Not proof but: Reynolds, W. N., Wimberly, F. C.
Simulation validation using Causal Inference Theory with morphological constraints - November 2011 - Proceedings - Winter Simulation Conference --- Frank C. Wimberly 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, Santa Fe, NM 87505 505 670-9918 Santa Fe, NM On Mon, Apr 5, 2021, 1:07 PM Marcus Daniels <[email protected]> wrote: > That was Glen. (My explanation is just that we have limited short term > memory and can’t tolerate any other representation than terribly compressed > forms. So it is hard to gain confidence in simulations because we can’t > get them entirely in our heads, nor prove them correct, nor reason very > effectively about how mutations will change their behavior. The natural > world has no such hesitation.) > > > > *From:* Friam <[email protected]> *On Behalf Of *Stephen Guerin > *Sent:* Monday, April 5, 2021 11:57 AM > *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group < > [email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] The God Equation > > > > > > Marcus writes: > > Why "equation"? What is this obsession with equality or equivalence or > even similarity/symmetry? OK. I get it, equations help us ask questions > like "How does this thing over here transmogrify into that thing over > there?" And if you have a bunch of terms in the equation, you can "solve" > for this thing or that thing as a function of those other things. > > > I agree with your questioning, Marcus. Personally, if there is a unified > theory, I think it will come in the form of an algorithm and not equation. > In the same way natural selection is more of an algorithm than an equation. > Of course, my personal Quixotic ranting on Dual Field Theory / > Bi-Directional Path Tracing is of the algorithmic type. :-) > > > > David Krakauer speaks eloquently about if there is ever a Unified Theory > in complexity will probably be in the form of a computer program > (algorithmic). > https://youtu.be/0lDryEt80-g?t=108 > I linked to that point in the 1-hour talk, but highly recommend Friam > folk listen to the whole bit as David hits on a lot of points raised on the > list. > > Brian Arthur makes a similar point of the gradual transition of > representation in Science from equations to computationa/algorithmic and > points out that science took 500 years to transition from representing > numbers in Roman numerals to Arabic numerals. He sees the transition to > computational representations to take maybe 50 years (we're probably > 30-years into it). > > -S > _____________________________________________________________________ > > [email protected] <[email protected]> > > CEO, Simtable http://www.simtable.com > > 1600 Lena St #D1, Santa Fe, NM 87505 > > office: (505)995-0206 mobile: (505)577-5828 > > twitter: @simtable > > z <http://zoom.com/j/5055775828>oom.simtable.com > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 5, 2021 at 12:09 PM uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > https://bookshop.org/books/the-god-equation-the-quest-for-a-theory-of-everything-9780593396445/9780385542746 > > I'm tempted to buy this book. I doubt I will. But one of the sentences in > the blurb triggered me: > > "This would be the crowning achievement of science, a profound merging of > all the forces of nature into one beautiful, magnificent equation to unlock > the deepest mysteries in science: ..." > > Why "equation"? What is this obsession with equality or equivalence or > even similarity/symmetry? OK. I get it, equations help us ask questions > like "How does this thing over here transmogrify into that thing over > there?" And if you have a bunch of terms in the equation, you can "solve" > for this thing or that thing as a function of those other things. > > But why should any 1 thing from an N-tuple of things necessarily be > representable in terms of the remaining N-1 things? Where does that urge > come from? It sounds like a need for cognitive closure [⛧]. It dovetails > nicely with the free will thread where everyone's convinced of their own > brain farts and fond of giving authoritarian answers even though the > emperor's nude. > > The interview that sent me to Kaku's book is here: > https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/apr/03/string-theory-michio-kaku-aliens-god-equation-large-hadron-collider > wherein he suggests the Multiverse can help harmonize religious beliefs! > I'm tempted into pseudoscience nonsense to think that a feeling of free > will (and the more collective "adjacent possible") is not justified by some > meso-scopic biological evolutionary purpose, but because it's possible to > see the "shadows" of other universes [⛤]. 8^D > > > [⛧] https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1997-06343-011 > [⛤] I think I'm getting that from Deutsch's Fabric of Reality ... but who > knows at this point? > > -- > ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ > > - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam > un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > > - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam > un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ >
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
