Rating: 
Summary: A massive disappointment
Review: I love this book, I really do.Or rather, I love what this book could have been in the hands of a different author, or with a responsible editing and review process. It's a wonderful text on numerous topics of diverse interest, from cellular automata to statistics, information theory, and logic. It's impressive to me to find a text that treats these things cohesively in a single volume. However, Wolfram has a habit of doing four unforgivable things in this text: (1) incorrectly implying that he was the discoverer of something, (2) stating explicitly that he has discovered something new when he has most certainly not done so, (3) inadequately addressing counterexamples or omitting importantly relevant material, and (4) speculating inappropriately about things without sufficient basis for doing so. None of these three things might be so annoying to me if Wolfram hadn't tried to tout his thinking as "A New Kind of Science". This book is fundamentally a book about cellular automata and their implications. As such, it's a wonderful text on the topic and highly recommended. Wolfram, however, tries to make it much more than that, and that's where the problem is. His arrogance, egocentrism, and, dare I say it--ignorance?--ruin it. Look for the references section of this text, for example. There isn't any. There is a footnotes section, but that's not the same. Much of it is at the level of "such-and-such has been speculated about since the ancient Greeks". It's as if the closest Wolfram can do to acknowledging others is to simply talk more about what he knows. Often, the footnotes are as equally misleading as the text. The lack of references makes it clear how little Wolfram intended to determine what others have done, that maybe what he says isn't true, or that others before him have said it already. In some ways, I can't recommend this book highly enough. But I can't keep track of the number of times I read this, thinking, "yes, that's true, but no, you didn't think of it", "no, this isn't substantially different from what X said 10 years ago", or "yes this sweeping statement would be true, except for all these examples you don't discuss". In general, if you want an introduction to cellular automata, information theory, or complexity theory, this is an excellent book. Keep in mind, however, that many or most times Wolfram says he's thought of something new, he hasn't. And when he says something and you find yourself thinking "where's support for that", ask for the evidence.
Rating:
Summary: rewriting history
Review: This is an astounding book in many ways. I was looking forward to seeing it in print ever since I first heard of Wolfram working on the book. What a great disappointment it turned out to be!
To do the book some justice it is absolutely necessary to read the notes for each chapter together with the chapter. Wolfram at first seemed genuinely surprised to learn that the digits of pi are random and only in the notes did he confess that a lot was known about the properties of numbers before he applied his superior intellect to everything.
Similarily, or even worse, when discussing elementary particles he adds "notes for physicists" stressing that he is not yet willing to share his full insight into elementary particle physics, although he would be well capable of doing so. Shall we believe him? Extraordinary claims need to be supported by extraordinary evidence. Showing a few pictures which look similar to what we see in nature does not constitute proof; for anyone who is familiar with complex dynamcis (or with the flaws of visual perception) it does not even lend support.
The real problem, however, is his imaginative interpretation of the history of science. He did not create the study of complexity; he did not even invent the notion of CAs; and he would have done well not cutting himself of from scientific discourse for the last decade.
So simple rules can generate complex behaviour? The behaviour of discrete systems can be vastly more complicated than that of continuous systems? This was known for a long time. E.g. the behaviour of the quadratic map was known to produce unpredictable behaviour for many decades.
If you want to learn about CAs then read Wolfram's 1983 article in Reviews of Modern Physics; otherwise read any of the multitude of good books on History of Science, Evolution, Chaos, Astonomy, Statistical Physics, Computation or whichever field you are interested in.
On the positive side: the book is beautifully produced and it provides a great lesson how crucial and valuable our normal scientific practice (with collaboration, critical discussion, peer-review etc) is.
