Midterm

4. Kara Krone

5. Karabear1

6. Karabar1@gmail.com

7. http://karabearscave.blogspot.com/

8. Yes, I have done all of the reading

9. Yes, I have watched all the films

10. Posts are below midterm

11. Why does Lisa Randall believe that there may be many more dimensions than we presently know in current physics? Is there any evidence at this stage for her beliefs?

In Lisa Randall’s theory, the weak nature of gravity demonstrates that we are in a small slice of the universe. For example, if a 3-dimensional sphere passed through a 2-D world, the residents of that world would only see a small cross section of that sphere. The sphere would have substance outside of the 2nd dimension, but it wouldn’t be entirely detectable. This is why gravity is weaker than electromagnetism and nuclear forces. It must pass through our dimension and gain strength beyond what is detectable to us. She supplements this theory with a hypothesis that matter must stick to branes: lower dimensions that prevent matter from spreading throughout the universe. If we do not lie at the gravity brane, gravity would seem weak to us.

Randall takes a small slice of evidence to extrapolate an entire theory of multi-verses. She seems to have trouble making the leap from hypothesis to fact. Couldn’t it be that gravity is weak compared to other forces simply because it is weak? When she hopes for more theoretical and experimental input, she seems to realize the lack of real evidence for her theory and wants others to provide it for her. Her theory on branes is even more farfetched— she provides no evidence for this beyond the fact that gravity is weak. While it may be true that we, being mere 3-dimensional beings, are incapable of seeing the dimensions beyond, it is difficult to accept a theory with little observable or mathematical evidence. In my opinion, Randall fails at providing any concrete evidence for her theories.

12. What are Aldous Huxley's views on education?

While education is useful for survival, Huxley views it at the higher level of “actualizing the greatest number of desirable potentialities.” This statement implies that there are many intelligences in this world that have been lost through a lack of education. If these people are provided appropriate education, we may gain a goodwill, intelligence, and creativity that could be easily lost forever to humankind. Once all actualities have been realized, we will have made the most of what humankind is capable of. It is sad to think there are many great minds out there that have been lost to poverty and ignorance. Huxley’s grand view on education is a hopeful look at what mankind can be capable of if education is all inclusive.

Huxley goes on to explain the differing, and equally important, levels of education. While education has been historically verbal, we must also focus upon making our mind and body respond with a “clearer awareness.” This is done outside of literary wisdom, by achieving a passiveness and receptivity in our minds. While Huxley does not clarify exactly what he means in gaining a “wise passiveness,” it seems that we should achieve a greater awareness of our surroundings if we listen instead of always verbalizing. Once we educate ourselves in moving back and forth between the two, we can “perfect the mind to the intellectual level of God.”

13. Do you think science and religion are compatible?

There are several reasons why science and religion are not compatible. Beckman, of Harvey Mudd, states that scientists “construct a highly technical and precise language for communicating their observations.” Religion is less precise in its lack of an “articulate, coherent system.” (Beckman) While religion usually provides a religious text for guidance, science is more articulate in its need for repeatability and direct observation. Religious texts are subjective and interpretive, while science constructs this “precise language” in order to avoid bias.

Secondly, the subject matter between science and religion differ too drastically. Davis of Scripps College states that religion “deals with questions like God and the after-life,” while scientists “will accept something only if it seems that the claim is empirically verifiable.” When the science and religion attempt to cross into other spheres, they destroy the basis of those institutions. Many fundamentalists attempt to discredit science because the need for evidence overrides their own premise of faith. Conversely, the push for divine intervention in science goes against the requirement for empirical evidence. While the two subjects are perfectly adapted to their own realms, it is counterproductive to push these into the opposing sides.

Third, Jolley of U.C. San Diego states that “the claims of science are empirically falsifiable, those of religion are not.” One of the main premises of the scientific method is that it is falsifiable. Once a hypothesis is formed, it can be altered or falsified as new evidence grows. Religion, on the other hand, operates on pre-conceived premises. It is presumed correct, and therefore cannot adapt to new evidence. In this manner, science operates on evidence, while religion operates on beliefs.

