For me it is Cellular Automata, and more precisely the Game of Life.

Imagine a giant Excel spreadsheet where the cells are randomly chosen to be either “alive” or “dead”. Each cell then follows a handful of simple rules.

For example, if a cell is “alive” but has less than 2 “alive” neighbors it “dies” by under-population. If the cell is “alive” and has more than three “alive” neighbors it “dies” from over-population, etc.

Then you sit back and just watch things play out. It turns out that these basic rules at the individual level lead to incredibly complex behaviors at the community level when you zoom out.

It kinda, sorta, maybe resembles… life.

There is colonization, reproduction, evolution, and sometimes even space flight!

  • Kissaki@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    How little food intake is enough to sustain extensive (physical) activity.

    The little birds running on the beach with every wave, eating mini things. How can those be enough to sustain that much running? And it’ll have to sustain them when they’re not eating too.

    A human can not eat for several days and still stay active. An incredible adaptation. I food conversion, storage, and priority dissolution in a complex system.

  • claycle@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    I am focusing on the “blow my mind” part, rather than the “beautiful” part of your question, but I am certain many philosophically-minded people would consider the following “beautiful”.

    Peter Singer’s argument in “Famine, Affluence, and Morality (1972)” that you and most everyone you know are probably immoral or evil and you don’t even realize it. It really affected my ideas of how to strive to live.

    Here is a good video explaining the idea in detail, worth 30m of your time.

    Peter Singer - ordinary people are evil

    • simon574@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’ve watched like 10 minutes and I hate it. Peter Singer is a very controversial figure as it is, on top of that the guy in the video comes off as super condescending to me and I can’t stand watching him for longer. Me personally, I don’t think it’s “immoral” to not give money to charity. And terms like immoral or evil are usually defined by the society you live in and not some random philosopher. And I bet there are good reasons his radical ideas in “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” did not get embedded in our society yet.