Math versus Computational Science Approximation

I love it because I think I originated it. There are essentially two different ways of approximating a hard problem One, called Math approach is to decompose the region into large number of equi sized mesh and apply some sort of continuity at the edges. Another is to decompose into a much smaller number of quite complex elements which are not equi sized and independent subproblems. These subsolutions also have to satisfy some different continuity conditions. This I call computational science decomposition, essentially  similar to divide and conquer with no view of similarity of subproblems. The basic benefit is much smaller decomposition.

I encountered CS decomposition in finite element method in civil engineering which could run rings around finite difference methods. It is very common in computer science.

The impetus to raise to an essential contradiction was in quantum gravity understanding. One can view an amplituhedron as a clever CS trick to reduce the explosive number of Feynman diagrams to be summed from the number of atoms in the computer to under million for 5 loop problem.

It appears that that is basic to all others (a graviton can be viewed as two photons). CS decomposition might allow construction of quantum gravity theories from which quantum mechanic emerges, just as time/space 4 dimension emerge from quantum mechanics in amplituhedron approach!

Philosophical unification of Bohr and Einstein views, essential combining of perfect yet incompatible theories on quantum mechanics and gravitational universe happens non-deterministically and accurately by the macroscopepicity concept. Proper development into a collapse-magic view-free QM, compatible with non-locality in entanglement is possible in BBB (deBroglie-Bohm-Bell) variant that emerges from QG without the perplexity of required higher intelligence for universe to develop!

The relation to Stoicism is simple, understanding nature is a required virtue. Ultimately, despite all the differences, Stoicism and adi-shankaracharya (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adi_Shankara) both believe in unity of God and nature, we are pieces of divine just trying to understand the whole.

Adi Shankara (pronounced [aːd̪i ʃəŋkəɾə]; early 8th century CE^]) was a philosopher and theologian from India who consolidated the doctrine of Advaita Vedanta He is credited with unifying and establishing the main currents of thought in Hinduism..His works in Sanskrit discuss the unity of the ātman and Nirguna Brahman "brahman without attributes" He wrote copious commentaries on the Vedic canon (Brahma Sutras, Principal Upanishads and Bhagavad Gita) in support of his thesis. His works elaborate on ideas found in the Upanishads. Shankara's publications criticised the ritually-oriented Mīmāṃsā school of Hinduism.He also explained the key difference between Hinduism and Buddhism, stating that Hinduism asserts "Atman (Soul, Self) exists" as does stoicism, while Buddhism asserts that there is "no Soul, no Self"