
Physicists Criticize Stephen Wolfram’s ‘Theory of Everything’ - guybedo
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/physicists-criticize-stephen-wolframs-theory-of-everything
======
danpalmer
I'd love to see some great blog posts, talks, etc from people who disagree
with this piece of research.

There are lots of people who dislike him, great, I agree, this is common
knowledge, but it's not a reason that his research is wrong – the scientific
community is better than ad-hominem attacks.

The problem is that he's a pretty good science communicator. As a layperson
(but software engineer so I'm somewhat mathematically literate and know what a
graph is), I got through the intro talk published by them and came out feeling
like I understood what the premise was, roughly how it worked, how it could
apply, why it might be a good model.

I then read a physicists "debunking", but because it was basically just
references to physics papers saying "ah but you didn't address the something
conjecture" I didn't really get anywhere with it.

I'm glad the physics community are discussing it internally, that is
ultimately more important, but as a layperson I'd really like to get a good
understanding of the other side of the argument.

~~~
jiggawatts
One issue with fundamental theories that I've seen is that it's _really easy_
to come up with a model that reproduces _some_ aspects of relativity or even
quantum mechanics, especially in some approximation, such as low energies or
weak fields. In that regime, you can wave your hand and pretend that
everything is linear or nearly so. The symmetries are common symmetries that a
lot of algebras or geometries share, so things just "seem to work" almost
magically.

This is like saying you've invented a car from scratch because you've made
something with mirror symmetry that can roll forward. Obviously, this is
missing more than a few details.

What Stephen Wolfram seems to have done is come up with an extremely generic
system that can describe anything, in much the same way that a CAD program can
use meshes to describe any piece of machinery you'd like to design. That
doesn't mean that meshes are equivalent to metal and concrete. Just because
meshes can have various symmetries and can be used to represent circular
things doesn't mean that a mesh is a car either.

Similarly, in a _very real sense_ the Universe performs computation, because
-- _duh_ \-- it contains computers. And brains. And many things of that
nature. Brains and computers run by the same rules of physics that stars and
experimental particle beams do. Hence, the Universe computes. It also computes
in the trivial sense that if you add 1 hydrogen atom to 1 hydrogen atom you
get 2 hydrogen atoms.

So if you come up with a very generic form of computation, such as automata,
or substitution rules, or whatever, of _course_ you're going to find many
things that "look like" various aspects of the computation the Universe is
performing. But analogies are just that: comparisons of vaguely similar
features. That doesn't mean they're isomorphic to each other, nor does it mean
that some random theory is actually the rules the Universe follows.

Stephen spends a lot of his time jumping up and down and pointing at some
trivial aspect of his theories and saying "Look at this! My theory can perform
addition! The Universe does addition too! Hence my theory is the theory of the
Universe!"

I've been interested in the fundamental theory of everything for two decades
now, and I spend about an hour a day on average poking through random arXiv
papers looking for ideas or signs of progress.

I've noticed a few things: Much of Wolfram's criticism of academia and modern
theoretical physics is correct. It's much the same as Eric Weinstein's
criticism. They both say that the _politics_ and _economics_ of academia make
it nigh impossible to rock the boat and come up with radical new ideas. I
noticed this too. Modern theoretical physics isn't. It's intellectual wankery
and dick measuring as a way of getting pieces of paper and tenure. There's
zero motivation or incentive to do anything useful, because the system has
slowly evolved over time to disincentivize it.

However, this doesn't mean that _their_ particular "rebel" flavour of TOE is
correct, just because the models produced by Universities have gone nowhere.
Progress in some arbitrary direction is not necessarily better than no
progress at all! Progress in the right direction is needed.

Over the years (decades!) I've developed an acid test to quickly sort the
wheat from the chaff:

1) Does the theory even _mention_ particle generations? Bonus points if
demonstrates at least three and explains why we haven't found four.

2) Is it a truly _local_ theory in that global communication is never
required? (Many current theories implicitly involve "solving" something, which
is often implicitly a global minimisation.)

3) Can the theory be applied to _single_ systems, or just ensembles? (Most QM
theories automatically fail this one. Single particles exist, single electrons
go into higher orbits from a single photon, etc... Either you can model this,
or your theory is woefully incomplete)

4) Can it explain the _observations_ of Quantum Mechanics without resorting to
the "infinite dimensional" mathematical wizardry? Can it produce computable
models, or just symbolic gibberish that I guarantee you no particle "computes"
as it goes about its business.

5) Nobel prize winning stuff would explain the origins of constants that are
currently experimentally determined inputs. (Most theories I've seen don't
even have numbers.)

6) The _ultimate_ requirement is for a TOE to "not only" produce the known
observable physical behaviour but to also naturally _exclude everything else_.
That is, the ideal rules should have some sort of incredibly tight self-
consistency that can only happen in one way and can only produce physics. For
example, an algebra that can only be used to represent valid combinations of
particles and fields, and can never represent any other "invalid state" that
makes no sense.

Unfortunately, 99% of the stuff I see fail at all of the above. Wolfram's
theory does too. His current graph-based theory and his previous cellular
automaton theory _spectacularly_ fail the 6-th requirement. They're both
nearly unconstrained computation models with infinite flexibility, the exact
opposite of a good TOE.

