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 > why NKS is worthwhile - 3 thinkers
  Last Thread   Next Thread
Author
Thread Post New Thread    Post A Reply
Charlie Stromeyer jr.


Registered: Not Yet
Posts: N/A

why NKS is worthwhile - 3 thinkers

I now think that NKS is worth investigating even purely within the context of simple programs just to see what may arise. Here are three historical thinkers who might have a similar view if they were alive today:


"Physics is mathematical not because we know so much about the world, but because we know so little; it is only its mathematical properties that we can discover."

- Bertrand Russell


"True science is distinctively the study of useless things. For the useful things will get studied without the aid of scientific men. To employ these rare minds on such work is like running a steam engine by burning diamonds."

- Charles Sanders Pierce


"Imagination is more important than knowledge."

- Albert Einstein


It is possible that some critics or dismissers of NKS may not understand the significance of what Einstein said. If I had the kind of personality that I thankfully do not have and I wanted to waste my time then I could do so by trying to find fault with any entity, process or idea.

However, it is more important and creative to instead use one's imagination and insight to try to come up with alternative plausible explanations or proposals.

So far, I have not been able to debunk some of Wolfram's more interesting ideas, and even if some of these ideas should turn out to be invalid then they might do so in ways which are enlightening (i.e. not too trivial).

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Old Post 04-15-2004 05:52 PM
Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
Sylvia Demetra Hobbs
Public Health
Massachusetts, USA

Registered: Apr 2004
Posts: 2

The Death of Archimedes

Charlie,
If I may add a fourth thought to your compendium of historical quotations supporting the worthwhileness of investigating NKS, specifically from Alfred North Whitehead's ponderings on the death of Archimedes,

"No Roman ever died in contemplation over a geometrical diagram."

Last edited by Sylvia Demetra Hobbs on 05-10-2004 at 11:58 AM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Old Post 05-10-2004 12:46 AM
Sylvia Demetra Hobbs is offline Click Here to See the Profile for Sylvia Demetra Hobbs Click here to Send Sylvia Demetra Hobbs a Private Message Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
Gunnar Tomasson


Registered: Oct 2003
Posts: 69

Some thoughts on the following:

"Physics is mathematical not because we know so much about the world, but because we know so little; it is only its mathematical properties that we can discover."

- Bertrand Russell

Comment:

Late in his life, Bertrand Russell came to recognize ("very reluctantly") what Wittgenstein had seen decades earlier, namely, that ALL mathematics is tautological.

In 'My Philosophical Development', Russell recalled how thrilled he had been in his younger years at the thought that mathematics was in some sense super-human, so to speak.

More generally, I am persuaded that ALL physical science is tautological in the sense that ALL mathematics is so.

"True science is distinctively the study of useless things. For the useful things will get studied without the aid of scientific men. To employ these rare minds on such work is like running a steam engine by burning diamonds."

- Charles Sanders Pierce

Comment:

Analytical - that is to say, axiomatic - science is "useless" in that it reflects how man's mind works as it goes about conceptualizing aspects of the world in which we live.

But, of course, it makes no difference to our everyday "useful" science whether, say, gravity is a "force" (a concept which Newton used merely as a figure of speech) or an attribute of "geometry", as Einstein suggested - a suggestion which he termed (in a quotation which I came across 25 years ago but have since lost) "wildly speculative" .

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."

- Albert Einstein

Comment:

As noted by Einstein on other occasions, the building blocks of "knowledge" of the axiomatic kind which defines physical science, are products of our imagination - we intuit them up front and then transform them into what, as a figure of speech, we term "knowledge".

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Old Post 07-16-2004 02:16 AM
Gunnar Tomasson is offline Click Here to See the Profile for Gunnar Tomasson Click here to Send Gunnar Tomasson a Private Message Click Here to Email Gunnar Tomasson Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
Jason Cawley
Wolfram Science Group
Phoenix, AZ USA

Registered: Aug 2003
Posts: 712

The statement that math is tautology is a typical bit of word play. It was based on a fundamentally mistaken idea in epistemology - the idea that reduction of a problem to one of logic was tantamount to solving it, and the only real theoretical difficulty was to get outside our heads. The first stemmed from too exclusive a focus on trivial bits of logic. The second stemmed from a skeptical hang-up over induction.

Logic is not simple if there is enough of it, in involved enough form. If Goldbach's conjecture is true then it follows from the axioms of arithematic, therefore it is a tautology. But this does not mean anybody has actually proved it. An encylopedia of finite groups contains only math, therefore only tautology. But involves rather more real effort and thought than A = A.

As for the idea that the epistemological problem is to get outside our heads, it was based on a too skeptical distrust of induction, contrasted only with naive verificationist ideas about it, coming from the empiricist tradition in philosophy. Idealists thought they were being very clever when they conceeded points to Hume yet continued phenomenal induction. But the points did not need to be conceeded to Hume; Hume was simply wrong about induction. He read half the relation but not the other half. We can be certain some of our incorrect inductions are incorrect. And that is all that is required.

