Rating: 
Summary: The Emperor's New Kind of Clothes
Review: This review took almost one year. Unlike many previous referees (rank them by Amazon.com's "most helpful" feature) I read all 1197 pages including notes. Just to make sure I won't miss the odd novel insight hidden among a million trivial platitudes. On page 27 Wolfram explains "probably the single most surprising discovery I have ever made:" a simple program can produce output that seems irregular and complex. This has been known for six decades. Every computer science (CS) student knows the dovetailer, a very simple 2 line program that systematically lists and executes all possible programs for a universal computersuch as a Turing machine (TM). It computes all computable patterns, including all those in Wolfram's book, embodies the well-known limits of computability, and is basis of uncountable CS exercises. Wolfram does know (page 1119) Minsky's very simple universal TMs from the 1960s. Using extensive simulations, he finds a slightly simpler one. New science? Small addition to old science. On page 675 we find a particularly simple cellular automaton (CA) and Matthew Cook's universality proof(?). This might be the most interesting chapter. It reflects that today's PCs are more powerful systematic searchers for simple rules than those of 40 years ago. No new paradigm though. Was Wolfram at least first to view programs as potential explanations of everything? Nope. That was Zuse. Wolfram mentions him in exactly one line (page 1026): "Konrad Zuse suggested that [the universe] could be a continuous CA." This is totally misleading. Zuse's 1967 paper suggested the universe is DISCRETELY computable, possibly on a DISCRETE CA just like Wolfram's. Wolfram's causal networks (CA's with variable toplogy, chapter 9) will run on any universal CA a la Ulam & von Neumann & Conway & Zuse. Page 715 explains Wolfram's "key unifying idea" of the "principle of computational equivalence:" all processes can be viewed as computations. Well, that's exactly what Zuse wrote 3 decades ago. Chapter 9 (2nd law of thermodynamics) elaborates (without reference)on Zuse's old insight that entropy cannot really increase in deterministically computed systems, although it often SEEMS to increase. Wolfram extends Zuse's work by a tiny margin, using today's more powerful computers to perform experiments as suggested in Zuse's 1969 book. I find it embarassing how Wolfram tries to suggest it was him who shifted a paradigm, not the legendary Zuse. Some reviews cite Wolfram's previous reputation as a physicist and software entrepreneur, giving him the benefit of the doubt instead of immediately dismissing him as just another plagiator. Zuse's reputation is in a different league though: He built world's very first general purpose computers (1935-1941), while Wolfram is just one of many creators of useful software (Mathematica). Remarkably, in his history of computing (page 1107) Wolfram appears to try to diminuish Zuse's contributions by only mentioning Aiken's later 1944 machine. On page 465 ff (and 505 ff on multiway systems) Wolfram asks whether there is a simple program that computes the universe. Here he sounds like Schmidhuber in his 1997 paper "A Computer Scientist's View of Life, the Universe, and Everything." Schmidhuber applied the above-mentioned simple dovetailer to all computable universes. His widely known writings come out on top when you google for "computable universes" etc, so Wolfram must have known them too, for he read an "immense number of articles books and web sites" (page xii) and executed "more than a hundred thousand mouse miles" (page xiv). He endorses Schmidhuber's "no-CA-but-TM approach" (page 486, no reference) but not his suggestion of using Levin's asymptotically optimal program searcher (1973) to find our universe's code. On page 469 we are told that the simplest program for the data is the most probable one. No mention of the very science based on this ancient principle: Solomonoff's inductive inference theory (1960-1978); recent optimality results by Merhav & Feder & Hutter. Following Schmidhuber's "algorithmic theories of everything" (2000), short world-explaining programs are necessarily more likely, provided the world is sampled from a limit-computable prior distribution. Compare Li & Vitanyi's excellent 1997 textbook on Kolmogorov complexity. On page 628 ff we find a lot of words on human thinking and short programs. As if this was novel! Wolfram seems totally unaware of Hutter's optimal universal rational agents (2001) based on simple programs a la Solomonoff & Kolmogorov & Levin & Chaitin. Wolfram suggests his simple programs will contribute to fine arts (page 11), neither mentioning existing, widely used, very short, fractal-based programs for computing