Fourth, science does not attempt to provide “comfort, consolation, or inspiration.” (Dumont) Religion has its place in finding meaning, truth, and social bonding in human culture. Science, however, attempts to explain the universe objectively. If this provides comfort to some, this is not its absolute goal. Science simply operates on a hypothesis, and seeks empirical evidence to verify or falsify it into a theory. Religion is important for filling this gap in human existence. The search for meaning and truth in the universe is an important aspect of humanity. While science and religion are not directly compatible, they are by no means at odds with each other. Each has its own place in the human psyche.

14. Why was Socrates put on trial? How did Socrates defend his position?

In “Apology,” Socrates has been accused of being a “curious person, who searches for things under the earth and in heaven”, “making the worse appear the better cause,” and “teaching the aforesaid doctrines to others.” In other words, Socrates seeks knowledge, challenges moral boundaries, and teaches this doctrine to others. He operates on the presumption that he knows nothing, which has created a following of youth that has learned to question authority figures, who must also know nothing. The “enlightened” leaders and teachers of Athens cannot handle their cultural conventions being questioned and feel slighted that they are not the most learned people in the community. Because of this, Socrates stands accused of being a “corrupter of the youth.”

Socrates first defends himself by demonstrating that he is not a “teacher” because he is not superior to anybody. He lacks wisdom and therefore is not qualified to be a teacher of others. He then demonstrates that no man is wise when he searches for men wiser than himself. As he speaks to these men, he finds that they too know nothing. Furthermore, the ones held in high esteem were the most foolish ones of all. These men, angry at their intelligences being questioned, become angry at Socrates instead of themselves. Next, he demonstrates that he is not a corrupter because no man would attempt to create someone who would harm him. Finally, he demonstrates his service to God by virtue of his obedience. Because Socrates holds that knowing nothing represents true virtue, he has nothing to fear and knows that he is right in standing strong against pretenders.

15. Give a brief history of philosophy

Ancient (585 BC)
Athens encourages philosophy through direct democracy (birth of philosophical debate)
Sophists: Traveling teachers who argued anyone can prove any point they wish
Socrates: Questioned everyone on beauty, wisdom, and truth
Inspired many disciples
Plato: Founder of the Academy of Athens
Student of Socrates.
The mind can apply concepts to the world
Soul is superior to body
Evil is ignorance of truth
Aristotle: Student of Plato
Began scientific inquiry, inductive and deductive reasoning

Medieval
Applied Aristotle’s logic to daily life
Thomas Aquinas: Everything that exists has a cause (God)
Man needs divine help to attain truth
Any research outside medicine was “philosophy”
Existence is good, God is good, therefore God exists

Modern
Age of Reason/ Enlightenment
Influenced by a broader world view
Systematic, logical organization of the world
Religion is integrated into philosophy
19th century: self-organization & intrinsic order (Goethe/Kant)
Development of scientific philosophy (Darwin)

Contemporary
Upheavals, basis for knowledge are challenged
Reform and alter older systems
Influenced by world wars, science, human rights issues, politics
Rise of “pop” philosophy
Very wide ranging

Abrahamic Philosophy
From the study of Semitic tradition
Traced to the life of Abraham from the Hebrew Bible

16. Explain the big bang and the inflationary universe. Why is it important to know astronomy in order to do philosophy?

The big bang provides an explanation for the aftermath of the bang, but says nothing about its underlying physics. Inflationary universe explains the bang itself in that the universe is expanding from a single small region, and that each galaxy is receding at a velocity proportional to its distance. The enormous rate at which the universe expands lowers its energy density, forming a flattened universe. This inflation also smoothes out inhomogeneities, helping to create uniformity. At the end of this period of inflation, reheating occurs. The decaying radiation particles start the process of the big bang by forming “hot soup” of particles. In the big bang theory by itself, the universe would evolve so quickly that there would be no time to uniformity to develop. The Big Bang, when combined with cosmic inflation, helps to explain the shape, form, and substance of our universe.

Astronomy is an important aspect in understanding our surrounding universe and the small part we play in it. Through astronomy, we may understand that we are not the only living force in the universe, nor are we at the center of it. The knowledge of astronomy helps us fathom how we got here, opening us up greater philosophical questions. Astronomy also helps us to understand physics and a more mathematical, logical view of the universe. Philosophical arguments based in logic have greater rationality and strength. By combining astronomy and philosophy, we may gain perspective in our view of the universe.

