[FRIAM] Automata with FFT

Tue Sep 27 22:02:23 EDT 2022

This may not mean much to anyone except DaveW, but my apprehension of 
_Nature of Order_ and Alexander's throwdown at the time in life (after a 
long time underground?)  was a bit similar in some ways to Wolfram's 
_New Kind of Science_ .    Both can be described as "surly outsiders" 
with a certain kind of quirky, equal parts undeniable genius and 
arrogance.   Both took 20 years or more off from engagement to come back 
with their Opus Magnii which got mixed reviews even from their fans.

I believe Jenny is still subscribed to this list but probably isn't 
following it closely so may not have seen any of this discussion.  I 
recommend her personal reflections on Alexander's work: Delight's Muse 
<https://www.amazon.com/DelightS-Christopher-AlexanderS-Nature-Order/dp/143031317X> 
.

On 9/27/22 4:38 PM, Steve Smith wrote:
>
> On 9/27/22 7:40 AM, glen wrote:
>> Ha! The way you phrase it makes the guilty verdict sound more serious 
>> than it was. But the point about problem vs solution space is sound, 
>> especially given the *forward* map implied by "design". And thanks 
>> for the summary of Alexander and motivations for the publications, 
>> all stuff I didn't know.
>>
>> But I'm piqued by the assertion that the link to geometry was 
>> tenuous. Salingaros' progression from master of geometric algebra to 
>> pattern language guru *must* have something to do with a geometric 
>> gestalt in or *around* pattern languages. 
> I had some early correspondence with Salingaros as I tried to get my 
> head around the broader implications of PLs and Alexander's *A*PL in 
> particular and I felt the same then.  He definitely has a geometric 
> bent in his perspective.
>> I admit it could only be circumstantial, peri-pattern-language. But 
>> if we look at Penrose (building physical "machines" as a kid), it 
>> seems clear that embodied-in-4-dimensions can have occult 
>> implications for the brain farts in later life. 
> an early philosophical reading I did on "computer graphics", probably 
> written in the early 70s (I cannot find a proper reference and have 
> looked for decades now) stated that the (anthropic argument) reason we 
> live in a 3 dimensional world is that  is the lowest dimension in 
> which an arbitrary network/graph can be layed out without 
> edge-crossings.  This has huge implications for Edwin Abbot Abbot's 
> Flatlanders as well as Bob Forward's Cheela (Dragon's Egg, 
> neutron-star-surface creatura).
>> So if Alexander's 1st love was art, which is inherently geometric, 
>> wouldn't his adoption of the application of pattern language be a 
>> reasonable correlation?
> Most visual artists would probably argue that their work is not 
> inherently geometric.   I'll elaborate in the next slab of lard.
>>
>> Maybe there's some ambiguity around the word "geometry"? 
> I think both visual (flat, wall-hanging, etc) art and architecture are 
> intrinsically embedded in a *spatial* context which is most commonly 
> (but not exclusively) described geometrically. 
> Painting/Sketching/Drawing/Photography/Printmaking/etc. adn.  tend to 
> be made up of 0,1,2D marks on a surface for sure, but the *import* of 
> those marks is quite often much more relational. Composition is the 
> easiest perhaps to express/grok... and yes, the *geometric* 
> composition (what is next-to/above/occluded-by, etc) is the 
> expression, but the *relations* being expressed are in an entirely 
> different domain, and the *mapping* from one to the other is 
> essentially metaphorical, though the metaphorical source domains (e.g. 
> religious, political, sociological... ) are often layered and rich in 
> their structure, but definitely more "topological" than "geometric"?
>> Sorry for being skeptical from my completely ignorant position. But 
>> can you explain why you claim the connection is tenuous?
> I hope DaveW gives his own contrasting/complementary answer and 
> hopefully others here have their own trick dogs in this circus?
>
>
> - Steve
>
>>
>> On 9/26/22 19:47, Prof David West wrote:
>>> Alexander was a Janus: a mathematician at his father's insistence 
>>> when he wanted to be an artist. An architect by compromise.  Face 
>>> two was a Taoist mystic infused with hard core Catholic fundamentalism.
