
How Nature Solves Problems Through Computation - digital55
https://www.quantamagazine.org/how-nature-solves-problems-through-computation-20170706/
======
komali2
I absolutely love this way of thinking. We assume that an "individual" is a
single human being, because it's convenient and I guess because that's how our
sentience works. But realistically, the body itself is an extraordinarily
complicated mass of "human" cells often at odds (see a cake, one part of the
brain say "eat it," another says "dude no you'll get fat"), and thats without
considering the masses of "non-human" entities, such as gut bacteria, skin
bacteria, etc.

And then we can go macro - a tribe can subdivide into gatherers, warriors, and
crafters. A city can specialize further. A country even further. Imagine how
different the life experience would be if humans existed as single entities
alone in endless fields.

Then it gets even more fun to consider interactions with other lifeforms -
dogs, plants, cows.

Man, what a cool field of research. I'm glad to hear people are studying this.

~~~
unabst
"Individual" and "single human being" are abstractions. So are "cells" and
"skin" and everything else. If you remove abstraction, you remove language,
but an undivided landscape of activity of nature remains. Language is just a
layer and for our convenience.

But where ever there is communication, abstractions are required to compose a
coherent and persistent message. So DNA and proteins and even subatomic
particles that entangle can be considered to be tapping into natures capacity
to abstract, and to compute those abstractions.

And if you consider nothing exists in a void, and the innate connected-ness of
an undivided and unabstracted universe as a whole, everything is coming and
going; everything is itself a message and the subject of computation; and
nature is engaged in a never ending conversation with none other than itself.
If it's messages can be any size, and last however long, then you and I too
are just one of its many messages.

(pardon the philosophy... stuck doing mundane work at midnight on a Friday...
I had to write something)

~~~
21
Quote from an article along the lines:

> However, in broad brush, we might say this: You’re a pattern in spacetime. A
> mathematical pattern. Specifically, you’re a braid in spacetime—indeed, one
> of the most elaborate braids known.

[http://nautil.us/issue/9/time/life-is-a-braid-in-
spacetime](http://nautil.us/issue/9/time/life-is-a-braid-in-spacetime)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10323222](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10323222)

------
j2kun
The last few years have seen a number of very interesting developments along
the lines of understanding the natural world through the so-called "lens of
computation." Some interesting talks can be found here [1] as well as an essay
here [2], on the topics of economics, social interaction, biology, and
physics.

[1]: [https://www.ias.edu/ideas/2014/lens-of-computation-
workshop](https://www.ias.edu/ideas/2014/lens-of-computation-workshop)

[2]: [http://theory.cs.berkeley.edu/computational-
lens.html](http://theory.cs.berkeley.edu/computational-lens.html)

~~~
beefman
Generally that phrase refers to the asymptotic analysis of algorithms, which I
think has relatively little to teach us about natural systems of the kind
mentioned here. I have tremendous respect for TCS and those who study it, and
I attended the second "lens" conference in Berkeley in 2011. But it does seem
a bit like a field looking for justification. And I don't think it's
impossible that academic competition drives more of our brightest to spend
more time on it (asymptotic analysis) than is optimal.

~~~
j2kun
Why would you think it has little to teach? The author even says that it's
useful and influential.

> What we are doing at C4 is taking messy, conceptually challenging problems
> and turning them into something rigorous. We’re very philosophically
> oriented, but we’re also very quantitative, particularly in thinking about
> how nature can overcome subjectivity in information processing through
> collective computation. We really think the answer to these questions
> requires combining insights from statistical physics, theoretical computer
> science, information theory, evolutionary biology and cognitive science.

------
ehudla
While this field is advancing rapidly, and sophisticated approaches are being
constantly developed, for those who want a gentle introduction, I venture to
recommend our book: [https://www.amazon.com/Biological-Computation-Chapman-
Mathem...](https://www.amazon.com/Biological-Computation-Chapman-Mathematical-
Computational/dp/1420087959/)

Section 6.1 deals with swarm intelligence (ant colony optimization, cemetery
organization, particle swarm optimization). 6.2 is on artificial immune
systems.

