[FRIAM] The God Equation

Mon Apr 5 15:50:03 EDT 2021

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 <marcus at snoutfarm.com> 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 <friam-bounces at redfish.com> *On Behalf Of *Stephen Guerin
> *Sent:* Monday, April 5, 2021 11:57 AM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
> friam at redfish.com>
> *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
> _____________________________________________________________________
>
> Stephen.Guerin at Simtable.com <stephen.guerin at simtable.com>
>
> 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 ↙↙↙ <gepropella at gmail.com> 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/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20210405/47d98c53/attachment.html>