|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:127263} 1/21/2007
|
Don't beg for pardon, no reason for that.
But also, don't only ask the same expecting to listen to some "yes" about your "mystic assumptions".
Nick
|
|
|
|
Annemette Rosenborg Eriksen
{K:55244} 1/21/2007
|
Oh my, I beg your pardon. The next time IŽll make sure to take my questions elsewhere.
I only asked because I know youŽre interested in this field.
Annemette
|
|
|
|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:127263} 1/21/2007
|
There is no use in insisting to find "etwrnal truths" out of sentimental romantification of plain simple observations.
As already known the pattern and similarity recognition of biological systems was elementary for their mere existence. In order to recognize such a similarity there has to be some intelligence first, that is able to recognize them. This intelligence evolved to what it is now because otherwise it wouldn't be able to survive and to ask such questions.
Take for example some prehistorical being that tries to survive in a very hostile environment. If it couldn't recognize the pattern "a predator" or "food" it would have to sit and measure exactly the length of the teeth of the predator, it's claws, size, etc, in order to decide to flee. Enough time for the predator to have a party. The capability of recognition of general shapes and their mapping to meanings was esential for survival. There is no "hidden truth" or "philosophical content" in that.
Of course you can start "searching" out of "could be" questions, but merely asking without taking into consideration the scientific work of people before of you will not take you anywhere. Such "answers" are then rather astrological, if you like, and didn't contribute to anything since the beginnings of that so called "science".
Nick
|
|
|
|
|
Annemette Rosenborg Eriksen
{K:55244} 1/21/2007
|
Okay yes of course, but we see them in the same way be it due to the light or due to the melting of ice. Does that mean that it somehow benefits the human to see these shapes? I mean there must be a reason why they appear like this when they might appear very different to a bee or a bat? Maybe the soft shapes are to tell us what to expect from our environment when we move about?
Sorry for being such a questioner. Maybe I should just try to find the answers myself, but knowing that youŽve been interested in math and other sciencefields for a long time makes it more fun and easy to ask you!:-)
Take care
Annemette
|
|
|
|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:127263} 1/20/2007
|
Thanks a lot for the comment Annemette!
The similarities are not due to the relationship of ice and water. In fact it is not known why the look similar. But the patterns on ice are generated out of partial melting, while those on the water are reflections of light on waves.
It is too quick to set a certain geometrical shape equal to "everything". The formula of everything is *the* thing that we hunt for, but at least we know what we can exclude.
Also, similarity does not imply relationship. Different mathematical formulae might also generate similar shapes but that's all. No further relation between them (except that the are not equal of course.)
Best wishes,
Nick
|
|
|
|
|
Annemette Rosenborg Eriksen
{K:55244} 1/20/2007
|
This is very paintinglike looking quite appealing.
The shapes look similar to the iceshapes on the other photo. Is it because water and ice share the same basic properties that they act the same way? It seems to be a pattern that is recognisable many places, also in the pattern you sent me. A constant movement expanding and withdrawing, maybe also like the universe, our skin, our moods, the heart etc.?
Take care
Annemette
|
|
0 