A more biological+philosophical exploration on issues of collectivity will be
found in the following book, which is already available for pre-order on
Amazon, I see:

[https://www.amazon.com/Landscapes-Collectivity-Sciences-
Theo...](https://www.amazon.com/Landscapes-Collectivity-Sciences-Theoretical-
Biology/dp/0262036851/)

~~~
shishy
Are there any academic research papers that you would recommend in this field?

~~~
ehudla
Too many... What topics specifically interest you? I might have suggestions,
if it's topics I am familiar with.

~~~
shishy
My background is in tumor immunology research, so I'd be especially interested
in how this is applied to the immune system if you are aware of any good
papers there.

~~~
ehudla
The Landscapes of Collectivity book has two chapters about collective aspects
of the immune system.

if you are interested in a computational perspective, the classic is (Hofmeyr
and Forrest, 2000).

------
jchanimal
they got data by inducing monkey fights.

""" We were interested in whether we could induce the monkey society we were
studying to change from its status quo of many small fights and a few large
ones to having many large fights. We observed that fights in this monkey group
range in size from two to 30 or so individuals, with small fights common and
large fights very rare. By simulating the society using data we had collected
on fight-joining decisions, we found that we could measure the number of
monkeys whose propensity to join fights would have to increase to move the
system closer to the critical point.

~~~
openasocket
That sounds like they were just simulating the society based on data they had
gathered about their fights. So not inducing monkey fights, just observing the
monkeys fighting naturally and extrapolating from there. Though earlier in the
article they allude to removing a few members of the society and showing the
fights increased.

Also it should be noted that fighting is a very common part of monkey
behavior. If you observe these groups in the wild individuals are almost
constantly challenging and checking others to maintain or advance their
position in the social hierarchy.

------
debbiedowner
Why is a "social coordinate space" not Euclidean, and why is it worth
mentioning?

..."phenomenological rules"...

It is an interesting subject... but this interview is a little annoying since
it is with a philosopher in scientists clothing.

[https://www.linkedin.com/in/jessica-c-
flack-76b454133/](https://www.linkedin.com/in/jessica-c-flack-76b454133/)

~~~
dasimon
A prior paper contributed to by Ms. Flack
([https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1406/1406.7720.pdf](https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1406/1406.7720.pdf))
presents a framework for modeling the dynamics between individuals - I would
assume that is the abstract "social coordinate space" to which she's
referring, which places individuals within "Markovian, probabilistic, 'social'
circuits" rather than into some Euclidean space.

And Ms. Flack, though her research interests extend beyond the realm of what
is traditionally considered hard science, is most certainly a scientist - an
evolutionary biologist specifically.

I assume you are linking to her LinkedIn profile to point out her "Doctor of
Philosophy" degree? That's just the full, formal name for a PhD :P

~~~
debbiedowner
Just to get the full quote from original article: “their metric space is a
social coordinate space. It’s not Euclidean.”

If the space being considered is a probability space like you say, then there
is no metric, there is a measure.

\---

Why am I so pedantic?

Because I feel that the liberal arts mindset of writing is not serious enough
for subjects where there is a ground truth to uncover.

In the article you link, where is the empirical study that compares how this
model predicts reality?

I wish that people who publish on SIAMS, or ASA, AMS, IEEE affiliated journals
were the ones trending on HN, and getting interviewed by journalists. A
pessimist would say those people are too busy with their work for publicity,
and that an empty barrel echoes loudest.

------
known
"But when Flack removed some of the police, the whole group became fractured
and chaotic"

Reminds me Saddam and Iraq :)

------
fithisux
Can someone suggest FOSS code for experimentation? Any free tutorials, notes,
books.

Thanks

------
known
I believe UNSC does the same;

