Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Algorithmic Beauty of Plants (1990)

algorithmicbotany.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 38 posts

Re: The Algorithmic Beauty of Plants (1990)

#11

Post by grownseed »

When I was 7, my dad introduced me to my first programming concept ever. While having a walk in the forest, he asked me to look at fern and made me inquire about its structure. He proceeded to tell me about recursivity and a very long conversation ensued. Needless to say, my mind was absolutely blown.

Over the years, we had many discussions like that first one, relating programming concepts to real-life principles. My dad was never (and still isn't) a "hardcore" programmer, but as far as understanding and explaining logic go, I'm still to find somebody capable of explaining things so simply and beautifully.

Quite a few years later at University, my teacher with two PhDs failed to explain the basics of OOP to my class in a 4 hours span, entangling himself and everybody in lingo and concepts that even confused me, who already knew OOP. Academics would sometimes do well to relate to the real world and deflate their egos.

Re: The Algorithmic Beauty of Plants (1990)

#12

Post by tizzdogg »

twtwtaway wrote: post #9

How can one not believe in God after seeing this?

Because it shows that it just takes simple math and algorithms to make complex beautiful things, and not an all-powerful deity?

Some people see the order behind natural beauty as evidence of a designer, but I think this actually demonstates how beautiful systems can arise on their own without guidance. If something was designed by an all-powerful being, it would be surprising if we mere humans could understand its patterns at all. Different perspectives, I guess.. you are of course free to believe whatever you want.

Re: The Algorithmic Beauty of Plants (1990)

#13

Post by krazydad »

FractalNerve wrote: post #7
jordan0day wrote: post #3

For something in a similar vein, but perhaps more approachable, check out The Computational Beauty of Nature ( http://www.amazon.com/The-Computational-Beauty-Nature-Explor... ).

Hello Jordan, have you read that book and would you recommend it over "The Fractal Geometry of Nature by Benoit Mandelbrot (1982) [1]? I'm asking because I bought the latter and would like to know if this book provides more recent information on the topic. Thank you. -- [1] http://www.amazon.com/Fractal-Geometry-Nature-Benoit-Mandelb...

The Mandelbrot book was the first one on the topic (published in 1983, revised from books published in 1975 and 1977), and is the least likely to have 'recent information on the topic'. It's also not as readable as some of the others, but it's certainly a classic (and deserving of a larger Wikipedia article than it currently has).

Re: The Algorithmic Beauty of Plants (1990)

#14

Post by twtwtaway »

tizzdogg wrote: post #12
twtwtaway wrote: post #9

How can one not believe in God after seeing this?

Because it shows that it just takes simple math and algorithms to make complex beautiful things, and not an all-powerful deity? Some people see the order behind natural beauty as evidence of a designer, but I think this actually demonstates how beautiful systems can arise on their own without guidance. If something was designed by an all-powerful being, it would be surprising if we mere humans could understand its pa…

Yeah, different perspectives indeed. But to me it seems unreasonable that for example the tablet I'm writing this on somehow came into existence by itself. Touchscreen, CPU, OS and no creator at all? The things we see in nature are much more complex than my tablet?

Re: The Algorithmic Beauty of Plants (1990)

#15

Post by wallflower »

grownseed wrote: post #11

When I was 7, my dad introduced me to my first programming concept ever. While having a walk in the forest, he asked me to look at fern and made me inquire about its structure. He proceeded to tell me about recursivity and a very long conversation ensued. Needless to say, my mind was absolutely blown. Over the years, we had many discussions like that first one, relating programming concepts to real-life principles. M…

> Academics would sometimes do well to relate to the real world and deflate their egos.

This is really the key to teaching beginners. The difference between telling someone what something is versus encouraging them to see it for themselves.

Apart from the tired car analogy, how would you (or better how would your dad have) explain(ed) OOP to a relative beginner?

We find that we sometimes have to start with the very basics - as in a variable is a 'box' to put a value in. Literally, we hand out boxes. Really, simple intuitive stuff like variables is something that is non-intuitive for most people.

