Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uunet!mcsun!unido!tub!fauern!tumuc!guug!pcsbst!cochise!roland
From: roland@cochise
Newsgroups: comp.graphics
Subject: Re: fractals as bad science
Keywords: Fractals, ugh!, mathematicians, pure, applied, non-
Message-ID: <1146@pcsbst.UUCP>
Date: 30 Nov 89 12:44:49 GMT
References: <19544@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> <1619@crdos1.crd.ge.COM> <3775@celit.fps.com> <5383@orca.WV.TEK.COM> <3842@puff.cs.wisc.edu> <1989Nov24.114609.8837@hellgate.utah.edu>
Sender: uusr@pcsbst.UUCP
Lines: 15
Allow my 2 pfennige to the discussion on the scienceness of fractals:
In article <3842@puff.cs.wisc.edu> zerr@schaefer (Troy Zerr) writes:
] Am I to conclude that islands are constructed by some geological
] process of repeated subdivision? Of course not! All I have done is to
] produce a picture which looks (to me) like an island.
Have you ever thought of the possibility that fractals might be not a model
of _physical_ processes, but a model of _perceptional_ processes ?
It is quite plausible to assume that human (visual(?)) apperception is
indeed based on repeated subdivision ( it is well known since ancient :-)
times that perceptional measures all are logarithmically scaled ).
So fractals _are_