Vlad -
I find your use/choice/settling-upon "lamina/laminae" seems very
motivated, though I can't articulate why. I suppose because it has some
connotation related to concepts like "laminar flow" which is
structurally similar to the vulgar (your implication not mine) "layer"
which connotes the "laying down of" a series of membranes or strata.
I'm not sure I know how to think about ply which seems to be derived
from the world of engineered "laminates", suggesting perhaps a small
number (under 5?) and engineered rather than "grown" or "evolved"?
The idea of one lamina penetrating another is fascinating... it seems
like strata in geology have *some* precedent (shears and folds) for
that, but I can't think of a biological example, nor can I guess what
you were trying to achieve by developing methods for said penetration?
I appreciate your offering the insight that networks (can?) offer a
redistribution of "stress" (which I take to include
engineering/mechanical stress, but also hydrostatic pressure, even
semantic stresses in a concept graph/network) ?
As a long time practicioner in the field of 3D Viz, I understand your
affinity for it, but feel it has it's limits. Not all concepts ground
directly out in 3D Geometry, but require much more subtle and complex
metaphorical basis which in turn might be *rendered* as a 3D object
(more to the point, a complex system projected down into a 3D space
using geometric primitives?)
I do agree with what I think is your supposition that our evolution as
animal/mammal/primate/omnivore/predator has given us tools for 3D
spatial reasoning, but I think we are also blessed (cursed) with
topological reasoning (graphs/networks) of which linguistics/semiotics
might simply be a (signifcant) subset of? I would claim that code is
primarily topological, though in a somewhat degenerate fashion. I used
to wonder why the term "spaghetti code" was used in such derision, I
suspect the most interesting code might very well be so arbitrarily
complex as to deserve that term. I understand that taking (otherwise)
simple linear structures and rendering them unrecognizeable with
jumps/goto's is pathological.
I think I will have to think a little (lot) more about your description
of your stack of rectangular matrices, self-avoiding walks and
Hamiltonian/Eulerian (processes?). I will attempt to parse more of this
and respond under separate cover.
Referencing your (imaginary) namesake, I am feeling mildly impaled on my
own petard here!
- Steve
On 6/9/17 6:51 PM, Vladimyr wrote:
Nicholas,
I hear your plea and would come to your defense if we were closer.
I have a small story that explains my attitude to layer from an Advanced
Composite Engineering view point.
It took me probably 3 years to eradicate the word in my laboratory We were
using various materials and filament
winding with robotic machines. The basic concept is to use lamina as a term to
describe an entity with specific material properties.
When we talked about many lamina then we used the term laminae each was
composed of any number of lamina
having a unique material property set and referenced to local and global
coordinates. This aggressive language facilitated
structural analysis of complex structures. Each lamina had a designation to
allow it to function within a laminate . no one really cared
very much about what a single lamina of unidirectional Carbon fiber thought of
the terminology. What mattered was the finished structure
with interacting laminates and monolithic components to remain intact when used
by people.
Layer is a word used by simpletons or illiterates that never have to analyze
why something failed and killed good people.
The Onion is a metaphor for some complicated word gamers or a hamburger
condiment but one must specify which context before
breaking into a brawl.
We had other terms used at the same time as layer, such as plies from the
lumber industry but they were easier to eradicate.
Our specificity was a consequence of our Mathematics and our robots. Matrix
Stacking was the key procedure we used.
In our case no lamina ever penetrated another, until I violated the social
norms and found a method to do so but that innovation
never found a mathematical support structure nor does it have a biological
analogue.
The language seems to control the way your group thinks. English was my third
language so I am not so biased about some words
as some of you seem. Now the conversation is sliding ever closer to my
interests, graph theory and networks, though I seem unique
in seeing engineered structures as networks that can or cannot redistribute
stress.
Since language can become a tool of Control Freaks I tend to favour 3D images
to explain critical matters. They usually shut down the bickering.
But lately I have gone a bit rogue using stacks of images and video to try and
explain what twirls in my head. Nicholas and Steve Smith
seem to be punching in the right direction. I ran into a problem with some of
my code that was wholly unexpected and it actually
was the circularity condition. You had to view it from a certain location to
see the Circularity , anywhere else you would see either columns or helices.
