5 ms·

How chaos rules complex systems and our existence

14 points by niels 17y ago

kirse 17y ago
Today we try hard to find a theory of everything in physics, something that fully explains and links together all known physical phenomena. But I believe that this isn't possible. This really touches on the philosophy of science, and I don't think this will ever be possible inside the "box of spacetime" that we exist in. I would love to see a complete explanation that explains Bell's Theorem in alignment with the phenomenon of quantum entanglement before I die, but I'm pretty convinced that we have reached the ultimate limitations of how far we can zoom into the wall on our own little "box" that we live in.
- jerf 17y ago
  We can not, from within the system, conclusively prove that we have found the correct laws. For all we know, in a thousand years, the laws of physics will completely change, with absolutely no clue given in advance. And I don't mean different vacuum states or anything like that, I mean, completely different physics. We can't prove it won't happen, only be Bayesian-very-sure it won't, which isn't the same. However, nothing necessarily stops us from determining the laws of physics all the way to the bottom. There's no contradiction there, only a question of whether they are "too far" away for us to see them or we are unable to gather enough information, not because it is fundamentally impossible to figure out the substrate you are running on but simply because the substrate itself happens to be too fuzzy to tell. Already, we're to the point where if you built a universe off of the standard model and added some hacks to cover the cases where we know it doesn't work, you could probably build a correct-enough simulation to support life. (Also, rather than posting again: I strongly disagree with the author's claim that the real world is more complex than math. Math is radically, infinitely more complex. The real world is a vanishing subset of possible mathematical structures, regardless of what shape it takes.)
  - kirse 17y ago
    Already, we're to the point where if you built a universe off of the standard model and added some hacks to cover the cases where we know it doesn't work, you could probably build a correct-enough simulation to support life. You really think we even understand .1% of all there is to know about this universe?
    - sp332 17y ago
      That's definitely not what he said, especially in the part you quoted. He just said we know enough to do one thing.
    - jerf 17y ago
      There's a meme where it is chic to claim ignorance about even things that we know. Yes, the truth is that we do in fact know a lot about particle physics now. The problem with knowing things about the universe doesn't lie at that level. The problem is knowing what 10^40 particles are up to at any given point in time. You are conflating understanding the laws with understanding all implications of the laws.
  - deleted 17y ago
    [deleted]
spot 17y ago
Interesting post, but I don't agree with its conclusion. The "Theory of Everything" in Physics is equivalent to finding the axioms of Mathematics. It does not give us a way to determine the truth of any physical law (say about climatology, just like knowing the rules of Conway's Life doesn't allow you to determine the status of any theorem about it) and so it does not cross the halting problem. The relative "complexity" of math vs physics is not relevant and anyway, until we have a TOE we don't know its complexity.

14 points by niels 17y ago

kirse 17y ago

Today we try hard to find a theory of everything in physics, something that fully explains and links together all known physical phenomena. But I believe that this isn't possible. This really touches on the philosophy of science, and I don't think this will ever be possible inside the "box of spacetime" that we exist in. I would love to see a complete explanation that explains Bell's Theorem in alignment with the phenomenon of quantum entanglement before I die, but I'm pretty convinced that we have reached the ultimate limitations of how far we can zoom into the wall on our own little "box" that we live in.

jerf 17y ago
We can not, from within the system, conclusively prove that we have found the correct laws. For all we know, in a thousand years, the laws of physics will completely change, with absolutely no clue given in advance. And I don't mean different vacuum states or anything like that, I mean, completely different physics. We can't prove it won't happen, only be Bayesian-very-sure it won't, which isn't the same. However, nothing necessarily stops us from determining the laws of physics all the way to the bottom. There's no contradiction there, only a question of whether they are "too far" away for us to see them or we are unable to gather enough information, not because it is fundamentally impossible to figure out the substrate you are running on but simply because the substrate itself happens to be too fuzzy to tell. Already, we're to the point where if you built a universe off of the standard model and added some hacks to cover the cases where we know it doesn't work, you could probably build a correct-enough simulation to support life. (Also, rather than posting again: I strongly disagree with the author's claim that the real world is more complex than math. Math is radically, infinitely more complex. The real world is a vanishing subset of possible mathematical structures, regardless of what shape it takes.)
- kirse 17y ago
  Already, we're to the point where if you built a universe off of the standard model and added some hacks to cover the cases where we know it doesn't work, you could probably build a correct-enough simulation to support life. You really think we even understand .1% of all there is to know about this universe?
  - sp332 17y ago
    That's definitely not what he said, especially in the part you quoted. He just said we know enough to do one thing.
  - jerf 17y ago
    There's a meme where it is chic to claim ignorance about even things that we know. Yes, the truth is that we do in fact know a lot about particle physics now. The problem with knowing things about the universe doesn't lie at that level. The problem is knowing what 10^40 particles are up to at any given point in time. You are conflating understanding the laws with understanding all implications of the laws.
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]

spot 17y ago

Interesting post, but I don't agree with its conclusion. The "Theory of Everything" in Physics is equivalent to finding the axioms of Mathematics. It does not give us a way to determine the truth of any physical law (say about climatology, just like knowing the rules of Conway's Life doesn't allow you to determine the status of any theorem about it) and so it does not cross the halting problem. The relative "complexity" of math vs physics is not relevant and anyway, until we have a TOE we don't know its complexity.