3 ms·
He's right and he's wrong: Graphs are wonderful datastructures to mimic/simulate complex phenomena realistically. Also, simple computational rules, especially w
by loopz 6y ago
He's right and he's wrong: Graphs are wonderful datastructures to mimic/simulate complex phenomena realistically. Also, simple computational rules, especially with feedback-loops, may yield complex output of intriguing complexity. It's very seductive reductionism.
But from most simple observations in nature, there's no direct causal link between the two, . Intuitively, we "know" everything originated from a "Big Bang", but we don't have proof how or if complexity arose over time, or was it always intrinsinct to cosmos, and wether the question itself have any measurable implications..
So graphs and computational feedback remain interesting and time-consuming avenues for research, but it's a big leap from superficial studies of outputs ("how") and finding a graph-formula that would explain all possible universes ie. from a "Big Bang" point ("why").
A solid unchanging theory would need to address enough "why"'s in order to be properly backed up by predictions explaining the observable physical universe, to be relevant. If the theory can include new hypothesis and rules at any time, it's not a theory, but a container for information and rulesets (ie. a Turing-complete system).
Of course, you can "curve fit" anything inside a graph. They're great at it for simulations and games, and are already used everywhere you do computationally interesting complex stuff. There's just no indication or proof that the physical world matches any model created by humans living within the universe. Maybe someone humble will stumble unto some simple explanation, but so far, the deeper we go, it seems even experts get lost in the tough complexities and unintuitive laws we assume govern microcosmos and energy.
It seems to boil down to difference between theory and practice. Pure mathematics and observations are theory, while how to simulate and mimic, is more engineering and providing interesting outputs. If we combine the two, we can build universes.. (ok, off the pipe for now :)
- HourglassFR 6y ago> Intuitively, we "know" everything originated from a "Big Bang" I don't think we have any intuition about this at all, we are however fairly accustomed to this idea with old creation myths that still loudly resonates throughout culture, and of course now that it has been the scientific orthodoxy for 50 years or so. But yeah I definitly agree with you on the "curve fit" thing. I would not be surprised that, if one day we do find a comprehensive theory of everything (assuming this is even possible or even have a meaning at all), it would be possible to express it in this very general framework of hyper-graph re-writing itself according to some rule. That doesn't mean it's a good idea to so. And in any case, at the end of the day, like everything else humans do, science is a social process. The goal is to get closer to truth (whatever that means), but you won't get there by ignoring any input, and insist that everyone should drop whatever they are doing and come admire/help you on your work.