Ok, but simulations were already showing the correct results.
So this is not so much a fundamental insight, as it is a tool for engineers to do back of the envelope computations.
So this is not so much a fundamental insight, as it is a tool for engineers to do back of the envelope computations.
Maybe it can help theorist to more efficiently identify what is fundamental insight.
The link to reverse engineering is great. I wonder how well it has worked with fission and making a star in my backyard.
Techniques aren’t to be dogmatic or pragmatic. They are to be explored and reinvented. Whoever came up with don’t reinvent the wheel just wants to soak up as much profit from the current paradigm as possible.
Think of Tesla, Elon said something like x > 50%(don’t remember it wasn’t like 97% I believe) of pets used had to be redesigned and were not factory standard or template.
Veribility in the back envelope may give false positives which can hinder progress is all I’m saying :)
Because intuition is "simulation" after all. Gedankenexperiment.
You know the correct result for dropping a glass on the floor.
Insight comes from knowing why and how the glass shatters, not that it shatters.
Wait