realistic images of mountains and plants, nor the only existing art form explicitly based on simple programs: Schmidhuber's low-complexity art. Wolfram talks a lot about reversible CAs but little about Edward Fredkin & Tom Toffoli who pioneered this field. He ignores Wheeler's "it from bit," Tegmark & Greenspan & Petrov & Marchal's papers, Moravec & Kurzweil's somewhat related books, and Greg Egan's fun SF on CA-based universes (Permutation City, 1995). When the book came out some non-expert journalists hyped it without knowing its contents. Then cognoscenti had a look at it and recognized it as a rehash of old ideas, plus pretty pictures. And the reviews got worse and worse. As far as I can judge, positive reviews were written only by people without basic CS education and little knowledge of CS history. Some biologists and even a few physicists initially were impressed because to them it really seemed new. Maybe Wolfram's switch from physics to CS explains why he believes his thoughts are radical, not just reinventions of the wheel. But he does know Goedel and Zuse and Turing. He must see that his own work is minor in comparison. Why does he desparately try to convince us otherwise? When I read Wolfram's first praise of the originality of his own ideas I just had to laugh. The tenth time was annoying. The hundredth time was boring. And that was my final feeling when I laid down this extremely repetitive book:exhaustion and boredom. In hindsight I know I could have saved my time. But at least I can warn others.
Rating: 
Summary: Only Time Will Tell...
Review: I found this book worthwhile and would recommend it to any scientist or technically oriented non-scientist. The author demonstrates that cellular automata are capable of computing anything that can be computed by today's computing machines. He also shows that exceedingly simple rules can lead to exceedingly complex results. An implication of this is claimed to be that cellular automata can model most anything in the known universe and can serve as a model for exploring significant questions about our universe. The author explores significant fields of science using the notions of cellular automata. For example, the chapter on biological evolution has many very interesting insights. The author also uses cellular automata to make what I would call a "first order" model of spacetime that includes the properties of time and causality. I found this to be quite interesting. Reading this book also affords a glimpse for us non-braniacs into the course, from conception to fruition, of an actual scientific inquiry. This is a rare opportunity. The author's intent, as I see it, is to offer ideas; to provide what I would call "plausibility arguments" for his claim that he has discovered a fundamental property of nature (the "Principle of Computational Equivalence"). I think he succeeds in making his claim plausible. The author is not claiming that this book contains any actual, formal, scientific, final and conclusive proof of indisputable law by any completely rigourous method. But our intuition can be notoriously misleading - that's why science is what it is. While I am kind of impressed by this book, reviews by significant people in the scientific community seem to be mixed. Therefore, paraphrasing what the author himself has said, the final review will be written only after a long time.
Rating: 
Summary: A 20th century Salieri ?
Review: Having browsed through the book -no proper thorough reading, I admit- and the various reviews, I find here a similarity with that well known 2nd class author. And I truly enjoyed in the meantime Jozsef Gregor's version of a similarly overdimensioned work: Salieri's Falstaff. Cool !
Rating:
Summary: Peer review beats marketing power
Review: Is everything including the universe just the output of a
simple computer program? Wolfram says yes, recycling old
ideas of Zuse (1960s: universe as a discrete cellular
automaton) and Fredkin (1980s: reversible CAs) and
Schmidhuber (1990s: shortest and fastest program for all
Turing-computable universes) and claiming them as his own.
First I meant to write a lengthy Amazon review, but then I
found the one by Joe Weiss which says it all (The Emperor's
New Kind of Clothes, February 28, 2003). I have to agree -
the few positive reviews apparently stem from people with
little background in computer science history. Maybe Wolfram is indeed just perpetrating an elaborate hoax,
much like Sokal's famous nonsense paper on "Transgressing
the Boundaries" (Zasanfran, June 15, 2002)? Anyway, it is satisfying to observe that the marketing
machine of a major software company is no match against the
collective weight of numerous unfavorable reviews by peers,
and cannot prevent Wolfram's scientific credibility from
shrinking.
