30 in 30

[insolent_pool]

Why should 30 in 30 be about the written word?

As an alternative, here is an exercise in critical thinking. Enjoy.
Explain the following:

Comments

[shypurplepanda]

I like the meaningless addition of

[insolent_pool]

You forgot the word *seemingly* ;)

[citizene]

It's like... the end of a link with no beginning.

My first impression was the evolution of vision, starting from nothing, then light vs. dark, then some sense of shape and motion, then color, then whatever cuttlefish have going on. That's not really an explanation, though. I'm probably not understanding the challenge the same way you are.

Let's see:
1. Blackness. These are all circles, but that doesn't necessarily mean anything.
2. White dot. Sharp contrast. Centered. Static. Platonic.
3. Clockwise swish, grayscale gradients, implies motion, head is still centered.
4. Wider swoosh, white dot seems to be collapsing into a singularity, CMYK primary colors only. Why is there a gap between the colorful swoosh and the center dot...
5. Color wheel enclosed by an off-center, apparently hand-drawn white ring. Blurry.
6. Close hyperlink.

There, it's something about graphic design. Each fundamental unit. You're showing us that web publishing is futile without valid XHTML.

I win.

[insolent_pool]

Basically, I created this as a mind exercise. It is an interpretation of another (albeit mathematically accurate) interpretation. I thought to see what others would make out of *my* interpretation of all this. So I'll treat this reply in relation to that stated purpose

[citizene]

In terms of dimensions, it works for 0, 1 and maybe 2 dimensions, but adding a "color" dimension isn't working for me.

I was mulling for a second over whether you were psyched about The Poincaré conjecture today, but that works in the opposite direction, so nevermind, forget topology.

So far I see: Nothingness, a simple point, motion, color, and wild speculation.

The eventual heat death of the universe, maybe: Nothingness, somethingness, expansion, development, and -- collapse? But that doesn't follow the current thinking, everyone's all about a cold death through endless expansion these days, right?

With some effort, someone could probably fit the diagram to almost any storyline... I think it's saying Jesus was married, actually.

[insolent_pool]

I *technically* made this post at 11pm last night :P
But yes, the poincare conjecture did excite me intellectually, although I must confess I do not have the comprehension to fully realize the topic. From what I gather, it has something (or similar with) to do with how a higher nth dimension is shown (in relation, in this case, to spheres?) in a lower dimension?

It was intended mainly as a non-geometric example of the 2 dimensional renderings of progressive dimensions from 0 to 4, four being pure conjecture on my part.
A sort of 'dimensions of visualization'.
0th presents singularity.
1th adds an analog to a line, by presenting contrast
2th presents a gradient, which allows actual 2d imagery with feaux depth
3th expands on the depth, and presents a gradient of colours
4th presents a visualization of motion, through 'motion blur' (I did poorly on this :-/)

All intended to be viewed in the 2nd dimension.