Cool or Creepy? Stemcell Computing

I'm not opposed to organic computers, per se, but Zii Stemcell Computing crosses the creepy line in my book (mostly because of the magic pixie dust that poofs up from time to time).  Go ahead, "register" for the "updates".  But don't "complain" to me when your "fingers" start "twitching" and you can't get the "high-pitched" "ringing" out of your "ears".

And speaking of lines being crossed, isn't organic computing operating under the same Zeno paradox as Crayon Physics, but approaching the station from the other side of the train tracks?  With the Crayon Physics Paradox, things get very strange the closer "virtual" reality approaches "real" reality.  But organic computing is the mirror image where "real reality"gets stranger as it approaches the virtual, computerized world.  In fact, I'm coining a new paradox that identifies this phenomenon.  Since I can.  And since I wasn't immediately slapped down after my first phrase coinage by the VR community, or the blogging community, or the Crayon Physics community*, or the Big Time International Phrase Coining Commission.  So the approach of the the biological toward the virtual by means of  computer technology integrating into organic life is now officially the SCISYHP NOYARC Paradox.    Those pansies at the BTIPCC are just a bunch of empty-suited bureaucrats anyway.  The last person they went after was Knute Bleegler in 1979 who tried to coin the phrase "More huggy than a hamster".  And even he got off with just a wrist slap and some community service.  So I'm not afraid of them. Bring it on BTIPCC!!!

And without further ado, becuase there's way too much ado in this post, the Cool or Creepy poll:

Update 1/18/09:   Poll closed.  Readers voted this to be "cool".

Fine Print

*Though I did get a teeensy rebuke for what someone interpreted to be spam at the CP Forum. You tell me.  Honestly, I'm not a spammer.  Am I?  Well...am I?  No!  I'm not.  And don't tell me that spamming is like alcoholism where the denial is proof of the disease.  Because, dagnabbit, I'm not a spammer!  I can quit posting to the Crayon Physics forum whenever I want.  It's just that I don't want to stop posting there.  And so what if I happened to mention my blog address in the post?  I hope this label isn't something that forever blots your escutcheon even if you're innocent. Like being labelled a "nose picker"   when all you do is occaissionally scratch the nostril event horizon**.  Or like being called a "dried glue collector" when all you did  in the second grade was scrape the glue off the school desk and put it in a little box in your bottom drawer at home and sometimes admire the really long pieces of dried glue.  Sheesh!  

**I'm also officially coining the phrase "Nostril Event Horizon". Like a black hole, the rim of the nose outside which finger fiddling can be called a scratch, but inside which the finger action cannot escape being drawn in and rightly called a pick. Just be sure to tell people you heard it first on The Secret of Newton... And here's the Google Search screen shot to prove it's original with me.

On second thought, scratch that. Don't credit The Secret of Newton.

The Crayon Physics Paradox: V1,000,001

Here's a thought experiment in response to Assaf of Physically Incorrect, who gave me some good fodder to chew regarding my post "When Virtual Reality Approaches Reality". I agree with Assaf in that there is intrigue in the act of digital creation. Also agreed that virtual reality and reality are different systems.  

I still think, however, that there is something odd that takes place at the boundary between the virtual and the real. It is easiest to wrap my head around it by reducing it to a simple system of single ball drop onto table. If the ideal for virtual reality is to approach reality, then there is a continuum between unrealistic and realistic systems, culminating in an actually real system. Part of this is tongue and cheek, but I'm also genuinely interested in the math of this thought experiment. I suspect that a form of Zeno's Dichotomy Paradox of Motion is at the foundation of this. 

And now the thought experiment. Let's use Crayon Physics.   Let's imagine that the first iteration of the program was crude.  They could digitally create a ball that dropped and hit a table, but the bounce wasn't realistic.  It just bounced up and down repeatedly at the same height, not losing momentum.  Also, if you drew an oblate sphere it still bounced straight up when it landed on a side that, in reality, would clearly send it rebounding at an angle.   It was cool to bounce the Version 1 (v1) ball but not cool enough because it was far from reality.  Version two is vastly improved and a giant step was made to get closer to reality.  The v2 ball lost momentum as it should but the rebound angle wasn't solved.  The V3 Ball took another big step toward reality by adjusting the angle of incidence and reflection.  That was even cooler than v1 and v2.  However, the makers weren't satisfied because it didn't take into account the introduction of wind, air resistance, elasticity of the ball, etc...  So they make V4, V5, V6... each time taking one step closer to reality, and each time the ball drop system increased on the "Cool Factor Scale", albeit at a smaller amount with each iteration.    

