Posts tagged things.

Things. And Stuff, too.

The re-evaluation of what constitutes “a thing”, or whether “things” as we think of them even exist. Certainly it’s easy to define objects in our macroscopic world — we can call a set of visible parameters “a person” or ” a planet”. But it seems that “things” are vastly more blurry, the smaller the reference scale — the closer you get to the basics of life’s constituents.

If “things” don’t quite hold up, then neither do some traditional ideas about them. Perhaps some of it is “slippery slope” reasoning, but for example: why should something have a static make-up (gender), how can anyone reasonably think that Mercury affects refrigerators or that cats affect luck, and if what we imagine to be “a person” is actually a tree of possibilities spread out over space-time, why do we think we’re able (at this time) to compress all that into a container?

Re: An Astronaut's Advice ›

Sometimes, by the time you’re an adult, you’ve already spent most of your life going in one direction only to find that it isn’t completely right.

I’m no astronaut. I have no proof for you yet, no way to say for sure that changing things abruptly at that point will end well. I’m not sure, it’s not easy, I’m anxious every day, and… we’ll see. All I can be certain of is that I don’t think I could live with the alternative — to keep being carried along by the current, not trying to change a thing.

Even though you may have “grown up”, it doesn’t mean you’re done  and you have to keep being whatever you decided when you were 5, 10, 15, 20 and knew nothing about life. Never mind the “adult” bit. Don’t let life push you into a being you don’t really want to be, just because of momentum up to this point. Don’t be afraid to screech to a halt and turn the f* around.

Do not knock.

Technification is making gestures in the meantime precise and rough – and thereby human beings. They drive all hesitation out of gestures, all consideration, all propriety [Gesittung]. They are subjected to the irreconcilable – ahistorical, as it were – requirements of things. Thus one no longer learns to close a door softly, discreetly and yet firmly. Those of autos and frigidaires have to be slammed, others have the tendency to snap back by themselves and thus imposing on those who enter the incivility of not looking behind them, of not protecting the interior of the house which receives them. One cannot account for the newest human types without an understanding of the things in the environs which they continually encounter, all the way into their most secret innervations. What does it mean for the subject, that there are no window shutters anymore, which can be opened, but only frames to be brusquely shoved, no gentle latches but only handles to be turned, no front lawn, no barrier against the street, no wall around the garden? And which auto-driver has not felt the temptation, in the power of the motor, to run over the vermin of the street – passersby, children, bicyclists? In the movements which machines demand from their operators, lies already that which is violent, crashing, propulsively unceasing in Fascist mistreatment. Not the least fault for the dying out of experience is due to the fact that things assume a form under the law of their purposiveness which restrict their interaction to mere application, without the surplus – were it that of freedom of behavior, were it that of the autonomy of the thing – which might survive as the kernel of experience, because it is not consumed by the moment of action.

Theodor Adorno, Minima Moralia

••••••

I laughed a bit, but in all honesty… it’s all much too loud.

What is is always a totality of ensembles, all present together, in an orderly series of stages of enfoldment and unfoldment, which intermingle and interpenetrate each other in principle throughout the whole of space.

Bohm (via inthenoosphere)

When a planet absorbs a meteorite or a cat breathes, the identity of the planet or the cat is not altered.

on Individual Objects
Murray Gell-Mann, The Quark and the Jaguar, 160

from { Concepts }

••••••

From our point of view, at least. Over time, a planet and a cat who have interacted with their environment are indeed changed into something else, or cease to be “cat” & “planet” and their particles are recycled into other “things”.

A solid object like a rock is almost entirely filled with empty space and only feels solid due to electrical repulsion forces.

{ Intuitor }

••••••

Maybe obvious / old news to some of you, but seriously:

go grab some thing hard (ha, ha) and think about that. Imagine that!

That is, in part, what Neil deGrasse Tyson means when he says { “If you’re scientifically literate the world looks very different to you.” }

We ignore the blackness of outer space and pay attention to the stars, especially if they seem to order themselves into constellations. “Common as the air” meant something worthless, but Hackworth knew that every breath of air that Fiona drew, lying in her little bed at night, just a silver flow in the moonlight, was used by her body to make skin and hair and bones. The air became Fiona, and deserving—no, demanding—of love. Ordering matter was the sole endeavor of Life, whether it was a jumble of self-replicating molecules in the primordial ocean, or a steam-powered English mill turning weeds into clothing, or Fiona lying in her bed turning air into Fiona.

Neal Stephenson,
The Diamond Age: Or, a Young Lady’s Illustrated Primer

For [Marius Watz, an artist working with visual abstraction] this return to tactility is an expression of the digital artist’s quest for the ultimate “high resolution” object. After all, although digital processing can now shoulder prodigious amounts of information, a physical thing for the human perceiver is still the most substantial representation of information possible. Unlike something on a screen, a real object requires no suspension of disbelief. Software-made objects are a new category: the finished product is unlike anything that could ever be molded or sculpted by hand, and yet it’s distinctly the product of human creativity.

The idea of edges, of separateness, is antithetical to the web, which as a hypermedium dissolves all boundaries, renders implicit connections explicit. Indeed, much of the power and usefulness of the web as a technology derives from the way it destroys all forms of containment and turns everything it subsumes into a part of a greater, ever shifting, amorphous whole. The web is an assembly not of things but of shards, of snippets, of bits and pieces. An electronic book is therefore a contradiction in terms. To move the words of a book onto the screen of a networked computer is to engineer a collision between two contradictory technological, and aesthetic, forces. Something’s got to give. Either the web gains edges, or the book loses them.

Rough Type: Nicholas Carr’s Blog: The remains of the book (via infoneer-pulse)

••••••

In that way — maybe, in a metaphorical way — the web is like a macroscopic simulation of the universe. If we can understand that nothing on the web is an isolated “thing”, maybe we can begin to understand it about our “physical” world as well, and experience it in a new way through that understanding.

(via wildcat2030)

ˆ—ˆ

(via acornfables)

scienceisbeauty:

Weierstrass functions are famous for being continuous everywhere, but differentiable “nowhere”. Here is an example of one:

The graph zooms in quite a ways, and you can see that the graph does not become smooth, or linear, as a differentiable function does. However, at the last frame, the graph looks rather smooth due to computational limits of the software used, but theoretically one could zoom in forever and it would never become smooth or linear.

Wikipedia and MathWorld both have informative entries on Weierstrass functions.

Source: Weierstrass functionsDr. Conroy’s Math Department PageDepartment of MathematicsUniversity of Washington

I want all my possessions to be networked so I can get in touch with them via a Web site or my phone. Please, network my pants so I can go to my pants’ Web site and find out if they’re in my closet or at the cleaners, or if they need to be brought to the cleaners.

[The problem with developing an online network of tangible objects, besides cost of nodes] is that researchers and companies have been annoyingly slow in coming up with compelling Web of Things applications. There are environmental sensor networks that can monitor the health of crops, and you can buy large, expensive GPS sensors for tracking shipping containers. But what good does that do us consumers? Besides home-energy monitoring, the only apps Guinard [scientist, researching the Internet of Things] could name as currently in play are shoplifting security for stores and soil-moisture monitoring for plant-care services.

We may not even have to wait for mass-marketed tags and readers in order to start tracking our stuff. …as our mobile phones get smarter, they should be able to use their cameras to map and link that info to GPS data in order to create a map of our earthly possessions.

Imagine! Thanks to our phones, not only will the network know where everyone’s stuff is, but it will be easier for all of us to envy and acquire each other’s things. Finally, a solution to that vexing lack of consumerism that has been plaguing society for so long. Just please leave my pants out of it. Though if your phone happens to spot them, please have it ring my phone. I’ve been looking everywhere.

“Impatient Futurist: The Internet of Things”, David H. Freedman
Discover Magazine July / August 2011, 22-23

Impatient Futurist: The Internet of Things

Discover Magazine July / August 2011,
by David H. Freedman

{ p.22 } & { p.23 } enlarged.