Some of my responses to Balder's post here follow:
"If a new planetary cathedral is to be erected, I think it will be fractal."
If by fractal one means what the videos indicate, that each
repetition iterates. I.e., while repeating to some degree each iteration
adds something novel and is not quite the same. I often get the feeling
that with some complexity-chaos theories a fractal is the same repeating pattern ad infinitum, more a formal wish fulfillment of stable, unchanging Form. And like our friends the image stigmata, always in media res, this gives pause for "our delighting in the endlessly fruitful in-between," in-between itself being one of those prepositional schema.
"This musical enclosure has the capacity to call whales and other great creatures out of the deep."
Including but especially the patron/matron saint of IPS, Cthulhu.
"I think there is a sense, which most of us have felt, where a vital
or ‘awake’ generative (en)closure – a practice retreat, a therapeutic
encounter, a relationship, etc – seemed to greatly amplify qualitative
space."
Ahem, like, IPS.
What
I'm thinking with fractals though is that it is not only the content
that changes with each iteration but the principles/laws as well. It
seems that with 'restricted' complexity theory the iterative laws or
mathematical patterns remain the same at each level of scale, often
because they are considered universal and/or Platonic Forms of some
kind. I've argued that case with the MHC in the real/false reason (RFR) thread.
Whereas for a more 'general' complexity it must use a more
differential calculus that shows not only a change in content but a
change in the mathematical equations as well. This is especially so
since math itself is created by mental content, not the other way
around. So one thing I wonder with these videos is whether the
mathematical programming that makes them run is the same iterative loop
or whether the math itself is programmed to change at each level of
scale? Another thing I wonder in terms of modeling human stages of
consciousness is why do mathematical models like the MHC keep the formal
math iterations instead of changing them at beyond formal consciousness
iterations? I explored that as well in the RFR thread.
For example, this article
explains well and simply Riemann geometric space, where parallel lines
can cross and the 3 angles of a triangle can equal more or less than 180
degrees. This of course takes into account something Bryant and
Einstein talk about, that gravity curves space, time and light. So we
have different maths (geometries) for each iteration.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.