Now here's where it gets fascinating to me.  Let's jump ahead to V1,000.  At this time Crayon Physics has become adopted by the Federal Government and there are NSF dollars invested in the project.  The ball drop is now extremely cool and very realistic, in fact the "Cool Factor vs Reality" graph has been changed to a logarithmic scale on both axes.    At V1,000,000 the project goes international.  The Large Hadron Collider project has been abandoned in favor of Crayon Physics.   It is now the BIG SCIENCE project (neglect the corrupting influences of politics and other Big Science inefficiencies and garbage.)  Billions of dollars are spent.   It reaches the point that you are immersed in a 3D holographic VR chamber.  The virtual ball is transmitted though integrated biotechnological circuits into your brain so that you actually feel the temperature, weight and texture of the ball.  Crayon Physics shamed the VR system in The Matrix long ago, way back around V754,982.   Movie stars, literati, dignitaries are paying six figures to "Drop the Ball" because it is so cool.  

Then the funding dries up and the plug is threatening to be pulled on the entire project. (A comet struck the earth, caused global cooling and all the money was diverted to discovering ways of heating up the planet.)

Under tremendous pressure from trade unions, the Prime Minister of the "International Ball Drop Consortium" comes up with a brilliant idea. He figures that since V1,000,000 is so close to reality that nobody will be able to tell the difference if he substitutes a real ball for the virtual one.    And since people are still lining up and paying big bucks to "Drop the Ball" he makes V1,000,001:  a real ball dropped on a real table.  Nobody could tell the difference because the prior version was soooooo realistic.  The V1,000,001 scam went well for a decade and was a closely held secret within the consortium.   The IBDC made millions in revenue (not to mention the endorsements deals!)  

That is, until Snerd Jackely got disgruntled.  Snerd was the Junior Undersecretary to the Sub-Warden of the Security Division of the IBDC (JUSWSD - IBDC) and got passed over for a promotion to become SUSWSD - IBDC.  Oh he was mad!  His revenge?  He turned states evidence and informed the world that the VR ball was in fact real!  After the U.N. tribunals and World Court trials, what was left?    The cool factor of dropping the real ball dropped like a stone.  The "Line of Reality" was crossed.    

Forgive please the drama and tongue-in-cheek of this thought experiment.  Set aside the economics of supply/demand in dropping V1,000,000 versus V1,000,001.  There's calculus in here.  I know it.  And there still lies a paradox and something strange occurs when the limit of reality is approached in smaller and smaller increments.   In fact, I'm going way out on a limb* and coining a new paradox: The Crayon Physics Paradox.  

And, I'm also going to be the first to shorten the paradox name to CPP.  And I'm going to go drop a ball in the kitchen.

Thanks again Physically Incorrect.

Fine Print

*Or I'm exposing my ignorance of an ancient debate in the VR community by naming that which has already been named and elucidated much clearer than above.

When virtual reality approaches real reality

Crayon Physics is the best thing since sliced bread.  Why?  Because it closely simulates reality. Very closely. You digitally draw a crayon box, it falls, hits a CG board, then tilts, falls, knocks a CG ball which then rolls off of an edge.  The virtural springs spring like springs, virtual gravity pulls like gravity, virtual pendulums pendulate(?) like pendulums.  The "cool factor" lies in how close it approaches reality.

But why don't I have the same awe, fascination and intrigue about real reality?  Why not spend hours taking a ball, dropping it on the table, and watch it roll to the floor?  Some real life games capture this (marble contraptions, hot wheels tracks, etc...) but they have a different intrigue somehow.   A real pendulum that gets knocked by a box doesn't have the same wonder of its virtual counterpart.  But why shouldn't it?    The "cool factor" of computer simulation/games/CG increases exponentially the closer it gets to "Reality", but then takes a sudden dive when the line of reality is crossed.  This is why a very realistic, but virtural, Crayon Physics ball dropping seems cooler than a real ball dropping.  

But shouldn't it be different?  Why shouldn't the cool factor increase (assymptotically?) just after it crosses the line into real reality?  Why shouldn't a real ball dropping hold even more fascination that the CG one?  Why not this?

I'd like somebody more mathematically adept to help me describe what is happening at the points on the two graphs where the red line crosses the dashed line. It seems that calculus infinitesimals and geometric asymptotes are playing a role here, but I'd be very grateful for your help and thoughts on that. (The truth? This call for cooperation and community is just a thin veil that tries to cover for my laziness. But I would be thankful nonetheless!)