Let’s take the concept of fractal a bit beyond the tree-branch-leaf variety. I submit a few broader-scoping examples that have come to me recently…
- progression of man as a species -> development of the individual -> a day in the life of an individual
My following explanation is of course debatable, but the idea itself is the real key…
enlightenment–>birth–>waking up
woolly theorizing (me?)–>teen/young adult–>late morning/early afternoon
focused theorizing–>adult–>late afternoon
acceptance or avoidance of problems–>senior–>night
extinction–>death–>falling asleep
- A full year resembles a full day (morning=spring, early afternoon=summer, late afternoon=fall, night=winter). This idea stemmed from my 3 year old nephew calling daytime ‘summer’.
I would appreciate any critiques or additions to these ideas. If you have other examples of broad-scope fractals please mention. Let’s not get too hung up on semantics here; the idea is ‘self-similarity among larger and larger (or smaller and smaller) parts of the same general concept or structure’. Thanks.
This one may fare better over in IMHO. Moved.
samclem GQ moderator
The key property of every fractal I’ve seen is self-similarity at every scale. Both of your examples have a definite point below which the analogy breaks down.
Fractals just don’t live up to their hype.
Some trees look vaguely like some leaves.
Mountains look vaguely like some small rock formations.
Big ocean waves look vaguely like small waves in the sink.
Big bays and gulfs and river deltas look vaguely like smaller ones.
But not really.
If you show someone a picture of a big delta and a small one, it’s not hard to tell which is which.
So, like clouds reminding you of turtles, it’s more a trick of the mind than of nature.
More precisely, true fractals (which live only in the realm of mathematical abstraction) do live up to their hype, but a lot of real-world things which are described as fractals aren’t, really.
Perhaps we could say that that element of the hype which claims that true mathematical fractals accurately and surprisingly usefully describe trees, snowflakes, etc., in nature is overblown.
The comparison of a human life to a single day isn’t exactly a novel one - ‘twilight years’ and ‘morning of youth’ are, I think, fairly well-worn notions already.
Nevertheless, I think that this is a very fascinating idea, a useful analogy, and one I would love to see explored in expanded form: in fiction, film, or a philosophical thesis.
Perhaps it is not necessary to assert that a fractal-like relationship describes all of nature all the time, in order to appreciate its consistent harmony within a subset of contexts. That sounds almost too abstract even for me; but what I mean is that, for instance, you will see the ripple effect occur in ponds, coffee cups, fishbowls – maybe not in a vaccuum or on a glacier. Even though a fractal-expansion relationship of scale may not apply universally, it is still relevant and beautiful situationally.
I think you could make a hella sagacious art film or something based on your idea.
IANAEBP. (I am not an enlightened being. Probably.)
Dang. I type too slow.