17. How do Heisenberg's views on philosophy and science DIFFER from Einstein's? How are they similar?

Heisenberg argues that a completely naturalist view of the universe is impossible, given our limitations in separating the physical from the mental. He uses the term res extensa to denote the physical world, and res cogitans to denote the thinking being. Because the two concepts act upon each other, it is impossible to objectify oneself by separating them. For example, the mind is dependant on the laws of physics and chemistry, while the natural world cannot be examined without the mind. Because Kant’s supposition that certain ideas are ‘a priori’ has been proven incorrect, Heisenberg deduces that ‘a priori’ knowledge is invalid. Therefore, there is no such thing as separating the mind from the scientific. He further proves this through the advent of quantum theory, which can produce exact science without “dogmatic realism.” His discoveries in quantum theory reinforce his belief that there is not a single, unifying force in the universe. The impossibility of ‘ a priori’ represents that nothing is entirely certain.

Einstein, on the other hand, searched for a unifying, absolute principal in physics. Though he never found this principal, he felt assured that it was out there. This theory would unite electromagnetism, gravity, space, and time, giving unified meaning to our universe. To him, a theory that cannot be “tested experimentally will remain a hopeful curiosity.” (Einstein) He also sought absolute, empirical evidence to his theories. To Einstein, quantum theory could not explain the structure of matter because it was “mere probability.” While Heisenberg realized the uncertainty of the human mind, Einstein remained hopeful at finding hard, unifying evidence for all matter.

Both scientists sought a way of examining the universe, each in different ways. Both saw beauty in the universe, but looked for answers by asking it questions. Also, both scientists saw that truth can be found in the laws of nature. This helped each man to find a different sort of scientific principal in explaining the universe.

18. What is meme theory and do you find it plausible?

Meme theory introduces the idea that evolution does not always occur genetically. Human culture has its own process of evolution through the transmission of “memes”— small fragments of our thoughts and practices that may gather to form complex ideas. Meme theory mirrors human DNA in that we are composed of many genes sequences forming a complex being. Likewise, the gathering of memes forms the basis of complex human traditions. In his theory, Dawkins demonstrates that natural selection and survival of the fittest applies perfectly to memes. Memes that cannot reproduce will die out, while others adapt to become cherished human institutions. The “self-perpetuating” meme operates on the greatest reproductive success, i.e. survival of the fittest. For example, the faith meme has developed to prevent one from questioning its own lack of evidence. It then survives to reproduce and carry on in human culture.

Though Dawkin’s theory on memes is philosophical because of its abstract nature, the similarities to gene behavior make this theory extremely plausible. Although Memes evolve at a faster rate than genes, they do not require sexual reproduction. This allows memes to reproduce many times in a single person’s life span. Furthermore, the fundamentals of evolution (variation, natural selection, survival of the fittest) follow meme theory perfectly. Memes often split off into smaller ideas/variations. Those that are more reproductively fit will spread throughout our culture, while those that are not die out. Meme theory also explains cultural practices that are not transmitted through culture, such as celibacy. Dawkins thorough treatment of his theory and the similarities to genes make meme theory extremely plausible.

19. Why is understanding biological evolution so important in understanding human thought and behavior?

When Charles Darwin brought forth the concept that human beings are not the center of God’s creation, but just one part of the evolutionary process, this shattered our perception of human behavior. We are not meant to be in dominion over nature, but to survive within its boundaries. Because natural selection is based upon the selective pressures of the environment, our minds are shaped by generations of adaptation within nature. This concept is extremely important in understanding human thought and behavior. Richard Dawkins realized that our entire perception of the universe is based upon human survival needs. We have evolved to survive in nature, not to travel through space and contemplate quantum theory.

The understanding of early human behavior can explain many of man’s deep seated behaviors. For example, Wilson explains how early tribes survived through solidarity and a feeling of superiority. This brought them an increasing confidence and willingness to sacrifice for their tribe. Religion was a guide in providing these survival techniques, and has been carried down in our evolution ever since.

Wilson goes further in contemplating evolution’s importance by understanding that the human mind is also capable of evolution. Once we understand that are actions are based upon instinctual impulses, we may contemplate the true nature of “free will.” The idea that our thoughts are not truly free may help us to break from our basest instincts. It is important that we understand these restrictions in our mental capacities if we are to move past them.

