Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Complexity Explained

complexityexplained.github.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 128 posts

Re: Complexity Explained

#111

Post by cardoni »

beaconstudios wrote: post #80
fallous wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this not similar to the philosophy of capitalism (at least as posited by Adam Smith) upon which much of modern Western thought rests? Arguably it's also very much reflected in John Locke's work as well as many philosophical foundations for democratic institutions.

yes there are some Western philosophical foundations which treat organisation as bottom-up at certain levels of abstraction - Adam Smith on the economic level, Locke and Hobbes on the sociopolitical level, and so on. I think we have a good cultural understanding of human beings as existing in a network. But we don't consistently apply this perspective. For example: - individualism treats individuals as good or bad, s…

> The Ship of Theseus, for example, is not a paradox when you take a bottom-up metaphysical approach.

What do you mean by, “bottom-up metaphysical approach.”

Re: Complexity Explained

#112

Post by ColinWright »

complexcity wrote: post #110
ColinWright wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, you actually mean that you hope not to see equations. But it's the equations that are the real meat of these things. Pictures are pretty, but they are generated from the equations, and the equations capture the understanding and the modelling. The equations are the content, it's the equations that let us do calculations, predictions, and quantitative analysis. What would you hope to see instead? I don't understan…

This feels very personal for you? The site is called complexity explained and I am challenging the question of ‘explained to whom’? Someone who already knows the notation or someone interested in having complexity explained to them? > Are you asking to understand these things without doing the actual mathematics? This is one of the saddest things that comes from academically trained mathematicians: some believe the n…

Ah, thanks. Now I know where you're coming from.

One of the saddest things I see is people who say they want to understand maths without actually putting in any work to do so. They want it "explained" so it's all obvious without expending any effort beyond reading about it.

Math isn't the notation, the notation isn't the math, and I don't know any mathematician who thinks it is. Notation is a tool for communication, and its survival and persistence is evidence that the fastest and most effective way to communicate deep understanding is for the one doing the understanding to learn the language being used.

But equations are more than a tool for communication, they are also for the processing and manipulation of concepts. Learn to read and understand those equations and you gain much more than just an understanding of these concepts here.

The pages "behind" the one submitted here do have explanations which are then quantified in the equations. You don't need to read the equations to get a general sense of what's going on, and once you do have a sense of what's going on, the equations are not too hard to read.

I'm guessing I'll never convince you, but I really do think your demands are misguided, and your characterisation of mathematicians is wrong.

> ... one of the saddest things that comes from academically trained mathematicians ... pretend to to retain a sense of superiority to those yet to learn it.

That's a pretty nasty thing to say, and to be honest, I rather resent it. I'm also saddened that it's your experience of mathematicians, as most of the ones I know spend much of their time genuinely trying to help people understand stuff, and get joy out of seeing the lights go on. I'm sorry you haven't met them.

Re: Complexity Explained

#113

Post by complexcity »

ColinWright wrote: post #112
complexcity wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This feels very personal for you? The site is called complexity explained and I am challenging the question of ‘explained to whom’? Someone who already knows the notation or someone interested in having complexity explained to them? > Are you asking to understand these things without doing the actual mathematics? This is one of the saddest things that comes from academically trained mathematicians: some believe the n…

Ah, thanks. Now I know where you're coming from. One of the saddest things I see is people who say they want to understand maths without actually putting in any work to do so. They want it "explained" so it's all obvious without expending any effort beyond reading about it. Math isn't the notation, the notation isn't the math, and I don't know any mathematician who thinks it is. Notation is a tool for communication,…

I will simply reiterate what bookends my unedited original comment:

> I hope to see the end of LaTex only explanations.

> Show both if you can.

Re: Complexity Explained

#114

Post by beaconstudios »

cardoni wrote: post #111
beaconstudios wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yes there are some Western philosophical foundations which treat organisation as bottom-up at certain levels of abstraction - Adam Smith on the economic level, Locke and Hobbes on the sociopolitical level, and so on. I think we have a good cultural understanding of human beings as existing in a network. But we don't consistently apply this perspective. For example: - individualism treats individuals as good or bad, s…

> The Ship of Theseus, for example, is not a paradox when you take a bottom-up metaphysical approach. What do you mean by, “bottom-up metaphysical approach.”

if all of reality is just emergent phenomena (excluding some presumed "bottom thing" that we haven't found yet), there is no such thing as an "object" as a coherent whole - just collections of collections of collections. The ship of theseus does not exist as a distinct entity with clear boundaries - it is just the thing that Theseus uses to sail. If you replace every piece, as long as Theseus considers the ship his own then it's still the ship of Theseus, or in other words, identity is perceptual and based on a continuous structure or pattern rather than the present constituent pieces being all together.

Re: Complexity Explained

#115

Post by ddoeth »

ColinWright wrote: post #2

I got three slides in and the "Swooshing!" was driving me nuts. I'm sure the content is fine, and the presentation is simply gorgeous . For me ... unusable. Edit: In the end, at the end, I found the PDF. It seems a little light on content, but I guess I'm not the audience. Not sure who the audience would be, though.

