For many years I have been fascinated (and impressed) by the way physics
"multi-dimensional conceptual space"
(or at least my misunderstanding of it) to
model complex concepts. Perhaps this stems from the sense of liberation that I
also felt when I first heard the parametrical music pioneered by the
. Indeed, if physics provides the Space
architecture (and especially town planning) provide an example of the practical
complexity of interacting skill
s involved in a true articulation
In "Formalism, Truth and War"
I try to dissolve the apparent conflict between "objective" and "subjective" by
viewing both art and science in terms of "formal systems" -where the emphasis
is on the "explicit" nature of the rules (so that adherence to the rules is
secondary and not a primary definition). This approach finds "useful" (and in a
sense "objective") information (and perhaps knowledge) in the topology of the
specified space(s) -as indeed "Relativity" theory appears to do. This approach
is therefore directly opposed to the extreme subjectivity of postmodernism which
apparently sees all non-absolutes as "meaningless". It also bridges the fatal
divide between "science"
(numbers and letters).
Gradually, the "Space"
approach evolved and fused with my interest in
programming dynamic and autonomous visual structures. With the result that I am
now developing an interest in an exploration of the consequences of considering
the Turing machine
as being a one-dimensional Einsteinian Time/Space machine.
This, in turn, suggests a whole range of issues involving (multi-dimensional
not simply as a "medium"
-but as a form of
in its own right. It also brings me back to an
earlier (but less well understood) interest in a procedural/cognitive triad
based on the construction, processing and mapping
of (conceptual) spaces
Sketches of these ideas on space are present on my website at
with an earlier (and more
theoretical text at <www.tebatt.net/Space.html
>. A more detailed text of Fatima
(in which she explores computational spaces as expressed in
Filipino world views) is at: <http://www.korakora.org/wordpress/?p=28>
Of course, crucial to all this is the nature (topology
) of the space involved.
Personally, I cannot help wondering how many of the mysteries of "quantum
might eventually prove to be related to the dimensions and topology
the (digital -if not binary) space
involved. In my view, the dimensions of space
are not absolute (which may indeed be a basis for distinguishing space
-so for example, if one maps a single point in four-dimensional space
-then the point in 4-D space
would be represented by two
(apparently independent) points in the 2-D spaces
. Maybe this is not what
actually happens in sub-atomic physics
-but such a system would allow a single
partical to appear to be in two different (but clearly linked) places
. Presumably the "distance" between both (half) manifestations
same partical would be dependant on the physical distance between the
of the two sub-spaces
In the context of Space/Time machines
, it was interesting to see Roy Ascott's
to "Field Theory"
-because, as far as I understand it, Einstein
discovered/invented Space/Time as a way of expressing gravity in more "organic"
terms -involving an interaction
between the environmental space
. So, if indeed, the Turing machine
is a form of Space/Time
-and one of the phenomena that is (inherently) modeled by a Space/Time
system is a (gravitational) force field
-then presumably, we might have a whole
range of conceptual links that could enable us to describe and contemplate the
"processing" of force fields
as a basic principle. In fact, a little
introspection suggests that complex decision making in humans (involving the
"processing" of a large number of poorly specified dimensions) -perhaps operates
in ways that are more analogous to the effect of an object in a force field
is less concerned with "rational thinking"
than our cultural conditioning would
also speaks of gravity
in a way that I found most inspiring
-in fact, he appears to suggest that gravity might be the ultimate "organizing
(although perhaps still dependent on the topology
of the space
involved). When interpreted in the context of the idea of Space/Time
(and therefore, presumably, some form of cognitive process
abstract "Theory of Gravity"
could prove to be more comprehensive (and less
specialized) than one might first have imagined. If Space/Time
is indeed an
force field (involving dynamic interaction between the subject and its
environment) -then one would expect Space/Time systems
to be anti-entropic
perhaps being computational
, also to exhibit some form of (unconscious)
based behaviour. In this context, I would suspect that
(contrary to the romantic viewpoint) "consciousness"
is not a higher form of
-but the reverse: Intelligence
is a more developed form of
However, the concept of "unobservables"
might prove to be the key that unlocks a
very important door. As an artist, I have long been intrigued by the way
things (unobservables?) can be usefully applied in practical
circumstances to great creative and useful effect. My favourite example (based
on the universal Turing machine's power to simulate the non-existent) is the
: Many people now find word-processing an essential part of
their lives -while surely, a word-processor
is nothing more than a simulation
a process that can only exist as a result of the process of simulating a
-where the dematerialisation
of the memory system
previously paper) allows infinite re-writing
of the memory space
in such a way
that the "virtual typewriter"
manifests itself as a functional Turing Machine
(whereby the machine apparently emulates itself in a different form).
By definition -no "innovation" can exist before it is invented -so presumably,
the commercial importance of the text editor (or any "innovation") is a
manifestation of a practical implementation of a simulation of something that
(previously) did not exist.....
Indeed, the ability to implement
in ways that have practical effect in the
physical universe large, complex conceptual systems
-despite their being "woven"
out of nothing
-seems to be the power and the weakness of the human mind
(especially as manifest in western culture). Who on earth knows what "democracy"
really mean -and yet apparently we are prepared to kill
other countries in order to defend these abstract
and poorly defined
-just as we were previously prepared to invade and capture the "Holy
Land" in the name of some unexplainable (and perhaps ununderstandable) religious
principle. At the same time, we maintain a belief in our own rational nature. So
how insane can we get?
Certainly, "conceptual bootstrapping"
as practiced by humans
heavily on the material universe
(through global warming, for example) -but I
can't help wondering if it is manifest
in the physical universe in any way
(outside human intervention).
This all still leaves us with the problem of trying to delineate (in someway)
the nature of the "something"
that we are hoping to unify.
In my view, we probably need an integration of the concepts "Space"
(or some system of mapping which would allow us to move from one to
the other -similar to the way light may be manifest apparently as either a
particle or a wave).
As a result, at present, I tend towards the following