The positivist program failed completely. In different fields this was noticed at different times, and the failure cropped up in different ways. They thought they would reduce everything to direct sense experience plus logic, and call the rest nonsense, and that the result would be a purely understandable world. With a little Humean distrust of the direct experience bits, ironically handled in a neo-Kantian manner, by talking about only how things looked to us instead of how they are.

It doesn't work. Induction is fine, it proceeds as guesswork and correction - something Peirce already explained and Popper refined to a skeptic's standards. Logical foundationalism fails even within mathematics, as the failure of Hilbert's program demonstrated. Although plenty of confusion ensued about just how and why it had failed.

What really happened is Turing discovered universality. Which showed that non-trivial things go on even in purely formal systems, and well before higher ordinals, and even without distracting issues like self reference. Allow even variables within logic and you arrive. Axioms systems that are universal are not adequately described as systems of tautology; as Churchill said in another context, it is "true but not exhaustive". If this were something rare and artificial we might downplay its importance. After NKS it should be clear it happens all over the place, in systems simple enough to occur naturally.

The issue of matches between our formal models and external relationships was already adequately understood in dogmatic philosophy. All the intervening sound and fury put things in various sorts of brackets for skeptics, operationalists, pragmatists, and idealists of various stripes, but did not change the essential feature. Both sides are now sometimes complex; fine.

Some select portion of external relations are isomorphic to the relations within some formal system, or they are not. If they are, we can experiment or deduce within the formal system in place of the external one. Ashby gave a particularly clear exposition of this essential of modeling in his Intro to Cybernetics, but hardly owns the concept, which is really just an (operationalist or pragmatic) cleaned up version of the venerable old correspondance theory of truth. The "if" above in "if they are" goes within Peircean guesswork or Popperian falsifiability, with suitable "doubt brackets" around every statement for fastidious skeptics, operationalists et al.

The interesting stuff already arises in the purely formal, and is repeated in just as interesting a fashion outside in real relations. We can build a universal axiom system and we can build a general purpose computer. The areas of undecidability left by either are of the same character. Nature computes, we did not invent it. We can't tell what a sufficiently complicated computation will produce without doing about as much work aka watching and seeing what happens, externally or by experimenting within a model.

The old division of labor, that experiment only mattered for externals while deduction was only for formal internals, with the first always being isolated data points in need of theoretical unification and the latter always being simple tautologies, has been comprehensively exploded. Now we have to experiment even with formal systems, if they are involved enough. And we hold ourselves free to guess about externals, and to ascribe reality to our guesses until the data explode them. Conjecture and experiment in mathematics, not just proof; computation not just mathematics as the formal side generalization; and sticking one's neck out in scientific theories, are how we scout unknown terrain, formal or empirical.

You call it the importance of imagination. Imagination is helpful but not the whole story or in my opinion the real story. Yes we need to be freer about speculation than the positivist program allowed. We also need to experiment systematically to explore possibility spaces, do so in exact enough ways that the results are reproducible and verifiable, and in conjecture and modeling try to be adequate to the particular phenomena we are trying to capture. Rather than fixating on imagined remote consequences of preferred schemes, or being dazzled by the generality of this or that encoding scheme - which could easily happen to imagination alone.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Old Post 07-16-2004 02:49 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
Gunnar Tomasson


Registered: Oct 2003
Posts: 69

Briefly, re. the following:

The old division of labor, that experiment only mattered for externals while deduction was only for formal internals, with the first always being isolated data points in need of theoretical unification and the latter always being simple tautologies, has been comprehensively exploded.

Comment:

The "old division of labor" was predicated on a theory of mind - one that in antiquity was reflected in the distinction between the world-views of Plato's Cave-dwellers and their 'escaped' peers, whose intuitive faculty had undergone, as it were, a phase shift.

As in Nietzsche's Zarathustra.

In the interim, Francis Bacon elaborated and transformed Plato's imagery into that of assorted "idols" of our minds as they go about making sense of (conceptualizing) the universe of sense impressions.

Modern experimental scientists may be working on different assumptions with respect to the nature of mind and its interaction with the universe of sense impressions.

Until such work has been completed and crowned with success, it is too early to assert that the "old division of labor" has been "comprehensively exploded."

Last edited by Gunnar Tomasson on 07-16-2004 at 08:40 PM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Old Post 07-16-2004 05:51 PM
Gunnar Tomasson is offline Click Here to See the Profile for Gunnar Tomasson Click here to Send Gunnar Tomasson a Private Message Click Here to Email Gunnar Tomasson Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
Post New Thread    Post A Reply
  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