I just want to point out that the idea of “machine science” was very much in the air when I was writing The End of Science in the early 1990s, in part because of the use of computers in mathematical proofs, like the Four-Color Theorem. Originally postulated by Brandon Carter, the principle purports to answer one of the deepest of all questions: Why are the laws of physics as we find them rather than some other way?

John Horgan visits the reclusive Benedictine monk Brother David Stendl-Rast, a former teacher at Esalen and leader in the effort to establish a Catholic dialogue with Buddhism, at a monastery in western New York. So I would say you do what Jeremia wanted. It is just a monster-big nonlinear function with adjustable parameters: not something I regard as an explanation. This is the way research is done, which irritates me to no end. Those are the domains of religion and faith. Then we actually need the machines to do this for us.There are groups of people doing elaborate machine calculations to try and extract something from these numbers, by e.g. But if theories are being passed off as science, shouldn’t they have at least a remote chance of being empirically corroborated? I wonder whether "emergent phenomenon" isn't equivalent to "And, then a miracle occurs" in the blackboard calculations of a scientist in the old New Yorker cartoon. Perhaps alien cultures would consider asymmetry and disorder beautiful in which case they would strongly disagree with the aesthetic approaches of string theorists.This question of how physics would look if it were more diverse is therefore hard to answer.

It might even be an overall simpler framework, or perhaps (and, in my opinion, a far more likely outcome) vastly more complex. This is what the chaos and complexity enthusiasts were saying when I wrote my book. The most baffling mysteries, e.g. and advocate of the myth of the totally enlightened guru. What I find especially silly is the claim, made by Martin Rees and others, that AI will enable machines to pursue science on their own. I think the answer is probably ‘yes’ — but it’s not as clear-cut as in the case of (say) the 4-colour theorem — in that latter case the program used is transparent, whereas in the case of AI (even existing cases like Alpha Go Zero) tor programmer doesn’t understand what the computer does.This is based on the misconception about string theory that the problem with it is that “the calculations are too hard”. From this, the “learner” can’t magically explain string theory to you, discover fundamental laws that humans have “overlooked”, etc, etc.

I just want to point out that the idea of “machine science” was very much in the air when I was writing The End of Science in the early 1990s, in part because of the use of computers in mathematical proofs, like the Four-Color Theorem. Originally postulated by Brandon Carter, the principle purports to answer one of the deepest of all questions: Why are the laws of physics as we find them rather than some other way?

John Horgan visits the reclusive Benedictine monk Brother David Stendl-Rast, a former teacher at Esalen and leader in the effort to establish a Catholic dialogue with Buddhism, at a monastery in western New York. So I would say you do what Jeremia wanted. It is just a monster-big nonlinear function with adjustable parameters: not something I regard as an explanation. This is the way research is done, which irritates me to no end. Those are the domains of religion and faith. Then we actually need the machines to do this for us.There are groups of people doing elaborate machine calculations to try and extract something from these numbers, by e.g. But if theories are being passed off as science, shouldn’t they have at least a remote chance of being empirically corroborated? I wonder whether "emergent phenomenon" isn't equivalent to "And, then a miracle occurs" in the blackboard calculations of a scientist in the old New Yorker cartoon. Perhaps alien cultures would consider asymmetry and disorder beautiful in which case they would strongly disagree with the aesthetic approaches of string theorists.This question of how physics would look if it were more diverse is therefore hard to answer.

It might even be an overall simpler framework, or perhaps (and, in my opinion, a far more likely outcome) vastly more complex. This is what the chaos and complexity enthusiasts were saying when I wrote my book. The most baffling mysteries, e.g. and advocate of the myth of the totally enlightened guru. What I find especially silly is the claim, made by Martin Rees and others, that AI will enable machines to pursue science on their own. I think the answer is probably ‘yes’ — but it’s not as clear-cut as in the case of (say) the 4-colour theorem — in that latter case the program used is transparent, whereas in the case of AI (even existing cases like Alpha Go Zero) tor programmer doesn’t understand what the computer does.This is based on the misconception about string theory that the problem with it is that “the calculations are too hard”. From this, the “learner” can’t magically explain string theory to you, discover fundamental laws that humans have “overlooked”, etc, etc.

Subscribe

Notify of

new follow-up comments new replies to my comments

{} [+]

Name*

Email*

Website

{} [+]

Name*

Email*

Website

0 Comments

Inline Feedbacks

View all comments