Pattern Reinforcement

[pellicle]

Hi

 

decades ago I recall (vaguely) reading about some experiment where patterns were generated which once generated would reinforce themselves by being created.

 

I recall it was something to do with the production of crystalline structure but I just can't recall. Something like: a pattern which should have been 'random' when re-generated would conform to the shape of the earlier and no longer be a random event. The more that this pattern was generated it would become more likely that the pattern would recur.

 

Perhaps I have created this memory, as I've been unable to find anything on this topic over time since then.

 

Does anyone know anything (from the 70's or earlier I think) which this may be based on or am I just all confused?

 

I wonder if this was somehow what the author Greg Egan was 'inspired' by in his "Dust Theory" which is of course fiction.

Edited November 7, 2012 by pellicle

[CraigD]

Welcome to hypography, pellicle! :) Please feel free to start a topic in the introductions forum to tell us something about yourself.

 

decades ago I recall (vaguely) reading about some experiment where patterns were generated which once generated would reinforce themselves by being created.

 

I recall it was something to do with the production of crystalline structure but I just can't recall. Something like: a pattern which should have been 'random' when re-generated would conform to the shape of the earlier and no longer be a random event. The more that this pattern was generated it would become more likely that the pattern would recur.

You might be recalling biologist Rupert Sheldrake’s “morphic resonance” hypothesis, which he describes in a series of books published beginning in 1981.

 

Sheldrake proposed that physical event are not determined by the physical interactions between bodies as believed by most physicists, but by something somewhat analogous to the “field” of biochemical signals that regulate biological cells to development into various organs in plants and animals. His hypothesis and work, which he pursues mostly via public outreach, rather than institutional science, is considered by nearly all scientists to be unsupported by credible experiments, and pseudoscience, a condemnation with which I agree, though I find it thought-provoking and fun.

 

There was a surge in interest and awareness of Sheldrake’s and similar ideas after the 2004 theatrical and video release of the movie What the Bleep Do We Know!?.

[pellicle]

Could be, my memories are too unclear to be certain. Will check it out to see if that jogs any more memories :-)