>>>
>>> His Ph.D. thesis—which became his first book, /Notes on the 
>>> Synthesis of Form/—was an attempt to define a mathematical science 
>>> of [architectural/industrial] design. But in the same book, he 
>>> stated that optimal design arose from a "non-selfconscious" process, 
>>> embedded in myth and ritual and culture.
>>>
>>> /A Pattern Language/, was part of a trilogy that included /The 
>>> Timeless Way of Building/ and the /Oregon Experiment/. /APL/ was 
>>> written by committee and edited by Alexander (although he took all 
>>> the credit) to fulfill a government grant. His mystical side was 
>>> front and center in /TTW/; and the Oregon Experiment was a case study.
>>>
>>> Alexander transcended Patterns and his last major work—/The Nature 
>>> of Order, vol 1-4/—centered 15 generative properties that have 
>>> little to nothing to do with patterns and is far more mystical and 
>>> Catholic-God focused than his earlier work.
>>>
>>> Ward Cunningham and Kent Beck brought /APL/ to the attention of the 
>>> software community as a workshop at OOPSLA (ACM conference on Object 
>>> Oriented Programming Systems and Applications). The 'Gang of Four' 
>>> authors of /Pattern Languages of Programming/ participated in that 
>>> workshop. A year after their book was published a mock trial of the 
>>> GoF for "heresy" was staged and they were found guilty.
>>>
>>> Perhaps the most significant error made by the software community 
>>> was seeking patterns in "solution space" rather than "problem 
>>> space;" the latter being where most of Alexander's work was focused. 
>>> The software patterns community looked at written programs to find 
>>> multiple instances of similar bodies of code and attempt to discern 
>>> a generalized problem that they solved (albeit with contextual 
>>> idiosyncrasies).
>>>
>>> There are hundreds of thousands of software patterns published, but 
>>> maybe three or four that actually capable of being applied in 
>>> multiple contexts—of actually being considered "true" patterns.
>>>
>>> The connection to geometry, both in Alexander and in software 
>>> patterns, was never more than tenuous. A majority of the patterns in 
>>> APL (e.g., "Dancing in the Streets," "Sleeping in Public") had 
>>> nothing to do with geometry or any other mathematical formalism. 
>>> Even patterns like "Light from Two Sides" are geometric in the only 
>>> the simplest sense.
>>>
>>> The math in /Notes/ was algebra, not geometry. Only in his last 
>>> major work NO, can you find properties that are overtly geometric, 
>>> e.g., "centers" and "alternating repetition."
>>>
>>> more upon request
>>>
>>> davew
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Sep 26, 2022, at 5:13 PM, glen wrote:
>>>  > I'd appreciate you (and SteveS) throwing some words at it. In
>>>  > particular, since software patterns are *supposed* to be linked 
>>> to the
>>>  > geometric patterns of architecture, *where* or *how* has it gone 
>>> wrong
>>>  > in extrapolation? Did Alexander go wrong in his extrapolation? Or 
>>> did
>>>  > others [mis]interpret?
>>>  >
>>>  > (I've purposefully left the Subject the same because it definitely
>>>  > relates to Chan's morphology based taxonomy and my argument with my
>>>  > meso-biologist friend about "species diversity" versus "phylogenetic
>>>  > diversity".)
>>>  >
>>>  > On 9/26/22 15:35, Prof David West wrote:
>>>  >> I am a patterns and Alexander expert. glen's uncertainty / mild 
>>> antipathy is spot on. Software patterns are an oxymoron.
>>>  >>
>>>  >> Strong words, but happy to back them up with dozens of papers 
>>> written/presented and hours of discussion.
>>>  >>
>>>  >> davew
>>>  >>
>>>  >>
>>>  >> On Mon, Sep 26, 2022, at 6:29 AM, glen wrote:
>>>  >>> Very cool! Thanks.
