Stephen Wolfram

It was the thing.

You want to have a really good model for something that's what you use.

The thing that's been remarkable is just in the last decade or so, I think one can see a transition to using not mathematical equations but programs as sort of the raw material for making models of stuff.

And that's pretty neat.

And it's kind of, you know, as somebody who's kind of lived inside this paradigm shift, so to speak, it is bizarre.

I mean, no doubt in sort of the history of science that will be seen as an instantaneous paradigm shift.

But it sure isn't instantaneous when it's played out in one's actual life, so to speak.

It seems glacial.

And it's the kind of thing where it's sort of interesting because in the dynamics of sort of the adoption of ideas like that,

into different fields, the younger the field, the faster the adoption typically, because people are not locked in with the fifth generation of people who've studied this field.

It is the way it is, and it can never be any different.

Watching that process has been interesting.

I think I'm fortunate that I've

I do stuff mainly because I like doing it.

And if I was... That makes me kind of thick-skinned about the world's response to what I do.

But that's definitely... And any time you write a book called something like A New Kind of Science, it's kind of the pitchforks will come out for the old kind of science.

And it was interesting dynamics.

I think that the...

I have to say that I was fully aware of the fact that when you see sort of incipient paradigm shifts in science, the vigor of the negative response upon early introduction is a fantastic positive indicator of good long-term results.

So in other words, if people just don't care,