Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!ncrlnk!ncrcae!usceast!uscacm!p7.f12.n376.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Jim.McNamee
From: Jim.McNamee@p7.f12.n376.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Jim McNamee)
Newsgroups: comp.graphics
Subject: Re: fractals as bad science
Message-ID: <119.256E54C5@uscacm.UUCP>
Date: 23 Nov 89 14:23:16 GMT
Sender: ufgate@uscacm.UUCP (newsout1.26)
Organization: FidoNet node 1:376/12.7 - ParaSoft BBS, Columbia SC
Lines: 19


   Mark T Vandewettering writes:

"Fractal geometry may be able to generate images which are convincing images of nature (and even this I might contest) but this in no way indicates anything about the mechanism that generates such phenomena."

   In the strictest sense, that's true.  But it should be pointed out that the same criticism must be leveled against Euclidean geometry.  Only man and a few uninteresting natural phenomena rely on that branch of mathematics to create the world you see.

"... but as far as helping to understand real phenomena, I have yet to see convincing arguments that fractals are of any use whatsoever.  I could draw a bunch of lines that looks like a bug, and that doesn't mean I understand anything about the nature of bugs."

   You may not understand anything about the nature of bugs but you may learn how they came to have that particular appearance.  And if form and function follow hand in hand you may also come to understand how bugs work.

"To be honest, [fractal images] bore me, because basically they are the same, and on all scales.  If I never saw another Mandlebrot set, or another mountain generated with binary subdivision, I would indeed be a glad human."

   When he was governor of California, the famous 'naturalist' and former U.S.president said, "A rock is a rock.  A tree is a tree."  Sounds as though the two of you take similar pleasure in the beauty of Nature.


--  
--
Jim McNamee == ...!usceast!uscacm!12.7!Jim.McNamee


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com