Stephen Wolfram thinks he may have found the theory that unifies physics: it's basically automata theory. According to his theory, the universe is basically an automaton running a simple set of computational rules. The link leads to his layman's summary of the work.
Even if this isn't how things work, it lends a completely new perspective: based on a relatively simple analysis of his idea, he derives the basics of relativity and quantum mechanics. His article makes for a mind-bending and fascinating read, but it's already a summary, and trying to do a summary of a summary here makes little sense. If you're into physics, mathematics or cosmology, have a look!
(Score: 5, Insightful) by ikanreed on Thursday April 16 2020, @05:28PM (14 children)
Wolfram's claim(that he's been making for 20 years now) comes as part of a challenge that asks everyone else to figure out which computational automata rule actually mimicks the physics of the universe. Because he hasn't found one remotely close yet.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 16 2020, @05:35PM (1 child)
Stephen Wolfram basically basically based basics theory of everything.
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Thursday April 16 2020, @05:56PM
Frankly you just can't trust "ph" stevens.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Bot on Thursday April 16 2020, @07:16PM (7 children)
> Because he hasn't found one remotely close yet.
I bet he is stuck in trying to model leftists. Tough cookie dat.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 1, Funny) by ikanreed on Thursday April 16 2020, @07:55PM (4 children)
That's not fair. Leftism is more like 2000 different totally contradictory models that are all one hundred percent certain are right and will work.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 16 2020, @08:18PM (3 children)
If this does not perfectly describe our lefties, what does?
(Score: 2) by meustrus on Thursday April 16 2020, @09:35PM (2 children)
It's modded Troll, but as a leftie myself I find this a pretty funny analogy for basically the same reasons.
It's not even all that mean-spirited. I mean, it allows that certain leftist world views are "in some appropriate definition 'meaningful' ".
Then again, there's a few other seemingly "utterly incoherent and meaningless" ideologies around here. Haven't seen the private-policing argument around lately; what ever happened to that guy?
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 16 2020, @10:37PM (1 child)
Not sure but I sorta think the private policing guy was also the series of contracts bub, and I'm 77% sure that was fustakrakich.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 17 2020, @06:45AM
Don't worry he'll be back as soon as "his guy" isn't the one doing the "violence".
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday April 17 2020, @12:35AM (1 child)
-Yeah, tough to model things that change according to outside input. Your kind are a lot simpler: imagine a plague, but window-licking retarded.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Bot on Friday April 17 2020, @01:14AM
> Yeah, tough to model things that change according to outside input...
...called opportunity
Account abandoned.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by meustrus on Thursday April 16 2020, @10:07PM (3 children)
Well, according to this article, Wolfram thinks he's found the framework now. That he's been working on this for about the last 2 years, and is already starting to see emergent properties that he can identify with existing theories.
I guess if I'd been following the guy for the last 20 years, popping in from time to time to say he thinks this is possible but he's got other things to work on right now, I'd probably be skeptical too. But it looks like he's actually announcing results and trying to get more people involved in doing real science based on his preliminary findings.
So maybe don't just dismiss this out of hand. Take a deeper look before your cynicism kills you.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 2) by coolgopher on Friday April 17 2020, @06:03AM (2 children)
I found it an interesting read. Whether it's in fact a unifying framework for physics and our understanding of the universe I'll leave to people with better understanding of the field.
One thing I will say is that fact seems to follow fiction - hard sci-fi author Greg Egan used a similar construct in his "Permutation City" a couple of decades ago. Also an interesting read.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 17 2020, @07:25AM (1 child)
> I found it an interesting read.
Really? I found it one giant advertisement interspersed with giant floating turds of self-praise.
When you're a kid, adults are so fake. You can't believe it. Most people "grow up", i.e. they take on a fake voice and call it real.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by meustrus on Friday April 17 2020, @04:27PM
When you're a baby, adults are so unknowable. When you're a toddler, adults are so monolithic and pure. Then as you grow, adults are compared against that toddler understanding that everything an adult does is just how it is.
Of course it seems fake. You never started with a good idea of how humans work.
But the idea that "adults are so fake" implies that the kid who "can't believe it" knows they are so much more authentic and pure.
That's bullshit. You, me, and everyone else is just as fake as all the adults you learned over the years were just "tak[ing] on a fake voice and call[ing] it real".
I think you may be stuck at the teenager level of understanding adults. Everyone is so fake, therefore there is no authenticity, and anyone who authentically thinks they are right is just full of shit.
That works for most people, but it doesn't work for everyone. And if you go through life thinking it does, you will miss the few people that were worth listening to.
I'm not saying that Stephen Wolfram is absolutely one of those people. I'm just saying we need to be open to the idea that he, or anyone else, might be.
Then we come after what he says with some standard checks. Is he open about his findings? Are they disprovable? Has he set up the whole enterprise so that he can take all the credit?
So far, the answer to all of these questions checks out. He's not acting like one of those cold fusion guys that refuses to let anyone look inside their sealed magic box. Give his ideas a chance.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?