[I know who you are] and I lost all interest in discussing with you
Oh, so sorry.
PS. I got that as consciously and purposely insulting.
What I wanted to say, and probably failed, is that beautiful patterns do not form any interesting science, that is they lead to no knowledge. This is a classical dichotomy between intuitionist/inductive and deductive philosophies of science.
I did not say "I know who you are" - I just got the impression that you are not really interested in the discussion, as you started with strawman argumentation ("Plato held back astronomy for 2000 years").
I think cellular automata provide at least one way to study complex systems, which is a relevant field of study.
Comments
[I know who you are] and I lost all interest in discussing with you
Oh, so sorry.
PS. I got that as consciously and purposely insulting.
What I wanted to say, and probably failed, is that beautiful patterns do not form any interesting science, that is they lead to no knowledge. This is a classical dichotomy between intuitionist/inductive and deductive philosophies of science.
I did not say "I know who you are" - I just got the impression that you are not really interested in the discussion, as you started with strawman argumentation ("Plato held back astronomy for 2000 years").
I think cellular automata provide at least one way to study complex systems, which is a relevant field of study.
Ok. That wasn't best attitude on my part indeed.