Okay then

Discussion in 'Science' started by garyd, Aug 29, 2018.

  1. garyd

    garyd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2012
    Messages:
    26,739
    Likes Received:
    3,220
    Trophy Points:
    113
  2. Jonsa

    Jonsa Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
    Messages:
    32,969
    Likes Received:
    5,077
    Trophy Points:
    113
    the title is a bit much, but I get what she is saying.

    Continuing "intelligent" computational power advancements will naturally change the methods of theoretical physicists. And, as the writer suggests, as this computational power enables visualizations, massive iterative abilities, obscure pattern identification/matching, etc. previously required an enormous amount of "grunt" work. Less grunt more creative problem solving.

    OTOH, the math is still fundamental to the software systems, its just that most of it will be presented in suitably abstracted forms.
     
    tecoyah likes this.
  3. HereWeGoAgain

    HereWeGoAgain Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2016
    Messages:
    14,461
    Likes Received:
    8,179
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The suggestion of the op is true to the extent that leaps of intellect are not required. There is no doubt that computational physics can handle what we know far better than any human. And it can search for solutions that would require many lifetimes for scientists. It allows us to search for every possible relationship no matter how twisted or unlikely candidate solutions may seem.

    A theory of everything has proven to be far more elusive than ever imagined. If it exists in some complex form given what we know, or even due to seemingly nonsensical relationships that we might normally ignore, a computer will likely find it by trial and error. A computer could have discovered Relativity. It could have run through all possible solutions including the counter-intuitive solution that time varies while the speed of light remains a constant for all observers. But a TOE may require a grand new insight that a computer cannot provide. It may require the imagination to consider a new idea that goes beyond any configuration of known laws, principles, or concepts. It may require that we consider the ridiculous.

    For example, consider the paper recently published suggesting that stars may be acting intelligently. Not to say it's true, but as an example, no computer would ever discover that solution. It would merely arrange all possible physical laws and variables in search of an obscure relationship that doesn't exist. It couldn't consider the notion of consciousness because we have no physical model for it to reference.

    Simply stated, we can't know what the final solution requires until we have discovered it.

    I suggest that the OP try to come up with more descriptive titles. "Okay then" could mean anything. If you are smart enough to consider the argument discussed, surely you can manage an intelligent title. Your title suggests otherwise.
     
    Last edited: Aug 29, 2018
  4. Jonsa

    Jonsa Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
    Messages:
    32,969
    Likes Received:
    5,077
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I agree that computers provides the brute force modelling of all possible programmed parameters, but only human's can provide the creativity/inspiration to "think out of the box". A computer has no imagination and unless programmed to identify possible "intelligent behavior" characteristics in individual star activity (whatever the hell those might be) would never be able to posit such.
     
  5. HereWeGoAgain

    HereWeGoAgain Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2016
    Messages:
    14,461
    Likes Received:
    8,179
    Trophy Points:
    113
  6. Jonsa

    Jonsa Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
    Messages:
    32,969
    Likes Received:
    5,077
    Trophy Points:
    113
    thanks for the the link.

    A classic example of "thinking outside the box", but the author isn't positing a scientific hypothesis, a this point it squarely falls into the realm of philosophy.
     
    Last edited: Aug 29, 2018
  7. HereWeGoAgain

    HereWeGoAgain Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2016
    Messages:
    14,461
    Likes Received:
    8,179
    Trophy Points:
    113
    He cites evidence that stars are acting to preserve themselves though outgassing. And we have no way to explain their behavior. He alleges that all alternative explanations for their orbits have failed.

    BTW, Superstring or M-Theory are technically still philosophical propositions. Some argue they always will be,
     
    Last edited: Aug 29, 2018

Share This Page