From Google to Infinity: map scalability

[East Coast Hustle]

It doesn't matter how refined and detailed and scalable a map is... it's still REPRESENTING the territory.  Even the territory is not the territory when we're trying to put our finger on it, because the explanation/description/representation/abstraction/image of the territory is still a map.

[Requia ☣]

I think that maps that are too easy to fit on to something that is not there qualify as bad maps, not scalable ones.

[Raphaella]

I don't think this is a map per say, but I think it could be used as such given time and evolution of this type of project. I do think this is pretty close to what a real time rendering of a place would be like, in three dimensions and from quite a few perspectives.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkuGrCB85H8&feature=related The mapping bit starts at about two min in.
Here is a link to a photosynth sample.  http://labs.live.com/photosynth/

[PeregrineBF]

The uncertainty principle means that you can never have a perfectly accurate map. And Thou Shalt Not Clone One Bit proves that you can't even make the map by copying the existing reality. There is no such thing as a perfect map, you can't make a map that IS the territory.

[Triple Zero]

I don’t think this is a map per say, but I think it could be used as such given time and evolution of this type of project. I do think this is pretty close to what a real time rendering of a place would be like, in three dimensions and from quite a few perspectives.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkuGrCB85H8&feature=related The mapping bit starts at about two min in.
Here is a link to a photosynth sample.  http://labs.live.com/photosynth/

yeah that's the one i was talking about! thanks!

i suggest anyone who can spare the 7 minutes watch this presentation, it'll knock yr socks off

[Daruko]

it's very cool...... i look forward to seeing the repertoire for the real thing.

[Verbal Mike]

I think that maps that are too easy to fit on to something that is not there qualify as bad maps, not scalable ones.

I consider "that which is there" to be PURE CHAOS (this is the original thing that attracted me to Discordianism, and it is a very good way to express something I already had in mind beforehand). So essentially, any map has to fit something that is not there, because PURE CHAOS is by nature unmappable.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

I think that maps that are too easy to fit on to something that is not there qualify as bad maps, not scalable ones.

I consider "that which is there" to be PURE CHAOS (this is the original thing that attracted me to Discordianism, and it is a very good way to express something I already had in mind beforehand). So essentially, any map has to fit something that is not there, because PURE CHAOS is by nature unmappable.

Indeed, surely the Territory (if anything) might have to be considered as some collection of quanta, electrons, protons, nutrons and quarks. Anything else, would seem more like a representation of how we perceive and interact with those subatomic items... I think.

As to how we would map that territory... ick.

[Verbal Mike]

Yeah, it's like we can map a tiny theoretical case that illustrates the underlying dynamics of the Territory well, but that map doesn't scale very well... e.g, all attempts to apply quantum mechanics to non-subatomic objects.