>>>  >>>
>>>  >>> In particular, our property abuts "the ravine", which is a 
>>> semi-wild
>>>  >>> place. The permaculture categories might help me orient my own
>>>  >>> intuition (that everything in the ravine should be left alone) 
>>> with my
>>>  >>> neighbor's (clearing the whole area and reintroducing natives). 
>>> He owns
>>>  >>> the majority of it. So, c'est la vie ... or perhaps "telle est la
>>>  >>> mort". (Don't blame me. I don't know French.) One thing this 
>>> zone 0-5
>>>  >>> model might permit is modularity. That blog post implies such 
>>> with the
>>>  >>> inverted garden interface. But it seems like there could be 
>>> pockets of
>>>  >>> zone0es in wild areas and pockets of zone5s in urban areas,
>>>  >>> particularly in sprawling cities like LA or Houston. Growing up in
>>>  >>> Houston, where every square inch of semi-abandoned land seemed 
>>> rapidly
>>>  >>> reclaimed by the swamp, is probably the source of my skepticism 
>>> with my
>>>  >>> friends' diversity doctrine.
>>>  >>>
>>>  >>> There's a lot to digest in the biophilia links. I have to 
>>> confess, I
>>>  >>> haven't given pattern languages much attention. It always seems
>>>  >>> motivated by geometry, which fails for me. Of course, I'm familiar
>>>  >>> enough with software patterns. But that's always failed for me 
>>> as well.
>>>  >>> They seem too ephemeral, unstable ... i.e. not real, convenient
>>>  >>> fiction, and *perfect* opportunity for gurus to blind others 
>>> with their
>>>  >>> gobbledygook mouth sounds. I guess it reminds me of category 
>>> theory,
>>>  >>> too abstract for my ape brain. But maybe some of his earlier 
>>> work on
>>>  >>> Clifford algebras might motivate me? I could start here, I guess:
>>>  >>> https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4757-1472-2_41 
>>> <https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4757-1472-2_41>
>>>  >>>
>>>  >>> Thanks again.
>>>  >>>
>>>  >>> On 9/24/22 10:29, Steve Smith wrote:
>>>  >>>>
>>>  >>>> On 9/24/22 9:49 AM, glen wrote:
>>>  >>>>> Such efforts seem so inherently metaphorical it's difficult 
>>> for me to approach a concrete conversation. For example, I have a 
>>> couple of biologist friends, one meso (bugs) and one macro 
>>> (ungulates), who thought I was being contrarian when I challenged 
>>> their assertion that biodiversity in urban areas was *obviously* 
>>> lower than that of natural areas like forests. Of course, I admit my 
>>> ignorance up front. Maybe they are. But it's just not obvious to me.
>>>  >>>>
>>>  >>>> This may seem a little tangential but the realm of 
>>> Permaculture Design has a suite of truisms on these topics, though 
>>> they are articulated in their unique language which can be a little 
>>> hard to translate sometimes.  I think the permaculture community 
>>> represent a fertile laboratory for doing *some* experiments as 
>>> implied by Glen's questions.
>>>  >>>>
>>>  >>>> A good example which gestures toward the Chan work at least 
>>> morphologically is maybe worth a scan if not a full read here:
>>>  >>>>
>>>  >>>> 
>>> https://aflorestanova.wordpress.com/2016/04/08/zones-in-permaculture-design/ 
>>> <https://aflorestanova.wordpress.com/2016/04/08/zones-in-permaculture-design/> 
>>>
>>>  >>>>
>>>  >>>> Permaculture's 5 zone quantization doesn't preclude a 
>>> recognition of there being continuous gradients in many dimensions 
>>> from a locus of "technological closed-loop" (zone 0) and "biological 
>>> closed loop" (zone 5).
