HackerPapers

arXiv:quant-ph/0206089quant-ph

Book Review: 'A New Kind of Science'

Scott Aaronson

Abstract

This is a critical review of the book 'A New Kind of Science' by Stephen Wolfram. We do not attempt a chapter-by-chapter evaluation, but instead focus on two areas: computational complexity and fundamental physics. In complexity, we address some of the questions Wolfram raises using standard techniques in theoretical computer science. In physics, we examine Wolfram's proposal for a deterministic model underlying quantum mechanics, with 'long-range threads' to connect entangled particles. We show that this proposal cannot be made compatible with both special relativity and Bell inequality violation.

arXiv comments
Revised version. 14 pages, to appear in Quantum Information & Computation, September 2002
Journal reference
DOI
Subjects
quant-phQuantum Physics

On Hacker News

Linked by 11 identifiable commenters in 12 comments across 10 threads, from Jun 2011 to Jul 2024. Found in 1 HN submission from Oct 2015 to Oct 2015. Open submission discussions.

Comments linking this paper, per year.

Discussed in comments10 threads

  1. An approach to the fundamental theory of physics 1 comment

    • Before people get too excited about this, note that Wolfram has been on about his own fundamental theory of everything for some time, and the wider physics community does not take it seriously. His book 'A New Kind of Science' has him taking credit for others' discoveries going…

      qnleighView on HNParent context

  2. Mathematica 14 1 comment

    • > megalomaniacs tend to be frauds Eeeh. Scott Aaronson review [0] and Cosma Shali's review [1] of NKS kinds of points to this direction, so he may well be a fraud. The plagiarism case regarding rule 110 (and attempts to hide this through NDA and lawsuits [2]) doesn't do him any…

      nextaccounticView on HNParent context

  3. Finally We May Have a Path to the Fundamental Theory of Physics 1 comment

    • Scott Aaronson did: [1], [2] [1] https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0206089.pdf [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wd-0COLM8oc Summary: Wolfram's model doesn't handle violations of Bell's Inequality, which has been observed in nature. Violations of Bell's Inequality require true…

      slowmovintargetView on HNParent context

  4. Will AIs take all our jobs and end human history? It’s complicated 1 comment

    • "But for computational systems... there’s my Principle of Computational Equivalence—which implies that all these systems are in a sense equivalent in the kinds of computations they can do." Am I missing this, or is he restating the Church-Turing thesis but taking credit for it…

      qnleighView on HNParent context

  5. Decades-Long Quest Reveals Details of the Proton’s Inner Antimatter 1 comment

    • Scott Aaronson gave some issues with it being cellular automata even with threads connecting them (search "Bell Inequality" https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0206089.pdf), so Wolfram has moved on to graph automata things due to, if I am remembering right, someone figuring out…

      cmaView on HNParent context

  6. Faster Than Light in Our Model of Physics: Some Preliminary Thoughts 2 comments

    • Wolfram's theory was already very politely but firmly shown to be wrong 20 years ago, by people who took a look into it. Scott Aaronson for example. https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0206089

      NokinsideView on HNParent context

    • Unless something has changed, he is in the camp of people like t' Hooft that claim QM is really an approximation to underlying classical/deterministic/superdeterminism. And while that is possible, the trade-offs are usually far worse or harder to explain than the baggage QM…

      meroesView on HNParent context

  7. A New Kind of Science (2002) 1 comment

    • Many other reviews were just as critical. Scott Aaronson wrote good professional critique where he just politely debunked the main points of the book. https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0206089

      nabla9View on HNParent context

  8. Black Hole Tech? 1 comment

    • Oh, the problem is that Wolfram portraits his book as the ultimate breakthrough, even though at bests its an entertaining pop-sci tome. See http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0206089 Also funny, from the same author: > “The impact of NKS on all the areas of computer science and…

      eruView on HNParent context

  9. Does Gravity Travel at the Speed of Light? (1998) 1 comment

    • Ah, here we go. Aaronson 2002 shows that Wolfram's model cannot be consistent with experimental evidence: In physics, we examine Wolfram's proposal for a deterministic model underlying quantum mechanics, with 'long-range threads' to connect entangled particles. We show that this…

      aphyrView on HNParent context

  10. Alpha Geek 2 comments

    • I came across Scott Aaronson's review of NKS a few days ago and loved it: http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0206089. I would recommend reading that to anyone who is also looking at Wolfram's work.

      jgershenView on HNParent context

    • No, you're making the assertion first, that everyone positively asserts that the universe is continuous, and second that computer scientists see algorithmic systems as being simulations of analytical systems. The first i am agnostic to (although i do like the feynman quote at…

      knowtheoryView on HNParent context

Submitted to Hacker News

Connected through shared HN threads, not inferred similarity or a recommendation.