I think it would be difficult to find an equivalent of a Turing machine in architecture. While both processes have a physical output the way they get to that point seems to be different. In a Turing machine there is an established set of limited states and values by which the entire system operates to produce physical output on the tape, when this tape is analyzed it can be seen as the pure result of the procedure of the machine. It is not always evident in architecture how the “result” and “procedure”, and in many cases the procedure acted out is not one of a limited amount of states or values but one of flux where new unanticipated obstacles are implemented. Where as the turning machine runs a procedure without being effect by anything outside the machine architecture, at times has to absorb these outside influences during the course of a procedure.
The best equivalent to a Turing machine I can see in architecture is the high rise building as the construction and space is produced repetitively up the entire building, each one the same. When occupied these similar cells or spaces will adapt to various functional needs, in a scenario where these functional needs can be seen as analogous to the states of the turning machine the variation could be the result of such a producer playing out.
And in what sense do cellular automata "picture" a state of affairs?
The “picture” created by cellular automata is a result of the rule set it follows. This demonstrates a state of affairs in that the rule set acts upon the line previous to it. Like a precedent study or a virgin site the new line is an advancement forward, some type of improvement upon the next, based on the rule set. In this way cellular automata can illustrate a model of simplification which can help us visualize this process.
No comments:
Post a Comment