3 ms·
I’d use another, less charitable, word. Finding the laws of physics isn’t any different than finding a winning play in Go, except the search space is vastly la
by BadThink6655321 8y ago
I’d use another, less charitable, word. Finding the laws of physics isn’t any different than finding a winning play in Go, except the search space is vastly larger. If we aren’t going to pay for things like the Superconducting Supercollider, we aren’t going to pay for a brute-force search to find the laws of physics. We have to use heuristics to guide the search. “Beauty” has worked in the past (Gell-Mann has a TED talk on this) so there’s no reason to abandon it - until it doesn’t work. Then we’ll try something else. In addition it took, what, 300 years to prove Fermat’s Last Theorem? Good grief. For hard problems, 40 years is nothing.
- sgt101 8y agoBrute force search isn't what solved Go. What was needed was a model with the right information, not all the information or the most elegant or compressive version of the information, but the right information. What "right" means in this context is what we need to figure out!