Frequently asked questions..

[Cainad (dec.)]

My wallpaper has a repeating pattern.

The atoms which comprise one element of the pattern are probably not in precisely the same arrangement as the atoms in the next element.

Your wall most likely contain slight, barely perceptible, curves and other not-perfectly-flat elements that distort the pattern of the wallpaper in ways which we do not normally see.

etc

The repeating pattern of the wallpaper is an attempt to physically manifest the ideal, abstract pattern in the designer's mind.

[AFK]

A pattern is simply where you stopped paying attention.

[Elder Iptuous]

well, thats the whole "In Some Sense" bit...

Sure there's a repeating pattern in some sense, viewed at a certain depth... looking from a different perspective, or a different depth and the pattern changes or vanishes.

again.
well.....
yeah.
that's not in contention.
the pattern is only there within some defined criteria.  but it is there in reality never the less.

[Telarus]

I hope so, too, Hawk!  

Ok, so here's some Bucky Fuller on the topics that have come up recently in the conversation:

Universe is the aggregate of all humanity's consciously apprehended and communicated nonsimultaneous and only partially overlapping experiences.

The support of life on our planet consists of two kinds__metaphysical and physical. Both cosmic and terrestrial energetic regeneration, organic and inorganic, are physical; while the know-what of pure science and the know-how of applied science are both metaphysical.

Metaphysical generalizations are timeless, i.e., eternal. Because the metaphysical is abstract, weightless, sizeless, and eternal, metaphysical experiences have no endurance limits and are eternally compatible with all other metaphysical experiences. What is a metaphysical experience? It is comprehending the relationships of eternal principles. The means of communication is physical. That which is communicated, i.e., understood, is metaphysical. The symbols with which mathematics is communicatingly described are physical. A mathematical principle is metaphysical and independent of whether X,Y or A,B are symbolically employed.

All that is physical is energetic. All that is metaphysical is synergetic. All the energetic physical consists of two phases__(1) energy associative as matter, and (2) energy disassociative as radiation__with each being reconvertible into the other. All the synergetic metaphysical consists of two phases__(1) subjective information acquisition by pure science exploration, and (2) objectively employed information by applied science invention.

Model vs Form
   Model is generalization; form is special case.
   The brain in its coordination of the sensing of each special case experience apprehends forms. Forms are special case. Models are generalizations of interrelationships. Models are inherently systemic. Forms are special case systems. Mind can conceptualize models. Brains can apprehend forms.
   Forms have size. Models are sizeless, representing conceptuality independent of size.


Iptous> You're confused because you haven't drawn the distinction between the physical, and the metaphysical (which is the INTERACTION of a MIND with a set of relationships).

[AFK]

well, thats the whole "In Some Sense" bit...

Sure there's a repeating pattern in some sense, viewed at a certain depth... looking from a different perspective, or a different depth and the pattern changes or vanishes.

again.
well.....
yeah.
that's not in contention.
the pattern is only there within some defined criteria.  but it is there in reality never the less.

The concept of the pattern exists in reality, as we created it.
The precise actuality of the pattern exists in our mind, as we perceive it. 

As it turns out, humans aren't always particularly good with precision, so it works for us. 

[Elder Iptuous]

My wallpaper has a repeating pattern.

Your wallpaper has a concept of a repeating pattern.  However, unless the machinery is 100% efficient, it is likely, if you were to zoom in for further detail, you would see defects in elements of the pattern.  So there was a concept for the wallpaper centered on the idea of a repeating pattern, but in execution, the exact precise pattern is destroyed.

Unless of course, the machines make the same exact imperfections 100% of the time.  

i'll bite.
perhaps it's the engineer in me.  but i see a pattern as having some go/no-go criteria.
there's an abstraction here that is defined with some precision.
the real world manifestation is observed to fit within this criteria with some tolerance based on our past observations of the pattern.

if the wallpaper has a fleur de louis on it, you have some precise pattern and if the ink falls within tolerance, you call it.  if it doesn't the QA guy tosses it out because it doesn't fit the criteria of the pattern.

there seems to be an insistence on perfection in regards to a pattern in this conversation?  why is this?

