( The Hausdorff dimension generalizes the notion of the dimension of a real vector space. That is, the Hausdorff dimension of an n-dimensional vector space equals n.)
____________________________________________________________________
In particular, in a high-dimensional Euclidean space, volume expands far more rapidly with increasing diameter than in lower-dimensional spaces, so that, for example:
- almost all of the volume within a high-dimensional hypersphere lies in a thin shell near its outer "surface"; and
- the volume within a high-dimensional hypersphere, relative to a hypercube of the same width, tends to zero as dimensionality tends to infinity, and almost all of the volume of the hypercube is concentrated in its "corners".
__________________________________________________________________________
"The idea of alternative biochemistries for life is common in science fiction. Until now a life form using arsenic as a building block was only theoretical, but now we know such life exists in Mono Lake."
from THE SEDIMENTATION THEORY OF CULTURAL TIME ANDSPACE: THE PRESENT IS EMBEDDED IN THE PAST by Robert N. St. Clair
Cultural change involves the retaining of
some cultural practices along with the modification, revision, and re-invention of events
in the co-present. Just as the present is embedded in the past, the future is embedded in
the present.
...When the present is emerging into a new level of consciousness, it comes into
conflict with many of the more established patterns of the past. These conflicts must be
resolved. They are usually accommodated by redefining the past in order for it to make
sense in the cultural present. The redefinition of the past is part of Kuhn’s theory of
scientific revolutions. After the new revolutionary science develops as the new reigning
paradigm for a scientific community, the old patterns of thought are redefined in the
context of this new framework. The past is re-presented into a new model of the present.
It is taken out of its old context and placed into a new one. The result is a structured
form of historical anachronism, a historical discontinuity.
present as the ever changing concept within the context of an ever changing nature of science. Scientific revolutions (as any revolution in any other sphere) re-adapt the way that humanity perceives itself. Culture as a constant re-definition.
check Thomas Kuhn, the structure of scientific revolutions, lending 500/Kuh
Within the humanities, models of structural change are not met with favor. There
are several reasons for this. Although scientific paradigms may go unchanged for
decades, events within modern culture are undergoing rapid change. The cultural
present is immersed in a wide range of social, economic, and technical changes. The old
method of defining a culture by containing it within the borders of a nation-state no
longer holds. Modern technology has enabled cultural events to readily transcend
national boarders. Many modern cultures are involved in the process of global exchange
and this has resulted in complex patterns of cultural hybridity (Nederveen Pieterse,
2004). Not only are cultural patterns and belief systems exchanged, borrowed, or
incorporated within each nation-state, but large masses of individuals have entered into
an economic diaspora where they live and work in other countries as expatriates. Hence,
culture can no longer be envisioned as a steady-state phenomenon. It is far more
dynamic. It is constantly being redefined by a plethora of social and cultural forces. The
forces of modernization have transcended local borders (Wallterstein, 2005).
...Kuhn: He differed from most previous historiographers by
arguing that scientists do not add new knowledge to old knowledge, as has been so often
claimed, but they create and define progress by replacing old models within their
respective disciplines with new ones
...Most systems of thought are self-contained models. They present a view of the
world from a certain perspective (Brown, 1977) and they systematically exclude
alternative mentalities. Richard Brown (1977, chapter 4), a sociological theorist, argues
that this fact simply reiterates his claim that all models of knowledge are metaphorical,
and he also advocates the view that the sciences are metaphorical constructs and have
more in common with literary fiction than was previously thought? But how can one
argue that theoretical models are merely metaphors? The answer to this, Brown (1977,
1987) notes can be readily found in the concept of the metaphor itself. A metaphor is,
after all, the seeing of something from a certain point of view. It is a frame of vision.
And since models of science are simply ways of seeing a body of knowledge from a
certain viewpoint or theoretical frameworks, these models are consequently
metaphorical in nature. As a matter of fact, Brown argues, all knowledge is perspectival.
What this means, in essence, is that all knowledge is also metaphorical.
...Richard Brown (1977: chapter 4) has interesting implications for the
reinterpretation of Kuhn's model of scientific revolutions. What Kuhn saw as normal
science, can now be seen as an iconic metaphor; and what Kuhn discussed as the
paradigm of revolutionary science, can now be viewed as an illustrative metaphor.
Furthermore, the period of crises between these two paradigms or epistemological
metaphors, is nothing more than a transition or the metaphorical failure of the iconic
metaphor.
...Postmodernists are trying to make sense of the chaos. They are
beginning to see the signs of the new system and this is what they are writing about. Because of the novelty of change, such systems are difficult to express. This difficulty
has been interpreted by some as a kind of nihilism, but it is not. The theory of the
sedimentation theory of cultural space is presented within this context. It is a theory of
cultural change that is trying to find a new order in the flux of cultural change.
...In a series of insightful articles, Miller and Bruenger have discussed similar
views of cultural change under the rubric of viral culture. They have expanded their
research on viral communication theory far beyond the work of Lippman and his
colleagues (Lippman and Reed, 2003; Lippman and Pentland, 2004). These MIT
researchers are interested in how modern communication systems function without
central control and move intelligence to the end user. They studied these networks in
terms of their “viral architecture.” It should be noted that the term “viral” was adapted
from biology for use in marketing, computer technology, and the social sciences. Just as
a virus in a biological environment can replicate and become diffused within a system,
it is argued that informational objects and processes can also expand within
communication networks. Lippman and Pentland (2003) considered viral
communication to be a consequence of economic, social, and technical forces within
communication networks. Lippman and his colleagues have noted that such systems
create the potential to embed communications into the sociology of everyday life. They
have discussed the fact that this phenomenon has expanded greatly within modern
society. They have also argued that these new forms of connectivity facilitate the
formation of new social behaviors. Although viral communication research may have
begun with marketing and computer technology but it no longer remains there.
64
clac 31/2007
In a postmodern society, the use of viral communications has shifted. What
Miller and Bruenger (2005, 2006) have done is to expand social aspects of how viral
communication systems operate with a postmodern society. For example, the role of
agency has shifted from one of vertical control to the horizontal transmission of
information of the same generation. With the advent of these new forms of computermediated
technology, they have also become producers of knowledge within the new
viral culture. In essence, societies bend and weave technology to their own uses. It
creates its own social fabric. These new mediated networks are no longer locally
restricted and participate in various forms of global communication. Most importantly,
viral communication is no longer associated with what people buy. It is what people do.
It has become the way in which people experience life. There is a new kind of social
and cultural habitus associated with this new virtual culture. The forms of social and
cultural capital have changed. As Bourdieu (1986: 241-258) has noted, capital takes
time to accumulate and reproduce itself. However, such is not the case with viral
capital. Miller and Bruenger (2005: 8) have noted, within viral networks viral capital
accumulates and reproduces very quickly. It is an infectious cultural process.
Furthermore, in a postmodern media-driven society, the market economy has had a
commodifying process. As Debord (1995) notes, it has become a “society of the
spectacle.” Baurdrillard (1995) argues that it is a society immersed in a continuous
stream of simulated experiences, simulacra.
...For those who leave their cultural space and move into a new intercultural
context, their past is transported and recreated as a new cultural space in which other
members of their diaspora reside and imbue themselves with symbols of the cultural
past. They want to look out on the landscape of their host country and see residue of
their old cultural space. They do this by reconstructing their past within the context of
new co-present world. Of course, the past is never fully reconstructed because it is immersed
in foreign soil and greatly influenced by it. The result is a hybrid culture which
varies in accordance to their dominant and recessive traits (Nederveen Pieterse, 2004).
stop for now.
