Rating: 
Summary: Not for the faint of heart.
Review: This is not a Principia Mathematica. This is numbers pure and simple. The numbers are brought together in mathematical form and bring about a grasping between a type of secular (civil-law) eschatological perception and a pragmatic gathering of source material. Forget Whitehead and Russell when you consume this text. You are grasping something that is fundamentally lacking. While Bertrand would hardly affirm the contents it doesn't mean that you may could not benefit. I draw a form of likeness between an afternoon tea and a early morning awakening.
Rating: 
Summary: Simplicity --> Complexity --> Natural Gas
Review: Simplicity is complex.
Complexity is simple.
Life is too short to inspect 1200 slabs of tree meat.
Rating:
Summary: Mind candy
Review: A New Kind Of Science may come to be viewed as the Godel, Escher, Bach of our generation. It's full of challenging big ideas that touch on nearly every field of science and beyond. It's a brilliant and delightful read and makes wonderful mind candy.The only problem is I don't believe any of it. Wolfram bases the entire opus on the complicated behavior of a few simple cellular automata (CAs). Curiously, he never discusses any of the cool things that originally got a lot of people so excited about CAs -- topics like adaptation on the edge of chaos, and genetic algorithm evolution of specific functions. Instead, the entire book is just about how it's sometimes possible to observe complex and unpredictable patterns. And he tries over and over to convince the reader of just how important that observation is for understanding the universe. As a supposed harbinger of a major paradigm revolution, we can contrast it with Einstein's one-time dramatic new theory of the universe. While a lot of people didn't understand it, the theories of relativity gave quite a few very specific predictions that could be -- and were successfully -- tested by observation and experiment. I've now read through the entirety of A New Kind Of Science and I can't find any specific predictions that would show his worldview explains reality any better than conventional ideas. The only prediction he gives us relating to his theories is that every field of science will ultimately be transformed by them, and he goes on to list many of those fields. As I have a doctorate in molecular evolution, I was particularly interested in his dismissal of Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection -- one of the most firmly established theories in science. Wolfram claims that Darwinian evolution is not sufficient to produce complex adaptations. I'm loathe to criticize an intellectual of Wolfram's stature, but his understanding of evolutionary theory, at least insofar as is presented in this book, is not very sophisticated. At any rate, anyone wanting an authoritative explication of the power of natural selection to generate complex adaptations may refer to Richard Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker. I wish Wolfram offered some sort of testable alternative, or evidence of any kind beyond an endless display of pictures of the output of his simple programs. While the output may match the complexity observed in nature, Wolfram never makes the case that they match the adaptivity or intelligence observed in nature. Many of these pictures are indeed very pretty. But by the fourth or fifth hundred page his obsession with these automata becomes a bit tedious. And the outworldly conclusions he draws from observing their behavior will leave you bumfuzzled. For example: because his automata are discrete in space and in time he proposes (with no further justification) that the entire universe must be made up of discrete cells of space and time. Sounds great, but where's the evidence, and where are the testable hypotheses? He goes on to propose, again with no evidence other than the observed behavior of a select few of his automata, that the mysterious rules of the universe update only one discrete time cell at any given instant. Wolfram offers countless other extrapolations to the mechanisms of nature and structure of the universe, all similarly astounding and similarly unsupported. As I read through this opus, and especially as I neared the end, I kept asking myself -- How is it possible for someone so brilliant to have spent so many years developing something so uncompelling? I came up with three possible explanations: 1) Wolfram has gone off the deep end. Just like Dr. Richard Daystrom of Star Trek's "The Ultimate Computer", the undisputed genius who goes mad trying to exceed his former glory. Perhaps Wolfram has been staring at his pretty pictures for so long his synapses can no longer make any other kind of connection. 2) Wolfram is perpetrating an elaborate hoax on the world, much like Dr. Alan Sokal's famous "Transgressing the Boundaries" paper, a parody of the academic humanities that the editors of Social Text were fooled into publishing. But Wolfram's physics flimflam is writ on an infinitely larger scale. Just to prove he's so much smarter than every one else, and just as a practical joke, he's trying to derail the entire scientific enterprise. And finally, 3) I have become so entrenched in the practice and paradigms of traditional science that I am unable to grasp or appreciate the profundity of what's been laid before me in the simplest of terms. Number three is always possible. And in fact it would be wonderful to bear witness to what he's calling the greatest discovery in the history of science, even if it does fly over my head at Mach 2. Wolfram is one of the smartest and most accomplished residents of the universe, and even though one of the basic tenets of the (traditional) scientific method is that the validity of a claim is judged independently of the stature and reputation of the one who proposes it, it's difficult not to give someone like Wolfram the benefit of the doubt -- no matter how much of a stretch. All the same, I recommend this book to anyone who enjoys being intellectually stimulated and likes to think about big ideas. Even if he's wrong, I'm sure glad I read it.