20. In one of the films you were required to see, the narrator argued that fundamentalism was a mental disease. Why?

The narrator in “Fundamentalism is a Mental Disease” alludes to the large array of evidence supporting evolution by presenting clips of cell division. Because the evidence for evolution is so inarguable, he believes that anyone supporting creationism must have a mental disease. He then points to intelligent design’s attempt to “dress up” creationism in order to insert it into evolutionary science. If intelligent design is analyzed scientifically, it is impossible to accept this as a scientific theory. The absolute lack of peer reviewed support for the intelligent design movement further demonstrates that anyone supporting this movement lacks the ability to think. Because God is not necessary to explain anything, fundamentalists are wasting their minds with questions that are exempt from science.

Though the narrator had a small amount of truth to his argument, I felt that he was being too harsh in labeling all fundamentalists as mentally incompetent. Though the evidence for evolution is extensive, a large segment of our society is in denial toward anything that challenges their firmly held beliefs. This is not because they are “diseased,” but because they have been exposed to religious brainwashing from an early, highly developmental age. By being taught to think that there is only one truth, these children learn to lose their critical thinking abilities from an early age. They are instructed to be like sheep and acquire a sort of intellectual death. They are not born like this, but are victims of a highly restrictive society. Fortunately, some are able break out of this intellectual death and learn to question their preconceived values. For this reason, I would not say that “fundamentalism is a mental disease.” The push for education and scientific understanding in these segments of the community may help some to accept the undeniable facts of science. Minds that are truly diseased would be incapable of ever breaking from their ignorance.

21. Where do you think Owen Gingerich "parts company" O. Wilson? Who do youthink is more persuasive in their reasoning about religion?

Gingerich and Wilson’s views depart in their sense of purpose in the universe. To Gingerich, the universe would be a “joke” without any higher purpose or meaning. He trusts his gut instincts about God’s hand in creation, feeling that this is how things “ought” to be. We are endowed with the ability to understand the universe because religion makes it understandable. Gingerich also states that all men are men of faith because everyone has a belief system. This statement demonstrates his need for faith in all aspects of life. To him, it seems impossible that anybody could lack this sense of higher direction and purpose.

Wilson fundamentally departs from Gingerich in his view that all life can be explained scientifically. Every action a person takes could be predetermined if the data in their life could be synthesized. Because all process in life are obedient to physics and chemistry, Wilson takes a naturalist view of the universe. He contradicts Gingerich’s statement that scientific belief is a religion of its own, because science is based upon empirical evidence. Though he also finds a sense of purpose in the universe, his is fundamentally scientific. The Darwinian view gives him a sense of belonging with his surrounding world— without resorting a higher intelligence.

Though I am admittedly biased against mysticism and blind faith, I would say that Wilson is more persuasive in his reasoning. Gingerich’s views are based upon nothing but a “gut instinct” of what the universe ought to be. If anybody was allowed to make a “credible” theory based on gut instinct alone, what sort of chaotic mess would science become? Science is based upon empirical evidence, reasoning, and logic. Even speculative theories, such as the Big Bang, have mathematical reasoning behind them. Even more off-course is Gingerich’s view that everyone has faith simply because everyone believes in some sort of system. Though scientists believe in a system, it is not a system of blind faith. The scientific method is based upon empirical evidence that can be modified or falsified. This is not the same as blind, uncorroborated faith. Ultimately, Gingerich provides no support for his argument beyond a “gut instinct.”

22. What does Francis Fukuyama mean by the "end of history?"

Fukuyama theorizes that history has a gradual direction toward democracy, capitalism, and moral universalism. He points to the increasing peacefulness between industrialized nations who hold these ideals, because everyone has begun to agree on the same social structures. As a radius the radius of trust widens, it will encompass all humanity and we will become a single, peaceful culture. This cannot happen while science is still developing, because we are still dealing with new uncertainties. History is a sign of our past uncertainties, trial, and errors. Once there is no more to discover for the future, there will be nothing be to learned from the past. At this point, we will reach the “end of history.”

Fukuyama’s concept of a utopian society is one without culture, history, or scientific advancement. This does not seem like a utopia to me, but a bleak world without the color of human diversity. Fukuyama instead sees diversity as a means of conflict. He has decided that everyone must believe in his own personal views in order to find peace. He chooses to completely ignore the intolerance and ignorance present in fundamentalist religion, seeing the rise of fundamentalism in America as a sign that we are achieving our goal of “moral universalism.” Because this lecture is a bit dated, Fukuyama has not yet seen this country’s attack on one with a different belief system. Moral universalism would breed more of this behavior, with those outside the norm being weeded out as outsiders and traitors. Personally, I embrace the diversity that makes us human and will continue to enjoy my world of cultural diversity. Moral revolutionaries are what form the substance of literature and philosophy. Without written history of the “outsiders,” this would be a bleak world indeed.

