An Earnest Discussion of Grand Importance

See! Facebook CAN be used for more than pokes and friend requests.
The following message is being displayed in the interest of sharing information and ideas with all of you.

off of Facebook:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

An Earnest Discussion of Grand Importance
Between Adam Robert Haas and Liliana Alam


Adam Robert Haas
August 6 at 5:22am
Hi Liliana,

I’m writing you at this juncture because it marks the point at which I have become sufficiently annoyed with myself for procrastinating such that “I” has overridden the influence of “myself’s” mañana-thinking. I (fear not, I’ll spare you any further self-referential wordplay) had been planning to give A New Kind of Science a look-through before messaging you, but fuck it; I’ve been busy, and besides, I’ve never read the beast from head to tail anyway. Have you? In its entirety? If so, you are, without question, a better woman than I.

But enough with the chit chat, let’s get down to business. Since you’re the Wolfram expert, I’ll start by asking you this: Which concept(s) explicated in ANKS contribute(s) most crucially to your overall understanding of the Universe/reality? Please, do explain; explain your heart out if you wish, and rant if you must . . . or, although much lower in entertainment value, a few cogent remarks would also suffice. My study of Wolfram’s book has basically amounted to a holistic survey coupled with my careful study of a few sections particularly relevant to reality theory, which is one of my main intellectual interests. I should explain, I am here using “reality theory” to refer to the broadly encompassing inter-disciplinary field which attempts to describe the nature of reality in logical terms, and in the process, suggest answers to some of the most basic questions possible. One such question is: “How can the existence of the Universe be explained without the use of a description that itself is guilty of begging the question?” That said, do you feel that Wolfram offers up anything close to a truly comprehensive theory of reality? As I recall, he says something like “I believe that the Universe probably evolved from a small and simple network, according to a few simple rules.” What do you interpret that (or whatever he actually says) to mean? Do you think that it verges on suggesting an actual comprehensive model of reality? And it is here that I will stop; just as Rome was not built in a day—imagine what a shithole it would have been if it were—the process of alienating a willing discussant with my hedonistic indulgence in recondite theory is something I prefer not to rush.

Best,

Adam


Liliana Alam
August 7 at 3:02am
Adam,

Your fantastic masterpiece of an email has my head spinning at 3 am after clubbing.

I will get back to you expediently with impressive verbitude of equal intelligence as well as my thoughts on Wolfram and his theories.

for now I watch the llamas and squirrels dance in my head.

good night fair sir.

Liliana


Adam Robert Haas
Today at 12:08am
There's no need to be anal about expediency; I certainly wasn't. ;) Looking forward to the verbitude, though.

- Adam -


Liliana Alam
Today at 1:13am
Adam,

sub-section to 1 >the following is surely not equal in verbitude. I chose brevity (as close as I could get to it.)

1. No I have not read the book in it's entirety. It is one of my goals for this year.

Which concept(s) explicated in ANKS contribute(s) most crucially to your overall understanding of the Universe/reality?

2. Short answer: the concept that everything is mathematically programmed and pre-determined, even in it's seeming randomness.

“How can the existence of the Universe be explained without the use of a description that itself is guilty of begging the question?”

3. in binary code, or mathematically. Where-in explaining a phenomena in terms of an equation. e.g "why does x equal y?" An equation is not necessarily a statement of a question, more an Observation of an obvious truth, and a proof of that truth is somewhat visible in the very statement. if the "x" was "the universe", and "y" stated all the common laws of physics we currently believe as "fact", then a proof would follow explaining such.

That said, do you feel that Wolfram offers up anything close to a truly comprehensive theory of reality?

4. The closest I've come across thus far. But. If I am going on your verbatim with respect to your syntax, No, I do not feel nor think that Wolfram offers a truly comprehensive theory of Reality. For "Reality" is an obsolete infinite which the human mind Perceives. If you were referring to, what we see around us and the way the current universe, and our small planet kingdom operates, then no I do not think Wolfram has addressed Humans to a fair degree. Though his concepts can be Applied to human behaviour, he has mostly explained the laws of the universe and how they contradict certain previous theories in science. Evolution for example, and random deviation. His Mathematica program clearly goes Against the theory of random deviation, because he attempts to prove-and somewhat successfully, that there Is No Randomness to anything in the cosmos. I am interested to read his future work on how this theory may be applied to humans. THAT would be a more comprehensive theory of reality-at least according to a Human's perspective.

