  Is dynamics prediction indispensable for physical reasoning? If so, what kind
of roles do the dynamics prediction modules play during the physical reasoning
process? Most studies focus on designing dynamics prediction networks and
treating physical reasoning as a downstream task without investigating the
questions above, taking for granted that the designed dynamics prediction would
undoubtedly help the reasoning process. In this work, we take a closer look at
this assumption, exploring this fundamental hypothesis by comparing two
learning mechanisms: Learning from Dynamics (LfD) and Learning from Intuition
(LfI). In the first experiment, we directly examine and compare these two
mechanisms. Results show a surprising finding: Simple LfI is better than or on
par with state-of-the-art LfD. This observation leads to the second experiment
with Ground-truth Dynamics, the ideal case of LfD wherein dynamics are obtained
directly from a simulator. Results show that dynamics, if directly given
instead of approximated, would achieve much higher performance than LfI alone
on physical reasoning; this essentially serves as the performance upper bound.
Yet practically, LfD mechanism can only predict Approximate Dynamics using
dynamics learning modules that mimic the physical laws, making the following
downstream physical reasoning modules degenerate into the LfI paradigm; see the
third experiment. We note that this issue is hard to mitigate, as dynamics
prediction errors inevitably accumulate in the long horizon. Finally, in the
fourth experiment, we note that LfI, the extremely simpler strategy when done
right, is more effective in learning to solve physical reasoning problems.
Taken together, the results on the challenging benchmark of PHYRE show that LfI
is, if not better, as good as LfD for dynamics prediction. However, the
potential improvement from LfD, though challenging, remains lucrative.
