Static Pattern blog

By on December 31st, 2005

Several years ago, led by intuition and instinct, I embarked on an intellectual journey to carve out what I believe will be one of the more important, nascent expansions of the field of engineering. For hundreds of years, we have honed our understanding of the physical laws that govern phenomena in nature into mathematical constructs that could be leveraged by individuals (engineers) to bring about constructed, replicable creations in reality. Throughout the last century, our understanding of two other realms have increased in breadth and depth[1]:

  • During the last century, our understanding of the cognitive mechanisms that govern the human mind began to emerge, and…
  • During the middle of the last century, we were finally able to leverage our partial grasp of those laws to create a virtual working model of those mechanisms where we could recreate, persist, and thereby automate the very products of our thoughts — this was the advent of the computer.

These three domains — the physical, cognitive, and virtual realms — have fascinated me since childhood and attracted me into differing but complementary provinces of knowledge. This study eventually educed a proprioception of the underlying patterns that lie across and between these three domains. I began to get the sense that a new branch of engineering that concerned itself with these underlying patterns would ultimately enrich all other branches of engineering (this complex sequence of thinking will be expanded in greater detail elsewhere). This new branch of engineering would operate with and on these patterns in their abstracted form (apart from their domain of manifestation) and transform them within and cross the respective domains (i.e., physical, virtual, and cognitive) to bring about constructed, replicable creations that span or cycle through these three domains as they evolve. The new branch of engineering would be called Static Pattern Engineering.

[1] Footnote added 01/01/2006: My colleague Galtenberg wisely points out in comments (see comments below) that I made it sound like the virtual and cognitive realms arose during the last century — I appreciate his catch of a possible misunderstanding. From conversations we’ve had in person, he knows I define the virtual realm as existing as soon as human thought could be embedded onto or into physical matter — thus hundreds of years before the 1900s, so he calls me out on that (thank you sir). Please note that I am showing how advances in our _understanding_ of these realms increased asymptotically during the last century, thus making it possible for the emergence of fields like SPE. Anyway, I’ll be talking in depth about the virtual realm/domain and the degree of virtuality that defines it. Also, that the three domains intermingle at the boundaries (as their interconnection makes the obliteration of the subject/object artificial line possible) is central to the thesis that static patterns in fact are transportable between all three. Thanks again Chris for the catch!

I’ve been working diligently on bringing Static Pattern Engineering (SPE) into existence for the last several years. I have created this blog to serve as a sounding board for expressing some of these ideas, sometimes in a formalized sense as I express snippets that are going into the volume I am crafting on the subject, sometimes as a casual quick sketchbook for expressing random ideas, inspirations, and discoveries. I’ve taken the study “offline” for the past couple of years, and the site dedicated to SPE has remained virtually empty. This year, in 2006, I am planning to begin introducing SPE into the physical and virtual realms, via the book I intend to soon publish and via various snippets I will express online.My closest colleagues and dearest friends have heard about this emerging field in dialogue for the past several years as concepts have been discovered, tweaked, abandoned, combined, and transformed. I have decided that finally this nascent branch of engineering can begin to take its first form, that hopefully will continue to evolve throughout my lifetime (and long after mine ends, hopefully throughout its lifetime).

I’ve decided to create this domain (literal, internet domain — staticpattern.net) to allow my mind to play with the ideas in any form that grabs me at the time. While this collection of thoughts will be disjointed, sometimes formal, sometimes informal, sometimes cryptic, I intend to finally use the formal domain (http://staticpatternengineering.net) to lay out the knowledge base in an organized manner.I will also use this blog to talk about the many projects of Praesentia (http://staticpatternengineering.net/praesentia), which will be collaborative testbeds for SPE technology. If anything in these posts grabs your interest, I appreciate your attention, feedback, suggestions, and, if interested, collaboration on these matters.This commencement of the blog is more formal than I originally intended — for me it is evidence that I’ve simply got a lot to write about this year and beyond.

Categorized under: StaticPatternEngineering.
Tagged with: , , .
  • http://www.galtenberg.net Galtenberg

    Is it fair to say the virtual realm has been around actually longer than just this past century (even tho we now realize it thanks to the ‘virtual realities’ the computer manifests)? Do things like papers, blueprints, textbooks, designs, etc also qualify?

    Can a definition for ‘virtual’ be what you described above: a working model? And if so, can the ‘visualization’ part of the mind also be considered virtual, separate from more purely cognitive functions?

