From the pages of Slashdot.
"The structure of the universe and the laws that govern its growth may be more similar than previously thought to the structure and growth of... and other complex networks, such as the Internet or a social network of trust relationships between people, according to a new study. 'By no means do we claim that the universe is a global brain or a computer,' said Dmitri Krioukov, co-author of the paper, published by the Cooperative Association for Internet Data Analysis (CAIDA), based at the San Diego Supercomputer Center (SDSC) at the University of California, San Diego.'But the discovered equivalence between the growth of the universe and complex networks strongly suggests that unexpectedly similar laws govern the dynamics of these very different complex systems,' Krioukov noted."
.'But the discovered equivalence between the growth of the universe and complex networks strongly suggests that unexpectedly similar laws govern the dynamics of these very different complex systems,' Krioukov noted."
I am perplexed by the above statement - it is quite confusing and explains nothing . What complex networks are the venerable author referring to ? . Where is the universe growing ? There is no merit in the thesis at all . If a man who believes himself to be something looks at the sun - his theories still would not be the sun , it would only be the sum total of his beliefs and ideas of the sun that he would be looking at , unless he knew who he himself was - in which case he would see the sun as it should be seen.So too for the Universe and networks .
Dear Joe ,
I am so sorry , It does happen sometimes with me - I know you Joe ,I do tend to miss the core Idea at times - Me bad !!!
I copied this piece from Wikipedia about Fractals which also goes along the same lines as Joe's comment:
The word "fractal" often has different connotations for laypeople than mathematicians, where the layperson is more likely to be familiar with fractal art than a mathematical conception. The mathematical concept is difficult to formally define even for mathematicians, but key features can be understood with little mathematical background.
The feature of "self-similarity", for instance, is easily understood by analogy to zooming in with a lens or other device that zooms in on digital images to uncover finer, previously invisible, new structure. If this is done on fractals, however, no new detail appears; nothing changes and the same pattern repeats over and over, or for some fractals, nearly the same pattern reappears over and over. Self-similarity itself is not necessarily counter-intuitive (e.g., people have pondered self-similarity informally such as in the infinite regress in parallel mirrors or the homunculus, the little man inside the head of the little man inside the head...). The difference for fractals is that the pattern reproduced must be detailed (Wikipedia "Fractals", 2012).