7 ms·

> We’ll be talking not about the actual model of space in our Physics Project, but instead about the cellular automaton systems I’ve studied for many years in w

> We’ll be talking not about the actual model of space in our Physics Project, but instead about the cellular automaton systems I’ve studied for many years in which space is effectively predefined to consist of a rigid array of cells, each with a discrete value updated according to a local rule. And here we go again. I'm sorry, but when it comes to physics I'm not interested in beautiful pictures of mathematical models. Show me the real world! Show we experiments and show me how your model can predict the result. That's the baseline. Once you've been able to do that then we can talk about the beautiful mathematical structures which emerges.

dr_dshiv 5y ago
“When it comes to science, I’m not interested in math! Show me the real world!” What is more real, math or your eyes? Another argument — Copernicus’s model didn’t fit the data as well as Ptolemy’s epicycles. But the math was so elegant that it led to a better model.
- strogonoff 5y ago
  It is a common fallacy that studying physical world, materials and time-space is somehow more “true” than math and philosophy. People seem to forget that all of the modern “hard science” came from philosophy, that the core assumption of causality pointing from the observed world to the observer (environment->neurons->thoughts) is unfalsifiable, that by digging deeper into material world we may well be studying pixels on a map as opposed to features of the true territory.
  - circlefavshape 5y ago
    It's not a fallacy, it's a philosophical position To me it's blindingly obvious that the physical world is reality, and that math/philosophy/etc are merely descriptions. Some people see it the other way around
    - whatshisface 5y ago
      Physics is a description, math is about what various assumptions imply, and it is independent of the universe because it's qualified by the assumptions made.
    - dr_dshiv 5y ago
      Circlefavshape, it’s a really good point. I think it is a position, too, which can be disputed. Does a star approximate a sphere or a sphere describe a star? Obviously the latter, right?
      - circlefavshape 5y ago
        Yes! Obvious to me at least :)
        dr_dshiv 5y ago
        Right, I see it the other way. But I don’t think it is obviously true that math is real, or even more real than “stars.” Pythagorean-Platonism and modern physics give lots of good reasons, however, why spheres are more real, more fundamental and more universal than stars.
        TuringTest 5y ago
        Both stars and math are real, each in their own way. The way maths are real is as ideas within human minds trying to describe unambiguous assumptions in a detailed formal system; mathematical objects like spheres certainly don't exist in nature, so their definition of 'real' is quite different from the definition of 'real' for physical entities.
        strogonoff 5y ago
        Curious, what are those definitions of “real” you speak of? Preferably non-circular.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- judofyr 5y ago
  > “When it comes to science, I’m not interested in math! Show me the real world!” Why are you quoting me, but changing the words and the meaning of my sentence?
  - MattRix 5y ago
    It’s called paraphrasing and I think they did it accurately. If not, then you should have been more clear in your original post.
    - Jtsummers 5y ago
      Paraphrasing should, generally, be marked as such or not put in quotes. Otherwise it's misleading, at best, and dishonest, at worst.
      - MattRix 5y ago
        In the context of a comment thread where someone can directly see the original text in the parent post, it’s fine.
- KineticLensman 5y ago
  > Copernicus’s model didn’t fit the data as well as Ptolemy’s epicycles. But the math was so elegant that it led to a better model I think the evolution here is really fascinating. Copernicus was correct in that he put the Sun, not the Earth, at the centre of the solar system, but was wrong in that he assumed the planetary orbits were circular. It wasn't until Kepler showed that the orbits were elliptical, with varying speeds, that the predicted positions better matched reality, and Newton's maths explained the effects (but not the mechanisms) of gravity.
  - throw0101a 5y ago
    > It wasn't until Kepler showed that the orbits were elliptical, with varying speeds, that the predicted positions better matched reality, and Newton's maths explained the effects (but not the mechanisms) of gravity. And while all of them had nice/elegant math, none had empirical evidence that anything of what they said matched reality. Things came close with Bradley and stellar aberration in ~1728: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Bradley https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Bradley Giuseppi Calandrelli finally directly measures parallax in α-Lyrae in 1806.
GistNoesis 5y ago
That's what is usually confusing about mathematicians. They don't think using a depth-first tree going straight to the goal like someone from IT would, but rather go breadth-first, painting plenty of interesting concepts along the way, and chaining them seemingly aimlessly together until they crystalize right toward the right solution seemingly magically. In his Physics Project Wolfram when talking about "Branchial space" is toying around the idea of recombining trees. Where one configuration of the state-space can be reached by various ways. This general concept of recombining trees has for example been used in generative flow networks https://yoshuabengio.org/2022/03/05/generative-flow-networks/ https://yoshuabengio.org/2022/03/05/generative-flow-networks... where they use it to directly generate molecule graphs that have useful properties among the sea of useless ones.
- yetihehe 5y ago
  > breadth-first, painting plenty of interesting concepts along the way, and chaining them seemingly aimlessly together until they crystalize right toward the right solution seemingly magically. Breadth-first is very usable when you need to find unknown ways/destinations or unknown ideas. Depth-first is good when you are sure of your destination.
  - blamestross 5y ago
    And the whole point of Wolfram's approach is to let go of the idea that we know where the destination is.
    - yetihehe 5y ago
      No, it is to map side roads which can lead to more discoveries. E=mc^2 is several nice letters, but is an equation which leads to many different discoveries outside of destination. Wolfram just sees a new promising land and he tries to show potential for new discoveries, but he needs people to help discover it.

