On Thursday, September 13, 2012 4:26:45 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 5:20 PM, Craig Weinberg
> > wrote:
> > Statistically, shouldn't we see this simple 1K sequence frequently in
>> nature? 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.
> There's nothing special about the Mandelbrot Set, it's just the first
> example found where huge complexity can be generated from very little. And
> if you want to see what can be done with a 400 meg file just look in a
> mirror, that's about the size of the human genome; you could burn the
> entire thing onto a CD and still have room for 100 pop songs from iTunes.
I was using Mandelbrot as an example because it's popular. From what I've
seen online, the human genome is at least 700Mb, but yeah it's not a lot.
You can look at what this means in at least two ways though:
1) Simple rules generate enormous complexity in the universe.
2) Rules are just a tiny part of what the universe is about - it's what
executes the rules that matters and experiences.
The former is only true if the simple rules are applied to a medium which
is inherently able to support rich pattern recognition, so I would say that
it really is a view which tainted with reductionist ideology.
> John K Clark
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at