[FRIAM] the role of metaphor in scientific thought

[glen ☣]

Regarding the toolchain:

I can't help but wonder how difficult it would be to switch from Maple to Sage?  If it's anything like how it used to be to use Matlab code in Octave, then it's non-trivial.  But if it *were* relatively straightforward, then it might be easier to "distribute" participation.  Ophidiophobia notwithstanding.

Also, although perhaps small in terms of communities, Processing does have other users like the Arduino people.  And just playing with it for Jon Zingale's example of Takens' theorem[†], it didn't seem that difficult to get working.  So, my guess is that it would be much more accessible than the Maple.  Not being able to mix complex with primitive objects is an odd problem, though.

[†] http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/2017-February/075670.html

Regarding disenfranchisement under distribution:

This is the *heart* of systems theory, in my opinion.  The actions of the overwhelming majority of single operators are well removed from the distant outcome.  If the distribution is biased, then the hubs have more influence, obviously.  But that's the joy of systemic thinking, I think.  Being able to correlate (at least in a delusional/motivated way, if not for real) one's tiny actions to a larger effect.  Deep down, perhaps some of us are individualists and some of us are teamsters.  But opening up your very private toolchain/method to the (annoying) participation of others should, I think, incentivize you ... like in Core Wars if you're competitive ... or in SETI if you're a teamster.


On 07/19/2017 03:02 PM, Vladimyr wrote:
> I already use AutoHotKey  Script to run Code in Maple Math and Dump .txt vertex data embedded in Processing 3 code (some Java offshoot)
> The autoHotKey assembles the hundreds of images and 3D objects into ordered sets and then runs MovieMaker to produce video .wmv, which you have seen already.
> 
> It was my intention to convert the functional routines from Maple  directly into Processing and share that code widely.
> But few people other than web artists use Processing and it does not seem able to run on a web site. I guess this is a general problem or short coming.
> 
> Processing graphics are fast and surprisingly good, better than I am used to elsewhere.
> I will try and write the Processing version of the Maple guts and get it out but it may take sometime and others will have to install
> the Processing engine which is free but sort of clunky to set up.
> 
> There are a number of issues that all this cross talk introduces such as while Processing does crank out 3D object files readily accepted by 3D printers.
> But it handles colors strangely and seems unable to mix these objects with solid primitives during object creation. A task probably better suited to CAD packages.
> 
> If this is done you will probably by amazed at all the useless junk that pours out at the far end. Like my undergrads trying to build a toboggan out of concrete.
> 
> One issue I see is that the more removed the operator the less incentive he will have to connect his actions to the distant outcome.
> There was a profound moment in my memory when you and Nick , I think, dabbled with misinterpretation vs premature registration...
> I noticed that from the video I had a choice to imagine a squiggly line, a worm, a leaf or a set of leaves with a flower if I waited a bit longer. I thought of the process
> as a series of unfolding Emergence events passing by very quickly and soon forgotten when the last was accepted.
> 
> Perhaps we jump through Metaphoric fiery rings till we think we understand. 
> Thank-you again for the suggestions.
> I worry a bit about keeping this process as easy and transparent as possible, avoiding  Python or Anaconda's.
> inSilico Ecology as an idea has startling possibilities. Energy flow will make that possible I think. But just where do I start...Hmmm

-- 
☣ glen