←back to thread

166 points levlaz | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
PeterStuer ◴[] No.41877171[source]
For nature we have many models, physics, chemistry, biology, ..., depending on our needs. None of them are more wrong, but they operate at different scales and are useful in different contexts.

My gripe with theoretical computer science was that if felt like a Newtonian physics level model of digital processes, while an equivalent of biology level models would be needed for/suited to most "real-life computing".

replies(2): >>41877337 #>>41877613 #
pmontra ◴[] No.41877613[source]
A biology level model for computing would be some billion of very small CPU cores each one doing its own thing, interacting with the others (actor model?) and yielding a collective result by averaging their states (by some definition of average.) It could be OK for some problems (simulations of physical systems?) but not much for others (placing a window in the middle of the screen.)

By the way, a lot of small CPU cores is what we use inside graphic cards. However they are not actors. They are very deterministic. The Newtonian physics model.

replies(2): >>41877638 #>>41878144 #
1. GenericCanadian ◴[] No.41878144[source]
Sounds a lot like what Wolfram is working on with categorizing cellular automota. Strikes me that a lot of his work is very biological in its search for axioms from experimentation