3 ms·

Who would do that? What does it prove to do that? Describe a metaphysical house that could never exist. One with mc esher stairs and melted clocks everywhere.

Who would do that? What does it prove to do that? Describe a metaphysical house that could never exist. One with mc esher stairs and melted clocks everywhere. Who would do that? What would it prove to do that? Yes computers can be a waste of time.. what's your point? You want me to tell you how to improve science with computing to save you from simplicity, or should I just instead do it...

ben_w 4y ago
What did you mean by "simplicity" when you wrote: > She redefines science to require simplicity, when it simply doesn't require it. The point of my example is to show that you don't add unnecessary complexity if you don't need to. But if you think that weather and plasma physics are examples of "ghastly complex" things, you're not talking about the same category of complexity as the one every scientist will argue against. It's the difference between saying "go is hard" because it took until AlphaGo to make an AI to play it well vs. "go is easy" because the rules fit on a matchbox in a normal font.
- barrysteve 4y ago
  You're not adding the complexity, it's out there. One would hope we're aiming at modelling nature. The human body is incredibly complex and making simple theories about it doesn't help so much. As you said, Go is incredibly complex and it took ML to tackle it. ML is a good case, is it simple or is it complex? The ideas we use to communicate the program are simple enough. It's polynomial regression or it's a neural network. Understandable ideal simple terms, but what the program practically executes is much more complex. Why ditch understanding what's going on under the hood so that we can live in the land of ideal simplicities? Those usually come last after you get what's going on and have refined your practicalities down. We need better tools for everything and we're not going to get there by ignoring the practical and complex parts. Sabine is happy to kill off looking at complexity because Penrose is hypothesizing about the nature of life under the guise of pre-big bang physics. Okay I get her relationship to Penrose.. why do I have to stop exploring complexity again? Cause it's not divinely simple.. and/or because she said so? But again I admit I waste my own time and maybe yours, we wont merge our views. The eagle never lost as much time as he did, talking to the raven.
  - ben_w 4y ago
    As I say, you're using the words "complex" and "simple" in a fundamentally different way than Sabine (and most every scientist) is using them. For science and scientists, it's the complexity/simplicity of the rules that matters. You're arguing against a point Sabine doesn't make.
    - barrysteve 4y ago
      Yes I understand that, you missed the point. The rules are just an idealized form of something more complex.

ben_w 4y ago

What did you mean by "simplicity" when you wrote: > She redefines science to require simplicity, when it simply doesn't require it. The point of my example is to show that you don't add unnecessary complexity if you don't need to. But if you think that weather and plasma physics are examples of "ghastly complex" things, you're not talking about the same category of complexity as the one every scientist will argue against. It's the difference between saying "go is hard" because it took until AlphaGo to make an AI to play it well vs. "go is easy" because the rules fit on a matchbox in a normal font.

barrysteve 4y ago
You're not adding the complexity, it's out there. One would hope we're aiming at modelling nature. The human body is incredibly complex and making simple theories about it doesn't help so much. As you said, Go is incredibly complex and it took ML to tackle it. ML is a good case, is it simple or is it complex? The ideas we use to communicate the program are simple enough. It's polynomial regression or it's a neural network. Understandable ideal simple terms, but what the program practically executes is much more complex. Why ditch understanding what's going on under the hood so that we can live in the land of ideal simplicities? Those usually come last after you get what's going on and have refined your practicalities down. We need better tools for everything and we're not going to get there by ignoring the practical and complex parts. Sabine is happy to kill off looking at complexity because Penrose is hypothesizing about the nature of life under the guise of pre-big bang physics. Okay I get her relationship to Penrose.. why do I have to stop exploring complexity again? Cause it's not divinely simple.. and/or because she said so? But again I admit I waste my own time and maybe yours, we wont merge our views. The eagle never lost as much time as he did, talking to the raven.
- ben_w 4y ago
  As I say, you're using the words "complex" and "simple" in a fundamentally different way than Sabine (and most every scientist) is using them. For science and scientists, it's the complexity/simplicity of the rules that matters. You're arguing against a point Sabine doesn't make.
  - barrysteve 4y ago
    Yes I understand that, you missed the point. The rules are just an idealized form of something more complex.