23. Explain Nicholas of Cusa's philosophy of "unknowingness."

First, the statement that “every inquiry is comparative” signifies that you cannot know one side of something without comparing it to another. The Pythagorean Theorem is displayed next to this quote to demonstrate that a third side can only be found if the other two are known. Next, if everything is comparative, you can’t understand anything without a means of comparison. Because everything in the universe is related through numbers, anything can be used as a means of comparison.

Easy numerical equations are easily understood since the comparison is simple, but the comparison becomes more difficult with advanced equations. Since numbers are precise, and everything is congruent to each other, the universe must be precise even though it is complex. However, the degree of comparative relation makes the universe difficult to understand. Because the unknown and the known are congruent to each other, they must be the same. But, the unknown surpasses human reason. Therefore, we cannot know anything.

If the only thing we know is nothing, we cannot know the unknown. Furthermore, “all things are difficult and unexplainable in words” because words are not comparable. Therefore, the unknown is hidden to the human mind. Even if the truth is right in front of us, we cannot see it— just like the owl cannot look at the sun. Once we understand that the only thing we can know is our own ignorance, we will “attain learned ignorance.”

24. According to Nietzsche, how did we actually "kill" God?

Nietzsche seems to say not that we literally “killed” God, but killed mysticism through the advent of science. The madman represents a sense of insanity that follows faith. When we lose the madness of blind faith, we gain the madness of freedom. Nietzsche suggests that we have destroyed all boundaries and absolutes, because we have “[sponged] away the entire horizon.” We no longer can see any sense or direction to the universe, instead feeling its cold, meaningless expanse. As we pursue scientific inquiry, our knowledge of the world becomes larger and colder. We lose the warmth and community that God provides. Instead, there is a sense of nothingness— a hurdling through space without direction.

However, we are still blind in that we cannot see what we are doing to ourselves. Humanity has become disconnected through the ignorance of its loss. We ignore it when we “do not hear anything yet. . . of the gravediggers.” We do not smell the decomposition of our boundaries nor honor the loss of absolute truths. Without realizing the emptiness of our faith, we wander in isolation of each other. Nonetheless, the boundaries are too far gone to regain. There may be no purification at this point because there is no longer any sense of the finite. Our religious rituals are now meaningless, because God is dead to us. We call out to him, but we can no longer regain faith because our deed is “too great.”

The madman then lights a new “lantern” of truth. The boundaries of religion have decomposed to open up our universe past the periphery of the horizon. Once humanity is able to accept this, they can find purpose beyond the “dead” sense of morality and reason in God.

25. In the movie, Little Things that Jiggle, physics is explained by a series of slogans.

The film “Little Things that Jiggle” demonstrates the search for an encompassing, unified truth in physics. When complex ideas are reduced to simple formulae, they are more easily applied to other theories. Because mathematics and physics provide repeatable, documental evidence for their theories, they can obtain the substance of truth instead of mere speculation. The discovery of a unifying formula of the universe represents, to many scientists, a cohesive truth.

In many respects, philosophy lacks this ring of truth. Because it is often abstract, it usually relies on speculation instead of hard evidence. Philosophers such as Descartes have striven toward a more logical, mathematical process in philosophy, but its abstract nature still leaves these theories up to scrutiny. Likewise, since our scope of observation is very limited, scientists must also apply reason to advance their theories beyond what is readily observable. While the fundamentals of cosmic inflation and the big bang are founded upon mathematical fact, these theories are still speculation because they lack hard empirical evidence. In this manner, scientists may become philosophers in their own way.

By combining physics and philosophy, each field can merge philosophical speculation with the hard truth of science. Providing scientific proof for philosophy serves to strengthen ideas beyond the level of mere theory. Because theories based in mathematics and logic would attain greater certainty, physics provides a greater foundation for philosophical speculation. Conversely, philosophy helps to provide meaning and context to scientific theories. When the two fields are tied together, each may achieve a greater level of meaning and truth.

