Scale - geoffrey west

자연세계에는 매끄러운 것이 없다 - 망델브로

모든 것이 울퉁불퉁…

매끈한 유클리드적 기하학을 넘어서, 매끈한 공산품적인 인터랙티브 아트를 넘어서
울퉁불퉁, 왔다갔다, Self-oscillating/self-existing/self-evolving system art?

Most modern ‘systems’ -- 네모의 꿈 -- 반듯한 유클리드식, Deterministic, Finite Scenarios
Also interactive art -- Just accommodates the interaction simply, no more dimension… Far from the real, more of fake -- 공산품과 같이.

What I want: From Euclidean to Mandelbrotian, From linear to non-linear, From flatness to non-flatness, From 1-Dimension to 2-Dimension, From 2-Dimension

Seven States of Randomness - Mimicking the real-world system! The trading system! The volatility! Every metric vibrates and moves every second -- it never stays stable! Even though there is no user interaction -- does not mean that system output stays stable. It always VIBRATES! It always moves! Like a fucking brownian motion, or even more wild -- IT ALWAYS OSCILLATES, MOVES, ALTERS, it never stays table. That is what makes the system art alive. That is what makes interactive art alive. The fact that there is no interaction does not mean the output should stay stable -- Output should be still be moving!

Interaction starts: t1, Interaction ends: t2
Previous system/interactive art: Operates as RELU. 
f(t) = C1 (t < t1), C1 + t * k, C2 (t > t2)

What i offer: “Natural”, Stochastic System 
f(t) = q(t) (Quantum/Stochastic movement), q(t) + t * k(t) (Kinetic function -- adjusted accordingly to the user interaction), q’(t) (New stochastic movement after user interaction)

Good reference: Stock Graph. Stock graph after significant event (gov’ policy, for example - an interaction). Or the weather. Smth ecological, hyperobject!

Volatility! Volatility! Volatility!

매끈한 선은 더이상 자연세계를 대변하지 못한다!

This is also the difference between object vs. system and simple system vs. automatic system.

Object: Stays the same. Even though it’s interactive, it only handles the ‘finite scenario’. Same interaction occurs: Ends up at same output.
System: Dynamic. Not only in terms of accommodating simple interactions, but an interaction stochastically/dynamically change the system - not only its external/surface-level ‘state’s, but also inner ‘mechanisms’ (how the system is inter-related/inter-twined)

Simple System: Stays static when not powered. It might be systematical, but it stays solid without any interaction.
Automatic System: It’s ‘automatic’: IT EVOLVES AND CHANGES CONTINUOUSLY & AUTOMATICALLY even without any external interaction/input. It’s ever evolving, ever changing, ever ever ever….

Touch Designer - Noise
Why do people incorporate noise node in touch designer? TO mimic nature, to mimic the uncertainty/randomness of nature, to make it look more ‘natural’... But this is definitely not enough! Also the noise that I’m interested -- is not merely a ‘visual’ noise. More of ‘system’ noise, noise within the system, noise within the semantic interaction.

Now the big question: How to mimic such ‘natural’ circumstance within system art?

Strategy 1. Mimicking Randomness: Just like TouchDesigner Noise… Easy Fix. But there is a clear limitation.
Strategy 2. Real simulation happening: Let’s say, multiple agents, ‘beings’, algorithms acting/trading/relating in real-time. Very stochastically - like Brownian motion? How to stimulate the behaviour of multi-agents? Computational power?
Strategy 3. Using mathematical modelling of 2: Brownian motion, for example. Normal Distribution sometimes? If you cannot simulate N(=1000) agents in real-time (cuz of computational power limitation), at least use a mathematical model telling you the commonly observed behaviour of such grouping -- rather than merely just using random.

Any reference to system dynamics/system modelling?

“By unifying these references—mathematical, computational, aesthetic—you can engineer the kind of “natural, stochastic system” you describe: a system that does not “wait” passively for interaction but continues to mutate, swirl, and morph, as if it were alive.”