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

Digital astronomy with cellular automata

kylehovey.github.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 23 posts

Re: Digital astronomy with cellular automata

#12

Post by orange_fritter »

bmitc wrote: post #5
bmc7505 wrote: post #3

“Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes.” — E. W. Dijkstra

Astronomy actually is sort of about telescopes. Without telescopes, astronomy doesn't exist beyond some basic things. That's of course not true about computation, which is what I assume he meant by "computer science". Maybe a better analogy would have been astrophysics or cosmology.

Astronomy existed before telescopes. Jupiter's movements were noted well before glass was invented.

Re: Digital astronomy with cellular automata

#13

Post by bmitc »

orange_fritter wrote: post #12
bmitc wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Astronomy actually is sort of about telescopes. Without telescopes, astronomy doesn't exist beyond some basic things. That's of course not true about computation, which is what I assume he meant by "computer science". Maybe a better analogy would have been astrophysics or cosmology.

Astronomy existed before telescopes. Jupiter's movements were noted well before glass was invented.

That's what I meant by basic things.

Re: Digital astronomy with cellular automata

#14

Post by mk_stjames »

Given the nature of the complexity of some of the 'devices' generated in the GoL for some rules, doesn't the fact that in this study, the generation space was set constant at 100x100 cells potentially mean that the results could be strongly tied that that arbitrary choice- and that re-running the simulations with a significantly larger board size could result in markedly different complexity categorizations? That was my thought on first read through at least. Would be interesting to do the same thing at multiple scales, to see if the results hold. There's a whole other study there then in determining the potential complexity class dependence on observed board size.

Re: Digital astronomy with cellular automata

#15

Post by ngcc_hk »

bmc7505 wrote: post #3

“Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes.” — E. W. Dijkstra

Missing the word “just”.

In Buddhism there is a school that is different from those which think mainly about pure and trying just be in n. Or all beings in n. It is all about existence and emptiness together. And not Or.

You can still think about computer algorithms without a way to realise it though. And astronomy without observation as well. But what is the point.

Re: Digital astronomy with cellular automata

#16

Post by hayley-patton »

bmitc wrote: post #5
bmc7505 wrote: post #3

“Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes.” — E. W. Dijkstra

Astronomy actually is sort of about telescopes. Without telescopes, astronomy doesn't exist beyond some basic things. That's of course not true about computation, which is what I assume he meant by "computer science". Maybe a better analogy would have been astrophysics or cosmology.

There's a similar sentiment in the first SICP lecture https://youtu.be/-J_xL4IGhJA?t=48>, when Harold Abelson brings up the examples of computers and computer science, physics and particle accelerators, biology and microscopes and Petri dishes, and geometry and surveying instruments. All those tools definitely help, and indeed one would struggle at this stage to research without them, but the tools aren't the goals of the sciences.

I'm not sure what Dijkstra would have thought the "goal" of computer science was, but in the lecture Abelson seemed to think it was about describing procedures and processes in a formal manner.

Re: Digital astronomy with cellular automata

#19

Post by bmitc »

hayley-patton wrote: post #16
bmitc wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Astronomy actually is sort of about telescopes. Without telescopes, astronomy doesn't exist beyond some basic things. That's of course not true about computation, which is what I assume he meant by "computer science". Maybe a better analogy would have been astrophysics or cosmology.

There's a similar sentiment in the first SICP lecture https://youtu.be/-J_xL4IGhJA?t=48 >, when Harold Abelson brings up the examples of computers and computer science, physics and particle accelerators, biology and microscopes and Petri dishes, and geometry and surveying instruments. All those tools definitely help, and indeed one would struggle at this stage to research without them, but the tools aren't the goals…

That’s a good link to share and one I thought about earlier, as I have watched that series before. However, as usual, Abelson and Sussman put together a much more coherent and thoughtful argument.

I know what Dijkstra was going for, but I do think the astronomy analogy, though while pithy in his usual attention grabbing style, is not accurate because telescopes practically define astronomy.

What you linked is what anyone wanting to think about this line of thinking more should watch. I almost feel I should watch those lectures once a year.

Post reply on HN