From owner-philofractal@icd.com Wed Jan 27 20:12:53 1999 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rock.icd.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) id TAA19575 for philofractal-list; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 19:12:49 -0600 X-Authentication-Warning: rock.icd.com: majordomo set sender to owner-philofractal@icd.com using -f Received: from eagle.ACNS.ColoState.EDU (eagle.ACNS.ColoState.EDU [129.82.100.90]) by rock.icd.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id TAA19554 for ; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 19:11:58 -0600 Received: from holly.ColoState.EDU (holly.ACNS.ColoState.EDU [129.82.100.76]) by eagle.ACNS.ColoState.EDU (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA66010 for ; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 18:08:37 -0700 Received: from holly.colostate.edu (res099037.HALLS.ColoState.EDU [129.82.99.37]) by holly.ColoState.EDU (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA131860 for ; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 18:08:37 -0700 Message-ID: <36AFB886.DE43AD3A@holly.colostate.edu> Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 18:08:22 -0700 From: Xylen X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: philofractal@icd.com Subject: [philofractal] Test Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-philofractal@icd.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: philofractal@icd.com This is a test. What is your favorite color? Well, a test needs a question. :) -- xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx GO BRONCO'S----Winners of the 98 Super Bowl and future winners of the 99 Super Bowl http://members.tripod.com/~Xylen xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx _______ ______ _____ ____ ___ __ _ post: send message to philofractal@icd.com unsub: send "unsubscribe" to philofractal-request@icd.com admin: send comments to philofractal-owner@icd.com From owner-philofractal@icd.com Thu Jan 28 02:12:49 1999 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rock.icd.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) id BAA21282 for philofractal-list; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 01:12:49 -0600 X-Authentication-Warning: rock.icd.com: majordomo set sender to owner-philofractal@icd.com using -f Received: from pacs03.infoave.net (IDENT:22203F4E@pacs03.InfoAve.Net [165.166.0.13]) by rock.icd.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id AAA21161 for ; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 00:45:49 -0600 Received: from infoave.net ("port 1429"@[204.116.76.85]) by InfoAve.Net (PMDF V5.1-12 #23426) with ESMTP id <01J721XDDFB29EDKKB@InfoAve.Net> for philofractal@icd.com; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 01:41:42 EST Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 01:41:38 -0500 From: Gedeon Peteri Subject: [philofractal] opening remarks about the list To: philofractal@icd.com Message-id: <36B006A2.4E7C01BB@infoave.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.07 [en] (Win95; I) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-philofractal@icd.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: philofractal@icd.com I joined this list because my curiosity was aroused. Since "promoting agendas" and, conversely, "debunking" those of other's, as well as engaging in argumentation, belong to the essence of philosophy, I was wondering what will be accomplished here if such activities are prohibited by the charter. Gedeon -- -------------------------------------------------------------- Fractals: http://www.geocities.com/~gedeonp/index.html Member Infinite Fractal Loop Last updated: January 25, 1999 - new and updated pages Photography: http://members.xoom.com/gedeonp/index.html Last updated: November 8, 1998 -------------------------------------------------------------- _______ ______ _____ ____ ___ __ _ post: send message to philofractal@icd.com unsub: send "unsubscribe" to philofractal-request@icd.com admin: send comments to philofractal-owner@icd.com From owner-philofractal@icd.com Thu Jan 28 09:12:50 1999 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rock.icd.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) id IAA22985 for philofractal-list; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 08:12:49 -0600 X-Authentication-Warning: rock.icd.com: majordomo set sender to owner-philofractal@icd.com using -f Received: from eagle.ACNS.ColoState.EDU (eagle.ACNS.ColoState.EDU [129.82.100.90]) by rock.icd.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id HAA22882 for ; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 07:52:02 -0600 Received: from holly.ColoState.EDU (holly.ACNS.ColoState.EDU [129.82.100.76]) by eagle.ACNS.ColoState.EDU (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id GAA55832 for ; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 06:48:31 -0700 Received: from holly.colostate.edu (res099037.HALLS.ColoState.EDU [129.82.99.37]) by holly.ColoState.EDU (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id GAA93588 for ; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 06:48:31 -0700 Message-ID: <36B06A9E.9410C62E@holly.colostate.edu> Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 06:48:14 -0700 From: Xylen X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: philofractal@icd.com Subject: Re: [philofractal] opening remarks about the list References: <36B006A2.4E7C01BB@infoave.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-philofractal@icd.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: philofractal@icd.com Gedeon Peteri wrote: > > I joined this list because my curiosity was aroused. Since "promoting > agendas" and, conversely, "debunking" those of other's, as well as > engaging in argumentation, belong to the essence of philosophy, I was > wondering what will be accomplished here if such activities are > prohibited by the charter. Yes, you are right Gedeon. Technically "promoting agendas", "debunking", and "argumentation" are all part of philosophy, but I don't want people to get overly emotional and angry about the posts. I prefer the term 'discussion' to 'arguing' because arguing has angry emotional connotations. By restricting "promoting agendas" I am referring to people who will post statements like "Concept X is the only true way, and anybody who doesn't believe in X is a fool." As long as people are willing to discuss both the pro's and cons of a concept, there is no problem. Similarly with "debunking": "As long as you believe in Concept X, you are the fool" contribute nothing to a discussion. The whole point of this list is promote discussion and logical arguments about fractal philosophy. Since this group can spend months discussing the rules for a contest, ;) I'm sure there will be much discussion on this matter as well. Xylen -- xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx GO BRONCO'S----Winners of the 98 Super Bowl and future winners of the 99 Super Bowl http://members.tripod.com/~Xylen xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx _______ ______ _____ ____ ___ __ _ post: send message to philofractal@icd.com unsub: send "unsubscribe" to philofractal-request@icd.com admin: send comments to philofractal-owner@icd.com From owner-philofractal@icd.com Thu Jan 28 12:12:49 1999 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rock.icd.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) id LAA23921 for philofractal-list; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 11:12:51 -0600 X-Authentication-Warning: rock.icd.com: majordomo set sender to owner-philofractal@icd.com using -f Received: from camel14.mindspring.com (camel14.mindspring.com [207.69.200.64]) by rock.icd.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA23846 for ; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 11:03:09 -0600 Received: from LOCALNAME (user-37ka9vi.dialup.mindspring.com [207.69.39.242]) by camel14.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA17129 for ; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 11:59:33 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 11:59:33 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.16.19990128115627.14a7aaf6@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jamth@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: philofractal@icd.com From: Jim Muth Subject: [philofractal] Re: opening remarks about the list Sender: owner-philofractal@icd.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: philofractal@icd.com At 01:41 AM 1/28/99 -0500, you wrote: >I joined this list because my curiosity was aroused. Since >"promoting agendas" and, conversely, "debunking" those of >other's, as well as engaging in argumentation, belong to the >essence of philosophy, I was wondering what will be accomplished >here if such activities are prohibited by the charter. I feel that what Mary wants to avoid is the angry rhetoric of the kind seen in groups such as sci.skeptic, alt.atheism, and the dogmatic religious groups. Obviously, if all debate and disagreement is excluded, there can be no philosophy. The discoveries of physical science contradict the traditional beliefs of religion. These beliefs have brought about much evil, but they still give meaning to human existence. This unsolved contradiction is perhaps the most distressing consequence of the rise of science. One can take the obvious route and claim that the contradiction exists because the beliefs of religion are in fact untrue, or one can claim that science contradicts religion because it has not yet looked where the truth of religion is located. But how can fractals be brought into this topic? Some, myself included, see a connection between fractals and quantum theory. Some see a connection between quantum theory and consciousness. Some see a connection between consciousness and the possibility of extra-sensory perception. Some see a connection between the possibility of extra-sensory perception and the beliefs of religion. The beliefs of most religions include the concept of God. These apparent connections might be real or merely coincidental, but they are there and they are curious. I hope the list can discuss things such as this openly and without anger. Mailing lists are living, evolving things, and it's too early to know the ultimate nature and fate of this list. Maybe the list has gone too far. Many people enjoy fractals because fractals are a relaxing diversion. Heavy discussion about things such as the meaning of life is hardly relaxing. Mailing lists also have a way of straying from the originally intended topic. The Fractint list was intended as a forum for the discussion of the program, as well as of fractals in general. It does this very well, but it has also evolved into a gallery where fractalists post their parameter files. (Would parameter files not be more appropriate on the Fractal-Art list?) The Fractal-Art list has meanwhile evolved into more of a Fractal philosophy list, due largely to my FOTD. My hope, and perhaps it is too wishful a hope, is that through this new list we might come just a bit closer to understanding the incomprehensible mystery of our own existence. Look for the FOTD in about 12 hours. Jim Muth jamth@mindspring.com _______ ______ _____ ____ ___ __ _ post: send message to philofractal@icd.com unsub: send "unsubscribe" to philofractal-request@icd.com admin: send comments to philofractal-owner@icd.com From owner-philofractal@icd.com Thu Jan 28 16:13:33 1999 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rock.icd.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) id PAA25146 for philofractal-list; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 15:12:55 -0600 X-Authentication-Warning: rock.icd.com: majordomo set sender to owner-philofractal@icd.com using -f Received: from pacs01.infoave.net (IDENT:21E0347C@pacs01.InfoAve.Net [165.166.0.11]) by rock.icd.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA24858 for ; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 14:19:11 -0600 Received: from infoave.net ("port 1428"@[204.116.76.116]) by InfoAve.Net (PMDF V5.1-12 #23426) with ESMTP id <01J72TTOTAPC9EDLQJ@InfoAve.Net> for philofractal@icd.com; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 15:00:31 EST Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 15:00:21 -0500 From: Gedeon Peteri Subject: [philofractal] fractals and metaphysics To: Philofractal Message-id: <36B0C1D5.61A7EE96@infoave.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.07 [en] (Win95; I) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-philofractal@icd.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: philofractal@icd.com An aura of mystery surrounds fractals because the scientific applications of the mathematics which produces them is not yet clear. This lacuna gives us room to engage in metaphysical speculation about fractals, with the view that such speculation will get us "just a bit closer to understanding the incomrehensible mystery of our own existence," as Jim Muth put it so well. Such speculation certainly satisfies what Schopenhauer called our "need for metaphysics." But he added: "this need for metaphysics is a modest fellow content with meagre fare. Sometimes it lets itself be satisfied with clumsy fables and absurd fairy tales." The hope that as we gain scientific insight into the connection of fractals with the natural world we will somehow find a solid foundation for such fables and fairy tales is a vain hope. Gedeon -- -------------------------------------------------------------- Fractals: http://www.geocities.com/~gedeonp/index.html Member Infinite Fractal Loop Last updated: January 25, 1999 - new and updated pages Photography: http://members.xoom.com/gedeonp/index.html Last updated: November 8, 1998 -------------------------------------------------------------- _______ ______ _____ ____ ___ __ _ post: send message to philofractal@icd.com unsub: send "unsubscribe" to philofractal-request@icd.com admin: send comments to philofractal-owner@icd.com From owner-philofractal@icd.com Fri Jan 29 00:12:58 1999 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rock.icd.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) id XAA27538 for philofractal-list; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 23:12:47 -0600 X-Authentication-Warning: rock.icd.com: majordomo set sender to owner-philofractal@icd.com using -f Received: from eagle.ACNS.ColoState.EDU (root@eagle.ACNS.ColoState.EDU [129.82.100.90]) by rock.icd.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id XAA27503 for ; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 23:03:59 -0600 Received: from holly.ColoState.EDU (holly.ACNS.ColoState.EDU [129.82.100.76]) by eagle.ACNS.ColoState.EDU (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id WAA52188 for ; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 22:00:00 -0700 Received: from holly.colostate.edu (res099037.HALLS.ColoState.EDU [129.82.99.37]) by holly.ColoState.EDU (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id WAA72752 for ; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 22:00:00 -0700 Message-ID: <36B1404F.EA637E7E@holly.colostate.edu> Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 21:59:59 -0700 From: Xylen X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: philofractal@icd.com Subject: [philofractal] Re: opening remarks about the list References: <1.5.4.16.19990128115627.14a7aaf6@pop.mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-philofractal@icd.