Rating:
Summary: Inadvertently hilarious
Review: "A New Kind of Science," by Stephen Wolfram, obeys its own Principle of Computational Equivalence: due to its repetitiveness, any two randomly chosen passages from "this book" are equivalently pompous. There is no need to precisely define what this "equivalence" means: following Wolfram, who never deigns to precisely define the notions of complexity and randomness he uses, one gathers that the new "kind-of" scientist operates by first refusing to define his terms and then dismissing the relevant technical literature altogether in favor of something more grandiose. These are only two of the many methodological innovations of this new kind-of-science that Wolfram has bestowed upon humanity, as he points out in a passage explaining how he regards your cowering in his awesome presence with equanimity. Although the book promises much and delivers little of use to a practicing scientist or mathematician, its comedic value cannot be overestimated. To cite one unbearably hilarious passage from the preface, Wolfram explains, in all seriousness, how he struggled to keep his 1200 page book to a manageable size, compressing and distilling topics to mere pages or paragraphs that were themselves worthy of other books. The book makes a new kind of comedy possible, which can be realized in the following way. Try reading aloud various paragraph of the chapter on the Principle of Computational Equivalence quietly at first, then rising in volume until an ear-splitting crescendo is reached at the paragraph's end. Certainly the title of the book, "A New Kind of Science" lends itself to new hyphenated adjectival forms, such as "visiting new-kind-of-scientist," and others that might be generated with cellular automata. Wolfram claims to be inverting the procedure followed in engineering and computer science, which attempts to invent machines and technologies to perform functions and run processes whose features are known in advance--one obvious use of computer technology, for example, is to run processes that we want to execute; Wolfram considers cellular automata and asks, "what do these things compute?" There is nothing novel about this--scientists routinely consider new technologies and constructions of all sorts and ask about their usefulness; it seems unlikely that cellular automata will lead to a "new kind of science." Tellingly, Wolfram drops mathematician John Milnor's name in the front matter, but fails to mention Milnor's devastating critique of Wolfram claims about cellular automata back in the 80s. The reader is left with the misleading impression that Milnor was an ally. Wolfram says that simple rules often give rise to complex patterns that often appear random; however, until the terms "complex" and "random" are defined, they are unscientific adjectives. The theory of computational complexity attempts to rank computational processes within one or more hierarchical classification schemes; each classification is a measure of "complexity" and the location of a computational process or algorithm within any such scheme is taken as a precise definition of what one might intuitively mean by "complexity"--in the sense of that scheme. Wolfram makes references to one such classification (number of alternating quantifiers) in connection with the logical complexity of mathematical formulas, and there is an empirical four-way classification of cellular automata, but a ranking of cellular automata in the sense of computational complexity theory is nowhere to be found. Similar remarks apply to his use of the term "random." Worse, the platitudinous Principle of Computational Equivalence (PCE) suggests that among the "computational processes" observable in nature, many of the standard hierarchies of computational complexity collapse to two levels: that of the "obviously simple" and the "not obviously simple," and the "not obviously simple computational processes" that "occur in nature" are as powerful as the universal partial functions of one's favorite theory of computation (Turing machinery or cellular automata, to name two examples). Most likely, Wolfram would insist that I don't get the PCE; however, the repetitive platitudinousness of the PCE gives Wolfram plenty of room to defeat any attempt at comprehension. The tone of the book suggests that Wolfram would prefer not to get his hands dirty with more precise statements; apparently, for Wolfram, the task of further elucidation belongs to the next echelon of new scientists. Wolfram has written the kind of book L. Ron Hubbard would have aspired to, if Hubbard knew enough.
Rating: 
Summary: Wow! Wolfram is way cool. I'm loving this book.
Review: Ok, I'm not a scientist, just a software engineer with a love of science. Reading Wolfram's tour de force is an awesome experience. Don't get caught up in which disciplines will or will not be revolutionized. You don't even have to ponder the implications of his hypothesis. Following Wolfram's extremely thorough thought processes, especially with all the results, explanations, and illustrations immediately at hand is immensely satisfying. As an example, paraphrasing, suppose we change the rule in this way. One might expect increasing complex
results. Well here's what we get. Whoomf! Three pages of detailed results representing weeks of research and calculations follow.
In reading other science for the lay person, I'm frequently disappointed by philosophers who appear to have no appreciation for the depth, intricacy, and details of a quantitative approach to working out ideas. No such problem here.
This is the genius and implementor of Mathematica, a totally awesome, truly revolutionary tool which takes the drudgery out of numeric, symbolic, and graphic math. Yes, Wolfram's ego becomes apparent, mainly in his implications for a huge enumerated list of scientific/mathematical fields. He's earned it, though. Wolfram has tremendous integrity to take an idea and not diseminate it until he has thoroughly worked it all out.
Because he has the (well-deserved) money he published it himself rather than submitting it to a myriad of journals. Bravo! One of the few millionaires to use money properly. My only beef - a quasi-religious one. Complex behavior is different from intelligence. Both a living cell and the Mandelbrot set are extremely complex, the latter arguably being the most complex. But no one would argue that its intricate patterns imply an intelligent creator at work. I am not alone in believing that the complexity of a cell, however, does. Get and enjoy this gifted piece of work.
Mathematica, "A New Kind of Science"... I eagerly await what Stephen Wolfram can possibly give us in the future!
Rating:
Summary: Not Worth It
Review: The basic idea that complexity can be obtained by very simple rules is not new. The idea that the Universe, in all its complexity, may be a result of very simple (computational) rules is not new. And looking at lots (and I mean *lots*) of fractal-like, cellular automata, game of life like, black and white pictures is no fun at all. The pictures tell you nothing. You need to understand the text to understand the pictures. But if you understand the text, you don't really need the pictures. (A few pictures would be o.k., but hundreds is not good.)
I think the basic info in this book, the basic theme, could be written in under 100 pages. This is not a "how to" book. It doesn't tell you how to replace current math, physics, etc. with something new. It only suggests that it might be possible to do so by considering "it all" as computation and by finding/defining simple computable systems.
Some interesting ideas. For me, not many new ideas. Glad I didn't buy the book. (Borrowed a copy.)
