What is an ideal project, I do not know?
Perhaps, the question itself has an answer -
to work towards an ideal problem,
which needs an ideal answer - rigid answer.
Philosophies differ, I agree, in the approaches.
Complex systems are too vaguely put up -
an attractor numerically evolves - its real within screen.
Outside screen, does it exist? Perhaps, no.
What exists outside computer?
Some unresolved questions, I think.
Questions that need to be pondered again and again.
Navier-Stokes regularity problem is one of them
for it is unresolved mathematically. This is the depth of human pursuits.
Other problems - how about quantum gravity?
Uniting two theories is to accept flaws with both of them.
Turns out relativity is flawless more than quantum mechanics.
Quantum mechanics is a philosophical position -
on what exists before measurement - something or nothing?
But isn't this question itself part of constructing universe?
Within these hypotheses, people would always differ.
But accepting hypotheses as part of the program
allows one to get over one's preferences and interests.
Not just that, but - simple theories or construction are attractive
than deterministic theories which are wide, tedious, and on everything.
Simple laws are beautiful, simple relations are easy to understand -
something like the hypercomputation relation - very simple, very beautiful.
The question is not about within screen or outside screen,
but that of simplicity yet powerfulness, in a model.
And still connection to fundamentals in some sense.
Chaotic shift maps, though poetic, map what they intend to -
there is no need to question their trustworthiness -
just accept their beauty and move forward.
No comments:
Post a Comment