From: Ian Glendinning (ian@psybertron.org)
Date: Mon Sep 15 2003 - 13:49:43 BST
Yale,
Just to bring you back down to earth, I don't reckon Wolfram is that hard to
beat.
Anyone who can express their ideas in a few pages beats Wolfram hands down
:-)
I will read your paper, though currently your server seems unavaliable for
download ?
Ian
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk
[mailto:owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk]On Behalf Of Yale Landsberg
Sent: 14 September 2003 21:55
To: moq_discuss@moq.org
Subject: Re: MD fractal filosophy
Ian,
Different readers give me very different views of what they see in
http://yalelands.com/frph.pdf.
For example, I've mentioned here some feedback from member Patrick van den
Berg relating the paper to MoQ principles, and I've mentioned feedback from
a toxologist/pharmacologist relating it to Peirce.
And I've mentioned feedback from a science writer who sees aspects of QM in
it.
As you mentioned Wolfram, how about this: an (a bit too flattering) response
from a computer programmer/data base administrator. But please note that
like playing tennis or golf or engagng in even more enjoyable activities,
you are best off experiencing Fractal Philosophy rather than hearing about
it...
_________
Yale,
While conventional mathematical descriptions of fractals have the generator
of a Koch Curve as the replacing of the middle 1/3 section of the intiator
by two line segments each of 1/3 unit length, your considering the next
generation of the fractal as the generator is much easier for a
non-mathematician like me to understand and visualize. Plus your frph paper
offers wonderful though I think you will agree not easy to grasp with one
reading fascinating insights about the most basic part of computer science.
Because if one sees the initial state of a fractal as the initiator and the
final state as the generator, then what goes on during that transformation
is exactly like the computational process occuring on my Mac between data
input and data output.
I am a C++ programmer and database administrator, and you are obviously a
great mathematician. So please do not take this as a criticism. I think what
you have succeeded in doing in your paper which only on the surface is about
Heraclitus and the I Ching is to expose non-academic computer professionals
like me to the possibility that computations can simultaneously be both
digital AND analogue. And if I am correct, you have out trumped even the
great Steven Wolfram. Good luck!
_______________
Ian, please note two more things: 1) I am not a mathematician. 2) Anyone
such as yourself interested in semantic ontology will have a grand old time
with my above frph.pdf paper. Regards, yale
...
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ian Glendinning" <ian@psybertron.org>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Sunday, September 14, 2003 11:46 AM
Subject: RE: MD fractal filosophy
> Yale,
>
> can I add my plea to these.
> Perhaps a summary / teaser of the key messages in your paper would help
us.
>
> Not having yet read your paper, I for one have some thoughts about the
> chaotic (pseudo-cyclic, pseudo-trending) nature of "memetics" (the way
> thought and knowledge evolve), and consequently I have an interest in
> fractals beyond the pretty images they can create - somewhere close to
> Dawkins "generators" and Wolfram's "cellular automata" I guess. I also
live
> in hope that such mechanisms may lie behind the evolution of / between
> levels in Pirsig's MoQ and similar hierarchical views about how the world
is
> arranged.
>
> I may just have to read it anyway :-)
>
> Ian Glendinning
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk
> [mailto:owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk]On Behalf Of David Buchanan
> Sent: 14 September 2003 00:29
> To: 'moq_discuss@moq.org'
> Subject: MD fractal filosophy
>
>
> Andy, Yale and all
>
> Andy said to Yale:
> I have read your paper. Or more honestly skimmed it. You seem to want
> someone on the list to confirm your belief that there is a connection
> between Pirsig and your paper (fractal philosophy). Why don't you just
tell
> us about the
> connection instead of making us needlessly wait in suspense.
>
> dmb adds:
> Yea. Why not dish up some kind of summary? Why not make us curious? Who
> wants a homework assignment? Make it fun.
>
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archives:
> Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> Nov '02 Onward -
http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
> MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
>
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archives:
> Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> Nov '02 Onward -
http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
> MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Sep 15 2003 - 13:59:12 BST