  • http://www.galtenberg.net Galtenberg

    Is it fair to say the virtual realm has been around actually longer than just this past century (even tho we now realize it thanks to the ‘virtual realities’ the computer manifests)? Do things like papers, blueprints, textbooks, designs, etc also qualify?

    Can a definition for ‘virtual’ be what you described above: a working model? And if so, can the ‘visualization’ part of the mind also be considered virtual, separate from more purely cognitive functions?

  • http://staticpatternengineering.net/ Joel.Kotarski

    Absolutely correct – with a slight of hand I had quickly introduced the ‘virtual realm’ in a context which could be commonly grasped by everyone from the last century (i.e., 1900-1999); however, very insightfully, you point out that the virtual domain is far beyond what can be manifest simply by that made possible by the computer. So you caught the fact that I was making an example from the last century seem like a definition, so I want to clear that up:

    In my exposition, I was defining recent _movements_ and incredible breakthroughs from the last century that have revealed the interwoven nature of these three domains; however, long before the human mind discovered and explicitly stated laws of cognitive science or created the first semiconductor based computer we have seen manifestations in the virtual and cognitive domains. More generically, the virtual domain includes physical matter which has a noticeable degree of human thought embedded in it. In fact, any act of engineering in the physical world has a _degree of virtuality_ to it, which I’ll discuss later.

    The use of the term ‘working model’ was based on the fact that during the middle of the last century, some eminent scientists used our somewhat limited grasp of human cognition, which has only recently blossomed (and continues to blossom) only in the last decade to create an incredible ‘virtual’ manifestation in the computer which (although it has evolved) has proven so powerful and elegant that we have used nearly the same model to accomplish tremendous feats of intellect. What may another ‘working model’ which is based on our current understanding bring about? What if it became possible to succintly express human thought into something beyond bits and bytes – as the possibility of quantum computing offers – or into components that go beyond simply recording these into boolean logical structures? I offer this as a fascination point rather than a debating argument.
    But, once again, I thank you and bow to you for pointing out that which I glossed over as a slight of hand — the ‘virtual domain’ which is essential to SPE technology, deserves much discussion and less of a slight of hand. I intend to discuss it much more thoroughly in future posts — thanks for the feedback!

    (As for the ‘visualization’ part of the mind, absolutely!)

  • http://staticpatternengineering.net/ Joel.Kotarski

    Absolutely correct – with a slight of hand I had quickly introduced the ‘virtual realm’ in a context which could be commonly grasped by everyone from the last century (i.e., 1900-1999); however, very insightfully, you point out that the virtual domain is far beyond what can be manifest simply by that made possible by the computer. So you caught the fact that I was making an example from the last century seem like a definition, so I want to clear that up:

    In my exposition, I was defining recent _movements_ and incredible breakthroughs from the last century that have revealed the interwoven nature of these three domains; however, long before the human mind discovered and explicitly stated laws of cognitive science or created the first semiconductor based computer we have seen manifestations in the virtual and cognitive domains. More generically, the virtual domain includes physical matter which has a noticeable degree of human thought embedded in it. In fact, any act of engineering in the physical world has a _degree of virtuality_ to it, which I’ll discuss later.

    The use of the term ‘working model’ was based on the fact that during the middle of the last century, some eminent scientists used our somewhat limited grasp of human cognition, which has only recently blossomed (and continues to blossom) only in the last decade to create an incredible ‘virtual’ manifestation in the computer which (although it has evolved) has proven so powerful and elegant that we have used nearly the same model to accomplish tremendous feats of intellect. What may another ‘working model’ which is based on our current understanding bring about? What if it became possible to succintly express human thought into something beyond bits and bytes – as the possibility of quantum computing offers – or into components that go beyond simply recording these into boolean logical structures? I offer this as a fascination point rather than a debating argument.
    But, once again, I thank you and bow to you for pointing out that which I glossed over as a slight of hand — the ‘virtual domain’ which is essential to SPE technology, deserves much discussion and less of a slight of hand. I intend to discuss it much more thoroughly in future posts — thanks for the feedback!

    (As for the ‘visualization’ part of the mind, absolutely!)