Rating: 
Summary: It's not just about cellular automata...
Review: Unlike many reviewers, I read this book completely, including most of the notes. As a computer engineer, I am familiar with many of its ideas, and I have published and peer-reviewed technical papers. With some of the negative reviewers, I will agree that:
- The book is long.
- It contains self-praise.
- Others have explored some of its ideas. If you are in the mindset of peer-reviewing a conference/journal publication, those three things might very much bother you. However, this is not a conference/journal submission! This is a book for a very wide range of audiences, and it is always very difficult to satisfy such a range. IF your own ego can get over the author's self-praise, then you can really enjoy the book for the following: - A thorough exploration of a very important idea, which may sometimes seem obvious but when actually incorporated into our thinking can indeed profoundly affect the way we approach some scientific problems.
- A fascinating demonstration of how science selects the problems it considers important simply based on its ability to solve them. This works both ways, with the book pointing out how classic methods completely avoid certain problems, but also happens again in a new way in the course of the book as Wolfram himself selects problems to solve based on the applicability of the concepts he introduces.
- A delightful conglomeration of fascinating concepts and problems from all kinds of fields, including computer science, physics, biology, philosophy, etc. If you read the notes, this book takes you on a grand tour of the state of science in many areas, and I can't even imagine the effort that must have gone into compiling, understanding, and organizing all this information. I understand why it took 10 years, and this alone makes the book worth its value. Put your ego and the egos of others aside, and simply enjoy!
Rating:
Summary: "A New Kind of Revisionism"
Review: Hi, my last review of this book had the title "A New Kind of Plagiarism", since then, very knowledgeable people have pinpointed with exactitude were the plagiarism was (almost the whole book!). A few others still claim that the book is good (how many of them are people who work for Wolfram?), to these people I ask the following question: can you point to a single original idea in the book? (Something that Wolfram actually discovered -because an astounding amount of things he claims are his are in reality other peoples inventions-- and that he did not discover a long time ago and already published). I wonder how many of the positive reviews were written by people who actually went to a University, I ask not as an insult but because If you commit plagiarism when studying in a University you can even get expelled (and they hammer this non-stop when you are in there), why isn't Wolfram "expelled" from the scientific community: simply because he is not in it!. Moreover, this is why he did not make this a scientific article but a book for the public at large; otherwise, the risk of being discovered (as a plagiarist) would have been too great. Guess what? You were discovered! It is amazing how short the memory of the public is. Most people cannot even remember all the fuzz that was made over fractals a while ago, no wonder some of them actually believe Wolfram did something original. These short attention span reviewers do not seem to grasp just how serious scientific fraud is!. Wolfram's book (sorry, I meant to say his copy pasting of other peoples work) should be condemned, no mater how entertaining it might be (or how good it might be as a general introduction to the discipline). Some reviewers think that the notes in the book contain the necessary references: THEY DO NOT. Wolfram is claiming long published (and much commented in popular Science Divulgation books) discoveries by others as his own. As if the plagiarism was not bad enough, the revisionist nature of his "history" of the discipline is unforgivable in itself (trying to erase the actual discoverers of the things he is claiming for himself). This kind of thing might have been permitted in 1950 Russia but in the XXI century in our country it is unbelievable that is being so. As another reviewer pointed out, "In his interview with "The Daily Telegraph" [May 15 2002] titled as "Is this man bigger than Newton and Darwin?" Wolfram remarks on his book as follows: "If other people don't get it, it's their problem, not mine." This is the most horrible attitude toward science I have ever encountered. He makes very little effort to present his what-so-called "New Science" to his peers. " Another reviewer writes:
"If one browses through all the reviews written here, one realizes that those who praise Wolfram are NOT SPECIFIC at all about why he is so great except that he has in general touched almost every aspect of modern science, a non-sense view. On the other hand, readers who have negative viewpoints of the book are very SPECIFIC about their opinion and they express why Wolfram's book is neither revolutionary nor new. "
"Like most people out there I believe that Wolfram owes a big apology to the scientific community and those non-expert enthusiasts who have a huge thirst for science but misled by non-scientists like Wolfram. "
"Mr. Wolfram is the author of Mathematica. Again, he takes the work of hundreds of people without giving them any credit. Disgusting." "Why Mr. Wolfram can get away with all this. Read the first chapter of Philip Greenspun. If you have money you can invent truth. " I quote these to wet your appetite for some excellent reviews so please read them all, believe me, they are worth your time, Wolfram's book is not!.
