Does it maybe read a bit different from the post above?
Roger Penrose has a Nobel Prize in physics. But his consciousness collapse interpretation and "consciousness arises from microtubules" interpretations aren't taken very seriously, nor is his fecund universes cosmology.
And his work on those things is arguably much more rigorous relative to what Wolfram is doing here - but still falls short of what serious theories by serious theoretical physicists involve.
A dissertation extending views of particle physics under the supervision of Feynman is a very different story from reinventing physics 40 years later with the 'superpowers' of your own mathematical language as best expressed by what happens to generative AI rendering a cat in a party hat.
Just accept you made a weird and disingenuous comparison. It doesn't matter what it reads and it doesn't matter what you think of it. So what, a PHD in physics isn't enough to post about theories ? You don't have to believe or like his theories but your Jordan talk makes no sense here.
Did Wolfram spend the 40 years following that PhD in a physics career? Or a math and computer science career kicked off by his interest in cellular automata, which led him initially to his A New Kind of Science and now this?
He didn't play in the major leagues of physics over the past 40 years, and quite a lot has happened since 1980 in that field.
So for him to go from the field where he had meaningful success and spent almost the entirety of his career and adult life to one he'd not been a part of for four decades is very much like Jordan going from basketball to baseball.
It wouldn't really have mattered if Jordan had played baseball in college. It's not where he made a name for himself and the quality of his play when he switched to it after his basketball career was subpar. Just as most physicists find Wolfram's current work: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/physicists-critic...
Sorry you don't find it a good analogy, but I'm pretty happy with it.
That doesn’t provide any guarantees that he’s not evolved into, a crank with money.
Looking at Physics historically there are multiple examples of scientists who did productive and fully credible work in their prime and later ended up stuck on crank theories.
It doesn't prove anything. It does make his Jordan comparison disingenuous at best. It's weird enough to gatekeep posting theories (nobody has to believe or even seriously consider them!), even odder to do so for a PhD holder in the field.
Disagree. It’s not weird at all, and I would say quite productive, being that a billionaire crank is a potentially dangerous, with nearly unlimited ability to attempt to spread his influence countering it requires people to speak up.
By the same token, why should i take anything kromem says with anything but a grain of salt ? What are his credentials ? as far as anyone "being swayed" is concerned, he's a random on the internet. He's not changing minds.
You'll have a much better time telling people how and why those "billionaire crankers" are not making sound arguments than trying to gatekeep what they say. Even then, that's no guarantee.
all in all, the idea that people "speaking up" in this way does anything at all is fairly wishful thinking.
Does it maybe read a bit different from the post above?
Roger Penrose has a Nobel Prize in physics. But his consciousness collapse interpretation and "consciousness arises from microtubules" interpretations aren't taken very seriously, nor is his fecund universes cosmology.
And his work on those things is arguably much more rigorous relative to what Wolfram is doing here - but still falls short of what serious theories by serious theoretical physicists involve.
A dissertation extending views of particle physics under the supervision of Feynman is a very different story from reinventing physics 40 years later with the 'superpowers' of your own mathematical language as best expressed by what happens to generative AI rendering a cat in a party hat.