Klaus Rohde

Stephen Wolfram’s A New Kind of Science and Theory of Everything, and Peer review

March 6, 2021

Stephen Wolfram (2002) A New Kind of Science, Wolfram Media Inc. has proposed a radically new approach to understanding the world. He proposed that evolving simple computational ‘rules’ lead to complex systems. Attempts have been made to apply the approach to practical questions in science, e.g., ecology (Rohde 2005a,b). One consequence of this approach is the principle of computational equivalence https://mathworld.wolfram.com/PrincipleofComputationalEquivalence.html which implies that practically all systems which are based on such rules, that are not artificially constructed, will be computationally irreducible.” mathworld.wolfram.com › ComputationalIrreducibility. More recently, Wolfram and his collaborator Jonathan Gorard, a physics Ph.D. candidate at the University of Cambridge and a consultant at Wolfram Research, proposed that a Theory of Everything can be developed using the same approach (Wolfram 2020), combining predictions from the Theories of Relativity and Quantum Physics. However, like “The New Kind of Science”, the approach has led to strong criticism from many scientists https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/physicists-criticize-stephen-wolframs-theory-of-everything/

On a more fundamental level, it must be questioned whether the world ‘works’ like a computer. For example, Wolfram’s assertion that the human ‘soul’ is a sort of computer is highly questionable. Schopenhauer, in contrast, assumes that the will is primary. Put into modern evolutionary terms, Schopenhauer claims that the driving force of evolution is the will to succeed in the eternal struggle for existence, and that the facilities of the cognitive apparatus evolve as a consequence of that Will.

https://krohde.wordpress.com/2016/05/27/artificial-intelligence-and-dangerous-robots-barking-up-the-wrong-tree/

https://krohde.wordpress.com/2016/04/10/intelligence-and-consciousness-artifical-intelligence-and-conscious-robots-soul-and-immortality/

I quote from this post:

‘Stephen Wolfram, the famous inventor of  Mathematica, Wolfram|Alpha and the Wolfram Language, and author of  A New Kind of Science, recently published his very interesting views of what he calls ‘consciousness’. However, he discusses not consciousness which, according to him, is located in (not clearly defined) ‘souls’, but the physical correlates of it, namely intelligence and  neural networks, as well as artificial intelligence, the history and importance of symbolic languages, etc. See here:http://edge.org/conversation/stephen_wolfram-ai-the-future-of-civilization

A quote:

‘Here’s one of my scenarios that I’m curious about. Let’s say there’s a time when human consciousness is readily uploadable into digital form, virtualized and so on, and pretty soon we have a box of a trillion souls. …………This question of realizing that there isn’t this distinction between intelligence and mere computation leads you to imagine the future of civilization ends up being the box of trillion souls, and then what is the purpose of that?’

Both these scientists take it apparently for granted that human consciousness is equivalent to intelligence, and that it can be digitalized.

However, there are serious problems with this proposition. Firstly, it is obvious that human consciousness does not only encompass intelligence, but emotions such as love, fear and ecstasy, to mention only a few, as well. Even assuming that intelligence can be digitalized, which does not seem unlikely, digitalizing emotions may seem more difficult. But perhaps it is not impossible, because emotions are connected with nervous activity and why should these nerve processes, like those connected with intelligence, not be digitalizable? Which would imply that even robots (‘artificial intelligences’) could show all the ‘symptoms’ of human consiousness, including not only intelligence but emotions as well. But are they indeed conscious?”

Most scientists criticize Wolfram, however, not because of these fundamental objections, they query why he chose to publish his work without any peer review. Wolfram rejects this ( a quote from the article in Scientific American : https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/physicists-criticize-stephen-wolframs-theory-of-everything/“So why did Wolfram announce his ideas this way? Why not go the traditional route? “I don’t really believe in anonymous peer review,” he says. “I think it’s corrupt. It’s all a giant story of somewhat corrupt gaming, I would say. I think it’s sort of inevitable that happens with these very large systems. It’s a pity.”” 

References:

See also:

  • Fletcher, A. 2021.  Why computers will never write good novels. The power of narrative flows only from the human brain. Nautilus 95.