Rating: 
Summary: Understanding Complexity
Review: This is a daring, dazzling effort attempting to discover order in a seemingly chaotic universe. Wolfram's ideas for a variety of disciplines are myriad, but stem from his one fundamental theory regarding the modeling of complex systems. This is an impressive work with the potential to be revolutionary.
Rating:
Summary: Mirror Matter is more interesting
Review: This book is indeed a new kind of science It is science of the worst kind. It does not help
in understanding any of the current mysteries in nature. What is the identity of the dark matter
in the Universe? Are there new elementary particles to be found? Why are there only four
fundamental forces? Will the Universe expand for ever? It does not live up to the hype.
Rating: 
Summary: The "Me too!" phenomenon.
Review: My theory is that Kauffman's book blew Wolfram's mind. He was playing with cellular automata even before Kauffman and gee it's kind of similar isn't it? And if Kauffman perhaps went a little far in borrowing from Darwin to title his book, which is, admittedly, highly original and important, then why shouldn't Wolfram cast simple automata as equally ground breaking and try to gather to himself the same kind of respect? Doctor, you're no Stu Kauffman.
Rating:
Summary: Overstated, but still worth reading.
Review: While there is a lot of text in the book, the basic premise can be expressed in a few words. Wolfram believes that the universe is much simpler than it appears and can to a large extent be modeled by simple finite state machines or automata. A large number of examples are put forward to justify his position.
This premise is not new, which is the strongest argument against it. Over the course of human history, simple explanations have been put forward to explain natural phenomena, only to have them proven false and be replaced by much more complex explanations. For example, the original description of the universe was with the Earth at the center, a few wandering planets and then the stars in a fixed globe. Now, the Earth is one planet revolving around an average star and everything moves, some things explode and others disappear forever into a black hole. So, from the historical perspective, there is no reason to believe it.
His argument also suffers from another serious weakness, that of combinatorial explosion. For example, if you look at a nerve cell in the human brain, it is easy to count the connections and understand what other cells it can influence. This behavior is easy to model with a finite automata having only a few states. Put a small number of such cells together and it is still possible, although more difficult, to model the behavior in a finite automata. Connect several billion or so, and even though each cell can be modeled, the interconnections cannot. The number of possible states is orders of magnitude beyond anything that could be modeled in any conceivable length of time. I cannot see how his arguments can overcome this obstacle.
Therefore, in my opinion, the premise should be that many natural events that seem complex simply are not as convoluted as they appear. Restricted to this area, I believe that Wolfram has hit the target. He demonstrates many circumstances where apparently complex behavior is performed by something with very few states and a small number of simple rules. This restriction is where the title is justified and is a reminder of a guiding phrase of science that is known as Ocham's Razor. It has been stated many ways, but it means that if there are competing explanations for a phenomena that explain it equally well, then the simplest one should be selected.
At over one thousand pages, it takes some time to get through this book. However, I found it well worth reading, reminding myself that in science and math, simpler is almost always better. This property also applies to computer science, where the simplest correct program is almost always the best. The book is also an excellent description of some potential uses for finite automata and there are many initial pathways that could be explored for serious research in how automata can be used to describe natural events. Published in Journal of Recreational Mathematics, reprinted with permission.
