<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>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.<br>
</p>
<p>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: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.amazon.com/DelightS-Christopher-AlexanderS-Nature-Order/dp/143031317X">Delight's
Muse</a> .<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 9/27/22 4:38 PM, Steve Smith wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:1064d146-f20c-00fc-6fd9-79ff7f329c51@swcp.com">
<br>
On 9/27/22 7:40 AM, glen wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">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.
<br>
<br>
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. </blockquote>
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.
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">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. </blockquote>
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).
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">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?
<br>
</blockquote>
Most visual artists would probably argue that their work is not
inherently geometric. I'll elaborate in the next slab of lard.
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<br>
Maybe there's some ambiguity around the word "geometry"? </blockquote>
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"?
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Sorry for being skeptical from my
completely ignorant position. But can you explain why you claim
the connection is tenuous?
<br>
</blockquote>
I hope DaveW gives his own contrasting/complementary answer and
hopefully others here have their own trick dogs in this circus?
<br>
<br>
<br>
- Steve
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<br>
On 9/26/22 19:47, Prof David West wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">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.
<br>
<br>
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.
<br>
<br>
/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.
<br>
<br>
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.
<br>
<br>
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.
<br>
<br>
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).
<br>
<br>
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.
<br>
<br>
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.
<br>
<br>
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."
<br>
<br>
more upon request
<br>
<br>
davew
<br>
<br>
<br>
On Mon, Sep 26, 2022, at 5:13 PM, glen wrote:
<br>
> I'd appreciate you (and SteveS) throwing some words at
it. In
<br>
> particular, since software patterns are *supposed* to be
linked to the
<br>
> geometric patterns of architecture, *where* or *how* has
it gone wrong
<br>
> in extrapolation? Did Alexander go wrong in his
extrapolation? Or did
<br>
> others [mis]interpret?
<br>
>
<br>
> (I've purposefully left the Subject the same because it
definitely
<br>
> relates to Chan's morphology based taxonomy and my
argument with my
<br>
> meso-biologist friend about "species diversity" versus
"phylogenetic
<br>
> diversity".)
<br>
>
<br>
> On 9/26/22 15:35, Prof David West wrote:
<br>
>> I am a patterns and Alexander expert. glen's
uncertainty / mild antipathy is spot on. Software patterns are
an oxymoron.
<br>
>>
<br>
>> Strong words, but happy to back them up with dozens
of papers written/presented and hours of discussion.
<br>
>>
<br>
>> davew
<br>
>>
<br>
>>
<br>
>> On Mon, Sep 26, 2022, at 6:29 AM, glen wrote:
<br>
>>> Very cool! Thanks.
<br>
>>>
<br>
>>> In particular, our property abuts "the ravine",
which is a semi-wild
<br>
>>> place. The permaculture categories might help me
orient my own
<br>
>>> intuition (that everything in the ravine should
be left alone) with my
<br>
>>> neighbor's (clearing the whole area and
reintroducing natives). He owns
<br>
>>> the majority of it. So, c'est la vie ... or
perhaps "telle est la
<br>
>>> mort". (Don't blame me. I don't know French.)
One thing this zone 0-5
<br>
>>> model might permit is modularity. That blog post
implies such with the
<br>
>>> inverted garden interface. But it seems like
there could be pockets of
<br>
>>> zone0es in wild areas and pockets of zone5s in
urban areas,
<br>
>>> particularly in sprawling cities like LA or
Houston. Growing up in
<br>
>>> Houston, where every square inch of
semi-abandoned land seemed rapidly
<br>
>>> reclaimed by the swamp, is probably the source
of my skepticism with my
<br>
>>> friends' diversity doctrine.
<br>
>>>
<br>
>>> There's a lot to digest in the biophilia links.
I have to confess, I
<br>
>>> haven't given pattern languages much attention.
It always seems
<br>
>>> motivated by geometry, which fails for me. Of
course, I'm familiar
<br>
>>> enough with software patterns. But that's always
failed for me as well.
