Comment Re:Read in conjunction with ... (Score 1) 160
>Yes: because the stuff that's new in Wolfram is not good >and the stuff that's good is not new. The rest of the hard
Your opinion is a pathetic misinformed regurgitation of others' equally pathetic 'reviews' and 'comments'.
The fact of the matter is that there is _nothing_ in the past like the approach that wolfram advocates. As for specific results, how about a model for shell growth that contradicts widely held ideas about evolution? Or in math, the shortest possible axiom system for logic? Or in physics, obliterating time, space, and matter and still being able to derive special and general relativity from a far simpler structure? Or in CS, the simplest known universal system? Not to mention an absolute mountain of important and interesting results in the notes.
>sciences have been investigating complexity theory and >the emergence of complex phenomena from simple rules >for years now, and have produced work of far greater
Like what? how many popularized accounts of fractal dimensions and power laws do we need? The fact of the matter is that the establishment has produced very few meaningful results. And the fact of the matter is almost no one investigates simple, abstract systems. Just look at the literature.
Your opinion is a pathetic misinformed regurgitation of others' equally pathetic 'reviews' and 'comments'.
The fact of the matter is that there is _nothing_ in the past like the approach that wolfram advocates. As for specific results, how about a model for shell growth that contradicts widely held ideas about evolution? Or in math, the shortest possible axiom system for logic? Or in physics, obliterating time, space, and matter and still being able to derive special and general relativity from a far simpler structure? Or in CS, the simplest known universal system? Not to mention an absolute mountain of important and interesting results in the notes.
>sciences have been investigating complexity theory and >the emergence of complex phenomena from simple rules >for years now, and have produced work of far greater
Like what? how many popularized accounts of fractal dimensions and power laws do we need? The fact of the matter is that the establishment has produced very few meaningful results. And the fact of the matter is almost no one investigates simple, abstract systems. Just look at the literature.