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: philofractal@icd.com Jim Muth wrote: > The discoveries of physical science contradict the traditional > beliefs of religion. These beliefs have brought about much evil, > but they still give meaning to human existence. This unsolved > contradiction is perhaps the most distressing consequence of the > rise of science. The traditional beliefs of religion exist because people want some sort of reassurance that the world around them could be explained. Even if that reassurance was simply a phrase out of a particular book, people felt reassured. Today, people no longer trust the old books, but instead believe in new books. Just as some religions became more prevalent and pushed out older religions, I believe that we are in the midst of a religious revolution. Science will become the new religion, and the new way to explain the world and reassure the population. Fractals are just one "vision" of the new religion. > > Look for the FOTD in about 12 hours. > As always, I look forward to your images, and your thoughts. I hope that this list will last long enough to hear more of your views. Mary -- xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx GO BRONCO'S----Winners of the 98 Super Bowl and future winners of the 99 Super Bowl http://members.tripod.com/~Xylen xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx _______ ______ _____ ____ ___ __ _ post: send message to philofractal@icd.com unsub: send "unsubscribe" to philofractal-request@icd.com admin: send comments to philofractal-owner@icd.com From owner-philofractal@icd.com Fri Jan 29 02:12:57 1999 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rock.icd.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) id BAA28041 for philofractal-list; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 01:12:49 -0600 X-Authentication-Warning: rock.icd.com: majordomo set sender to owner-philofractal@icd.com using -f Received: from imo17.mx.aol.com (imo17.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.7]) by rock.icd.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id BAA27985 for ; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 01:01:34 -0600 From: JimMuth@aol.com Received: from JimMuth@aol.com by imo17.mx.aol.com (IMOv18.1) id 2KZOa03212 for ; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 01:56:37 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <98080b6a.36b15ba5@aol.com> Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 01:56:37 EST To: philofractal@icd.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: [philofractal] Test -- read if curious Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 16-bit for Windows sub 86 Sender: owner-philofractal@icd.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: philofractal@icd.com This is a test of my backup account. It is only a test. If it had been an actual fractal philosophy message, you would already be enlightened. Jim Muth jimmuth@aol.com _______ ______ _____ ____ ___ __ _ post: send message to philofractal@icd.com unsub: send "unsubscribe" to philofractal-request@icd.com admin: send comments to philofractal-owner@icd.com From owner-philofractal@icd.com Fri Jan 29 02:14:03 1999 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rock.icd.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) id BAA28047 for philofractal-list; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 01:13:55 -0600 X-Authentication-Warning: rock.icd.com: majordomo set sender to owner-philofractal@icd.com using -f Received: from netpointer.com (root@[207.34.141.3]) by rock.icd.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id AAA27934 for ; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 00:47:16 -0600 Received: from wilson (remote5.netpointer.com [207.34.141.133]) by netpointer.com (8.7.6/8.6.9) with SMTP id WAA04266 for ; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 22:43:37 -0800 Posted-Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 22:43:37 -0800 Message-ID: <001701be4b52$e12a4d80$858d22cf@wilson> From: "John Wilson" To: Subject: [philofractal] Scepticsm Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 22:44:52 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-philofractal@icd.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: philofractal@icd.com Are you folk who talk of "the handwriting of God", and other assorted epigrams of that ilk, not allowing yourselves to be a little carried away by flash and dazzle? Could not our fractals be merely a type of Chladni figure? A little order created from chaos by a "resonant" mathematical system, aided by filtering and imposed restraints? Or, perhaps, one might consider a fractal a type of construct similar to a hologram; Information drawn into distributed "wave functions", where every part of the structure contains *all* of the original information, i.e. the original equation, plus the applied distortions and filtering. All we then need is a method for reconstructing the original information. What a triumph awaits the person who could digitize *any* part of the Mandelbrot set and extract the equation from the data! Hey, they're just pretty pictures. Even totally random numbers will yield a nice "bell" curve, when they are treated correctly. I've never seen it done, but I'd bet that a coloring system could be readily applied to the deviations from the curve, which would make a nice rainbow, or a shaded-gold Liberty Bell, using a Gallet color-map! :-) You believe otherwise? So show me the Light! John W. _______ ______ _____ ____ ___ __ _ post: send message to philofractal@icd.com unsub: send "unsubscribe" to philofractal-request@icd.com admin: send comments to philofractal-owner@icd.com From owner-philofractal@icd.com Fri Jan 29 02:14:04 1999 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rock.icd.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) id BAA28055 for philofractal-list; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 01:15:00 -0600 X-Authentication-Warning: rock.icd.com: majordomo set sender to owner-philofractal@icd.com using -f Received: from smtp1.mindspring.com (smtp1.mindspring.com [207.69.200.31]) by rock.icd.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id AAA27866 for ; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 00:33:08 -0600 Received: from LOCALNAME (user-38lciqc.dialup.mindspring.com [209.86.75.76]) by smtp1.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id BAA09253 for ; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 01:29:15 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 01:29:15 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.16.19990129012604.2b677328@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jamth@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: philofractal@icd.com From: Jim Muth Subject: [philofractal] Re: fractals and metaphysics Sender: owner-philofractal@icd.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: philofractal@icd.com At 03:00 PM 1/28/99 -0500, Gedeon Peteri wrote: >An aura of mystery surrounds fractals because the scientific >applications of the mathematics which produces them is not yet >clear. I doubt whether developing clearer applications of fractal math will remove the sense of awe and mystery these fractal pictures and sounds produce. >Such [metaphysical] speculation certainly satisfies what >Schopenhauer called our "need for metaphysics." But he added: >"this need for metaphysics is a modest fellow content with >meagre fare. Sometimes it lets itself be satisfied with clumsy >fables and absurd fairy tales." If Schopenhauer said it, it must be true, ;-) but I have always wondered why man would have developed, presumably through natural selection, a need for metaphysics. Is there a greater likelihood of reproduction for those who hold metaphysical beliefs? I also wonder whether, given a *need* for metaphysics, we can long endure after discovering that our metaphysical dreams are mere fairy tales. And on more general terms, this leads me to wonder whether there is a biological limit to the degree of knowledge a species of given intelligence can bear, and if, when the species reaches that limit, it will begin to spontaneously devolve back to a more primitive and therefore more bearable state, as some claim man is in danger of doing. >The hope that as we gain scientific insight into the connection >of fractals with the natural world we will somehow find a solid >foundation for such [metaphysical] fables and fairy tales is a >vain hope. I assume the vain hope you refer to is the hope of using fractals to find a solid foundation for religious or mystical metaphysical things such as heaven or the astral plane. I assure you that scientific metaphysical things such as the fractals themselves most definitely are not fairy tales. Jim Muth jamth@mindspring.com _______ ______ _____ ____ ___ __ _ post: send message to philofractal@icd.com unsub: send "unsubscribe" to philofractal-request@icd.com admin: send comments to philofractal-owner@icd.com From owner-philofractal@icd.com Fri Jan 29 02:14:04 1999 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rock.icd.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) id BAA28062 for philofractal-list; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 01:16:06 -0600 X-Authentication-Warning: rock.icd.com: majordomo set sender to owner-philofractal@icd.com using -f Received: from smtp1.mindspring.com (smtp1.mindspring.com [207.69.200.31]) by rock.icd.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id AAA27912 for ; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 00:41:34 -0600 Received: from LOCALNAME (user-38lciqc.dialup.mindspring.com [209.86.75.76]) by smtp1.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id BAA02688 for ; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 01:37:33 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 01:37:33 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.16.19990129013422.2b67c32e@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jamth@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: philofractal@icd.com From: Jim Muth Subject: [philofractal] FOTD 29-01-99, (Proxima Centauri) (c) Sender: owner-philofractal@icd.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: philofractal@icd.com FOTD -- January 29, 1999 Fractal visionaries: Today was a weiner here at Fractal Central. The skies remained hazy, but the temperature rose to 70F 21C -- perfect for fractal hunting. Unable to accept my inability to master the Newton method of finding roots, I once again returned to my CrazyNewton formula. Once again I failed. Instead of a simple Newton's image, I produced today's picture. Oh, I guess if one stretches their imagination, they might see a few Newton characteristics in the image, but it's just not what I'm after. While studying the image, trying to determine what went wrong, I fancied a red dwarf star in the lower right quadrant. A moment later, the name of the picture came to me. I named it "Proxima Centauri" after the nearest red dwarf star, in fact the nearest of all stars. (In not-too-many thousands of years, Bernard's star will be the nearest to earth, but that's another story.) For now, the GIF file has been posted to the greatest of all Usenet groups: and as always to the FOTD web site at: I was asked recently why the calculation times embedded in the GIF files that I post have so little relation to the calculation times that I include as a comment in the parameter files. The reason is that I calculate my fractal images on a number of machines, often switching machines in the middle of a calculation when the faster machine becomes needed for other work. But before posting the GIF file, I always calculate a 1/100 size thumbnail on a 486-100mhz machine and multiply the calculation time by 100. This is the time I write in the parameter file. Now that we've cleared up that little bit of confusion, it's time to close down the fractal shoppe for another evening and send this letter on its way. My philosophy for the day has been posted as a separate reply letter to the new philofractal mailing list. I'll be having a lot to say there as well as in the FOTD in the weeks and months to come. I hope I won't be talking to myself. Until tomorrow, same time same place, take care and see you soon. Jim Muth jamth@mindspring.com START FORMULA================================================ CrazyNewton { ; Jim Muth a=real(p1), b=imag(p1), c=real(p2), d=imag(p2), k=real(p3), f=imag(p3), z=pixel: zx=z^b zy=c*(zx*z) z=(d*zy+a)/(k*zx), f<=|zy-a| } END FORMULA================================================== START PARAMETER FILE========================================= Proxima_Centauri { ; 10min on a 486-100, 640x480 reset=1960 type=formula formulafile=newton.frm formulaname=CrazyNewton passes=1 center-mag=-0.597116/0.84829/0.4732087 params=-3.100\ 814844203009/5.641254921109653/-0.7136875514999848/-\ 2.667577135532701/2.164992217780084/5.109509567552721 float=y maxiter=60 bailout=25 inside=bof61 logmap=yes symmetry=none periodicity=0 colors=000L3Q<2>6gw<4>NTiRQfUOcYM`<3>jDPmBMnDJ<5>sJ1\ <6>AvG<4>eM2_HNfKEmN5<11>ClU`k6<8>U`5EKY<4>HLpHLsKMq\ <14>yOS<9>CYI<9>Rhi<9>Uau<12>WRhTMG<3>UQ8<6>pnJ<13>g\ orgotemq<13>QNJ<12>CDv<12>g`b<6>_pA<3>S3nCLb8trYdXwP\ Bxfg<2>`gs_V_ZJHdc`jwt<9>H4Q<3>Zw5<6>9wC<8>twI<2>htY\ `9U<2>P4R } END PARAMETER FILE=========================================== START 19.6 PARAMETER-FORMULA FILE============================ Proxima_Centauri { ; 10min on a 486-100, 640x480 reset=1960 type=formula formulafile=newton.frm formulaname=CrazyNewton passes=1 center-mag=-0.597116/0.84829/0.4732087 params=-3.100\ 814844203009/5.641254921109653/-0.7136875514999848/-\ 2.667577135532701/2.164992217780084/5.109509567552721 float=y maxiter=60 bailout=25 inside=bof61 logmap=yes symmetry=none periodicity=0 colors=000L3Q<2>6gw<4>NTiRQfUOcYM`<3>jDPmBMnDJ<5>sJ1\ <6>AvG<4>eM2_HNfKEmN5<11>ClU`k6<8>U`5EKY<4>HLpHLsKMq\ <14>yOS<9>CYI<9>Rhi<9>Uau<12>WRhTMG<3>UQ8<6>pnJ<13>g\ orgotemq<13>QNJ<12>CDv<12>g`b<6>_pA<3>S3nCLb8trYdXwP\ Bxfg<2>`gs_V_ZJHdc`jwt<9>H4Q<3>Zw5<6>9wC<8>twI<2>htY\ `9U<2>P4R } frm:CrazyNewton { ; Jim Muth a=real(p1), b=imag(p1), c=real(p2), d=imag(p2), k=real(p3), f=imag(p3), z=pixel: zx=z^b zy=c*(zx*z) z=(d*zy+a)/(k*zx), f<=|zy-a| } END 19.6 PARAMETER-FORMULA FILE============================== _______ ______ _____ ____ ___ __ _ post: send message to philofractal@icd.com unsub: send "unsubscribe" to philofractal-request@icd.com admin: send comments to philofractal-owner@icd.com From owner-philofractal@icd.com Fri Jan 29 10:12:47 1999 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rock.icd.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) id JAA30065 for philofractal-list; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 09:12:47 -0600 X-Authentication-Warning: rock.icd.com: majordomo set sender to owner-philofractal@icd.com using -f Received: from eagle.ACNS.ColoState.EDU (root@eagle.ACNS.ColoState.EDU [129.82.100.90]) by rock.icd.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id IAA29919 for ; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 08:47:03 -0600 Received: from holly.ColoState.EDU (holly.ACNS.ColoState.EDU [129.82.100.76]) by eagle.ACNS.ColoState.EDU (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id HAA19056 for ; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 07:43:11 -0700 Received: from holly.colostate.edu (res099037.HALLS.ColoState.EDU [129.82.99.37]) by holly.ColoState.EDU (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id HAA57890 for ; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 07:43:10 -0700 Message-ID: <36B1C8FB.FCAFFA24@holly.colostate.edu> Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 07:43:07 -0700 From: Xylen X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: philofractal@icd.com Subject: Re: [philofractal] Test -- read if curious References: <98080b6a.36b15ba5@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-philofractal@icd.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: philofractal@icd.com JimMuth@aol.com wrote: > > This is a test of my backup account. It is only a test. If it had been an > actual fractal philosophy message, you would already be enlightened. Ah ha. I am enlightened. Now I know for sure that you have two addy's. Since my forwarded message didn't get returned, I assumed the post went out the second time. I plan on following the same procedure in the future if mail gets returned as undeliverable. Now that I know you have a second account, I won't worry about sending duplicate messages to the AOL addy. Mary -- xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx GO BRONCO'S----Winners of the 98 Super Bowl and future winners of the 99 Super Bowl http://members.tripod.com/~Xylen xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx _______ ______ _____ ____ ___ __ _ post: send message to philofractal@icd.com unsub: send "unsubscribe" to philofractal-request@icd.com admin: send comments to philofractal-owner@icd.com From owner-philofractal@icd.com Fri Jan 29 11:12:46 1999 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rock.icd.