Does scuba count? Immersing yourself in an entirely hostile environment where you are no longer top of the food chain?
Or that when I lived in NZ, I was lucky enough to be able spend virtually every weekend out in the bush? And that I’ve made a point of trekking to the extremely remote valleys of Fjordland, where there’s a decent chance that no other human has ever walked there?
Perhaps “nature” is in itself a poor term as everything is part of nature and you can see signs of life everywhere once you know where to look, even in the ugliest of cities? Isn’t seeing nature as something separate from yourself something of a misnomer?
Maybe it’s not just where you stand, but also which direction you look that’s important?
Doesn’t technology enable us to visit these places? Or perhaps as someone rooted in bio-science, I don’t have the same type of tech tendencies as those skilled in comp-sci?
Wouldn’t it be interesting to see it spin, or to drop it through a plane at different angles of rotation in 4d and see how it intersects? And in reference to the Madelbrot set, can I say, not really the same thing? While the Mandelbrot set relies on imaginary numbers, is it still not bound to 2 dimensions?
With the dawning of super-intelligence, will not this qualia become commonplace and, thus, allow some form of leverage into the ordinary mush of our 4d branes brains?
Wasn’t I referring to the way in which the impression (qualia) of the evolution of the pattern evinces an unfolding that transcends it’s apparent dimensionality?
(for example one might ask: Would not zooming in on a slightly offset centre give the impression of having moved ‘sideways’ through the pattern in relation to the experience of zooming in on a part of the pattern alongside?)
Perhaps stretching here, but does not an approximation between apparent dimensionality embedded within lower dimensional holographic media bear a relation to the way in which the unfolding of (apparent) pattern whilst zooming in on a particular vector through such a fractal set exist?
Does not the process of zooming (through an infinitely expendable set) give a variety of approaches to encode dimensionality within such a set if different origins of zoom are compared used as different dimensional axes (probably at different states of orthogonal rotation)?
(and yes, Math sucks, tend to just try and get the best philosophically consistent beat on it from my engineer and mathy friends) …?
(I can’t not edit these thoughts. They’re so… edity)
Can we discuss degrees of infinity and multiple dimensions in the future? Will you accept that I really wanted to provoke discussion about getting outside? Is it okay that I played with the 4d stuff more than 20 years ago (on a 286 computer no less) and may have to collect my thoughts more before explaining how it’s really not like the Mandelbrot set?
Uh… Anybody else watch part of Verbinski’s Lone Ranger last night? Anybody that is still inclined to give him the vanishingly small benefit of the doubt that is still present from Mouse Hunt?
