i came across this (rather massive) book in the
bargain bin, and was wondering if any of this
odd lot had seen it... v. v. odd
-- either it's brill or simply a version of
the infinite improbablity drive / fairy cake configuration
here are some links to his on-line stuff:
Wolfram, Stephan (2002). A New Kind of Science.
Kromar Printing Ltd. Winnipeg, Canada.
ISBN 1.57955.008.8, LCCN QA'267.5.C45'W67'2001
My first thought was that was an odd kind of book
-- expecting it to be something like Stephan J. Gould's
monumental book on evolution. Then as i read i read
into it (getting into the first 50 pages or so and
then dipping into the book here and there, and the
almost limitless notes and such in the back)...
Anyway, what it purports to be is the idea of
tie-ing various computational models (based
usually on simple, clusters of binary data)
and how a lot of other systems (everything
from chaos, fractal, random numbers, primes,
pi, and then physical and biological systems)
can be modeled using these.
Sort of the "under-laying order in the chaos"
(or so it looks to me). I'm struck in two
1. Given enough computational might,
you can model ANYTHING. Here i'm
thinking of Deep Thought and its
2. Martin Reese's "Just Six Numbers"
and how our (or possibly *any*
universe is determined by the
values of the physical constants;
eg, gravity (G), the speed of
light (c), etc.
Is this valid? I mean yes: You can
represent things with a enough digits
(or as Professor Wolfram points out,
a few digits a simple model) and with
a number of these combos you pretty
much can "create" our universe. As
he points out (if i'm reading this
properly) out of the (eg) thousands
of models in some cases, only 2 or
3 of them are "interestin" - ie,
yielding diversity and change and
yet encompassing the "order" that
we see around us - as well as
Pretty mind blowing stuff, me thinks.
Franklin Ace (humble decimal point
trainer, and way too tired
to create any new "threaded
conversations" right now),
oh, what the phote...
These two wibbles go into a bar,
And the bar keep (seeing that they hae
already had a bit too much to drink)
sez nervously, we don't get many wibbles in here.
The first one says, first of all we aren't many, we are only two.
And the second one sez, And i'm not a wibble either.
This reads better as threaded by three inter-twined,
damned insomnia... oh, well. what's a poet to do?
(the laundry, wash the dishes, re-arrange my
paper sack collection - sorting by number of
folds, and cotten/rag content)... ?