Re: The Paradox of Simulation (Was: math, is it just physics?)

But there will be not a revival of study of emergence,
or interest in genetic programming, because the field
has been sliently overtaken by a) Deep Learning and
b) Chinese People, just watch what they are doing:
2011 Paper: Bilinear Deep Learning for Image
Classification (Zhong et al.)
stochastic gradient descent (SGD) with momentum
Since randomized algorithms are used so basically
forms of genetic programming that mimic evolution.
The 2011 paper marks the beginning of deep learning,
it received further refinements in the 2014.
Mild Shock schrieb:

 sci.physics has probably never heard of emergence.
You can easily have the following case:
 - As a substrate a System A, with Laws X
- On top of it a System B, with Laws Y
 Just look at Game of Life by Convay. Its all
patterns and in the linguistics of the observer,
 that we interpret blinking cells as a glider.
But Convay was not the first, von Neuman pionieered:
 John von Neumann's universal constructor is a self-
replicating machine in a cellular automaton (CA)
environment. It was designed in the 1940s, without
the use of a computer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Neumann_universal_constructor
 Mostlikely Physics fails for such emergent behaviours,
it even cannot deploy its tools of order reduction,
where micro levels are modelled by macro levels,
 so how did Physics get dismissed from its Garden of Eden?
 Stefan Ram schrieb:

sobriquet <dohduhdah@yahoo.com> wrote or quoted:

We often hear claims that math has nothing to do with reality and is
just something that exists in our imagination or some platonic realm of
idealized forms.

>
   A ton of math stuff is just us taking real-world connections and
   boiling them down to their essence. So it's no shocker that we can
   turn around and spot these stripped-down ideas out in the wild again.
>