4 ms·
Reframe to the analogy of biology. Are living organisms simple? Did they scale? Will they continue to scale? On the one hand, we can look at the amount of stuf
by chipsy 12y ago
Reframe to the analogy of biology. Are living organisms simple? Did they scale? Will they continue to scale?
On the one hand, we can look at the amount of stuff that's going on at the cellular level and say "no, life is very complicated." On the other hand, we've gained an understanding of some of the basic constructs in a relatively short period of a few hundred years(vs. millions of years to evolve it) - so maybe there are some simple things about it, after all.
And we might say that it's failing to scale because it takes so much time for evolution to "progress". But if we are simply viewing complexity of life as the metric of progression, then we've done quite a few things to accelerate this progression, just within the time anyone reading this has been alive.
Our perspective is collectively narrowed by the existence of a marketplace and its momentary demands. The construct of "scaling" is imposed through it; but it is not a survival truth that you have to scale to be alive. A small system like a bacterium can remain relatively simple.
- westoncb 12y agoThe situation with programs is different, though. Being able to scale descriptions of various complexity (computer programs) is a different matter from the existential viability of phenomena that we must describe complexly (organisms). Nature doesn't use our descriptions to produce itself, and complexity is only an interesting metric because it says certain things about whether/how the human mind can think about things.