Rating:
Summary: A Scientific Masterpiece of Staggering Genius?
Review: Is this book really a new kind of science? That all depends on whether his ideas gain acceptance by his peers but I think it could have the potential if it were even half of his lofty claims turn out to be true. The key contribution of this book(which I think most of the reviewers missed since they were either too bent on reprimanding him for his lack of grace or never got to the end of the book which is kind of like reading a proof without reading what you're proving) is its development of a conceptual framework that explains why conventional science and mathematics will always hit a brick wall when they try to model physical phenomena that is computationally irreducible by computationally reductive methods. The problem being that virtually all of the techniques employed today by science and mathematics, according to Wolfram, are computationally reductive, ie they use formulas, equations, etc. and almost all of the "interesting phenomena" (read: complex) out there is computationally irreducible. It's a bit like discovering that all physical matter is constrained by the law of gravity. That is, it's potentially a rather important development in the history of science. Lots of people have already identified many of the intellecual components of this work, that nature is in essence one giant computation, that simple systems can have complex behaviour, that universal turing machines are equivalent in what they can do, but I am not sure, and to this his legacy will undoubtedly be tested, whether or not anyone has synthesized all these ideas in the general terms he has to describe the limitations of science and mathematics. In a nutshell, definitely worth the read. If you're feeling impatient just read the last two chapters. post scriptum:
I suspect that Wolfram is as brazenly megalomaniacal as he is in this work for many of the same reasons that Mike Tyson is as flaringly provocative. It helps to sell product and get the message out. The only difference being that he has something to sell. As for the lack of credit he attributes to other scientists coming before him, he does seem to cite a lot of the very key references in the notes at the back of the book, but often tends to emphasize his own contributions over theirs or just flat out misses them altogether. But to give him less stars for this as so many people to do is to miss the point entirely. (Would you give Newton two stars for Principia because he used mathematical notation that made the work hard to read? Well I don't think Wolfram is a Newton but still...)
Rating:
Summary: A massive acheivement
Review: Stephen Wolfram's 'A new kind of science' is a massive achievement, true to the grandest traditions of self-publishing. In this stunningly beautifully laid out tome, Wolfram displays the fruits of long, intense dedication to the most sublime hubris, progressing from what are genuinely intriguing results of arduous empirical research to sweeping delusions of competance. Who would have thought that you could replicate the behavior of fluid movement on a computer by explicitly modelling it? Stunning, indeed. Doubly stunning is that a work of such gargantuan inanity could contain such a concise and lucid explanation of chaotic processes. That a mind that can so clearly explain the phenomenon of super-critical dependence on initial conditions can also produce so much excess self-congratulation for producing such a vapid vehicle for presenting this work will provide excellent working material for budding young doctoral candidates in psychology. In its best movement, Wolfram's book spends a great deal of time demonstrating how his computational artifacts are unable to work out the results of constraints, in the process demonstrating the total futility of over a decade's worth of research. Amazingly, Wolfram presents the inapplicability of his work as a mark of its virtue -- that you can produce totally unpredictable and incomprehensible behavior without regard to the actual process one is researching. Given an intellect of such Colossal stature as Wolfram's, this massive tome is in and of itself the most solid, bulletproof example of the value of peer-review. That such a Herculean effort by such a gifted mind could produce a work of such stunning irrelevence should dissuade even the most ardent researcher from removing himself or herself from the academic community. In addition to being the absolute paragon of case-studies for the value of peer-review, the book is also physically beautiful; it's rich yellow and black artwork will spice up even the most pedestrian of bookcases.
Rating:
Summary: Just So Stories
Review: This book is not science, and it isn't new, but if you just read it as novel and look at the pictures it isn't too bad. The arguments are reminicent of Rudyard Kipling's Just So Stores. For example, How did the zebra get his stripes?
I don't know, but here is a cellular autonoma that produces the same pattern. How did the leopard get his spots?
I don't know, but here is a cellular autonoma that produces the same pattern. ETC, ETC, ETC.
| 
