I haven’t heard his construct. Nor what kind of law he’s referring to. Give him a chance.
This is about origins, I’ve always thought of “Law of Karma” a philosophical/spiritual construct that reflects how things happen.
Attitude going into situations …
Producing a spectrum of reactions …
A way of making sense of the cascading consequences our actions carry with them.
I don’t know of “The Law of Karma” being any sort of over-reach intent on defining the laws of physics. Just a warming, what goes around, comes around.
[quote=“citizenschallengev4, post:81, topic:8582”]
I haven’t heard his construct. Nor what kind of law he’s referring to. Give him a chance.
[/quote] Law of Karma. Law of causality. “You reap what you sow”
I’ve thought of this tendency of your’s to find your meanings in origins and focus on the most basic fundamentals, such a microtubules, it has inspired an interesting analogy, that might help explain my discomfort with that.
It’s like reducing the Eiffel Tower, to studying the rivets, how holes were drilled and the metallurgy, girders, & trusses - then concluding you know all one needs to know, in order to understand the Eiffel Tower.
Well, yeah, if those fundamental components their internal composition and external form hadn’t been thoroughly mastered, no tower could ever have been built.
But you must admit, there is a lot more that went into creating the Eiffel Tower than metallurgy and rivets, along with girders, and trusses. Or?
Wind resistance!
Especially during construction when individual parts are not yet supported by the whole structure and complete integrity of the structure has not yet been achieved.
An extract from the “Protest against the Tower of Monsieur Eiffel”, 1887
" We come, we writers, painters, sculptors, architects, lovers of the beauty of Paris which was until now intact, to protest with all our strength and all our indignation, in the name of the underestimated taste of the French, in the name of French art and history under threat, against the erection in the very heart of our capital, of the useless and monstrous Eiffel Tower which popular ill-feeling, so often an arbiter of good sense and justice, has already christened the Tower of Babel. (…)
Is the City of Paris any longer to associate itself with the baroque and mercantile fancies of a builder of machines, thereby making itself irreparably ugly and bringing dishonour ? (…). To comprehend what we are arguing one only needs to imagine for a moment a tower of ridiculous vertiginous height dominating Paris,just like a gigantic black factory chimney, its barbarous mass overwhelming and humiliating all our monuments and belittling our works of architecture, which will just disappear before this stupefying folly.
And for twenty years we shall see spreading across the whole city, a city shimmering with the genius of so many centuries, we shall see spreading like an ink stain, the odious shadow of this odious column of bolted metal.
Gustave Eiffel’s Response
In an interview in the newspaper Le Temps of February 14 1887, Eiffel gave a reply to the artists’ protest, neatly summing up his artistic doctrine:
"For my part I believe that the Tower will possess its own beauty . Are we to believe that because one is an engineer, one is not preoccupied by beauty in one’s constructions, or that one does not seek to create elegance as well as solidity and durability ? Is it not true that the very conditions which give strength also conform to the hidden rules of harmony ? (…) Now to what phenomenon did I have to give primary concern in designing the Tower ? It was wind resistance.
Well then ! I hold that the curvature of the monument’s four outer edges, which is as mathematical calculation dictated it should be (…) will give a great impression of strength and beauty , for it will reveal to the eyes of the observer the boldness of the design as a whole. Likewise the many empty spaces built into the very elements of construction will clearly display the constant concern not to submit any unnecessary surfaces to the violent action of hurricanes, which could threaten the stability of the edifice. Moreover there is an attraction in the colossal, and a singular delight to which ordinary theories of art are scarcely applicable ".
I am a reductionist and I do not acknowledge the concept of “irreducible complexity”.
I think we can agree that in nature all complex systems had humble beginnings and only evolution over enormous time spans allowed for the gradual refinement and complexity of durable functional complex systems and at the same time showing us the fundamental structural blueprints for dealing with gravity, stress, height v foundation ratios, wind shear, earthquakes, rust, wave harmonics, i.e physics.
These are fundamental forces that must be taken into account in artificial constructs.
Then the problem that the actual construction of complex systems requires piecemeal assembly and possess structural weaknesses until the entire structure has been assembled and secured, it is vulnerable.
But in the case of MT, they are fundamental building blocks that give structure to individual cells of all living organisms. Without microtubules (cytoskeleton) we’d all be slithering blobs like slime molds, just as without struts and joists most tall structures would come tumbling down very quickly.
Well, i am not a student of physics, so i cannot answer or reflect upon your writings. I am not looking at an outward flow of my beliefs. I understand and believe, it is good enough. It is demonstrable and repeatable. However, i have no evidence of it as required. it suits me. But still, this chat may inspire me to hunt for formal proof. Shall let you all know.
The true beauty of natural phenomena is discovered by finding the logical “principles” on which the phenomena are based.
When, as a boy, I read Einstein’s theory of SR, read the effects and saw some of the illustrations I had a true “Eureka” moment, where the hair in my neck stood up and a realization of discovering truth gave me a feeling of transcendence.
This is why in art, symmetry, balance, and representation of depth is essential or it grates our sense of composition, the result of aeons of living in an environment of naturally evolved artistry, balance and symmetry.
Natura Artis Magistra (Nature is the Teacher of Art).
Yes that’s right, logical principles should be the best way to get there. of which I do have some thoughts, with my basic knowledge of physics. Doesn’t sound too difficult to prove.
