3 ms·
> There's an upper bound in computation (actually in nature), that a creation of something is capped by that thing's sophistication. The Lorenz attractor, Conw
by ctoth 3y ago
> There's an upper bound in computation (actually in nature), that a creation of something is capped by that thing's sophistication.
The Lorenz attractor, Conway's Game of Life, fractals, and of course... The humble Turing machine itself all argue against this idea.
Edit: Now it[0] is stuck in my head.
[0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QrztrxV9OtQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QrztrxV9OtQ
- bayindirh 3y agoThey're crowd engines. It's akin to how human clans can achieve more than a single human, but can scale up to a certain point. The funny thing is I had this discussion during my theory of computation course with my professor, and I'm trying to disprove it daily for decades. I was unable to find a single, real world example. Fractals are also found in the nature, however since we need to zoom into them, they end at a certain point. Also, nature is a fractal in a greater sense. Stars follow an orbit in a galaxy. Planets follow an orbit around a star. Satellites follow an orbit around a planet. While an edge case, flying bugs follow an orbit around a light source. At the end electrons follow an orbit around a nucleus. IOW, a fractal is not more complex than nature itself.