~~~
danpalmer
From my understanding of where the research is at, I think you're asking too
much of it, and rebutting it on that basis. My understanding is that it is
being posited as a category of models, of which one could be the "theory of
everything". They haven't said that one of them is, and they know they haven't
found the one that is yet if there is one.

I'm interested in discussions about why this type of model can't work, rather
than people repeatedly pointing out that they haven't found the exact model
yet, which seems to be a strawman argument.

As for your 6 acid test elements, that's exactly the sort of thing I'd like to
learn more about, but in the current wording I feel like I'm missing about a
Phd's worth of understanding. I think communicating this in a more accessible
form would be great!

I understand that theoretical physicists have reasons why they don't like his
theories, but I don't understand what those reasons are, whereas I do
understand a bit about the theories. This makes it hard (as much as I want to)
to be persuaded by physicists.

~~~
jiggawatts
To be a bit more concrete, this is a bit like saying "Computers could be used
to simulate/represent physical theories, hence studying computers could lead
to a theory of everything."

That's not even wrong! Studying computation, computation systems, or even just
mathematics in general almost certainly could _assist_ with progress towards a
TOE.

That doesn't mean that pointing at a computer running a few dozen lines of
code[1] and saying "A TOE could be in there... somewhere" is materially
useful.

[1] I'm paraphrasing Stephen himself here!

Personally, I feel that if Stephen _really_ wanted forward progress towards a
TOE, he's uniquely positioned to do so. He controls a company that makes one
of the best Computer Algebra Systems. He's in a position of power over a
large, highly talented staff of mathematicians, and he could push
Mathematica's features towards multiple relatively unexplored areas of
computational mathematics where there isn't much available at the moment.

Unfortunately, he's made the decision that the _only_ two such areas worthy of
his time and his company's resources are cellular automata and graph
rewriting.

Sigh.

Meanwhile, he could have done added all sorts of features for things like
handling Einstein summation convention, tensors, Geometric Algebra (and
noncommutative algebras in general), topology, etc...

Those would at least have immediate utility to working physicists, and if
pushed to the extreme could maybe help uncover some fundamental theory
somewhere.

But nope. He likes to play with graphs, like a kid with with a Spirograph only
interested in making pretty patterns.

~~~
mycall
> Einstein summation convention, tensors, Geometric Algebra (and
> noncommutative algebras in general), topology, etc...

Are python libraries taking up this challenge?

------
nabla9
This is not Wolfram's first Theory of Everything.

Wolfram published "New Kind of Science" almost 20 years ago. Scott Aaronson
was kind enough to review it:
[https://scottaaronson.com/papers/nks.pdf](https://scottaaronson.com/papers/nks.pdf)
So was Juergen Schmidhuber and many others
[http://shell.cas.usf.edu/~wclark/ANKOS_reviews.html](http://shell.cas.usf.edu/~wclark/ANKOS_reviews.html)

Wolfram has now moved from CA to Hypergraphs (essentially sets). They are so
generic structures that you get anything physics-like from them if you want.

For example, if you visualize hypergraph that you get from normal execution of
numerical simulations for relativistic, quantum or general relativity
simulations, they would look cool and you might realize that they are
connected to physics. Just like Wolfram's pretty pictures. Would execution
graph representation explain more than equations and code? I don't think so.

~~~
raverbashing
Yeah

At the same time it misses the point of the natural sciences.

Hypergraphs as described are more like Calculus than Physics. Of course,
describing gravity with calculus was a brilliant discovery but you can't just
have calculus and say "that's gravity". You need the connection between the
two.

~~~
abernard1
I think Wolfram's claims are even more egregious than that.

