Talk:Main Page - Revision history

Todd.Duncan at 22:52, 27 January 2026

2026-01-27T22:52:29Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:52, 27 January 2026
Line 34:		Line 34:
	- a basic timeline of key overall stages of the development of the known universe over its 13.8 billion-year history		- a basic timeline of key overall stages of the development of the known universe over its 13.8 billion-year history

	2) Limitations:		2) Assumptions, Limitations:

	- omitting the experience of subjectivity from direct consideration within the field		- omitting the experience of subjectivity from direct consideration within the field
Line 53:		Line 53:

	-how to include observers within our models. As Sara Walker (2024) writes: “We cannot see ourselves clearly because we have not built a theory of physics yet that treats observers as inside the universe they are describing: that understanding is muddled across seemingly disparate concepts we refer to as ‘matter,’ ‘information,’ ‘causation,’ ‘computation,’ ‘complexity,’ and ‘life.’”		-how to include observers within our models. As Sara Walker (2024) writes: “We cannot see ourselves clearly because we have not built a theory of physics yet that treats observers as inside the universe they are describing: that understanding is muddled across seemingly disparate concepts we refer to as ‘matter,’ ‘information,’ ‘causation,’ ‘computation,’ ‘complexity,’ and ‘life.’”


	== Computer Science ==		== Computer Science ==

Todd.Duncan: minor formatting changes to astrophysics section

2026-01-27T22:50:51Z

minor formatting changes to astrophysics section

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:50, 27 January 2026
Line 22:		Line 22:

	• What core terminology from my specialty can I translate to make it more generally accessible, to help facilitate shared dialog?		• What core terminology from my specialty can I translate to make it more generally accessible, to help facilitate shared dialog?


	== Astrophysics ==		== Astrophysics ==

	1) Key insights ~~include~~ a few basic patterns or laws that are universal and underlie everything we observe; the importance of basing our conclusions on empirical evidence~~; and~~ a basic timeline of key overall stages of the development of the known universe over its 13.8 billion-year history.		1) Key insights:

			- a few basic patterns or laws that are universal and underlie everything we observe

			- the importance of basing our conclusions on empirical evidence

			- a basic timeline of key overall stages of the development of the known universe over its 13.8 billion-year history

			2) Limitations:

			- omitting the experience of subjectivity from direct consideration within the field

	2) ~~Limitations include omitting the experience of subjectivity from direct consideration within the field.~~		3) Current puzzles:

	~~3) Current puzzles include~~		-the nature of the dark matter and dark energy needed to explain large-scale motions within and among galaxies

	-the ~~nature of the dark matter and dark energy needed to explain large-scale motions within and among~~ galaxies,		-how the first galaxies formed

	-how ~~the first galaxies formed,~~		-how life emerges from non-living structures

	-how ~~life emerges from non-living structures,~~		-how the laws of physics are encoded within the universe

	-~~how~~ the ~~laws~~ of ~~physics are encoded within the universe~~,		-why fundamental constants take on the particular values they have (such as the speed of light, strength of gravity, etc.)

	-why fundamental constants ~~take on the particular values~~ they ~~have (such as~~ the ~~speed~~ of ~~light, strength of gravity, etc~~.~~), and~~		-why the values of the fundamental constants are such that they allow the emergence of life within the universe.

	-~~why these values are such~~ that ~~they allow the emergence of life within~~ the universe.		-how to include observers within our models. As Sara Walker (2024) writes: “We cannot see ourselves clearly because we have not built a theory of physics yet that treats observers as inside the universe they are describing: that understanding is muddled across seemingly disparate concepts we refer to as ‘matter,’ ‘information,’ ‘causation,’ ‘computation,’ ‘complexity,’ and ‘life.’”

	-Another puzzle is how to include observers within our models. As Sara Walker (2024) writes: “We cannot see ourselves clearly because we have not built a theory of physics yet that treats observers as inside the universe they are describing: that understanding is muddled across seemingly disparate concepts we refer to as ‘matter,’ ‘information,’ ‘causation,’ ‘computation,’ ‘complexity,’ and ‘life.’”

