Talk:A New Kind of Science

message: Last year I saw that someone had developed a CA which was capable of 
adding two numbers together. (which is a von neuman computer). I wish I had taken more notice: but, I was burning up the cpu  with CA and could be bothered to look at it's static structure. There were 2000+ parts and like I say it was static. And I'm all about the visuals.
This, in my eyes, lends support to his  thesis
Most important thing I learned was that western science since Newton and differiential calculus, has had a bias towards equations.   --Two16 18:42 Jan 15, 2003 (UTC)
:Conway's Game of Life has long since been able to add two numbers together, as it is known that a Turing machine is reducible to it.  This doesn't really support his thesis (that a Turing machine is reducible to any "sufficiently" complex system), except in that it doesn't contradict it...
:(As for von neuman, I'm not sure if you're talking about the Von Neumann architecture, i.e. modern processors, or a von Neuman machine, i.e. self-replicators.  This is neither.)
:--Andrew 68.6.190.89 08:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Von Neumann CA 

message: I have removed this:
*"It is for these failings and for Wolfram's penchant for excessively grandiose claims that some have voiced that they would consider this work to be a piece of pseudoscience if it had a wider following."
The book is already heavily attacked, and to call it pseudoscience is not correct. It might be called incorrect or flawed but it doesn't fall under the usual concept of pseudoscience.  Wolfram has a Phd in Physics and he has written peer reviewed articles on cellular automata. If you want to put anything like this back in the article please post solid reason here.
:I was honestly trying to find a more moderately phrased version that would still contain vital and unassailably NPOV information. The original text was not mine, and definitely too pointedly phrased. I don't however accept that Wolfram should get a "bye" just because some have already (justly) confronted his ideas and way of presenting them elsewhere.
:Wolfram's other writings may have been scientific, but that does not make A New Kind of Science scientific, any more than Isaac Newton's Principia Mathematica being science makes his Chronologies (a prophetic work derived from silly "analysis" of the bible) scientific. I have nothing against Wolfram's tome, and think in the final analysis it will fare better against its critics than you seem to have confidence in. But that is not a reason to not characterize its current reception accurately. I won't get into an edit war over this. But this is how I feel --Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 18:21 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)
::Well, it's repelling because it dares to posit a music of existence. Letting aside for a moment its "validity", the fact that it dares to do such a thing is sufficient to attract repulsion. The truth it posits cannot be empirically "tested" because the truth it's describing comprise the toolkits used to test that truth. The grammar of cellular automata subsumes itself. --Gyan 09:54, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pseudoscience 

message: Hello. I'm going to cut the "Response" stuff from the criticism section. WP articles on controversial subjects aren't generally structured like that; it's not WP's business to defend Stephen Wolfram, or anyone else, from his critics. 64.48.158.87 04:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sound good. Go ahead. (And why not get an account—that would make communication much easier.) Best, Arbor 09:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is completely biased towards the supposed critics in the reception section. So much that it even overtakes the whole length of the article. It deserves at least some explanation about who has said what and why they might be wrong or right. Some are outrageous, like saying that people before suggested the universe may be a cellular automaton when Wolfram is actually proposing in his book a discrete trivalent network because as he explains, finds the CA model unsuitable to explain quantum and relativistic phenomena. So if you are not willing to provide a more balanced view of the critics I'm willing to get into an edits war. So be reasonable and discuss the topic here before coming and reversing my informed changes. 92.128.114.26 (talk) 01:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism / response 

message: The introduction should be clearer. What does Wolfram want to tell us with his book, what is his message, his main idea, what does he wants to show? The article is supposed to be read not only by those who are familiar with the subject, but by everybody who is interested to see what it is all about. If I undersand it correct, he claims that the universe is digital and based on information, and scientists should not try to describe the nature through mathematical formulas and equations, as they have done so far, but through simple cellular automata (probably best described as/compared with computer programs). This goes not only for physics, but also for chemistry and biology; all forms of science who describes nature should have this single common platform to branch out from. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.217.193.228 (talk • contribs) 21:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is actually a very interesting proposal which I agree with. 87.13.15.155 (talk) 23:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: The introduction

message: Amidst the fog of stimulating but uniformative "Wolfram is a genius!" "Wolfram is a nut!" debate, it's a pleasure to see an article that states, concisely but clearly, what Wolfram is actually saying. -- Writtenonsand 18:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kudos to those who have contributed to this article 

message: What Wolfram means is that the universe and everything in it is digital in its nature, and can (and should) be described as programs rathers than mathematical tables and formulas? If so, it should be explained clearer in the introduction since it really is a revolutionary way of observing the reality, correct or not. 217.68.114.116 (talk) 17:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's right, that's why it is called a New Kind of Science, so the 'critics' about not following the standard scientific methodology is completely stupid since it is precisely proposing a new methodology, the one he is following. Just as ridiculous as the critics saying it wasn't peer reviewed. WTF? since when people like Dawkins or you name it send their books to be peer reviewed? Critics in this article are stupid and reflect a handful of personal ideas of people that haven't even read the book. For example, while the article says nothing about the shortest axiom that Wolfram finds in the book, proven to be the shortest generating Boolean algebra by him in the book, is completely overlooked, while the claim that someone did about Wolfram stealing his ideas gets a whole paragraph. 92.128.114.26 (talk) 02:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Critics in this article are stupid" is not a way to advance any sort of scientific argument.  There's a very reasonable argument that the standard scientific methodology is actually *better* than the methodology suggested here.  Since the publishing of NKOS, exactly what revolutionary ideas or discoveries have come out of this methodology?  (and "it's because the mainstream scientists refuse to work on this" is no excuse - that could equally well mean there is no applicability as much as the presence of a bias against it) I think the big reason for much of the negative reaction is the fact that Wolfram did not seem to give enough credit where credit is due (and Dawkins "or you name it" generally do), and that's crucial to the operation of all sciences.  Do you really think you know more of the history of the ideas in that book than someone who has spent their entire life thinking about this stuff? 128.200.44.68 (talk) 17:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: If I have understood it correctly

message: For those as understand these things, the links provided at this /. discussion might be of use. .. dave souza, talk 16:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: /.

