How about Blender?
http://www.blender.org/
I've played with it occasionally over a period of several years. I don't
have any experience with commercial alternatives, so can't comment on how it
compares. But it satisfies your stated requirements, it's free, has got
very active user and
Have you given Google SketchUp http://sketchup.google.com/ a look?
On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 4:34 PM, Owen Densmore o...@backspaces.net wrote:
I'm looking at 3D modeling software, and would like help deciding on which
system to use.
A few requirements:
- Not too expensive .. $150 fine, but
All,
I would like to appeal for some help from The List with the chapter we are
reading this week in the Emergence Seminar. One of the central assertions of
the author is that quantum mechanics put the British Emergentists out of
business by making configurational forces seem unlikely. He
That's the problem I have with taking historical ideas seriously. Why
should we care whether whatever the British Emergentists thought makes sense
now? What we should care about is what does make sense now? Of course, as I
mentioned to you (Nick) privately, my wife, who works in Early Modern
Russ,
To me, the mark of an educated person is the ability to hold different views of
the same subject in mind at the same time. I think our discussions on this
list have tended to lack depth, in the sense that everybody has their opinion
but has grave difficulty representing with any
As I read it, the issue isn't whether structures and/or configurations
are/aren't important, the question is whether they operate according
to emergent or resultant rule sets.
The Emergentists were betting heavily on the emergent rule set. They
believed that the variety of chemistry couldn't
From the text below, it is apparent that British emergence is not the
same beast as what we call emergence today. Those very
configurational forces you mention are precisely what I mean by
emergent phenomena, which is entirely consistent with how the term is
used in the complex systems literature
[This is an email I sent to the reading group. It's title was:
Emergence, Chaos Envy, and Formalization of Complexity
I think that, rather than worrying about the existing concepts of
emergence, we would be far better off looking at the history of Chaos
and how they achieved amazing
Dear Russ II,
One of the things I hope to find out by discussing actual texts is whether
it IS the same as vitalism. I don't think so. Another reason to spend a
week on the british emergentists is because of their partial ressemblence
to Authors like Juarerro and Rosen whom some of us do take
Owen,
Here's how I would start.
I'm not scientist enough to know what 'configuration physics' or
'configuration chemistry' means. My guess is that it means something like a
structured collection of matter where the structure itself is important. One
of my friends likes to talk about that sort of
Oh, gosh!
I hope it was clear to every reader that when I wrote:
I think our discussions on this list have tended to lack depth, in the sense
that everybody has their opinion but has grave difficulty representing with any
fidelity the opinion with which they disagree.
that I was
Oh, dear, it seems I've been relegated to the Russ II position now
:). Serves me right, I guess.
I still think meaning is essential. The reason why something is
structured rather than unstructured is that the structure means
something to somebody.
And for measuring this, I don't think we can go
Dear Russ S,
I'm not sure I follow the meaning point. Biological organisms are structured
in important (emergent) ways, but how do you attach meaning to that?
-- Russ A
On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 9:55 PM, russell standish r.stand...@unsw.edu.auwrote:
Oh, dear, it seems I've been relegated to
13 matches
Mail list logo