His model is inherently computational. It would be like saying "here's a
computer that can execute things" and then proving that you'd created the
Linux kernel or something.

It's not a very surprising claim to say that a particular fact can be
represented in a system which can represent anything. Mathematicians (well,
most anyways) don't go around claiming they've discovered the secrets of the
universe because math _could_ describe it in principle.

~~~
damnyou
That sounds like a lot of string theorists, to be honest.

~~~
abernard1
It does.

I've often wondered why they don't get the same vitriol. I think it's mainly
because they're still attached to physical formalisms: gauge theories,
algebras, known symmetries and conservation laws, etc. It at least has some
constraints, even if they're not testable.

Back 20 years ago when Wolfram released A New Kind of Science, my GR teacher
said about that book: "Science makes predictions, not press statements." Even
Hawking got in a lot of trouble in his later years when he'd announce all
those extreme claims and walk them down without ever publishing anything. It
really surprises me how much press coverage this guy can get over 2 decades
without actually making a theoretically testable prediction.

------
ummwhat
I have a pretty high tolerance for personality traits that most people find
insufferable. That said I can't get through any of Wolfram's work. The novel
information I want to read is hidden like raisins in a bread made of gloating
about his own genius.

~~~
michaelcampbell
Sounds like my reaction to Taleb and Mandelbrot.

~~~
evanpw
Books that should be blog posts, papers that should be tweets.

------
sgillen
Most of the criticism Stephen gets seems fair. Clearly the guy is a
megalomaniac. That being said his ideas are interesting and he is also clearly
a genius(just maybe not to the degree he thinks himself) and I’m happy he’s
working on his crazy ideas. I think they’re interesting, and although I
wouldn’t bet on it, if he comes up with a predictive theory of everything all
the better.

~~~
baddox
Suppose I’m not familiar with him or am not convinced he’s a megalomaniac. I
know this is taken as gospel around here, but what evidence would you present
to convince me of that claim? Is it just that he wrote a book about ideas he
thinks are very important and interesting?

~~~
mkl
Glassdoor provides some insight: [https://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/Wolfram-
Research-project-m...](https://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/Wolfram-Research-
project-management-Reviews-EI_IE14501.0,16_KH17,35.htm)

~~~
cryptica
The ego which is almost essential for success in business makes it almost
impossible to succeed in science.

~~~
bhouston
He does not generally sound like an amazing CEO either.

~~~
Trasmatta
Reading Glassdoor reviews, he sounds like one of the worst CEOs ever. Why
anyone would tolerate working for him is mind boggling.

------
nscalf
On a higher level than just Stephen Wolfram, I find the practice of
immediately dismissing people who are "outsiders" from academia (or from a
field) disturbing. In our history, some of the most insightful work and
execution has come from outsiders. Computer science seems to be quite good
when it comes to this, but fields like physics seem to be so violently against
people who are not doing research at a top tier university that they're
preventing their own progress. Looking at the state of physics research, I've
personally decided not to go deep into the field on my own, it feels like
there is no way I could contribute to progress.

I'm not sure if this is because of the hyper competitive state of getting
tenure or if this is just an example of group think against the other, but I
don't think it's a coincidence that the field of physics has gone from the
most exciting and impactful field in science to being largely stagnant.

~~~
foxyv
"Let me tell you my theory!" If you think listening to someone's new app idea
is bad, there is nothing worse than an amateur physicist trying to tell you
their newest theory.

"Proof? Who needs that! My theory is so elegant!"

"What do you mean my proof doesn't make any sense, maybe I'm just too much of
a genius! How can you not see that right away?"

"You have, 1028 emails with frustratingly naive 'What About?' questions from
various self-taught physicists."

I think a lot of physicists get kinda jaded about outside work. Then, when a
genuinely talented and hardworking non-professional shows up, it's hard to
tell the difference.

~~~
hitekker
The Exhibit A example is perpetual motion:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion)

------
moomin
This is like if John du Pont published a 3,000 page proof of P=NP that made no
reference to the well known problems with proving it, circumvented peer-review
and appealed directly to the general public.

Remember: no-one ever claimed the prize for disproving the TimeCube guy
either.

------
dannykwells
Final sentence is brutal:

And when provided with some of the responses from other physicists regarding
his work, Wolfram is singularly unenthused. “I’m disappointed by the naivete
of the questions that you’re communicating,” he grumbles. “I deserve better.”

------
forgot_again
>"I think the popular notion that physicists are all in search of the eureka
moment in which they will discover the theory of everything is an unfortunate
one,” says Katie Mack, a cosmologist at North Carolina State University. “We
do want to find better, more complete theories. But the way we go about that
is to test and refine our models, look for inconsistencies and incrementally
work our way toward better, more complete models.”

And yet Einstein did just that in developing General Relativity, as have many
other scientists and thinkers in producing their novel theories or approaches.
Yes, GR made falsifiable predictions, but it still represents a paradigm
shift, the sort Katie Mack thinks of as "unfortunate".

I am not endorsing Wolfram's work at all. But the idea that science has to
progress in a step by step, gradual, collaborative fashion is naive and
historically ignorant.

