[lit-ideas] Re: Beg to differ, say, about fractals

From: Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 16:31:47 +0100 (BST)

--- On Wed, 20/10/10, Richard Henninge <RichardHenninge@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> What's this I hear about fractals
> describing nature? If fractals describe anything, what it
> describes is on the Kantian "this side" of nature. Fractals
> are just fancy grammatical and syntactical constructions.
> Fractals can only be created by computers, hence by us,
> nothing outside of us.

The last sentence is either (a) incoherent or (b) badly expressed:-
it is (a) if taken to assert only computers create fractals but then not only 
computers but "hence...us";
it is (b) if taken to assert that we can only create fractals via some kind of 
computer programme (this is what I take Richard to mean.

Both (a) and (b) obscure that the role of a computer in creating fractals is 
akin than the role of pencil and paper in creating Einstein's theories ["My 
pencil is bigger than I am" - Einstein]. The computer does what a human agent 
programmes it to do - it is a glorified instrument but does not create outside 
of what it is programmed to create and is helpless without a programme and thus 
a programmer. Hence, the creation of fractals by humans must logically precede 
any creation of fractals by computers.

This is not in itself decisive as to whether the fractal is merely a (more or 
less) useful descriptive instrument or a descriptive instrument that may 
accurately describe what is 'out there'.

We may say there was no number system on earth before humans invented one. This 
would not mean such a number system could not apply to what is 'out there'.

Consider two number systems:- (a) '1, 2, 3, 5, more than 5'; and (b) '1, 2, 3, 
4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, more than 10'. The farmer with exactly 8 cows using 
(a)can truthfully say he has 'more than 5' cows; and using (b) can truthfully 
say he has exactly 8 cows. Without the man-made invention of a number system he 
could say neither, but that does not mean the invention cannot be used to 
describe what is 'out there'. A farmer with 8 cows but no counting-system would 
still have 8 cows; this fact is true by virtue of what is 'out there' 
irrespective of whether he has the means to express or know this fact. A 
farmerless field with exactly 8 cows in it also has 8 cows in it - no more, no 
less - irrespective of whether humans or any other creature have a number 
system to say so.

This is not to assert that fractals are (in their application to what is 'out 
there') identical to or exactly analogous to the sequence of natural numbers - 
particularly where fractals are taken to describe physical properties [that a 
cow is one of 8 is obviously not a physical property of a cow]. But it 
indicates that just because a method of description is, in some sense, a human 
invention [with or without the aid of computers], does not necessarily preclude 
its application to what is 'out there' independent of human invention and of 
the means we have developed to describe what is 'out there'.

Richard asserts: "If fractals describe anything, what it describes is on the 
Kantian "this side" of nature." This raises the question of what on "this side" 
a fractal describes? Surely we are not being asked to accept that what it 
describes on "this side" is simply what means of description it itself 
constitutes for us on "this side"? For one, a description can hardly be assumed 
to be a description of itself qua description. For two, that the description 
emerged from "this side" would not mean it could not apply to what is beyond 
"this side" - the general development of human language can hardly be 
understood without understanding that it is driven by its usefulness in 
grappling with what lies beyond "this side".

Donal
Not Dark Yet
London
 



------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
References:
- [lit-ideas] Re: Beg to differ, say, about fractals
  - From: Richard Henninge
[lit-ideas] Re: Beg to differ, say, about fractals

Other related posts:
