The CABDYN seminar series most definitely deserves a blog entry on brainsplurge. The presentation on Physics and Complexity by Professor David Sherrington in particular stimulated the writing of this post. In fact it was one slide that really stuck in my head (which I'v been cheek
y and copied).
First of all it seems physicists live in a weird and wonderful world. They are apparently searching for u = 0, a theory that defines everything, and have a license to think extremely big.
How I understand this slide is that if you're try solve a problem, and you have all the tools known to man at your fingertips, then you could say you're sitting on a optimisation curve where the green dot is on the graph. But, despite best efforts there might be a red point that is a far better solution to the problem, but with a huge branch of missing mathematics in
the way.
Well, as I heard things, it seems physicists are happy to draw graphs that say that point red exists, and even assign a probability to its existence (second graphic).
Is this delving into cogntive science, and saying that mathematical truth is a function of cognition, and by optimising the problem solver, we can optimise the problem.
No idea how to conclude this blog post apart from giving my apologies to my undoubted mistranslation of a great talk on 'simulated annealing' in ferrous metals, the brain, and the stock market.
y and copied).First of all it seems physicists live in a weird and wonderful world. They are apparently searching for u = 0, a theory that defines everything, and have a license to think extremely big.
How I understand this slide is that if you're try solve a problem, and you have all the tools known to man at your fingertips, then you could say you're sitting on a optimisation curve where the green dot is on the graph. But, despite best efforts there might be a red point that is a far better solution to the problem, but with a huge branch of missing mathematics in
the way.Well, as I heard things, it seems physicists are happy to draw graphs that say that point red exists, and even assign a probability to its existence (second graphic).
Is this delving into cogntive science, and saying that mathematical truth is a function of cognition, and by optimising the problem solver, we can optimise the problem.
No idea how to conclude this blog post apart from giving my apologies to my undoubted mistranslation of a great talk on 'simulated annealing' in ferrous metals, the brain, and the stock market.
No comments:
Post a Comment