~~~
mellosouls
It's not naive and historically ignorant, that is how science generally
progresses. Paradigm shifts are rare by definition.

Einstein was an obvious outlier, and Wolfram is no Einstein.

Your argument is used by every crackpot to justify their dismissal of the
scientific process - because making progress that way is _much harder_ than
simply posting their theory on a primadonna blog and demanding the world come
to them.

~~~
forgot_again
I don't disagree with you that paradigm shifts are rare, but to dismiss then
out of hand as simply not being the way we do science is indeed naive.

We need both sorts of thinkers in science: those who want to make the
important incremental improvements and those who seek entirely new ways of
looking at problems.

~~~
mellosouls
Yes we do - but it's important that we don't prioritise the rich, famous,
connected businessmen and their internet fanboys trumpeting their vanity
projects over the obscure patent clerks (and equivalent) doing the actual
hard, brave work of letting their theories speak for themselves.

~~~
forgot_again
Of course Wolfram is rich and famous precisely because he has had a lot of
good ideas. That's not to be discounted.

It's also important to not immediately discount Wolfram's work simply because
he is wealthy and successful and not a formal member of academia. However it
seems that some are personally threatened or dislike Wolfram because of who he
is which triggers a knee jerk reaction against his work.

I am not an internet fanboy of Wolfram's, I'm only pushing back a bit against
the idea that incremental progress upon the scientific mainstream is the only
path forward.

~~~
mellosouls
No, to be clear, I wasn't including you in the internet fanboys.

I and others are just suggesting Wolfram go through the same process as
everybody else instead of using his power to subvert it. That isn't motivated
by being threatened, just by a sense of fairness.

As for his good ideas, absolutely - but they are all in business and
unconnected to the grand theories he is now promoting - his prior physics
experience is junior and long ago, and certainly doesn't warrant special
treatment.

------
loopz
He's right and he's wrong: Graphs are wonderful datastructures to
mimic/simulate complex phenomena realistically. Also, simple computational
rules, especially with feedback-loops, may yield complex output of intriguing
complexity. It's very seductive reductionism.

But from most simple observations in nature, there's no direct causal link
between the two, . Intuitively, we "know" everything originated from a "Big
Bang", but we don't have proof _how or if_ complexity arose over time, or was
it always intrinsinct to cosmos, and wether the question itself have any
measurable implications..

So graphs and computational feedback remain interesting and time-consuming
avenues for research, but it's a big leap from superficial studies of outputs
("how") and finding a graph-formula that would explain all possible universes
ie. from a "Big Bang" point ("why").

A solid unchanging theory would need to address enough "why"'s in order to be
properly backed up by predictions explaining the observable physical universe,
to be relevant. If the theory can include new hypothesis and rules at any
time, it's not a theory, but a container for information and rulesets (ie. a
Turing-complete system).

Of course, you can "curve fit" anything inside a graph. They're great at it
for simulations and games, and are already used everywhere you do
computationally interesting complex stuff. There's just no indication or proof
that the physical world matches any model created by humans living within the
universe. Maybe someone humble will stumble unto some simple explanation, but
so far, the deeper we go, it seems even experts get lost in the tough
complexities and unintuitive laws we assume govern microcosmos and energy.