What really bothered me was that the animation only started when the new slide hit the top of the page. When I was not scrolling perfectly, the top most rows of text where already hidden.

Re: Complexity Explained

#116

Post by kaba0 »

hntrader wrote: post #106
hliyan wrote: post #23

I recently had the (possibly flawed) epiphany that all behavior is emergent . If you think about it, all things that we consider objects are just semi-permanent aggregations of fundamental particles that we recognize and label as objects for convenience of thought. When the patterns in such aggregations are outside the space and time scales that allow human minds to recognize them, the only label available is "comple…

So-called emergent properties are just categorical abstractions that we've created in our mind to cognitively handle the complexity of the macroscopic world around us. These are evolved mental heuristics. There's nothing beyond fundamental physics that's required, in principle, to explain these emergent properties, so in this sense I'm a philosophical reductionist. Emergence is just an illusion created by our brain's…

There is no point in talking about the temperature of a single atom/molecule, but it is an important statistical property of a group of molecules with unique “features”.

The sum is more capable than each of it’s constituents. You could argue that a hyper-intelligent entity can explain everything due to temperature by the simple movements of atoms but that is not true, since with temperature, we can reason about a system we know only one property about, while the said entity would have to know every detail about every atom. In other words, we created a new thing that could not have existed alone. (Perhaps it is not the best example, but there are countless others :) )

Re: Complexity Explained

#117

Post by andrepd »

complexcomplex wrote: post #81
andrepd wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you say "LaTeX", do you mean... maths? I'm confused about what's your criticism.

I sniff an air of condescension; what’s your goals therein? Are you posturing your ‘maths’ knowledge? I thought I was explicit in my criticism of “notation only” explanations, but perhaps a positive example would be more explicit. https://github.com/barbagroup/CFDPython This repo explains computational fluid dynamics (an example of a complex system!) from “what is a python function” to “2d Navier stokes”. It shows th…

There was no such condescension.

I'm still not sure of what you mean by "notation only explanations". Do you have a problem with standard mathematical notation? Or with explanations that involve mathematics at all?

Can you give me an example of what you consider to be a "bad LaTeX explanation"?

For what's worth, I find your link infinitely more confusing than the few pages of Landau which cover the same topic... ;) The explanation in your link is lost among details of implementation and python syntax, whereas a clear and lucid explanation in a good textbook like Landau lets you understand the actual physics of what's going on. Of course your mileage may vary, and at any rate a few animated graphs are very valuable as a complement to aid in that understanding. This is a relatively recent tool that should be embraced more.

Re: Complexity Explained

#118

Post by andrepd »

neuronic wrote: post #93
andrepd wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Certain topics like "complexity theory" or even "artificial intelligence" attract this sort of thing. It's easy to appear that you're saying insightful things without actually saying anything at all.

I have an entire undergrad degree in complex systems theory, found it great and useful, yet in the instance of discussing this website I agree with you.

Likewise, I had a great deal of my studies occupied by quantum mechanics, yet it's also another topic that attracts cranks and people saying nothing of substance, at an alarming rate ;)

Re: Complexity Explained

#119

Post by hntrader »

kaba0 wrote: post #116
hntrader wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So-called emergent properties are just categorical abstractions that we've created in our mind to cognitively handle the complexity of the macroscopic world around us. These are evolved mental heuristics. There's nothing beyond fundamental physics that's required, in principle, to explain these emergent properties, so in this sense I'm a philosophical reductionist. Emergence is just an illusion created by our brain's…

There is no point in talking about the temperature of a single atom/molecule, but it is an important statistical property of a group of molecules with unique “features”. The sum is more capable than each of it’s constituents. You could argue that a hyper-intelligent entity can explain everything due to temperature by the simple movements of atoms but that is not true, since with temperature, we can reason about a sys…

These emergent properties that you mention (temperature, intelligence) can in principle be described by the individual components (particles) along with the fundamental laws of physics that govern their interactions. The emergent property that we observe is just a cognitive abstraction designed to strip away the complexity and describe the aggregate behaviour of the group of individual components.

Our mind was designed to work this way. The most advantageous way to perceive a rock is as a single object with properties pertaining to utility (hardness, potential weapon, etc). This takes the least cognitive load and is the most beneficial way to perceive the world from a fitness perspective.

There's nothing epiphenomenal above and beyond the individual components (and the laws governing their interactions) except in our minds. In that specific sense, emergent properties are an invention.

Re: Complexity Explained

#120

Post by rramadass »

ReactiveJelly wrote: post #38
beaconstudios wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the reality of bottom up organisation, and is basically a completely different metaphysics to the current Western modernist one. Going further down this path of thought will lead you to ideas like constructivism, teleology, and non-dualism - all ideas that have long philosophical histories but are currently out of vogue.

It would be nice if someone could untie them from religion, make them simpler to understand, and bring them back into vogue, if they're so useful.

It has already been done. One of the oldest Schools of Indian Philosophy called Samkhya (which is atheistic) has a very beautiful model of the Universe/Elements/Evolution of the World which has influenced all other Schools (including Buddhism) and is worth studying.

You might find the book Modern Samkhya: Ancient Spirituality for the Contemporary Atheist a good starting point.

Post reply on HN