From: Tim Walters
> Romantic: Equal temperament becomes the norm. Modulation
> is all the rage. All keys theoretically equivalent.
An interesting parallel to the "Modern" category
of typefaces, which Bringhurst calls "Romantic".
From: Michael Brady
> any discourse about aesthetic effects is
> cultural and independent of the scheme of Nature.
But you already know that I believe human "hardware"
has relevance. How anybody can base his world view
on the assumption that we have no physical reality
is simply beyond me.
Nothing is independent of Nature.
> You imply that your participating
> will cause it to become a mess! :-)
My drive towards the terminus of this discussion would
create a mess, yes. Messy things have their place, but
only half the time.
But to be fair, that's really true of any topic, so I guess there
is no terminus; or the terminus and the beginning are the same,
like Yin-Yang. Well, humoring each other isn't so bad. :-)
> And randomness is a matter of religion?
> I'm not sure what you have in mind there.
It's a matter of existence, and that becomes a religious
issue within only a few "why?"s. To me, true randomness
does not exists. I think it's a practical distinction to
help us get through the day - to help us build societies.
> Have I enticed you to get into it in spite of your demurring?
"Just when I thought that I was out, they pull me back in!" :-/
> Guilloche machines
Nice name for a font, if a bit Francobrutal.
From: Gunnar Swanson
> How we react to the natural and the mathematical is culture.
> What we assign importance by identifying as natural,
> mathematical, or scientific is also cultural.
Those are all the mere ripples on the surface.
From: Rodger Whitlock
> There should be a simple function that gives
> uniformly random numbers in the interval 0-1.
Aha, I got you! :-) "Anybody who intends to produce random
numbers though arithmetic means is, of course, in a state of
sin." The father of computer science, Johnny von Neuman said
that, and of course he was right. The best known way to try
to *produce* "random" numbers is through taking the modulus
of relative primes. But that's only because we have yet to
see the pattern in it. Just like we have yet to see the
pattern in the chirping of birds.
> the harmonic chirping of birds may be random,
> the dissonances of Ali Akbar Khan may not.
They're either both random, or neither.
Deep down, birds are not qualitatively
different than humans.
> Doubtless the programs producing them are nowadays more
> complex, but the programs are still programs and the
> numbers are still NOT random.
Not just that, but note that the glyphs that allow the formation
of these patterns we see are man-made! So what we're seeing is not
the supposedly random data, but this data interpreted -hence put
into "order"- by something *we've* made. Glyphs have some *serious*
mad-made patterns in/among them, so that's totally pointless.
> Truly random numbers are used in the British "premium bond"
> lottery, but the technique counts decays of carbon 14 atoms.
Let's just say "as random as we can get"; or "random enough".
> The numbers so produced are theoretically random and have passed
> all tests of randomness to which they have been exposed.
Tests that are made by non-random means, right?... :-)