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.

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.

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?

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?

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!)

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!)

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?

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?