4 ms·
That doesn't make much sense. If you take multiple systems and make them work in concert, you just get a bigger system.
by eru 1y ago
That doesn't make much sense.
If you take multiple systems and make them work in concert, you just get a bigger system.
- tossandthrow 1y agoConcerts - again plural. And naturally you only bring in appropriate instruments.
- svnt 1y agoTurtles all the way down?
- jijijijij 1y ago> If you take multiple systems and make them work in concert, you just get a bigger system. The conclusion may be wrong, but a "bigger system" can be larger than the sum of its constituents. So a system can have functions, give rise to complexity, neither of its subsystems feature. An example would be the thinking brain, which is made out of neurons/cells incapable of thought, which are made out of molecules incapable of reproduction, which are made from atoms incapable of catalyzing certain chemical reactions and so on.
- svnt 1y agoThis is just emergence, though? How is emergence related to completeness? This happens over and over with the relatively new popularization of a theory: the theory is proposed to be the solution to every missing thing in the same rough conceptual vector. It takes a lot more than just pointing in the general direction of complexity to propose the creation of a complete system, something which with present systems of understanding appears to be impossible.
- CuriouslyC 1y agoSort of, the guardrail here IMO is you have an ontology processor that basically routes to a submodule, and if there isn't a submodule present it errors out. It is one large system, but it's bounded by an understanding of its own knowledge.