For many years I have been fascinated (and impressed) by the way
physics uses
"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
architect/composer
Xenakis. Indeed, if physics provides the
Space -then perhaps
architecture (and especially town planning) provide an example of the practical
complexity of interacting
skills involved in a true
articulation of any
multi-dimensional space.
In
"Formalism, Truth and War"
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/deconstructions/message/276>
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" and
"art" (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
conceptual) "space" not simply as a
"medium" for
computation -but as a form of
"computational" instrument 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
<http://www.tebatt.net/SAT/Space-Lecture/Space.html> with an earlier (and more
theoretical text at <
www.tebatt.net/Space.html>. A more detailed text of
Fatima
Lasay's contribution (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
physics" might eventually prove to be related to the
dimensions and topology of
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 and
time)
-so for example, if one maps a single point in
four-dimensional space into two
two-dimensional spaces -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 at the
same
time. Presumably the "distance" between both (half)
manifestations of the
same partical would be dependant on the physical distance between the
representations of the two
sub-spaces.
In the context of
Space/Time machines, it was interesting to see
Roy Ascott's
reference 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 and the
object(s) concerned. So, if indeed, the
Turing machine is a form of
Space/Time
machine -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 -and
is less concerned with
"rational thinking" than our cultural conditioning would
suggest.
C.S. Unnikrishnan 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
principle" (although perhaps still dependent on the
topology of the space
involved). When interpreted in the context of the idea of
Space/Time as a
processing system (and therefore, presumably, some form of
cognitive process) an
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
"organic" force field (involving dynamic interaction between the subject and its
environment) -then one would expect
Space/Time systems to be
anti-entropic -and
perhaps being
computational, also to exhibit some form of (unconscious)
"self-awareness" based behaviour. In this context, I would suspect that
(contrary to the romantic viewpoint)
"consciousness" is not a higher form of
"intelligence" -but the reverse:
Intelligence is a more developed form of
"consciousness".....
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
"non-existent" 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
"word-processor": Many people now find word-processing an essential part of
their lives -while surely, a
word-processor is nothing more than a
simulation of
a process that can only exist as a result of the process of simulating a
typewriter -where the
dematerialisation of the
memory system (which was
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"
and
"truth" really mean -and yet apparently we are prepared to
kill people and
invade other countries in order to defend these
abstract and
poorly defined
concepts -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 impacts pretty
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" and
"Language" (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