<br>
>>> They seem too ephemeral, unstable ... i.e. not
real, convenient
<br>
>>> fiction, and *perfect* opportunity for gurus to
blind others with their
<br>
>>> gobbledygook mouth sounds. I guess it reminds me
of category theory,
<br>
>>> too abstract for my ape brain. But maybe some of
his earlier work on
<br>
>>> Clifford algebras might motivate me? I could
start here, I guess:
<br>
>>>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="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</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="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></a>
<br>
>>>
<br>
>>> Thanks again.
<br>
>>>
<br>
>>> On 9/24/22 10:29, Steve Smith wrote:
<br>
>>>>
<br>
>>>> On 9/24/22 9:49 AM, glen wrote:
<br>
>>>>> 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.
<br>
>>>>
<br>
>>>> 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.
<br>
>>>>
<br>
>>>> A good example which gestures toward the
Chan work at least morphologically is maybe worth a scan if
not a full read here:
<br>
>>>>
<br>
>>>>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://aflorestanova.wordpress.com/2016/04/08/zones-in-permaculture-design/">https://aflorestanova.wordpress.com/2016/04/08/zones-in-permaculture-design/</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="https://aflorestanova.wordpress.com/2016/04/08/zones-in-permaculture-design/"><https://aflorestanova.wordpress.com/2016/04/08/zones-in-permaculture-design/></a>
<br>
>>>>
<br>
>>>> 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).
<br>
>>>>
<br>
>>>> 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".
<br>
>>>>
<br>
>>>> It is also worth noting the diversity spike
that happens in estuarial contexts...
<br>
>>>>
<br>
>>>> A more formal study of Urban/Architectural
design with an eye to *health* (human-centric view) is the
domain of Biophilic Design
<<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.terrapinbrightgreen.com/report/biophilia-healing-environments/">https://www.terrapinbrightgreen.com/report/biophilia-healing-environments/</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="https://www.terrapinbrightgreen.com/report/biophilia-healing-environments/"><https://www.terrapinbrightgreen.com/report/biophilia-healing-environments/></a>>.
Nikos Salingaros is a hard-core Mathematician at UT-San
Antonio who addresses abstractions of Complexity
<<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikos_Salingaros#Complexity">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikos_Salingaros#Complexity</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikos_Salingaros#Complexity"><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikos_Salingaros#Complexity></a>>
and Pattern Languages
<<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pattern_language">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pattern_language</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pattern_language"><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pattern_language></a>> as
well as Architecture and Urbanism. He also has some
interesting opinions
<<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikos_Salingaros#Philosophy">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikos_Salingaros#Philosophy</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikos_Salingaros#Philosophy"><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikos_Salingaros#Philosophy></a>>
about post modernism as well as Dawkins Atheism.
<br>
>>>>
<br>
>>>>
<br>
>>>>>
<br>
>>>>> 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.
<br>
>>>>>
<br>
>>>>> 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?
<br>
>>>>>
<br>
>>>>> 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.
<br>
>>>>>
<br>
>>>>> On 9/24/22 03:38, David Eric Smith
wrote:
<br>
>>>>>> It’s funny; I know Bert.
<br>
>>>>>>
<br>
>>>>>> One of our colleagues played a role
in bringing him out to work at Google in Tokyo.
<br>
>>>>>>
<br>
>>>>>> A mathematician (Will Cavendish) who
has part-time support at IAS
<br>
>>>>>>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.ias.edu/scholars/will-cavendish">https://www.ias.edu/scholars/will-cavendish</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="https://www.ias.edu/scholars/will-cavendish"><https://www.ias.edu/scholars/will-cavendish></a>
<<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.ias.edu/scholars/will-cavendish">https://www.ias.edu/scholars/will-cavendish</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="https://www.ias.edu/scholars/will-cavendish"><https://www.ias.edu/scholars/will-cavendish></a>>
<br>
>>>>>> 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.
<br>
>>>>>>
<br>
>>>>>> Eric
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
<br>
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
<br>
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://bit.ly/virtualfriam">https://bit.ly/virtualfriam</a>
<br>
to (un)subscribe
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com">http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com</a>
<br>
FRIAM-COMIC <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/">http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/</a>
<br>
archives: 5/2017 thru present
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/">https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/</a>
<br>
1/2003 thru 6/2021 <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/">http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/</a>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>