[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [microsound] ecology and physics



I'm sure that ecosystem modeling requires some thinking not unlike
that of a physicist--although Physics is a large subject and there are
areas that require different mindsets.

As with other sciences, Physics underwent a major rationalization
during the Renaissance and beyond, where certain absolutes emerged
(mainly that of time and that of space, culminating in the "give me
the positions and velocities of every particle in the universe and
I'll tell you exactly how it was at an arbitrary time t0 in the past
or an arbitrary time t1 in the future" mindset).

All was well and fine until such developments that led to what is
called "modern physics", where it became clear that there are
fundamental parts of reality that are absolutely inscrutable--in the
sense that they cannot be completely known or predictable, and that
they cannot be known with absolute certainty. So much for absolutes.
In a sense, what was perceived as striated is in reality smooth.

So it is quite natural that we have a legacy of "linear explanations"
of the world, after all we only had roughly a century to get used to
the concepts of modern physics, especially since they appear to
contradict our everyday experiential perception, whereas we have some
four centuries of scientific revolution following two millennia of
"natural philosophy".

Personally, I view those linear explanations as one level of
abstraction out of many. Depending on the scale of the phenomenon
under analysis, it makes sense to apply different levels of
abstraction; thus a flat world if we are looking at things within a
couple of miles, or a round one beyond that, or even a dimension-less
point at much vaster scales.

These levels of abstraction allow us to concentrate on the right level
of detail to tackle the "problem" at hand. However, apply too much
abstraction and we lose essential richness. My issue with the ABA'
form for this project and with such a simplified application as order
-> chaos -> order is precisely this: There would be nothing
fundamentally interesting in that process other than some eventual
fortuitous combination of sounds, as the evolution of the piece is
prescribed and not left to "wander".

Paulo
-- Theoretical physicist by education; slave to capitalism errr...
Wall St software developer by trade; composer by hobby.

On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 11:03 AM, Michael Palace
<palace@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I come to science as an ecologist and ecosystem modeler.  This may be a slanted view, but I am wondering how or what people think about this statement.
>
> Physical explainations of the world tended to be very linear in nature, specifically the dimension of time.  Concepts in systems thinking and earlier theories about ecosystem processes tended to develop cyclical time structures.  I say this in regard to the idea that an ecosystem functioning continues and reuses or reincorporates aspects of itself.  I am wondering if these concepts had influence of physics and the beginning of concepts of a universe that continually reforms and destorys itself.
>
> Just  a thought.
>
> Mike

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: microsound-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: microsound-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
website: http://www.microsound.org