Most of this post seems like maybe a good intro to lambda calculus, but also endless pointless visualization of nesting depth, which makes me wonder what the point of the post is. The probably invented term "ruliology" is not even explained anywhere, and I am not going to jump through all the other posts tagged with that word, to maybe somewhere find a definition of it.
The post would have benefited from explaining what will be found clearly in an initial paragraph, instead of endlessly meandering. As it is now, it feels like wanting to find anything spectacular, but actually finding nothing. Well, except for made up term "ruliology" that is not defined.
He manages to make himself the actual subject of everything he writes. When I saw the author’s name, I knew the article would make sure to fluff up his own ego, and it took him less than a paragraph to get there.
Counterpoint: I actually really enjoy his style of writing, which I find clear, patient (you must appreciate visual examples and exploration though) and very often challenging and stimulating (recent examples: the posts about the bigger brains, Conway GoL engineering, and biology / evolution). I find he regularly introduces intriguing and useful ideas, like the distinction between "brain-like" computers (which includes neural networks) and more general, Turing-like mechanisms, and I find his overarching concept of computational irreducibility (even though he didn't invent it) quite profound in its implications. I would add that his posts read like an ambitious research program in progress (like a book written one chapter at a time) and that is why I think certain concepts (like ruliology) may appear obscure at first, if you didn't read a lot of stuff that comes before. One tiny nitpick I have: certain language tics, like the constant use of the "And, yes" pattern (he really uses this a lot I wish someone somehow told him).
The articles are not necessarily written for a software engineering audience. Going through the lambda calculus would be a necessary prerequisite for the part he actually wants to tell you about at the end.
Especially for physicists and mathematicians who primarily study things other than computation.
If you found the visualizations pointless, then you aren't the intended audience.
This is a straightforward continuation of his existing research into computation, which started with cellular automata.
If you're reading a Wolfram blog, then you're in part coming for the pretty pictures.
> The probably invented term "ruliology" is not even explained anywhere.
The "ruliad" is what he calls the "space of all possible rules" where a rule is like a program that dictates the next state of the system.
The ruliad is one of the few rigorous approaches to answering why the laws of physics are the way they are.
Stephen's theory is something like "every possible rule for evolving the system is in fact happening, and we are likely to be observing phenomenon that are convergent among more than one rule".
His physics project is a good example of what real physics looks like outside of academia.
Stephen is financially independent. He can research whatever he wants and doesn't have to worry about tenure, or sucking up to department heads or people with grant money.
Even so, he's not a crank, other physicists understand and engage with what he's doing, and all the math involved is very real.
I think Stephen is willing to ask really deep questions and then do the work to pursue the answers to completion. Sometimes he’s a little bit long-winded, but he’s frequently coming back with interesting results.
I really liked this. It's a nice meander through the basics of lambda calculus. It's striking to me how much insight you can get by visualising stuff, even if it's not a great visualisation and you're doing something super abstract. Perhaps a lesson to take into my own programbles...
Wolfram's exploration of longest lifetimes of lambda terms of a given size is carried out more systematically in my functional busy beaver https://oeis.org/A333479
17 comments
[ 2.5 ms ] story [ 47.7 ms ] threadThe post would have benefited from explaining what will be found clearly in an initial paragraph, instead of endlessly meandering. As it is now, it feels like wanting to find anything spectacular, but actually finding nothing. Well, except for made up term "ruliology" that is not defined.
If you found the visualizations pointless, then you aren't the intended audience. This is a straightforward continuation of his existing research into computation, which started with cellular automata. If you're reading a Wolfram blog, then you're in part coming for the pretty pictures.
> The probably invented term "ruliology" is not even explained anywhere.
The "ruliad" is what he calls the "space of all possible rules" where a rule is like a program that dictates the next state of the system. The ruliad is one of the few rigorous approaches to answering why the laws of physics are the way they are. Stephen's theory is something like "every possible rule for evolving the system is in fact happening, and we are likely to be observing phenomenon that are convergent among more than one rule".
His physics project is a good example of what real physics looks like outside of academia. Stephen is financially independent. He can research whatever he wants and doesn't have to worry about tenure, or sucking up to department heads or people with grant money. Even so, he's not a crank, other physicists understand and engage with what he's doing, and all the math involved is very real.