dr_dshiv 5y ago

“When it comes to science, I’m not interested in math! Show me the real world!” What is more real, math or your eyes? Another argument — Copernicus’s model didn’t fit the data as well as Ptolemy’s epicycles. But the math was so elegant that it led to a better model.

strogonoff 5y ago
It is a common fallacy that studying physical world, materials and time-space is somehow more “true” than math and philosophy. People seem to forget that all of the modern “hard science” came from philosophy, that the core assumption of causality pointing from the observed world to the observer (environment->neurons->thoughts) is unfalsifiable, that by digging deeper into material world we may well be studying pixels on a map as opposed to features of the true territory.
- circlefavshape 5y ago
  It's not a fallacy, it's a philosophical position To me it's blindingly obvious that the physical world is reality, and that math/philosophy/etc are merely descriptions. Some people see it the other way around
  - whatshisface 5y ago
    Physics is a description, math is about what various assumptions imply, and it is independent of the universe because it's qualified by the assumptions made.
  - dr_dshiv 5y ago
    Circlefavshape, it’s a really good point. I think it is a position, too, which can be disputed. Does a star approximate a sphere or a sphere describe a star? Obviously the latter, right?
    - circlefavshape 5y ago
      Yes! Obvious to me at least :)
      - dr_dshiv 5y ago
        Right, I see it the other way. But I don’t think it is obviously true that math is real, or even more real than “stars.” Pythagorean-Platonism and modern physics give lots of good reasons, however, why spheres are more real, more fundamental and more universal than stars.
        TuringTest 5y ago
        Both stars and math are real, each in their own way. The way maths are real is as ideas within human minds trying to describe unambiguous assumptions in a detailed formal system; mathematical objects like spheres certainly don't exist in nature, so their definition of 'real' is quite different from the definition of 'real' for physical entities.
        strogonoff 5y ago
        Curious, what are those definitions of “real” you speak of? Preferably non-circular.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
judofyr 5y ago
> “When it comes to science, I’m not interested in math! Show me the real world!” Why are you quoting me, but changing the words and the meaning of my sentence?
- MattRix 5y ago
  It’s called paraphrasing and I think they did it accurately. If not, then you should have been more clear in your original post.
  - Jtsummers 5y ago
    Paraphrasing should, generally, be marked as such or not put in quotes. Otherwise it's misleading, at best, and dishonest, at worst.
    - MattRix 5y ago
      In the context of a comment thread where someone can directly see the original text in the parent post, it’s fine.
KineticLensman 5y ago
> Copernicus’s model didn’t fit the data as well as Ptolemy’s epicycles. But the math was so elegant that it led to a better model I think the evolution here is really fascinating. Copernicus was correct in that he put the Sun, not the Earth, at the centre of the solar system, but was wrong in that he assumed the planetary orbits were circular. It wasn't until Kepler showed that the orbits were elliptical, with varying speeds, that the predicted positions better matched reality, and Newton's maths explained the effects (but not the mechanisms) of gravity.
- throw0101a 5y ago
  > It wasn't until Kepler showed that the orbits were elliptical, with varying speeds, that the predicted positions better matched reality, and Newton's maths explained the effects (but not the mechanisms) of gravity. And while all of them had nice/elegant math, none had empirical evidence that anything of what they said matched reality. Things came close with Bradley and stellar aberration in ~1728: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Bradley https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Bradley Giuseppi Calandrelli finally directly measures parallax in α-Lyrae in 1806.

GistNoesis 5y ago

That's what is usually confusing about mathematicians. They don't think using a depth-first tree going straight to the goal like someone from IT would, but rather go breadth-first, painting plenty of interesting concepts along the way, and chaining them seemingly aimlessly together until they crystalize right toward the right solution seemingly magically. In his Physics Project Wolfram when talking about "Branchial space" is toying around the idea of recombining trees. Where one configuration of the state-space can be reached by various ways. This general concept of recombining trees has for example been used in generative flow networks https://yoshuabengio.org/2022/03/05/generative-flow-networks/ https://yoshuabengio.org/2022/03/05/generative-flow-networks... where they use it to directly generate molecule graphs that have useful properties among the sea of useless ones.

yetihehe 5y ago
> breadth-first, painting plenty of interesting concepts along the way, and chaining them seemingly aimlessly together until they crystalize right toward the right solution seemingly magically. Breadth-first is very usable when you need to find unknown ways/destinations or unknown ideas. Depth-first is good when you are sure of your destination.
- blamestross 5y ago
  And the whole point of Wolfram's approach is to let go of the idea that we know where the destination is.
  - yetihehe 5y ago
    No, it is to map side roads which can lead to more discoveries. E=mc^2 is several nice letters, but is an equation which leads to many different discoveries outside of destination. Wolfram just sees a new promising land and he tries to show potential for new discoveries, but he needs people to help discover it.