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) id KAA30341 for philofractal-list; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 10:12:47 -0600 X-Authentication-Warning: rock.icd.com: majordomo set sender to owner-philofractal@icd.com using -f Received: from iron.singnet.com.sg (iron.singnet.com.sg [165.21.7.29]) by rock.icd.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA30246 for ; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 09:53:34 -0600 Received: from ferret (qtns04030.singnet.com.sg [165.21.169.220]) by iron.singnet.com.sg (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id XAA20643 for ; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 23:49:31 +0800 (SGT) Message-Id: <199901291549.XAA20643@iron.singnet.com.sg> From: "Ferret" To: Subject: Re: [philofractal] Re: opening remarks about the list Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 00:11:32 +0800 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1161 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-philofractal@icd.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: philofractal@icd.com >Xylen wrote: > > The traditional beliefs of religion exist because people want some sort > of reassurance that the world around them could be explained. Even if > that reassurance was simply a phrase out of a particular book, people > felt reassured. Today, people no longer trust the old books, but instead > believe in new books. Just as some religions became more prevalent and > pushed out older religions, I believe that we are in the midst of a > religious revolution. Science will become the new religion, and the new > way to explain the world and reassure the population. Fractals are just > one "vision" of the new religion. > > Most of the world are still ardent believers of religions founded more than a thousand years ago. In many of these countries, science widespread. So, Jim has a point : the coexistence of Science and Religion *is* a puzzling fact. Perhaps it's because they address different questions: The bulk of even very old religions (Christianity/Hinduism/Islam) _do not_ seek to explain natural phenomena. The prime motivation of Christianity, for example, is not to give "reassurance that the world around them could be explained". They strive to address questions of human existence, the "meaning" of life rather than how physical life works. For this reason, Science may never become the next major Religion. In fact, one of the alluring claims of Religion is contact with some Infinite. Science, however, proves itself to be finite : Godel's theorem tells us that our thinking is fundamentally limited, relativity sets very practical limits our exploration of space, chaos theory tells us that even our idealized worlds have unpredictable futures. The other interesting question which surfaces is will Science be a "better" religion than the ones it displaces ? My belief is that the answer is negative. The religions which have survived for centuries are ones which have some "goodness" in them (ie : "Love your enemies...") Very horrible things are done "in the name of" Religion. I suspect it's because people would prefer to say "I kill you in the name of god" (which makes me noble) than say "I kill you because I covet your land" (which makes me greedy). Will Science change this ? Maybe not - take a look at Jensenism, Nazism etc. People will grab any justification they can for their ignoble actions. I guess the fundamental flaws are not in our beliefs, but are in us. -Arnold _______ ______ _____ ____ ___ __ _ post: send message to philofractal@icd.com unsub: send "unsubscribe" to philofractal-request@icd.com admin: send comments to philofractal-owner@icd.com From owner-philofractal@icd.com Fri Jan 29 15:12:54 1999 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rock.icd.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) id OAA31565 for philofractal-list; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 14:13:21 -0600 X-Authentication-Warning: rock.icd.com: majordomo set sender to owner-philofractal@icd.com using -f Received: from deimos.worldonline.nl (deimos.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.136]) by rock.icd.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA31368 for ; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 13:40:20 -0600 Received: from default (vp204-124.worldonline.nl [195.241.204.124]) by deimos.worldonline.nl (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id UAA19523 for ; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 20:36:21 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990129203407.007ce850@pop1.tip.nl> X-Sender: t356237@pop1.tip.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 20:34:07 +0100 To: philofractal@icd.com From: Jack Ruijs Subject: [philofractal] Scepticsm In-Reply-To: <001701be4b52$e12a4d80$858d22cf@wilson> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-philofractal@icd.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: philofractal@icd.com At 10:44 PM 1/28/99 -0800, John wrote: >Could not our fractals be merely a type of Chladni figure? What is a Chladni figure? >A little order created from >chaos by a "resonant" mathematical system, aided by filtering and >imposed restraints? The very thing I'm looking for. >Hey, they're just pretty pictures. When looking only at the pictures I have to agree, yet it is much, much more than that ... >Even totally random numbers will yield a nice "bell" curve, when >they are treated correctly. "Even" totally random numbers? "Even"? It is much much more complex to generate random numbers than generating the Mandelbrot-set, and even the resulting bell-picture is infinitely less deep. >You believe otherwise? So show me the Light! No, ... (:->) scepticism doesn't have to be passive. Look at the site about the Yin Yang Fire, and show me the Darkness! (:->) http://www1.tip.nl/~t356237/yyfire.html Greetings, Jack Ruijs _______ ______ _____ ____ ___ __ _ post: send message to philofractal@icd.com unsub: send "unsubscribe" to philofractal-request@icd.com admin: send comments to philofractal-owner@icd.com From owner-philofractal@icd.com Fri Jan 29 15:12:54 1999 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rock.icd.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) id OAA31572 for philofractal-list; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 14:13:32 -0600 X-Authentication-Warning: rock.icd.com: majordomo set sender to owner-philofractal@icd.com using -f Received: from deimos.worldonline.nl (deimos.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.136]) by rock.icd.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA31366 for ; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 13:40:18 -0600 Received: from default (vp204-124.worldonline.nl [195.241.204.124]) by deimos.worldonline.nl (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id UAA19505 for ; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 20:36:19 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990129201044.007cbd30@pop1.tip.nl> X-Sender: t356237@pop1.tip.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 20:10:44 +0100 To: philofractal@icd.com From: Jack Ruijs Subject: [philofractal] New Religion In-Reply-To: <36B1404F.EA637E7E@holly.colostate.edu> References: <1.5.4.16.19990128115627.14a7aaf6@pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-philofractal@icd.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: philofractal@icd.com At 09:59 PM 1/28/99 -0700, Mary wrote: >... Today, people no longer trust the old books, but instead >believe in new books. I think it is much worse than this. It seems (at least to me) that people, although they HAVE more (new) books, they read less and less. I think that in our modern world it is even more unique to read scientific books just for fun (or for education or both), than it was in the past. >Science will become the new religion, and the new >way to explain the world and reassure the population. I agree with the fact that you didn't quote the word "religion" (:->). Science still does not know much more than "we" did a 100 years ago, even the quantum fysics and the theory of relativity does not tell us more, it only tells us that we know less (after the time of Newton "we" knew almost everything!). Science always has been a religion. A reminder to think about; almost all the friends I have, have a higher education, but noone ever read a scientific book in their spare time. They even haven't the faintest idea what the Mandelbrotset for example is all about. Greetings, Jack Ruijs _______ ______ _____ ____ ___ __ _ post: send message to philofractal@icd.com unsub: send "unsubscribe" to philofractal-request@icd.com admin: send comments to philofractal-owner@icd.com From owner-philofractal@icd.com Fri Jan 29 15:12:55 1999 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rock.icd.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) id OAA31576 for philofractal-list; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 14:13:34 -0600 X-Authentication-Warning: rock.icd.com: majordomo set sender to owner-philofractal@icd.com using -f Received: from imo18.mx.aol.com (imo18.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.8]) by rock.icd.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA31205 for ; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 13:16:08 -0600 From: JimMuth@aol.com Received: from JimMuth@aol.com by imo18.mx.aol.com (IMOv18.1) id 1WMLa20554 for ; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 14:11:17 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <4d92a40e.36b207d5@aol.com> Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 14:11:17 EST To: philofractal@icd.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: [philofractal] Re: Scepticsm Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 16-bit for Windows sub 86 Sender: owner-philofractal@icd.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: philofractal@icd.com On January 28, 1999 John W. wrote: >Are you folk who talk of "the handwriting of God", and other >assorted epigrams of that ilk, not allowing yourselves to be a >little carried away by flash and dazzle? If God is defined as "the laws of nature" rather than "a transcendental consciousness", I see no reason why fractals, which are flashy and dazzling by nature, cannot be called "the handwriting of God". >Could not our fractals be merely a type of Chladni figure? A >little order created from chaos by a "resonant" mathematical >system, aided by filtering and imposed restraints? Or, >perhaps, one might consider a fractal a type of construct >similar to a hologram; Information drawn into distributed >"wave functions", where every part of the structure contains >*all* of the original information, i.e. the original equation, >plus the applied distortions and filtering. Fractals are all this and much more. >All we then need is a method for reconstructing the original >information. What a triumph awaits the person who could >digitize *any* part of the Mandelbrot set and extract the >equation from the data! Reverse engineering is difficult. But what a triumph would await the person who could reduce any graphic image to a quickly-calculated fractal formula, which could be transmitted and then reconstructed in a program such as Fractint. It would be the most efficient compression system imaginable. >Hey, they're just pretty pictures. They're also pretty music. Check a few fractal music sites. In reality, until we decide what to do with them, fractals are nothing more than mathematical formulas. We determine the nature of fractals by the manner in which we decode and observe them. (This reminds me of the two-slit experiment.) >Even totally random numbers will yield a nice "bell" curve, >when they are treated correctly. True. >I've never seen it done, but I'd bet that a coloring system >could be readily applied to the deviations from the curve, >which would make a nice rainbow, or a shaded-gold Liberty Bell, >using a Gallet color-map! :-) I'd second your bet. >You believe otherwise? No. >So show me the Light! I don't need to. This is a philosophy group, which means that we exchange ideas and opinions. We don't need to supply scientifically acceptable empirical proof to support our opinions. If we were to demand scientific proof of religious beliefs, we would soon be operating at the "creationist" level. Whenever the transcendental doctrines of religion are tested scientifically, they fail at once. Two explanations are possible: first -- such religious doctrines have no basis in reality, and a large segment of mankind is still dependent on a belief in fairy tales; second -- a single universal truth lies behind the widely varying doctrines of the different religions, and science has not yet developed the means to investigate it. More later. Now I've got to contact Mindspring to see why my Mindspring address is not working. Jim Muth jamth@mindspring.com jimmuth@aol.com _______ ______ _____ ____ ___ __ _ post: send message to philofractal@icd.com unsub: send "unsubscribe" to philofractal-request@icd.com admin: send comments to philofractal-owner@icd.com From owner-philofractal@icd.com Fri Jan 29 16:12:47 1999 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rock.icd.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) id PAA31903 for philofractal-list; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 15:12:48 -0600 X-Authentication-Warning: rock.icd.com: majordomo set sender to owner-philofractal@icd.com using -f Received: from uccs.jpl.nasa.gov (uccs.jpl.nasa.gov [137.79.18.40]) by rock.icd.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA31670 for ; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 14:30:28 -0600 Received: (from kchildre@localhost) by uccs.jpl.nasa.gov (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA20161 for philofractal@icd.com; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 12:24:35 -0800 (PST) From: Ken Childress Message-Id: <199901292024.MAA20161@uccs.jpl.nasa.gov> Subject: Re: [philofractal] New Religion To: philofractal@icd.com Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 12:24:35 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19990129201044.007cbd30@pop1.tip.nl> from "Jack Ruijs" at Jan 29, 99 08:10:44 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-philofractal@icd.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: philofractal@icd.com > > At 09:59 PM 1/28/99 -0700, Mary wrote: > > >... Today, people no longer trust the old books, but instead > >believe in new books. > > I think it is much worse than this. It seems (at least to me) that people, > although they HAVE more (new) books, they read less and less. I think that > in our modern world it is even more unique to read scientific books just > for fun (or for education or both), than it was in the past. This is a significant problem these days. People just don't read. As a result of not reading, people don't really think. I've heard a quote that goes something like, "Only 5% of the populations actually thinks, 15% think they think, and 80% don't think at all." Given some of the man on the street interviews about current events, I'm inclined to believe that this is fairly accurate. I think virtually all the great leaders throughout history are probably avid readers. Fortunately, the love of reading was something I learned very young and still have today. I just don't have as much time as I would like to do all the reading I want to do. > >Science will become the new religion, and the new > >way to explain the world and reassure the population. > > I agree with the fact that you didn't quote the word "religion" (:->). > Science still does not know much more than "we" did a 100 years ago, even > the quantum fysics and the theory of relativity does not tell us more, it > only tells us that we know less (after the time of Newton "we" knew almost > everything!). Science always has been a religion. I tend to agree that certain braches of science are very much a religion. There is nothing wrong with religion, and there certainly isn't anything wrong with science in and of themselves. Great good has been done in the name of both, and great harm has been done in the name of both. Both are tools that can and should be used for good. > A reminder to think about; almost all the friends I have, have a higher > education, but noone ever read a scientific book in their spare time. They > even haven't the faintest idea what the Mandelbrotset for example is all > about. My advice to all is to read, read, and read some more. Not just those fun "mind-candy" books, but books that challenge you personally, whether that be scientifically, technically, religiously, emotionally, etc. And to those with kids, read to them as well, and instill in them the love of reading. Ken... _______ ______ _____ ____ ___ __ _ post: send message to philofractal@icd.com unsub: send "unsubscribe" to philofractal-request@icd.com admin: send comments to philofractal-owner@icd.com From owner-philofractal@icd.com Fri Jan 29 21:17:01 1999 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rock.icd.