It seems to boil down to difference between theory and practice. Pure
mathematics and observations are theory, while how to simulate and mimic, is
more engineering and providing interesting outputs. If we combine the two, we
can build universes.. (ok, off the pipe for now :)

~~~
HourglassFR
> Intuitively, we "know" everything originated from a "Big Bang"

I don't think we have any intuition about this at all, we are however fairly
accustomed to this idea with old creation myths that still loudly resonates
throughout culture, and of course now that it has been the scientific
orthodoxy for 50 years or so.

But yeah I definitly agree with you on the "curve fit" thing. I would not be
surprised that, if one day we do find a comprehensive theory of everything
(assuming this is even possible or even have a meaning at all), it would be
possible to express it in this very general framework of hyper-graph re-
writing itself according to some rule. That doesn't mean it's a good idea to
so.

And in any case, at the end of the day, like everything else humans do,
science is a social process. The goal is to get closer to truth (whatever that
means), but you won't get there by ignoring any input, and insist that
everyone should drop whatever they are doing and come admire/help you on your
work.

------
at_a_remove
I will admit to an obsessional CA phase decades ago, but even then it was
clear to me that, while the universe probably does operate on repeated
application of simple rules, there was no reason why they had to be _cellular_
in nature. Even the development of CA based on floating point numbers, which
somewhat clears up the anisotropic nature of the phenomena generated by
conventional CA, still has directional preferences.

CA does not seem to be great at replicating conservation principles -- and
they are everywhere in physics -- and attempts to graft them on by complex
interactions between glider guns or the like only highlights the fragility of
the process, as even the slightest misalignment causes chaos. When you run a
CA, you get expansion or contraction and are typically left with some
stable/oscillating phenomena if it doesn't just keep blowing outward, and
those configurations which remain are still ... fragile. In ways particles are
not. Particles might come and go, but the quantities they represent linger.
Where is that in CA?

As to anyone who suggests they have new physics, bring us testable
observations of that which would not be explicable in our current frameworks.
Give us a refinement of the numbers, measurable in some fashion, to highlight
a deviation from that which is predicted by the old ways. I haven't seen
anything like that out of him.

Perhaps a ruleset exists which would have these things, but if so, wouldn't he
have mentioned it instead of just doing his usual business about Rule 30 and
the like? Or are we -- and here is where, outside of ego, I get the biggest
crank feelings from Wolfram -- all expected to drop everything, adopt his
approach, and iterate through ever more complex configurations of CA until we
find the one that somehow works? Of all of the bits in Baez's crackpot index,
this is the one reliable indicator I find missing, although "10 points for
each statement along the lines of 'I'm not good at math, but my theory is
conceptually right, so all I need is for someone to express it in terms of
equations'." is in the ballpark. Everyone, drop everything and do it my way
until it works!

~~~
xamuel
>ever more complex configurations of CA until we find the one that somehow
works

Just gotta keep adding more epicycles, eventually geocentrism will be
vindicated! /s

------
seibelj
In case no one has read it yet, here is a very amusing take down of Wolfram
and why he is the classic crank theorist
[http://bactra.org/reviews/wolfram/](http://bactra.org/reviews/wolfram/)

------
hulahoof
I enjoyed wolframs framing of the problem, yes it wasn't peer reviewed or
asserting new claims - but everyone is acting like it was.

I think it's a cool idea that may have results in the future, which is how I
felt he presented it.

------
cryptica
>> “‘If we suppose that a rabbit was coming out of the hat, then remarkably,
this rabbit would be coming out of the hat,’” Aaronson says. “And then [going]
on and on about how remarkable it is.”

That has to be one of funniest quotes I ever read.

I did have this thought that Stephen Wolfram may be overrated in the past. He
is a good businessman for sure. The amount of attention he gets from the media
does appear to be disproportionate to his achievements and perhaps may cause
overconfidence.

That said I do understand the view that the scientific community may have
become so narrowly focused on rigid scientific review processes that they
could be missing out on real innovation and alternative ideas.

For example I can't help but think of what would happen if some random (not
PhD) engineer came up with a new and highly innovative mathematical construct
and published it on their blog... I doubt their idea would get any attention
at all; no matter how useful or impressive it is. It would be lost in the
noise because scientists are not going to review it.

Science is still operating on an outdated idea that all scientific knowledge
is centralized within universities and that all credible innovations must
necessarily come from these universities and all great scientists must be
somehow be socially connected to existing great scientists. As if direct
social connections are still the only pathways through which cutting-edge
knowledge can flow. It completely ignores the existence of the internet.

~~~
thechao
There are a limited number of hours in the day. I guarantee you that >99.99%
of all nonexpert blogs on the internet are pure garbage—should they spend
50-100 hours a week reviewing crazy?

My field was an uninteresting sub-field of programming language theory, and
_every_ conference, at least 1/2 the papers submitted were borderline batshit
insane. The stuff on the internet is _gibberish_.

Screaming into the night & railing that physicists are ignoring you is just
sociopathy. Instead, go to them, give presentations, prove your ideas have
merit. Make it short to get their attention, build up credit & lead them to
what’s new.