Rating:
Summary: Don't throw out the baby with the bath water
Review: It seems Wolfram bashing has become a sport for weak minds. Sure he leaves himself open to criticism for not having stayed quite so engaged with his peers during the decade it took him to flesh out his thinking, but many other common criticisms are wildly exaggerated. Irrespective, NKS does an important job of bringing a modicum of attention back to discrete systems which not enough people realise have a real prospect of providing better models than continuous models for the world we find ourselves in. Yes, I have read my copy from cover to cover, including the notes and nowadays it serves as a handy way to elevate my laptop because I can more easily dip back into the online version of the text when I need to recheck some or other detail. And I am unconvinced by the claims he makes for his "Principle of Computational Equivalence" but to me, unlike a lot of black or white people, the lack of utility of the PCE does not in any way reduce the utility of NKS, nor of the efforts Wolfram continues to make to drive this oft neglected field forwards. Personally, I find suggestions that there are insufficient citations and references to be disingenuous. Sure there may be a handful of notable oversights, but they pale in the light of the extensive historical background provided, particularly in the notes, which is where it should be. Is Wolfram overplaying his own role? Does it actually matter? Have those who take him to task for that actually contributed anything themselves? Twenty years earlier, Wolfram devised a four "class" categorisation of one dimensional cellular automata that has more than stood the test of time and proven useful far beyond its original domain. Wolfram certainly isn't wrong in his observations about how the mechanisms of human perception constrain our knowledge of the world, nor, in my opinion, for focusing on exhaustive search of the parameter space of "simple programs" rather than the monumentous engineering design feats which have preoccupied so many cellular automata affectionados. He also isn't wrong in suggesting that non-random processes of variation may play an even more vital a role in biological evolution than pure Dawkinsian selection. While I will continue to nit pick about details and eventually finish a more comprehensive review aimed at a narrower audience, without NKS there would be no nits to pick. In fifty years time the jury will most likely still be out on discrete versus continuous, despite the successes of chemistry, genetics, cellular biology and, I suspect, one or two more of similar magnitude to come during those fifty years. Will Wolfram's name be top of the heap on the discrete side? Probably not, but he should at least be one of the names that come to mind as significant contributors. No matter its faults, it is a long time since there has been as important a book as NKS in raising questions that matter about our fundamental understanding of the world. It is worth the effort to get your head around it and all the (computer generated) pictures really do help, certainly more than the Mathematica expressions.
Rating:
Summary: A deception of book
Review: I can not add anything new to the reviews in these pages, everything has been said. I do agree with everybody rating 1/5 this pretentious book.
Rating:
Summary: There goes fifty bucks I wish I could get back!
Review: There is little if anything I can add to the many negative reviews that have already been written about this book, other than to add my voice to the chorus. Needlessly long, repetitive, unoriginal, self-aggrandizing. That about sums it up. The most significant impression I got from this book came as the result of accidentally dropping it on my own foot. Ahaw, Ahaw. Am I not droll? Seriously though. Don't waste your time or money on this book. The one observation I have not yet seen expressed (Or as Stephen would put it: "The single most surpising discovery I have ever made") is that it is an entertaining diversion to re-create the algorithms in Wolfram's book using Microsoft Excel.
Rating:
Summary: Marketing Idea
Review: Loved the art. Looking forward to the ANKOS Pinup Calendar.
| 