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) id UAA00574 for philofractal-list; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 20:12:46 -0600 X-Authentication-Warning: rock.icd.com: majordomo set sender to owner-philofractal@icd.com using -f Received: from netpointer.com (root@[207.34.141.3]) by rock.icd.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id UAA00509 for ; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 20:00:38 -0600 Received: from wilson (remote2.netpointer.com [207.34.141.130]) by netpointer.com (8.7.6/8.6.9) with SMTP id RAA26050 for ; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 17:56:35 -0800 Posted-Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 17:56:35 -0800 Message-ID: <004001be4bf3$f5831fe0$828d22cf@wilson> From: "John Wilson" To: Subject: Re: [philofractal] Scepticsm Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 17:57:29 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-philofractal@icd.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: philofractal@icd.com From: Jack Ruijs >What is a Chladni figure? Well there exists a group who believe that structural responses to acoustic excitation, as demonstrated by these figures, have profound depth and meaning; see http://www.alphaomega.se/english/cymatics.html#chladni Others ascribe sacred attributes to fractals. :-) :-) :-) From: JimMuth@aol.com >If God is defined as "the laws of nature" rather than "a >transcendental consciousness", I see no reason why fractals, >which are flashy and dazzling by nature, cannot be called "the >handwriting of God". I guess we must define a fractal, before trying to understand and discuss the animals. "Flashy and dazzling by nature"? Tut, tut, Jim! Are we talking about those patterns formed by ascribing arbitrary colors to bands of numbers? Burnt Sienna through Raw Umber, for example, is flashy and dazzling? How about those grey-shade fractals Gedeon is discussing? O.K., O.K., so not only colors can be flashy and dazzling! I would agree that the grey-tone prints of Piranesi and Escher are "flashy and dazzling" by virtue of their content, but this is at least in part due to their mental appeal. Does a fractal have any mental appeal? Or does a fractal just tickle our aesthetic fancy? What exactly IS the appeal of a good fractal? What distinguishes a "bad" fractal from a "good" one? Seems to me that a considerable percentage of all fractal-space is occupied by extremely boring spaghetti, and I admire all those who can produce those "different" images. However, I couldn't *live* with any single fractal for an extended period of time. Seems to me that they are are something to "ooh" and "aah" over...before going on to the next one. Therefore I can understand the hunt for the "Holy Grail" fractal...one of these days it *must* manifest itself. If anyone *deserves* to be the architect of this masterpiece, it's Jim Muth. :-) John W. _______ ______ _____ ____ ___ __ _ post: send message to philofractal@icd.com unsub: send "unsubscribe" to philofractal-request@icd.com admin: send comments to philofractal-owner@icd.com From owner-philofractal@icd.com Fri Jan 29 22:14:12 1999 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rock.icd.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) id VAA00923 for philofractal-list; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 21:14:21 -0600 X-Authentication-Warning: rock.icd.com: majordomo set sender to owner-philofractal@icd.com using -f Received: from dot.crosswinds.net ([204.50.152.131]) by rock.icd.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id VAA00857 for ; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 21:05:54 -0600 Received: from default (208-192-209.ipt.aol.com [171.208.192.209]) by dot.crosswinds.net (8.8.7/8.8.8) with SMTP id WAA17373 for ; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 22:03:52 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from nleseul@zurich.crosswinds.net) Message-ID: <003b01be4bfc$de8ee0e0$d1c0d0ab@default> From: "Nature Leseul" To: Subject: Re: [philofractal] Re: opening remarks about the list Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 21:00:39 -0600 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-philofractal@icd.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: philofractal@icd.com <> I find it hard to imagine that science can totally supplant current beliefs as a new "religion." To begin with, modern science seems to be more and more "proving" that common beliefs such as the human soul and free wil are nothing more than random chemical reactions in a bunch of mush in your head and other such things. Many people cannot accept science and turn to religion instead, meaning that the contemporary view of religion is likely to survive even in the face of science. Witness the growing amount of both mainstream religious literature and New Age mysticism in modern society, even in the face of scientific breakthrough after breakthrough "disproving" them. In addition, science and religion, although both exist to answer questions about the world, focus on entirely different realms of questions. Science focuses more on the "how" - how do our bodies function to allow us to live, how can we extend the lifespan, how do elementary particles interact to form matter - whereas religion primarily answers the "why" - why do we live in the first place, is there something following the cessation of function in the biological body (okay, so that's not a why), why was the universe created. Science can give people answers to the Hows, although answers which may not be able to satisfy many people, but it can never really answer the Whys. No matter how many Neitzches science throws at Him, I don't really see God as having any onsets of mortality any time soon. ||===================== || || --v^v-[Nature Leseul]-v^v-- || || The weird guy in the corner || || Dreamy Smurf || || Donatello! || || "Some are vicious, || || some are fools, || || and others blind || || to see in me, || || one of their kind." || || -Anatoly, Endgame (Chess)|| ||"Is this off-topic or what?"|| ||===================== || _______ ______ _____ ____ ___ __ _ post: send message to philofractal@icd.com unsub: send "unsubscribe" to philofractal-request@icd.com admin: send comments to philofractal-owner@icd.com From owner-philofractal@icd.com Fri Jan 29 23:14:18 1999 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rock.icd.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) id WAA01184 for philofractal-list; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 22:14:04 -0600 X-Authentication-Warning: rock.icd.com: majordomo set sender to owner-philofractal@icd.com using -f Received: from dot.crosswinds.net ([204.50.152.131]) by rock.icd.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id VAA00976 for ; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 21:22:34 -0600 Received: from default (208-192-209.ipt.aol.com [171.208.192.209]) by dot.crosswinds.net (8.8.7/8.8.8) with SMTP id WAA20090 for ; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 22:20:38 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from nleseul@zurich.crosswinds.net) Message-ID: <004501be4bff$35340d60$d1c0d0ab@default> From: "Nature Leseul" To: Subject: Re: [philofractal] New Religion Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 21:17:55 -0600 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-philofractal@icd.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: philofractal@icd.com <> No matter what the fundamentalists claim about the "Chruch of Evolution," this is not a logical statement. Religion is based on acceptance of ideas based on faith alone, normally ideas improvable by scientific means. Science is based on acceptance of ideas based on repeated laboratory testing and analysis. The only time science can become a religion is when scientists cease to say "This DNA string must be linked to growth hormone because 97% of the test subjects were subject to dwarfism" and begin saying "This DNA string must be linked to growth hormone because this textbook states it." ||===================== || || --v^v-[Nature Leseul]-v^v-- || || The weird guy in the corner || || Dreamy Smurf || || Donatello! || || "Some are vicious, || || some are fools, || || and others blind || || to see in me, || || one of their kind." || || -Anatoly, Endgame (Chess)|| ||"Is this off-topic or what?"|| ||===================== || _______ ______ _____ ____ ___ __ _ post: send message to philofractal@icd.com unsub: send "unsubscribe" to philofractal-request@icd.com admin: send comments to philofractal-owner@icd.com From owner-philofractal@icd.com Fri Jan 29 23:14:18 1999 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rock.icd.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) id WAA01190 for philofractal-list; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 22:14:06 -0600 X-Authentication-Warning: rock.icd.com: majordomo set sender to owner-philofractal@icd.com using -f Received: from eagle.ACNS.ColoState.EDU (root@eagle.ACNS.ColoState.EDU [129.82.100.90]) by rock.icd.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id VAA00949 for ; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 21:16:59 -0600 Received: from holly.ColoState.EDU (holly.ACNS.ColoState.EDU [129.82.100.76]) by eagle.ACNS.ColoState.EDU (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA65854 for ; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 20:12:44 -0700 Received: from holly.colostate.edu (res099037.HALLS.ColoState.EDU [129.82.99.37]) by holly.ColoState.EDU (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA37718 for ; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 20:12:44 -0700 Message-ID: <36B278A6.6AE98A1B@holly.colostate.edu> Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 20:12:38 -0700 From: Xylen X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: philofractal@icd.com Subject: Re: [philofractal] Scepticsm References: <004001be4bf3$f5831fe0$828d22cf@wilson> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-philofractal@icd.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: philofractal@icd.com John Wilson wrote: > What exactly IS the appeal of a good fractal? What > distinguishes a "bad" fractal from a "good" one? Seems to me > that a considerable percentage of all fractal-space is occupied > by extremely boring spaghetti, and I admire all those who can > produce those "different" images. However, I couldn't *live* > with any single fractal for an extended period of time. Seems > to me that they are are something to "ooh" and "aah" > over...before going on to the next one. Therefore I can > understand the hunt for the "Holy Grail" fractal...one of these > days it *must* manifest itself. If anyone *deserves* to be the > architect of this masterpiece, it's Jim Muth. :-) > I think part of the attraction of fractals lies in the journey, and not the end point. We see all kinds of images, some good and some not-so-good, and we think the meaning of a particular fractal, then we move on to the next one, and new discoveries. "The next one" is almost always better than the ones we have already seen. Although I admit, I'd love to see Jim discover the "ultimate" fractal. Xylen -- xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx GO BRONCO'S----Winners of the 98 Super Bowl and future winners of the 99 Super Bowl http://members.tripod.com/~Xylen xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx _______ ______ _____ ____ ___ __ _ post: send message to philofractal@icd.com unsub: send "unsubscribe" to philofractal-request@icd.com admin: send comments to philofractal-owner@icd.com From owner-philofractal@icd.com Sat Jan 30 01:12:51 1999 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rock.icd.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) id AAA01630 for philofractal-list; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 00:12:46 -0600 X-Authentication-Warning: rock.icd.com: majordomo set sender to owner-philofractal@icd.com using -f Received: from smtp01.primenet.com (daemon@smtp01.primenet.com [206.165.6.131]) by rock.icd.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id XAA01455 for ; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 23:19:04 -0600 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by smtp01.primenet.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id WAA10663 for ; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 22:15:01 -0700 (MST) Received: from usr01.primenet.com(206.165.6.201) via SMTP by smtp01.primenet.com, id smtpd010606; Fri Jan 29 22:14:56 1999 Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 22:14:50 -0700 (MST) From: Kerry Mitchell To: philofractal@icd.com Subject: Re: [philofractal] New Religion In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19990129201044.007cbd30@pop1.tip.nl> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-philofractal@icd.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: philofractal@icd.com On Fri, 29 Jan 1999, Jack Ruijs wrote: > Science still does not know much more than "we" did a 100 years ago, even > the quantum fysics and the theory of relativity does not tell us more, it > only tells us that we know less (after the time of Newton "we" knew almost > everything!). Science always has been a religion. With every due respect, I have such a strong reaction to this statement that I thought it might be a troll. Scientific knowledge is increasing at an exponential rate. There was a photo in one of the standard physics journals several years ago. In it, the annual collection of published physics papers were stacked, and each year's stack was stood next to the previous year's. The stack was an excellent example of an exponential curve. That someone in Newton's time could know "everything" is simply a statement that people then didn't know how big "everything" was (not to say that we do now). It's the same phenonmenon as a young person knowing "everything". They just don't know how much they don't know. The longer we live, the less we will know, relatively speaking, because the extent of our universe of discourse is expanding much faster than our actual knowledge. As for science being a religion, is "religion" being used as a statement of dogma, or as an exploration of the metaphysical? As the latter, science can never be a religion, as metaphysics are concerned with areas beyond physics, that is, beyond the tangible universe. As the former, any system of thought will have its dogmatic adherents, but that is not a downfall of the institution, rather a limitation of the adherents. Properly executed, I see science as an open process of inquiry. However, certain scientific facts can seem to be cosmic truths, and thus, people can become dogmatic about them. For example, the speed of light being the absolute maximum speed for a massive body. It seems to me, though, that every scientist should keep in the back of their mind the idea that everything they know could be upset with new discoveries. > A reminder to think about; almost all the friends I have, have a higher > education, but noone ever read a scientific book in their spare time. They > even haven't the faintest idea what the Mandelbrotset for example is all > about. Is it really true that people read less scientific books for fun now than in some previous time? Considering that reading science books for fun means that the person has to have the economic means to have leisure time, plus the access to science books. I would guess that that has always been a very small section of the entire population. I'm not suggesting that more people are reading now, nor that less are; I'm just wondering how someone could accurately come to that conclusion. Kerry Mitchell _______ ______ _____ ____ ___ __ _ post: send message to philofractal@icd.com unsub: send "unsubscribe" to philofractal-request@icd.com admin: send comments to philofractal-owner@icd.com From owner-philofractal@icd.com Sat Jan 30 03:12:51 1999 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rock.icd.