3 ms·
I don't understand the need for a labyrinth. Why not simple particles in solution?
by smitty1e 3y ago
I don't understand the need for a labyrinth. Why not simple particles in solution?
- BSEdlMMldESB 3y agoI don't understand it either, but I do think it reflects what academia really feels like and I imagine the closer the academic research is to real world industry uses, the more obstacles there will be (due to 'trade secrecy', and the like)
- autonomousErwin 3y agoI think it's the metaphor for spending your research career banging your head against a wall (in this case - literally)
- gwern 3y agoA maze can be thought of a series of binary choices, so you'd get a different distribution if you spawn particles from successful ones than from a random walk in 2D. However, I don't think this gets you any better a model of scientific discovery than existing statistical models of combinatorial innovations (https://www.newthingsunderthesun.com/pub/2elwp33m/release/2#combinatorial-innovation-and-technological-progress-in-the-very-long-run https://www.newthingsunderthesun.com/pub/2elwp33m/release/2#...), and it may be the same as some others.
- teekert 3y agoThe walls are obstacles for moving on. Like storage and transport are obstacles for solar energy. But once we find solutions, we hit a next barrier. They can be large (ie not so much changes) or small (we get a series of follow up innovations, because energy has just becomes much cheaper and more abundant).