>>>  >>>>
>>>  >>>> There is a *lot* of talk in the literature about the 
>>> interfaces around zone 0, 1, 2 techno-structures creating localized 
>>> ecozones that harbor diversity (desired and undesired == vermin) 
>>> which I think provide some good anecdotal evidence about 
>>> biodiversity in transition zones and acute technological interfaces 
>>> (e.g. roofs, walls, corners, posts, fences, etc).  Permaculture is a 
>>> domain of recognizing and exploiting "happy accidents".
>>>  >>>>
>>>  >>>> It is also worth noting the diversity spike that happens in 
>>> estuarial contexts...
>>>  >>>>
>>>  >>>> A more formal study of Urban/Architectural design with an eye 
>>> to *health* (human-centric view) is the domain of Biophilic Design 
>>> <https://www.terrapinbrightgreen.com/report/biophilia-healing-environments/ 
>>> <https://www.terrapinbrightgreen.com/report/biophilia-healing-environments/>>. 
>>> Nikos Salingaros is a hard-core Mathematician at UT-San Antonio who 
>>> addresses abstractions of Complexity 
>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikos_Salingaros#Complexity 
>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikos_Salingaros#Complexity>> and 
>>> Pattern Languages <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pattern_language 
>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pattern_language>> as well as 
>>> Architecture and Urbanism.  He also has some interesting opinions 
>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikos_Salingaros#Philosophy 
>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikos_Salingaros#Philosophy>> about 
>>> post modernism as well as Dawkins Atheism.
>>>  >>>>
>>>  >>>>
>>>  >>>>>
>>>  >>>>> Since then, they've presented (meso and macro) arguments that 
>>> justify their position. It does seem obvious that urban areas trend 
>>> to more adaptable animals like coyotes and raccoons and less so to, 
>>> say, deer. The bugs are more interesting. Meso guy found some 
>>> articles that show "species" diversity in urban areas is roughly the 
>>> same as natural areas. But phylogenetic diversity is clearly lower 
>>> in urban areas. That seems counter intuitive to me. It's a cool result.
>>>  >>>>>
>>>  >>>>> My main point when I originally expressed skepticism, though, 
>>> was about microbial diversity. Is it possible that bug-layer and 
>>> microbe-layer (including what lives in/on large animals like rats 
>>> and humans) diversity makes up for lower diversity in large-layers?
>>>  >>>>>
>>>  >>>>> I *feel* that projects like Chan's could help with this 
>>> question since it seems prohibitively expensive to sample and test 
>>> enough microbial populations of urban and wild areas, especially if 
>>> we include intra-animal populations. I'm just not sure *how* they 
>>> could help.
>>>  >>>>>
>>>  >>>>> On 9/24/22 03:38, David Eric Smith wrote:
>>>  >>>>>> It’s funny; I know Bert.
>>>  >>>>>>
>>>  >>>>>> One of our colleagues played a role in bringing him out to 
>>> work at Google in Tokyo.
>>>  >>>>>>
>>>  >>>>>> A mathematician (Will Cavendish) who has part-time support 
>>> at IAS
>>>  >>>>>> https://www.ias.edu/scholars/will-cavendish 
>>> <https://www.ias.edu/scholars/will-cavendish> 
>>> <https://www.ias.edu/scholars/will-cavendish 
>>> <https://www.ias.edu/scholars/will-cavendish>>
>>>  >>>>>> is also interested in the mathematical dimensions of this, 
>>> though I have only a glancing exposure to how those two together are 
>>> trying to frame the problems.  Because Bert has come at it more from 
>>> the ALife/engineering approach, and Will’s interests run more in the 
>>> direction of proving capabilities of broad classes of systems, often 
>>> interested in their aggregation as categories  (and also about the 
>>> role of simulation as a replacement for proof in systems that 
>>> produce complicated enough state spaces), it should be a productive 
>>> and interesting collaboration.  I don’t know how engaged others are 
>>> in the Google group on this specific project, because I am too far 
>>> outside that loop.
>>>  >>>>>>
>>>  >>>>>> Eric
>>
>
> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom 
> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
> archives:  5/2017 thru present 
> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
>  1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20220927/0c998ee7/attachment.html>