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) id CAA02061 for philofractal-list; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 02:17:52 -0600 X-Authentication-Warning: rock.icd.com: majordomo set sender to owner-philofractal@icd.com using -f Received: from camel7.mindspring.com (camel7.mindspring.com [207.69.200.57]) by rock.icd.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id BAA01858 for ; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 01:19:55 -0600 Received: from LOCALNAME (user-37ka9ai.dialup.mindspring.com [207.69.37.82]) by camel7.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id CAA02000 for ; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 02:15:49 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 02:15:49 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.16.19990130021231.2aef79fe@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jamth@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: philofractal@icd.com From: Jim Muth Subject: [philofractal] FOTD 30-01-99, (The Gentlest Fractal) (c) Sender: owner-philofractal@icd.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: philofractal@icd.com FOTD -- January 30, 1999 Fractal visionaries: It's been a perfect day here at Fractal Central. The clear sky and temperature of 47F 8C was perfect for hunting fractals. Unfortunately, I did little fractal hunting today because I was tied up fighting with my ISP, Mindspring, about their e-mail problem. It is still impossible to download my e-mail from their server. I can send, but I can't receive. It's a good thing I have AOL as a backup. Mindspring's excuse is that a spam letter from an X-rated web site with a bad code in the forged header locked up their mail server. Imagine that -- the mighty Mindspring brought to its knees by a bumbling spammer -- the eighth largest ISP in the nation a victim of a dirty letter. And to make it worse, MS has posted on its web site that the problem has been solved. HAH! Yes I'm angry. I just can't wait to hear their excuses. If I soon have a new e-mail address, you'll know why. But the day was not a total loss, because when I'm angry, I turn to the world of fractals to settle down. I cooled my heels this evening with my current favorite formula -- MandelbrotMix5. I didn't look very long or very hard, but I found this gentle midget in the fractal that results when Z^3.333 is subtracted from Z^3.3333. Of course not much happens unless the tiny difference is multiplied by a factor of a few thousand. When I did this, I found the midget already there waiting for me, as it has been since before time began. I colored the peaceful scene in a peaceful grey-green palette, named the picture, "The Gentlest Fractal" and posted the GIF file to: The picture is also available at the FOTD web site: I have no philosophy today -- it's hard to philosophize when you're seething, but tomorrow is another day, and presumably the e-mail problem at Mindspring will be fixed, and I'll have some philosophy to share at that time. Until tomorrow, take care and keep your fractals cool. Jim Muth jamth@mindspring.com START FORMULA================================================ MandelbrotMix5 {; Jim Muth a=real(p1), b=imag(p1), d=real(p2), f=imag(p2), g=1/f, h=1/d, j=1/(f-b), z=(-a*b*g*h)^j, k=real(p3)+1, l=imag(p3)+1, c=pixel: z=k*((a*(z^b))+(d*(z^f)))+c^l, |z| < 100 } END FORMULA================================================== START PARAMETER FILE========================================= TheGentlestFractal { ; 40min on a 486-100, 640x480 reset=1960 type=formula formulafile=critical.frm formulaname=MandelbrotMix5 center-mag=-1.245876002156\ 60800/+0.10691430341564010/1.154678e+009/1/-119.999 params=-1/3.333/1/3.3333/1000/0 float=y maxiter=1200 bailout=25 inside=0 logmap=102 symmetry=xaxis periodicity=10 colors=000Nk_<5>WfbXfbYgc<19>gos<3>_cf\ YacWY_<3>OJO<3>LVSKYTK_UJaV<10>Dve<7>rlH<18>SijRikQfg\ <10>OB6<12>BCa<4>lY6<21>Pfc<3>YJM_DIdSMifQmtU<12>10O4\ JV6a`8bfRdZhZRdOP<8>CN9<15>QPVRNVSLVTTVUXVVVVWYVLUqM_\ pMoo<11>QzhEzRCzSBzS<7>lz2<5>CzZ<10>pzm<8>0z9<4>ez\ E<2>izP } END PARAMETER FILE=========================================== START 19.6 PARAMETER-FORMULA FILE============================ TheGentlestFractal { ; 40min on a 486-100, 640x480 reset=1960 type=formula formulafile=critical.frm formulaname=MandelbrotMix5 center-mag=-1.245876002156\ 60800/+0.10691430341564010/1.154678e+009/1/-119.999 params=-1/3.333/1/3.3333/1000/0 float=y maxiter=1200 bailout=25 inside=0 logmap=102 symmetry=xaxis periodicity=10 colors=000Nk_<5>WfbXfbYgc<19>gos<3>_cf\ YacWY_<3>OJO<3>LVSKYTK_UJaV<10>Dve<7>rlH<18>SijRikQfg\ <10>OB6<12>BCa<4>lY6<21>Pfc<3>YJM_DIdSMifQmtU<12>10O4\ JV6a`8bfRdZhZRdOP<8>CN9<15>QPVRNVSLVTTVUXVVVVWYVLUqM_\ pMoo<11>QzhEzRCzSBzS<7>lz2<5>CzZ<10>pzm<8>0z9<4>ez\ E<2>izP } frm:MandelbrotMix5 {; Jim Muth a=real(p1), b=imag(p1), d=real(p2), f=imag(p2), g=1/f, h=1/d, j=1/(f-b), z=(-a*b*g*h)^j, k=real(p3)+1, l=imag(p3)+1, c=pixel: z=k*((a*(z^b))+(d*(z^f)))+c^l, |z| < 100 } END 19.6 PARAMETER-FORMULA FILE============================== _______ ______ _____ ____ ___ __ _ post: send message to philofractal@icd.com unsub: send "unsubscribe" to philofractal-request@icd.com admin: send comments to philofractal-owner@icd.com From owner-philofractal@icd.com Sat Jan 30 03:12:51 1999 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rock.icd.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) id CAA02065 for philofractal-list; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 02:17:54 -0600 X-Authentication-Warning: rock.icd.com: majordomo set sender to owner-philofractal@icd.com using -f Received: from mail-01.cdsnet.net (mail-01.cdsnet.net [206.107.16.35]) by rock.icd.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id BAA01897 for ; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 01:28:30 -0600 Received: (qmail 3692 invoked from network); 30 Jan 1999 07:24:23 -0000 Received: from d01a8692.dip.cdsnet.net (HELO default) (208.26.134.146) by mail.cdsnet.net with SMTP; 30 Jan 1999 07:24:23 -0000 Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19990129233514.0068995c@mail.cdsnet.net> X-Sender: elmont@mail.cdsnet.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.3 (32) Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 23:35:14 -0800 To: philofractal@icd.com From: Ray Montgomery Subject: [philofractal] Read science for fun? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-philofractal@icd.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: philofractal@icd.com Yes. I have since childhood had an interest in astronomy. Please be mindful that I said interest not knowledge. For my 72nd birthday my daughter and her husband gave me two books. The first "Wrinkles In Time" by George Smoot and Keay Davidson was absorbing and highly rewarding to read. I 'understood' little, but gained enough from the reading to believe it when Steven Hawking said of the content, "The scientific discovery of the century, if not all time." In a way that read set me up for the second, the one that led me to fractals. "Chaos" by James Gleick, a book that I found so fascinating that it changed the course of my free time and consequently my life. (As an aside that book was remarkable for the clarity of its narration.) I first heard of Benoit Mandelbrot and his remarkable discovery in that book - and of ? - (I'm too old. The memory is going fast.) the Frenchman who had developed the Julia set. Finding out about fractals became my search for the holy grail. It has led me ultimately to Ultra Fractal and to these message lists. To suggest that science is a 'religion' is an extremely unscientific statement. To say that you believe science is replacing religion (a condition I do not personally believe) would be a more accurate way of saying what I believe you mean. And I believe that science is growing by leaps and bounds, exponentially indeed. And I am so delighted that in my life I have seen so much of that growth. It must be clear that I am not a part of that growth - not a scientist nor involved in the sciences - but I have been an interested observer all my life. A conclusion that I have reached after reading "Chaos" and other books, and many comments and reading the comments of this list, I can safely say that, just as there is a smugness and self-satisfaction in those who are religious, there is the same condition in those who believe that science is the be all. Not scientifically stated but I hope you understand what I am saying. There is a pontification in the religious that I find somewhat offensive and there is an equal pontification in the scientific community that I find equally offensive. I don't say that either IS offensive I say merely that that is the way I find them. The scientists did let the newer disciplines slip through the cracks. Not very scientific. The religious do sin, right and left. Not very religious. Man is man. Men will find their own way, absolutely sure that THEIR way is the right way and for many, the only way. The more I work with fractals the more I'm led to the furtherence of my own personal beliefs, not that they are right, but that they are right for me. Since my first reaction upon discovering fractals and "Chaos" - was that the scientific community is, perhaps without realizing it, closing the gap between science and God. I started out this life, my first 30 or 40 years, as an atheist - not agnostic - no way - a pure atheist, non-militant, not against God, not against religion, with just a 'you believe your way and I will mine.' I then through an unexpected occurance - 'found' God - and then after several years of great satisfaction with religion - have fallen away - no longer satisfied with "religion" but with a strong and steadfast belief in God. Not bible waving - not bible quoting - nothing but a strong conviction of his presence - and with a growing knowlege that the scientific community is - contrary to some comments I have read on this list and to a generally held belief that science is leading the way away from God - gradually leading the way closer to the existance of some, if you will, 'Central Power' or 'Guiding Force' say it how you will. And, to me the tie-in to fractals is so strong and so evident that I find it difficult to believe that not everybody does. But of course they don't. I'm sorry that some find them 'scrawls' and or 'spaghetti' as someone on this list defined them. I could go on, you know that, I know that each who has written could go on, but enough is enough, and if you don't agree with what is being said, it is far too much. So, I find God evident in fractals, but only because this list has encouraged such admissions do I come right out and say so. Normally it is a very private thing. If you have been, thanks for listening. Ray _______ ______ _____ ____ ___ __ _ post: send message to philofractal@icd.com unsub: send "unsubscribe" to philofractal-request@icd.com admin: send comments to philofractal-owner@icd.com From owner-philofractal@icd.com Sat Jan 30 08:12:45 1999 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rock.icd.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) id HAA03143 for philofractal-list; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 07:12:49 -0600 X-Authentication-Warning: rock.icd.com: majordomo set sender to owner-philofractal@icd.com using -f Received: from deimos.worldonline.nl (deimos.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.136]) by rock.icd.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id GAA02991 for ; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 06:33:20 -0600 Received: from default (vp237-27.worldonline.nl [195.241.237.27]) by deimos.worldonline.nl (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA02190 for ; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 13:29:05 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990130132701.007d2480@pop1.tip.nl> X-Sender: t356237@pop1.tip.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 13:27:01 +0100 To: philofractal@icd.com From: Jack Ruijs Subject: Re: [philofractal] New Religion In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.5.32.19990129201044.007cbd30@pop1.tip.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-philofractal@icd.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: philofractal@icd.com At 10:14 PM 1/29/99 -0700, Kerry Mitchel wrote: >Scientific knowledge is increasing at an exponential rate. What does this mean? I don't see this as a signal against my statement that science is a religion. If more persons wrote more about a certain religion, would this mean that the religion is less a religion? I therefore am not talking about just facts and or knowledge, I relate my statement to the real fundamental questions and understanding them. Science is about answering the fundamental questions with an "open" mind and religion with a certain "believe". If no science can answer any fundamental questions about light, gravity, quantum fluctuations, dark matter etc.. , what would that mean? And what if the total of science is based on physics and physics itself is based on the three main quantities, mass, space and time? We or science cannot answer any fundamental questions about these three base-quantities yet we use them as they are absolute quantities (at least in any "absolute" science based on physics). General relativity showed in a great way this "flaw" in physics, the theory of relativity therefore is no solution but a pointing finger to the problem. Quantum physics can be compared to be almost the same, it is a mathematical theory and does not answer any of the fundamental questions. Quantum physics has more to do with interpretations of mathematical solutions than with insight in the real problem. Moreover the two great theories (and I do mean great theories) only made things worse in our understanding of the world. Therefore my question, what is the real difference between science and religion? (And I mean concerning the believe aspect of both) If someone can show me a real fundamental difference, other than man-related aspects, like naming conventions etc., I will not state that science is a religion. Science WON'T be a religion anymore if someone can answer the real fundamental questions, but for now it is ... >As the latter, >science can never be a religion, as metaphysics are concerned with areas >beyond physics, that is, beyond the tangible universe. That's just the point, how can someone state wether it is outside the universe if we do not know the universe? Metaphysics is only semantically and in theory beyond real physics. >Properly executed, I see science as an open process of inquiry. I would like to believe it is so ... >For example, the speed of light being the >absolute maximum speed for a massive body. Do you know -I know you only used the sentence as an example- how many beliefs there are in this sentence? (I cannot count them, in a sentence about God I probably could ...) >It seems to me, though, that >every scientist should keep in the back of their mind the idea that >everything they know could be upset with new discoveries. This is also just the problem. Science shouldn't have to work like that. If science has an open mind it should not have any assumption that could be overtrown. >Is it really true that people read less scientific books for fun now than >in some previous time? I do not really know, but I believe it is ... For my friends and everything I see around me, it is true. >Considering that reading science books for fun >means that the person has to have the economic means to have leisure time, >plus the access to science books. But most of all the eager to understand them. There is also a big difference between reading and reading. I mean; someone can read much more in just one sentence than someone else can read in an entire book. >I'm just wondering how someone could accurately come to that conclusion. If someone actually did, I would wonder also ... (:->) Greetings, Jack Ruijs _______ ______ _____ ____ ___ __ _ post: send message to philofractal@icd.com unsub: send "unsubscribe" to philofractal-request@icd.com admin: send comments to philofractal-owner@icd.com From owner-philofractal@icd.com Sat Jan 30 10:12:47 1999 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rock.icd.