	== Computer Science ==		== Computer Science ==

David.LePoire: /* Computer Science */

2026-01-27T15:59:02Z

Computer Science

David.LePoire: /* Computer Science */

2026-01-27T15:58:28Z

Computer Science

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:58, 27 January 2026
Line 47:		Line 47:
	== Computer Science ==		== Computer Science ==

	Key insights:		1) Key insights:

	Elements of intelligence: Planning, learning, analogy, decision making, pattern recognition, handling uncertainty, integrating multiple modes of information		Elements of intelligence: Planning, learning, analogy, decision making, pattern recognition, handling uncertainty, integrating multiple modes of information
Line 59:		Line 59:
	There is a difference between standard digital computing and quantum computing		There is a difference between standard digital computing and quantum computing

			2) Assumptions, Limitations:

	Assumptions, Limitations:

	Often: computing is digital although there are elements of symbolic reasoning and analog computing		Often: computing is digital although there are elements of symbolic reasoning and analog computing

	Current Puzzles:		3) Current Puzzles:

	Why are the current AI techniques so effective?		Why are the current AI techniques so effective?

David.LePoire: /* Computer Science */ new section

2026-01-27T15:57:38Z

Computer Science: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:57, 27 January 2026
Line 44:		Line 44:

	-Another puzzle is how to include observers within our models. As Sara Walker (2024) writes: “We cannot see ourselves clearly because we have not built a theory of physics yet that treats observers as inside the universe they are describing: that understanding is muddled across seemingly disparate concepts we refer to as ‘matter,’ ‘information,’ ‘causation,’ ‘computation,’ ‘complexity,’ and ‘life.’”		-Another puzzle is how to include observers within our models. As Sara Walker (2024) writes: “We cannot see ourselves clearly because we have not built a theory of physics yet that treats observers as inside the universe they are describing: that understanding is muddled across seemingly disparate concepts we refer to as ‘matter,’ ‘information,’ ‘causation,’ ‘computation,’ ‘complexity,’ and ‘life.’”

			== Computer Science ==

			Key insights:

			Elements of intelligence: Planning, learning, analogy, decision making, pattern recognition, handling uncertainty, integrating multiple modes of information

			Compilers as a way to translate one knowledge representation to another with syntax

			The importance and power of recursion in computation

			In software development: the need to utilize decomposable hierarchical structures to maintain operations under large stresses from growth and change

			There is a difference between standard digital computing and quantum computing



			Assumptions, Limitations:

			Often: computing is digital although there are elements of symbolic reasoning and analog computing

			Current Puzzles:

			Why are the current AI techniques so effective?

			Is our current AI model of a neuron, an insult to the real workings of neurons?

			How can our brain work on such a small energy flow (20 W) compared to the near GW of data centers?

			Is there a way to solve NP Complete problems with quantum computing?

David.LePoire: /* Astrophysics */

2026-01-27T15:40:06Z

Astrophysics

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:40, 27 January 2026
Line 30:		Line 30:

	3) Current puzzles include		3) Current puzzles include

	-the nature of the dark matter and dark energy needed to explain large-scale motions within and among galaxies,		-the nature of the dark matter and dark energy needed to explain large-scale motions within and among galaxies,

	-how the first galaxies formed,		-how the first galaxies formed,

	-how life emerges from non-living structures,		-how life emerges from non-living structures,

	-how the laws of physics are encoded within the universe,		-how the laws of physics are encoded within the universe,

	-why fundamental constants take on the particular values they have (such as the speed of light, strength of gravity, etc.), and		-why fundamental constants take on the particular values they have (such as the speed of light, strength of gravity, etc.), and

	-why these values are such that they allow the emergence of life within the universe.		-why these values are such that they allow the emergence of life within the universe.

	-Another puzzle is how to include observers within our models. As Sara Walker (2024) writes: “We cannot see ourselves clearly because we have not built a theory of physics yet that treats observers as inside the universe they are describing: that understanding is muddled across seemingly disparate concepts we refer to as ‘matter,’ ‘information,’ ‘causation,’ ‘computation,’ ‘complexity,’ and ‘life.’”		-Another puzzle is how to include observers within our models. As Sara Walker (2024) writes: “We cannot see ourselves clearly because we have not built a theory of physics yet that treats observers as inside the universe they are describing: that understanding is muddled across seemingly disparate concepts we refer to as ‘matter,’ ‘information,’ ‘causation,’ ‘computation,’ ‘complexity,’ and ‘life.’”

David.LePoire at 15:38, 27 January 2026

2026-01-27T15:38:19Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:38, 27 January 2026
Line 4:		Line 4:

	1) Key insights from the discipline, that seem most essential for collaboration (what each discipline contributes to the whole picture).		1) Key insights from the discipline, that seem most essential for collaboration (what each discipline contributes to the whole picture).

