this post was submitted on 12 Jul 2023
338 points (96.7% liked)

Asklemmy

43940 readers
551 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

For me it is Cellular Automata, and more precisely the Game of Life.

Imagine a giant Excel spreadsheet where the cells are randomly chosen to be either "alive" or "dead". Each cell then follows a handful of simple rules.

For example, if a cell is "alive" but has less than 2 "alive" neighbors it "dies" by under-population. If the cell is "alive" and has more than three "alive" neighbors it "dies" from over-population, etc.

Then you sit back and just watch things play out. It turns out that these basic rules at the individual level lead to incredibly complex behaviors at the community level when you zoom out.

It kinda, sorta, maybe resembles... life.

There is colonization, reproduction, evolution, and sometimes even space flight!

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] fearout@kbin.social 125 points 1 year ago (3 children)

The concept of emergence blows my mind.

We have this property in our universe where simple things with simple rules can create infinitely complex things and behaviours. A molecule of water can’t be wet, but water can. A single ant can’t really do anything by himself, but a colony with simple pheromone exchange mechanisms can assign jobs, regulate population, create huge anthills with vents, specialty rooms and highways.

Nothing within a cell is "alive", it’s just atoms and molecules, but the cell itself is. One cell cannot experience things, think, love, have hopes and dreams, or want to watch Netflix all day, but a human can.

The fact that lots of tiny useless things governed by really simple rules can create this complexity in this world is breathtakingly beautiful.

Kinda ties into your example :)

[–] kenbw2@lemmy.world 36 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Reminds me of the statement that you can't dissect a rabbit to find out why it's cute

[–] vera@lemm.ee 18 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Won't stop me from trying [joking]

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] acannan@programming.dev 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Just like the trillions of parameters that make up machine learning models that can speak or create images

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] lvxferre@lemmy.ml 93 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Evolution as a concept; not just biological. The fact that you can explain the rise of complex systems with just three things - inheritance, mutation, selection. It's so simple, yet so powerful.

Perhaps not surprisingly it's directly tied to what OP is talking about cellular automata.

[–] treadful@lemmy.zip 13 points 1 year ago

DNA still blows my mind. Some weird simple molecules that just happen to like to link together have become the encoding of how complex biological systems are constructed. Then mash two separate sets of DNA together, add a little happenstance, and you have another new being from those three things you mentioned.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] MostlyLazy@lemm.ee 76 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Galaxies are not evenly distributed in space. Instead, when you look at the universe, galaxies are grouped in giant strings that look like a neural connections in a brain.

[–] OceanSoap@lemmy.ml 22 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It blew my mind when I learned that we're in a relatively dark, empty part of space compared to what's out there. It really put into perspective for me how difficult space travel will be for us as we continue to advance.

[–] yunggwailo@kbin.social 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Space is incomprehensibly big and its getting larger over time. We will never have meaningful travel outside the solar system. If humanity started traveling in space from the moment we evolved, we would be able to travel the length of the milky way around two times. Space is basically a boondoggle. Our solar system still contains lots of resources though, so its not totally worthless.

[–] maegul@lemmy.ml 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yea ... like Star Trek, with warp speed and everything, is basically all limited to our single Galaxy ... and that's not unrealistic given their technology.

Like in that space-faring future, the galaxy is basically the new continent and the inter-galactic divide the new great ocean that no one has ever crossed.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] OsrsNeedsF2P@lemmy.ml 17 points 1 year ago

Yea because gra-- woahhh

[–] niktemadur@kbin.social 8 points 1 year ago

And here's the other thing I try to visualize:
Matter - both dark and "normal" - falling like water into these gravitational canyons that we see as giant strings, while the empty spaces in between expand and accelerate. The dynamics of this thing are mind-breaking.

[–] Rick512@lemm.ee 53 points 1 year ago (12 children)

The scale of the universe. It's an incomprehensible amount of emptiness.

[–] OsrsNeedsF2P@lemmy.ml 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Highly recommend the browser game Orbity.io

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (11 replies)
[–] fiat_lux@kbin.social 48 points 1 year ago (1 children)

People working together to solve problems without personal profit as the main incentive.