ETA:

The concept of the pattern exists in reality, as we created it.
The precise actuality of the pattern exists in our mind, as we perceive it. 

I don't understand what you mean...

[Adios]

My wallpaper has a repeating pattern.

Your wallpaper has a concept of a repeating pattern.  However, unless the machinery is 100% efficient, it is likely, if you were to zoom in for further detail, you would see defects in elements of the pattern.  So there was a concept for the wallpaper centered on the idea of a repeating pattern, but in execution, the exact precise pattern is destroyed.

Unless of course, the machines make the same exact imperfections 100% of the time.  

i'll bite.
perhaps it's the engineer in me.  but i see a pattern as having some go/no-go criteria.
there's an abstraction here that is defined with some precision.
the real world manifestation is observed to fit within this criteria with some tolerance based on our past observations of the pattern.

if the wallpaper has a fleur de louis on it, you have some precise pattern and if the ink falls within tolerance, you call it.  if it doesn't the QA guy tosses it out because it doesn't fit the criteria of the pattern.

there seems to be an insistence on perfection in regards to a pattern in this conversation?  why is this?

Individual perceptions.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

i'll bite.
perhaps it's the engineer in me.  but i see a pattern as having some go/no-go criteria.
there's an abstraction here that is defined with some precision.
the real world manifestation is observed to fit within this criteria with some tolerance based on our past observations of the pattern.

if the wallpaper has a fleur de louis on it, you have some precise pattern and if the ink falls within tolerance, you call it.  if it doesn't the QA guy tosses it out because it doesn't fit the criteria of the pattern.

there seems to be an insistence on perfection in regards to a pattern in this conversation?  why is this?

The criteria, the tolerance is where 'we' the human says "Meh, close enough". Thus it is subjective,  we define it as a pattern and then say "Ah, A Pattern exists"... The criteria, the tolerance is in our heads.... in Objective Reality, the stuff is different/unique... at some level. (The Disorder inside the Order)

[Cainad (dec.)]

Every day, the paperboy bikes by my house and throws a newspaper on my doorstep.
...
I can only claim this to be a similar repeating pattern by ignoring everything that is different.

well....
yeah.
that's certainly not in contention.
but the pattern is there.  that paperboy delivering the paper is a real thing apart from your perception of it.
that's order.
and it's inherent in the arrangement of things, not just in your head.

I disagree.

The mathematical formulae that describe, say, the ideal quartz crystal, are not inherent in the crystal. The crystal exists, and we can create these mathematical abstractions to produce models that are really, really close to describing a quartz crystal in its exactitude. But the crystal does not "contain" that abstraction or formula in any way, and the real crystal deviates from the abstraction (i.e. it contains imperfections).

well, thats the whole "In Some Sense" bit...

Sure there's a repeating pattern in some sense, viewed at a certain depth... looking from a different perspective, or a different depth and the pattern changes or vanishes.

again.
well.....
yeah.
that's not in contention.
the pattern is only there within some defined criteria.  but it is there in reality never the less.

Again, disagree. In fact, that statement is something of a contradiction: how can something "in reality" if it only exists within "defined criteria," which are by necessity mental constructs?

Reality does not contain the patterns. Reality can be represented by patterns.

My wallpaper has a repeating pattern.

Your wallpaper has a concept of a repeating pattern.  However, unless the machinery is 100% efficient, it is likely, if you were to zoom in for further detail, you would see defects in elements of the pattern.  So there was a concept for the wallpaper centered on the idea of a repeating pattern, but in execution, the exact precise pattern is destroyed.

Unless of course, the machines make the same exact imperfections 100% of the time.  

i'll bite.
perhaps it's the engineer in me.  but i see a pattern as having some go/no-go criteria.
there's an abstraction here that is defined with some precision.
the real world manifestation is observed to fit within this criteria with some tolerance based on our past observations of the pattern.

if the wallpaper has a fleur de louis on it, you have some precise pattern and if the ink falls within tolerance, you call it.  if it doesn't the QA guy tosses it out because it doesn't fit the criteria of the pattern.

there seems to be an insistence on perfection in regards to a pattern in this conversation?  why is this?