	2) Assumptions/limitations/blinders inherent to the discipline.		2) Assumptions/limitations/blinders inherent to the discipline.

	3) Current puzzles and paradoxes active in the discipline, stated within the framework of the discipline but with an eye toward the whole. How do these puzzles fit within questions of interest beyond the narrow confines of the discipline? (This question invites participants to think about how their discipline relates to others, and to the whole.)		3) Current puzzles and paradoxes active in the discipline, stated within the framework of the discipline but with an eye toward the whole. How do these puzzles fit within questions of interest beyond the narrow confines of the discipline? (This question invites participants to think about how their discipline relates to others, and to the whole.)

Line 10:		Line 12:

	While the three questions above provide an initial foundation for the framework I have in mind, it may be useful to also suggest other questions as food for thought to spark conversation. For example:		While the three questions above provide an initial foundation for the framework I have in mind, it may be useful to also suggest other questions as food for thought to spark conversation. For example:

	• What similarities can I find between questions or problems in my discipline and those in other disciplines? Are there places where they are trying to solve the same problem (or where the problem in both fields can be revised to reveal a more general problem that is essentially the same)?		• What similarities can I find between questions or problems in my discipline and those in other disciplines? Are there places where they are trying to solve the same problem (or where the problem in both fields can be revised to reveal a more general problem that is essentially the same)?

	• What solutions do they have to similar problems, and can I adapt them to my discipline? Or can I modify the questions I ask to better align with their solutions?		• What solutions do they have to similar problems, and can I adapt them to my discipline? Or can I modify the questions I ask to better align with their solutions?

	• What does the narrative of another discipline emphasize that we tend to ignore in mine?		• What does the narrative of another discipline emphasize that we tend to ignore in mine?

	• It may be useful to apply narratives from different disciplines to overlapping topics and look for contradictions. Then ask, “What assumptions would I have to change or what tweaks could I make to one or more perspectives, to resolve the contradictions?”		• It may be useful to apply narratives from different disciplines to overlapping topics and look for contradictions. Then ask, “What assumptions would I have to change or what tweaks could I make to one or more perspectives, to resolve the contradictions?”

	• What core terminology from my specialty can I translate to make it more generally accessible, to help facilitate shared dialog?		• What core terminology from my specialty can I translate to make it more generally accessible, to help facilitate shared dialog?

David.LePoire: /* General Structure of Discussion */

2026-01-27T15:37:03Z

General Structure of Discussion

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:37, 27 January 2026
Line 8:		Line 8:

	I have in mind starting with standard disciplines such as history, physics, astronomy, geology, biology, paleontology, sociology, psychology, environmental science, philosophy, anthropology, mathematics, geography, literature, languages, political science, economics, computer science, art, theatre, music, education, complexity science, information theory, etc. But these need not be limiting: categories should be chosen and shaped by participants.		I have in mind starting with standard disciplines such as history, physics, astronomy, geology, biology, paleontology, sociology, psychology, environmental science, philosophy, anthropology, mathematics, geography, literature, languages, political science, economics, computer science, art, theatre, music, education, complexity science, information theory, etc. But these need not be limiting: categories should be chosen and shaped by participants.

			While the three questions above provide an initial foundation for the framework I have in mind, it may be useful to also suggest other questions as food for thought to spark conversation. For example:
			• What similarities can I find between questions or problems in my discipline and those in other disciplines? Are there places where they are trying to solve the same problem (or where the problem in both fields can be revised to reveal a more general problem that is essentially the same)?
			• What solutions do they have to similar problems, and can I adapt them to my discipline? Or can I modify the questions I ask to better align with their solutions?
			• What does the narrative of another discipline emphasize that we tend to ignore in mine?
			• It may be useful to apply narratives from different disciplines to overlapping topics and look for contradictions. Then ask, “What assumptions would I have to change or what tweaks could I make to one or more perspectives, to resolve the contradictions?”
			• What core terminology from my specialty can I translate to make it more generally accessible, to help facilitate shared dialog?

