I find the stuff that happens within materials under stress fascinating. I don’t begin to understand the math but the visualization and how it “feels”, I totally ‘get’.
The study of fractures and fractals go hand-in-hand as they’re the same. Self-similarity at different scales is precisely what happens in fractures.
—-
—
Ok. A PDF copy of it exists on b-ok . org. I downloaded it. 330+ pages. It _seems_ to be taking a very deep approach to information theory into the territory that you’re familiar with – that of the philosophers.I’ve barely dipped my toes in philosophers but I am deeply steeped in Claude Shannon’s information theory.So, perhaps this is the crossover I need.
—-
Ok, I don’t know who this Deleuze is, but I should probably learn something about Deleuze BEFORE attempting to tackle this.”I wish to treat information in a very special, yet careful, way where a metaphysics of information can emerge without
ontologizing the term, and without exacerbating information theorists who have long since developed parallel ways of understanding and measuring information.”
—
Fear of breaking lamp on other car. Owner of lamp makes loud noise at you for breaking lamp. Lamp owner shakes fist, threatens dangerous paper resulting in handcuffs and a new undesired home.
—-
That we so freely give 2000 lb death machines to children and encourage their usage as a rite of passage like circumcision or your first alcohol poisoning / drug overdose is one of the many strange aspects of culture.
====
and now I got this one. I understand it yet feel as if I shouldn’t understand it. Am I really going to tackle a 330pg book taking a philosopher’s interpretation of information theory through what he believes a French philosopher’s approach might have been had that French philosopher tackled information theory?
Maybe.
=-====
Ok, so looks as if this philosopher focuses on the ” virtual-actual distinction” and never gets to the point of developing an ontology. Fascinating.
—-
oh wait… is it just gonna be another “the unfoldingness of the mayhaps”? I have a feeling it is . Maybe it’ll use fractals to bridge the gaps hence information theory. If he gets into some meaty math concepts that I know, I’ll be impressed. If it’s flowery, it may be a quick skim.
—-
Ok: Looks like it might not be too hard to read. I know this kind of style:
“I hope here to advance a step further toward settling the question of information’s ontological status without subordinating it to Being, but also without relegating it to the transcendent or mind-dependent status of the immaterial or abstract by respecting the possibility of information’s material autonomy. In order to do so, we have elected to understand the speci? c problem through a Simondonian-Deleuzian lens so that therefore we can understand the speci? c character of Becoming as a replacement for the ? xity of Being, and apply this to our exploration of information as that which might be expressed in Deleuzian terms as part of a process rather than a state (although in some cases information does say something “informative” about states).
“
====
[responsivevoice_button voice="US English Male"]