
Reminder of Complexity - azhenley
https://www.johndcook.com/blog/2020/01/16/memento-complexitatis/
======
rantwasp
i independently ran across this when going through:
[https://www.edx.org/course/principles-of-
biochemistry](https://www.edx.org/course/principles-of-biochemistry)

As someone who is formally trained in computer science I was literally blown
away by biochemistry. Once you see that any organism that involved organic
chemistry is in fact an insanely complicated, biological computer you cannot
unsee it. It's amazing.

In case someone is wondering what the author of the blog post zoomed in,
that's the Krebs cycle - ie how we derive energy (ie ATP) from the food we eat
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citric_acid_cycle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citric_acid_cycle)).
See:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=juM2ROSLWfw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=juM2ROSLWfw)
and [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7J4LXs-
oDCU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7J4LXs-oDCU)

~~~
neilpanchal
> Once you see that any organism that involved organic chemistry is in fact an
> insanely complicated, biological computer you cannot unsee it. It's amazing.

This blew my mind. In addition to the computer analogy, I think Bio-mechanics
is incredibly fascinating. The fact that I can close my eyes and still be able
to touch the nose with my index finger repetedly from any starting position of
the hand is mind boggling. I cannot fathom the type of inverse-kinematics that
is involved in the cerebellum.

~~~
rantwasp
hah. technically your brain is a prediction machine and, when you are trying
to touch your nose, it’s really good at minimizing the prediction error.

~~~
klipt
Also you're not just relying on sight, the sense of proprioception is
providing constant feedback of your finger's position even with your eyes
closed. So it's not an open loop control problem, it's a closed loop, which is
much easier.

------
nafey
This reminds me of Tesler's law says something quite useful about how
complexity works:

"Every application has an inherent amount of complexity that cannot be removed
or hidden. Instead, it must be dealt with, either in product development or in
user interaction."

------
splittingTimes
You can download the posters here:
[https://www.roche.com/sustainability/philanthropy/science_ed...](https://www.roche.com/sustainability/philanthropy/science_education/pathways/pathways-
ordering.htm)

------
cxr
Half-related: Reality has a surprising amount of detail

[http://johnsalvatier.org/blog/2017/reality-has-a-
surprising-...](http://johnsalvatier.org/blog/2017/reality-has-a-surprising-
amount-of-detail)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16184255](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16184255)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22020495](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22020495)

------
0d9eooo
Related:

[https://arxiv.org/abs/0708.1362](https://arxiv.org/abs/0708.1362)

At some point the complexity of a system becomes great enough that it's
impossible to simulate it perfectly.

The interesting question for me lately is how and under what circumstances can
you ignore the complexity for some purpose.

For example, underlying what is represented in that poster is some set of
physical processes that are ignored in that poster. The system at that
physical level of description would be even more complex, probably too complex
to represent on a poster. So why the level of analysis of the poster?
Similarlly, at some point it's easier to talk about eating and fatigue than it
is the citric acid cycle. How and why do you move from one level of analysis
to another? Some of it probably depends on what is being explained, but some
of it might not.

~~~
fulafel
Interesting looking paper. From the abstract it seems that the claim is about
about perfectly replicating a future state of the simulated system? Simulation
with a less ambitious fidelity level still seems useful to understand these
kind of systems.

~~~
di4na
Yes, that is called a model.

Usually people that study complexity will say that all models are wrong but
some are useful.

In software, we usually prefer the term abstraction.

The trick is to remember that our model are wrong. This gap between "system-
as-modeled" and "system-as-reality" can be inconsequential in a lot of time,
but it is also a place in which failure mode can rise. It is important to
always keep exploring it and change the model depending on situations.

------
mark_l_watson
John’s blogs always set me off in one direction or another. Now he has me
thinking:

Our human minds can only hold a finite amount of information in long term and
short term memories. I don’t too much buy into direct brain augmentation in
the sense of NeuralLink or my friends in the SingularityNET community.

What I am hoping for is external augmentation using smart glasses that record
everything I study and that I hear, and sufficient AI (doesn’t have to be AGI)
on the backend to learn when to prompt or remind. Ideally this would be paired
with something like an iPad that the system could draw on top of what I am
looking at.

This is the startup I would like to work for. Apple is supposed to be
releasing smart glasses sometime. I hope the hardware and software support is
hackable and extensible.

~~~
fineline
I expect smart glasses to be the next UI paradigm. Very conveniently portable.
AR style visual interfaces. Built in speakers for personal audio (bose already
do this in sunglasses). The AR interface could be directly manipulated by hand
gestures using cameras and other sensors. I know there have been a couple of
false starts (Google Glass) and current products with bigger form factors
(Hololens), but I expect spectacles size devices with good UI in the not too
distant future, and I look forward to the development opportunities.

~~~
mark_l_watson
The problem that I see is getting systems where I own all of my data - my data
never leaves my devices, or is encrypted on my servers.

I used to be a proponent of IoT until realizing that IoT is just a HUGE
opportunity to gather the most economic and personal data on people stupid
enough to pay for the devices that surveil them. Sort of like paying someone
to kick you.

------
WJW
I love that it comes with a piece of paper reminding the viewer that this is a
__small __selection of reality. Biochemistry is much, MUCH more complex than
even these two 26 square foot posters.

I'd love to get a similar poster of the entire Linux kernel or, alternatively,
the total supply chain for an everyday item like the proverbial pencil.

~~~
rantwasp
the complexity of the linux kernel (and in man-made things in general) is
usually really small compared to biological systems.

~~~
WJW
I'm sure you could still fill a good-size poster if you make a nice
inefficient representation, like every function call is a separate node in the
graph and you include every single device driver even for decades old stuff
like tape drives. I agree though, Mother Nature has an inordinate love for
making everything a global variable and She definitely hates comments.

~~~
rantwasp
the analogy is good but i think it kinda breaks down when you consider the
machine the kernel runs on.

so you would mostly represent the machine the software run on.

------
reidacdc
I ran across an early version of this, on paper, in the university library at
my undergraduate institution, and took the same lesson of humility and respect
in the face of complexity that the article does.

The positive side is that we actually can and do effectively intervene in this
system, and systems like it, to improve outcomes, so even very high levels of
complexity don't mean analysis is impossible.

