←back to thread

Show HN: Strange Attractors

(blog.shashanktomar.com)
745 points shashanktomar | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source

I went down the rabbit hole on a side project and ended up building this: Strange Attractors(https://blog.shashanktomar.com/posts/strange-attractors). It’s built with three.js.

Working on it reminded me of the little "maths for fun" exercises I used to do while learning programming in early days. Just trying things out, getting fascinated and geeky, and being surprised by the results. I spent way too much time on this, but it was extreme fun.

My favorite part: someone pointed me to the Simone Attractor on Threads. It is a 2D attractor and I asked GPT to extrapolate it to 3D, not sure if it’s mathematically correct, but it’s the coolest by far. I have left all the params configurable, so give it a try. I called it Simone (Maybe).

If you like math-art experiments, check it out. Would love feedback, especially from folks who know more about the math side.

Show context
cableclasper ◴[] No.45778311[source]
Visualizations like this truly highlight how much there is to be gained from viewing the 3D phase space, but also how much richness we miss in >3D!

(I wonder if there are slick ways to visualise the >3D case. Like, we can view 3D cross sections surely.

Or maybe could we follow a Lagrangian particle and have it change colour according to the D (or combination of D) it is traversing? And do this for lots of particles? And plot their distributions to get a feeling for how much of phase space is being traversed?)

This visualization also reminds me of the early debates in the history of statistical mechanics: How Boltzmann, Gibbs, Ehrenfest, Loschmidt and that entire conference of Geniuses must have all grappled with phase space and how macroscopic systems reach equilibrium.

Great work Shashank!

replies(1): >>45779257 #
flatline ◴[] No.45779257[source]
The conclusion I’ve come to from works like Flatland, 4D toys, etc., is that we simply don’t have the neural circuitry to grasp anything beyond three dimensions. We can reason about them, we can make inferences about the whole from partial understanding, but we cannot truly grasp more than three, or perhaps only for an instant of forced conceptualization using heuristics like you mentioned. Even three is a stretch, our minds have adapted to build a three dimensional realm from something like a 2.5 dimensional field of combined visual, tactile, and auditory stimuli. I suspect 3D reasoning itself is a huge adaptive trait compared to most other animals.
replies(4): >>45779561 #>>45780567 #>>45781132 #>>45781143 #
Laremere ◴[] No.45781143[source]
I've managed to visualize a Klein bottle in 4d. I easily visualize 3d objects. However I can't really do color - I startled myself recently when I briefly saw red. On that aphantasia test with an apple, I can hold it's 3d shape, but no surface texture or color.

People seem to have surprisingly different internal experiences. I don't know how common 4d visualization is, and I suspect even those capable require exposure to the concepts and practice. However I do think it possible.

replies(4): >>45782147 #>>45782240 #>>45782302 #>>45782419 #
1. soulofmischief ◴[] No.45782419[source]
Your hippocampus has several special clusters of neurons whose members activate and deactivate based on your body's understanding of your position and momentum in a 3D world.

The arrangement of these neurons physically corresponds to reality, and so things are pretty hardwired.

Repurposing these neurons might be possible with advanced training and nootropics, but I'm not sure. You might have better luck engaging other parts of your brain, for example using metaphor or abstraction such as mathematics.