So the thing I realized rather gradually - I must say starting about 20 years ago now that we know about computers and things - there's a possibility of a more general basis for rules to describe nature.
Interpretation
Stephen Wolfram reflects on the potential of computers to establish universal rules for understanding nature.
In this quote, Stephen Wolfram emphasizes the gradual realization over two decades that advancements in computer science could lead to a more comprehensive framework for understanding the laws governing nature. He suggests that with the capabilities of modern technology, we might discern patterns and principles that describe the complexity of the natural world more effectively than before.
In practice
In a science class discussing the role of technology in understanding natural laws.
The thing that got me started on the science that I've been building now for about 20 years or so was the question of okay, if mathematical equations can't make progress in understanding complex phenomena in the natural world, how might we make progress?
If there's one operation for a disease, you know it works. If there are 15 operations, you know that none of them work.
There are only certain intervals of time when life of any sort is possible in an expanding universe and we can practise astronomy only during that habitable time interval in cosmic history.
Physicists analyse systems. Web scientists, however, can create the systems.
The ideas which led to the Analytical Engine occurred in a manner wholly independent of any that were connected with the Difference Engine. These ideas are indeed, in their own intrinsic nature, independent of the latter engine and might equally have occurred had it never existed nor even been thought of at all.
Information overload refers to the notion that we're trying to take in more than the brain can handle.
Economics has never been a science - and it is even less now than a few years ago.
Subscribe for the occasional hand-picked quote. No noise.