[–] Djangofett@lemmy.ca 33 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] fiat_lux@kbin.social 22 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Dear God, it's beautiful. (And genuinely seriously important)

[–] KoboldCoterie@pawb.social 17 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It kills me how much more of it there'd be, and how much better off we'd be in general, if we weren't forced to spend so much of our lives working for other people.

[–] speck@kbin.social 14 points 1 year ago

Now we're at a top 3 idea which haunts me. We have everything to make life so amazing now, but we just can't let go of these defunct paradigms that drag us down into a lower common denominator existence.

[–] arthur@lemmy.ml 38 points 1 year ago (1 children)

BitTorrent. I only need to share a file once and it could potentially reach millions of people. It's old tech now but it feels like magic to me.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Grimlo9ic@kbin.social 37 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Part of the beauty and awe I get whenever I reread that famous excerpt from Carl Sagan's Pale Blue Dot is the sense of how ephemeral and delicate our existence, and even the very human concept of "existence", is. We are infinitesimally small and yet, through no fault of our own, our days, how we fill them, and the people we know hold some measure of importance to us. And it will all be gone - eventually. It's a very somber note yet it makes me feel a certain sense of peace.

"Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every 'superstar,' every 'supreme leader,' every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there--on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam."

[–] codyofficial@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

This is a beautiful quote—thank you for sharing.

[–] substill@lemm.ee 37 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Thermoses. They keep hot stuff hot. They keep cold stuff cold. No touchscreen or controls whatsoever. How does it know?

[–] dmention7@lemm.ee 20 points 1 year ago (1 children)

On the chance you're not just making a funny - The walls of your house keep inside stuff inside and outside stuff outside. A thermos is just a wall for heat, whether that heat is trying to get in or out.

[–] stinkypoopsalot@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Are you saying I live in a thermos?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Kissaki@feddit.de 32 points 1 year ago (2 children)

How little food intake is enough to sustain extensive (physical) activity.

The little birds running on the beach with every wave, eating mini things. How can those be enough to sustain that much running? And it'll have to sustain them when they're not eating too.

A human can not eat for several days and still stay active. An incredible adaptation. I food conversion, storage, and priority dissolution in a complex system.

[–] richneptune@lemmy.fmhy.ml 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

A human can not eat for several days and still stay active.

I'm looking at my bulging waist and feeling incredibly guilty right now!

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] raubarno@lemmy.ml 22 points 1 year ago (2 children)
  1. Free software
  2. Group theory, Church notation and Lambda Calculus making many things in Math under one roof
  3. Design of CPU and Operating Systems. Both fields are made by geniuses.
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] skillissuer@lemmy.world 22 points 1 year ago

thermodynamics. it sets hard physical boundary to what happens spontaneously and what can't, how much energy you need to pump in or can recover from process, but not only that - it's very broadly applicable, including large parts of chemistry, biology, information theory and more, like this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissipative_system

[–] DRUMS_@reddthat.com 20 points 1 year ago

Alan Watts contextualizes our daily lives as the outer, "fine spray" at the edge of the big bang --still exploding. Planets "people-ing" and your daily schedule, relationships, accuisition of goods, etc. is just the complex late stage of the big bang explosion. The explosion is chaos but as time goes by order slips in and creates "complexity". This is all still an explosion.

[–] 001100010010@lemmy.dbzer0.com 20 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The butterfly effect. The phenomeon that tiny seemingly insignificant changes can result in massively different outcomes. Someone out there could read this post and get distracted and leave home for work/school/shopping a bit later than they would've and avoid a major accident. But conversely, someone could also get distracted by this post while crossing the road and... you know... die...

Fascinating, yet terrifying at the same time.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Saigonauticon@voltage.vn 20 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The Elitzur–Vaidman bomb-tester, specifically (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elitzur%E2%80%93Vaidman_bomb_tester).

Next, that I can buy and program a computer for 0.30 USD that's half the size of a grain of rice (ATtiny10). There are cheaper too, but that's the one I like.

Finally, on to the horrifying: Boltzmann brains. The idea that given a reasonable interpretation of the laws of thermodynamics, and long spans of time, the most common form of brain in the universe ought to be one that forms due to random fluctuations. It exists for long enough to have exactly one thought (e.g. recall a false memory), then dissipates.

This ought to be by far the most common form of conscious mind in the Universe. In a sense, you could say it 'blows' the general case of minds.

