[Riches] – A New Kind of Science: The NKS Forum.

A new Kind of science is a book dedicated to understand how science has evolved in such aspects in systematic computational systems such as cellular automata.The discovery that simple programs can produce complex behaviors caused a dramatic paradigm shift by claiming that the universe and everything is being computed by a simple program.

Wolfram  explains how the cellular automata  works A cellular automaton is a model of a system of “cell” objects with the following characteristics.

• The cells live on a grid.
• Each cell has a state. The number of state possibilities is typically finite.
• Each cell has a neighborhood. This can be defined in any number of ways, but it is typically a list of adjacent cells.

A cellular automata works like is a row of cells that change colour according to set rules. If a cell is white, for example, and its immediate neighbours are white, then the cell remains white. Alternatively, if a white cell’s neighbours are both black, then it turns black.

Most of Wolfram’s analyses deal with the simplest possible cellular automata, specifically those that involve just a one-dimensional line of cells, two possible colors (black and white), and rules based only on the two immediately adjacent cells.

But the most relevant application that Wolfram’s has developed is the Rule 110 that shows how that sequence evolves.

The author first starts by proving that a “tag system” that removes 2 symbols at each step is universal by compiling a 2-state turing machine program. After that, he proves that a glider system can indeed implement a tag system. It is a step by step process. Then, he studies the space time of CA-110 to find the gliders and asociate them to the glider system correctly.

Two unusual features of the proof of Turing completeness are that, firstly, it looks highly unlikely that such a very simple rule could do everything, and secondly, is that the proof requires an infinitely long repeating background on which to work.

Describing how simple computational mechanisms can exist in nature at different levels, and that these simple and deterministic mechanisms can produce all of the complexity that we see and experience.

He makes the point that computation is essentially simple and ubiquitous. Since the repetitive application of simple computational transformations can cause very complex phenomena, as we see with the application of Rule 110, this, according to Wolfram, is the true source of complexity in the world.

DíArcy Thompsonís On Growth and Form, argues that the form in nature and the changes of form are due to the action of force.

An extraordinary optimism is evident in this work, presenting a vision of the physical world as a symphony of harmonious forces. Thompson conceived of form not as a given, but as a product of dynamic forces that are shaped by flows of energy and stages of growth.

To understand this first we have to know that forces is everything that in reality influences PARTS and structure. Parts can be understood as cities, buildings, element, joints etc.

Forces, are the initial condition that produces the motion and the particular transformations of form.

In this work Thompson aimed to unite physics and biology through an analysis of the physical limitations to the growth and structure of organisms.And how matemathically this is produce , by generating an alternative of paths and this paths can be generate into types in futher to reach the definition of form.

An extraordinary optimism is evident in this work, presenting a vision of the physical world as a symphony of harmonious forces. Thompson conceived of form not as a given, but as a product of dynamic forces that are shaped by flows of energy and stages of growth.

He took two (or more) related forms, and tried to determine whether one could be produced from the other by some simple transformation.in a analytical way by using mathematics in a way of understanding the obtained form generated for deformation of the axes compounding the whole structure.

He also explains by his “theory of transformation” ,that one species evolves into another not by successive minor changes in individual body parts but by large-scale transformations involving the body as a whole.

Leading us to questioned ourselves why can we  explore structural systems in architecture that use tension and ‘tensegrity’, in which forces animate the entire structure.

Realating these to architecture nowadays theres a question that might be done and debated , by introducing all these principles that Thompson has giving us in the deformation and growth of form , The architecture of motion prioritizes form over space , shouldn’t these been seen as a whole itself ? are  we been able to change even with all the tools nowdays theses style of formal conception ?

Will always bee human been, is jus a fact, no matter how much we developed we will have to find the way of not been trapped in these new idea of contemporary explorations and isolation of humans without nature, it has to be either the other way around, or will be just in a war trying to play against nature, after reading the Conditioned outdoor room by Rudofsky, there’s something that most of humanity including in a very important space architects we had avoid or maybe just ignored the fact that technology has giving us the tools to create whatever we want , we can be able to alternate in all the ways that we want the climate in a indoor place , but that’s something we may question ourselves. If we have all the tools to improved the living in spaces, why can we just make a interconnection with what the nature has given to us in other to improve with the technology the things we have missed, in other to give humanity the interrelation it’s needed with nature, and not try to abolished this connection with simulations if we already have it? These kind of questioning are the one we should work on in order to produce spaces imaginable, to create a source of invitation to be always in relationship with any kind of activity we  have with the environment that its surrounding, and just make it to be always related to our activities: eat, sleep, sex, conversations, work, play, read, cook, etc. We don’t need a division of what’s nature as an outdoor idea to just hang some hours, and later on go inside to have some kind of privacy, nature itself should be privacy and liberty at the same time.

Another point of discussion Is how Rudofsky presents his concerned about the Pilgrims, how they immigrate to another unknown place, with different climates, and conditionings of living, in order to “adapt”  itself to a unknown environment and just alternated in a space “capable” for them to live, and we have been seeing this for decades, just breaking the bond of  environment with space.

Rudofsky also  mention another example , is how Pompeii was from the first beginning design to use it climates in other to create space fro acceptable accommodations , but the thing is we still see how we can use our environment in some parts of the day but we are still divided bye these idea that is just for a while and then we just refugee in our “home” just declining the existence and trying label our activities without integrating the nature itself to all of these.

So, may doubt is , are going to be able to just use nature all the time as apart of our all activities and not been just quantifying and qualifying our time spent with our environment itself ? as human been these should be something that comes just along our concerned and humanity itself had created in a unknown way separation that from the beginning should never been there

T1-Rudofsky

Will always bee human been, is jus a fact, no matter how much we developed we will have to find the way of not been trapped in these new idea of contemporary explorations and isolation of humans without nature, it has to be either the other way around, or will be just in a war trying to play against nature, after reading the Conditioned outdoor room by Rudofsky, there’s something that most of humanity including in a very important space architects we had avoid or maybe just ignored the fact that technology has giving us the tools to create whatever we want , we can be able to alternate in all the ways that we want the climate in a indoor place , but that’s something we may question ourselves. If we have all the tools to improved the living in spaces, why can we just make a interconnection with what the nature has given to us in other to improve with the technology the things we have missed, in other to give humanity the interrelation it’s needed with nature, and not try to abolished this connection with simulations if we already have it? These kind of questioning are the one we should work on in order to produce spaces imaginable, to create a source of invitation to be always in relationship with any kind of activity we  have with the environment that its surrounding, and just make it to be always related to our activities: eat, sleep, sex, conversations, work, play, read, cook, etc. We don’t need a division of what’s nature as an outdoor idea to just hang some hours, and later on go inside to have some kind of privacy, nature itself should be privacy and liberty at the same time.

Another point of discussion Is how Rudofsky presents his concerned about the Pilgrims, how they immigrate to another unknown place, with different climates, and conditionings of living, in order to “adapt”  itself to a unknown environment and just alternated in a space “capable” for them to live, and we have been seeing this for decades, just breaking the bond of  environment with space.

Rufosky also  mention another example , is how Pompeii was from the first beginning design to use it climates in other to create space fro acceptable accommodations , but the thing is we still see how we can use our environment in some parts of the day but we are still divided bye these idea that is just for a while and then we just refugee in our “home” just declining the existence and trying label our activities without integrating the nature itself to all of these.

So, may doubt is , are going to be able to just use nature all the time as apart of our all activities and not been just quantifying and qualifying our time spent with our environment itself ? as human been these should be something that comes just along our concerned and humanity itself had created in a unknown way separation that from the beginning should never been there