Not long time ago, people like John von Neumann were doing both, math and physics, and even computation. Earlier, such people were also doing philosophy and music, and medicine, etc. Ask yourself why? It is only a phenomenon of modern times with the increasing fragmentation of science that the left hand does not know what the right one is doing. ...
Best, Plamen Sent from my iPhone Am 12.05.2012 um 00:55 schrieb Hector Zenil <hzen...@gmail.com>: > On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 11:23 PM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: >> On 11 May 2012, at 13:10, Hector Zenil wrote: >> >> Information that readers may find interesting: >> >> >> Stephen Wolfram has written the first in a series of blogs posts about >> >> NKS titled "It's Been 10 Years; What's Happened with A New Kind of >> >> Science?": >> http://blog.stephenwolfram.com/2012/05/its-been-10-years-whats-happened-with-a-new-kind-of-science/ >> >> >> Stephen will also be hosting an Ask Me Anything (AMA) on Reddit, where >> >> he will be taking questions about NKS and his research program on >> >> Monday, May 14 at 3pm EST. >> >> >> I think it is a good opportunity to start an interesting discussion >> >> about several topics, including of course information and computation. >> >> >> It looks like advertising for a type of universal system, the cellular >> automata. > > Coincidently, Wolfram wrote today > (http://blog.stephenwolfram.com/2012/05/living-a-paradigm-shift-looking-back-on-reactions-to-a-new-kind-of-science/): > > "Looking through reviews, there are some other common themes. One is > that A New Kind of Science is a book about cellular automata—or worse, > about the idea (not in fact suggested in the book at all) that our > whole universe is a giant cellular automaton. For sure, cellular > automata are great, visually strong, examples for lots of phenomena I > discuss. But after about page 50 (out of 1280), cellular automata no > longer take center stage—and notably are not the type of system I > discuss in the book as possible models for fundamental physics." > > People keep repeating what other say about others... (in this case, > that his view is all about cellular automata). > > ... > >> Digital physics implies computationalism, but if you take the 1/3 person >> points of view distinction into account, computationalism entails a non >> digital physics. So digital physics is conceptually erroneous. >> >> See the references in my URL for a proof of that statement. You need only >> Church's Turing thesis, and the assumption that consciousness is invariant >> for *some* digital transformation (which follows from computationalism). >> >> This does not preclude that cellular automaton are very interesting, and can >> have many applications, but it is not clear to make it into a new science. >> We want to ask what about that science is, for it does not seem to address >> the most fundamental questions. > > Then perhaps you can ask him next Monday on his Reedit session. I > think he has some concerns about the place of observers in a digital > world scenario. > > As for computationalism, he as I do, think that the question is about > physics, the answer won't come therefore from a model of math or > computation. > >> >> Bruno Marchal >> >> >> >> >> >> Sincerely. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> fis mailing list >> >> fis@listas.unizar.es >> >> https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis >> >> >> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > fis mailing list > fis@listas.unizar.es > https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis _______________________________________________ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