  • http://www.galtenberg.net Galtenberg

    When you use the term ‘engineering’ in your first paragraph to represent application of mathematical laws inherent in the physical universe (via ‘mathematical constructs’), and then you use the term ‘Static Pattern Engineering’ at the end of the first section to label the trichotomy of [physical, virtual, cognitive] that your work proposes to expose, does this imply that the core product of SPE will be a mathematical treatise on this tri-fold universe?

    When I first read this entry, I came away thinking that the focus was to be on possible manifestations within and transformations between the three realms… Now after re-reading, and after our later discussions, I can’t shake the impression that the conceptual and pragmatic applications of this project will have to be subservient, ultimately, to the mathematical analysis required of the underlying sub-structure of the realms. Is that true? Or am I taking the ‘math’ reference too far?

    It seems like a forest vs. trees approach. Calling it engineering — for it to stand-up, as in construction, or compile, as in programming — means that SPE focuses fundamentally on the atoms of carbon in tree seedlings, so ultimately trees grow and you get a forest… when maybe what you really want is to take a hike or find raw materials to build a house (the atoms of carbon, those lower granularity mathematical constructs, being assumed as functioning, not needing to be studied).

    I just wonder… Is engineering, by this mathematical definition, required *at all*, as a component in transformation between physical, cognitive, and/or virtual states? I’m thinking of very non-mathematical acts, like artistic expressions. You /could/ say that this, too, is a mathematical act, just like writing a computer program is mathematical because it runs on a grandiose adding machine (the microprocessor), but still… the only mathematics needed in an artistic expression are the fundamental working of the human mind…

    And you’re not saying that SPE requires an explication of the laws of the human mind, are you? If so, wow good luck – you and 50,000 other academics are trying to crack that nut (when I’m guessing it’s the neuroscientists and geneticists that’ll break the code). Or, does SPE operate at a higher granularity of mathematics/engineering (ie, higher granularity constructs), than the root workings of the human mind? Or, even further, can you do SPE without *any* mathematics (eg, artistic expression/transformation)… hence, without any engineering (classic engineering)?

    To summarize, using my previous metaphor, will SPE be focusing, in its first iteration, primarily on the uses of trees, the structure of trees, or the patterns of forests? And how much math will be involved?

  • http://www.galtenberg.net Galtenberg

    When you use the term ‘engineering’ in your first paragraph to represent application of mathematical laws inherent in the physical universe (via ‘mathematical constructs’), and then you use the term ‘Static Pattern Engineering’ at the end of the first section to label the trichotomy of [physical, virtual, cognitive] that your work proposes to expose, does this imply that the core product of SPE will be a mathematical treatise on this tri-fold universe?

    When I first read this entry, I came away thinking that the focus was to be on possible manifestations within and transformations between the three realms… Now after re-reading, and after our later discussions, I can’t shake the impression that the conceptual and pragmatic applications of this project will have to be subservient, ultimately, to the mathematical analysis required of the underlying sub-structure of the realms. Is that true? Or am I taking the ‘math’ reference too far?

    It seems like a forest vs. trees approach. Calling it engineering — for it to stand-up, as in construction, or compile, as in programming — means that SPE focuses fundamentally on the atoms of carbon in tree seedlings, so ultimately trees grow and you get a forest… when maybe what you really want is to take a hike or find raw materials to build a house (the atoms of carbon, those lower granularity mathematical constructs, being assumed as functioning, not needing to be studied).

    I just wonder… Is engineering, by this mathematical definition, required *at all*, as a component in transformation between physical, cognitive, and/or virtual states? I’m thinking of very non-mathematical acts, like artistic expressions. You /could/ say that this, too, is a mathematical act, just like writing a computer program is mathematical because it runs on a grandiose adding machine (the microprocessor), but still… the only mathematics needed in an artistic expression are the fundamental working of the human mind…

    And you’re not saying that SPE requires an explication of the laws of the human mind, are you? If so, wow good luck – you and 50,000 other academics are trying to crack that nut (when I’m guessing it’s the neuroscientists and geneticists that’ll break the code). Or, does SPE operate at a higher granularity of mathematics/engineering (ie, higher granularity constructs), than the root workings of the human mind? Or, even further, can you do SPE without *any* mathematics (eg, artistic expression/transformation)… hence, without any engineering (classic engineering)?

    To summarize, using my previous metaphor, will SPE be focusing, in its first iteration, primarily on the uses of trees, the structure of trees, or the patterns of forests? And how much math will be involved?