I had not specifically written the code to do any of these, my brain was
jumping to conclusions. I had the code on one screen and the graphics running
beside on the left.
I had to spend hours staring and watching my own brain fight over which reality
to accept. Evolution has left us many peculiar brain structures that were once
useful but now
a hindrance.
Complexity may be real, but it may also be an unnatural effort for some brains.
Words are nearly useless in this arena. So well maybe are the 2D excel charts.
Steve may just be accidentally
flattering my interests having recently been reading up on Graph Theory. Indeed
I wonder about Nodes and unusual valences. To illustrate my own bent mental
models I used
my mental models to write code and translate a Stack of Rectangular Matrices (6
in total) 28 rows and 162 columns Each represents a Self Avoiding walk neither
Eulerian or Hamiltonian,
or a little of each since I work in 3D at least. I did the unthinkable... I
connected Nodes to Nodes of different Matrices, then I purged nodes only
connected to those of each sheet. What remained
I plotted as surfaces in 3D. Then I converted these vertex positions into
Object files .obj which now can be printed by 3D printers when scaled properly.
So there gentleman I can now print my
Mad Mental Models but that is just the beginning I have established a
methodology to distinguish rigid Body Motion from Growth and present them
simultaneously. But now it get`s very weird,
To see the growth I had to do much fiddling with code. The growth must be
synchronized to the frame rate of the display. Or to my brain throughput
capacity.
I have seen great Hollywood animations and may have repeated what is already
well known but generally out of reach for academics. I use Processing to
display these moving 3D objects with some difficulty
but it does work.
So take a look you may have to download
https://1drv.ms/v/s!AjdC7pqwzaUUkyNFoHD7DbjevjZM
This Flower is the intersection of 5 Self Avoiding Walk Graphs in 3D space,
each Matrix is tubular they are nested inside each other as like a Russian Doll.
Not an Onion .I applied a growth factor to a single region of the fifth matrix
while moving the entire structure via rotation. Examination of any single
Matrix would
never reveal the existence of the whole entity but a combination of any two
would give the wrong conclusion but only some vague insight that something
exists but not what it is.
Oh each frame is a complete 3D structure so this may mean the video is 4D yet
you are seeing it on a 2D display device pretty good for a geezer.
Next each edge needs to be given some material properties amenable to change
perhaps based on proximity.
I suppose any man that goes this far must be quite Mad Indeed , but I hope it
helps keep us engaged and civil.
It looks like it may be possible to target each region with unique Growth
Factors or engineering properties.
I hope this qualifies as useful.
vib
-----Original Message-----
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Nick Thompson
Sent: June-09-17 3:02 PM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] IS: Does Complexity have a circularity problem WAS: Any
non-biological complex systems?
Sorry. Slip of the "pen". Layers it is.
Nick
Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
-----Original Message-----
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of glen ?
Sent: Friday, June 09, 2017 3:06 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] IS: Does Complexity have a circularity problem WAS: Any
non-biological complex systems?
Ha! I don't know if this is fun or not. But you are making me giggle. So
that's good. 8^)
On 06/09/2017 11:54 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:
But wait a minute! Holding a side the mathematical meaning of model for a
minute, what is the difference between a model and a metaphor?
I recently made an ass of myself arguing this very point with Vladimyr and Robert. But
to recap, "model" is too ambiguous to be reliable without lots of context.
Onions are definitely not metaphors. When you bit into one, your body reacts. To the
best of my knowledge, no such reaction occurs when you bite into a metaphor.
In which case, don't we get to examine which features of an onion you have in
mind?
The feature I care about is the 3 dimensional near-symmetry and the fact that
the concept of levels is less useful in such a situation. We could also use
Russian dolls instead of onions, if that would be clearer.
If your notion of an onion is just a project of your notion of levels of
complexity, then how does it help to say that levels of complexity (or
whatever) are onion-like?
Sheesh. I'm trying to stop you from using the word "level". That's all I'm doing.
Maybe you're too smart for your own good. I don't care about ANYTHING else at this point, simply
that the word "level" sucks. Stop using it.
Remember, I am the guy who thinks that a lot of the problems we have in
evolutionary science arise from failing to take Darwin's metaphor (natural
selection) seriously enough.
Yes, I know. That's why it baffles me that you can't see my point that layer
is better than level.
--
☣ 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
============================================================
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
