## Book Review: 'A New Kind of Science'

### AI-generated Key Points

⚠The license of the paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the key points are generated using the paper metadata rather than the full article.

- Scott Aaronson provides a critical review of the book 'A New Kind of Science' by Stephen Wolfram
- The review focuses on two main areas: computational complexity and fundamental physics
- Aaronson uses standard techniques in theoretical computer science to analyze Wolfram's ideas
- He addresses questions raised by Wolfram regarding computational complexity
- Aaronson analyzes the complexity of Wolfram's proposed models and their implications for computation
- He provides a critical assessment of the feasibility and validity of Wolfram's claims using established techniques in theoretical computer science
- Aaronson also examines Wolfram's proposal for a deterministic model underlying quantum mechanics
- He demonstrates that this model is inconsistent with both special relativity and Bell inequality violation
- Through a rigorous examination, Aaronson highlights the inconsistencies and limitations of Wolfram's proposition
- Overall, the review offers an in-depth analysis of 'A New Kind Of Science,' focusing on computational complexity and fundamental physics
- Aaronson sheds light on the strengths and weaknesses of Wolfram's ideas, providing valuable insights into the book's content.

**Authors:**
Scott Aaronson

**Abstract:** This is a critical review of the book 'A New Kind of Science' by Stephen Wolfram. We do not attempt a chapter-by-chapter evaluation, but instead focus on two areas: computational complexity and fundamental physics. In complexity, we address some of the questions Wolfram raises using standard techniques in theoretical computer science. In physics, we examine Wolfram's proposal for a deterministic model underlying quantum mechanics, with 'long-range threads' to connect entangled particles. We show that this proposal cannot be made compatible with both special relativity and Bell inequality violation.

### Ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant

You can also chat with multiple papers at once here.

⚠The license of the paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the AI assistant only knows about the paper metadata rather than the full article.

Assess the quality of the AI-generated content by voting

Score: 0

**Why do we need votes?**

Votes are used to determine whether we need to re-run our summarizing tools. If the count reaches -10, our tools can be restarted.

The previous summary was created more than a year ago and can be re-run (if necessary) by clicking on the Run button below.

⚠The license of this specific paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the summarizing tools will be run using the paper metadata rather than the full article. However, it still does a good job, and you can also try our tools on papers with more open licenses.

## Similar papers summarized with our AI tools

Navigate through even more similar papers through a

tree representation**Look for similar papers (in beta version)**

By clicking on the button above, our algorithm will scan all papers in our database to find the closest based on the contents of the full papers and not just on metadata. Please note that it only works for papers that we have generated summaries for and you can rerun it from time to time to get a more accurate result while our database grows.

**Disclaimer:** The AI-based summarization tool and virtual assistant provided on this website may not always provide accurate and complete summaries or responses. We encourage you to carefully review and evaluate the generated content to ensure its quality and relevance to your needs.