Re: The Algorithmic Beauty of Plants (1990)

#16

Post by alexqgb »

twtwtaway wrote: post #14
tizzdogg wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it shows that it just takes simple math and algorithms to make complex beautiful things, and not an all-powerful deity? Some people see the order behind natural beauty as evidence of a designer, but I think this actually demonstates how beautiful systems can arise on their own without guidance. If something was designed by an all-powerful being, it would be surprising if we mere humans could understand its pa…

Yeah, different perspectives indeed. But to me it seems unreasonable that for example the tablet I'm writing this on somehow came into existence by itself. Touchscreen, CPU, OS and no creator at all? The things we see in nature are much more complex than my tablet?

The fault in your logic is your failure to account for the extrordinary difference in timescales involved in the creation of tablets and ferns.

It's worth remembering that Charles Darwin was a geologist by training. At the time, geology was a relativly new discipline, and the first line of scientific inquiry that demanded any concept of deep time. Its development signaled the dawning realization that the Earth was a lot older than anyone had previously guessed ("possibly a billion years" speculated Charles).

Acquiring an accurate measure of the timescales on which geological events played out is what set the stage for an evolutionary theory of life's development. Indeed, the theory of evolution is virtually inconceivable in the absence of these scales.

Re: The Algorithmic Beauty of Plants (1990)

#17

Post by twtwtaway »

alexqgb wrote: post #16
twtwtaway wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, different perspectives indeed. But to me it seems unreasonable that for example the tablet I'm writing this on somehow came into existence by itself. Touchscreen, CPU, OS and no creator at all? The things we see in nature are much more complex than my tablet?

The fault in your logic is your failure to account for the extrordinary difference in timescales involved in the creation of tablets and ferns. It's worth remembering that Charles Darwin was a geologist by training. At the time, geology was a relativly new discipline, and the first line of scientific inquiry that demanded any concept of deep time. Its development signaled the dawning realization that the Earth was a…

So what you are saying is that given enough time and some random events my tablet could actually come to existance all by itself?

And who set the whole environment for this to happen?

Re: The Algorithmic Beauty of Plants (1990)

#18

Post by alexqgb »

twtwtaway wrote: post #17
alexqgb wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fault in your logic is your failure to account for the extrordinary difference in timescales involved in the creation of tablets and ferns. It's worth remembering that Charles Darwin was a geologist by training. At the time, geology was a relativly new discipline, and the first line of scientific inquiry that demanded any concept of deep time. Its development signaled the dawning realization that the Earth was a…

So what you are saying is that given enough time and some random events my tablet could actually come to existance all by itself? And who set the whole environment for this to happen?

Obviously not. And that's for the simple reason that the theory of evolution describes living things. As I'm sure you know, a tablet is not a living thing. Therefore, the theory of evolution doesn't even try to account for its appearance.

Of course, people talk about the evolution of inanimate objects all the time. But most of them are aware that they're using the term loosely, and not it its proper scientific sense. In other words, when people talk about the "evolution" of tablets, they are not asserting that new tablets are the product of existing tablets having sex with each other and producing little baby tablets which ship themselves to retail outlets when they're all grown up and ready for sale. Rather, they are speaking metaphorically, and describing a process which, in many ways, looks like evolution.

Nevertheless, the incremental development of tablets is not actual evolution any more than a person wearing a lion costume is an actual lion. I hope this clears things up

Re: The Algorithmic Beauty of Plants (1990)

#19

Post by gwf »

jordan0day wrote: post #3

For something in a similar vein, but perhaps more approachable, check out The Computational Beauty of Nature ( http://www.amazon.com/The-Computational-Beauty-Nature-Explor... ).

Thanks for making the recommendation for CBofN (I am the author). I should also add that the naming of my book was clearly inspired by ABofP (or ripped-off, depending on your point of view). ABofP was a real inspiration to me.
Post reply on HN