Lots of unknown unknowns. How would we know when we know everything there is to know?
Saying something "seems to be of finite complexity," without evidence or attempt at proof, sounds profound but means nothing. Do you mean to imply that some things "seem to be" of infinite complexity? If not, what does "finite complexity" mean? Do you think human brains can understand anything completely as long as "it seems to be of finite complexity?"
Exponentials mess with people's intuition. There is a finite number of things in the human body. There's also a finite number of interactions. Unfortunately, the number of interactions, while finite, are exponential, and we have no good way to figure out which are meaningful and test ways to control them without laborious trial and error.
I think this is where someone usually chimes in to say "actually, interactions grow geometrically, not exponentially." I'm not sure what it means, and it's probably right, but the intuitive concept of "exponentially" looks close enough to the mathematical concept and maps close enough to the reality to work. Or seems to.
The human body doesn’t have a static number of “things.” Cells divide and die. Microorganisms come and go with each breath. How do you define “thing?” Do we have a finite number of thoughts at any time? A finite number of sensations? Of gut bacteria?
The universe presumably contains a finite number of stars, but knowing that doesn’t get us closer to counting them, much less describing their interactions.
Comments
Lots of unknown unknowns. How would we know when we know everything there is to know?
Saying something "seems to be of finite complexity," without evidence or attempt at proof, sounds profound but means nothing. Do you mean to imply that some things "seem to be" of infinite complexity? If not, what does "finite complexity" mean? Do you think human brains can understand anything completely as long as "it seems to be of finite complexity?"
Exponentials mess with people's intuition. There is a finite number of things in the human body. There's also a finite number of interactions. Unfortunately, the number of interactions, while finite, are exponential, and we have no good way to figure out which are meaningful and test ways to control them without laborious trial and error.
I think this is where someone usually chimes in to say "actually, interactions grow geometrically, not exponentially." I'm not sure what it means, and it's probably right, but the intuitive concept of "exponentially" looks close enough to the mathematical concept and maps close enough to the reality to work. Or seems to.
The human body doesn’t have a static number of “things.” Cells divide and die. Microorganisms come and go with each breath. How do you define “thing?” Do we have a finite number of thoughts at any time? A finite number of sensations? Of gut bacteria?
The universe presumably contains a finite number of stars, but knowing that doesn’t get us closer to counting them, much less describing their interactions.