simulation vs. representation

A diagram as a purely graphical representation of relationships is unfettered to a pictorial or simulative representation of a process. It is by nature a narrow abstraction.

As it applies to cellular automata, the "generated" diagrams are necessarily a construct -- an interpretation -- of the rule set. As stated in Casti's text, referring to an L-System rule set, "This still doesn't look much like a plant. But we can convert strings of this type into a treelike structure by treating the symbols 0 and 1 as line segments while regarding the left and right brackets as branch points." While this method of representation makes much sense and yields unexpected results (in terms of patterning, for instance) another representation could likely yield similarly unexpected, if not more radical, results. This method inherently introduces a geometrical aspect to the CA process that would not exist without diagrammatic intervention. Therefore, this is not a simulation of the code-events but rather a description of its relationships. L-System equations attempt to describe plant growth, and this is only apparent through a diagram, which is drawn to mimic a tree. The diagram could just as easily mimic coral growth, veins of gold, or ice formation, depending on the geometry used to illustrate the system. Nevertheless, any geometry allows this code-event to be introduced into the spatial-material world, which is invaluable for understanding its process. That is, after all, the inherent purpose of a diagram.

As far as pictorial representations are concerned, these generally describe actual objects and actual events in terms of their likenesses. What you see is what you get. As a method of description, it is clearly successful at describing relationships. And while its representation might be skewed by individual perception, it is generally accepted that this is a simulation of real events rather than an abstract interpretation. It is a recounting rather than a birth. It is a snapshot rather than a register. And as such it is limited by the same constraints as the actual objects in terms of space and time.

As it pertains to our ongoing discussions regarding contemporary architectural practice, it seems that the reference -- both the diagram and the pictorial representation -- is somewhat troubling as they are often overly literal. The role of computation exists in a self-reflexive state: generator, recorder, and interpreter. While certainly multifaceted, is this a limited approach to computation as a creative agent?