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) id JAA03547 for philofractal-list; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 09:12:46 -0600 X-Authentication-Warning: rock.icd.com: majordomo set sender to owner-philofractal@icd.com using -f Received: from zinc.singnet.com.sg (zinc.singnet.com.sg [165.21.7.31]) by rock.icd.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id IAA03475 for ; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 08:51:50 -0600 Received: from ferret (qtns00257.singnet.com.sg [165.21.160.127]) by zinc.singnet.com.sg (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id WAA10379 for ; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 22:47:34 +0800 (SGT) Message-Id: <199901301447.WAA10379@zinc.singnet.com.sg> From: "Ferret" To: Subject: [philofractal] Razzle and dazzle Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 23:08:13 +0800 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1161 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-philofractal@icd.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: philofractal@icd.com I wonder what makes beautiful fractals so. In his book, "fractals, Chaos and Power Laws", Manfred Schroeder touches on a parallel idea - what makes "good" music good. The power spectrum of Bach's First Brandenburg Concerto for example, has an approximately hyperbolic dependence on frequency.Are pleasing fractals characterized by a certain fractal dimension(s) ? That we can generally agree which fractals are pleasing and which are not, is an intriguing fact. Perhaps it's to do with our universal appreciation of nature, which is very self-similar. *That* of course begs the question : What selection advantage could an appreciation of nature have had ? -Arnold _______ ______ _____ ____ ___ __ _ post: send message to philofractal@icd.com unsub: send "unsubscribe" to philofractal-request@icd.com admin: send comments to philofractal-owner@icd.com From owner-philofractal@icd.com Sat Jan 30 14:13:02 1999 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rock.icd.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) id NAA04478 for philofractal-list; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 13:12:48 -0600 X-Authentication-Warning: rock.icd.com: majordomo set sender to owner-philofractal@icd.com using -f Received: from smtp2.mindspring.com (smtp2.mindspring.com [207.69.200.32]) by rock.icd.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA04434 for ; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 13:08:14 -0600 Received: from LOCALNAME (user-38lciur.dialup.mindspring.com [209.86.75.219]) by smtp2.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA01817 for ; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 14:03:35 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 14:03:35 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.16.19990130140804.083f9724@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jamth@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: philofractal@icd.com From: Jim Muth Subject: [philofractal] Re: Scepticsm Sender: owner-philofractal@icd.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: philofractal@icd.com At 05:57 PM 1/29/99 -0800, John Wilson wrote: >I couldn't *live* with any single fractal for an extended >period of time. Seems to me that they are are something to >"ooh" and "aah" over...before going on to the next one. This is how I feel about the fractals I find in my never-ending search through fractal-land. They're like those trite but catchy popular tunes that are so enjoyable to listen to a few times, and then become unbearably boring. They are not like Beethoven's 9th, things that can be enjoyed again and again, each time revealing something new. Once I post a fractal image, I soon grow tired of it. I file it away and rarely look at it again. For me, the enjoyment is in the actual search for and in pondering the meaning of fractals. This is why I never write formulas with long, involved artistic coloring algorithms. I'm sorry if I have disappointed any who supposed that I consider my fractals to be great visual art. I am more a writer than a visual artist. I consider my fractals to be interesting and fun to look at for a while, but great art comes from the depths of the human psyche. It is wrenched out only reluctantly and with great effort. It does not come from a few keystrokes and a cup of coffee to keep one occupied while the picture computes. >Therefore I can understand the hunt for the "Holy Grail" >fractal...one of these days it *must* manifest itself. If >anyone *deserves* to be the architect of this masterpiece, >it's Jim Muth. :-) No, I don't deserve such an honor. :-( But the Grail might already have manifested itself. My two candidates for the Holy Grail, the ultimate fractal of all fractals, would be a: the unadorned Mandelbrot set, b: the universe. I'll have more to say about Fractosophy in a few hours. Jim Muth jamth@mindspring.com _______ ______ _____ ____ ___ __ _ post: send message to philofractal@icd.com unsub: send "unsubscribe" to philofractal-request@icd.com admin: send comments to philofractal-owner@icd.com From owner-philofractal@icd.com Sat Jan 30 16:13:15 1999 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rock.icd.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) id PAA05084 for philofractal-list; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 15:12:46 -0600 X-Authentication-Warning: rock.icd.com: majordomo set sender to owner-philofractal@icd.com using -f Received: from dot.crosswinds.net ([204.50.152.131]) by rock.icd.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA04971 for ; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 14:46:27 -0600 Received: from default (170-17-235.ipt.aol.com [152.170.17.235]) by dot.crosswinds.net (8.8.7/8.8.8) with SMTP id PAA01649 for ; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 15:44:07 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from nleseul@zurich.crosswinds.net) Message-ID: <003b01be4c90$fd064240$eb11aa98@default> From: "Nature Leseul" To: Subject: Re: [philofractal] Re: Scepticsm Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 14:41:49 -0600 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-philofractal@icd.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: philofractal@icd.com <> Or might they be one and the same? Probably unlikely, but who knows? Hm... given an estimated size of the total universe as 10^(10^12), it should be possible to estimate at what zoom scale recognizable factors from the "real" universe should be visible in the M-Set. ||===================== || || --v^v-[Nature Leseul]-v^v-- || || The weird guy in the corner || || Dreamy Smurf || || Donatello! || || "Some are vicious, || || some are fools, || || and others blind || || to see in me, || || one of their kind." || || -Anatoly, Endgame (Chess)|| ||"Is this off-topic or what?"|| ||===================== || _______ ______ _____ ____ ___ __ _ post: send message to philofractal@icd.com unsub: send "unsubscribe" to philofractal-request@icd.com admin: send comments to philofractal-owner@icd.com From owner-philofractal@icd.com Sat Jan 30 16:20:19 1999 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rock.icd.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) id PAA05088 for philofractal-list; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 15:12:59 -0600 X-Authentication-Warning: rock.icd.com: majordomo set sender to owner-philofractal@icd.com using -f Received: from pacs03.infoave.net (IDENT:22208D32@pacs03.InfoAve.Net [165.166.0.13]) by rock.icd.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA04998 for ; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 14:54:18 -0600 Received: from infoave.net ("port 1119"@[204.116.76.108]) by InfoAve.Net (PMDF V5.1-12 #23426) with ESMTP id <01J75O4KLYO89D58R4@InfoAve.Net> for philofractal@icd.com; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 15:49:01 EST Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 15:49:05 -0500 From: Gedeon Peteri Subject: [philofractal] Re: fractals and metaphysics To: philofractal@icd.com Message-id: <36B37041.5F05EA07@infoave.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.07 [en] (Win95; I) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit References: <1.5.4.16.19990129012604.2b677328@pop.mindspring.com> Sender: owner-philofractal@icd.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: philofractal@icd.com Jim Muth wrote: > .... I have always wondered why man would have developed, presumably > through natural selection, a need for metaphysics. Is there a greater > likelihood of reproduction for those who hold metaphysical beliefs? The tendency for metaphysics may simply be a byproduct of other evolutionary developments, in particular, that of language. The effective use of language certainly enhances one's chance of survival, and hence reproduction, even if the grammar of that language also loads it down with the extra baggage of the potential to weave metaphysical fairy tales. On the other hand, once the potential is realized, the resulting shared metaphysical belief may indeed enhance social cohesion within a group, and thus could itself be favored by natural selection. At this point it may be said that it became a need of some sort. The other side of this coin is, however, what history so plainly shows us: that differing metaphysical beliefs often set one group against the other in bloody conflicts. If Mary's optimistic vision that "science will become the new religion" were to materialize, science being essentially the same the world over, this particular source of conflicts could be eliminated, although others will remain. > I also wonder whether, given a *need* for metaphysics, we can long > endure after discovering that our metaphysical dreams are mere fairy > tales. Well, perhaps not, unless we are ready and willing to move on from what we discovered to be fairy tales to more promising outlets for our dreams, such as fractals, which, as you correctly pointed out, "most definitely are not fairy tales." > >The hope that as we gain scientific insight into the connection of > fractals with >the natural world we will somehow find a solid > foundation for such >[metaphysical] fables and fairy tales is a vain > hope. > > I assume the vain hope you refer to is the hope of using fractals to > find a solid foundation for religious or mystical metaphysical things > such as heaven or the astral plane. Yes. > I assure you that scientific metaphysical things such as the fractals > themselves most definitely are not fairy tales. I agree. But even if they were, at least they are nice ones; no devils here. Gedeon -- -------------------------------------------------------------- Fractals: http://www.geocities.com/~gedeonp/index.html Member Infinite Fractal Loop Last updated: January 25, 1999 - new and updated pages Photography: http://members.xoom.com/gedeonp/index.html Last updated: November 8, 1998 -------------------------------------------------------------- _______ ______ _____ ____ ___ __ _ post: send message to philofractal@icd.com unsub: send "unsubscribe" to philofractal-request@icd.com admin: send comments to philofractal-owner@icd.com From owner-philofractal@icd.com Sat Jan 30 20:12:58 1999 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rock.icd.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) id TAA06214 for philofractal-list; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 19:12:48 -0600 X-Authentication-Warning: rock.icd.com: majordomo set sender to owner-philofractal@icd.com using -f Received: from bo.nznet.gen.nz (ns1.nznet.gen.nz [203.167.232.34]) by rock.icd.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA06059 for ; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 18:41:42 -0600 Received: from packrat.nznet.gen.nz (ms2-01.nznet.gen.nz [203.167.232.131]) by bo.nznet.gen.nz (8.8.7/8.8.8) with SMTP id NAA05105 for ; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 13:36:37 +1300 Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19990131133628.006cece4@mail.nznet.gen.nz> X-Sender: packrat@mail.nznet.gen.nz X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.3 (32) Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 13:36:28 +1300 To: philofractal@icd.com From: "Morgan L. Owens" Subject: Re: [philofractal] New Religion In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19990130132701.007d2480@pop1.tip.nl> References: <3.0.5.32.19990129201044.007cbd30@pop1.tip.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-philofractal@icd.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: philofractal@icd.com At 13:27 30/01/99 +0100, Jack Ruijs wrote: > >Therefore my question, what is the real difference between science and >religion? (And I mean concerning the believe aspect of both) If someone can >show me a real fundamental difference, other than man-related aspects, like >naming conventions etc., I will not state that science is a religion. >Science WON'T be a religion anymore if someone can answer the real >fundamental questions, but for now it is ... > That's probably the difference. Religions claim that the real fundamental questions are inherently unanswerable by humans; Science makes no such injunction. Religion is not interested with answering the fundamental questions of reality, as it presupposes that the answers are already available (basically "God did it"). So the answers a person following a religion receives will be those that have already been codified and set out - and woe betide any heretic that dares argue with them. Science does not have a pre-written credo about what the Universe is - to the extent that it's a matter of debate whether the Universe even exists or not. There are of course deeply-held dogmas and attitudes in the scientific community, and things can go hard for researchers who try to buck the trend, but the resistance in this case come from individuals who have made their career and standing out of following the trend - this young Turk coming along and says "Hah, hah, you've wrong all these years...". It can be _hard_ to rewire all the knowledge you've already packed into your brain so that you can accommodate a new interpretation. In short, resistance in the scientific community comes from its individuals as a result of self-interest, while religions more or less explicitly state that they are infallible and either have answers to the fundamental questions already at hand or claim that they are humanly unknowable. >>It seems to me, though, that >>every scientist should keep in the back of their mind the idea that >>everything they know could be upset with new discoveries. > >This is also just the problem. Science shouldn't have to work like that. If >science has an open mind it should not have any assumption that could be >overtrown. > But that's exactly what it means to have an open mind - the realisation that you _might_ be wrong and that your assumptions may well have to be overthrown in the light of new knowledge. After all an assumption is a matter of "I assume X is true", and then work on from there. Things like "I assume the speed of light in vacuum is finite and fixed", or "I assume that gravitational mass and intertial mass are identical", or "I assume that the Universe exists". Even Descartes began with an assumption with his "I think, therefore I am". The matter of his existence is something he is already assuming when he makes this statement, so it's no surprise that he derives it. (And I won't go into here how Descartes' reasoning comes apart almost immediately after this...) I will admit that there are articles of faith in science - specifically, it is a matter of faith that science works. But then if a person didn't have this faith, they wouldn't become a scientist. And while a religion holds that there are ultimate answers to ultimate questions, science doesn't even necessarily hold that there are any ultimate questions. >>As the latter, >>science can never be a religion, as metaphysics are concerned with areas >>beyond physics, that is, beyond the tangible universe. > >That's just the point, how can someone state wether it is outside the >universe if we do not know the universe? Metaphysics is only semantically >and in theory beyond real physics. > I'd actually disagree more with Kerry Mitchell here. Aristotle wrote a book called "Physics", and had enough left over for a second volume, which he called "Metaphysics" - and that's where the distinction came from. Metaphysicians are almost scouts, nosing about ahead of science's body of knowledge. As physics advances more and more of the metaphysical questions become formalised and rephrased so as to fit into physics. "What is Time?" "How big is the Universe?" "How did the Universe begin?" "Is there anything outside the Universe?" "Why is something here instead of nothing?" "Is there anything here?". I'm not saying that they're necessarily any good - I can think of more than one case where a giant clanger was dropped - but then, metaphysicians are operating without a safety net. Physicists only follow along behind once they have a knowledge base that gives them something to build on. >>Is it really true that people read less scientific books for fun now than >>in some previous time? > >I do not really know, but I believe it is ... For my friends and everything >I see around me, it is true. > It depends on the "previous time" - it has only been in recent years (decades?) that the people of more well-off nations have had the individual wealth, lifestyle and political environment that allows them to indulge in such hobbies. Morgan L. Owens _______ ______ _____ ____ ___ __ _ post: send message to philofractal@icd.com unsub: send "unsubscribe" to philofractal-request@icd.com admin: send comments to philofractal-owner@icd.com From owner-philofractal@icd.com Sat Jan 30 21:13:33 1999 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rock.icd.