26. How do you explain the following line: "To have freedom OF religion one must also have freedom FROM religion."

Religious dogma usually comes with a set of rigid dictates. Because religion is a “meme” that has adapted for survival, these rules typically include blind, unquestioning faith. The majority of people do not come to a certain religion of their own volition, but are indoctrinated into it from an early age. Thus, most never find a philosophy that is uniquely theirs, but simply accept the religious dogma that they were raised with. This is not religious freedom, but rote mimicry of very specific rules.

How can one truly believe in something without ever questioning? What if a devout, unquestioning Christian was born in a different culture? Would this person then be doomed to Hell? How can one know that they are correct without examining their own beliefs? The rules and social norms that are indoctrinated into us from an early age restrict our thoughts and behavior. Though some of these rules help us function in society, they prevent us from making truly “free” choices. Though everybody operates within assumed social norms, it is important to understand the effect these have on our personal actions.

I believe Socrates understood this when he stated that he “knew nothing.” The understanding of “unknowingness” is the only way to have true religious and philosophical freedom. Until we comprehend the rigidity of our own indoctrination, we cannot escape its effects. We must be free from all assumption before we can make a choice that is truly our own. This being said, I wonder if any of us is truly “free?”

27. Why does Dawkins believe that believing in God is delusional?

Richard Dawkins suggests that our brains are have not evolved to process the true queerness of the universe. Natural selection has developed our brains to model the world for our survival, not for the pursuit of space travel or pondering the origins of life. Because we have evolved to survive in “middle world,” we are cannot trust our common sense when it comes to explanations of the universe. The idea of God makes sense to us because we are social beings and like to personify the world around us. This personification is not always an appropriate explanation for things, even though it gives us comfort. Since we are evolved to survive in “middle world,” the concept of God is a delusional survival mechanism. We must learn to break out of the narrow box surrounding our basic survival instincts in order to grasp the true nature of reality.

Furthermore, memes will often justify delusional religious beliefs. Because memes have adapted for survival, they utilize survival mechanisms that may deceive us into not questioning ideas of faith and hellfire. The concept of belief without evidence should not make sense to us, but the faith meme dictates that it is immoral to question it. Also, the idea of hellfire makes us fearful in questioning with the prospect of eternal pain. In this manner, we can easily be deceived beyond even biological means. Dawkins suggests that we must be wary of our instincts (biologically and socially) because they are not developed toward scientific inquiry. To trust our instincts blindly and without question is delusional.

28. Can science offer a sense of mystery comparable to what certain religions offer?

Though Einstein believed in empirical evidence and scientific universality, he remained awed at the beauty of the cosmos. He realized that the “magnificent structure” in nature we could “comprehend only imperfectly.” Though he sought answers to the cosmos, he realized that this would only open more questions. The unending magnificence of science gave him a sense of wonder comparable to the wonder of religious rapture. To Einstein, it was important “not to stop questioning.” Like a theologian, he found delight in examining our place in the universe. The analytical nature of science did not close the doors of mystery, but expand them.

To Wilson, the sense of independence that Protestantism provides is comparable to the independence of scientific discovery. He realizes that the expression of self and belief can be equally expressed through science. The passion of research drives him to continue his work, much like a religionist is passionately driven toward finding new meaning in his or her religious text. As both scientists discover their place in our universe, they are drawn toward new doors of discovery. Science does not make the heart grow cold, but fill it with a sense of religious-type wonder.

29. How does an understanding of cellular automata suggest a "new kind of science”

Stephen Wolfram, like many other philosophers, is searching for a foundational rule for understanding our universe. Wolfram’s methods are a “new kind of science” in that he uses simple computer programs to break down the patterns seen in nature. Computer language is better equipped to find the “primitive, basic constructs” of the environment. By using new technology that can produce quick computations, he is introducing a more systematic approach to finding these mathematical patterns.

By using a series of simple, repeated grids, Wolfram exhibits that complex patterns can come from simple ones. In his demonstrations, some of the repeated patterns produce more complex patterns which may seem random. Though biology may also seem random, it is composed of very small, repeatable patterns. This is one way of explaining the complexity of the universe. By proving that this rule is universal, Wolfram wishes to create a paradigm shift in the way we view the universe. The ability of computers to calculate these small patterns to a high degree forms Wolfram’s “new kind of science.” Without this ability, it would be impossible to analyze such a high degree of repeated patterns.