Comment by deepsun
20 days ago
Amount of "I" and "me" is astonishing.
Didn't find anything on falsifiable criteria -- any new theory should be able, at least in theory, to be tested for being not true.
20 days ago
Amount of "I" and "me" is astonishing.
Didn't find anything on falsifiable criteria -- any new theory should be able, at least in theory, to be tested for being not true.
Isn't this his personal blog? The domain name is "stephenwolfram.com", this is his personal website. Of course there will be "I"'s and "me"'s — this website is about him and what he does.
As for falsifiability:
> You have some particular kind of rule. And it looks as if it’s only going to behave in some particular way. But no, eventually you find a case where it does something completely different, and unexpected.
So I guess to falsify a theory about some rule you just have to run the rule long enough to see something the theory doesn't predict.
he be the trump of his new kinda science world.
I think the comparison is unfair. Wolfram is endowed with a very generous sense of his own self worth, but, other than the victims of his litigation, I'm not aware that he's hurting anybody.
Sure, but everyone always says that. What do you think of what he wrote about?
A lot of words and excitement, reminding me of the String Theory -- is very generic, able to explain anything (and be quickly adapted to any new stuff it was failing at before), but that makes it useless -- a useful theory should predict something that other theories cannot, something that can be tested.
That's why I asked for the falsifiability. If there was a phrase like: "here is an experiment idea that can show which theory is correct" -- perfect. Or at least something like: "here's the real-world prediction that is very hard/impossible to calculate in other theories, but this theory makes it easy" -- at least it'd be useful for calculation.
Some things, like the foundations of mathematics, are not falsifiable.
You judge them by how useful they are.
Ruliology is a bit like that.
Makes sense, thanks. Waiting for a real-world prediction that was hard to calculate before, but ruliology could make it easier.
That's his style. It's not just his blog style, it's the same in his book.
https://nedbatchelder.com/blog/200207/stephen_wolframs_unfor...
> My thoughts keep running to two other geniuses: Isaac Newton (Wolfram’s predecessor in revolutionizing science) and Donald Knuth (another contemporary computer scientist). ... But both were also gracious and modest, something that Wolfram is not.
Uhm, Knuth -- yes, but Newton was pretty arrogant, vindictive, obsessive about his reputation, and unable to tolerate criticism. Some even claim he stole ideas, like the inverse-square law.