Literary Brookline and Minsky on Rope and Wolfram
I went to the annual Brookline Library Gala on Sunday because they invite local authors in to flog their wares. For an hour the authors get to mingle with readers and with one another. Nice event. I’m awkward in such situations — you know, ones where there are other people — but I ran into Ned Batchelder who is much less so and who is damn interesting. (Ned’s excellent blog lists many of the authors in attendance and some of the diverse topics of discussion.)
Marvin Minsky strolled by, and I stood quietly as he and Ned talked. I learned two things:
1. Minsky was wearing a tie made out of climbing rope, a quirk that’s been reported before. What I didn’t know is that Minsky always carries rope with him because he has twice saved a life by being so prepared. He apparently encounters more quicksand and crevasses than most of us do.
2. Ned and I had been talking about Wolfram, a semi-local author, so Ned asked Minsky if he had read Wolfram’s book. “Of course not.” Why not? Because Wolfram is merely repeating what has been known for twenty years. Further, said Minsky, the book only finds three types of cellular automata: simple ones, looping ones, and complex ones. For a theory to be interesting, said Minsky, it needs to have at least five categories, not three. Minsky was being cocktail-party witty, but I believe his serious point was that Wolfram needs to present a theory that further analyzes the single class of complex and seemingly random cellular automata.
[Note: Yes I am bothered about blogging a private conversation with someone. But I’m using my judgment. Minsky didn’t hesitate to tell two strangers (Ned and me) what I’ve reported. Neither of these points seems too personal. And let me make clear that I may well have gotten the point about Wolfram wrong since Minsky is a couple primates up the evolutionary tree from me.]
Minsky is talking bollocks. Wolfram has 4 classes, not 3.
Uniform, Repetitive, Random & Complex.
If you wanted 5 , you could have a self-similar class between repetitive and random – I can see the difference here, but Wolfram thinks it is unimportant.
Minsky single-handedly put back Neural Network research by at least 10 years with his flawed Perceptrons paper, so I’m not surprised he is still wrong about CA’s
When the machine compiles your code, however, it does a little bit of translation. At run time, the computer sees nothing but 1s and 0s, which is all the computer ever sees: a continuous string of binary numbers that it can interpret in various ways.