	== Astrophysics ==		== Astrophysics ==

David.LePoire: /* Astrophysics */ new section

2026-01-27T15:35:34Z

Astrophysics: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:35, 27 January 2026
Line 8:		Line 8:

	I have in mind starting with standard disciplines such as history, physics, astronomy, geology, biology, paleontology, sociology, psychology, environmental science, philosophy, anthropology, mathematics, geography, literature, languages, political science, economics, computer science, art, theatre, music, education, complexity science, information theory, etc. But these need not be limiting: categories should be chosen and shaped by participants.		I have in mind starting with standard disciplines such as history, physics, astronomy, geology, biology, paleontology, sociology, psychology, environmental science, philosophy, anthropology, mathematics, geography, literature, languages, political science, economics, computer science, art, theatre, music, education, complexity science, information theory, etc. But these need not be limiting: categories should be chosen and shaped by participants.

			== Astrophysics ==

			1) Key insights include a few basic patterns or laws that are universal and underlie everything we observe; the importance of basing our conclusions on empirical evidence; and a basic timeline of key overall stages of the development of the known universe over its 13.8 billion-year history.

			2) Limitations include omitting the experience of subjectivity from direct consideration within the field.

			3) Current puzzles include
			-the nature of the dark matter and dark energy needed to explain large-scale motions within and among galaxies,
			-how the first galaxies formed,
			-how life emerges from non-living structures,
			-how the laws of physics are encoded within the universe,
			-why fundamental constants take on the particular values they have (such as the speed of light, strength of gravity, etc.), and
			-why these values are such that they allow the emergence of life within the universe.
			-Another puzzle is how to include observers within our models. As Sara Walker (2024) writes: “We cannot see ourselves clearly because we have not built a theory of physics yet that treats observers as inside the universe they are describing: that understanding is muddled across seemingly disparate concepts we refer to as ‘matter,’ ‘information,’ ‘causation,’ ‘computation,’ ‘complexity,’ and ‘life.’”

David.LePoire: /* General Structure of Discussion */ new section

2026-01-27T15:33:33Z

General Structure of Discussion: new section

New page

== General Structure of Discussion ==

For each discipline represented in the Big History community, list concisely:

1) Key insights from the discipline, that seem most essential for collaboration (what each discipline contributes to the whole picture).
2) Assumptions/limitations/blinders inherent to the discipline.
3) Current puzzles and paradoxes active in the discipline, stated within the framework of the discipline but with an eye toward the whole. How do these puzzles fit within questions of interest beyond the narrow confines of the discipline? (This question invites participants to think about how their discipline relates to others, and to the whole.)

I have in mind starting with standard disciplines such as history, physics, astronomy, geology, biology, paleontology, sociology, psychology, environmental science, philosophy, anthropology, mathematics, geography, literature, languages, political science, economics, computer science, art, theatre, music, education, complexity science, information theory, etc. But these need not be limiting: categories should be chosen and shaped by participants.

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:59, 27 January 2026
Line 49:		Line 49:
	1) Key insights:		1) Key insights:

	Elements of intelligence: Planning, learning, analogy, decision making, pattern recognition, handling uncertainty, integrating multiple modes of information		-Elements of intelligence: Planning, learning, analogy, decision making, pattern recognition, handling uncertainty, integrating multiple modes of information

	Compilers as a way to translate one knowledge representation to another with syntax		-Compilers as a way to translate one knowledge representation to another with syntax

	The importance and power of recursion in computation		-The importance and power of recursion in computation

	In software development: the need to utilize decomposable hierarchical structures to maintain operations under large stresses from growth and change		-In software development: the need to utilize decomposable hierarchical structures to maintain operations under large stresses from growth and change

	There is a difference between standard digital computing and quantum computing		-There is a difference between standard digital computing and quantum computing

	2) Assumptions, Limitations:		2) Assumptions, Limitations:

	Often: computing is digital although there are elements of symbolic reasoning and analog computing		-Often: computing is digital although there are elements of symbolic reasoning and analog computing

	3) Current Puzzles:		3) Current Puzzles:

	Why are the current AI techniques so effective?		-Why are the current AI techniques so effective?

	Is our current AI model of a neuron, an insult to the real workings of neurons?		-Is our current AI model of a neuron, an insult to the real workings of neurons?

	How can our brain work on such a small energy flow (20 W) compared to the near GW of data centers?		-How can our brain work on such a small energy flow (20 W) compared to the near GW of data centers?

	Is there a way to solve NP Complete problems with quantum computing?		-Is there a way to solve NP Complete problems with quantum computing?