Glen, The Voronoi Mesh video distribution has been delayed by a connection speed problem and currently can't even view my own cloud storage. I have found a third oddity called for lack of anything better the camera position. as it moves I think at moments that the other two coordinate systems become conflated and it requires focused attention to account for distinct motions.
I think you have presented the problem in complex terms and have missed a simple solution. Run it Backwards and forwards , just like in calculus. If you get the same input values from a certain output value set then it usually got you full marks. I will get this problem solved yet. The most interesting insight is that each is connected by time... I am losing my vision so I wish to use what is left before it all goes. This was all done in Processing 3.0.1 and I am learning it now but it reminds me a little of C++ from my old days. So if it runs backwards and forwards just give a heuristic kick in the pants and watch... The original code libraries came from a physicist from Belgium, F. VanHoutte. There are so many things moving that my machine may not do a good job. My interest is to use these meshes to create Insect Wings for CGI. https://1drv.ms/v/s!AjdC7pqwzaUUkxtarv1AjHWv1xVr It is on the site but you may have to download it and open to see it. Good Luck. let me know if it works. vib -----Original Message----- From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of glen ? Sent: February-20-17 11:09 AM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: Fractal discussion Landscape-bird songs Rather than risk your thinking nobody wants to see it, I figured I'd chime in. I want to see the video of your cube surrounded by a voronoi tesselation. The subject you raise comes up a lot in conversations with my clients. The extent to which an actor's mechanism is local or global can be very important both functionally and technically. Any spatial structure that is defined globally, then even if used only locally by an actor, presents a risk of inscription error (assuming one's conclusion). But this often leads one down the road to ad infinitum problems with bottom-up modeling. So, we have to compromise and allow at least some teleology. The trick is to be disciplined or put in place checks and balances that help ensure acyclic reasoning. And I agree that the illusions you mention are primarily associated with (inappropriate) reification through transforms. You seem to be saying that some transforms present illusions and others present non-illusions (truth?). I take the opposite position ... perhaps the post-modern position ... that all transforms present illusions (or all present truth). The key is to know that you're seeing the image of a transform and cataloging that particular one (amongst its category of transforms that could have been used). Then, whether your verification methods have failed you and the transform you're using is _not_ the one you think you're using, matters less -- and can be more readily debugged. I.e. when we're looking at an ink blot, are we aware that the more prickly ones allow less ambiguity? On 02/15/2017 06:20 PM, Vladimyr Burachynsky wrote: > I have been mulling over the thread about Representation versus Dynamicism > for a bit and the differences that language imposes whenever > cross-disciplines attempt to converse. Today I was struggling with some code > to create Voronoi Meshes nested within each other based on nested spheres. > All look well enough until I introduced a primitive solid, a Cube and tried > to make everything spin in space. > > I needed to decide which entity or sets were coupled to which… So thinking of > FEM procedures I decided to make the Voronoi Sets occupy the Global > Coordinate Position and attach the Cube as a Local Coordinate System. This > is rather arbitrary and can go either way. The problem appears somewhat akin > to our thread, but I am aware that these distinctions are contained within > the same Simulation and neither reflects a reality except by coincidence. To > cope with multiple coordinate systems one requires a pertinent transformation > matrix but if one is reckless the results are meaningless. The appearance of > coupled systems may be illusionary and mistaken as causative. > > I thought today there was also a mention in Science Daily of fractals in > Rorsach tests the more fractals, the more imaginative the observer’s answer. > > https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/02/170214162838.htm > > It will take a few days but will try and make a video out of the apparent > incongruity of these objects. The Cube is lacking any distinctive edge > embellishments and troubles the mind as unreal somehow. > > Language always hampers exchange of ideas. -- ☣ glen ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
