Freeman Dyson (the renowned physicist) commented in a Wired interview that
the book was (if memory serves) "worthless". I asked him about this when he
gave a talk at the Festival of Inappropriate technology recently. He said
that he had been somewhat misquoted and that the book contained quite a lot
of interesting ideas, but nothing revolutionary. He said it lacked depth,
and if we knew anything about nature, it is that it has a lot of depth.
Unfortunately the rest of my question got lost in the terrible acoustics. So
I'll ask it here and see if anyone can give me an answer:
is the universe best described by algorithms or mathematics?
Andy Brice
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Sep 22 2002 - 05:06:15 MDT