Because this is all about the nature of reality itself, on the most precise level imaginable, not about "engineering grade" reality (no offense or punchiness intended there; it's the most concise way I could think to describe it).

Reality always shows deviations from the patterns we use to predict and define it. It may well be (and often is!) the case that these deviations are so slight that for pragmatic purposes, that we simply don't care about them. BUT those deviations still exist; they are real. And they are always, inevitably, inescapably, present. That means that on some level--even if it is a level that no one cares about, because who gives a shit if a single atom is out of place in the print on the wallpaper--the reality ceases to match the pattern. That moment where the reality deviates from the pattern is where it becomes apparent that the pattern is something we use to represent reality, and not reality itself.

[AFK]

My wallpaper has a repeating pattern.

Your wallpaper has a concept of a repeating pattern.  However, unless the machinery is 100% efficient, it is likely, if you were to zoom in for further detail, you would see defects in elements of the pattern.  So there was a concept for the wallpaper centered on the idea of a repeating pattern, but in execution, the exact precise pattern is destroyed.

Unless of course, the machines make the same exact imperfections 100% of the time.  

i'll bite.
perhaps it's the engineer in me.  but i see a pattern as having some go/no-go criteria.
there's an abstraction here that is defined with some precision.
the real world manifestation is observed to fit within this criteria with some tolerance based on our past observations of the pattern.

if the wallpaper has a fleur de louis on it, you have some precise pattern and if the ink falls within tolerance, you call it.  if it doesn't the QA guy tosses it out because it doesn't fit the criteria of the pattern.

there seems to be an insistence on perfection in regards to a pattern in this conversation?  why is this?

ETA:

The concept of the pattern exists in reality, as we created it.
The precise actuality of the pattern exists in our mind, as we perceive it. 

I don't understand what you mean...

If you define the universe as the part of the universe humans inhabit, then you are all set.  As I said, humans are imperfect beings who don't operate on 100% precision, so we are able to function and get by on concepts of patterns, whether the actual precise patterns exists or not.  

The rub is, we occupy, from what we can tell, a tiny, tiny, tiny speck of a percentage of the universe, that it is a bit of a huge leap to insist that our inprecise notion of patterns exists in the rest of the universe.  

[Elder Iptuous]

all right. so the criteria we come up with to define the tollerance is a process of discovery.  it's arbitrary to some degree.  the real world is what it is, despite our criteria, and sometimes a fleur de lis passes inspection even though it looks like elvis, or one that's really ok gets tossed out on technicality.  but the fact remains that you're staring at a fleur de lis wallpaper and saying the pattern is just in your head....  not an attribute of the real world.  (in this case it's even more absurd because there is intentionality behind the repetition)

[AFK]

Right, I believe that is what we would call creative order.  A pattern created by man based upon man's concept of pattern which is then interpreted by man as a pattern. 

[Adios]

Right, I believe that is what we would call creative order.  A pattern created by man based upon man's concept of pattern which is then interpreted by man as a pattern. 

Is it odd that as the most advanced species on this planet that we have so many flaws?

[Elder Iptuous]

Right, I believe that is what we would call creative order.  A pattern created by man based upon man's concept of pattern which is then interpreted by man as a pattern. 

so, if it is manifested in this way (with intention), is it a really for real pattern in the real world, and not just in our heads?

[Cainad (dec.)]

all right. so the criteria we come up with to define the tollerance is a process of discovery.  it's arbitrary to some degree.  the real world is what it is, despite our criteria, and sometimes a fleur de lis passes inspection even though it looks like elvis, or one that's really ok gets tossed out on technicality.  but the fact remains that you're staring at a fleur de lis wallpaper and saying the pattern is just in your head....  not an attribute of the real world.  (in this case it's even more absurd because there is intentionality behind the repetition)

The pattern is in your head because those fleur de lis all DO have some deviation from the ideal pattern. Those deviations are within the tolerance defined by our criteria, and are usually so small that we don't notice them.

Just because the un-reality of the pattern is so tiny that we don't care 99.99% of the time doesn't mean it's not there.