation method solves the second of these two problems. The M-theoretic calculation method amounts to the assumption that the multiverse is a Fredkin-Wolfram information process that computes M-theory. Paradigm-breaking photons play the role in the development of M-theory that Kepler’s laws play in the development of Newtonian mechanics. Fredkin’s Finite Nature Hypothesis indicates that Einstein’s equivalence principle is significantly wrong, that weird antigravitational forces from alternate universes explain dark energy, and that weird antielectromagnetic forces from alternate universes explain dark matter. In the Fredkin-Wolfram information process, re-computation explains CPT invariance, un-computation explains boson/fermion supersymmetry, and the technical details supporting the Fredkin-Wolfram constant explain all the cosmology of the multiverse.
Is the scientific endeavour an ultimately futile process in that the likelihood that we will fully understand our reality and the meta-reality that created it the same as the likelihood a sprite in a computer game is going to understand the human reality that created it?
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged