So I just report it.
In AIME is its important (if I understand well) that actors pass through other actors.
Here is a view comming from the study of design in "nature and engineering". It is the "Constructal law", formed by Adrian Bejan
"For a finite-size system to persist in time (to live), it must evolve in such a way that it provides easier access to the imposed currents that flow through it."
This is the author http://mems.duke.edu/faculty/adrian-bejan
and has written books and articles about it
I read also statements like :" Life comes from engines. I define a live system as one that flows and morphs freely in order to persist in time, because that’s basically what living is: Nothing moves unless it is driven, unless it is pushed. "
as in http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/05/physics-evolution-life-constructal-law-bejan-ngbooktalk/
I am uneasy. On the one hand it is a very interesting approach when it comes from somebody with a very good command of non equilibrium thermodynamics as an expression of his basic understanding there. On the other hand I sense a presence of bifurcationism, of reduction to the priority of Physics that makes me uneasy.
The emphasis on explaining the generation of forms reminds me also of Christopher Alexander's approach (http://www.tkwa.com/fifteen-properties/, but especially I think the "Nature of Order") which seemed more open and less "encompassing".
Trying to find some discussion of both in google scholar I fell on http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.821.5698&rep=rep1&type=pdf
I wander what to make of all these
Perhaps a fraternity of the actors of this world?
In AIME is its important (if I understand well) that actors pass through other actors.
Here is a view comming from the study of design in "nature and engineering". It is the "Constructal law", formed by Adrian Bejan
"For a finite-size system to persist in time (to live), it must evolve in such a way that it provides easier access to the imposed currents that flow through it."
This is the author http://mems.duke.edu/faculty/adrian-bejan
and has written books and articles about it
I read also statements like :" Life comes from engines. I define a live system as one that flows and morphs freely in order to persist in time, because that’s basically what living is: Nothing moves unless it is driven, unless it is pushed. "
as in http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/05/physics-evolution-life-constructal-law-bejan-ngbooktalk/
I am uneasy. On the one hand it is a very interesting approach when it comes from somebody with a very good command of non equilibrium thermodynamics as an expression of his basic understanding there. On the other hand I sense a presence of bifurcationism, of reduction to the priority of Physics that makes me uneasy.
The emphasis on explaining the generation of forms reminds me also of Christopher Alexander's approach (http://www.tkwa.com/fifteen-properties/, but especially I think the "Nature of Order") which seemed more open and less "encompassing".
Trying to find some discussion of both in google scholar I fell on http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.821.5698&rep=rep1&type=pdf
I wander what to make of all these
Perhaps a fraternity of the actors of this world?
Δεν υπάρχουν σχόλια:
Δημοσίευση σχολίου