Assymetrical to symmetrical complexity
Posted: Tue Dec 15, 2009 3:30 pm
Symmetry is defined in the context of biology as:
“Symmetry in biology is the balanced distribution of duplicate body parts or shapes. The body plans of most multicellular organisms exhibit some form of symmetry, either radial symmetry or bilateral symmetry or "spherical symmetry". A small minority exhibit no symmetry (are asymmetric). “
From Wiki:
“Symmetry generally conveys two primary meanings. The first is an imprecise sense of harmonious or aesthetically pleasing proportionality and balance;[1][2] such that it reflects beauty or perfection. The second meaning is a precise and well-defined concept of balance or "patterned self-similarity" that can be demonstrated or proved according to the rules of a formal system: by geometry, through physics or otherwise. “
Asymmetry can be defined as an absence of symmetry. Modern technology consists of a vast number of examples of objects with symmetric and asymmetric qualities/properties. These qualities can be defined as operational or geometric. We find that in most cases of geometry, symmetrical objects are pleasing to the eye while the opposite is true of asymmetrical objects. When Wiki states “ aesthetically pleasing to the eye” to me it implies three things: masking complexity or simplifying, exposing key functions and adaptability. Masking complexity is considered a “black box” in many engineering disciplines. Basically, a black box is where you no longer care about whats “under the hood”, instead you look at what I/O it performs without getting into the details about what the MOSFETS logic gates are doing. North bridge and south bridge “chipsets” are a case in point. Programmable micro-controller chips are another. Adaptability comes from simplification, a function of “black boxing”. Simplification is mathematical, and requires intelligence to get it just right. At the highest resolution we find a Ribosome production assembly line from DNA to RNA to Amino Acids to Proteins to us (us being the lowest resolution). In biology, we find that the magnitude of symmetry is way beyond any technology humans have created. This could be that living systems are simply chemically based, however obtaining this symmetry is a daunting task. Consider a motherboard in a computer, the motherboard is usually geometrically a rectangle, if we look closer we find a vast array of chips, resistors, capacitors, buses and all sorts of connectors. As complicated as it looks if we take all this complexity and function into account, to arrange it in such a way as for it to perform the exact same function and for it to be as symmetric as possible is a much greater engineering task. The greater the complexity, the less is likely the ability for anything or anyone to make it symmetric. Symmetry can easily produce asymmetry, while the reverse is not true at all. We find that as designers of complex things, we cheat when it comes to symmetry, we hide a car engine with a big floppy front hood. Sure there are “design” considerations such as service and maintenance. We see virtually no signs of “cheating” in biology. The designer didn't care about the cost involved, just the payout.
Decided to add this to the OP:
Asymmetric to symmetrical design complexity (ASDC) is nothing short of a consequence of what we observe. An embryo, for example, seems to evolve backwards, where the symmetry precedes any asymmetry. In other words, the whole precedes the parts. Logically, this is the best way to make sure that the parts (asymmetric or not) "fit neatly" into the whole, by giving it a whole from the onset rather than like we humans do with cars and computers, which is slapping on a case or hood to hide the underlying components and therby creating the illusion of aesthetically pleasing. We see very little of that in design of biology. We see a process that anticipates certain things from the start instead of the end. Biology, in all its wonders is anything but an illusion of aesthetically pleasing or design.
“Symmetry in biology is the balanced distribution of duplicate body parts or shapes. The body plans of most multicellular organisms exhibit some form of symmetry, either radial symmetry or bilateral symmetry or "spherical symmetry". A small minority exhibit no symmetry (are asymmetric). “
From Wiki:
“Symmetry generally conveys two primary meanings. The first is an imprecise sense of harmonious or aesthetically pleasing proportionality and balance;[1][2] such that it reflects beauty or perfection. The second meaning is a precise and well-defined concept of balance or "patterned self-similarity" that can be demonstrated or proved according to the rules of a formal system: by geometry, through physics or otherwise. “
Asymmetry can be defined as an absence of symmetry. Modern technology consists of a vast number of examples of objects with symmetric and asymmetric qualities/properties. These qualities can be defined as operational or geometric. We find that in most cases of geometry, symmetrical objects are pleasing to the eye while the opposite is true of asymmetrical objects. When Wiki states “ aesthetically pleasing to the eye” to me it implies three things: masking complexity or simplifying, exposing key functions and adaptability. Masking complexity is considered a “black box” in many engineering disciplines. Basically, a black box is where you no longer care about whats “under the hood”, instead you look at what I/O it performs without getting into the details about what the MOSFETS logic gates are doing. North bridge and south bridge “chipsets” are a case in point. Programmable micro-controller chips are another. Adaptability comes from simplification, a function of “black boxing”. Simplification is mathematical, and requires intelligence to get it just right. At the highest resolution we find a Ribosome production assembly line from DNA to RNA to Amino Acids to Proteins to us (us being the lowest resolution). In biology, we find that the magnitude of symmetry is way beyond any technology humans have created. This could be that living systems are simply chemically based, however obtaining this symmetry is a daunting task. Consider a motherboard in a computer, the motherboard is usually geometrically a rectangle, if we look closer we find a vast array of chips, resistors, capacitors, buses and all sorts of connectors. As complicated as it looks if we take all this complexity and function into account, to arrange it in such a way as for it to perform the exact same function and for it to be as symmetric as possible is a much greater engineering task. The greater the complexity, the less is likely the ability for anything or anyone to make it symmetric. Symmetry can easily produce asymmetry, while the reverse is not true at all. We find that as designers of complex things, we cheat when it comes to symmetry, we hide a car engine with a big floppy front hood. Sure there are “design” considerations such as service and maintenance. We see virtually no signs of “cheating” in biology. The designer didn't care about the cost involved, just the payout.
Decided to add this to the OP:
Asymmetric to symmetrical design complexity (ASDC) is nothing short of a consequence of what we observe. An embryo, for example, seems to evolve backwards, where the symmetry precedes any asymmetry. In other words, the whole precedes the parts. Logically, this is the best way to make sure that the parts (asymmetric or not) "fit neatly" into the whole, by giving it a whole from the onset rather than like we humans do with cars and computers, which is slapping on a case or hood to hide the underlying components and therby creating the illusion of aesthetically pleasing. We see very little of that in design of biology. We see a process that anticipates certain things from the start instead of the end. Biology, in all its wonders is anything but an illusion of aesthetically pleasing or design.
