alt Hacker NewsAmount of "I" and "me" is astonishing.
Didn't find anything on falsifiable criteria -- any new theory should be able, at least in theory, to be tested for being not true.
Replies
andyjohnson0 • today at 11:01 AM
Sure, but everyone always says that. What do you think of what he wrote about?
dist-epoch • today at 10:37 AM
Some things, like the foundations of mathematics, are not falsifiable.
You judge them by how useful they are.
Ruliology is a bit like that.
SanjayMehta • today at 8:08 AM
That's his style. It's not just his blog style, it's the same in his book.
https://nedbatchelder.com/blog/200207/stephen_wolframs_unfor...
Isn't this his personal blog? The domain name is "stephenwolfram.com", this is his personal website. Of course there will be "I"'s and "me"'s — this website is about him and what he does.
As for falsifiability:
> You have some particular kind of rule. And it looks as if it’s only going to behave in some particular way. But no, eventually you find a case where it does something completely different, and unexpected.
So I guess to falsify a theory about some rule you just have to run the rule long enough to see something the theory doesn't predict.