message: :Image:Newsciendfsdfs.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 22:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Newsciendfsdfs.jpg

message: How does Wolfram's "Principle of computational equivalence" relate to the Church-Turing Thesis? They sound similar to me, but this is not mentioned until the criticism. How do supporters consider the connection between these two principles? This ought to be talked about in the A New Kind of Science#Principle of computational equivalence section. Thanks  Sligocki (talk) 23:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Principle of computational equivalence and Church-Turing Thesis 

message: Wikipedia is supposed to tread lightly on promoting books. I've received a warning from a senior Wikipedian before (see my talk page) for writing about just a concept from a popular commercial (non-academic) book -- not even writing about the book itself.
I'm not saying that an article on NKS is not noteworthy. But has the issue of its commerciality been discussed? I don't see that here on the talk page.
Crasshopper (talk) 08:17, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is this not considered self-promotion? 

message: Surely one does not begin an article with the sentence "A New Kind of Science is a best-selling, award-winning book by Stephen Wolfram, published in 2002", give no indication anywhere in the article of by what standards the book was "best-selling" or of what awards it received, round out the lead with some rather vague comments about what exactly the book is about, and leave it at that. Surely one does not begin any article like that, let alone an article about a book that has received as mixed a reception as ANKS has. Many of the reviews seem fairly critical. (Given the lead, I was surprised to see that the article mentioned criticism of the book at all. But I see the "reception" section is mostly criticism. Shouldn't that be reflected in the lead?) I don't know too much about the book and don't have the time right now to examine things more carefully, but I hope someone will clean this article up. Leonxlin (talk) 03:54, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV issues? 

message: Under the Reception heading, in the Principle of Computational Equivalence section, it is stated that "The PCE has been criticized for being vague, unmathematical, and for not making directly verifiable predictions. However, Wolfram's group has described the principle as such, not a law, theorem or formula. "
This statement contradicts the text. On page 720 of the book, PCE is presented as a new law of nature:"In essence, therefore, The Principle of Computational Equivalence introduces a new law of nature to the effect that no system can..."
I contend this should be noted in the article.
Epicdave (talk) 20:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Principle of Computational Equivalence is presented as a law 

message: Perhaps this doesn't belong here, but it is precisely Wolfram's self-aggrandizement which put me off his book for good. The same goes for Mandelbrot's "Fractal Geometry". I hadn't finished the preface (both books) before I started loathing book and author. Not that Wolfram and Mandelbrot weren't geniuses, far from it, but at least in Mandelbrot's case he carefully avoided mentioning any living mathematician except scornfully but heaped praise on the dead ones. Geniuses or not, some modesty does become you! All the best  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.220.22.139 (talk) 19:30, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  I did this, I did that, I invented etc. 

message: The schools opening at top universities for the sole reason of studying computational science more than vindicates Wolfram. The 3rd branch of science has basically been established.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.85.234 (talk) 05:10, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Pardon my ignorance, but what does computational science have to do with Wolfram's cellular automata (or "simple programs," as he calls them)? It seems to me that the latter is simply one subtopic of many in the former. If that's correct, then it is hardly a new kind of science, is it? GreatBigDot (talk) 14:54, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

text: 24.6.85.234 might be sock-puppet of Wolfram or an employee.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.53.53.179 (talk) 13:35, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: 24.6.85.234 is in California, which has links with Wolfram.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.53.53.179 (talk) 13:38, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Don't let envy ruin this article  

message: Cellular automata seem to attract Wolfram and others because they are easy to program on a computer. Whether they will ever have any importance in maths, I don't know.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.7.22 (talk) 14:45, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cellular automata 

message: I couldn't be bothered to read the whole book, but in a passage with which I do have some experience, it produced a competent review of old theorems. No new theorem was produced.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.7.22 (talk) 14:50, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  I  read 

message: "simple systems such as cellular automata are not complex enough to describe the degree of complexity present in evolved systems"
I don't really get this argument. Cellular automata are turing complete, therefore can implement stochastic algorithms, such as neural networks, which sample evolved system's space and can predict/mimic its behavior. In particular, Pascals's Triangle related automations (including these Rule systems) are explicitly based of probabilities of some events happening. So these automations obviously can describe some if not all properties of evolved systems. In other words, Wolfram expressed his excitement and proposed new interesting problems in a "check this out" way, and some old grandpas in academia got annoyed, throwing up some ramblings, instead of proving or disproving. Do we even need to mention that noise?
NikitaSadkov (talk) 13:27, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Evolved Systems" 

message: The reception section seems to consist of nothing but criticism. There have been lots of reviews of the book that included sentiments other than criticism. As it is written right now, the article reads like a very biased take-down of Wolfram and the book, with nothing positive to say about either. Kaldari (talk) 17:26, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reception section not neutral 

message: Hello. I have just tagged this article , because it was very heavily edited by a (highly likely paid) sockfarm that is focused almost exclusively on promoting Stephen Wolfram and his work. Please see this COIN thread (perma) and the related SPI for more information. The article will need a thorough review before the tag is removed. Thanks and best, Blablubbs|talk 15:18, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Edits in particular need of scrutiny, per this list: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17. XOR'easter (talk) 22:47, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  UPE