  • http://staticpatternengineering.net/ Joel.Kotarski

    Instead of addressing questions above turn for turn, in a general sense I want to address a more fundamental question about what engineering is: Engineering is simply about leveraging hard-earned knowledge in the form of science, mathematics, and their products in the form of technology to meet human needs. Engineering is about leveraging knowledge (hard earned in the laboratory — such as science, derived in the halls of academia — such as mathematics) and experience (empirical hypotheses, best practices, heuristics, etc.) to produce results.

    I am bringing up the point that there is the body of knowledge and experience that defines the academic science, mathematics, empirical conclusions, etc. that Static Pattern Engineering can and will utilize to varying degrees to define its core; however, the burden is not on the field to define those at the outset — only to use them. This is not a clever parlor trick to avoid having to work — it simply defines that the work is less about discovery and more about producing results.

    Since it is a new field, I often find myself getting pulled back into the trenches of trying to define a new Science — and at the boundaries of the field, I wholeheartedly and unfortunately believe that this is true for SPE; however, at the opposing boundary is simply the results to be produced.

    So, addressing now specifically what you ask: I think obsession with intricate mathematics in SPE would lead to folly – some of the most amazing accomplishments in the physical engineering fields are leveraging the high-level relationships or laws we have found. A fascinating example is Statics in mechanical, civil, and chemical engineering: Equipped with Newton’s second and third laws, an engineering student learns how to leverage these via several tools to arrive at the knowledge of how to design a small or massive structure that can remain stable for years to come.

    Another good example of making this important choice to avoid minutia can be found in one of the core knowledge components of chemical engineering: reaction engineering. Designing a reactor at its core involves the leveraging of only a few equations — not complex mathematics. This is due to hard work by pioneers in the field reducing it to its elegant set of rules. It is breathtaking and inspiring that something so complex can be reduced to something so simple.

    So I want to come back to the cleavage point that separates the field as a form of engineering rather than a new science (and using your forest versus trees analogy): It will focus on the usage of trees where that applies, the structure of trees only in the case where it is essential to talk about their structure, and more often than not it will be leveraging the patterns of trees themselves to produce the desired effects.

  • http://staticpatternengineering.net/ Joel.Kotarski

    Instead of addressing questions above turn for turn, in a general sense I want to address a more fundamental question about what engineering is: Engineering is simply about leveraging hard-earned knowledge in the form of science, mathematics, and their products in the form of technology to meet human needs. Engineering is about leveraging knowledge (hard earned in the laboratory — such as science, derived in the halls of academia — such as mathematics) and experience (empirical hypotheses, best practices, heuristics, etc.) to produce results.

    I am bringing up the point that there is the body of knowledge and experience that defines the academic science, mathematics, empirical conclusions, etc. that Static Pattern Engineering can and will utilize to varying degrees to define its core; however, the burden is not on the field to define those at the outset — only to use them. This is not a clever parlor trick to avoid having to work — it simply defines that the work is less about discovery and more about producing results.

    Since it is a new field, I often find myself getting pulled back into the trenches of trying to define a new Science — and at the boundaries of the field, I wholeheartedly and unfortunately believe that this is true for SPE; however, at the opposing boundary is simply the results to be produced.

    So, addressing now specifically what you ask: I think obsession with intricate mathematics in SPE would lead to folly – some of the most amazing accomplishments in the physical engineering fields are leveraging the high-level relationships or laws we have found. A fascinating example is Statics in mechanical, civil, and chemical engineering: Equipped with Newton’s second and third laws, an engineering student learns how to leverage these via several tools to arrive at the knowledge of how to design a small or massive structure that can remain stable for years to come.

    Another good example of making this important choice to avoid minutia can be found in one of the core knowledge components of chemical engineering: reaction engineering. Designing a reactor at its core involves the leveraging of only a few equations — not complex mathematics. This is due to hard work by pioneers in the field reducing it to its elegant set of rules. It is breathtaking and inspiring that something so complex can be reduced to something so simple.

    So I want to come back to the cleavage point that separates the field as a form of engineering rather than a new science (and using your forest versus trees analogy): It will focus on the usage of trees where that applies, the structure of trees only in the case where it is essential to talk about their structure, and more often than not it will be leveraging the patterns of trees themselves to produce the desired effects.

  • Pingback: Static Pattern Thoughts » PatternSmiths, Static Pattern Engineers, and Architects