wolfram will boost engineering and technology for the next 150 yrs if he can convince enough people.

I think current mathematics *really* needs the boost of programming. [I never liked mathematics but I learned programming at 11 yrs old.. and I’m 42 now – self-taught – and “thinking like a programmer” got me through math classes. I analogized the formulas to for/next loops and visualized the writing of the BASIC programs in my mind… ]

So were it me, I’d recast mathematics away from 18th century formulations and into .. well.. 18th century knitting machines using Wolfram’s concepts as a basis for it… on computers and such.

It’ll help get us into the technologies we’re looking for, and will resolve a number of current problems in physics, I believe and produce some fantastic engineering potential for new computers, new stuff, even new ways of seeing reality.

On an “ultimate level” I don’t think it’s quite enough; but for today’s world, I think it’s exactly what we need to move forward for a century or two more of development; just like the concepts and discoveries of the 1820s-1880s have been realized in the technologies of the 20h and early 21st centuries.

We’re the embodiment of the dreams of 150 years ago.

Cellular automata can bring us forward to another stage. I know Wolfram believes it, and I believe, if he gets enough people to believe it too, some wonderful change can take place that will last for decades or even a century or two.

Still though… there will always be at “something” that is misses; the problem of ambiguity. The “us” part. That doesn’t take away from its usefulness – but there’s still some missing pieces.

Surprise for example and awkwardness. I broke the “fourth wall” of the discussion by showing my face, talking with you about direct contact with these people; that changed the course of the experience of the discussion for at least a moment. Breaking context typically feels awkward or at least annoying or ridiculous… but there’s a twinge of surprise or a roll of the eyes.

CA – I can’t see predicting that. Good for what it’s good for but for the unexpected? That’s the stuff I’m working on

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

− 4 = two

Leave a Reply