The cool thing about Conway's Game of Life is that you can't predict it unless you do the full recursion, there is no shortcut. It relates to external undecidability of recurrent processes.
Learning about Innovation from Half a Century of Conway's Game of Life
11–20 of 66 posts
Re: Learning about Innovation from Half a Century of Conway's Game of Life
#12> if we want to get closer to the study of the pure phenomenon of innovation Innovation in the real world is often driven by the usual incentives of capitalism, like the basic need to out-compete the competitors by improving quality or lowering costs. I do not really think Game of Life serves as a model for innovation in the real world; it might serve as a model of the pure phenomenon of innovation. In the real world…
This is a myopic view.
How would we have gotten to the point of human history when capitalism became predominant if innovation is driven by capitalism?
Also, humanity is hardly an economy of capitalism any more. More similar to oligarchical capital feudalism.
Re: Learning about Innovation from Half a Century of Conway's Game of Life
#13Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
There's much to be said!
It's unfortunate that people seem to be prejudiced against Wolfram at this point, when the field has a lot to explore and learn from. Cellular automata are so powerful, yet so conceptually simple, it wouldn't surprise me if it did have revelations for more fundamental concepts of the universe.
What if the fundamentals of the universe are so simple it'd shock us, we just haven't looked at it from the right perspective yet, and we're over-complicating it?
Re: Learning about Innovation from Half a Century of Conway's Game of Life
#14The cool thing about Conway's Game of Life is that you can't predict it unless you do the full recursion, there is no shortcut. It relates to external undecidability of recurrent processes.
"Computation irreducibility"[0] is Mr. Wolfram's word for it and I believe it has some relationship to his CA physics, but I won't pretend I understand.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_irreducibility
Re: Learning about Innovation from Half a Century of Conway's Game of Life
#15> if we want to get closer to the study of the pure phenomenon of innovation Innovation in the real world is often driven by the usual incentives of capitalism, like the basic need to out-compete the competitors by improving quality or lowering costs. I do not really think Game of Life serves as a model for innovation in the real world; it might serve as a model of the pure phenomenon of innovation. In the real world…
I agree. Going back further, we see the innovation drivers were God providing for man (Bible), people providing for their needs/wants at a societal level (most systems), individuals pursuing what they enjoy, seemingly random acts that go against reason, etc.
This was enacted via specific processes (human brain) using resources and their environment within their constraints, sometimes surplus. It involved local and global phenomenon that were dependent and independent.
In short, it's nothing like cellular automata or most simplistic models of the world. We'd have to model the above within this world's laws to know what drives innovation among humans in this world.
Re: Learning about Innovation from Half a Century of Conway's Game of Life
#16[stub for offtopicness]
[flagged]
Re: Learning about Innovation from Half a Century of Conway's Game of Life
#17Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's much to be said!
It's unfortunate that people seem to be prejudiced against Wolfram at this point, when the field has a lot to explore and learn from. Cellular automata are so powerful, yet so conceptually simple, it wouldn't surprise me if it did have revelations for more fundamental concepts of the universe. What if the fundamentals of the universe are so simple it'd shock us, we just haven't looked at it from the right perspective…
People should be able to separate the merits of the work from the worker but people didn't just randomly decide to not like Wolfram. He is a narcissist of the highest order.
Re: Learning about Innovation from Half a Century of Conway's Game of Life
#18The cool thing about Conway's Game of Life is that you can't predict it unless you do the full recursion, there is no shortcut. It relates to external undecidability of recurrent processes.
"Computation irreducibility"[0] is Mr. Wolfram's word for it and I believe it has some relationship to his CA physics, but I won't pretend I understand. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_irreducibility
Yes. He relates an interpretation/definition of the second law of thermodynamics- the increasing entropy thing- to his irreducibility. And builds a computational theory about the role and importance of the physics "observer" in these analyses. Computational irreducibility is basically a statement both about the intrinsic requirement for computation to arrive at the future, and also about the computational capability of the "observer"- a model, or our brains- to arrive, or not, at the future more efficiently.
I am a computational person, not a scientist, and I think science people find him to be speaking total garbage. That seems a correct assessment to me. His model of the world from physics perspective seems wrong. Nevertheless personally I find his computational lens/bias to be useful.
Re: Learning about Innovation from Half a Century of Conway's Game of Life
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's unfortunate that people seem to be prejudiced against Wolfram at this point, when the field has a lot to explore and learn from. Cellular automata are so powerful, yet so conceptually simple, it wouldn't surprise me if it did have revelations for more fundamental concepts of the universe. What if the fundamentals of the universe are so simple it'd shock us, we just haven't looked at it from the right perspective…
People should be able to separate the merits of the work from the worker but people didn't just randomly decide to not like Wolfram. He is a narcissist of the highest order.
Perhaps he is, but the field isn't worth discounting nonetheless, and he's one of the most prominent researchers of it.
Re: Learning about Innovation from Half a Century of Conway's Game of Life
#20The cool thing about Conway's Game of Life is that you can't predict it unless you do the full recursion, there is no shortcut. It relates to external undecidability of recurrent processes.
Kaggle's competitions [0] do pull a lot of impressive little pieces of code, a number of which actually do take shortcuts. They do define a few things to make it more possible, and there is luck involved not just deterministic results.
[0] https://www.kaggle.com/c/conways-reverse-game-of-life-2020/o...