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) id UAA06483 for philofractal-list; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 20:12:47 -0600 X-Authentication-Warning: rock.icd.com: majordomo set sender to owner-philofractal@icd.com using -f Received: from mail-01.cdsnet.net (mail-01.cdsnet.net [206.107.16.35]) by rock.icd.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id UAA06443 for ; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 20:04:19 -0600 Received: (qmail 21771 invoked from network); 31 Jan 1999 01:59:58 -0000 Received: from d01a8613.dip.cdsnet.net (HELO default) (208.26.134.19) by mail.cdsnet.net with SMTP; 31 Jan 1999 01:59:58 -0000 Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19990130181046.0071f4c0@mail.cdsnet.net> X-Sender: elmont@mail.cdsnet.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.3 (32) Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 18:10:46 -0800 To: philofractal@icd.com From: Ray Montgomery Subject: [philofractal] Re: Semantics Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-philofractal@icd.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: philofractal@icd.com So much of religious language and so much of scientific language is semantics that it is almost an impossiblility for two individuals to agree wholly on anything, even if, for the most part, they are like-minded. It certainly keeps the observer of either or each, in a state of constant attention and interest. For my part, I hope the 'heaven' theory ends up being right, because there is a slight chance that we might end up there, and wouldn't it be fun to see what the outcome of the ongoing differences would be. But I don't think that will happen. Do you? Enjoy it all now! Ray _______ ______ _____ ____ ___ __ _ post: send message to philofractal@icd.com unsub: send "unsubscribe" to philofractal-request@icd.com admin: send comments to philofractal-owner@icd.com From owner-philofractal@icd.com Sun Jan 31 02:12:45 1999 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rock.icd.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) id BAA07724 for philofractal-list; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 01:14:28 -0600 X-Authentication-Warning: rock.icd.com: majordomo set sender to owner-philofractal@icd.com using -f Received: from smtp3.mindspring.com (smtp3.mindspring.com [207.69.200.33]) by rock.icd.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id BAA07703 for ; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 01:11:43 -0600 Received: from LOCALNAME (user-37ka9de.dialup.mindspring.com [207.69.37.174]) by smtp3.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id CAA11613 for ; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 02:06:31 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 02:06:31 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.16.19990131020307.0d076f38@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jamth@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: philofractal@icd.com From: Jim Muth Subject: [philofractal] FOTD 31-01-99, (Circus Hill) (c) Sender: owner-philofractal@icd.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: philofractal@icd.com FOTD -- January 31, 1999 Fractal visionaries: Today was fair but rather chilly here at Fractal Central. The temperature of 44F 6.5C was perfect for a good fractal search, so searching I went. The venue I chose for the search was my CrazyNewton formula. Once again, my confusion at handling Newton's formulas was my downfall. Instead of the nice symmetrical image I was after, I found a scene that resembles nothing as much as a circus clown's head before a background of a tree-covered hill. The clown's head appears at the bottom center. I don't want to brag, but actually, the head looks a little like my own. The random parameters in this image indicate that it was found with the soon-to-be-released evolver feature that will be included in Fractint 20.0 whenever that version is released. I colored the picture with a mostly random palette and named the result "Circus Hill". The clown and trees have been humorously posted in GIF format to: the image is also available on the web at: In the coming weeks I'm going to be offering my opinions on the topics of science, religion, and fractals, therefore I feel I'd best tell where I stand on these issues. We'll begin with science. I do not see science as totally contradicting religion, nor do I see it as a new religion. I see it rather as a system based upon verifiable fact, which of necessity restricts its domain to the physical world. In other words, if a system includes things such as invisible beings and worlds, it isn't science. In contrast, I define religion as a system based upon unverifiable faith, which admits the existence of both physical and transcendent reality. In other words, if a system lacks things such as invisible beings and worlds, it isn't religion. When science began, it was little more than a more liberal form of religion. The pioneers of modern science, Kepler, Galileo etal., saw their efforts as an investigation of the workings of God. But as scientific knowledge grew, it became apparent that more and more things that had been considered supernatural could be explained by a better understanding of the physical world. Curious investigators began devising ever more elaborate physical experiments, which could be repeated by others. The scientific method of investigation was born. There never existed an evil plot on the part of science to overthrow religion. What happened was that the success of the materially focused scientific method changed our philosophical outlook. Eventually, the physical world came to be seen as having a special status, which we might call ultimate reality, and the senses, which observe the physical world, came to be seen as the means through which we acquire knowledge of this reality. This philosophical view is known as Positivism. The entire edifice of science is based upon this philosophy, which curiously enough is beyond the range of scientific verification. Of course, when Positivism entered the scene, the things of the higher worlds, such as the paradises and gods of religion, which had always been considered real, were reduced to a state of existing "only in the mind" and therefore not available to investigation. They became less real. Finally, the conscious mind itself was reduced to a product of the physical brain, reducing the higher worlds to little more than a fairy tale clung to by those who lack the courage to face physical reality. Atheists today hold this view. This common sense, materialistic outlook reached its peak in the latter half of the 19th century, when it was sometimes declared that "most of the discoveries have already been made, and all that remains to be done is a little mopping up." But then Einstein came upon the scene with his theory of relativity. With relativity came the realization that the universe extends beyond the familiar world of our everyday experience. After 1905, there were no more absolute frames of reference for either space or time. The distance between two outside objects was seen to depend on the motion of the observer in relation to those objects, and no longer could a person take for granted that the present moment of time exists throughout the universe. It was realized that the intuitive world as perceived by our senses is not the totality of existence. But even with relativity, the world could still be assumed to be out there, objectively real whether being observed or not. We merely had to broaden the way we think about our observations. But this comfort would not last long, for shortly after relativity, quantum theory came along. Relativity becomes non-intuitive when we deal with extremes, such as the very massive, very fast, and very accelerated. It unites things such as time and space, and mass and energy. Quantum theory, on the other hand, is non-intuitive because it deals with the uncertainty inherent in the very small. And with quantum theory, the departure from common sense is far greater than with relativity. The paradox with quantum theory is simple to state. Matter, which itself constitutes reality, is composed of atomic particles. If this is the case, what then are atomic particles, which must also be real, composed of? They cannot be composed of matter; this would be like saying that bricks are composed of buildings. They must be composed of something else that is as real as matter but not material. This something else is known as energy. But energy is a vague ghostly thing, existing in a non-material state. Yet the physical objects around us are very real and very material. People learn this vividly when they bump into a table in the dark. The great unsolved puzzle arises when we try to explain how the spread out, wave-like energy freezes into the real particles that compose the objective matter which we observe with our senses. The puzzle is made even more perplexing by the experimentally demonstrated fact that at the quantum level, information gets around faster than the velocity of light, a violation of the equally firmly established principles of relativity. But this is another story. Speculation is rampant. Self-styled mystics are everywhere, telling us that the age of science is nearing its end. Popular quantum books are selling like hot dogs at a ball game. Many explanations of the quantum puzzle exist. The Copenhagen interpretation is still in the lead with its "there is no deep reality" explanation, which implies that the observation creates the object. This is not as bizarre as it seems, being curiously similar to the way the calculation (observation) of a fractal formula creates the fractal. So great is the quantum paradox that a writer as great as Isaac Asimov rarely mentioned it and admitted that quantum theory gave him an uneasy feeling. Quantum theory was also glossed over in Carl Sagan's great TV series, Cosmos, perhaps the most obvious weakness in that fine series. There are many interpretations of the paradox, such as the multiple worlds interpretation, the transactional interpretation, and the undivided wholeness interpretation. The goal of physics is to make the quantum model of reality resemble the Newtonian world as closely as possible, and thereby be as understandable as possible, but perfect equality will never be achieved. All quantum interpretations must necessarily include at least some of the nonsensical quantum ideas, such as an infinity of worlds like our own, half-dead half-live cats, a lack of free will, and things that move backward in time. These puzzles are cracks in the armor of materialistic science, as well as in the philosophy of Positivism. The puzzles do not show that either science or Positivism is wrong, but they do leave conspicuous openings for new ideas, and it is through such openings that a merging of science and religion might come. There is already a curious similarity between the attempts to explain quantum mechanics and the traditional teachings of Eastern mysticism. This similarity might be a coincidence, or it might indicate some deep connection. The possibility that science might validate religion is the fuel behind the current revival of interest in mysticism known as the New-Age. Next time, I'll offer my views on religion, which are guaranteed not to please everyone. I'll be here again tomorrow with more fractals, another fractal discussion, and likely another outburst of philosophy. Until then, take care and don't clown around with your fractals. Jim Muth jamth@mindspring.com START FORMULA================================================ CrazyNewton { ; Jim Muth a=real(p1), b=imag(p1), c=real(p2), d=imag(p2), k=real(p3), f=imag(p3), z=pixel: zx=z^b zy=c*(zx*z) z=(d*zy+a)/(k*zx), f<=|zy-a| } END FORMULA================================================== START PARAMETER FILE========================================= Circus_Hill { ; 45min on a 486-100, 640x480 reset=1960 type=formula formulafile=newton.frm formulaname=CrazyNewton passes=1 center-mag=0.551947/1.44329e-015/1.368032/1/90 params=2.492966246528519/1.247428052613911/1.322405\ 92669454/0.08798104800561546/-1.521220282601398/-0.\ 1595957823419904 float=y maxiter=250 bailout=25 inside=bof60 logmap=yes symmetry=xaxis periodicity=0 colors=000nnCjqCNo9<4>Io6<3>Az0CWOD2k<4>cvCXII<6>UI\ BzIA64D7kz8`C<11>ITBISBJQAKOALLAMFAVll<3>FaWIXeAVT3\ TH3Pb<5>QwA<6>J6s0uW<7>pYp<4>iSShRNfOO<6>V9Q<6>vS4\ <6>LD0<3>hnY<7>_Q2QJ3HD4<3>sPCkRPdS`aynfypjyr<5>wLH\ <6>Bq5<4>rmb<3>RzE<7>0sk<4>xa_<2>D3VFHbHVj<4>58OTMy\ OIeKFM<7>Rz1<2>ney<6>izk<2>CsH<5>07J7THEmG<3>ADvQZV\ et4<4>xwP<5>lrc<3>spl<4>YgH<4>PC0_L2kU5bfFTsQ<2>HK1\ <7>BHuOSf`bS } END PARAMETER FILE=========================================== START 19.6 PARAMETER-FORMULA FILE============================ Circus_Hill { ; 45min on a 486-100, 640x480 reset=1960 type=formula formulafile=newton.frm formulaname=CrazyNewton passes=1 center-mag=0.551947/1.44329e-015/1.368032/1/90 params=2.492966246528519/1.247428052613911/1.322405\ 92669454/0.08798104800561546/-1.521220282601398/-0.\ 1595957823419904 float=y maxiter=250 bailout=25 inside=bof60 logmap=yes symmetry=xaxis periodicity=0 colors=000nnCjqCNo9<4>Io6<3>Az0CWOD2k<4>cvCXII<6>UI\ BzIA64D7kz8`C<11>ITBISBJQAKOALLAMFAVll<3>FaWIXeAVT3\ TH3Pb<5>QwA<6>J6s0uW<7>pYp<4>iSShRNfOO<6>V9Q<6>vS4\ <6>LD0<3>hnY<7>_Q2QJ3HD4<3>sPCkRPdS`aynfypjyr<5>wLH\ <6>Bq5<4>rmb<3>RzE<7>0sk<4>xa_<2>D3VFHbHVj<4>58OTMy\ OIeKFM<7>Rz1<2>ney<6>izk<2>CsH<5>07J7THEmG<3>ADvQZV\ et4<4>xwP<5>lrc<3>spl<4>YgH<4>PC0_L2kU5bfFTsQ<2>HK1\ <7>BHuOSf`bS } frm:CrazyNewton { ; Jim Muth a=real(p1), b=imag(p1), c=real(p2), d=imag(p2), k=real(p3), f=imag(p3), z=pixel: zx=z^b zy=c*(zx*z) z=(d*zy+a)/(k*zx), f<=|zy-a| } END 19.6 PARAMETER-FORMULA FILE============================== _______ ______ _____ ____ ___ __ _ post: send message to philofractal@icd.com unsub: send "unsubscribe" to philofractal-request@icd.com admin: send comments to philofractal-owner@icd.com From owner-philofractal@icd.com Sun Jan 31 04:12:45 1999 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rock.icd.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) id DAA08209 for philofractal-list; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 03:12:47 -0600 X-Authentication-Warning: rock.icd.com: majordomo set sender to owner-philofractal@icd.com using -f Received: from bo.nznet.gen.nz (ns1.nznet.gen.nz [203.167.232.34]) by rock.icd.