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 
> <whats...@gmail.com<javascript:>
> > 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.

or 

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.

Craig


>   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 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/yekxmLVmT9oJ.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.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.

Reply via email to