Since you are a mind, statistically, you ought to be a Boltzmann brain. You may not be, but are unable to prove otherwise, even to yourself. So either we have some things left to learn about thermodynamics, or the most probable outcome at all times is that you cease to exist immediately after having your current thought (although I hope you don't). Sleep tight!

[–] aussiematt@lemm.ee 20 points 1 year ago (2 children)

It would have to be Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem. Such a beautiful proof that shakes mathematics to its core.

The science communicator Veritasium made a nice video about it: https://youtu.be/HeQX2HjkcNo

I first learned about it in Douglas Hofstaedter's masterpiece Gödel Escher Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid

[–] PipedLinkBot@feddit.rocks 14 points 1 year ago

Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/HeQX2HjkcNo

https://piped.video/HeQX2HjkcNo

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] drumino@lemmy.world 18 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (6 children)

Black holes and the uncertainty of what lies behind the event horizon. The possibility that inside a black hole, a whole new universe could exist without us ever knowing. When tripping through life taught me one thing, it is that many things can be seen as part of a huge fractal, and that view fits right into the interpretation that black holes are nothing else than universes in universes. After all, our big bang might just be another ordinary black hole, reaching critical mass.

Of course I can not prove it, but I love thinking about it.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] szczur@szmer.info 17 points 1 year ago

Anarchism based on mutual respect and aid. It's truly beautiful.

[–] lorax@lemmy.ca 15 points 1 year ago

Symbiosis in nature….it always brings up feelings of awe and wonder for me. Especially in forests. The "wood-wide web" or "mycorrhizal network" being my latest obsession . The fact that the fungi joins the trees together through the roots to allow for exchange of nutrients, water, and chemical signals between plants. And then there’s the forest canopy, and the role it plays in keeping the forest healthy.

Trees are awesome.

[–] claycle@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago (10 children)

I am focusing on the "blow my mind" part, rather than the "beautiful" part of your question, but I am certain many philosophically-minded people would consider the following "beautiful".

Peter Singer's argument in "Famine, Affluence, and Morality (1972)" that you and most everyone you know are probably immoral or evil and you don't even realize it. It really affected my ideas of how to strive to live.

Here is a good video explaining the idea in detail, worth 30m of your time.

Peter Singer - ordinary people are evil

[–] prole@sh.itjust.works 14 points 1 year ago (11 children)

That's an incredibly pessimistic way to view the world... I think it's more accurate to say that people have the capacity for both good and evil. I'm not sure that you can say that "most everyone you know" are immoral or evil. That's quite the claim.

Though we would also have to explore what "immoral," and "evil" actually mean. Am I immoral for purchasing and using a cell phone made with materials that were obtained through means that destroy lives and damage ecosystems?

The modern world is far too complex and interconnected for people to avoid doing things that could be considered immoral or unethical.

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] PipedLinkBot@feddit.rocks 10 points 1 year ago

Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/KVl5kMXz1vA

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.

[–] raresbears@iusearchlinux.fyi 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I didn't actually watch the video, but I have read the original essay and I thought I'd offer a few thoughts (and criticisms) of it.

An interesting consequence of his strict utilitarianism is that it follows from it that it's actually immoral to do anything to help issues close to home in pretty much any way if you live in the West, and maybe even in other countries as well, regardless of whether that may be by donating, volunteering, or anything else of the sort.

if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it.

Because of wealth disparities between countries, your money will almost always go further somewhere else. If you live in the West, this difference can be extreme, and as a result any money sent there will be able to accomplish far more than it will for people in your own area. Since your donation to help out nearby is a donation not being made elsewhere where it can do more good, it is then to be considered immoral. A similar logic can be applied to volunteering. If when you're volunteering you are not working to make money which you could donate to much poorer countries, it's immoral, because your personal work to do good will never be able to equal what your money could do. In fact, your life should essentially be, to the greatest extent that doesn't reduce the amount you can make by the harm it does to you, you constantly working. He even admits as much:

Given the present conditions in many parts of the world, however, it does follow from my argument that we ought, morally, to be working full time to relieve great suffering of the sort that occurs as a result of famine or other disasters.

He even goes as far as to say the following:

we ought to give until we reach the level of marginal utility ---that is, the level at which, by giving more, I would cause as much suffering to myself or my dependents as I would relieve by my gift. This would mean, of course, that one would reduce oneself to very near the material circumstances of a Bengali refugee.

