Comments on: Wolfram, Again

http://alittleweird.com/2009/12/02/wolfram-again/ reality bizarres the standard Sat, 18 Aug 2012 16:43:25 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.3 By: Sothilde http://alittleweird.com/2009/12/02/wolfram-again/#comment-1717 Sothilde Fri, 04 Dec 2009 15:30:13 +0000 http://alittleweird.com/2009/12/02/wolfram-again/#comment-1717 Breaker: Well, if you really think it trough until the end, then assuming non-determinism makes just as much sense as assuming determinism, maybe even more so. What makes one assumption more likely or valuable than the other, apart from its coherence with any other assumptions that are already in place? In my opinion this whole way of thinking is flawed. This whole approach of trying to understand reality by saying "what if reality is like this or this, would that make sense?". That way you're not figuring out reality, you're figuring out the logical consequences of your assumptions. Basically you're creating just another belief system which has your assumptions as its dogma. By: breaker http://alittleweird.com/2009/12/02/wolfram-again/#comment-1716 breaker Fri, 04 Dec 2009 06:23:14 +0000 http://alittleweird.com/2009/12/02/wolfram-again/#comment-1716 Sothilde: there is no desire to assume this model any more than there is a desire to assume any scientific theory that makes sense. It's not a matter of desire, it's a matter of deciding what the best explanation is and accepting it, not because of how we want the universe to work, but because of how it likely does. Anyway, Wolfram's model is good and it makes sense, but does it bring you closer to your goal? Does it actually apply? This is, of course, assuming that you are still working towards the goal of proof that you set in May or something, Sean. By: Sothilde http://alittleweird.com/2009/12/02/wolfram-again/#comment-1715 Sothilde Fri, 04 Dec 2009 02:33:46 +0000 http://alittleweird.com/2009/12/02/wolfram-again/#comment-1715 I still don't understand this desire to assume that reality is deterministic By: Sean http://alittleweird.com/2009/12/02/wolfram-again/#comment-1714 Sean Thu, 03 Dec 2009 19:02:02 +0000 http://alittleweird.com/2009/12/02/wolfram-again/#comment-1714 hey NI :-) Yes, what I think you're getting at is Godel's incompleteness theorem: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems Basically, what it says is: if you have a *consistent* belief system (meaning, you don't believe in things that contain contradictions), then there are an infinite number of truths, and there are things that are true, but unprovable. In the end, I think this affects Wolfram's theory in that we'll never be able to prove Wolfram's theory is 100% correct. Just like we can never reach the temperature of absolute zero. But we can get closer and closer. No one will have 100% absolute truth... it's really just a question of: to what extent are you willing to go in order to be satisfied with the result? Wolfram's theory reaches that satisfaction-threshold for me. By: Not_Important http://alittleweird.com/2009/12/02/wolfram-again/#comment-1713 Not_Important Thu, 03 Dec 2009 17:26:22 +0000 http://alittleweird.com/2009/12/02/wolfram-again/#comment-1713 ... oops this got cut off... If infinite regression is a valid thought, then it would mean that the sequence of truths is endless or maybe even being created at each moment at an infinite rate. What if there is no ultimate truth, what if it was a dynamic, evolving abstract "thing"? By: Not_Important http://alittleweird.com/2009/12/02/wolfram-again/#comment-1712 Not_Important Thu, 03 Dec 2009 17:22:49 +0000 http://alittleweird.com/2009/12/02/wolfram-again/#comment-1712 Besides, I suggest looking up the following concepts: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_regression and the "Infinite Turtle Theory" But specially the Infinite regression By: Not_Important http://alittleweird.com/2009/12/02/wolfram-again/#comment-1711 Not_Important Thu, 03 Dec 2009 17:16:53 +0000 http://alittleweird.com/2009/12/02/wolfram-again/#comment-1711 When I was a little younger, for some time, I was really involved in AI and neural networks programming. My thought was this: If I ever could create an evolving algorithm of a virtual world with virtual evolving entities populating that world, and if those entities would ever become smart enough to be aware of themselves and their virtual surroundings, and if they started to explore the rules, conditions and limits that my code imposes on them... would they ever understand that that thing they call "determinism" has a set of layers of truth that lead across the software and hardware continuum of my PC up to me, the ultimate creator... ? What I say is this: determinism is fine with me, but determinism itself may be a product of countless layers of "truth" that we might not be able to even start to be aware of. Can your mind even keep up with it? What if the truth is so deep, that that thing you call "mind" cannot even approach it with a thought? If you'd decide to look at the world as a plain thing, then, perhaps, Wolfram solved it. But, as an ancient person would ask: "What about the Elephants and the Turtle?"