Semiotics and Fractal Geometry

topic posted Sun, December 7, 2003 - 11:23 PM by  .:gecko:.
I read this article about fractals in this week's Economist. Most of you know that I see an intimate relationship between fractals and semiotics. This article doesn't go into that directly, but it's interesting how Mandelbrot shows that the basic idea of fractals has been around for centuries, and show ups in things like old paintings and Celtic art, not to mention in the architecture Gaudi's cathedral in Spain and Jackson Pollock's art.

Also of interest is how Mandelbrot's research into fractals benefitted from IBM Research's unfettered approach. His worries about 'guilds' of research subjects mirrors Peirce's holistic approach towards semiotics as the universal way of representing and logically relating all kinds of knowledge... art, math, science, ethics or anything else.

The article: www.economist.com/printedit...yStory.cfm
(Unfortunately, you have to subscribe to the Economist to read it.)
posted by:
.:gecko:.
San Diego
  • Re: Semiotics and Fractal Geometry

    Mon, December 8, 2003 - 12:32 PM
    So, besides the nature of both sign and fractal relationshis being embedded, what other similarties do you find? Also, what is impoartant about the fact that semiotics are similar to fractals?

    I see, for example, that one can drill into a fractal object and expect that the zoomed version will be similar to the unzoomed version. In semiotics, I see that you can zoom, but would find the zoomed view of something to compose it's detail, not a more granular reflection of the whole. That is to say, or question then, that there appears to be a difference between the results of investigating a sign or fractal strucuture - is this true?, what is signifigant about this?
    • Re: Semiotics and Fractal Geometry

      Mon, December 8, 2003 - 2:08 PM
      I think the very essential nature of signs has to be fractal. Here's why.

      Sign production occurs one of two ways: when a new sign is observed, or when already-observed signs are related. In the latter case, when signs can be related to produce new meaning, a new sign embodying that relation is created. This is sign emergence. And because signs can be comprised of other signs, sign emergence is fractal. In other words, the resulting network of signs is self-similar at any scale.

      For me, the importance of this is twofold. For one, it sheds light on how we can understand semiosis (the process of making signs and producing meaning), as well as giving us a clue on how to make a computable knowledge representation that is semiotic. And that's something I'd really like to see happen.

      Secondly, nature itself is fractal. It's easy to find fractals everywhere in physical reality: trees, weather systems, coastlines, and so on. And if semiotics (knowledge and logic) is fractal, and nature itself is fractal, then it suggests the possibility that nature is really some kind of semiotic system. This is something that Peirce suggests in his writings on 'cosmogony' but has never been formally proven (as far as I know). And it should be provable, since we're talking about hard empirical natural science: physics, chemistry, biology, and so on.
      • Re: Semiotics and Fractal Geometry

        Sun, November 21, 2004 - 7:01 PM
        I'd like to suggest the reading of Flyd Merrell's books on Semiotics (around 25 ones, growing as signs :-). He's a teacher at Purdue and he is, inho, one of the most important living investigator on Peirce Semiotics.

        I've listen to a recent speech by Merrell at Venezuela addressing the realtionship between semiosis and fractals.

        I, myself, work with semiotics to understand paradigmatic relations between experimental music and new physics (fractals, chaos, chance etc.). You can read some articles of mine at www.geocities.com/Vienna/9128/ehf6.htm or www.geocities.com/absbsemio...a001.htm).
        • Re: Semiotics and Fractal Geometry

          Sun, November 21, 2004 - 7:02 PM
          Correcting: FLOYD MERRELL
          • Re: Semiotics and Fractal Geometry

            Sat, November 27, 2004 - 9:57 AM
            I checked out Floyd Merrell's CV. There are a few papers where he seems to explore chaos and semiotics, but I couldn't pull up any of the papers on Google Scholar. Aargh. I'll try CiteSeer when I get more time.

            G
            • Re: Semiotics and Fractal Geometry

              Sat, February 19, 2005 - 12:52 AM
              I would like to suggest that the fractal nature of the universe is precisely due to the fact that it is a single self-referential entity built on infinitely (or practically) layered levels of patterned (networked) energy. The complexity that arises from such a hyper-network leads to gaps of non-interoperable between the spatial-temporal structures that arise within it. This results in the appearance within our own reality that things are in fact separate from each other and in fact composed of other smaller things which are also separate from each other.

              Language is an information vehicle of the auditory medium (resonate vibration of surrounding matter-energy structures) and the patterns of information that exist therein attempt to correspond to and model our similar perception of this perceived reality. At the most basic level, as you mentioned, all of our vocabulary is cyclical in nature and hierarchically metaphorical. That is, we must start with vague concepts with which we can all agree on and then begin to segment those word-concepts further with smaller word-concepts yielding abstract polarities, and creating a kind of artificial conceptual space which pushes and pulls the originally vague word-concept into further structure without ever really getting anywhere specific... although it appears you have. When we say specific, we really mean further removed from the outer agreed upon generalization. The inner structure is really more about how the information maps to itself rather than how it maps to the world, but we construct a useful lexicon based on the combination of the reality we perceive and the abstract linguistic information structure we have available to us and with which we cognitively represent our world.

              Of course modern human languages are much more complex than the first ones would have been, and we are taught to jump right in from birth at the present complex level. No doubt this complexity has evolved over time. And that goes for both the universe and our languages.
              • Re: Semiotics and Fractal Geometry

                Sat, April 2, 2005 - 6:46 AM
                To contrast the scientific rationality of the subject so far, allow me to wax fringewise and get all mystical:

                Information is fractal. Two days after the 9/11 attack a hippie showed me that you could fold a 20$ in such a way as to *exactly* reproduce the *specific* angle of the burning tower that we were all being shown so often. The trees on the back of the 20 become the smoke - in exactly the shape we'd all become accustomed to subliminally - and I was spooked. I checked it against the television and shuddered when I realized that hippie had shown me something weirdly and annoyingly profound about the nature of information. He, of course, was giving it a paranoid slant, suggesting that the 20 - recently updated at that time, if you recall - was some kind of signal from the Masons to the Illuminati or some such. I knew it was worse than that - I knew it pointed toward a terribly mindless yet inevitable truth about the nature of consciousness itself.

                Since then I've taken the time to explore several other little info-fractals as they popped up. It's made me just as paranoid as that damned jobless stoner, more so since I'm RIGHT while he was just a nincompoop sent by God to show me that He does not exist, that, indeed, He is just another phantom of the right-brain trying to wrest "meaning" out of my left-brain in order to keep me unquestioningly munching on glucose, ejaculating as frequently and obediently as possible.

                For fun and madness that leads to Horrible Knowledge: pick an obscure glyph - the less meaningful the better - and chart it across seemingly unrelated instances.

                Soon you will be...one of us.

Recent topics in "Semiotica"

Topic Author Replies Last Post
visual Art and Semiotics Patasapien 6 June 11, 2006
Recommended Reading Sarah 6 November 19, 2005
Walker Percy .:gecko:. 0 April 21, 2005
Dobbs on technoart, etc. iona 0 February 18, 2005
Computation as a way to understand semiotics .:gecko:. 11 October 18, 2004