On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 7:42 PM, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com>wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, September 11, 2012 8:06:44 PM UTC-4, Jason wrote: > >> >> >> On Sep 11, 2012, at 4:20 PM, Craig Weinberg <whats...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Tuesday, September 11, 2012 1:20:49 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Look how lawful and rich a very simple program, less than 1K, can define: >>> >> >> Statistically, shouldn't we see this simple 1K sequence frequently in >> nature? >> >> >> Well we do see it, on natural creations of a natural form of life: >> YouTube, posters, book covers, monitors. >> > > I thought it was pretty clear that I was using the term natural as > distinct from artificial, i.e. human produced artifacts. My point was that > if Mandelbrot is such a simple structure, why does it exist primarily as a > result of a human being's understanding of the how to employ the math > behind it and not in seashells, leaves, insects, bacteria, crystals, etc. > Okay. > > >> >> I mean precisely. Shouldn't there be hundreds of species of beetle that >> have patterns on their backs which are derived exclusively from the >> Mandelbot set. >> >> >> The chance of a 1K pattern arising randomly (with no particular selection >> pressure) is 1 in 2 to the 8192nd power. So even though there are millions >> of beatle species, that doesn't come close. >> > > Why wouldn't there be selection pressure? As you said, we seem to like > looking at it well enough. > Once it appeared, there might be pressure to keep it. But you need some way of getting closer and closer to it in small steps for there to be pressure for it to appear, rather than requiring the full 1K pattern to come about through randomness. > Why not select for a Mandelbrot peacock? Besides, every individual of > every species presents hundreds of thousands of concurrent positions in > their DNA to host the pattern - which maybe doesn't even need to be 1K all > at once, maybe it can evolve like DNA did, 4 small modules that combine > info 10 larger functional sequences, etc. Or it could devolve from a 10Mb > pattern. > > Right, it would have to be something that could evolve in small steps with a bias towards moving closer to final complete algorithm. > >> >> >> Also, having heard Mandelbrot as audio data instead of visual, I can say >> that the impact of the experience is diminished by orders of magnitude. >> >> >> That seems like an unnatural transformation, Do you know the particulars >> of how the set was turned into audio? >> > > I have listened to several from different sources. They're easy to find on > YouTube. Why does it seem like an unnatural transformation? As you said, > visual Mandelbrot is all over posters and the internet...where are the > popular movie soundracks and pop songs? From my perspective it seems to me > that you are content to model the world by blind theory rather than try to > make sense of what is true in practice. > > >> It may only be visual sense that makes something as meaningless and >> recursive as Mandelbrot look interesting to us. >> >> >> It is interesting for many reasons. I was again awestruck watching one >> of the videos today. It is do astounding such patterns come from such a >> simple definition. >> > > They don't come from the simple definition. They come from your retina and > visual cortex. That's what I am trying to tell you. There is nothing there > but the meaningless seed. > Were do you propose my retina gets it from? > > Here's an even simpler example that I posted today: > http://s33light.org/post/31397258898 > > The patterns that you see exist only at the level of description that your > perception can make sense of. In "reality" all there is is one rotating > yin/yang circle that has been multiplied and arranged in larger sizes in a > very basic pattern. Even these aren't really objective patterns since in > the level of "reality" that is one step beneath the rotating circles, there > is just pixels on your screen lightening and darkening rhythmically. > Beneath that, there are liquid crystals and retinal molecules being > stimulated. If you put these patterns in an audio form, they would not > carry the same information. The pattern is not in the form, it is in the > pattern recognition through the form which allows inform-ation. > > Craig > > >> >> Jason >> >> Craig >> >> >>> >>> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Everything List" group. >> To view this discussion on the web visit >> <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/GqxsilAo_mkJ> >> https://groups.google.com/d/**msg/everything-list/-/**GqxsilAo_mkJ<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/GqxsilAo_mkJ> >> . >> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.**com. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@** >> googlegroups.com. >> >> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/** >> group/everything-list?hl=en<http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en> >> . >> >> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/KvpoK_Vkh5IJ. > > To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to email@example.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.