“I believe that the Universe probably evolved from a small and simple network, according to a few simple rules.” What do you interpret that (or whatever he actually says) to mean?

5. That the Universe "evolved" just like a computer program, in precise 1-2-3 steps that could be observed and copied anywhere else and in any other dimension. The dimension part meaning, aside of this current universe. The measure of the scientific method is 1) can you prove it 2) can you Duplicate it. Wolfram is stating that Yes, this current universe Can be analyzed, stripped apart, and "proved", and furthermore, duplicated. Of course he hasn't actually done this yet. But on a small scale with his computer program which took him several years to construct, he did. He programmed in the same laws which govern our current universe, and left "the machine" alone. Then, using those same laws, out of a few very simple structures-resembling plants/tetris, the figure grew exponentially and appeared to grow more and more complex and intricate as time passed. BUT-the governing rules Never Changed. And thus, Wolfram's explanation on how This universe began with a small and simple network. You can compare his theory to the Internet as well. It's beginnings stemming from the mid 70's as a top secret military ops way for computer data to be transferred without the knowledge of other co-operatives to each other. And now, it is what it is. But the governing system of how comp-to-comp transfer Never Changed.

Do you think that it verges on suggesting an actual comprehensive model of reality?

6. Yes

BUT. There are certain "x" factors missing which he left out. Wolfram states in almost interview, that he "believes in God". His equations and theories both suggest this belief and yet entirely contradict it. That he implies the universe is based on a small and simple set of rules does nudge at intelligent design, visa vise a "higher power". But simultaneously it suggests that because this system of rules is so small and simple, it could have easily evolved, On It's Own Inner Rules, By Itself, Entirely, which eliminates the theory that there is a "God". The 2 main "x" factors as I see it are a) whether "God" exists > a-1) if yes, then how to apply this principle into the "small network evolution" theory. a-2) how to prove that "God" exists? and b) whether "Fate" exists > a-1) if yes, is it more prevalent than Chance? a-2) how to apply a correct percentage of each to the theory for the result to be realistic?

Rome was not built in a day

I agree with this statement, but it has always bothered me. Because, though the physical Structure of what we know as Rome was not visible overnight, the outlay and thought process of it Was. Rome Began the very first day a team of architects hired builders to lay the first brick. That very day, Rome began, and even if it was Completed years later, the very moment that the Idea of Rome became physical Reality took a Day. I am not referring to the months, years of planning Before actual construction took place, but the actual "time of conception". People say it takes 9 months to have a baby. I always viewed it as it takes less than a few seconds. During coitus, once a sperm has fought it's way into an egg, beating out all the other million "loser" sperm, the Process has already begun. And That process, took a few seconds. Then again, there are variables such as miscarriages and premature births.


the process of alienating a willing discussant with my hedonistic indulgence in recondite theory is something I prefer not to rush.

Any shared knowledge, opinion, or imagination can never alienate the other. Rather it feeds upon itself, and thru logic, a new solution is reached, a new knowledge, a new opinion, a new imagination.

Hedonistic? Most certainly not. Discussion, in it's purest form, does not involve ego, but the common want of seeking an answer. Your preference not to rush appeases me greatly, for yes, this type of discussion does not depend on Time. It depends on person a/b of the discussion, when A has one solid idea, to put it forth, B, put another forth, and so on. If a simple rebuttal is offered to either, nothing is achieved. There must be some New information, in order to create a New theory stemming out of the dual information of A/B.

I have enjoyed this exchange of idea and feel delighted, adrenalized and anticipate the next flow =0).

(and again-time being of little importance, my reply to you will most likely not come until after August 23 as I will be in Malaysia from tomorrow night until the 23rd and will have infrequent internet access.)


Liliana

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TO BE CONTINUED..........