If this is the case, it has important implications for political action in its many manifestations as well. Should I be campaigning for the government to adopt policies which reduce suffering as much as possible? If implemented their effect could be massively beneficial, but I don't think this works with the arguments he makes. My individual contribution to a political movement will never be the difference between its success and its failure, so it would seem the moral decision is for me to remain effectively apolitical.

This however strikes me as being in contradiction with this later statements:

I agree, too, that giving privately is not enough, and that we ought to be campaigning actively for entirely new standards for both public and private contributions to famine relief.

I would sympathize with someone who thought that campaigning was more important than giving oneself

Ultimately, I am led to the conclusion that following his arguments, the only moral thing to do is in fact to relentlessly pursue financial gain, as donating the money one earns is far and away the most effective use of one's time and effort to do moral good. The engineer who could have worked for Lockheed Martin designing weapons for the US military is in fact more moral than the one who turns down the job for one that pays substantially less, since it is practically certain that whoever would take the job otherwise would not donate as generously as they do. Applied to capitalists (the class of people, not the supporters of capitalism), it seems that since giving money is the moral thing to do, and giving more money does more good, making more money is the moral thing to do, as it increases one's capacity to do good. This seems to be borne out by his statements concerning foreign aid, which indicate that it's not just about giving what you can in the present moment, but also considering how your actions impact your future ability to continue to do so:

Yet looking at the matter purely from the point of view of overseas aid, there must be a limit to the extent to which we should deliberately slow down our economy; for it might be the case that if we gave away, say, 40 percent of our Gross National Product, we would slow down the economy so much that in absolute terms we would be giving less than if we gave 25 percent of the much larger GNP that we would have if we limited our contribution to this smaller percentage.

I find that this ends up being quite problematic, because the ability to grow one's own wealth is functionally unlimited. It might seem that that's not a problem if you're giving away all your wealth, but for it to grow so you can give more, that can't be the case, because you need to be reinvesting it. As a result you end up with this contradiction, where your are morally obligated to increase your wealth so you can do more good, but at the same time this obligation prevents you from actually putting that wealth into doing good. You could say that the not doing good with the money means that it's no longer moral so you have to give at some point, but the problem with that is that it's impossible to define that point. It still remains that at any given point in time the moral thing to do is to reinvest it so that if you give it next time, more will be given. Ironically, this endless pursuit of ever greater wealth is the very same thing that creates so much suffering in the world, even if its justification is usually different, so this argumentation seems to just end up reinforcing the same ills that it hopes to address.

I do like his conclusion though, directed towards other philosophers, reminiscent of a Marx quote that I've always been quite fond of: "The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it."

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[–] weirdwallace75@kbin.social 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Noether's Theorem:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem

https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/noether.html

Fundamentally, it allows us to logically infer the conservation laws from the laws of motion of a given physical system using relatively simple math. It always applies, no matter if we're talking about massive systems or quantum ones.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] l3mming@lemmy.fmhy.ml 12 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

You should have a look at Sebastian Lague's programming videos on Youtube. He models various things (eg: predator/prey/ant colonies, slime growth) using a few very simple rules. They're just beautiful. Example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-iSQQgOd1A

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] voodooattack@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago (9 children)

The incessant idea that I get when I read about quantum physics: with no observers and nothing to interact with/measure it, was the universe itself in superposition during the Big Bang? If so, did the wave function even collapse or are we just one of the possible outcomes inside of it?

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] spclagntdanazoe@possumpat.io 11 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Frequency hopping. It's like hiding messages in music. Always loved that idea.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] z500@startrek.website 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

On the subject of Conway's Game of Life, one of the YouTube videos that I always have to go back to now and then is a narrated video of the game being built from the ground up in APL. It's so wild to see the guy start with a simple expression and the algorithm taking shape as he adds to it step by step. By the end it looks like some magical incantation lol

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9xAKttWgP4

[–] PipedLinkBot@feddit.rocks 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/watch?v=a9xAKttWgP4

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Kabukironin@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

Adjacent xkcd Https://xkcd.com/350

[–] 5in1k@lemm.ee 8 points 1 year ago

You can design and order custom genes online to make e-coli do different things.

load more comments
view more: next ›