The Honeycomb Design Conceit.
Proposal
This essay proposes that humans are creating a conceit related to design in nature.
It examines this precept through the definitions of conceit and design and the previous observations and descriptions of the formation of honeycombs. It shows that all things are constantly changing, random evolutions controlled by natural selection and that design is a conceit that produces temporary products.
It proposes Architecture should take the place of design.
Definitions
Conceit.
‘Conceiving’ a ‘deceit’ a ‘notion’, ‘an ingenious or fanciful comparison or metaphor.’
Source: https://www.google.co.uk/?gws_rd=ssl#safe=strict&q=conceit&spf=1498914254976
Design.
‘Decide upon the look and functioning of (a building, garment, or other object), by making a detailed drawing of it.’, ‘Do or plan (something) with a specific purpose in mind.’
Source: https://www.google.co.uk/?gws_rd=ssl#safe=strict&q=designing&spf=1498914254979
Previous Theories
An examination of previous theories relating to the structure of honeycombs indicates that humans have falsely sensed order, arrangement,sequence, pattern and symmetry in nature and described it by linking it to geometry, mathematics and humans imposed names.
This can be shown by the following references.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zenodorus_(mathematician)
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pappus_of_Alexandria
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pappus%27s_hexagon_theorem
Source: Marcus Terentius Varro on Agriculture Book III http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Varro/de_Re_Rustica/3*.html#note:hexagonal_tiling
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honeycomb_conjecture
The re-occurring presumptions in these theories are
That honeycombs are all the same or regular.
That they share an order, arrangement, sequence, pattern and symmetry.
That they are deterministic or stochastic in nature.
That they are ‘designed.’ by evolution or natural selection.
To test these presumptions the definitions of order, arrangement, sequence, pattern, symmetry and deterministic can be examined.
An ‘order’ is ‘the arrangement or disposition of people or things in relation to each other according to a particular sequence, pattern, or method.’
Source: https://www.google.co.uk/?gws_rd=ssl#safe=strict&q=order&spf=1499068014256
An ‘arrangement’ is ‘the action, process, or result of arranging or being arranged.’
Source: https://www.google.co.uk/?gws_rd=ssl#safe=strict&q=arrangement&spf=1499068014258
A ‘sequence’ is ‘a particular order in which related things follow each other.’
Source: https://www.google.co.uk/?gws_rd=ssl#safe=strict&q=sequence&spf=1499068014260
A ‘pattern' is ‘something serving as a model’, a ‘patron’.
‘a repeated decorative design, arrangement, sequence, model, guide, set of instructions.
Source: https://www.google.co.uk/?gws_rd=ssl#safe=strict&q=pattern&spf=1498915296534
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patterns_in_nature
A ‘symmetry is ‘an equality or equivalence between parts or aspects of something.’
A ‘symmetry’ is not ‘more or less’ It must have identical traits that produce a mirror image.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symmetry
Deterministic
‘In mathematics and physics, a deterministic system is a system in which no randomness is involved in the development of future states of the system. A deterministic model will thus always produce the same output from a given starting condition or initial state.’
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deterministic_system
However the object being discussed; honeycombs; do not have any of the qualities described in these definitions. If honeycombs are examined there form can be defined as.
Probabilistic. ‘based on or adapted to a theory of probability; subject to or involving chance variation.’
Source: https://www.google.co.uk/?gws_rd=ssl#safe=strict&q=probalistic&spf=1499076311862
And
Stochastic
‘having a random probability distribution or pattern that may be analysed statistically but may not be predicted precisely.’
Source: https://www.google.co.uk/?gws_rd=ssl#safe=strict&q=def+stochastic+&spf=1499076490175
And
They are Asymmetric ‘lacking symmetry.’ ‘not identical on both sides of a central line; unsymmetrical; lacking symmetry.’
Source: www.dictionary.com/browse/asymmetric
They are formed from random interactions.
Scientific Method.
Following the scientific method if we compare the theory and computation results suggesting a mathematical basis for the form of honeycombs to what is observed in nature then the theory and calculations about their forms should be found to be in agreement with nature.
Source: From Richard Feynman on Scientific Method (1964)
Observation of nature indicates however that the forms of honeycombs are intrinsically random, probabilistic, stochastic and asymmetric.
And.
The theories and computation results suggesting that honeycombs are all the same or regular, share an order, arrangement, sequence, pattern and symmetry, are deterministic or stochastic in nature and are ‘designed.’ by evolution or natural selection do not agree with nature and so these theories about how honeycombs are formed are wrong.
Alternative Theory.
