2014 12 03


During a project meeting today (Gerhard, David, Michael) when discussing the way we imagine the 16 bit data to be 'stored' in a network, it became clear to us that we all thought that that data was stored distributively. In effect, although probably an oversimplification, one could argue that the status of the network when reconstructing, say, the first bit would at least imply the possibility of reconstructing the remaining 15 bits. One may characterise this as a holographic situation.


Before this, we had discussed David's implementation for a visualisation of Michael's dynamic system (basecamp post from 2014 10 31 pasted on the right), which allows to precisely represent a (higher dimensional) locality with the tradeoff that the status of the remaining system cannot clearly be seen. [This may appear like a variant of Heisenberg's principle: not everything can be determined precisely at the same time.] In effect, in order to 'see' the complete system, one needs to 'walk' through chains of locality - and remember/imagine some form of unity that this walk represents.


On the surface, those two discussions do not appear to be linked. However, when Gerhard explained his first idea for the Neuro Browser, it became clear that rather than organising it in a grid-like fashion, one may use (parts of) David's visualisation, which through some form of gravitation-calculation reflects the complete system at a given point in time. In other words, rather than applying an external patter (grid; transcendent) where related data points may be far apart, we started to imagine a system where related data points could actually be moved into proximity driven by their own (immanent) status. [One may characterise the resulting constellation as figure.]


Michael suggested that his exhibition Distance Circles may be seen as a snap shot of such a system. [He will need to discribe this here on the RC.] The association with this piece was also triggerd by David's mention of Andrews plots for the visualisation of multivariate data, since a quick google by Michael returned not unrelated glyph plots that display a remarkable similarity with a distance circle, albeit for different reasons. (See links here http://www.researchcatalogue.net/view/109966/109970)


On Michael's side, there is a further association with fragmentation - a topic currently also developed with regard to possible epistemologies of artistic research - , since a fragment may be said to also display holographic characteristics: as locality it is concrete, its reference to a totality is comparatively weak. [This strand will need further consideration.]


After the meeting, Michael looked at: Talbot, M., 1996. The Holographic Universe, London: Harper Collins. [pdf on the right] a book that discusses - perhaps in an esoteric style - amongst other things the brain as a hologram. For Neuro, a direct relation to brain research may add to a holographic approach. A further search on the internet for current research brought up this link http://www.acsa2000.net/bcngroup/jponkp/ to a paper that (at the very end in the conclusion) states that such theories were 'not referenced in many of the major neuro physiology textbooks' (from the 1990s) i.e. it may not be that a holographic approach has much currency in current research on the brain. This is something to follow up on.

A quick browse of the book and the internet document makes it clear that one needs to think in field and frequencies, in other words something that may suit the medium of sound and with this TP. [It may also fit Michael's recent thinking about contemporanity from which the above dynamic system is one result.]

And a final association with this: Virginia Anderson, in Michael's Experimental Systems book says: 'Guglielmo Marconi, the developer of wireless telegraphy, held the view, late in life, that sounds never die and only become fainter; with “sufficiently sensitive equipment,” he should be “able to hear Christ delivering the Sermon on the Mount” (Bryars quoted in Beaumont-Thomas 2009).' (p.63)


Michael 2014 10 31

An n-dimensional field of points P moving in n-dimensions.

Each P has a location and n values, one for each dimension.

The n values fluctuate according to a frequency f1 that also belongs to this point.

The frequency f1 fluctuates according to a frequency f2 that also belongs to this point.

A proximity calculation is required that established a force F between a point P1 and all other points in all dimensions so as to establish a drift.

F is to be imagined as some form of gravitational pull that reduces in non-linear fashion the further away one gets from a P. One may imagine this as halos or horizons around a point P in all dimensions n. (There is a point when one is ‘outside’ of this halo; F gets almost 0.

If inside the halo and while inside the halo a binding process should take place (think molecule) which influences the respective values of each point in its n dimensions. This creates some form of threshold: more pull is needed to get a point moving away from the point it has connected with (or, alternatively, the oscialltion of the values in the two points happens to have produced – despite the feedback – such weak values that the points can drift apart.)


The system of all points should be dynamic based only on the n values (in n dimensions) of all points and their fluctuation, as well as f1 and f2, which describe the fluctuations of the fluctuations. If wonder if we even need specific locations to start with, but we could have those (doesn’t really matter).