~~~
achillesheels
No, it isn’t sociopathy. I, for instance, tried to engage with Sabine
Hossenfelder on a novel interpretation of electron diffraction which would
help demonstrate linear time-invariance of electromagnetic phenomena in an
atomic scale (nickel crystal) only to be completely ignored - despite the fact
she posts on her blog a “speak to a physicist” button. In fact, the physicist
she paired me with failed to appear to two scheduled Skype calls and explained
he was too sick after the fact. And no response from her. So here I am, with
ignored emails by professors because they don’t have the bandwidth and I don’t
have the branding.

Physicists by trade do not trade on advancing the state of the art. That takes
courage and risk of reputation. This is why the natural sciences have
progressed outside of vocations. “Lead then to what’s new” is better worded as
“make it shameful to ignore you”. I am acutely aware of that now.

~~~
cryptica
I don't understand why this comment was downvoted. It's insightful. If
anything, the fact that this comment was downvoted helps to prove its point
that people tend to quickly discard contrarian ideas without giving them
careful thought.

------
smitty1e
If Wolfram's got it nailed, let him produce the warp drive.

There's no problem admitting he's forgotten more about science than I'll ever
grasp.

The discussion seems more about a Newtonian Ego System than about the
fundamental questions of the universe.

------
doliveira
Is there a good expression in English for something like "throwing it out to
the crowd"? As in, you just shout it out to a crowd of cheering fans to strong
arm someone instead of actually focusing on making your point.

~~~
jajag
Possibly "grandstanding".

------
bionhoward
Gotta love the “usually white and male” jab.

It’s ironic how the default virtue signal about racism and sexism right now is
to attack white men, because to attack someone’s race and gender is the
definition of racism and sexism.

------
yters
Something like Wolfram's vision has to be true if materialism has any hope of
working. The universe is finite and discrete, so a Turing machine is an upper
bound on its capabilities. The original thing that started it all has to be
really simple: have a large(ish) probability of occurring by chance and a very
high compression to get an orderly universe.

Therefore, if materialism is true, then in the beginning must be some simple,
but potentially Turing complete substrate, such as a cellular automata or
graph thingamabob.

~~~
goatlover
> The universe is finite and discrete,

Well, the universe appears to be close to flat, which would indicate an
infinite size. And the discreteness of spacetime in QM hasn't been made to
work with Relativity, thus the forays into String Theory and Quantum Loop
Gravity.

~~~
yters
Even if there is an infinite expanse, there are only finite effect ranges.
Does anyone seriously think infinity has any sort of physical impact? I've
never seen such an idea in all my years of physics exposure.

------
redsymbol
It's interesting how his personality traits affect the discourse around this.
Like this quote from the close of the article:

 _“I’m disappointed by the naivete of the questions that you’re
communicating,” [Wolfram] grumbles. “I deserve better.”_

And maybe that's actually true. Of course, many will find this manner of
speech pushes our buttons; coming across as arrogant, megalomaniacal, almost
anti-scientific-process.

But that has NOTHING do to with whether this theory is correct or not. When
the most obnoxious person you can imagine says 2 + 2 = 4, that doesn't change
the fact that 2 + 2 actually does equal 4.

(Of course, if they claim 2 + 2 = 5, their being obnoxious doesn't make that
true either.)

------
leephillips
Theories that reproduce things we've already observed are a dime a dozen. The
test is whether you can predict new things. And Wolfram's theories don't even
predict what we already see. And sorry, but complaining about the "corruption"
of the peer review system that you refuse to engage with (and it does have
problems) is the calling card of the crank. It's just that this crank happens
also to be, or have been, a genius of some kind, so he's never completely
ignored.

~~~
ashtonkem
Never underestimate the ability of a genius to become a crank the moment they
leave their narrow lane.

~~~
vikramkr
Weve got a genius crank to thank for the vitamin c cures everything craze.
Linus pauling was convinced vitamin c megadoses could do pretty much
everything under the sun. Lots of examples of geniuses that dont know a lot
outside their narrow field, sometimes stunningly narrow

------
stared
It bugs me that a lot of friends who are interested in physics (but themselves
are not physicists, or at least - not yet physicists) think that history is
happening in their eyes.

I suggest them (even if they are not physicists!) looking at the "The Crackpot
Index" by John Baez
([http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html](http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html))
and manually calculating the score for Stephen Wolfram.