The conclusion is that an alternative; more accurate; theory for the formation of honeycombs should be based on intrinsically random systems. The validity of this theory can be tested by a more detailed observation of nature.
All honeycombs in nature are formed from the environment they are located in.
The environment does not have the same traits, characteristics, resources or energy over all locations that honeycombs are found.
The environment is constantly interacting, temporary, variable and transient.
The effects of locally variable temperature on any honeycomb change its atomic structure and so its mass, density and volume vary. This only allows their current state of any honeycomb to be established relative to the time the observation is made.
The random environment is also made up of randomly variable combinations of chemical elements and forces.
At a quantum scale within each chemical element forming the structure of any honeycomb the location of any atoms sub-atomic particles, fields, in space time at the moment of observation is uncertain and unique within probability measurement and so variable relative to an observer.
In evolutionary theory the environmental conditions present at each stage of the honeycomb making process, the environmental location of the honeycomb, the plants the bees draw nectar from and the bees forming the honeycombs are all unique non-pattern, asymmetric, random, quantum heredity traits of previous generations of interaction and so are completely variable.
Randomly evolved Bees assemble random honeycombs randomly from the random components in each random environment.
Following the alternative theory of intrinsic randomness into other areas of nature to see if it can be disproved.
All things in the Observable Universe are fundamental random quantum interactions.
All quantum mechanical interactions are governed by the uncertainty principle.
All quantum interactions are interactions of an underlying random fundamental field.
All quantum fields can follow multiple paths at the same time and even exist as a superposition in a single coordinate if not a superposition of physical description.
Probability is the only nature of the Observable Universe that determines where anything is.
The probability of any quantum field; its nature at the space time of observation; is determined by the Path Integral Formulation Principle in Physics.
There is no actual physical ‘touch’ interaction between a ‘life form’ and a ‘material’ to cause deliberate, craft, building, design, form or shape.
There is only the interaction of random quantum fields as described through the Action, Path Integral Formulation, Quantum Field Theory and the Pauli Exclusion Principle.
Therefore to suggest a ‘design’ basis for the formation of all honeycombs is to create a false theory.
Honeycombs in nature are only formed out of a random environment, evolutionary processes and natural selection. Any theory as to honeycomb form must allow for these traits.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patterns_in_nature
Source: https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/commentary/life-sciences/evolution-honeycomb
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection
Source: http://www.sciencealert.com/reality-doesn-t-exist-until-we-measure-it-quantum-experiment-confirms
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_probability
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_interaction
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_(physics)
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_field_theory
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_(physics)
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_(physics)#Quantum_mechanics_and_quantum_field_theory
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_integral_formulation
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_materials_properties
Source: Karihaloo BL, Zhang K, Wang J. 2013 Honeybee combs: how the circular cells transform into rounded hexagons. J R Soc Interface 10: 20130299. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2013.0299
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauli_exclusion_principle
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_field_theory
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_(physics)
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_(physics)#Quantum_mechanics_and_quantum_field_theory
Conclusion
The theory that the form of anything is ‘designed’ can be dismissed.
The form of anything is governed by the laws of evolution, randomness, probability, natural selection and random quantum mechanical interactions.
Each thing is unique and random in form and must be described in this way.
The conceit of ‘design’ goes beyond each thing in the Observable Universe.
If a human being attempts to suggest that ‘design’ exists in nature they create false knowledge.
If humans use ‘design’; to decide upon the look and functioning of an object or to plan anything with a specific purpose in mind they create a conceit. They can only 'design' a temporary interruption of evolution and natural selection processes that will reassert themselves once the designed object moves from the ‘idea’ to a ‘physical’ product.
The issue is further compounded in that once the ‘designed’ object becomes a product it forces artificial evolution. Forced artificial evolution has been a positive benefit to human beings in the past in that it allowed human populations to increase faster than the local natural environment evolution. This local benefit has in our current global context increased to consumerist mass production and this has outpaced natural global timescales and so forced depletion of the global environment, resources and energy. This has in turn led to global climate change and a global threat to the survival of human beings.
The only alternative evolutionary method humans can carry out is not 'design' it is Architecture. Architecture is a process that follows scientific method to distribute knowledge before product. It describes the nature and interaction of everything in the Observable Universe without having to deliberately alter, disturb, or artificially evolve; through the conceit of ‘design’; the thing being sensed into an actual temporary product. It follows evolution and natural selection and does not work to undermine their effects.
Architecture should replace Design.
Ian K Whittaker
Websites:
https://sites.google.com/site/architecturearticles
Email: iankwhittaker@gmail.com
01/07/2017
14/10/2020
1480 words over 4 pages