Nothing. The observer is key.

Please take a sheet of paper and draw two circles:

Let there be an one dimensional animal called the observer-1, which can only distinguish inside/outside. There is only one circle to be seen by observer-1. Let there be us — the observer-2 — who is able to observe the 2D world with that strange animal observer-1 either inside or outside a circle.

What do we see? 😉

[See this previous post for context.]

### Gefällt mir:

Gefällt mir Lade …

@Ken

You wrote:

> Don't you mean a TWO dimensional animal called

> observer-1? (a ONE dimensional O-1 will be a

> point on a line)

>

> For a 2-dimensional observer to distinguish the

> inside/outside of a 2-dimensional artifact the 2-D

> observer is going to need either a 3-D perspective

> or is going to have to find a break in the 2-D

> artifact's boundary.

>

> A 2-D observer will never "see" a "circle" which is

> a 3-D view artifact. They will call it something

> else by our terms.

>

> What do think we see?

We see, that I modified the example, which originally comes from George Spencer Brown (Laws of Form), so that we become entangled with observer-1 and observer-2 and different dimensions. I think, that's a good start.

In George Spencer Brown's example, there is no one dimensional animal but a blind animal. That is the distinction between blind and seeing (blind/seeing for short). I wanted to reserve this blind/seeing distinction for later. A space, with what appears to us (observer-2) as an amount of different Insides and Outsides, appears to the observer-1 as only one form, which is one circle to the observer-2.

I'd suggest to think of observer-1 as a bit, which is able to distinguish between inside and outside (inside/outside). No line, no point — at least for the moment — no ability to distinguish two subdivisions from one subdivision. But I like to have this pattern of observer-1 and observer-2 active already, in the background, though not introduced in the linear text constructed so far. And, I aim at a bottom-up illustration of a Pile_Object as a bit pattern or type in a computer's memory, the diagonale as a topological identity relation, constructing the 2D Pile space with Normative and Associative Parents as coordinates and the relation of this geometric figure(s) with the binary digits or numbers going into the Pile_Object bit pattern and vice versa.

RalfB

It occurs to me, reading these posts, that there is a relation between Laws of Form and Christopher Alexander's wonderful new series

The Nature of Order.Looking at your image, Alexander would say that the two dots on the page call into being, in our perceptions, (an exhaustive set of) relations — dot to dot, dot to edge, etc. I don't think these are Pile-style A/N relations, though. It would be interesting to find out.

The insight (and I'm paraphrasing badly) is that life exists in all nature as a matter of degree — and the more ordered the relations, the more living they are.

Which, both as an idea and a collection values, would seem to appeal to the Pile community…

(Alexander, on the off chance you don't know, is the originator of the pattern language concept.)