Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 7570732" data-attributes="member: 4937">You sound like the expert in this, but it seems to me that I can describe all the what it is by simply identifying where all the constituents are.&nbsp; That is to say, in both universes I could simply say: proton, electron, proton, electron, etc.&nbsp; And as long as I labeled where all the parts where and where they were going (ignoring some known problems with that), I would still have a complete description.&nbsp; Indeed, does it take more or less information to describe 'bunch of protons and electrons' compared to 'U238'?&nbsp; Does the fact that things are frequently organized in a regular manner increase or decrease the information?&nbsp; (Seriously asking here, I don't know.)&nbsp;&nbsp; I would say most times.&nbsp; I'll be happy to take correction over when my word choice is sloppy and ill-considered.&nbsp; I certainly wasn't thinking of this distinction until you brought it up clearly.I get where you are going with that, but I suspect that in reality the wrist watch is similar to a three body problem where the pieces are in a stable, regularized orbit - such as a solar system which has been orbiting a star for millions of years and so is likely to do so for millions of years to come.&nbsp; The constraints on the system make it seems as if both will necessarily run forever like, well like a clockwork, but in fact it is not true in either case.&nbsp; There are small deviations and changes happening that in the long run will make a very big difference.&nbsp; The watch is only easily described in the sense that it is meant to model something and we can easily describe the thing that it models.I'm not sure that he complicated nature of the rules is for most humans the real problem.&nbsp; Humans are pretty well adapted to complications.&nbsp; What seems to draw complaints is the computational burden of the rules.&nbsp; After all, we could in theory describe a simulation of the whole world in terms of a few 'simple' equations, but the computational burden of figuring out what happens by applying those simple rules in that simulation would be daunting.&nbsp; Gamers, as with engineers, make a model that reduces the computational burden down to something approachable, where the realism of the model is 'good enough'.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 7570732, member: 4937"] You sound like the expert in this, but it seems to me that I can describe all the what it is by simply identifying where all the constituents are. That is to say, in both universes I could simply say: proton, electron, proton, electron, etc. And as long as I labeled where all the parts where and where they were going (ignoring some known problems with that), I would still have a complete description. Indeed, does it take more or less information to describe 'bunch of protons and electrons' compared to 'U238'? Does the fact that things are frequently organized in a regular manner increase or decrease the information? (Seriously asking here, I don't know.) I would say most times. I'll be happy to take correction over when my word choice is sloppy and ill-considered. I certainly wasn't thinking of this distinction until you brought it up clearly. I get where you are going with that, but I suspect that in reality the wrist watch is similar to a three body problem where the pieces are in a stable, regularized orbit - such as a solar system which has been orbiting a star for millions of years and so is likely to do so for millions of years to come. The constraints on the system make it seems as if both will necessarily run forever like, well like a clockwork, but in fact it is not true in either case. There are small deviations and changes happening that in the long run will make a very big difference. The watch is only easily described in the sense that it is meant to model something and we can easily describe the thing that it models. I'm not sure that he complicated nature of the rules is for most humans the real problem. Humans are pretty well adapted to complications. What seems to draw complaints is the computational burden of the rules. After all, we could in theory describe a simulation of the whole world in terms of a few 'simple' equations, but the computational burden of figuring out what happens by applying those simple rules in that simulation would be daunting. Gamers, as with engineers, make a model that reduces the computational burden down to something approachable, where the realism of the model is 'good enough'. [/QUOTE]

Verification