>"E&M is far from "simple". It contains special relativity, for starters."
A theory (which is just a set of assumed first principles and rules of logic) can be simple but allow you to deduce vast complexity from it. In fact, it is ideal for a theory to be as simple as possible.
I can't begin to imagine why this would trigger a downvote. Are there people out there who prefer complex theories that make things more difficult to understand than necessary? Perhaps because it makes them feel smart or something, I don't know.
But that is basically saying you dislike science, because the point of science is to synthesize information into a small set of simple "laws" that allow us to deduce accurate and precise predictions.
you are being downvoted because of a problem with the nature of HN echo chamber being a symptom.
if the voting/karma system was improved we wouldnt have problems with this kind of downvoting
I reflexively downvote the game of life. I have never heard of a single useful application or analogy of “finite automata.” Yes, there are speculations about extremely small Planck lengths, by no new physics has panned out. Finally I am sad that one of the greatest computer scientists and polymaths, Ed Fredkin, got sucked into this. We all have weaknesses.
GoL wasn't used here because of any value or analogy... it's used as an example of how a simple set of rules can generate complex behavior. GoL can display complex behavior, but it would be a stretch to to say that the rules governing it are complex. If you think GoL is too simplistic, you are agreeing with the original comment.
A theory (which is just a set of assumed first principles and rules of logic) can be simple but allow you to deduce vast complexity from it. In fact, it is ideal for a theory to be as simple as possible.
The "game of life" is not really a theory, but it demonstrates that simple rules can lead to surprising complexity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_Game_of_Life
EDIT:
I can't begin to imagine why this would trigger a downvote. Are there people out there who prefer complex theories that make things more difficult to understand than necessary? Perhaps because it makes them feel smart or something, I don't know.
But that is basically saying you dislike science, because the point of science is to synthesize information into a small set of simple "laws" that allow us to deduce accurate and precise predictions.