Similar Patterns Do Not Prove the Same Process

When similar patterns appear at very different scales, we naturally look for a connection. That instinct can begin an investigation, but visual similarity does not prove that the same mechanism produced both structures. Structural resemblance and causal resemblance require different evidence.

A branching river and a drawn network topology can look surprisingly similar. One may be shaped by physical flow while the other is shaped by design rules or communication requirements. The image can suggest a question, but it cannot supply the full explanation.

A comparison becomes stronger when the matched feature is named. Are we comparing branch count, distance, growth, connectivity, or something else? Then we can ask whether that measurement has the same meaning in both domains.

I do not want pattern recognition to become a substitute for evidence. A pattern is a signal for curiosity. Moving from the signal to a mechanism requires measurement, testing, and limits. That is where fascination becomes investigation.

Source: official reference.