Rating:
Summary: This is not an obliterate my mind book
Review: I find the reviews in here interesting. A new kind of science is a book that is written to be discussed. This old fixed idea of reading, where One person births the ideas of everything at the moment they create it is nonsense. look at win 95 with its 2k memory, it became inadequate and caused a lot of instability. Stephen Wolfram has painstakingly dedicated a lot of his life while these people that insist I obliterate my mind( like the religious writers sit around and watch cheers( great show, but not worthwhile in the sense that a book like this is. I feel Mr. Wolfram tried to show the tip of an iceberg, this information takes time and the accumulation of different kinds of patience that only people who aspire to be engineers gather. It isn't simple and stupid, its becoming familiar with mixed thinking and combining known mathematical family. As to the readers that feel egotism should not be shown, you own windows don't you hipocrites. This is a book that the people who read Tim LaHayes brand of science just cant fathom. I'm not an idiot and I am tired of being forced to read and suspend my right to converse about deep subject I have studied. We must force this book down all english teachers. The variety of examples is very rich. and we need to force our right to converse into everyday corporate BS America Kudos to Mr. Wolfram
Rating: 
Summary: Neither grand nor mundane and with lots of old news
Review: There really is not much to say about this book except that we have a bringing together of a lot of examples of how cellular automata can mimic various processes. Some seem to think that the author is articulating a new physics, his website claims otherwise, but if this isn't just some useful and limited mimicry then it's hard to see how these abstractions have any of the causal powers of the things they are suppose to represent. Others even go "way out there" and think this will model all of reality. Well, that would be an unconscious reality in which no sensations could be sensed, no feelings felt, and stories told including the ones in this book. For a better a book that really "thinks outside the box" and does try to take all the evidence into account, try the recent release by Christian De Quincy called "Radical Nature". You'll be much less bored, given deeper mysteries, and it costs about a third as much. In any case, the book is a nice collection of techniques and worth getting.
Rating: 
Summary: Speculation is not Science.
Review: Wolfram's book is a good, though very long, introduction to cellular automata, fractals and some kinds of chaotic behavior. It's clearly written and includes tons of illustrative diagrams. But to say that everything in the Universe can be understood via cellular automata... wouh! This is quite an overstatement. In the first chapter of his book, Wolfram claims that one of his most important discoveries was that simple rules can generate very complex behaviors. He pretends that, before his work, this fact was unkown to science. Is Wolfram aware of what science is all about? In Physics people have succeeded in finding simple laws to describe the interaction and organization of matter, even at a very complex level. In Biology the simple rules given by Darwin for natural selection and evolution account for all the complexity exhibitted by living organisims. Etc. In its allegedly New Science, Wolfram tries to establish a relationship between cellular automata and gravitation and quantum mechanics (chapter 9). Although rather imaginative, this is just speculation based on numerical simulation, not science based on observation and experimental facts. Many of the "discoveries" which Wolfram claims as his, were in fact done by other scientists years before Wolfram's work. There is any "New Science" in this book at all. If someone is interested in learning about cellular automata, chaos and fractals, I rather recommend James Gleick's book (Chaos, making a new science). Wolfram's book is just a lengthy version of Gleick's one.
Rating:
Summary: Cellular Automata is a powerful idea but is it 42?
Review: This is obviously a very significant work, worthy of careful attention with a critical eye. The more recent research in the book has side-stepped the normal peer reviewed processes of scientific journals. This doesn't make it bad and does indeeed make it more accessible...(bye bye calculus in the mainstream text; also celullar automata doesn't really need it)...but it also means the scientific heavy weights haven't tried to pull it apart yet; so potential holes in the claims of the theory may yet surface. Key book concept => cellular automata => complex processes result from one or two simple augmentation rules being repeatedly applied to an initial cell or row of cells, e.g. color of next cell depends on color of current cell and neighbors. Interesting thing is that whilst the augmentation rules are simple and well defined, some rules lead to a resultant ceullar structure, after several iterations, that appears to be almost random, with structure appearing occassionally, thus the structure has become complex. Wolfram sites many examples in nature and physics where the cellular automata principle can explain behavior. Biological examples, such as plant growth are amongst the most convincing. Cellular automata represents a different way of modeling phenomena in nature. Instead of looking at the end resultant complex structure and creating a correspondingly complex equation to describe it, you would look for the simple underlying rule, that through iteration, leads to the structure under analysis. Is there one underlying rule that ultimately defines all the observable complexity in the universe? How's that for a Holy Grail :-). **The best and most balanced review I have read of Wolfram's book is by Ray Kurzweil. I strongly recommend you read this review. http://www.kurzweilai.net/articles/art0464.html?printable=1** Enjoy the book...
Rating:
Summary: Read the book before you write a review
Review: My line of reasoning is quite simple, this 1.200 page book appeared on May 14th 2002. No one (except for those in Wolfram's inner circle) has had the time yet to read (let alone absorve) the meaning or implications of this book. Yet there are already quite a number of reviews pontificating on the validity (or else) of his theories. I suggest reviewers stop trying to be the first to publish a review and have the honesty to try to understand first a work that took 10 years to write, before they comment. Amazon should also provide for the eventuality and not force readers to choose between 1-5 stars (i.e. by providing another option such as ???)
|
