Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!iuvax!cica!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!decwrl!shelby!lindy!hanauma!rick
From: rick@hanauma.stanford.edu (Richard Ottolini)
Newsgroups: comp.graphics
Subject: Re: fractals as bad science
Message-ID: <6780@lindy.Stanford.EDU>
Date: 30 Dec 89 18:06:51 GMT
References: <119.256E54C5@uscacm.UUCP> <1247@becker.UUCP> <9144@cbmvax.commodore.com>
Sender: news@lindy.Stanford.EDU (News Service)
Reply-To: rick@hanauma.UUCP (Richard Ottolini)
Organization: Stanford University, Dept. of Geophysics
Lines: 16

In article <9144@cbmvax.commodore.com> mitchell@cbmvax.commodore.com (Fred Mitchell - PA) writes:
>As for explaining the mechanism of certain phenomena, it can give fantastic
>insights. For example, the development of the human embryo (and embryos in
>general)- we can begin to understand how a HUGE amount of information
>can be encoded by such a small dataset (DNA). 

B.S.  Fractals, if a valid measure of nature, say how LITTLE information
there is.   Compilicated appearing patterns actually can be parameterized
by very few numbers, hence its attractiveness to explanation and information
compression.

Mitchell appears to be jumbling several types of "new age" mathematics--
complexity theory, chaos theory, fractals ...-- each which has precise and
different definitions and something different to say about nature.
Some may provide USEFUL results and become parts of the scientist's toolkit,
while others will remain mathematical amusements.