4 ms·
> The fact that some systems can be effectively modelled doesn't mean that all can be. Based on my understanding, the leading-edge of scientific research shows
by 9wzYQbTYsAIc 5y ago
> The fact that some systems can be effectively modelled doesn't mean that all can be.
Based on my understanding, the leading-edge of scientific research shows that “if the human mind can comprehend it, then there is a mathematical function for it”
Are you positing, then, that there simply are limits to what humans can understand? Or, rather, that some systems are just too complex to document properly?
- dredmorbius 5y ago1. No. 2. Yes, yes.
- 9wzYQbTYsAIc 5y ago1. http://neuralnetworksanddeeplearning.com/chap4.html http://neuralnetworksanddeeplearning.com/chap4.html, https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/parallel-distributed-processing-volume-1 https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/parallel-distributed-processi... 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_skepticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_skepticism
- dredmorbius 5y ago1. Halting problem, as a reductionist example. 2. I don't follow your point. I do appreciate the examples/links.