> "Let’s bring it all together now. By studying cellular automata, we can observe patterns which correspond to a chaotic map of those patterns. By looking at th

> "Let’s bring it all together now. By studying cellular automata, we can observe patterns which correspond to a chaotic map of those patterns. By looking at that, we are able to make deeper inferences about the overall total pattern by knowing that what we observe in a small scale will also exist at n+1 scale." Okay, this follows themes of fractal self-similarity, very interesting stuff. However, the next leap sounds completely unsupported. One reason is that physics often doesn't scale like this (see gravity and why we don't have elephant-sized ants): > "Meaning, when we see the loner slime mold evolve the other parts, it’s reasonable to infer through scale that loner humans may also contribute evolutionary information." The cellular automata stuff sounds valid mathematically, though I'm no expert, but the leap to other areas of science? Even the jump to slime mold evolution... I mean, where is the valuable addition? Slime mold evolution doesn't seem to require any cellular automata theory to understand. It's an interesting biological system that has aspects of both independent microbial cellular life as well as multicellular cooperation under stress conditions. Plus the tedious self-promotion, I've know academics like that, the type who march into every room tooting their own horn and banging their drum. Working for people like that is a big mistake for many reasons. For example, if your results disagree with theirs they'll go overboard trying to sabotage you. Your only possible roles in that situation will be those of loyal sycophant, or, if you don't follow along, excommunicated heretic.