RE: Generally speaking, is philosophy a worthwhile subject of study?
February 23, 2022 at 3:58 pm
In terms of the philosophy of Pseudo randomness like with Rule 30 cellular automata you could be expressing the impact of higher dimensional effect on lower dimensional binary sort of.
This is my point there could be more study on the nature of generating randomness and how these methods relate to dimensional analysis to see if we can't find some good axioms or at least guides regarding the nature of randomness.
Another Point is can we find a possible model where we can peer closer and with this good modelled dataset peer better though more noisy more tiny scales to gain concise data.
This venture is probably a 100-200 year long issue at least, hopefully we get as far as nature allows not end up stuck through lack of exploration or understanding which requires furthering of philosophy.
Simply refining trodden paths doesn't get you closer to more global optimal's always. There is no magic 42 like answer. As humans we move forward by further developing new and tweaked underlying truths. Institutionally this doesn't change fast shall we say kind of like over centuries and millennia in many areas of thought. However we had not managed to extend our minds so much before with machines. It's not about how fast you can interface with machines it's about the quality of underlying truths we can find working with the space such machines can provide.
If we cling to much to trodden paths we may not progress very well in new territories and where reality just won't fit our assumptions.
If we try exploring every path we can think of it wouldn't be very efficient either.
We need to develop in our optimal use of avoidance and exclusion as problem complexity increases which is not the same as ignoring all but the trodden path but still well thought out mental focus is required.
Many people in many paths of life disregard some philosophical and new perspective debates however whether or not they were right to do so on a given occasion is a very hard question.
This is my point there could be more study on the nature of generating randomness and how these methods relate to dimensional analysis to see if we can't find some good axioms or at least guides regarding the nature of randomness.
Another Point is can we find a possible model where we can peer closer and with this good modelled dataset peer better though more noisy more tiny scales to gain concise data.
This venture is probably a 100-200 year long issue at least, hopefully we get as far as nature allows not end up stuck through lack of exploration or understanding which requires furthering of philosophy.
Simply refining trodden paths doesn't get you closer to more global optimal's always. There is no magic 42 like answer. As humans we move forward by further developing new and tweaked underlying truths. Institutionally this doesn't change fast shall we say kind of like over centuries and millennia in many areas of thought. However we had not managed to extend our minds so much before with machines. It's not about how fast you can interface with machines it's about the quality of underlying truths we can find working with the space such machines can provide.
If we cling to much to trodden paths we may not progress very well in new territories and where reality just won't fit our assumptions.
If we try exploring every path we can think of it wouldn't be very efficient either.
We need to develop in our optimal use of avoidance and exclusion as problem complexity increases which is not the same as ignoring all but the trodden path but still well thought out mental focus is required.
Many people in many paths of life disregard some philosophical and new perspective debates however whether or not they were right to do so on a given occasion is a very hard question.