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id CAA07956 for ; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 02:27:16 -0600 Received: from packrat.nznet.gen.nz (ms2-32.nznet.gen.nz [203.167.232.162]) by bo.nznet.gen.nz (8.8.7/8.8.8) with SMTP id VAA30623 for ; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 21:22:07 +1300 Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19990131212250.006c9c18@mail.nznet.gen.nz> X-Sender: packrat@mail.nznet.gen.nz X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.3 (32) Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 21:22:50 +1300 To: philofractal@icd.com From: "Morgan L. Owens" Subject: Re: [philofractal] Re: Semantics In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.19990130181046.0071f4c0@mail.cdsnet.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-philofractal@icd.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: philofractal@icd.com At 18:10 30/01/99 -0800, you wrote: > > > So much of religious language and so much of scientific language is >semantics that it is almost an impossiblility for two individuals to agree >wholly on anything, even if, for the most part, they are like-minded. > In religion, certainly - there are approximately as many different defintiions of "God" as there are people who use the word. But in science, I don't think so. The terminology used is explicitly defined and carefully used to prevent misunderstandings (there is a difference between "gravity wave" and "gravitational wave" - the two terms are not interchangeable). In many cases (and I'm thinking of the International System of Units here) even the pronounciation of the words is defined. And in mathematics of course, the language of mathematics is in many fields the subject of the mathematics! > It certainly keeps the observer of either or each, in a state of constant >attention and interest. > For my part, I hope the 'heaven' theory ends up being right, because there >is a slight chance that we might end up there, and wouldn't it be fun to >see what the outcome of the ongoing differences would be. > But I don't think that will happen. Do you? > Enjoy it all now! Ray > >_______ ______ _____ ____ ___ __ _ >post: send message to philofractal@icd.com >unsub: send "unsubscribe" to philofractal-request@icd.com >admin: send comments to philofractal-owner@icd.com > _______ ______ _____ ____ ___ __ _ post: send message to philofractal@icd.com unsub: send "unsubscribe" to philofractal-request@icd.com admin: send comments to philofractal-owner@icd.com From owner-philofractal@icd.com Sun Jan 31 07:12:53 1999 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rock.icd.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) id GAA09005 for philofractal-list; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 06:12:48 -0600 X-Authentication-Warning: rock.icd.com: majordomo set sender to owner-philofractal@icd.com using -f Received: from deimos.worldonline.nl (deimos.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.136]) by rock.icd.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id FAA08961 for ; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 05:59:22 -0600 Received: from default (vp201-60.worldonline.nl [195.241.201.60]) by deimos.worldonline.nl (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA26595 for ; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 12:54:51 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990131125236.007ccc90@pop1.tip.nl> X-Sender: t356237@pop1.tip.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 12:52:36 +0100 To: philofractal@icd.com From: Jack Ruijs Subject: [philofractal] New Religion In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.19990131133628.006cece4@mail.nznet.gen.nz> References: <3.0.5.32.19990130132701.007d2480@pop1.tip.nl> <3.0.5.32.19990129201044.007cbd30@pop1.tip.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-philofractal@icd.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: philofractal@icd.com At 01:36 PM 1/31/99 +1300, Morgan wrote: >That's probably the difference. Religions claim that the real fundamental >questions are inherently unanswerable by humans; Science makes no such >injunction. Do all religions do that? Isn't it true that anyone can come up with a new religion and states otherwise? I also do not think science states they can answer any fundamental question. >Religion is not interested with answering the fundamental questions of >reality, as it presupposes that the answers are already available >(basically "God did it"). So the answers a person following a religion >receives will be those that have already been codified and set out - and >woe betide any heretic that dares argue with them. I have to disagree, some religions do try to answer the fundamental questions. Take for example taoism, the basic idea behind this "religion" is that everthing follows the Tao, and the term stays as vague as the universe itself. Although vague, I must state that this "concept" answers much more fundamental questions I can think of than any modern fundamental science. >It can >be _hard_ to rewire all the knowledge you've already packed into your brain >so that you can accommodate a new interpretation. As you know, history proves that science has been wrong many many times (almost always concerning fundamental science), isn't this just a proof that science is filled with prefilled beliefs? >>This is also just the problem. Science shouldn't have to work like that. If >>science has an open mind it should not have any assumption that could be >>overtrown. >> >But that's exactly what it means to have an open mind - the realisation >that you _might_ be wrong and that your assumptions may well have to be >overthrown in the light of new knowledge. To me an open mind is not to favour any option above others before having proof to do so. >It depends on the "previous time" - it has only been in recent years >(decades?) that the people of more well-off nations have had the individual >wealth, lifestyle and political environment that allows them to indulge in >such hobbies. The opportunity to do and actually doing so is very different. It is in my opion that just in poor families you still have children (or young adults) that really read scientific books. Rich children nowadays are much to spoiled to read a book over and over again. In the past you had large families (at least in my country and before my time) and you often hear that someone got a scientific book for their birthday and read it over and over again (either as an escape from the daily problems of large families or out of pure interest). I myself come from a low educated family and are for the most part a self-educated person (I just had to), and this comes from pure interest in the related subjects. If I had well educated and rich parents I wouldn't have any interest in any education because I am in nature a lazy person and mostly take the easy way. Of course this doesn't mean that this is true for most people, but I see signals around me that it is ... Greetings, Jack Ruijs _______ ______ _____ ____ ___ __ _ post: send message to philofractal@icd.com unsub: send "unsubscribe" to philofractal-request@icd.com admin: send comments to philofractal-owner@icd.com From owner-philofractal@icd.com Sun Jan 31 13:13:08 1999 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rock.icd.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) id MAA10358 for philofractal-list; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 12:12:52 -0600 X-Authentication-Warning: rock.icd.com: majordomo set sender to owner-philofractal@icd.com using -f Received: from camel8.mindspring.com (camel8.mindspring.com [207.69.200.58]) by rock.icd.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA10234 for ; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 11:51:15 -0600 Received: from LOCALNAME (user-37ka9em.dialup.mindspring.com [207.69.37.214]) by camel8.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA17333 for ; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 12:46:40 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 12:46:40 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.16.19990131124313.2b577e5c@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jamth@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: philofractal@icd.com From: Jim Muth Subject: [philofractal] Re: Semantics Sender: owner-philofractal@icd.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: philofractal@icd.com At 06:10 PM 1/30/99 -0800, Ray M. wrote: >For my part, I hope the 'heaven' theory ends up being right, >because there is a slight chance that we might end up there, >and wouldn't it be fun to see what the outcome of the ongoing >differences would be. I often think about this. A presumption of some sort of existence beyond death is almost necessary before a debate about God or religion can even begin. A god we will never experience is no god at all. If the 'heaven' theory is presumed mistaken, if it is assumed that the human awareness can exist only within a living biological matrix, then the debate is already resolved. Without some kind of 'heaven', Atheism is right and religion is a comforting fairy tale. >But I don't think that [heaven] will happen. Do you? My gut feeling is a strong, 'perhaps it will happen'. >Enjoy it all now! So far I've been enjoying it tremendously -- almost as much as I enjoy fractals. :-) Jim Muth jamth@mindspring.com _______ ______ _____ ____ ___ __ _ post: send message to philofractal@icd.com unsub: send "unsubscribe" to philofractal-request@icd.com admin: send comments to philofractal-owner@icd.com From owner-philofractal@icd.com Sun Jan 31 14:12:46 1999 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rock.icd.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) id NAA10622 for philofractal-list; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 13:12:46 -0600 X-Authentication-Warning: rock.icd.com: majordomo set sender to owner-philofractal@icd.com using -f Received: from dot.crosswinds.net ([204.50.152.131]) by rock.icd.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA10435 for ; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 12:31:29 -0600 Received: from default (169-211-207.ipt.aol.com [152.169.211.207]) by dot.crosswinds.net (8.8.7/8.8.8) with SMTP id NAA24197 for ; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 13:28:57 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from nleseul@zurich.crosswinds.net) Message-ID: <001701be4d47$437c7800$cfd3a998@default> From: "Nature Leseul" To: Subject: Re: [philofractal] Re: Semantics Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 12:25:02 -0600 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-philofractal@icd.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: philofractal@icd.com <>. Not necessarily. It is concievable that a religion could state that God gave us life and a purpose, but that life and purpose ceases upon death, and we experience God through living rather than through dying. Of course, I'm not aware of any specific religions that hold to this view, but life-after-death is not necessary, only standard. Although I'll stick to the heaven viewpoint myself, thankyouverymuch. :-P ||===================== || || --v^v-[Nature Leseul]-v^v-- || || The weird guy in the corner || || Dreamy Smurf || || Donatello! || || "Some are vicious, || || some are fools, || || and others blind || || to see in me, || || one of their kind." || || -Anatoly, Endgame (Chess)|| ||"Is this off-topic or what?"|| ||===================== || _______ ______ _____ ____ ___ __ _ post: send message to philofractal@icd.com unsub: send "unsubscribe" to philofractal-request@icd.com admin: send comments to philofractal-owner@icd.com From owner-philofractal@icd.com Sun Jan 31 14:12:46 1999 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rock.icd.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) id NAA10626 for philofractal-list; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 13:13:08 -0600 X-Authentication-Warning: rock.icd.com: majordomo set sender to owner-philofractal@icd.com using -f Received: from deimos.worldonline.nl (deimos.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.136]) by rock.icd.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA10439 for ; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 12:31:38 -0600 Received: from default (vp239-19.worldonline.nl [195.241.239.19]) by deimos.worldonline.nl (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id TAA15941 for ; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 19:26:43 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990131192437.007d3e50@pop1.tip.nl> X-Sender: t356237@pop1.tip.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 19:24:37 +0100 To: philofractal@icd.com From: Jack Ruijs Subject: [philofractal] The Ultimate Fractal In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19990130140804.083f9724@pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-philofractal@icd.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: philofractal@icd.com At 02:03 PM 1/30/99 -0500, Jim Muth wrote: > >... But the Grail might >already have manifested itself. My two candidates for the >Holy Grail, the ultimate fractal of all fractals, would be >a: the unadorned Mandelbrot set, b: the universe. I would choose a. I also have a strong believe that it is even more beautiful and that a 3-D Mandelbrotset is outthere somewhere. I tried to find it a long time ago (ca. 8 years ago) but although I found some interesting forms (they have to be present somewhere on my "old" Amiga), it just took too long to try all the variations I wanted to try. Nowadays the computers are fast enough, so maybe that I will try it in the near future again. Or maybe this list is the place to philosophize about it ...? Maybe someone else has just the right mind to solve the puzzle ...? Here some of my "wild" ideas, more or less as I recall them: X=real axis, Y=imaginary axis, what would Z be? If XY=complex plane, would XYZ be a super-complex space? if i*i=-1, would q*q be -i?, but what then will be -q, 1*1? I do not recall a lot of what I tried, I also tried it using algebraic methods (writing everything in real and imaginary formulas). The real question is more fundamental I think; the real link between Re and Im is that Imaginary numbers can become real and never the other way around (using the z*z+c formula), should this also be true for another dimension? The question to answer is; what is the most logical linking? Su->Im->Re and even cycling Re->Su Su->Re and Im->Re Su->Im+Re ... You can imagine that a lot of possible methods can be tried, and how would you know if you have the correct idea? I tried a lot of intersections of the z-axis and visualized the XZ-plane and for interesting figures I tried to visualize the 3D-version, believing that I would recognize the real thing immediately. Has someone else other ideas, or does someone else know any sites related to this subject? Greetings, Jack Ruijs _______ ______ _____ ____ ___ __ _ post: send message to philofractal@icd.com unsub: send "unsubscribe" to philofractal-request@icd.com admin: send comments to philofractal-owner@icd.com From owner-philofractal@icd.com Sun Jan 31 17:12:45 1999 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rock.icd.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) id QAA11435 for philofractal-list; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 16:12:47 -0600 X-Authentication-Warning: rock.icd.com: majordomo set sender to owner-philofractal@icd.com using -f Received: from dot.crosswinds.net ([204.50.152.131]) by rock.icd.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA11153 for ; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 15:18:08 -0600 Received: from default (167-65-68.ipt.aol.com [152.167.65.68]) by dot.crosswinds.net (8.8.7/8.8.8) with SMTP id QAA19409 for ; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 16:15:40 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from nleseul@zurich.crosswinds.net) Message-ID: <002d01be4d5e$8e373580$cfd3a998@default> From: "Nature Leseul" To: Subject: Re: [philofractal] The Ultimate Fractal Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 15:13:15 -0600 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-philofractal@icd.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: philofractal@icd.com <> ::Shrugs:: I'd personally define q as sqrt(i), wh